Games Better Than Books?

cellullama writes "Some of the leading video-game researchers are saying that games are better for teaching than textbooks. Three University of Wisconsin professors just said schools and corporate trainers should learn something from Halo 2 and Half-life. My workplace is already doing this (but don't tell my boss.)"

Comments

Possible, but...

[KDan]

Games may be better at teaching certain things than books, but they can never provide the kind of mind expansion that reading a lot of novels can. People already read little enough. Replacing books even at school will probably reinforce this trend even more - and prepare a whole generation where the majority of people will not have bothered to read a single book! What a sad state of affairs that would be...

Daniel

Re:Possible, but...

[KDan]

Reading a novel isn't just about seeing a story. The story aspect is important as well - and it'd be true that a mindblowing story will be mindblowing whichever way you present it. But a movie or a game have a fundamental limitation, due to their very nature: they show you everything.

When you read a book, you exercise the muscle of your imagination. You create worlds in your head, you see things that you've never seen, your mind is at full work placing you in another universe. When you watch a movie or play a game (no matter how involved, complex, and interesting the story is), your imagination is at rest. Everything is provided ready-made.

Some movies, and probably some games, manage to work your imagination in a way similar to a book, because of the incredible genius that went into making them, but even there, they are usually lesser than the equivalent book in that respect.

I'm not advocating that books are "better" than movies (in fact I'm not advocating anything, merely presenting my point of view! :-) ), but that movies and games can never provide the same kind of value that books do - no matter how good they become. Unfortunately movies and games take a lot less effort and so are often the "easier path". This wouldn't be a problem if they were just something you do alongside reading books. But if you discard books in favour of movies and games - well, there you've made a big mistake.

Daniel

Re:Possible, but...

[cgenman]

Not to veer dangerously close to the topic, but there is also the flip side to this, namely that while books engage one's imagination, games engage one's strategic thinking. While a story about the kreb cycle would probably be dry and boring, a videogame could be absolutely engaging and unforgettable. A large chunk of economic theory could be taught memorably through interactive simulations, as could the sciences and many other disciplines as well.

Don't discount gaming as not-books. They are not books. But they have their strengths as a medium too. And quite frankly, if young adult's exposure to reading is through High School Textbooks, no wonder they consider it dry, boring, and poorly done. I fail to see how circumventing some of that would hurt.

P.S. Since 7, the Final Fantasy games have contained more text than most any books. I believe that is what the parent was referring to.

Overlooked

[Manip]

Interactive learning has always been known to be better than passive learning any teacher will tell you that (remember the board games they use to teach you ABC?)

It's just that most people in a position to add this kind of technology are not qualified to or do not see the benefit of doing so.

The education will catch up with the technology eventually and then we will see something new.

Re:Overlooked

[shalla]

Interactive learning has always been known to be better than passive learning any teacher will tell you that

True. That's why science labs are so important. The sad thing is that some schools replace actual hands-on science with computer programs to teach it, and kids simply don't learn as much. They can tell you what they're supposed to know, but they don't see it or fiddle with it or really understand it. (Note: School science textbooks are also terrible at teaching science.)

I'd also argue that while video games are somewhat interactive, they're nowhere near as interactive as reading a book and discussing it with people. Pointing and clicking doesn't necessarily require a whole lot of investment here.

Games can be a useful tool, but the truth is, true learning is often hard. Sometimes you can make it fun too, but sometimes it just takes a lot of hard work and concentration. Games seldom teach anything in-depth. Often they serve more as a catalyst for people to learn on their own. That's good, too, but I wouldn't start relying on games to teach the young'uns of the world just yet.

The concepts behind teaching....

[Dozix007]

The whole thought of "video games being better" is a really interesting thought. But I think that people should consider the motivations behind reading and other things those crazy teachers make you do. Reading is a cognitive task designed to build certain areas of your cognitive ability that a video game simply can not do. Just like practicing a Calc problem you already know how to do may seem pointless, it still makes you better at Calc.

Real question

[RasendeRutje]

"games are better for teaching than textbooks"
Yeah right, but the real question is: are they better at teaching useful things than textbooks?

The two can not be compared

[Simon (S2)]

I think we con not compare Books and Games. They are just two different types of entertainment. You read a Book or play a Game in different situations, different places and with different moods.

Re:4 out of 5 scientists say.....

[dknight]

now, I havent RTFA (of course), but your quote says TEXTbooks.

Have you READ a textbook lately? IF you somehow manage to stay awake long enough to make any progress, chances are you'll be so confused that you wont know what the hell it said. Textbooks need teachers with them to learn. They need a translator.

BOOKS, on the other hand, are wonderful. I read at least a book a week, frequently 2-3. It's a great experience. Maybe they need to get better writers for textbooks, I dont know, but I wouldnt doubt that a game could blow a textbook out of the water.

Bullcrap.

[Weaselmancer]

A few things might benefit, but replacing books with video games? On the advice of the video gaming industry??

Ok then gaming industry, put your money where your mouth is. Write a really great game that teaches Calc I. Go ahead - I dare you.

"Dude, I totally fragged you with that asymptote!"

Re:4 out of 5 scientists say.....

[Chris Mattern]

Below college level, textbooks are generally purchased by, and written by, committee. 'Nuff said. College textbooks suffer less from this malady, but aren't completely free of it.

Chris Mattern

Total bullshit

[notany]

Games are better if you can't read well of course.

But otherwise this is total bullshit!!!

Look where many rich IT-millionaires put their kids. They go to those elite private schools where they use computers as little as possible. Even less than in your local city center ghetto. You have to write with a pen. Write a lot. Do things in your head in the old way. Hand held calculators are luxury.

Good education is when you learn to think. Sitting behind computer you learn to copy paste information. Not good.

Amusing ourselves to death

[Alomex]

I think the researchers should read "Amusing ourselves to death" by Neil Postman.

In it he discusses the expectation that education should be entertaining. Here's a review from Amazon.com:

Reviewer: Nicholas Carroll

Although this book was written in 1984, the ideas in it are still relevant to today's world, even moreso now than back then. This is one book that I wish he would update with new chapters, because a lot of the critiques he made when he wrote this have taken on new meaning in the events of just this new century alone. For instance, his main critique is how entertainment has infiltrated our culture with a focus on trivia rather than substance. No where is this more apparent than a state recalling a governor a year after he had won reelection by a significant number, and that such a governor was run out of office in favor of an ACTOR, who many hope the U.S. Constitution will be amended so he can seek even higher office! This, despite the number of conservatives who tell Hollywood actors to shut up about politics in the run up to the Iraq war. Politics used to be showbusiness for ugly people, but now its nothing more than an extension of showbusiness. Even televangelists are critiqued in Postman's book because of the lack of sacred boundaries that television does not have as compared to a place of worship.

When I read this book, I can see examples that have cropped up in the 1990s that have proven his thesis true. Cell phones is one example. Ever eavesdrop on another person's public cell phonecall? I'm shocked at the trivial minutaie that people discuss with whomever they are speaking to, as if what they are doing at that moment matters to another person. What we get in a society that always seeks amusement for fear of boredom is a constant barrage of images and distractions that don't really mean anything in the end. The way we teach our children in schools to study for the multiple guess tests instead of teaching them interconnected facts that build a story, a history, an appreciation for the interconnectedness of our planet. So, we end up with people who can pull facts out of their rears to succeed on gameshows like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", where one question and answer doesn't relate to the next one. No wonder why people can't see a connection between our war in Iraq and our consumption of oil.

Postman is right...a society that seeks one entertaining thrill after another cannot survive and endure history's challenges for very long. When many people in the world haven't had their basic living needs met (food, water, shelter) while we are looking for the next entertaining thrill, what does that say about us? Why has amusement become such a huge, moneymaking value to our culture? When will we learn to balance entertainment with relevant issues that require serious study and attention? Why is our thirst for entertainment so unquenchable that now we're not satisfied with Hollywood's outpouring, but we expect entertainment from our politicians as well? These are questions that inevitably came up as I read this book. I really hope that Neil Postman will write a follow-up or update this book with minor changes (substituting references like "The A Team" and "Dallas" for "CSI" and "Desperate Housewives" for instance) and new chapters (like the phenomenon of Jesse Ventura and Schwartzenegger as governors; the use of cell phones for minutaie details; and the proliferation of reality television shows). But despite that, this is worth a serious read and discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140094385/ 104-9479439-5627925

True, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It really depends on what you're trying to teach doesn't it. Games are a model of reality. Games aren't reality. No game can give you as wide a scope of thought as reading a bunch of books can. Books still EDUCATE better than games.

Games on the other hand are better at TRAINING than books. If you want to learn a skill then computer based training is the way to go. You can get a lot of experience in a short time.

Why one or the other?

[beakerMeep]

I always wondered why people have to talk about it like it's a contest and that there is one perfect medium for learning. I think you hit the nail on the head in that books are better for some things and games maybe now are being seen as better for others. Seems pretty straight forward to me that a well-rounded education uses multiple techniques.

Re:I learned everything I know from Doom...

[jpmahala]

But think of all the kids from this generation that will say, "All I know about WWII I learned from Call of Duty and Medal of Honor".

Article misses several points - my 2 cents

[Morpeth]

I see some huge differences between most of today's games and reading a decent novel or non-fiction work.

Depth. Seriously now, most game plots can be summarized in one paragraph, try doing that with Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum", or from what I've heard "The DaVinci Code" (which sounds to me like a new version of Eco's novel)

Vocabulary. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a game with any words I don't know. I can't honestly say games haven't done a thing to increase my own vocab. Books on the other hand, at least the ones I read, will usually require me to grab my Shorter Oxford or go online to look a word up.

Grammar/Spelling. Go look at your typical bulletin board (I don't count /. as such). People's grammar, punctuation & spelling has gone to hell. My own has certainly declined over the years since leaving college, but some of the spelling I've seen and sentences -- or should I say non-sentences -- are just horrible. I don't think it's just net shorthand, I think people's communications skills really are declining. I think reading less and gaming more could be partly responsible. And yes, I am a huge gamer (FPS, RTS, MMORPGS), but I can admit my mind and communication skills would probably be better served by more reading.

Visualization/Imagination. When the images are spoon fed to you in a game, there's no room for your own mind to construct the image like it does from words on a page. To process words into an image takes a certain amount of brain power, that 'here you go - here's your picture' never will. On the flipside, being able to thoroughly describe something you see in written form can be difficult - I think people write less to, not just read less.

The exception I might make to the above remarks would be module making. I've done some Neverwinter Nights modules - a good one requires the ability to understand basic coding, write good dialog, create a cohesive plot, and learn to tie in various elements (both story and programming objects). Even FPS design requires some thought & planning, map design, etc. I think from that angle, you can learn a lot, but in general I think the quality/depth of most games doesn't match a solid book.

You might be able to say many games ENTERTAIN more than books, but that's not synonymous with EDUCATE.