Slashdot Mirror
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."
i read the same article on google news. it seems to be more of a public education issue. btw, where in america ISN'T a computer these days. even the ultra poor have pc access.
I don't know even about very young children. I'm getting the idea that the only ones who make "educational games" are the ones too fucking unskilled to make a proper video game.
Can games teach people stuff? Well, yes. I've learned a lot of history stuff from games like Europa Universalis, or to a lesser extent Civilization. Or at least got the curiosity to read more about that from other places.
Or "Die Gilde" ("Europa 1400 - The Guild" for you 'merkins) gives you a historical report of what happened IRL in that year after each game year. I've learned more late medieval trivia from it than from any other game.
But here's the scoop:
1. It must be fun as a _game_. Civilization was a bestseller in its own right. It didn't need to masquerade as "educational software" to get any sales at all. Ditto for Die Gilde, at least in Germany. Europa Universalis has a steep learning curve, but also got quite a few people addicted on its own merits.
2. Don't lecture or preach. It must first and foremost be a game, not a piss-poorly disguised beating people up with a clue stick. People instinctively resist being lectured.
3. Don't be patronising. Stuff that basically says, "see, we know you're a fscking retard who doesn't know how to put stuff in a fridge. We also know you're an idiot who can't figure out the cheapest crap to buy." serves no purpose other than humiliating someone. If anything, it'll make them resist the lecture even more.
And I'm thinking the same could be applied to software for small children. A game should be written to be first and foremost a _game_, and only incidentally also education.
E.g., there are a ton of _fun_ ways to make someone exercise their maths or logic skills. Economic sim games have done that for ages. Puzzles are also a good means to that end. (And god knows even the worst maths puzzle is still better than yet another "jump puzzle".)
So it's not like they _have_ to be crappy _and_ patronising games to be educational. It's just that the people making them seem to be into patronizing their gamers. And in most cases also utterly unable to make a proper game anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
One wonders why someone that can't afford food would have spent money on a computer on which to play these games.
You're kidding, right?
In high school/college I worked summers at a convenience store in my tiny, hick Kansas town. A few of the things I witnessed while working there:
- I saw a lady try and buy dogfood with food stamps.
- I saw a lady purchase two 16oz Pepsi bottles, and insist they be rung up seperately. Each one rung up for about $1.05, and she paid for each one with $2 in food stamps. She then took the change received back from each one and bought a pack of smokes.
- I can't tell you how many times people would try to buy beer with food stamps. The best part was when they'd get all pissed off when we wouldn't do it, and talk about how we couldn't tell them how to spend "their money".
Not to go Right Wing Facists on anyone, but I would guess than 9 times out of 10, people on food stamps don't have a history of making wise purchase decisions.
I'm finding the gross number of "We were so poor that..." posts kind of amusing. They all generally make the point that people that have money don't understand those that don't have it unless they themselves did not have it at one point.
Of course I see a couple of these stories and have to laugh at what people consider "poverty". Only one or two have entered the territory I consider "poverty".
In my mind, having cable takes you out of the poverty level. Having a television at all takes you out of poverty. Owning a computer takes you above poverty. Poverty means not being able to afford non-essentials like those items.
I look back and consider myself having come out of poverty around age 9 or 10 when we got a black & white TV. I remember thinking back when I was 5 or 6 and visiting the neighbors how rich they must be for having indoor lighting, plumbing, and this cool TV thing. I was 8 when we got electricity.
Granted times have changed and that was the 80's, but commodities are still commodities. The idea of poverty is that you don't have a commodity based lifestyle, that you will go hungry if you instead spend the money on unnecessary items. As much time as all of us spend on the computer, it just isn't a necessary item to continue living for the majority of the public. It is still a commodity rather then a necessity. Electricity has become more necessary, a phone is generally necessary, water is somewhat necessary, those I would qualify near the upper limits of poverty, but crossing the lines to non-necessary appliances (necessary depending on rural vs urban) means that while you may be less then middle class, you are no longer impoverished.
Even the above poster (who I wasn't singling out by posting at this level, just using it as an example), talks about how they received a washing machine from their parents who then went and bought a new one.
While I was no longer poor and had a washing machine in my house by the time I graduated highschool, there is no way I would have gotten it as a going to college present. Those things are expensive. We did have a computer at the time, but only because it was necessary to my fathers occupation.
I find myself able to get glued to the television easily now, though that is compared to 20 years ago when I didn't have a television. I went to the library. I have over 500 books on my shelves (now, then I had none). I have a bad habit of being a packrat because everything is re-useable for something. I have an infinite level of disdain for any political candidate that pretends they know what poor was like because they only got such-and-such an allowance while going to their Ivy League college after moving out of their parents mansion(s).
In 2003 a single person (roughly, this is just a guideline) had to make less then $8,980 to be considered to be in poverty. 3 people had to make less then $15,260. Spending $100 for a P3 level computer (if they have access to ebay somehow) is a stretch when it means spending 10% of their monthly income when they could eat a little better and maybe get a toy or school supplies for their kid.
Or maybe that would b my priorities and people making that little would rather eat rice and beans 24/7/4/12 and have a cheap computer. Of course, the fact that i visited many of the poorest neighborhoods quite frequently when I deliverd pizza belied that, for the majority at least.
Whee signature.