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.
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 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.
Not funny, but it does raise a point; the ideal environment for this might well be some sort of graphical MUD. I would personally begin with Sauerbraten, and add a nice LUA interface or something, at least as a proof-of-concept. I'm envisioning something like Second Life, but with content creation tools that don't hurt your brain. Why is it that Open Source software nearly always has a shit interface? Even FreeCiv, which gives you tons more control over units and cities than the games on which it is based, makes sophomoric errors resulting in clutter and a minimum window size that won't even permit it to be played on small displays on which Civ, Civ2, and Civ3 at least all work fine on and in fact even remain playable! At least The GIMP has a decent interface... if you compare it to photoshop, the level of confusion and complexity is comparable, people are just used to photoshop. Too bad about that name.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.