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."
Link : The Legacy
Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
This reminds me of that one bash.org quote:
Things I've learned about war from videogames: If you find yourself mortally wounded by an enemy sniper be sure to let him know that he is a faggot.
Are they going to supply the XBOX and Television too?
Sign me up!
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
http://efil.blogspot.com/
What happens when you die in this video game?
Just give em a copy of the Oregon Trail and teach em how to hunt. This way, they don't need welfare, they're self sufficient, the deer and bear population is controlled, everybody wins. They will learn invaluble lessons, like: You can kill 1000 pounds of elk but only carry twenty back to they wagon. Saved my life many a time, helped me preserve those musket rounds.
Doom 4 - Hungry as Hell
You only need to buy a computer once.
Seriously, I could walk down the street to the Goodwill and drop $10 on an old monitor or a PC, but they wouldn't be pretty. For $100 I could buy a decent P-II system used. That's not too bad for something which I can use to help me get a job. Heck, it's less than some unemployed people I have known spent on beer in a month.
Believe it or not, computers don't all cost $4000, have an "Alienware" logo on them and come with artificially intelligent graphics cards from a company called "Skynet".
"Because so many young adults played such games as kids, they ought to be able to learn more easily from them, too, said the project's director"
This kind of education game is a good idea for very young children (before the age that cynicism gets the better of them), but adults?? If I was hard up, I would feel very patronised if I received a computer game telling me to store perishables in the fridge.
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.
a sp:
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.
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)
Our society provides food stamps to help the hunger issue in the United States. Providing food stamps (for food) to the poor seems to be a reasonable way of helping - tax payers and administrators feel good (and approve) systems that buy food, but usually not ones that buy booze, PC's, or provide funds to the poor for discretionary spending. If the food stamps provide some relief, or eliminate food bills, then the poor have more money for computers, a nice Christmas, beer, and other items that generally contribute to better quality of life.
If you believe in helping the poor, and provide the help through food and food stamps, don't complain that they use the little bit of money that they DO have for items that you don't endorse - whether that is bus fare to the public library to access a computer, or a 6-pack of beer.
I'd change your list to read something like
If you have to live with 8 other people in a two bedroom house to make rent, you're poor.
If your children face the prospect of going to terrible schools, and you don't have any recourse (like even sending them to better schools in the district), you're poor.
If you'll lose your job if your car breaks down because you won't be able to afford to fix it, you're poor.
A crappy Goodwill TV is $15 *at Goodwill*, so you're not going to get much rent money for selling it. And the entertainment / keep kids off the street value a TV provides is so extreme, I don't even consider whether or not you have cable as a reliable indication of poverty anymore (again, at least where I live, in East Oakland)
Finally, if you're poor and trying to make sure your kids won't be poor, buying a PC is not some indication that you're no longer poverty stricken. Hang out at a Goodwill next time some crappy 486 goes on the floor. It's sold in SECONDS.
I'm about 10 degrees to the right of Atilla the Hun, and even to me your post smacks of total cluelessness about the situation that actual poor people are in.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
I'll bite. My karma is high enough to take a few hits.
Such people need at best a training course as to how to save money, and at worst probably need to go hungry for a few days to knock some sense into them. I don't know what the problem is, but it needs to be fixed because it is an epidemic (in America at least).
I live in a poor neighborhood because, well, I am poor. I am getting through college and doing it on a tight budget. I don't worry for the future because I am getting out with a solid chemical engineering degree and have a fair padding of cash from working despite loan payments. I intend to stay where I am exactly long enough to get a job, then go live some place safe.
I live in a shit hole. My apartment is a piece of crap, but the rent is cheap (for Boston). Across the street from me is a massive block of beautiful apartments. These apartments all have rent much cheaper then mine because they are apart of a project. There are these beautiful apartments filled with 'poor' people. Now, the idea would be solid if it wasn't for the fact that they are living like kings while I work hard to make ends meat. My car is a POS rust bucket with no radio that barely runs and can get me to work and back. Half the cars across the street have fucking rims that literally cost more then my entire car. My car doesn't have rims, the wheel bolting is exposed.
Now, not even this would bother me if it wasn't for the fact that I fucking have had to fund the project with my tax dollar. The socialistic systems are flat out broken. I know it is a little cruel, but I wish the capitalist poke in the ass was harsher because these people are just bleeding the system.
Social programs should be reserved for exactly two types of people. People who were born with mental/physical disabilities that do not allow them to go take their share, and people who received mental/physical disabilities through no fault of their own. Everyone else should get just enough food and medical coverage to live, a basic education, and nothing else. Hell, through in a safety net of a year or two for people who get unemployed. If there is not anything wrong with you, you should get your ration of just enough food to not starve. Is that an uncomfortable life? Hell yeah. I have been there. Do something about it. The problem is a cultural problem. Maybe if people were uncomfortable enough the culture would change. Judging by the fucking base rocking my house from across the street right now (7 am BTW) the current method isn't working.
That is the problem about being poor that "rich" people don't get. Not even if they had a "poor" period (typically they claim they had no money while being a student). Why don't they get it? Because they don't need to replace anything in that time. The bed the "rich" kid got from home when he wen't out of the house will last him a couple of years till he finished study and has found a job.
The poor kid's bed is already at the end of its live. Same with washing machines (Is it only in holland that the kid moving out gets the old one while the parents buy a new one?) a tv, a car, furniture, anything.
Poverty really starts to show its teeth when things start breaking down. The washing machine breaks and you don't have the money to replace it, worse you now need to use the laundromat wich is more expensive preventing you from saving up for a new one. It also takes more time, time you can no longer spend improving your lot.
Social services in the Netherlands are beginning to get this. That it may be all very nice to give just enough money to survive and perhaps a little bit more but that it ain't enough for those who can't get out (remember that unemployment is good for business, full employment would mean it is a workers job market. See bubble on what happens then) of their situation. So they now make it possible under certain circumstances to get washing machines, fridges and other household equipment.
The above poster if obviously a "rich" person who doesn't get it. He mentions that having a car makes you rich. He forgets that a car may be essential for having a job. Public transport is great if you work in a office block and work 9-5. If you clean that office then you may find that all the buses stop running after 5. Or that your work is in a factory in the middle of nowwhere and the shift starts at 6. Long before their is anykind of public transport service. Even if your shift neatly fall in public tranportation times that may make it impossible to do overtime if your shift ends 5 minutes before the last bus.
So he got it exactly the wrong way around. Being able NOT to have a car shows your "rich".
So get a cheap old car? Cheap old cars break down more often and consume more fuel. Worse, in high paying jobs you may have "flexible" hours. Factory shifts tend to rely on everyone being on time.
A tv is the only form of information/entertainment the poor can "afford". Go to the library and read a book? Check opening times of the local branch library. Oh the city branch has evening opening times? And how do you get there?
Being poor is constantly being constrained by money for a long time (10yrs+). That is where the real problems occur that are hardest to spot and hardest to get for politicians. "Rich" people just don't get it. They can't, it would be like expecting men to understand the feelings of motherhood.
Sadly goverment is formed by the "rich". Even the "socialist" goverments, just check on how many of even the most socialist parties had to survive at or below the poverty line during they youth for long periods.
So please ignore the above poster. He ain't got a clue, he is just a little rich boy who doesn't realize how good he has it. Being poor is not having no money this month. Being poor is not having enough money for live. Think of it as a company operating at a loss. No problem so long as you can make up for the loss by the profits in the past, kinda like Sun is doing now. But if you never had profits you can't do that. Human beings don't go bankrupt, they just slowly die. Poor people live significantly shorter then "rich" people.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
As a person who grew up in a familly that kept a close watch on the electrical meter to ensure we didn't go over budget, and yet had parents pridefull enough to consistantly turn away handouts and christmas baskets on the grounds that there were other people who needed them more (I'd still like to know who) and lived most of my childhod in a three room house in the country (which had been abandoned for generations before my parents (with such aid as may be offered by a 6 year old and an 8 year old) made it semi-habitable using materials scavenged from derelict farm buildings) 5 miles from the nearest bus route without a car for the majority of the time there, I know damn well exactly what poor is
Wow, you're so poor you even know how to make a sentence last forever.
(Joke. No disrespect to your situation).