Slashdot Mirror
Teachers Using Computer Games in Class
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece on the ways in which games are gaining acceptance in the classroom. From the article: 'Teachers across the country are bringing certain games into their schools as a way to pique students' interest in everything from history and politics to physical fitness and music theory. Among the most popular are Firaxis Games Inc.'s Civilization games, Take2's Railroad Tycoon, and Dance Dance Revolution.'"
One of our lecturers asked us to participate in a stock exchange game, and had the nerve to bet that we wouldn't do well.
Sure enough we did well, mainly because we students as one big syndicate is simply too powerful in term of market manipulation, and the fact that one is more risk-taking with fake money. So I guess we did learn something out of it.
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
How is the news? I recall playing Oregon Trail, Number Munchers, and Odell Lake around 15 years ago!
They'd learn a great deal more -- about censorship, lobbying, and how crazy adults really are -- if the teach let 'em play San Andreas instead...
When I was 11 and in 3rd grade, we had a black & white apple in our classroom. It was used for playing an educational game in which students solve math problems to get bombs and bullets for their fighter jet, which was then used to play some monochome precursor to Commanche. The irony was beautiful. God I wish I knew what that game was called. Anyone know?
Sound might be transcribed into music theory. Do the storyline, sound and imagery have to be heroic and embedded in the players mythos before the game is entertaining and entrains the player?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Sounds like lazy teaching to me. I don't know about everybody else, but the one day a week I got to spend half an hour playing Oregon Trail never piqued my interest in anything except slacking off.
Where I went to elementary school in California, we had a GATE (gifted and talented education) program which was used to ensure any kid with decent grades from becoming disinterested and totally clocking out of school (which I guess was considered a rational fear at the time). The three activities I remember us doing the most in our one hour of separation from other students were working on logic puzzles, playing Oregon Trail, and playing Sim City. Those were wonderful days.
While I don't imagine I'll be trekking westward anytime soon, I do have bouts of wanderlust. I also like to solve problems, and I'm a few years off from being a licensed civil engineer. Imagine, computer games in school may have had an influence on who I have become!
One of my housemates is doing graduate work in education. We've spent a while theorizing how to use a MMORPG with a working player driven economy (like Puzzle Pirates / http://www.puzzlepirates.com/ ) as a teaching aid. We are pretty certain that with the right sort of guidance, a MMORPG could be the ultimate teaching tool for group interactions (like economics). We came to this conclusion after he saw me giving officer training to a new officer in which I was sitting and explaining economic theory so that the new officer could be more successful in trading.
Having taken a couple college classes dealing with marketing and economics, I can tell you the simulations don't compare to actually playing against real people. The simulations are good, but people are better. And the MMORPG give a large base of willing people to learn from.
Do the storyline, sound and imagery have to be heroic and embedded in the players mythos before the game is entertaining and entrains the player?
I don't know. Do you consider "Firaxis Games Inc.'s Civilization games, Take2's Railroad Tycoon, and Dance Dance Revolution" to have heroic sound and imagery, embedded in the "player's mythos"? I'm not entirely certain what you mean by that last one (multiple ideas come to mind)... but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
Your first paragraph was somewhat interesting, but I think you excessively narrow down the definition of "game" when you assume that all games match that description.
I can't find the website for it right now, but at the University of Southern California, one lab has created a driving game where the speed of your driving and other variables control the volume, speed, and other properties of the music you're "playing." The track you drive on is created such that, for instance, turns appear where the music should slow down. It's a way to give performers a sense of which passages could be performed in a certain way.
I remember convincing my grade school administration to buy and use "Colonization" and "Civilization I" as teaching applications. Then I sat down with my Grade 7 teacher and proceeded to play the game. Of course, this was back when the school's new allotment of 386's were the top of the line.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
I've had SOME success in getting my game:
http://www.democracygame.com/
used in some politics courses, but it's been very hard work, despite the fact that the teachers and students who sue it think its a great learning tool.
Theres no simple way to promote a product like a video game for use in schools accross the US, or if there is, I can't find it. I'm sure the likes of EA or Microsoft can get the attention of federal educators, but anyone know how the little guy gets his foot in the door?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
We all heard the joke about current education that is more worried about how the kid feels then about getting proper answers. "What is 2+2 timmy?" "5" "that is okay, if that is what makes you feel good about yourselve".
Sadly considering current education results it seems not to be a joke.
Or put another way, if you manage to 'learn' something from Civ 1-4 or Railroad Tycoon then your education must have truly sucked. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE those games. I played them more then is healthy but to consider them educational? No.
Anyway should education be fun? If so for how long? I seen kids fresh from school who were totally incapable of dealing with real life. No you can't just take a sickday. No you can't skip a meeting like you skip a class. No your dog ate your project is NOT a valid excuse. Installing X on the company network so you can chill out is not acceptable. Hacking the school network gets you expelled, hacking your company network lands you in jail.
Perhaps I am just old. Now get of my lawn!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not against refined versions of these games making into schools. But come one Civ? It would take days explaining and doing the basics of it before you got into the game. To truely get some of it, you'd need to play the game 4-5 times as several different POVs. If they could get versions of Civ, SimCity, SimEarth, and maybe Sims combined with HomeEcon designed to be played in 10-15 mins. Then I could see it. But these games are designed for one person to spend hours on to weeks on. I'd agree that there are alot of things that an entire class could study within each game, but then we'd have to ask are the models any where near good enough? I'd think they are for playing games, and learning the basics of early global civs, but using Civ as a history teaching tool? Nah.
Actually, I'd like a chemistry game where you have to figure the ingredients and the proper way of mixing/heating/ pressurizing them to make things. And you could see long chains of the molecules combine and what not.
I guess some one needs to make a fun little game that is all about basic electrical, magentic, light, and newton physics. Or some applied math game. I don't see anyone having fun at min/max problems, and collision intercept problems, but hey why not some one try to make it fun?
...you mean with the students.
Silly me, I thought this was about the teachers playing tetris while the kids are doing worksheets.
The goal of an educational game isn't necessarily the same as traditional, commercial games. For instance, many game publishers strive for long-term playability, others for re-playability, and finally others for spin-off generation. An educational game doesn't need to hold the player's interest for 90+ hours to be useful - some concepts you could learn in just a few hours of playing.
I "played" a Japanese kanji game in high school that taught you recognition skills. You'd play for 15 minutes and your brain felt fried, but the result was that I became quite good at picking out kanji based on their individual characteristics (radicals, for anyone familiar with kanji).
We've seen studies where kids who play video games have increased motor skills, analytical thinking, etc. What if that were the goal of the game, and it was just worked into the gameplay?
There are studies being done to evaluate treatments for ADD/ADHD that use video games. They're like mental puzzles, but they've been shown to be very effective so far. You play the game for less than an hour a day and do it for about 25 sessions. It's not teaching skills or intended for long-term entertainment - it's simply working out a part of the brain that ADD/ADHD deals with the things patients struggle with. Like working out a normal muscle, the end result of this constant flexing is an improvement.
The idea is that these games are being used with kids who are still undergoing their education. I know that when I was 7 or 8 and playing the original Civilization, I was definitely hearing for the first time about the ancient 'Wonders' of the world.
Pros
Engage students who are not responsive to "lecture and discuss" format (kinesthetic learners, especially, or children who have traditionally grown up on electronic media)...
Alternative to traditional assessment methods - fresh approaches promote more vigorous response...
Technology in the classroom is "hip" with kids...
Learning is "fun" for most in this format...
Generally lower stress level for students and teachers both...
Students often learn skills without realizing they have done so; Oregon Trail being famous for this. Students who thought they were just screwing around and wasting time on Oregon Trail were - quite unawares - learning how to ration money, weigh risk factors, etc...
Sounds good, eh? Yeah, well. Check out the "Con" list:
Cons
Computer-to-student ratio must be VERY low in order for game-based learning to be a viable choice (MONEY!)...
Any game new enough to be interesting and "cool" to most students is also likely to be graphically intense, demanding relatively up to date machines - not a school system's strong suit, traditionally....
Few game companies/publishers are willing to give up product for free/cheap (sadly, I have personal experience here) even for publicity....
A great deal of misinformation/uninformed opinions about game effectiveness (primarily by those who do not know the concrete, day-to-day realities of current classroom instruction) make principals/teachers fear taking "the risk" involved....
Not many games are specifically designed for education - even Civ only acknowledges this as a byproduct - making game adoption difficult to defend....
I could go on all day. The problem primarily lies in cost, and justifying the curriculum in the face of a public which is largely uninformed about what makes education go since they have left, but still feels as though they should scream heartily about it and demand results. (This is rather akin to screaming "MAKE THE AIRPLANE NOT CRASH" and giving useless suggestions as to how to do it.)
Do games work for education? Absolutely - many Slashdotters are proof, and I see it in my classroom every year. Will they work as a large-scale adoption technique for schools across the nation? Never... that is, until a large-scale societal shift happens in viewpoints about how much money should be spent on education, and how much freedom teachers should be given to use it.
The ability to communicate well does not directly correspond to the ability to communicate intelligently.
This is hardly a new phenomenon. Although, I discovered that the easiest way to beat Oregon Trail was to start off with no food, starve out the rest of your party so you're the only one left, then buy some food at the next stop, and it's smooth sailing from there!
:P
I'm not sure what lesson that taught me.
I know from my own experience, playing games in the Total War series have piqued my interest in history and ancient combat. Of course, knowledge of hoplites and chariot archers is pertinent to the modern age. Another good history game is Europa Universalis (and its successor, EU2). Granted, these games are probably too high on the learning curve, so I'd opt for the old standbys of Civilization and SimCity (and SimEarth and SimAnt and the other Sim* games).
I know several teachers who use NationStates in class. Funnily enough I'm also aware of many schools who ban us outright.
We got so many enquiries from teachers that we made a special page for them.
I should buy some cement.
Guess no one remembers Widget Workshop by Maxis.
Not many people know this but Mario secretly doubled as a teacher for a short while. http://www.nesretro.com/mariohistory/images/MarioT eachesTyping.jpg
Also, this is a real game that was for the PC for those who can't believe it.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
"Any game new enough to be interesting and "cool" to most students is also likely to be graphically intense, demanding relatively up to date machines - not a school system's strong suit, traditionally...."
Consoles forte.
"Few game companies/publishers are willing to give up product for free/cheap (sadly, I have personal experience here) even for publicity..."
OSS created content.
"A great deal of misinformation/uninformed opinions about game effectiveness (primarily by those who do not know the concrete, day-to-day realities of current classroom instruction) make principals/teachers fear taking "the risk" involved...."
They're just tools. Nothing more.
"Do games work for education? Absolutely - many Slashdotters are proof, and I see it in my classroom every year. Will they work as a large-scale adoption technique for schools across the nation? Never... that is, until a large-scale societal shift happens in viewpoints about how much money should be spent on education, and how much freedom teachers should be given to use it."
We (America) already spend more than most countries.
Since the game covers the world 1419-1815 there is a lot of stuff going on, and plenty of learning opportunities. Also, along with actual lessons on world history, it lets students see that history is not an inevitable monolith, but could have turned out different if only.... those discussions make for interesting history classes.
If the 'game' was comprised of merely shapes allowing for extrapolation to Euclidean principles then I doubt the 'game' would hold a players interest.
Now if the shapes have 4 squares to them, and the object is to get 10 squares in a row...
Consoles forte ... OSS created content.
Unfortunately, because of the lockout chip business model associated with all video game consoles sold at Wal-Mart stores in the United States, never the twain shall meet (legitimately).
The game was quite simple, in that you had a certain number of villagers. Each year, you had to set a certain number to work the fields, some to mind the dam, and some to guard. Then you clicked enter to see what happened.
If you didn't have enough field workers, there would be starvation, if not enough were set as guards, then there would be a bandit raid. If the dam wasn't maintained, there would be a flood, and blocky yellow water would come across your field and huts. Yes, there were graphics. Simply, blocky graphics, but it was 1985.
If you got things right, your population would increase and it went on to the next year. The game ended when you ran out of villagers.
I remember we used to have fun setting 0 people to guard the dam, and then try to fill the whole screen with yellow.
I didn't know then what this game was trying to teach, and I don't know now, but if there's a retro version out there, that would make me happy!
I don't want everyone to think I'm just some kind of starry-eyed hippie, but have you considered that maybe the world we're creating isn't the one we really want to live in? By setting up the expectation that we have to be enslaved by our work, we create that future for ourselves.
I, for one, do not intend to spend the rest of my life working 40 hours a week to enhance shareholder revenue, or even to enhance my revenue. Implicit in this decision is either winning the lottery, or simply reducing consumption. I've already been unfortunate enough to have to live on very little - I say unfortunate, but really it was a matter of choice. You could still get a job during/after the dot-bomb, but you had two choices. Make half what you ought to be making even in a stable economy, or work twice as hard for what you ought to be making, which is less than what you used to get while fucking off.
Clearly, I was not willing to take either of those choices.
Well, now I am making less than half what I used to make, but I'm getting something out of it. I work for a place that will let me take a sick day, or skip a meeting (if it's not super-critical anyway) without giving me a ration of shit. I get paid pretty poorly, but I have full benefits (everything but matching funds in the retirement plan) and it's working pretty well for me. Sure, I could use more cash, and I do what I need to do to get raises, but I elected not to commute for two hours to get to some place that will pay me better because I just don't need that kind of headache. Plus, devoting 12 hours to work every day is pure bullshit.
The biggest threat to the powers that be is the people who do as little as possible. They're not generating any money they can siphon off of. Just think about the effect on the global economy if everyone started growing some percentage of their own food, or if they started bartering labor - you get more for your time spent that way in most cases anyway...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Now get off my lawn!
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
James Paul Gee has written several times on how video games are generally good for us, and are better at teaching that our current school systems. His book "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy" has been extremely well-received among the learning community.
Note: I work for Common Ground, the publisher of a couple of his works, including his latest "Why Video Games are Good for Your Soul."
It sounds sorta cool, but I'm not sure I'll have much time with all my other extracurriculars and school.
www.linuxpenguin.net
Nathan Garrelts, a professor at my college, is trying to work video games into the curriculum by discussing their cultural dynamics and examining them as literary works. He wrote an excellent article called "Will Master Chief Ever Frag Moby Dick?" for the International Game Developers Association. He has also edited a collection of essays on how digital media influences our perceptions, and how our perceptions influence how we interact with digital media. I wrote an article about him for our newspaper back in December of last year. He's a blast to talk to, and he is really passionate about bringing games and other digital media into a more positive light.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Well firstly, there was that Tetris game I had on my Casio CFX-9850G graphics calculator :)
But there were also various games (Grannys Garden comes to mind) on the BBC micros they had at primary school. Then they got macs.
Plus all the people playing Chuck Yeagers Air Combat on the macs at high school and the people playing a mario rip-off on the PCs.
I "played" a Japanese kanji game in high school that taught you recognition skills. You'd play for 15 minutes and your brain felt fried, but the result was that I became quite good at picking out kanji based on their individual characteristics (radicals, for anyone familiar with kanji).
Is it, or something like it, still available? That sounds like something I could burn a few hours on.
First of all, this is unrealistic. If you are trying to sell this to Americans, they don't grasp "proportional representation" (although it would be a good idea!) They do understand "first past the post". Also, there *is* more than one opposing party, although I concede that Americans do act like there is only one. In Europe, however, exactly the opposite is true.
Setting up your game the way you have, however, models *no actual democracy*. In countries where there is proportional representation, there tend to be multiple parties; in countries where is there is only one opposing party (or where it seems like that), there is no proportional representation. Thus people who get as far as downloading your *six MEG demo* (there's another problem) quickly see that this game does not actually model democracy, but your *fantasy* of democracy. It is therefore not actually a "simulation", but a fantasy role-playing game. The point that you made that all your voters rationally turn out for the election certainly clinched that point.
Another problem is the amateurishness of your site. Misspellings and uncapitalized sentences raise serious doubts as to how well the game is coded, as well as signifying that the entire company likely consists of one person. (However, the endorsements and "2005 Game of the Year' are good, and should be kept.)
I clicked through to your website because I was excited by the possibility that there *is* a decent simulation of democracy out there. Some things on your site gave me hope: for example, I think using a neural network is excellent! (I do not think, however, that this *feature* sells the *benefit* of using the game.) Ultimately, the points that I outlined above kept me from checking out the game itself.
Do not despair, however; I think that you have the *core* of a winner. For example, you could diversify and offer *both* a European and an American version of the game, each of which model your markets more closely. Your voters could be less rational and not turn out like happy robots; perhaps each voter (or type of voter) could make a voting-day judgement based on how excited they feel about the candidates, which would be tied to the promises the candidates have made. (If I'm an "environmentalist" and the candidate has promised to "get rid of all nuclear power plants", I'm there!) Voters might also turn out because they *don't* like a candidate -- that's definitely more realistic.
A more professional presentation would help very much. Try contacting the graphic design department at your local community college, and asking a class of advanced students to criticize your site. Adding a .CSS file would also help the appearance of your site.
You might want to consider who your audience really is for this simulation; that isn't really clear. Teachers? Students? Political parties? General consumers? In my case, I have interests in both education and politics, so I was strongly attracted right off the bat.
Once you have thought through who your audience is, look for niche magazines which serve that market. Your local librarian can help you with this. If you can get them to interview you and feature your simulation, that's gold. At worst, you could advertise in there. Look for sites associated with your simulation and trade banner ads with them. Look for stores (both bricks-and-mortar and on-line) who might be willing to stock your simulation. Make sure it can run on the Windows platform first of all (it wasn't clear on your site what platform it runs on), then port it over to other less widespread platforms.
You have a lot of work to do, but I encourage you to do so. You obviously have a passion for your simulation; make it work for you. I will bookmark your site and check back again in six months. Good luck!
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
This reminds me of this story written by someone who works at an activity center for kids aged 10-14 in Denmark. His belief (formed by direct experience) is that video games, notably RPGs, help not with learning math or history, but with something much more important...how to work with others as a team and get to know eachother as equals, rather than "bullies" or "nerds."
From the article on teamwork:
They began asking for - and offering - help, and they learned that the best person for a job is not always or necessarily "me". They saw that acting as a group rather than as four individuals sometimes got them through some pretty nasty situations.
And on getting to know eachother:
This did not happen overnight. But as a year passed the changes became visible, not only in game but in the real world too. The bullies bullied less, and the "too quiet" kids began to speak up. The fights subsided and the older boys stopped taunting the younger ("Hey, we're all gamers, right"), and some of the lonely kids became friends with their fellow-gamers. It wasn't all peaches and cream but it definitely got better.
Anyway should education be fun? If so for how long?Yes. For your entire life. Granted, not all education is fun. You can learn a lot from mistakes and painful situations. But if you ask some of the world's most brilliant people why they decided to learn whatever it is they specialized in, they will often say "Because it's fun!"