Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Make a Case For Learning Through Video Game Creation
ub3r n3u7r4l1st sends along this snippet from Science Daily:
"Computer games have a broad appeal that transcends gender, culture, age and socio-economic status. Now, computer scientists in the US think that creating computer games, rather than just playing them, could boost students' critical and creative thinking skills as well as broaden their participation in computing. ... 'Worldwide, there is increasing recognition of a digital divide, a troubling gap between groups that use information and communication technologies widely and those that do not,' the team explains. 'The digital divide refers not only to unequal access to computing resources between groups of people but also to inequalities in their ability to use information technology fully.' There are many causes and proposed solutions to bridging this divide, but applying them at the educational and computer literacy level in an entertaining and productive way might be one of the more successful. The team adds that teaching people how to use off-the-shelf tools to quickly build a computer game might allow anyone to learn new thinking and computing skills."
Sounds like the first batch of kids who grew up playing lots of Nintendo 30 years ago became researchers, and realized they're not as screwed up as everyone thought they would be.
I super hates stories like this that generalize "computer skills" with computer science. Most of the programmers I know aren't gamers, and most gamers aren't programmers. Most of the programmers have great skills solving a computer science problem, but might run into problems with diagnosing a hardware/software conflict to make their legacy Soundblaster Audigy work with Battlefield 2 (as an example).
For a car analogy *ahem* this is just like, a godlike car mechanic might not be a "good" driver, whatever good means, and a good driver might not be able to fix cars. Both driving and fixing are skills. Teaching kids to make games doesn't magically make him/her a better computer user. It doesn't teach them to Win-L when they walk away from the terminal.
...most new games are oriented mostly to one type of people: MMO or MMA on consoles which i hope, future elite of nations will be far away from Ok, was not funny.
God's gift to chicks
There is a way already here: it is called game modding. Modding is almost as good as creating a new game, and doesn't cost the millions for dev or engine licensing.
Downside is you don't get paid.
I can feel my Game Dev degree getting more valuable! Muhahahaha!
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
I dunno about creativity, but dabbling in game programming made me understand and appreciate math better. I've always hated math for it's own sake and avoided learning at all costs, but when I started messing around in pygame I had trig make sense for the first time thanks to the vectors of a moving sprite and I taught myself linear equations all over again too.
This sounds a lot like an extension of Alice (http://www.alice.org/). The idea is that you learn to program by writing stories/scripts (in the movie sense, not the IT sense) with the various objects of the language. It sounds like they would like to extend beyond that, but in terms of rudimentary learning, Alice is great, and its a much softer introduction to thinking algorithmically/learning to program than something like C or C++ or Java right off the bat.
So they're concluding that performing a complex multidisciplinary task requiring thinking, planning and problem solving skills, but that is also fun improves student performance and learning?
I'm shocked!
The only reason there is a digital divide is because of copyright law. Programmers have the benefit of creating something that can be sold over and over again, whether it is embedded in a service such as a bank, insurance company, or financial house, or, off the shelf. This benefit is generally created by copyright law and patents. If you didn't have those things, then, you, programmers wouldn't be able to cash in selling stuff over and over again because everyone could just copy it once made. Then, programmers would be at the same level of utility as, say, a sheet metal worker, and we'd all make the same too.
This is my sig.
Good luck. I think this is a good idea... but then again I would call myself a critical thinker.
What they haven't taken into account is that most kids who play computer/console games are not critical thinkers in the sense they want them to be. I know plenty of people who, when we were young, thought the idea of making a game would be a dream job... then after a 10 week C++ class in high school they realized. "Hey, this is shit really hard.... and boring."
The fact is that most people play games because they are an easy escape from life, or a good way to socially interact. Your typical madden, or call of duty player doesn't give a shit about critical thinking, or programming.
MMO or MMA on consoles
What do massively multiplayer online and mixed martial arts have to do with each other?
The only reason there is a digital divide is because of copyright law. Programmers have the benefit of
...a vibrant free software community. But a video game has components other than software, and there isn't as much of a free assets community.
"Y'know, being creative, can, like, make you more creative. Amaaazing!" Where do these guys get their funding?
The critical thinking and intimate understanding isn't exclusive to VIDEO game development -- it's a fundamental aspect of game design. One must understand the inner workings of whatever it is you're trying to model, at an abstract level, in order to make a game out of it.
Tabletop gaming also doesn't require a computer (although they can facilitate it), so schools with less computer access can still participate. The best part, too, is that there is likely to be one or two games each year that are actually fun to play; Those games can be used by future classes for teaching. In a classroom environment, where kids are forced away from video games anyways, allowing tabletop games in should be a welcome alternative to enduring lectures.
There's a whole movement called "Serious Games" -- MSU even has a graduate degree in it. Check it out.
I always had the idea that learning school subjects through games would be much more entertaining and therefore the retention level would be much higher. I remember many classes (particularly Algebra) that where very boring to me when taught through conventional methods as such, I barely passed the class with a D-. But when I got home, and tinkered around with my Commodore 64 to program very simple games with "Basic" I inadvertently learned Algebraic concepts without realizing it. When I took college Algebra, and I reconciled the similarities of the conventional methods forced upon me in High school and methods I learned though osmosis while developing “simple games” in Basic I aced the class. From that point, I began to realize that games should be a primary method of learning skills. The main problem I have always seen is that very few games deal directly with problems in the real world, It merely simulates a made up environment. I am curious as to how much more effort it would take to build a game and a engaging game interface to, say, trade real stocks for real money instead of virtually made up ones (like the Sims, Second Life, etc.).
Like Peter re-learning how to drive?
http://tv.gawker.com/5439580/peter-uses-grand-theft-auto-as-a-driving-tutorial-on-family-guy
This is a good idea but it's certainly not new. It's commonly called "constructionism" and was put forward by Seymour Papert back in the 60's or 70's. Based on the work of Jean Piaget, constructionism basically holds that you learn by building or constructing something, particularly if you do it in public view. This is why Papert created Logo. He wasn't just looking for a new way to play with his massive Lego collection; he had a sound theoretical framework for learning and cognition and was looking for a way to try it out.
It makes sense. When you're making a computer game you are effectively building a universe. It takes planning and critical thinking skills to do that correctly. It's not like somebody is going to slap together an entire universe in seven days.
Steps to make it work:
1) at age 8, refuse to buy games
2) tell that need to create it yourself if one wants games
3) provide necessary tools to build it
4) provide computer
Rest will happen automatically. Should be careful with disappointments that happen when the game is completely ready, but noone else wants it. It's the process of creating it that is most interesting and handling complexity and deciding what aspects makes the game interesting -- anything outside that process is boring.
Making games sounds fun and forward thinking, but if you imagine implementing such a course you are looking at huge hardware, software, and human resource requirements. Even if all software is open source and free, someone who can teach children how to program is someone who can get a 6 figure income anywhere else... And with the public education system having problems keeping normal talent, counting on them to retain talented teachers is not being very realistic.
But before going high-tech, schools are already undermining creative education all together by cutting music and art classes. Who cares if there are no instruments! Make them sing. Who cares if there are no oil painting supplies.
You don't need money to teach creativity!
Creativity is about extracting one's imagination into the real world. It is about converting your thoughts into something you and others can feel, see, and touch (or taste, if you are cooking). All you need is a 5 dollar recorder to compose a song. A lead pencil and an eraser is enough for a child to draw their own visions of the future for all to see. Just sit them down and force them to be creative. You don't even need to judge their work. In fact, don't judge their work. Just encourage them to work harder.
Most importantly, skills make us happy!
My knowledge has never made me as happy as my skills have.