Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
I learned how to jack a car from GTA3. Run up to the door and press the triangle button?
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.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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;
.5 seconds)
:)
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) 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