Slashdot Mirror


Positive Link Between Video Games and Academic Performance, Study Suggests (theguardian.com)

Here's another report reaffirming that playing online video games doesn't necessarily hinder one with their grades. According to an analysis of data from over 12,000 high school students in Australia, children who play online video games tend to do better in academic science, maths and reading tests. The study says kids who played online games almost every day scored 15 points above average in maths and reading tests and 17 points above average in science. "The analysis shows that those students who play online video games obtain higher scores on Pisa (Program for International Student Assessment -- internationally recognized tests that are administered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)) tests, all other things being equal," said Alberto Posso, from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology whp analyzed the data. "When you play online games you're solving puzzles to move to the next level and that involves using some of the general knowledge and skills in maths, reading and science that you've been taught during the day." The Guardian reports: The cause of the association between game playing and academic success is not clear from the research. It is possible that children who are gifted at maths, science and reading are more likely to play online games. Alternatively, it could be that more proficient students work more efficiently, and therefore have more free time, making online gaming a marker of possible academic ability rather than something that actively boosts performance. Posso also looked at the correlation between social media use and Pisa scores. He concluded that users of sites such as Facebook and Twitter were more likely to score 4% lower on average, and the more frequent the social networking usage, the bigger the difference. 78% of the teenagers said they used social networks every day. Other studies have found a link between heavy users of social networking and a low attention span, which is also linked to poorer academic performance, but the evidence is less than conclusive.

100 comments

  1. Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes!!

    1. Re:Hell by mark-t · · Score: 2

      It's only a correlation... if there is a causative link, it could very conceivably be in the reverse direction to the one you might be hoping for.

    2. Re:Hell by djinn6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know plenty of smart people who failed out of college due to World of Warcraft. Some of them dropped the game and eventually got their degrees. Academic performance isn't strongly tied to intelligence, but to whether you show up to class and do the work.

    3. Re:Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very possibly just a case that video games attract people of above average intelligence.

      But, 'New Study Discovers Nerds Like Video Games' does not make as compelling of article.

    4. Re: Hell by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "Academic performance" is only paying attention to that part of the body of knowledge that will appear on the tests on Fridays and the Final.

      Being a good little pupil is what it's about. Lord help anybody attending the lecture who is actually interested and asks the professor a question about the subject that won't be on the test.

    5. Re: Hell by mark-t · · Score: 1

      "Academic performance" is only paying attention to that part of the body of knowledge that will appear on the tests on Fridays and the Final.

      Not always. Sometimes academic performance is tied to your ability not only to remember the necessary elements that you had read and heard, but the ability to learn how to make intuitive deductions from information that may be wholly new and different from anything that you did in class or may have read if you only read what the prof had instructed. I would argue that the best professors are the ones that challenge their students in that way, because the ones that can pass exams that are so structured have shown that they have more than just a capacity to incidentally remember what they have been taught, but also that they have actually *learned* it. I had one prof like this who taught several different sections in comp sci where I went, and I think there were actually only 2 semesters where I didn't have a class with him. He was easily the toughest prof in the entire faculty where I went to get a decent grade with, but he was also probably the best darn teacher that I ever had.

    6. Re: Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone went to a second rate undergrad college.

      (Oh, and even some first class research unis have shitty undergrad departments.)

    7. Re: Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was referencing what College is actually like. Not what it should be like or what it was like for a fleeting moment.

      The fact that you remember a specific professor that taught differently is the basically proof that the majority of other teachers do not teach that way.

      As someone who benefited by the university structure (4.0 student) I will openly admit that there is a science to acing a test with little effort. All that is involved is attending every class and making note of what the professor talks about but filter out extraneous information. Then you either remember that material or refresh on it if you don't get it after the lecture.

      Extraneous information is never included. Student questions that are discussed at length are never included unless a note is made that it will be.

      Finally - read the test questions and have a solid grasp on the breadth of the subject. Most professors try to make tests hard by creating trick questions. Often times trick questions are actually easier - you can generally eliminate possible responses by understanding what cannot be the answer.

      Maybe I am smart AND I took advantage of the system or maybe I just took advantage of the system. I can't tell. I do know that I passed many subjects I was not interested in with an "A" and never knew much more than a collection of facts that I have since forgotten. While I still remember many things about subjects I care about but did not get any better grades.

    8. Re: Hell by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      "Academic performance" is only paying attention to that part of the body of knowledge that will appear on the tests on Fridays and the Final.

      Most of the professors I know are, or at least started out, genuinely interested in seeing student absorb new information and gain new skills. An incessant barrage of "Will this be on the test?" and "What should I know for the test?" type questions gets them trained pretty quickly to cater to those students who only care about the test. Other students hear mostly questions related to what's going to be on the test. It all sets up a horribly pathological positive feedback loop where once-enthusiastic teachers come to believe that students only care about the test, so they pre-emptively answer questions about test content, giving the rest of the students the impression that the tests are the only thing that matters.

      Never mind the headaches associated with trying to give a 'participation' grade to reward those students who actually are interested, ask good questions, and do work that's not reflected in the tests. Or the tears when a test question is not exactly like one of the practice problems.

    9. Re: Hell by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If the critical things to know, and "what is on the test" are not the same, maybe the prof should re-write the test.

      If a student asks "Will this be on the test?", a good answer is "Anything covered in class or in homework assignments may be on the test."

    10. Re:Hell by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Or it could be that kids whose parents can afford to buy them a high end gaming rig have other advantages in life as well.

    11. Re: Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you as a teacher have any control over what/when or how is going to be the test, yes, otherwise...duh

    12. Re: Hell by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that a majority of teachers do not teach that way... I would argue, in fact, that a majority of teachers do not really teach at all, but are just instructing students on what to do. Any actual learning that might happen to occur along the way is mostly just coincidence unless the teacher is actively pushing the students to think for themselves, as the comp sci prof that I had mentioned above did.

    13. Re: Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "all else being equal" covered that.

  2. Why online? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Does the fact that the games are online make a difference? Was this something that they controlled for at all? Do people who play single-player games not see the same benefit? If not, then their conclusion that it's related to puzzle-solving practice seems misplaced. If so, then why is the article focusing on online game playing?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Why online? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      I confess there was a line in the article that struck me as particularly odd:

      "When you play online games you're solving puzzles to move to the next level and that involves using some of the general knowledge and skills in maths, reading and science that you've been taught during the day."

      There are relatively few online games which involve "solving puzzles to move to the next level". I can think of a handful; Portal 2, for instance. But games which emphasise traditional problem-solving skills tend to be offline and singleplayer focussed, for the most part. Online games can emphasise other kinds of problem-solving skills; the average game of Overwatch requires any number of small-scale decisions to "solve" the problem of the opposing team. But that doesn't seem to be what TFA is talking about.

      Does it matter? Kind of, yes. If this was a "video games make teens into killers" piece, then evidence that the study author didn't know much about games would be relevant. Just because this is a "positive" piece about games doesn't mean that similar considerations don't apply.

    2. Re: Why online? by Euphorinaut · · Score: 1

      Judging from how many generalizations they've made, I wouldn't be surprised if they've created an amalgam concept of gaming in their wording that merely cake from the two generalizations that games are sometimes online, include mathematical elements, and "levels", which really sounds like an older person looking in from outside the world of gaming who remembers when levels were more common(side scrollers and such). Having been a gamer for quite a while, I've been surprised to see in online games like MMOs, the drive for success in a game can transfer someones interests from a fantasy(in a lotr sense of the word) world to a world of numbers to more accurately "game" the mechanics to better compete. This becomes more common in games like eve, less common in MMOs like wow, but the potential is still there.

    3. Re:Why online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It probably makes a difference because poorer students don't have access to online video games which are generally more expensive. So they are re-measuring the well established fact that wealthier students tend to do better academically.

    4. Re:Why online? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are relatively few online games which involve "solving puzzles to move to the next level".

      It is an incredibly retarded sentence, but it's really fairly accurate if you are willing to give a little. In order to advance there are all kinds of problems to be solved, ranging from figuring out the GUI to where to go and what to do when you get there. On the other hand, most of these "puzzles" are simple AF. Most of them won't teach you anything, not even coordination, and certainly not cooperation. But don't imagine that kids don't learn anything by for example learning to go on successful raids. There's math involved, there's planning to be done. It's just not every game.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Why online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly every game is a puzzle of some kind. The point is you exercise making decisions, unless you're a Street Fighter player that magically button-mashes to win.

    6. Re:Why online? by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      There are relatively few online games which involve "solving puzzles to move to the next level".

      I agree, unless they're talking about specific types of online games (eg, Lumosity). I think it's much more important that games - online or not - encourage you to focus on one activity for an extended period. Much different than, say, television, which gives you at most 8 minutes before a commercial break. Online games may have a more extended pseudo-narrative, covering several levels or encounters. Focus. Long-term memory. Those sound like good academic skills.

  3. Wealth correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another likely explanation is the parents' income level. Poor students tend not to be able to afford online gaming and also do less well in school.

    1. Re:Wealth correlation by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Poor students tend to do worse in school due to other reasons than "not playing video games." If you're not sure where your next meal will come from, if your parents will have a job when you get home, or even if you'll have a home to go home to, you will be worrying a lot more about things other than an upcoming test or completing a homework assignment. Much of the "our country is doing poorly on tests" could be fixed by addressing poverty. (Another part could be "fixed" by realizing that many other countries get their high scores by only selectively educating/testing kids whereas we try to educate everyone - in theory, at least. Therefore, those results will always be skewed upwards for the selective education countries.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re: Wealth correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up. I grew up dirt poor, and would routinely work on differential equations while I robbed gas stations.

    3. Re:Wealth correlation by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Online gaming is very cheap though. There are plenty of free ones out there.

    4. Re:Wealth correlation by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Cheap is relative. If I can't afford a car, I'm not likely to buy a laptop, or internet service. In 2013, approximately 25% of the U.S. didn't even have internet service at home.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:Wealth correlation by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another likely explanation is the parents' income level.

      Gee, why didn't the researchers think of that? Oh wait, they did:

      Not surprisingly, however, students who spent more time on their homework performed better.

      Turning to household-level characteristics, students from wealthier households were found to score lower in math, reading, and science, controlling for other factors. This is a surprising result given that children from wealthier households generally have access to more cultural capital and are thus expected to do better in school.

      The tables indicate that children from households with employed, educated, or more skilled parents performed better in all three subjects. The impact of parents’ educational and occupational status on children’s academic achievement is widely accepted in the literature. Finally, children who live with their families were also found to perform better

      Children who have responsible and involved parents learn how to prioritize their time toward a goal of long term success. No surprise there.

    6. Re:Wealth correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which you can easily play on your $1500 computer, using your $100/month internet connection...

    7. Re: Wealth correlation by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If I can't afford a car I will live in an area where I don't need one. And incidentally, that is probably an urban area where there is likely to be lots of free wifi and lots of places to obtain affordable laptops and tablets.

    8. Re: Wealth correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I can't afford a car I will live in an area where I don't need one.

      In a refrigerator box in the alley behind the fast food joint where you get your meals from the compost bin.

    9. Re:Wealth correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

    10. Re: Wealth correlation by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      You ever been to that part of town? I've work there occasionally. Never seen free WiFi. A very large portion of the residence don't even have internet. Mom might have a prepaid smart phone (usually GI) and that doesn't do but the basics. Affordable laptop? What a joke. Based on what? I have 200 dollars to buy a used laptop or I can buy groceries for the month? I know that feeling from college. I kind of sucks. No trying to be personal, but if you've ever been there you would understand. It's only like that on TV.

    11. Re:Wealth correlation by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Another likely explanation is the parents' income level.

      Gee, why didn't the researchers think of that? Oh wait, they did:

      ...

      Turning to household-level characteristics, students from wealthier households were found to
      score lower in math, reading, and science, controlling for other factors.

      But that's only one way to analyze the wealth factor. For example, simply discounting the poor students skews the aggregate statistics of the total vs. minus-poor populations. What would be much more interesting would be to directly compare the performance among poor, middle-class, and wealthy populations. If this study were done in the US, the poor students would be playing games at the libraries and might not be counted, for example. Not including that population skews the results.

      If there were a positive correlation between playing games and performance for poor students, that would be shocking.

    12. Re: Wealth correlation by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If I can't afford a car I will live in an area where I don't need one. And incidentally, that is probably an urban area where there is likely to be lots of free wifi and lots of places to obtain affordable laptops and tablets.

      No, you'll live right where you always did because you can't afford to fucking move. And there's no a lot of free wifi in the slums, but clearly you don't know.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re:Wealth correlation by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Probably, one of the major indicators it seems.

      Could also be an indication of competitive people, who might have a portion be just as competitive academically.
      Could also be that many online games have portions that might involve doing some math to figure out optimal DPS configurations, or creative parts that might attract that sort.
      Could also be just an indicator some have easy access to a computer and Google.

      I know back when I was a kid playing computer games and going "online" (BBS), required actually learning things just to get things to work properly and I'm sure that probably helped in certain academic respects. Then again, as you say I also had parents that could afford to buy me a computer (and support another phone line after much screaming!:)

    14. Re:Wealth correlation by KC0A · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that intelligence is inheritable.

      Oh I forgot that we're not supposed to say that.

    15. Re: Wealth correlation by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I live in a town with a population of 25,000. Actually I live in the country on the outskirts of that town. Low taxes, reasonable cost of living, and five acres of land for under $800 a month mortgage. It's pretty nice, and very affordable, and I could ride a bicycle to three or four wifi hotspots.

      I probably shouldn't have phrased it 'Urban' in my initial comment. Who wants to live in a shitty big city??? The Internet has flattened the world. You don't need to live in high density areas unless your anonymity is really important (because of how you treat other people in person??)

    16. Re: Wealth correlation by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing that the expense of living in the city is too high. What I'm telling you is that many poor simply can't afford to move out. And those that can, might have to find new jobs. Or be in need of a family support structure. I see so much of this here from people who simply haven't been through it to understand..."just move"...it's not that simple. I grew up with my single mom, renting apartments in Detroit, back in '58-72. We wouldn't have been able to escape if it hadn't been for the generosity of my grandparents. They were able to take care of me while mom worked. Mom only had a HS diploma, and worked as a cashier. My grandparents were able to cosign on a $35k (1972 dollars) home that mom still lives in. Thanks to that, I was able to get a decent education in one of the best public school systems in the state, and escaped the area by joining the military, and going to night school. Many other people aren't as lucky as I was. And yeah, that was all pre-internet, but there's no way we would have been able to afford the service if it was...I pay for my mom's Comcast now...basic cable, internet & phone is ~$150/month.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  4. "Take that Mom and Dad!" by gachunt · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... which I yelled from my dimly lit basement bedroom in their house that I've been living at for 35 years.

    1. Re:"Take that Mom and Dad!" by geek · · Score: 2

      ... which I yelled from my dimly lit basement bedroom in their house that I've been living at for 35 years.

      Because you flunked out of college and can't hold a job due to the World of Warcrack addiction.

    2. Re:"Take that Mom and Dad!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... which I yelled from my dimly lit basement bedroom in their house that I've been living at for 35 years.

      And that's the real correlation here: gifted kids are (slightly) more likely to be socially isolated and so (slightly) more likely to spend their free time on activities that do not require face-to-face groups to participate in such as gaming rather than something like playing with peers.

    3. Re:"Take that Mom and Dad!" by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      ... which I yelled from my dimly lit basement bedroom in their house that I've been living at for 35 years.

      Because you flunked out of college and can't hold a job due to the World of Warcrack addiction.

      Just a data point, I know this is the stereotype, and maybe I'm an exception, but I've played WOW since it was in beta, and still manage to have a family, and a job managing ~50 engineers. But then, I probably average a couple hrs./night....not much different from someone who watches that much TV.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re: "Take that Mom and Dad!" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Mentioning the TV thing is a great retort to non-gamer vanillas and pinks. A good way to take it further is to explain to them that you play a character in the 'TV show' that you regularly 'watch'.

  5. From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It is possible that children who are gifted at maths, science and reading are more likely to play online games."

    I'd say this is the mostly likely truth here.

    1. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't say for sure because all I know about this research is what I read in the summary, but I too would like to interpret the results in the way that portrays me personally in the best possible light.

  6. Note to my students... by martiniturbide · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please notice that this does not mean to stop studying and play video games !!!

    1. Re:Note to my students... by boristdog · · Score: 2

      Too late! I just threw all my books into the incinerator.

      Wait, do people still have incinerators?

    2. Re:Note to my students... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, GlaDOS had one in Portal.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Note to my students... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they can help it, the Air Permitting is a nightmare, due to all the nasty shit they can, but only occasionally do, put out.

    4. Re:Note to my students... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! What a relief, my neighbors' incinerator only occasionally poisons me!

  7. interesting result.. by e432776 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..but no sign of causality, as indicated in TFS. Perhaps it comes down to access to a computer, which could be an indicator of other learning opportunities?

  8. No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding. Geeks and nerds get higher grades than jocks?

    Wow! There's a shocker!

  9. Not correlated with amount of time spent playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine if they'd looked at people who play MMOs, they'd have seen a different result.

  10. No duh by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People that play computer games tend to be:

    1) Computer literate = average or greater intelligence and having the skills to self-teach technological skills.

    2) Not dirt poor = having the many advantages of the middle class life.

    3) Not have parents that are tyrannical puritans that discourage kids from learning.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:No duh by RogueyWon · · Score: 2

      10-15 years ago, you'd have been correct. These days, however, "online gaming" is often just going to mean "Call of Duty via Xbox Live" and the cost barriers-to-entry are very low indeed (and the console may well be acting as a substitute-parent).

      The snarky part of me wonders whether the correlation isn't in fact between academic performance and "not playing many traditional sports".

    2. Re:No duh by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


      If you would allow me to perhaps put a finer point on your words...

      1) They TEND to be more computer literate. BELIEVE (like most people) they are more intelligent than average and are thought to self-learn. (myth but all humans self-teach to some degree)

      2) Come from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds as computers are inexpensive these days are are not the domain of the privileged for some time now. The advantage is thus null and void as this is not a "thing" in the western world. - the difference is the WILL to use computers in creative ways. That gives advantages but not because people use computers or have them but rather because some people are creative and some of those use computers.

      3) I'm not aware of parents that discourage children from learning. What some parents do is try to limit their children's access to knowledge they deem unsafe, incorrect etc.This can range from mild political views to preaching violence based on bigotry. -plenty of talented individuals came from awful backgrounds. Statistically they may be less likely to but whatever beef you have with your parents is not related.

      4) (your forgot this one) this study might be garbage but assuming its gold it might indicate a basic truth about biology. Use what you have and it is likely to improve. Even the worst gym routine will produce SOME results if you're persistent. So using your brain consistently for SOMETHING (gaming, cross words, puzzles, chess, negotiation, driving) will show improvement in related areas.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    3. Re:No duh by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The snarky part of me wonders whether the correlation isn't in fact between academic performance and "not playing many traditional sports".

      If true, it's probably not just sports, but organized social activities in general. Yes, it's a stereotype, but there's probably a greater percentage of introverts, "loner"-types, etc. in those who play video games frequently. In the past the extroverts and socially adept folks would be participating in all sorts of organized activities after school, and then going out with friends for a meal or something. Nowadays they probably spend some of that time on Facebook and texting, which also takes up time. (Note this doesn't require ALL gamers to be like this, only a somewhat higher percentage in the gamer pool to explain the measured effect.)

      Loners and introverts tend to have more time for self-reflective activities in general, like studying, thinking, etc. When these kids aren't playing video games, are they playing sports, going out with friends, or checking Facebook incessantly? Or are they more likely (on average) to have more "downtime" by themselves to pursue intellectual stuff in general?

      I was never much of a gamer myself, so I don't know if this is true or not (and I know the dynamics of gamers is changing over time). But my sense when I was younger and had many friends who were into gaming was that this was a closer correlation and explanation.

    4. Re:No duh by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Just realized my faux-pas in saying they might spend time on "Facebook" when I really meant social media in general. I do realize Facebook isn't as popular these days with the younger crowd. (I'm not THAT out of it....)

    5. Re:No duh by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what schools you are talking about but many high schools have a minimum academics requirements and the larger the student body the more likely those academics requirements will be more strict.

  11. Not causation and all that by Theovon · · Score: 2

    While I’m sure that playing problem-solving games hones problem solving skills, just making your kids play games isn’t going to make them math geniuses. In fact, for most kids, it would probably just make them waste time. Rather, it is an instinctive interest in puzzles that makes some people interested in games *and* STEM subjects.

    And this link is going to just be statistical. I do computer engineering, and I have side interests in math, physics, linguistics, etc. But I really don’t like most video games. My wife has degrees in english, history, and law, and she kicks my butt at every game we play.

    1. Re:Not causation and all that by burhop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I’m sure that playing problem-solving games hones problem solving skills, just making your kids play games isn’t going to make them math geniuses. In fact, for most kids, it would probably just make them waste time. Rather, it is an instinctive interest in puzzles that makes some people interested in games *and* STEM subjects.

      And this link is going to just be statistical. I do computer engineering, and I have side interests in math, physics, linguistics, etc. But I really don’t like most video games. My wife has degrees in english, history, and law, and she kicks my butt at every game we play.

      You are right, of course. Making your kids play video games may or may not make them smarter.

      What I think is the important part is that letting your kids play video games will not make them stupid (on average).

  12. I love these kinds of articles by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

    Right out of the box TFA points out a "link," not a causation. So we are left to ponder whether video games help kids achieve in the classroom, or whether smart kids tend to like video games.

  13. All the evidence I need by Henarchaga · · Score: 1

    Now I can conveniently ignore any other research!

  14. Needs more Variables; But Still a Good Base. by Dust038 · · Score: 1

    Too few words not enough things in this world of things. The Scope of this article is too thin. It needs to delve into Single player Offline Game, and as many point out there is an Income gap and geography that comes into play. I work at a University and the most surprising thing to me in the places our students come from where only 30% of citizens have access to Internet due to the cost. ((Using Ghana as a Reference Country)) *Show of hands who was a 90s kid and got put on ADHD Medication as an excuse for my video game addiction and A's on math tests* I know my hand is up. Article Quote: "The cause of the association between game playing and academic success is not clear from the research. It is possible that children who are gifted at maths, science and reading are more likely to play online games. Alternatively, it could be that more proficient students work more efficiently, and therefore have more free time, making online gaming a marker of possible academic ability rather than something that actively boosts performance." As a middle class individual growing up at a time when I could see this article have a few words replaced with designer ADHD Medication I remember blazing through math because it was stupid easy and turning to video games and other activities because there was nothing to do in the 90s. We didn't have fancy smartphones and 1000s of Apps or Social Media. We had channel 16, Pre-Drug Drop dead Gorgeous Lindsey Lohan, SNES, N64 and Books...We didn't have the choices of the youth of today, nor the access to technology of 2016. Sorry got off on a tangent there. This article to me, though lacking on words and research depth, does resonate on some level because Practice makes Perfect. Online gaming when done in a productive setting teaches the basics of teamwork, problem solving, negotiation, all coupled together with the drive to accomplish something. I'm not too good with words sometimes, but if you practice something for 8 hours a day, you're going to be much more proficient than someone who only does it for an hour, in most cases (there are prodigies everywhere - just watched Masterchef Junior) I've been stuck at one point in a game trying over and over to get past it and after hours you pass it via trial and error, luck, determination, cursing, and caffeine. You succeed. I think we've all been there. (Zelda - Water Temple) I think for me at least my gaming experiences have assisted in preparing my mind for higher learning in Math, Science, and Reading.

  15. stop the college for all push & have more vo-t by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    stop the college for all push & have more vo-tech you know like Germany. Germany has good workers rights and Germany has a lower percentage of students go on to college (that is a good thing as they are learning real skills and not years of filler and fluff at a high cost.

  16. Probably #2 by HBI · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, the tards are out putting firecrackers in frogs' mouths and kicking the dog.

    (yes, propensity to violence is negatively correlated with intelligence, surprise surprise)

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  17. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    That might work, but I was talking more about elementary through high school. In the US, we all but assume that everyone will be educated through high school level. In other countries, depending on where you live or what your "station" in life is, you might not even get elementary school education. You might go right into a vocational training school or might not get schooling at all. Likewise if you have some kind of disability that impairs your learning. So other countries can make sure that the tests scores are high by excluding all those folks while our scores are "dragged down" by them. Then again, our overall test scores might go but our populace as a whole has a better chance to get some rudimentary education than if we just wrote off whole groups of people and didn't even school them up to high school.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  18. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Also the teach the test idea needs to go away.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  19. Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W.T.F.???? It is Math people. It is not plural. Sciences sure but not Maths. Maybe the OP should play more video games. Oh, and the reason there is a strong correlation is because it isn't the game that is "making" the kids smarter. It is that the smarter kids are house bound nerds who never go out and party with their friends. They are introverts and have no other social options other than on-line gaming.

    1. Re:Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math and maths are equally acceptable abbreviations of mathematics. The only difference is that math is preferred in the U.S. and Canada, and maths is preferred in the U.K., Australia, and most other English-speaking areas of the world.

    2. Re:Maths by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      W.T.F.???? It is Math people. It is not plural. Sciences sure but not Maths. Maybe the OP should play more video games. Oh, and the reason there is a strong correlation is because it isn't the game that is "making" the kids smarter. It is that the smarter kids are house bound nerds who never go out and party with their friends. They are introverts and have no other social options other than on-line gaming.

      You need to travel a bit more. There is a place in this world where English was created, rather than imported and they contract mathematics to maths.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, though I too made this mistake many years ago (~10) in my youth and with much humility found that language differences occur and often vary even within ones own country. Also "Learnt" is an acceptable form of "Learned", and the plural of "Octopus" is actually "Octopodes" though "Octopi" and "Octopuses" are accepted. Also "Deers" is becoming an accepted plural of "Deer", not to be confused with a typing plurality like "Fishes" for example, but the plural norm. Language is cray.

    4. Re:Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say Learnt and Deers and everyone will think you're a redneck and an idiot.

    5. Re:Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also "Deers" is becoming an accepted plural of "Deer"

      I was driving one evening near sunset with my wife down a rural highway. I spotted a deer entering the road ahead, and I slowed down a little and watched it cross. At the same time, my wife said "deer!" and pointed out the windshield. It turns out that I was so focused on the one that I had seen that I didn't realize there was another one about to cross behind it. We decided that "deers" is the only sensible plural of "deer" because it disambiguates between one deer and many. And then I brought the car in to the body shop.

  20. Enjoyment vs obedience by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Kids play games because they enjoy them; games involve abstract problem solving in various guises; kids thus learn to enjoy abstract problem solving, and practice it more. This then spills over into academic disciplines which harness similar skills as those the games reward. This is hardly new: chess was invented to teach strategy, as was go. People who play strategy games and enjoy them are most likely better than those who don't, all else being equal.

    If you are motivated only by the avoidance of exam failure, or of getting told off by your teacher, you are learning reluctantly, and this is never a good route to mastery, since as soon as the source of fear (the exam or the pushy teacher) is removed, your motivation to practice and learn goes with it. If, however, you are driven by enjoyment, then so long as this enjoyment remains, so will your drive.

    Is this so difficult to grasp?

    --
    John_Chalisque
  21. Eve Online by Z80a · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of this research is being influenced by Eve Online, and it's insanely huge and complex market.

  22. Gym Class by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    They probably get lower grades in gym class, though.

    In 10 years the dude from High School who had the lettersman jacket will be selling used cars, of course.

  23. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think this will happen? Colleges as a whole represent a wealthy and powerful lobby with significant ability to socially engineer. They have every incentive to maintain the widespread belief that a college education is necessary for self-betterment, and that the price should be astronomical, and that the government should pay for it.

    The fact that it leaves people burdened with life-crushing debt doesn't impact them, so it doesn't concern them.

  24. what about when the people can't pay there loans by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    what about when the people can't pay there loans and just default?

  25. Causation is Correlation! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    It's nice to know that academic success causes video games. There is supporting evidence. Square Enix, EA, Rockstar and other video game makers did not exist until after universities were invented.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  26. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging by your grammar, I'm not sure you're the best person to be doling out educational advice.

  27. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    I'd say if they don't know the difference between "their" and "there" then they should sue the college for giving them passing grades.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  28. Simple test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FIrst, find a bunch of kids who do not have access to video games, and look at their grades.

    Test 1: How does the student's performance change after they are introduced to video games?
    Just take a large sample of kids without video games, then give them video games and see what happens.

    Their performance will decline, having nothing to do with intelligence or brain function, and everything to do with poor time management skills (kids prioritizing games over studies).

    Test 2: How does the student's performance change after video game access is removed?
    Removing access to video games will probably improve performance slightly. I would expect it to be like the initial state, before video games were introduced.

    Test 3: How does the student's performance change when video game access is offered as a reward for good performance?
    Offering video games as a reward will very likely improve performance. Because that is how rewards work.

    They keep doing these studies without ever getting a baseline. We don't know if the kids were smarter from video games, or if they were just smart to begin with.

  29. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    I don't think you can default on student loans. I'm pretty sure that in the US even bankruptcy can't free you from student loan debt.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  30. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't realize there is was a degree in asshole grammar Nazi

  31. I played a lot of video games back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I guess my problem was that I wasn't in Australia.

  32. Breaking News!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A team of liberal left leaning acadamenics from the nations primier acadameic insitution have found a 100% correleation between brushing teeth and mortality. Everyone who has ever brused thier teeth, has in fact ended up dying. The nationions lawyers are springing into action and suein toothpaste manufactures. Scientists are demanding that NSF allocate more money so that they can conduct more research on dental hygene and mortality.

    They also stress that anyone who questions the corelation between dental hygene and mortality is in fact a science denier, and probably a racist.

  33. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    We've been refusing the tests for our kids for years. It doesn't eliminate "teach to the test" but if enough parents do it, the test results will be useless* and over-testing might be backed away from.

    * Arguably, the tests are already useless but the proponents of the tests insist they need this data and insist that testing kids more and more is the only way to collect this data. John Oliver covered it better than I ever could in a single comment.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  34. MMORPG by DrYak · · Score: 1

    There are relatively few online games which involve "solving puzzles to move to the next level". I can think of a handful; Portal 2, for instance.

    and the huge mass of MMORPGs and the like.

    They require some reading skill (gotta see if there's something of interest in all those dialogs. Like some quest clue, etc.)
    They require also some basic math (quickly making estimations about all the characters' stats everywhere).
    Okay, it's REALLY not as complex as the puzzle solving you're thinking about, but it's enough to encourage a bit of reading and writing, and that is the markers in PISA that are reported in the summary.

    So according to that interpretation, as long as the kid doesn't have some problems/pathology that turn them into MMORPG addicts, playing MMORPG would give them opportunity the exercise a bit their reading and basic math, hence the higher score.

    Of course, as the summary points out, it could pretty well the opposite: kids which are better achiever and quicker learner finish their homework earlier and get more playtime.

    And of course, it could be something completely different :
    the set of intellectual abilities that make them good at school, happen to be also a good set of skill to find exploits and way to game the system as much as possible, hence more time also spent trying to find a good winning strategy, or writting a good editor/hack/trainer ( <- my own personal case).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  35. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    College loans aren't wiped out by bankruptcy so you're stuck with them forever. This is a particularly nasty side-effect of the government guaranteeing the loans, but really it's fair since the government essentially ensures that pretty much anyone who wants to go to college can get the money in order to do so. This would be a perfectly find system if the people going to college had solid financial planning abilities or a decent bit of wisdom, but given that they're largely 18 year-old kids with little life experience neither of those are true.

    Were the loans private, you'd probably see higher interest rates (because some students will default) as well as fewer students getting loans. I don't know if this would ultimately drive down the cost of college, but the actuaries sure as shit wouldn't be letting banks lend huge chunks of money to students wanting to major in underwater basket weaving unless they have wealthy parents who will cosign.

    I think the current system would be mostly fixed if you allowed people to count college loan payments (instead of just loan interest) towards tax deductions. That would go a long way towards helping students who have run up a large loan debt and don't own a house, which covers a lot of people since they can't afford a house with their student loan debt.

  36. Binge watching by DrYak · · Score: 1

    And that's a very good example.

    In the world of TV, you also have people who only casually watch some movie from time to time.
    You also have people who follow their favourite TV shows and discuss the next morning what was on yesterday's GoT episode, but beside that have a pretty normal life.
    And binge watchers who feel the need to watch all the episode of all seasons of some show they've discovered on Netflix. To they point that they don't even go out of their home.
    (And binge watching, and raid players are like binge drinking.
    It's okay to waste a week-end from time to time because you're catching up a series/play a 36-hours raid/are fucked up like a piece of shit.
    It's not okay when you can't even hold a job because of your bad habit).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Binge watching by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It depends on one's life goals.

      For some people, their primary occupation may be 'Raid Leader in an MMORPG.' For other people, their 'career' is more important. The Raid Leader works a shit job to have enough money to live on. The 'career' person might play an MMORPG a few nights a week for a couple hours.

      When they step out into the 'Real World' the career person might order a burger from the Raid Leader who runs the raid he participates in on Saturday afternoons.

      It's all good. What constitutes 'bad habits'? Is it a bad habit to work 10 hours a day in an office to 'get ahead' and neglect other parts of life?

  37. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    At least make the private student loans be able to be wiped out in bankruptcy.

    The banks and schools need to have skin in game to help drive costs down.

  38. Re:what about when the people can't pay there loan by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    It's easy to default on student loans; it's quite difficult to have student loans discharged under bankruptcy, but not impossible. Best bet is consult with an actual bankruptcy attorney about what chapter and under what conditions your student loans can be discharged. Most attorneys will consult for free.

  39. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who don't play have bigger issues like poverty that lowers their score/performance whereas Those affluent to pay oh I mean play online games have other factors that influence positively their scores...pay to win IRL and online??

  40. I'll add an anecdote to all this data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I haven't played games in *ages*, and have also been in a real creative rut.

    After watching a GDQ run of Super Metroid, I decided to try the game. I played it for 2 hours and came out of the other end rut-free and on a roll, putting out the best work I've done in months.

    I know this is just a single experience, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to make playing games part of my weekly schedule now.

  41. Just think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much better the students would perform academically if they didn't waste time playing video games?

  42. Re:stop the college for all push & have more v by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany has good workers rights

    That is the first problem to solve.
    The second problem is ensure the college system is not treated as a series of for-profit research institutes funded by public taxpayers and ever-increasing student tuition costs.
    The last (and easiest?) problem is the education system being retrofitted toward vo-tech.

    Absent of World War 3 I doubt I will see any one of those solved in my lifetime ... and I plan to live at least another 40 years.

  43. Bad habits by DrYak · · Score: 1

    What constitutes 'bad habits'? Is it a bad habit to work 10 hours a day in an office to 'get ahead' and neglect other parts of life?

    It happens that medecine has a very clear definition of 'bad habits' and 'addiction':
    it starts at the point where the "bad habit" takes over your life, where it prevents you to lead a normal life, where it takes so much place that it is detrimental to the rest of your life.
    (with a bunch of technical questions that can help pin-point existing problems...)

    So to go back to your exemple:
    - is the Raid Leader happy with his life? is he able to find a balance he's comfortable with between his passion and his life? is he able to function normally? (keep hygiene, health, etc.) (able to keep a job, even a shitty one, as long as he can cover his needs and is happy with his life)

    - and about the "career person" might be happy with his life. he might also be so obessed with work that he fucks up his life. There's a name for that "workaholic".

    It's all about balance.
    In my previous post, I wasn't saying that playing games a lot isn't bad (just like binge watching a season from time to time isn't bad either).
    It's being unable to stop playing games (or stop watching movies) to the point that it ruins one's life that is problematic and a bad habit.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]