Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In UK Study, Girls Best Boys At Making Computer Games

Posted by timothy on from the distaff-side dept.

New submitter Esteanil writes Researchers in the University of Sussex's Informatics department asked pupils at a secondary school to design and program their own computer game using a new visual programming language. The young people, aged 12-13, spent eight weeks developing their own 3D role-playing games. The girls in the classroom wrote more complex programs in their games than the boys and also learnt more about coding. The girls used seven different triggers – almost twice as many as the boys – and were much more successful at creating complex scripts with two or more parts and conditional clauses. Boys nearly always chose to trigger their scripts on when a character says something, which is the first and easiest trigger to learn.

39 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Which is why girls dominate game making... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... Oh wait.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      I'm kind of wondering if this story might not necessarily even be applicable to game making. From TFA:

      “Given that girls’ attainment in literacy is higher than boys across all stages of the primary and secondary school curriculum, it may be that explicitly tying programming to an activity that they tend to do well in leads to a commensurate gain in their programming skills," said Dr Good.

      “In other words, if girls’ stories are typically more complex and well developed, then when creating stories in games, their stories will also require more sophisticated programs in order for their games to work.”

      I actually remember that from grade school, the girls were usually more literate and more patient for reading/story time than the boys were. The boys were more looking forward to recess/mischief/etc at those times. Especially the mischief part for me.

    2. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      citation? The only female writers in games I can name off the top of my head... were the writers of the games: King's Quest and the Longest Journey.

      King's quest first off was not well written. It was fun but the stories were predictable and very derivative.

      The Longest Journey was good but you have to remember it was competing in the Adventure Game category which are very much about their stories.

      Now... now is the longest journey the BEST adventure game ever? It is all a matter of opinion, but I'd point at the Lucas Arts games first. And unless I'm mistaken that is 100 percent dick.

      Don't get me wrong, I want women to do these things and I think they're just as able as the guys. THAT SAID, we've been bombarded by a bunch of stupid studies and propoganda lately saying women are oppressed or would be suprerior in this or that.

      And never mind that the real issue is that women DO NOT WANT to be in game design. It isn't their career aspiration. How many boys when asked what they want to do will tell you "make games"... so many. How many girls? Practically none. And before you give me some presto intellectual argument about how they're just conditioned to not want to do these things... Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.

      Game design is not an especially rewarding career from a financial perspective. Women tend to do things that are fun for them or make them a lot of money. This holds true for men as well. The difference is that what is fun for men is not what is fun for women.

      Lots of guys can sit and code for hours all by themselves and have a great time doing it. They can walk away from it exhausted with a smile on their faces feeling like they accomplished something. Very few women have that reaction. I'm not saying that holds true for all women or that it should be that way... I am saying that for most women that is how it is.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In 180ish comments, I didn't see anyone chuckle at "the girls...learnt more about coding."

      So to summarize:

      -30 kiddies make up the sample set.
      -No controls on the experiment.
      -No prevention on collusion.
      -12 year old girls in the sample set develop more complex games than 12 year old boys in the sample set.
      -Arbitrary measure of complexity for measure.
      -12 year old literacy in the summary.

      Yep, this is a scientific study that I'll be referencing.

    4. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by Kvathe · · Score: 2

      The sample set was 55 kids, but nowhere in the study does it support the statement that girls learned more about coding. The improvement between the pre- and post-tests was roughly equal for boys and girls.

    5. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Girls have developed faster then boys at that age since always. It is a well known trait.

      However, the boys catch up and then the advantage vanishes.

      Games are not programmed or developed by 12 year olds. They're mostly developed by people between the ages of 25 and 45. An age bracket which is well beyond the critical age range you're talking about.

      What is more, you can see in the colleges that even with women out numbering men in the colleges... the programming, mathematics, etc courses are mostly men. And amongst the hard programming and math courses... 99.999999 percent men.

      Now am I saying women can't do this work? No. I am rather saying they don't want to do it. They sit down in the programming classes, notice it is not fun for them, and leave.

      It is a choice.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      "The fact is," Followed by a bunch of opinions.

    7. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by narcc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.

      Anecdote: When I introduced RPG Maker in an after-school program at the urging of one boy, more girls than boys asked if they could also participate. The girls also stuck with it longer than every boy, save the original. (The girls averaged about three weeks vs the boys four days, not counting the first boy, who spent 4 months on his creation.)

      Children, regardless of gender, enjoy creative activities. Moving on...

      The only female writers in games I can name off the top of my head

      You'd be amazed at how many games were written and designed by women, even in the old days. Sticking with just well-known titles: River Raid (Carol Shaw), Centipede (Dona Bailey, later driven from the industry by male co-workers), Archon (Anne Westfall), [bunch of Sierra games] (Jane Jensen), Laser Surgeon [okay, not as well known, but the name you'll recognize] (Brenda Laurel), Plundered Hearts, Zork Zero (Amy Briggs), I could go on all day, it seems.

      That doesn't even begin to touch on the countless influential women in game design, who bring talents aside from programming to the table like Lucy Bradshaw, Robin Hunicke (who you dismissed without naming earlier), Brenda Brathwaite, Alyssa Finley, Linda Currie ... like the earlier list, this just doesn't end.

      The point of all this? That you're not aware of many famous women in games does not mean that there aren't many famous women in games.

      Do you know what keeps women out of game development? Attitudes like yours, as illustrated by the aforementioned Dona Bailey.

      And before you give me some presto intellectual argument about how they're just conditioned to not want to do these things... Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.

      Back in the early 80's something like 40% of CS graduates were women. Why do you think they seem to have collectively chosen to avoid it and related fields? It clearly wasn't a problem earlier, after all.

      I think that you know why. You just don't like the answer.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    8. Re: Which is why girls dominate game making... by narcc · · Score: 2

      Women have been making video games since the beginning! As I noted earlier, River Raid (of the the top games on the 2600) was written by Carol Shaw, a women. I also mentioned Dona Bailey, who co-developed the hit arcade classic Centipede.

      But let's let your limited knowledge and experience dictate reality. That way, we don't have to let those icky girls in to our clubhouse.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    9. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by russotto · · Score: 2

      How can people think men are inferior when we have this enormous history of men doing brilliant things? Seriously... people that take that posture need to read a book or go to a museum.

      Didn't you know? We men have been using our superior size, strength, and proficiency at unarmed combat (along with a whole lot of rape) to keep women down for millenia. If it weren't for that, women would be running everything and would be recognized as the great superiors in all categories.

    10. Re:Which is why girls dominate game making... by russotto · · Score: 2

      Centipede (Dona Bailey, later driven from the industry by male co-workers)

      Really? That's not what she said. She specifically said she was NOT intimidated out of the industry.

      BTW, why didn't you mention one of the most well-known women in gaming: Roberta Williams?

      Back in the early 80's something like 40% of CS graduates were women. Why do you think they seem to have collectively chosen to avoid it and related fields? It clearly wasn't a problem earlier, after all.

      You're looking at it backwards. In the late 70's and early 80's, female participation in CS shot up much faster than female participation in other traditionally-male STEM subjects, and fell back down just as fast. Why did it shoot up so fast in the 80's? Something was different in CS, and the "computer geeks are more misogynistic than any other group" hypothesis fails to explain it.

  2. What kind of a "study" is this? by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Complex stories"? "Two or more parts or conditional clauses"? Two???

    "Trigger their scripts on when a character says something?"

    I am a game developer. I have no idea what they are talking about.

    More fundamentally: is "complexity" good?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re: What kind of a "study" is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't understand your post at all and I'm a physics student creating software for a bank and am quite fluent when it comes to problems of simulation and such, even though I've never created more complex games.

      Have you tried reading the study? No one said complexity is better, just that girls are able to create more complex games at that age.

    2. Re:What kind of a "study" is this? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm guessing they had things like...

      Trigger
      Character says "Xxxxx".
      Character attacks.
      Character is damaged.
      Character places objects on table.
      Character gives objects to NPC.
      Character is hungry.
      Character is wielding X when close to a spot.

      For some reason, the boys only used the 1st trigger and the result was a stereotypical "prompt/respond" roleplaying game.

      Using the other triggers would provide a less stereotypical experience.

      Not sure why all the girls did well and all the boys did badly. That seems off.

      Perhaps there was a particular girl who "got it" and showed the other girls how to use the other triggers or shared code and made it easier for them to figure it out. Perhaps the teacher prompted the girls in some way.

      In any case, the girls did better in this case-- perhaps some will turn out to be major names and the experience has to bolster their confidence.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re: What kind of a "study" is this? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Varies by engine, but a lot of game logic these days is specified via visual programming languages, especially at big "AAA" game companies. The engine itself and the graphics/rendering parts, along with some computationally sensitive AI bits, will be written in C++, but a lot of the actual gameplay-relevant logic and events are scripted using something like Kismet (UDK3) or Blueprints (UDK4). Partly this is because in big companies, game logic has moved more and more towards becoming the responsibility of the level and character designers, while the "programmers" have become more specialized engine/graphics coders who don't actually program anything to do with gameplay.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:What kind of a "study" is this? by towermac · · Score: 2

      Yeah I was wondering if the kids were allowed to share and over what timespan the project ran. If there was downtime between sessions, the girls are more likely to collaborate and text and share good stuff. The boys are more likely to guard a good secret, because they want to 'win'.

      A group of girls is always going to be less competitive with each other than a group of boys, unless, of course, they are competing for boys...

    5. Re:What kind of a "study" is this? by towermac · · Score: 2

      You know, something else just occurred to me. This was an already existing computer class, that I bet is an elective course.

      In that case, girls that choose to enter a more advanced computer class are more likely to be hotshots than the more common boys. Skewed sample?

    6. Re: What kind of a "study" is this? by Kvathe · · Score: 2

      I actually was able to read the study through my university. The story claims that girls are better at making games because they use more triggers than boys--except the other 95% of the time when they use the same triggers, at close to the same frequency as the boys. Of the 108 scripts produced by girls, five of them used triggers that boys did not use, with one extra trigger used three times and the other two used once each. The majority of girls also used the 'when someone says a line' trigger, not just boys.

      The girls did on average score higher in computational thinking and produce more complex scripts.

  3. Just like young girls dominate other subjects... by Squapper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...while the boys are focused on learning how to be seen and how to claim territory and space. Are we really surprised when the tables are turned later?

  4. Re:Just a thought... by qwijibo · · Score: 2

    Strict requirements? That's a silly thing to throw into some feel-good study.

    It's not like anyone who grows up to work with computers will ever get more than "this is broke, fix it" or "just make it happen" as their direction or "requirements".

  5. best boys by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    How about key grips & focus pullers?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Girls more developed at 12-13 years by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News at 11.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Girls more developed at 12-13 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been 12. From experience, no, girls are not more developed at that age. That's the age where girls and boys take off in different directions. Girls imitate more, which makes them look more developed (and more well behaved), because doing your own stuff isn't quite as impressive when you can hardly do anything yet. They're just different, not further along the development axis.

  7. A nice foil to the previous story. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I like how it's been less than 10 days and already the editors did not think to link to the Barbie: Computer Engineer story, where she only thinks up a design and then has to go to the boys to get the coding done.

    Ironic the fictional land of Barbie, with a supposedly positive message for girls about careers in tech, is more misogynistic than the reality it seeks to change.

    1. Re:A nice foil to the previous story. by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ironic the fictional land of Barbie, with a supposedly positive message for girls about careers in tech, is more misogynistic than the reality it seeks to change.

      I'm pessimistic enough to believe that it didn't seek to change anything. I'm male so I'm not really an expert on Barbie but, everything I have ever seen and heard about "her" indicates that she's an unrealistic rich girl (or gold digger) that is obsessed about her body and possessing things and that the only thing she really encourages young girls to be is trophy wives with maybe an interesting side job for fun. I've never heard of anything that indicates that Mattel has ever truly marketed Barbie as a positive role model for girls to be body positive and self-determining of their own futures. They just give in when popular news pays a little more attention to what Barbie really sells than they are comfortable with because too much focus might actually bring about change.

      Since I stuck my neck into this issue I just want to state, for the record, that women and men should have the same opportunities to become whatever they want to be, whether that be house(wife|husband), coder, combat infantry, CEO or President or anything else.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:A nice foil to the previous story. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The book was part of a series. They are trying to change her image, and failing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Re:Sussex University? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Article by By Rhiannon Williams (fem).
    Research by Dr Kate Howland (fem) and Dr Judith Good (fem)!

    Can you smell the biasness and bullcrap from where you are? I rest my case. We will need a new study.

  9. Re:Good by x0ra · · Score: 2

    From experience, you have much better likelihood of getting girls while being a bad boy, than a nice guy. My sexual life skyrocketed when I stopped being one.

  10. Re:Doesn't surprise me but... by x0ra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Boys' games are easy: If someone/something attack, shoot; if someone/something doesn't attack, still shoot. If you encounter a difficulty, blow it up. Boys are more keen to lean toward Scott Adams quote "There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives".

  11. Re:Sample size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're unnecessarily snarky. He is perfectly right to question the science; the conclusion IS far too strong for the evidence and methodology.

    This article shouldn't even be on /.. It should only be here if a proper study is done.

  12. More Information by Kvathe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fortunately my university provides me with access to the original study, so for those who are interested:

    The study was performed on three elementary school classes with a total of 55 students (29 girls, 26 boys). Despite the small sample size, they did perform a statistical analysis and found the results to be significant (p < 0.001), the results being that girls on average scored higher on a computational thinking test before and after the course. The differences in improvement between genders was not significant and it is worth noting that despite having lower average scores before and after the course, the range of scores for boys in post-testing extended higher and lower than those of girls. I wish I could link the boxplot for the data but I'm not sure that's legal.

    It is also important to note that the study was not performed in order to measure the difference between boys and girls in programming, but to measure the benefits of using their special programming software over an eight-week course. The software itself is indeed very visual, and the 'programming' is done by dragging around boxes with partial statements and filling in the blanks with object boxes. The software then constructs a text interpretation of the code in a lower box, which is what the computational thinking problems related to.

    1. Re:More Information by Kvathe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Additionally: the focus on girls using more triggers than boys is misleading, the three extra triggers not used by boys were used by girls a combined total of five times, with two only being used once. Hardly the huge creative gap that it's made out to be.

  13. Big news! by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

    School forces children to do an activity. Boys cheapskate the task, girls dive into it. What's new here? That's how it was when I went to school.

  14. Of Course they are by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Girls excel at everything in school. Since the feminisation of the school system their is not a single subject that boys do not lag behind in. It is impossible to compete when the entire system is against you.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Of Course they are by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Girls excel at everything in school. Since the feminisation of the school system their is not a single subject that boys do not lag behind in.

      Leik speeling or grammatical?

    2. Re:Of Course they are by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      Girls excel at everything in school. Since the feminisation of the school system their is not a single subject that boys do not lag behind in. It is impossible to compete when the entire system is against you.

      Try making the critique in a way which doesn't put half of everybody down. What specifically would have been a better system for you and why?

      The system isn't "against you." It just evolved not understanding you. So make it better.

  15. Sounds more like Arts & Crafts by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is the future of programming; drag blocks and symbols around the screen so they snap together into a working program. It doesn't surprise me though, visual WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver aren't really programming anyway.

  16. Re:Well, girls are better at programming... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    Same amount of experience and I've found that there are a few good ones in both sexes and the rest are dreck. Ratios about the same.

  17. Give me a break by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the study found the opposite:

    1)- Would it make slashdot?
    2)- Would there be some social reason given?

    So seriously, why? Choosing 12 years old for the study- instead of 9, say, when boys and girls are basically the same thing- is a very odd choice, given the later development of boys. Choosing 15 would also give very different results. Generalizing the one point of human development when girls are ahead of boys is very odd, but why doesn't the article spend a million words saying that we need to help the boys get on the same level as the girls?

    Almost every sex article- and CERTAINLY every gender one- is so political it's fucking insane.

    There was an anecdote in a recentish book (sorry, blanking on the book) where a teacher noticed that the girls were doing better in language, and the boys in math. This bothered her- after all, boys shouldn't do better in math. Bothered her a lot, because, after all, she "knew" that boys and girls have similar math skills. Her solution was to segregate the boys and the girls math studies, based on the assumption that the girls were being intimidated by the boys, who held up their hands faster, etc. Eventually after doing this, the scores evened out or something, and she was happy that the world was exactly as she thought it was (after a lot of manipulation on her part). But, of course...
    1)- Were the classes taught the same? If you care enough to teach math twice because the girls being behind enrages you, you are unlikely to be the most impartial teacher, right?
    2)- If the girls being ahead in language and the boys being ahead in math enrages you because the boys are ahead, what happened when they split the language classes? They didn't do this part, of course- it was fine that the boys were behind in language. Not even the author relaying the ancedote seemed to consider this point.
    3)- If there really is a better way to teach girls, then it stands to reason that there's a better way to teach boys. There's some gender zealots searching for the first, but shouldn't we be all about the second?

    Anyway, back on topic, the program in question has nothing to do with anything, or real games. This study was likely designed from the start to show this, or spun that way for attention, and the metric for what "better" is seems entirely related to the "types of triggers" used. But I'm sure the rest of slashdot will poke holes in that obvious attention grab metric, and likely point out some more details with the NWN engine.

    What would be interesting would be to take the scripted things and have them rated blindly by another group of 12-13 year olds.

    Anyway, gender politics are so fucking all over the internet, and every side so zealous, that it's ludicrous to see slashdot dip their toe in it. I come here to read about tech, not read about some loopy gender warrior finding a way to spin their point of view (which is one of: sex A is worse at X, and that's society's fault, OR, sex A is worse at X, and that's because gender B is shining and perfect and obviously superior at X).