Education Via Video Games

An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired/AP, food stamp recipients will now receive video games instead of brochures and pamphlets, in an effort to educate them on how to get the most benefit. One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games."

Comments

Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups

[manavendra]

One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games.

World Food Programme (WFP) seeks to capitalise on the popularity of video games to educate youngsters (target audience of children aged between eight and 13 years old) about hunger and the work of the aid agency, and not to those who cannot afford food. Presumably, greater awareness of the hunger problems in less fortunate parts of the world will make the kids/new-generation more sensitive to the world's problems.

Sounds idealistic? Yes, it does. But lets also not forget that this UN body last year fed more than 100 million people.

Food Force will be free, either as a CD or as a download from the internet. The WFP is also looking at distributing it in schools as an educational tool

Re: Africa Source 2004 Wrap-ups

[Snaapy]

World Food Programme (WFP) seeks to capitalise on the popularity of video games to educate youngsters (target audience of children aged between eight and 13 years old) about hunger and the work of the aid agency, and not to those who cannot afford food.

There could be better ways to do this, since educating using games seems to be a flawed idea.

From http://www.game-research.com/art_myths_of_gaming.a sp:

Not long after the birth of computer games the first hopes for the potential of learning through games were expressed. Wouldn't it be great if the enthusiasm exhibited when playing games could be used for good, sound learning? Since then, several commercial games showing various degrees of success have been labelled 'edutainment' - a combination of the two words education and entertainment.

However, neither the education nor the entertainment part has been very successful in these titles- combining the two has turned out to be a tough job. According to the proponents of learning through games the main potential lies in the ability of games to increase motivation through the interactive nature of games, putting the player in control of the learning and the game's options for adjusting the level of difficulty. However, it seems that most edutainment games have problems living up to these reasons for using games in the first place.

In her book Dataspill - Innføring og analyse (translation: Computer games - introduction and analysis) about games Eva Liestøl analyses five different games. She finds that the one game that does not let the player choose his own path through the game world is the edutainment title. She doesn't press the issue but if you look at other edutainment titles, you find the same pattern - educational titles seem to take over the control and narrow down the game universe to make it fit with the intentions of the producer. These intentions are often to convey some specific information about a topic. Closing the game universe and conveying specific information does not fit well with traditional game dynamics, where simple and general rules are the backbone. In stead, educators have to a larger extent turned to the adventure genre, where it is easier to focus on information, but they have found out that even here it is hard to convey the necessary depth of an educational topic.

Furthermore, very few studies have delivered hard evidence that games can be used for learning. Typically the research has been directed at putting learning into games and then assuming that this learning somehow came across to the player. But the ambition should be higher than this. It is not enough to have 'some kind of learning' in games. To truly say that games are great learning tools we must prove - or at least make probable - that games are better than other learning alternatives. And here we are still a long way from the goal - so the dream of games as great educational tools, remains a dream. (- Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen)

Re:same

[iocat]

I see your point for sure, but I'd just say that there's a huge difference between urban poor and rural poor. The net effect may be the roughly the same, but urban poor probably have more total dollars to throw around (albeit with a higher cost of living).

If you live in the country, you can let your kids play outside. If you live on 98th and Foothill in East Oakland, and you let your kids play outside, there's a reasonable chance that they might die or get into serious trouble. Having a TV to keep them occupied -- and inside -- may not seem like such a luxury at that point.