Slashdot Mirror
More Videogames, Fewer Books at Some Schools?
A News.com article highlights a plan that may please word-weary students: more games, fewer books in some educational settings. That's one plan put forth by some educators who feel that current learning plans don't fully engage today's classes. By offering real-world dilemmas in a virtual setting ('discover why fish are dying in a park'), teachers hope that games will turn kids onto the idea of learning, and eventually lead them back to books. The article covers several of the projects geared towards exploring this idea, as well as research on the subject. "A game designer, Salen is working with a group called New Visions for Public Schools to establish a school in New York City for grades 6 through 12 that would integrate video games into the entire curriculum. 'There's a lot of moral panic about addiction to games. There's a negative public perception, and we know we have to deal with that. But teachers have been using games for years and years.'"
This is a brilliant idea. Obviously there are many things to be concerned about... it's not necessarily a good thing to just get games so that the kids will be entertained, but to get them to learn something, to develop thinking skills, and to keep them interested in the subject being taught.
Obviously when talking about games, and school, many of us think of calculator games. For the most part, the use of graphing calculators to play games has just been a way for students to not be bored during class, or for the lonely students to not be bored between class. There are also many calculator games that serve educational purposes in some ways, and they can easily be implemented in the classroom, since the a lot, if not the majority of high school students already own a graphing calculator.
The purpose of going to school isn't necessarily to learn, but also to learn how to learn. And there are many puzzle games that help that cause - they develop the brain in ways that traditional school just can't do. Reading helps the memory, but playing puzzle games help the way the brain actually approaches certain problems and situations.
There is a certain level of interest that is absolutely necessary in order for a student to learn. The difference between the gifted students and the not so gifted students is generally their interest level.
Generally what I saw when I was in high school was that the teachers always fought against the use of graphing calculators (especially playing games on them), but if I ever become a teacher (which I probably won't, and this might be the reason for that), I will utilize the technology available to the greatest extent, and gaming will likely be a part of that.
And... a poll:
Do you think your education would have been better had the teachers utilized games in order to help the students understand?
Yes,
Maybe.
They DID! and that's why I turned out so great!
They DID! and that's why I turned out... the way I am...
No.
A New.com article highlights a plan that may please word-weary students: more games, fewer books in some educational settings.
Look, I learned everything I need to know about the Great Western Expansion by playing Oregon trail. Such as, it is very easy to die of dysentery.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Thats easy, its cos I keep rail gunning them.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
.. by introducing principles in games like ZZT, for instance. ZZT came with ZZT-OOP (ZZT Object Oriented Programming Language) so that you could create your own rooms with puzzles involving monsters that interact with the player and other monsters (or other objects). Each monster could be programmed with its own set of instructions (where it's told to start or react to specific events). ZZT is a great teaching and learning tool. I have 2 decades of programming experience (starting with BASIC on an 8-bit Amstrad), and the stuff I did as a child left the deepest impression (although it was, unfortunately, the BASIC language). So teach them when they're young.
I strenuously object to the hasty, ill-concieved rush to computerize education by turning everything into a video game. Pretty soon, everyone will think science only takes place inside a computer. Let me give an example.
One of my favorite childhood memories was going to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Up on the second floor, there was a permanent display of historic scientific apparatus, like a Wimshust Generator about 20 feet in diameter. I went back to visit it about 10 years ago, all those exhibits were gone, replaced with computer kiosks. Really BAD computer kiosks, uninspiring, ill-planned junk that had all the bells and whistles, but little educational content. I thought about the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on developing and deploying those horrid, amateurish kiosks, and how they replaced a whole museum wing that represented the technological development of America, and I can only consider it the greatest educational tragedy I ever saw. I remember being inspired, as a little child, seeing those monuments to science, but that will never happen again. And it's a damn shame.
"Fewer books" is not the right answer. Educational videogames can be a lot of fun--I'm reminded of Rocky's Boots (digital logic for kids) or Fraction Action (Okay, so graphics have improved over the years)--but "Fewer books" is almost always the wrong answer. There are so many incredible books out there--books that are written with beautiful language, books that can be enjoyed and explored.
(On a tangent, schools which assign BAD books to be read are pretty criminal--there's so much good stuff out there the last thing you need to do is assign a book that's going to turn someone off of reading before they've graduated grade school.)
I applaud the use of video games for education--and I have no problem with having video games to play, for children or adults. But how much would we gain by simply having a month each semester, or each year, when all the children at a school were told "No television and no video games." With more books assigned in that period--even if it's a question of asking each student to pick five or ten books out of a hundred choices. Television and video games are more immediately engaging, and maybe you need to starve someone of them for a little while to make them be more willing to try a book. If there's nothing else to do, even the most avid watcher of cartoons might eventually pick up a book and read for a while.
This seems like a never ending cycle of catering to attention deficient children. Western culture is so much more media driven, than ever before, that attention spans are dwindling. There is a reason we didn't need jazz up science 100 years ago to get people interested. That is because science is interesting. If we start catering to an inability of focusing and building desires by yourself, we are more hurting the children then helping. They will get to a point where they expect everyone and everything to cater to them, especially if they show a lack of interest about something. It just seems like a bad idea. It almost seems like dropping computers altogether, and getting back to basics in a way that forces them to focus would be of utmost benefit. The only downside is the lack of information sharing that the internet brings, simulation capabilities that computers offer, and disability services that computers give.
je suis parce que j'aime
Reading and writing are *so* passe, but if you look at Information Age jobs, these skills are absolutely critical. Beyond jobs, literate citizens are key to a functional democracy. The diminishing of information literacy in America proceeds apace, and our cultural and political life suffers as a result. We expect less and less of ourselves, and we pass that on to the next generation.
Games are great. I grew up playing them, and I still play them. But games aren't a replacement for the tried and true combination of reading, writing, and hard work. Wrapping learning in a sugary coating may make it taste better, but that won't make it nutritional.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think many educators do not understand that engagement in a game does not mean a child will be learning anything from it. Here's the difference:
The information you gain when playing a game is very fragmented, because you only absorb enough that you need to get you closer to winning. As the parent poster noted, you don't know what dysentery is, you only know that it's bad and it kills your characters.
Teach these kids how to learn, not how to play a game. (Perfect example: MadTV Hooked on Phonics Parody)
Games are written. Just as books are written. And the writer has his/her own biases.
If you read a book, you can read two books. You can read a dozen books. You can find the biases.
If you play one "educational" video game, you've pretty much played them all. There aren't very many. So you'll be stuck with whatever bias the person who wrote it had.
That's not education. That's programming.
Games are a media, like books and film and images, and each media has its strengths. Books are good for teaching because (Besides touching on literacy skills), they can be read over again, at the reader's own pace; films are good for teaching because they compress information relatively densely, and are much better at giving a sense of scale or displaying events than a book (What's better? Telling people about the size of the universe, or showing them Powers of Ten?).
Games are good for helping students understand complex systems by interacting with them. Being able to play with a historically accurate strategic wargame is more interesting, and provides a deeper insight, than just reading what happened during a war. Being able to watch small simulated lifeforms reproduce on a screen is a stunning display of natural selection. There are some subjects which are better explained through a particular media.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
Ok, so a caveat: I was a researcher of educational gaming... but I quit the field when I realized how poorly gaming could translate into the kind of learning that kids need to succeed in the world. Some questions to consider:
How do you transfer game learning to test contexts? After all, standardized tests matter to governments. If you teach in one context, it is very hard to utilize the skills in a different context. Moving from screen to paper is, for instance, tough.
A game requires simplification. What happens to history when it's all burnt into a 15 minute game? While simulations can be helpful for testing dangerous or invisible things (such as genetic combinations, hazmat training or airplane simulation), they're generally poor at proving background.
Some educational games are built on a research base. For instance, there is a math game that will build upon a learner's growing base of rote-memorized solutions (automaticity; measured in Sec. to answer) by scaffoling new and old together. These games are few and far between. MOST games are simply multiple choice, or weird adaptations of Doom-for-math-learning.
End point:
Does what we can teach through gaming actually matter in real life? What does, and what doesn't? Therefore: what should we continue to teach with books and discussion, and where can gaming be used positively?
Anyhow, that's some general food for thought... without raising issues of gender bias, stereotype threat, etc etc.
- I get to charge the district for all my overtime. I'm contracted for 37.5 hours a week. I work an average of 52 hours a week. The longest break I get is 20 minutes, if I lock my door shut during lunch period. I get time-and-a-half for the three to hours I put in every Sunday.
- I get to charge the district for all of my personal money I spend on supplies. This includes tissues, pens, pencils, notebooks, markers, batteries for calculators, cleaner, and pies (for pi day!)
- My school gets a full time counselor.
- I have an administrator who does more than stop by for 13 minutes, then leave a two page report, highlighting mostly, the lack of student work on my walls.
- I have time to sit and talk with my colleagues about students, school issues, and curriculum planning. "Time" is defined as contiguous periods longer than 7 minutes in length.
- The school district agrees that art is an integral part of the curriculum and begins bringing back art offerings to every school.
Whew. Sorry. Rant. Yes, hold teachers accountable. Honestly, I don't mind. I'm proud of my work. However, teachers are not the problem. A good 85% of us are working to the threshold of exhaustion all year.We should think about the university system. Why don't we yell about holding professors accountable? Cause if they suck, you go to a different school. I think we need to look into bringing that model to public schools.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
> It seems to me that too many young people today want everything to be fun and easy. ... back when I was young, we wanted everything to be boring and difficult!