Slashdot Mirror
The Role of Video Games for Children
jZnat wrote in to alert us to a BBC article discussing the role of video games in the classroom. The New York Times (registration required) has a more general article regarding young children and their relationship to video games. It's interesting to see the major news outlets refer to gaming in an academic light, and without the usual "the sky is falling" theatrics.
Did I read you right that you believe obesity is worse than being uneducated? I for one, would rather have a population of overweight intellectuals contributing to soceity than a population of average built idiots. BTW, Did you even read the article or were you too busy trying to get a first post?
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
Yeah, and no sorts of other learning games, either!
You've obviously not been back into a grade-school classroom in years, where games are played for learning *all* different sorts of materials.
We don't want our kids thinking up insightful solutions, building creativity, learning to deal with competition, or any of the other things Video Games provide.
I'm not saying we should be playing Doom 3 with our third-graders, I'm just saying we ought to be open to the possibility that, yes, there are things you can learn from the computer. Social interaction is *always* good, but the computer is a serious tool of the future that our kids need to be intimately familiar with.
...kids will sneak textbooks into the classroom and read them under their desk.
Interactive learning tools have a lot of potential, especially for learning outside the classroom, but I have trouble believing that a video game can be more engaging than a good teacher.
Free Flat Screen HERE!
we could /. my old high school!!!!!!! hehe :)
President Bush Supporter
Kids + games = interest. Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing has a racecar driving mode, and from what I recall (going back 10-15 years) that's what most of the computers were doing during typing, rather than the boring screen plus keyboard. Anything you can do to learning to help make things *fun* for the kids is an important step towards getting them interested and motivated on the material.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
Games offer interactivity, which even the most skilled of teachers can't offer consistantly. When kids play games, they don't have to force themselves to pay attention. Even games not meant for the void of edutainment can teach. I learned more about the battles and equipment of WW2 playing Battlefield 1942 than i could dream of learning in the same timeframe in high school history.
When kids play a game, they're considering the objective and how to achieve it. Let's say we have a sim-city type game, and the object is "Avoid the Great Depression." I can guarentee you kids will learn more about the Hoover era from popups and events that happen ingame than any history teacher could convey.
This from the same guy who's website's first line is "Know Your College is a site on the Internet."
duh....
I learned to type with Mario Teaches Typing. One of the best typing tutorials out there... Games are viable in the classroom. It's absurd to argue that they have a direct result to obesity as you cannot eat the games...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Well my friend, your "humble opinion" isn't much more than a mis-informed attempt at intelligence... Next time, read the article, think about it for a few minutes, and THEN post your response instead of sounding like an idiot while trying to get first post.
When I was younger, many of my teachers also used some form of a game to teach the subject matter. From simple flash cards, to Jeopardy like quizes, to full blown video games. I majored in Computer Science and a lot of the projects we implemented were also video games. For those naysayers who believe games are "the devil", consider how many games you played growing up and what you learned from them. Now, bringing video games into the mix may be a little different. Certainly, if used properly, video games can also be used to teach. However, I feel that there is a certain limit. One thing, flash cards are alot cheaper than computers/consoles. Two, many use computers as a short cut before learning the proper way to solve something. It promotes a sort of laziness. A lot of children can't do simple arithmetic because of the calculator. But more times than not, if you are having fun learning something, you are more likely to remember it. If you want your children to learn, make it as enjoyable as possible. If you can make a video game to do this, more power to you. Just don't overdo it.
I had to play a game for a grade in an intro to engineering class. I dont think it worked very well. The "game" aspect of it was not fun. The FPS feel just wasn't right for an engineering game. Certain parts of the game required shooting things that were far away, but I had no crosshairs. It was clearly made for educational purposes and it was a sub-par game. Most of my class switched the game over to task mode, which just gave you the actual 3D modeling asignments. Much like a sylabus.
Unless they start making the gameplay of educational games not just educational but also fun and addicting, I see no future in it. "Educational Games Suck" Can often be heard comming from my younger brother after a mathblasters session.
Bottom Line
*The point of a GAME is fun.
*The point of an educational game is learning.
**How about "educational software" rather than "educational games".
WoW: Scheod 70 orc warlock on Shadowmoon
It all depends on the game and what you are trying to learn.
Books, video games, TV are all the same in this respect.
All three can teach various things some better than the others.
But there are also mindless books, mindless video games, and mindless tv shows.
Video games can be a great learning tools, but they can also be a pretty good waste of time(though usually fun).
But the same can be said about books and tv.
Ok done rambling.
Civilization, the game, should be required parts of any school cirriculum, and should I ever have kids and homeschool them, they will play something like it.
Civilization is an extremely unusual game, even in its supposed genre of turn-based strategy, because it is not a wargame, it is a resource allocation game. You have a very, very limited amount of resources, how do you spend them? The answer to that is quite complicated because of the realistic number of ways you can spend them.
More conventional turn-based wargames typically have at most a handful of ways to spend resources (fairly generic infrastructure or troops), and are much more generous with the number of troops you can pump out, because that is what the game is about. You rarely end up with a choice between building a defensive unit, or finishing the Granary.
This is obviously a continuum and I can't say I've played all turn-based strategy games. But the Sid Meier Civ games (including Alpha Centauri, my favorite, and not including Call To Power, which as the name indicates is a military game from what I've heard) are far over on the "limited resources" side. The only other thing that comes close is SimCity.
Civ can teach several valuable lessons that many people never learn, and that probably includes many people reading this message:
- No matter how rich you are, you can't do everything. Your expectations rise with your power.
- Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. (In a two-player Civ game, a "rush" is only viable if you do it right away; otherwise the other player may out-infrastructure you. This is particularly true in Alpha Centauri, where you can make a very tightly targeted defensive unit, which results in them being quite cheap.) What seperates a First World civilization from a Third World one is the infrastructure. (Also a culture that makes sure to maintain and expand it, and not destroy it for short-term gain, but that doesn't come up much in Civ.)
- Military conflict isn't the answer to everything, but sometimes it is the only answer, especially when the troops are knocking on your door.
- Related to that, there is a big difference between being prepared and not being prepared. One of the biggest mistakes I personally make almost every time I play is to overallocate to infrastructure, and neglect my military, until someone comes a-knocking, at which point it is often too late.
Of course, most people aren't going to face the problems a Civ player faces literally in real life, but the lessons are still sound and the evidence suggests a lot of people still don't learn them. How many people run around thinking the US is infinitely powerful, and therefore think (we can provide infinite free healthcare for the world)/(we can engage in any military endeavor infinitely safely)/(the US could come over and fix my country but they are just to lazy and greedy to do so)/(nothing could ruin this country so who cares about fixing huge money sink X)? As you can see, the attitude is not a characteristic of one political side or another, there are weak thinkers on all sides who think and act on this premise.In this case, I would like to point out that I'm not necessarily emphasizing the "military" aspect; consider "invasion" as a stand-in for many other problems as well. A hurricane isn't all that different from an enemy attack in effects. The "preparedness" is important; if you have to interrupt yourself to deal with an emergency because you weren't ready it can be immensely disruptive.
I don't know how to teach these vital things. But video gaming, a.k.a. "simulating", in a controlled and otherwise-harmless enviroment, is the best guess I've got. Better to learn these things from Civ then the first time you get a credit card... statistics say a lot of people learn this lesson then, too.
Conventional teaching just won't work with this. You can say this as much as you want, but the vast majority of people learn from experience. At least give people a good opportunity to learn it safely.
So this is slightly off-topic, but I thought it a fun coincidence that I just got through interviewing someone for a job who I had invited to the interview specifically because of the video games she played.
Somewhat more on-topic: there's a great essay in The Video Game Theory Reader on the role of computer games in the classroom. Check it out if you're interested.
"Preceded by itself yields falsehood" preceded by itself yields falsehood.
Unless children really want to learn something, they won't bother unless we can make it interesting or fun or drill it into them with discipline. Discipline doesn't always work and is frowned upon in some cases so games are a good way of making stuff fun and interesting and computer games are particularly intersting to children making then a good medium to help them learn.
I wish to remain anomalous
I agree. Oregon Trail is the ubiquitous example of educational games. But there were also the Math Munchers (and Spelling and Super etc...) games that were educational. I learned how to do fractions when I was six years old from a game on my Atari XE called Fraction Fever. In fourth grade I remember a game that taught Greek mythology. You had to answer trivia questions and move up Mount Olympus. And, hell, I learned to type playing old Sierra adventure games (most notably Leisure Suit Larry 2, but I wouldn't recommend that in a classroom...)! I'm currently at Purdue University, were a lot of research is going on into the educational value of games. A group of students here is making a FPS that teaches chemistry (not quite sure how _that_ one works, actually...) So, I think games can definitely be used to educate, and it's a fairly unexplored, or at least underdeveloped, market.
If life is a waste of time and time is a waste of life, let's all get wasted and have the time of our lives.
Oregon Trail: the only game with a body count higher than a GTA game.
offtopic my ass
educational software isn't underdeveloped at all.
compared to 3d shooters perhaps, but compared to many other markets.. I sold children's software at a small store that specialized in it around 95, and it tanked. We were located near a supermarket and parents could leave children with us to try any software we sold while they grocery shopped. great idea, i thought, but the market wasn't there.
Humongous entertainment makes some of the most vicariously fun and subliminally (and marginally) educational software with hits like putt-putt and freddie the fish (if you were 10, you'd know these titles). the bulk, by and large, are boring lectures in the guise of crappy guis. That was my opinion as a player at 6, as a children's software retailer at 15, now at 26, and fairly likely years from now when i shop for my kids.
One, this is never going to be adopted by teachers that don't know how or won't learn themselves how to adopt new technology or ideas. I know that teachers that are within 5 even 10 years of retiring won't put in the effort to do this. Two, you need a computer for every child, either at a computer lab where visits will be less frequent or have a computer at every child's desk, which public schools can't afford, unless they slash art, gym, and music which are all important.