Videogames, Learning, And Literacy

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GameZone.com article interviewing Professor James Paul Gee, the author of a new book advocating videogames as a learning tool. According to Gee, "It dawned on me that good games were learning machines... Many of these [game-contained] principles could be used in schools to get kids to learn things like science, but, too often today schools are returning to skill-and-drill and multiple-choice tests that kill deep learning." He goes on to reference "good learning principles" built into games like System Shock 2, Rise of Nations, and Arcanum, and advocates early gaming for learning: "In my view - and I know it is controversial - kids should be playing games from early on, from three years old, say."

Comments

about time someone recognized

[ianmalcm]

video games have always been helpful in the development process. I remember in grade school that all the "smart" kids owned NES or PC games. Theres been a couple studies recently supporting this theory.

unfortunately games are becoming like the movie industry, only the big titles with big budgets make it on store shelves. Hopefully novel gaming wont go the way of the Bruckheimer.

Re:about time someone recognized

[Moridineas]

I remember in grade school that all the "smart" kids owned NES or PC games.

Possibly because all the families that had enough money to buy these toys were generally better off families. Families that are generally better off generally have parents who are smarter and more high energy. These are exactly the same kind of parents that are more likely to work with kids, talking, encouraging them to read, reading to them, etc from a very young age.

Learning games

[luzrek]

Ok, now we need to answer the question of which games teach what.

I would like to point out that his discussion of playing games "proactively," or thinking about the design of the games and how they work. From that point of view, just about any game, played that way, should teach some fundamental rules of logic.

I actually have some trouble thinking of which "entertainment" games would be good for teaching individual facts. Several discuss how to make gunpowder (hardly what you want your kids to be doing), but most really screw up most of the fundamental science. Perhaps the best use of video games (also discussed in the article) would be to inspire children (and adults) to look stuff up. It's kind'a off topic, but I've read a lot about mythology since Stargate, SG1 started airing. Video games should be able to inspire similar interests.

Things I've learned from games

[Capt'n Hector]

Civ II helped me learn the Cursus Honorum for Latin, and starcraft helped for middle school english vocabulary. Unreal tournament... well... not much from there.

Also, sim city 2000 and myst were great in terms of general intelligence building. And don't forget the EV series! Now I know a bunch of major star systems. Bernard's Star here I come! Yes, it really does exist, however not all stars from fiction are real. I don't think fiddler's green exists.

Anyhoo, a healthy dose of non first person shooter games can be good for the brain, and while those shooters certainly improve reflexes, the RSI, frazzled nerves and raised blood pressure of a good net match are hardly worth it.

Re:Things I've learned from games

[silentbozo]

I played countless hours in elementary school playing Grammar Examiner on my old Apple IIc. That, coupled with a lot of reading, paid off in spades when I started writing for classes later in Junior High, not to mention all that standardized testing for English in conjunction with the SAT.

However, I think trying to create a game is just as valuable as playing a well-written and educational one. Thinking up and writing down consistent rules, fine-tuning game play, imagining scenarios, researching details to make the game more realistic/interesting, and learning the programming (and debugging) skills necessary to implement your creation. That's what drove me to learn programming in the first place... though to this day, I have yet to code a full game. Well, one of these days.

Re:Things I've learned from games

[silentbozo]

That should have read, "I spent countless hours". Good lord, how embarassing. Let that be a lesson to all. Just because you've learned proper grammar from a game, doesn't mean you've learned to proofread posts!

Re:Things I've learned from games

[johndoejersey]

I learned how to jack a car from GTA3. Run up to the door and press the triangle button?

Flight Sims...

[Hanzie]

This reminds me of the F-22 test pilot on the discover channel talking about how the new kids who grew up with video games are unbelivably good at flying planes.

Apparently flying a modern jet requires tracking lots of things at once and the gamer kids are pretty good at it.

I also recall many pilots saying that the number one cause of crashes was pilots believing sensory input over guages, and how easy it was to fool your inner ear. I'd say this would be an advantage to vid game based learners, because gauges are all you have to rely on in a PC game. Further, I don't recall ever seeing a guage in a simulator program of any type that gave inaccurate info, ever.

Language is where it's at

[Anonymous Coward]

When playing Grand Theft Auto III I got certain phrases on my mind("I kill you gringo!"). It occured to me that it might as well have a little wider repertoire of more useful phrases in some foreign language with optional subtitling, and I'd be able to pick up something while playing.

Of course, even better would be a game with a lot more interaction, something like a Sierra-style adventure game.

Actually, it's personal experience too, I learned quite a bit of English from 80s text adventures.

Answers the wrong question

[KNicolson]

If you have a kid that doesn't want to learn in the classroom environment, but instead only wants to play games, then, yes, playing strategy, RPG or simulation games is better than just deathmatching Quake for hours on end.

However, if you're wanting to teach that problem kid, there's surely better ways than sitting them in front of a computer with a stack of games.

What's next, computer training by downloading pr0n - think about it - learn all about caching, searching for passwords, virus checking for trojan pr0n, proxies, ad blocking, ftp, IRC, KaZaA, etc. Excuse me, I must go now to write my book and get interviewed on GameZone...

Re:Answers the wrong question

[Nick_dm]

I'm not convinced quake doesn't have good implications for brain use. If you look at it as a game where you "run around and shoot people" you may as well be watching some action movie. But a serious player will be doing a lot of things to keep track of what's going on in the game. For example;

1) remembering spawn times for various items (eg. just picked up the armor, so I should return in 25 seconds to pick it up again) a good player should be able to do this for quite a lot of items at once (which won't always have the same gap between spawns)
2) keeping track of your stats and team mates stats and locations,
3) working out opponents possitions from audio cues, map/tactical knowledge, previous experience of playing the oponents.
4) respond to team comunications, either voice comms or text, I've been playing for years and still can't absorb the infomation from a top clan using text comms when I'm watching a game, they can do that while playing (new instructions/information every .5 seconds)
5) Some people will actually keep track of enemies ammo count (normally only in 1on1 games and with non-rapid fire weapons), listening out for explosions and such when the enemy is out of view.

These aren't logical/reasoning skills for the most part, but being able to do this while running around and trying to concentrate on shooting people isn't easy, and is exactly the sort of multi-tasking skills that have been mentioned as the sort fighter pilots use. This also isn't some thing most people have naturally, but I think training your brain up to be able to deal with lots of information like that is useful.

Anyway I think deathmatch games involve a lot more thinking than you might guess :)

As a father of an almost 3 year old kid

[Advocadus Diaboli]

I definitely say NO to this. Yes, I grew up in the good old VC-64 times and I played a lot, but that time I was already a teenager.

In German we use the verb "begreifen" for the process of understanding something that you learn. That verb contains the "greifen" which means that you can grab something. And yes, I believe that kids of 3 years old learn the world by touching it and grabbing things and not by simulating the world on a TV monitor.

And BTW, for my kid I found a sort of "catalyst" to make her learn. Its simple, cheap, runs without batteries and she enjoys it a lot: Books.

A prescient pedagogical insight

[ebusinessmedia1]

This is a prescient interview. The market for gaming would explode if game publishers consciously took the time to embed learning scenarios into games.

If this was done in a way that didn't seem pedantic; that didn't detract form the 'fun' or 'challenge' of the game; that permitted the player to branch to new experiences once certain 'pedagogic principles' were mastered; gaming would reach a new plateau - both in terms of cultural influence and sales. Every parent would run out and but a game console, no questions asked.

This is the most compelling way to help people to "fail on the way to mastery".

Imagine that a parent hears that little Suzy will do better in school (or on her SAT's) if she plays games that help her to learn the principles of elementary geometry, grammar, etc. as a part of playing the game, *without her consciously realizing it*. Clever game design could accomplish this. (Why isn't Wolfram Publishing authoring math game?)

Of course, in many cases, conscious awareness that directed learning is taking place could also be permitted, as long as the game's design created stimulating scenarios that compel participation.

This is really just the very beginning for games as learning tools. Years ago, in cognitive science seminars, it became clear that the best 'artificial' way we had to instill learning skills was through simulation. This is still true, and remain so for some time.

Really, games are immersive, simulative, experiences. They will become more immersive, and sophisticated (in terms of simulation) as time goes on, processors get faster, broadband becomes a non-issue, and designers realize that learning can be fun.

The future for this sort of thing is absolutely unlimited. In fact, there's no reason why serious simulations and models of very complex environments won't eventually be brought before very sophisticated learners (politicians, medical professionals, genetic designers, etc.) to help them "think through" potential consequences of their actions.

Frankly, this is the most important pedagogical development in that last 100 years, if not longer. It will have import far into the future.

Children have always learned from games.

[splerdu]

Just about every learning activity that children indulge in is a game. Shape puzzles, lego, etc. Even with animals learning has always been a game.

This makes you wonder why there is so much anti-videogame sentiment, and its sad that its only now that more people are looking seriously toward computer games for child learning.

A friend recently got married and has their first child. Both parents have firmly ingrained computing habits, and hence the child has spent a lot of time in front of a monitor. At age 3, he knew how to operate the window's quicklaunch in order to get to media player (kid loves to watch stuff from Pixar, and they use the PC as a VCD/DVD player). Near age four, he could navigate most of the start menu. And the child isn't a geek either, he runs around much like any other and is a bit of a bully in school actually.

it's no joke!

[lingqi]

I am currently learning Japanese by playing Final Fantasy X-2. Maybe more "increasing the knowledge thereof" than "learning," but I do have the dictionary handy and would pause at instances where I don't understand and look up the word.

It works wonders because

1) it teaches you slang that's sometimes not in textbooks but people use often (must have good dictionary, however)
2) you brush up listening comprehension
3) you can pause the damn thing (try that with TV - well, one without TiVO and the likes)
4) subtitle
5) it provides a mental reference about the words, when I see "furikaeru" I would think to myself - ahh, Yuna says this in her final monologue and such and I can use the game scenario to remind me of the meaning; etc.

So, games can definitely be a learning tool. In fact this the most fun I have had learning yet.

Of course, as a friend puts it, an equally effective way may be to find a - ahem - sex toy who likes to talk during - ahem - activities. But looking up dictionary during such activities may be slightly inconvenient.

Games and Learning

[tedrlord]

"In my view - and I know it is controversial - kids should be playing games from early on, from three years old, say."

Why the hell is this considered controversial? There's something horribly broken in the adult mind if playing games and learning are separated so badly. Why do people think kids have this urge to play anyway? Learning is the whole point! That's why they do it!

Play is a natural technique for young people and animals to learn the skills they will need as adults. Social skills, survival skills, everything. Our brains are wired so that we play to learn and learn best while playing. It's as simple as that. If educators got this into their heads we would have a much better school system.

Re:Everything in moderation

[fiontan]

In your opinion, what is more educational, a computer simulation or a book?

To rephrase the question (disclaimer: Probably violating the spirit of the parent poster), which is more educational, a Harry Potter novel or a Harry Potter computer/console game? The book teaches literacy through example, while the game (hopefully) teaches problem solving and hand-eye manipulation.

A lot of older games used to cover the literacy front as well - adventure games in particular - but today's push for stunning graphics and voiceovers is removing that tendency. Conversely, the immersion factor is increased, so it is more like the player is actually doing things to some end, rather than asking (telling?) a character to do those same things.

To revisit the book vs game question, I think that there's no good reason why the two should be exclusive. Rather, each should focus on its strengths, and refer to the other when weaker areas are encountered. Rather than having quizzes at the end of textbook chapters, have games included on a CD that requires knowledge (or perhaps even understanding, if the game designer is good enough?) of the chapter content to complete the next level... include a simple checkpoint system so the child is rewarded for getting through each chapter, and encouraged to move on to the next chapter. If chapters have a degree of non-linearity, then this can be reflected in non-linearity of the game plotline.

Something like that would have had me rabid to get through my highschool textbooks, if decently implemented!

Re:Everything in moderation

[MrBandersnatch]

My Kids (5 and 7) are AVID gamers. Railroad Tycoon II (History and Music), Sim City 4 (Literacy, numeracy and planning), Theme park world (Economics), Flight Simulator 4 (Geography), Robot Wars (Science) etc. etc with a good smattering of fluffy fun garbage (hand-eye co-ordination).

They will hardly touch a book of their own volition but they have THE highest reading skills in their respective classes (in fact my 5 year old is outpacing my 7 year old gah!! ) because they WANTED to read what was going on in their games.

Combine this with some good old-fashioned school education and some active parental involvement and I have some motivated kids who ENJOY learning about science, nature, mathematics etc. etc.

So anyways - for younger children I personally believe that they have learned more from playing computers games (and watching television) than they have learned from books so far. That said they have learned a great deal more from their parents, teachers and peers than from games...because there really is NO replacement for teaching and good parenting.

Oh one draw-back I should note - their handwriting absolutely sucks because they type everything *sigh*

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

now Game developers could put REAL messages in their games.

I remember Civilisation II, and how I was disapointed that the best way to run your government was 'Fundamentalism' and it was minerals for production, farms for food. Very Simple.

Also SimCity3k where the only people that mattered were petitioners who wanted a money making scheme. Just imagine if a SimCity player gets to be mayor of a major city.

What I learned from RPGs

[kahei]

I think playing through the great SNES RPGs of the Golden Age (Final Fantasy, Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, Tales of Fantasia, Secret of Mana, and so on) was a very important, formative, and educational experience for me.

Among the things I learned:

You can never carry more than a certain fixed number of objects.

People may be small moving 16x16 blobs from far away, but up close they turn into large still images.

Don't hit anyone, because if you do a little number will bounce out of them and it's kind of unnerving.

When just wandering around in life, you'll need a wide range of area attacks to keep little problems at bay. But when facing a major crisis, such as Kefka or the Profound Darkness, you need big heavy single-target attacks.

Two or three people co-operating can be much more effective than one -- but only if the game supports combo attacks. Unless it's Chrono Trigger in which case the combos are weaker than individual attacks. I guess there's a moral there.

It is possible for an art to flourish and die out completely not only within one lifetime, but within just a couple of decades.

Pretty obvious !

[bushboy]

I grew up on a strong diet of board games, card games, word games and later video games - I thought it obvious that games aid learning.

In fact, this is how most of us learn pretty much everything at an early age.

Why is it that these 'revelations' keep on cropping up when it's been known for so long that kids playing aid thier learning, no matter what form the game takes ?

Have the 'power that be' that critisise video games got so powerful that people have forgotten the fact that games are good learning tools ?

Still, it's nice to see this kind of article and more articles praising games could help to balance out the crazies who blame video games for all social ills.

Wizardry

[Bugmaster]

I don't know about edutainment or anything, but Wizardry: Crusaders of the Dark Savant has literally taught me English. There was no real reason for me to learn how to read or write the language until then, but when I came to the point where I actually had to understand the story... Well, I had no choice but to pick up that dictionary and get cracking. As a side-effect, I actually spoke using "thee" and "thou" for a while.

Basically, if it weren't for Wizardry (and, later on, Matrix Cubed), I wouldn't be posting this now. This is enough proof for me that computer games can be more than just pretty distractions.

My experience teaching with games.

[pecosdave]

There was a boy at my old apartment complex who was mostly orphaned, he was being raised by his grandparents. He was well behind his age group at the age of 10 when it came to reading. Be it the Yorky I walked regularly, or the fact he liked checking out all the computer gear I worked on, he attached himself to me. It didn't take long for me to notice he could barely read. I got a pretty good handle on what the kid liked and I hooked him on two video games. I got him hooked on Illusion of Gaia for the SNES which required great amounts of reading admist quite a bit of overhead action. I also got him hooked on Gabriel Knight Sins of the Fathers on the PC (he didn't know it was capable of talking, and I turned the voices off). Granted, a somewhat scary adult targeted (and old) game, but considering his stacks of Playboys and scary movies okayed by his grandparents I deamed it acceptable in his case. After just two to three weeks his reading skills had more than doubled. He never compleated eaither game, but he did spent quite a few hours on each.

Later he found a 486 in the dumpster with Debian installed on it. Well, hated to do it, but I reformated the drive and put Win98 on it, after I gutted it and put a P166 in it. Hey, he was only 10 or 11 at the time. His grandma had heard all about ebay and wanted to check it out. Perfect! I worked for an ISP at the time. I spoke to my boss/CEO, he allowed no setup fee and the first six months free, I paid for the next six months after that. He knew that I was on IRC at work all day (it was part of my job), I showed him how to bring up the JAVA client (I had more control over that than a normal client would allow) and he chatted all day. At first it would take him serveral minutes to type a poorly spelled short sentance in the room, to the point you almost didn't realize he was there if you weren't looking for him. Within six months he could keep up.

It all started with video games.

Before I moved out of that complex his grandmother left a thank you letter under the windsheild wipper of my truck. It's framed and hanging in my computer loft at home now.

Two months ago I got married. That kid, now 16, was my best man.