More Videogames, Fewer Books at Some Schools?

A News.com article highlights a plan that may please word-weary students: more games, fewer books in some educational settings. That's one plan put forth by some educators who feel that current learning plans don't fully engage today's classes. By offering real-world dilemmas in a virtual setting ('discover why fish are dying in a park'), teachers hope that games will turn kids onto the idea of learning, and eventually lead them back to books. The article covers several of the projects geared towards exploring this idea, as well as research on the subject. "A game designer, Salen is working with a group called New Visions for Public Schools to establish a school in New York City for grades 6 through 12 that would integrate video games into the entire curriculum. 'There's a lot of moral panic about addiction to games. There's a negative public perception, and we know we have to deal with that. But teachers have been using games for years and years.'"

I object.

[sakusha]

I strenuously object to the hasty, ill-concieved rush to computerize education by turning everything into a video game. Pretty soon, everyone will think science only takes place inside a computer. Let me give an example.

One of my favorite childhood memories was going to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Up on the second floor, there was a permanent display of historic scientific apparatus, like a Wimshust Generator about 20 feet in diameter. I went back to visit it about 10 years ago, all those exhibits were gone, replaced with computer kiosks. Really BAD computer kiosks, uninspiring, ill-planned junk that had all the bells and whistles, but little educational content. I thought about the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on developing and deploying those horrid, amateurish kiosks, and how they replaced a whole museum wing that represented the technological development of America, and I can only consider it the greatest educational tragedy I ever saw. I remember being inspired, as a little child, seeing those monuments to science, but that will never happen again. And it's a damn shame.

Re:My take on this...

[ClaraBow]

I agree with many of your assertions, but as an educator, I see too many students in middle school and high school who lack basic reading and writing skills. It is extremely important for students to have a strong foundation in cultural literacy and in the "basic skills" or it becomes extremely difficult for students to succeed. It takes hard work to become proficient in reading, writing, and arithmetic. It seems to me that too many young people today want everything to be fun and easy.

Re:My take on this...

[LBArrettAnderson]

I agree. I would say that this would be a "subject to subject" thing. In English and language classes, the students should be reading and writing. In math and science classes, I think the "gaming" principal would apply better. Perhaps that would make them hate their language classes even more, but their problem solving skills would imrpove greatly. I don't know if there would be a way to incorporate the "gaming" into math and science and still allow the students to have an interest in reading and writing for their english class.

I agree that reading and writing is much more important than math and science in the real world... unless you are going to work alone. Communication is vital to being successful, and if people think you're stupid because you can't spell, you're screwed (please don't point out any spelling errors in my post; it would be funny, but I know I'm not perfect... I'm working on that as well).

Re:Saturday Night Live Syndrome

[Etherwalk]

National Endowment for the Arts Report: Reading At Risk [nea.gov]

That's the first study that came to mind. Granted, it's not necessarily reflective of the quality of someone's education that they choose to spend their time doing something other than reading--but when reading as a whole declines, there's a whole wonderful part of culture that becomes diminished, in a way, by the shrinking community. Not to mention that the potential readers lose out. Other mediums have good stories too, and ones well worth listening to, and things to learn and to enjoy--but reading is at least as important, and in many ways more so in that it stimulates the imagination.

Also, ask a teacher from inner-city schools thirty years ago for their horror stories... and then ask one from inner-city school teachers today.

Why are we doing this?

[SavedLinuXgeeK]

This seems like a never ending cycle of catering to attention deficient children. Western culture is so much more media driven, than ever before, that attention spans are dwindling. There is a reason we didn't need jazz up science 100 years ago to get people interested. That is because science is interesting. If we start catering to an inability of focusing and building desires by yourself, we are more hurting the children then helping. They will get to a point where they expect everyone and everything to cater to them, especially if they show a lack of interest about something. It just seems like a bad idea. It almost seems like dropping computers altogether, and getting back to basics in a way that forces them to focus would be of utmost benefit. The only downside is the lack of information sharing that the internet brings, simulation capabilities that computers offer, and disability services that computers give.

Language skills are still key

[Infonaut]

Reading and writing are *so* passe, but if you look at Information Age jobs, these skills are absolutely critical. Beyond jobs, literate citizens are key to a functional democracy. The diminishing of information literacy in America proceeds apace, and our cultural and political life suffers as a result. We expect less and less of ourselves, and we pass that on to the next generation.

Games are great. I grew up playing them, and I still play them. But games aren't a replacement for the tried and true combination of reading, writing, and hard work. Wrapping learning in a sugary coating may make it taste better, but that won't make it nutritional.

Models.

[headkase]

Calling a virtual-model a game only serves to denigrate the whole concept. :p Really, interacting with a model sounds a lot less cool than "playing a game" but it is a much more accurate description. Controlling a simulation in this sense sounds, if done properly, like it could be a very engaging form of learning versus rote memorization of books. Complimenting traditional studies this might actually be able to accomplish it's goal: engaging developing-minds in ways linear text doesn't.

Mod as Funny, not Insightful...

[Pollux]

It may sound humorous, but the parent makes an important point that these educators don't seem to understand. Kids see games as entertainment, and they will only engage themselves insofar as they remain entertained. In Oregon Trail, there was always that option to "Talk With People," where you would learn historical facts and viewpoints, but that only slowed me down from getting to Oregon. The point I'm sure the parent post was trying to make was that kids only absorb information in a game when it's directly a part of gameplay, and even then, they're only snippets of information. (To be absolutely honest, I still don't know exactly what dysentery is, even though I can attribute probably 500 character deaths to it over my lifetime of playing Oregon Trail.)

I think many educators do not understand that engagement in a game does not mean a child will be learning anything from it. Here's the difference:

• When a child is engaged in learning, learning is the goal they set upon themselves, and they seek information to further their understanding of what they are studying. Since learning is the goal, information they find on their research brings them further to their goal.
  
• When a child is engaged in a game, winning the game is the goal they set upon themselves, and they seek information to further their understanding of what they are playing. Since winning is the goal, information they find during their gameplay brings them further to their goal.

The information you gain when playing a game is very fragmented, because you only absorb enough that you need to get you closer to winning. As the parent poster noted, you don't know what dysentery is, you only know that it's bad and it kills your characters.

Teach these kids how to learn, not how to play a game. (Perfect example: MadTV Hooked on Phonics Parody [youtube.com])

I object for a different reason.

[khasim]

Games are written. Just as books are written. And the writer has his/her own biases.

If you read a book, you can read two books. You can read a dozen books. You can find the biases.

If you play one "educational" video game, you've pretty much played them all. There aren't very many. So you'll be stuck with whatever bias the person who wrote it had.

That's not education. That's programming.

Re:I object.

[aztektum]

Maybe kids would engage more if parents weren't so focused on satisfying every little whim and fancy of their kids anymore. Turn of MTV, limit their playtime on the Xbox and make them go do some real world shit, like play outside, or hell even board games require more attention span.

Games have their place in education

[Canordis]

Games are a media, like books and film and images, and each media has its strengths. Books are good for teaching because (Besides touching on literacy skills), they can be read over again, at the reader's own pace; films are good for teaching because they compress information relatively densely, and are much better at giving a sense of scale or displaying events than a book (What's better? Telling people about the size of the universe, or showing them Powers of Ten?).

Games are good for helping students understand complex systems by interacting with them. Being able to play with a historically accurate strategic wargame is more interesting, and provides a deeper insight, than just reading what happened during a war. Being able to watch small simulated lifeforms reproduce on a screen is a stunning display of natural selection. There are some subjects which are better explained through a particular media.

Re:My take on this...

[miskatonic alumnus]

I agree that reading and writing is much more important than math and science in the real world...

Your employer does too. That way he can pay you for 30 hours when you work 40, and you'll never know the difference. And let's not EVEN get into telephone bills.

Reality Check Time

[MBCook]

Kids learn better by engaging them. Kids are engaged by video games. Thus, kids will learn better from video games,

I know I look forward to learning about Greek Mythology from God of War II.

Seriously though. I'm all for engaging kids. The better job you do, the more likely they are to engage themselves and learn on their own. You know one thing that doesn't engage students? Spending all your time teaching to a standardized test. Why go outside and show kids plants, plant a little garden, let them learn from that. Instead, we can just show them a picture in a book and force them to memorize what geotropism.

Let's not forget that as you dumb down the curriculum and spend more time going over and over the same stuff so that all the kids can memorize it for the test, the kids who are smart (and already got it) and even those who are just normal (and got it 6 times ago, unlike the kid in the back who eats paste) are getting bored and tuning out. You may get them back, or they may learn that "school is boring".

I like the idea behind "No child left behind." I think holding teachers accountable, as radical as that may be, is a good thing. It's just too bad that everyone decided to implement it by teaching to the test all the time. I remember when I was in elementary and middle school. They would teach us stuff, we'd learn, things were good. There was usually at least something interesting. Until that time of year. Yes, time for the CAT (California Achievement Tests) or whatever other yearly test we used. For the month before the test they did nothing but teach to the test, which was boring to no end since it was always below the stuff we were currently learning.

More hands on lessons. That's what schools need. Hands on stuff, experiments, field trips.

How many people here think they would even remember what the Oregon Trail was if it wasn't for the game? How many people here remember all the historical stuff from the game, and how many just remember seeing how fast you could get your friends killed or trying to get a tombstone so you could write something on it.

Re:graphing calculators

[JRaven]

Why are grade-schoolers expected to buy calculators? Beats the bejesus out of me.

I've taught undergraduate mathematics going on ten years now, and for the vast majority of the courses (including calc, vector calc, diff eq and linear algebra) my students aren't permitted calculators on either quizzes or exams.

Calculators are a crutch. They teach students to shove numbers into a magic box and just accept whatever comes out. In a perfect world that wouldn't be the case, but until the students have a solid grasp of the material it's far too tempting for them to just memorize some calculator mojo in order to get by.

Re:Fundamental issues with gaming in education....

[Torvaun]

What happens to history when it's all burnt into a 15 minute game?

You make the game longer. Example: Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego. Fun. Educational. The biggest issue is that this is still trivia, not knowledge. 1969, Neil Armstrong lands on the moon. Nothing about why the Space Race happened. On the other hand, that trivia is exactly what you need for standardized tests. So, while the education may decrease, the test scores will probably do even better. I am against this move, and not just because I'm appalled at the levels of literacy I run into on a daily basis.

Re:Best idea ever

[FiloEleven]

Exactly. Many people think too narrowly about video games in school. There's little point in deathmatch Quake in the classroom, but something like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is almost ideal. Phoenix Wright requires a lot of reading and also makes the player exercise critical thinking, e.g. "what in this witness testimony contradicts the evidence I have?"

We also shouldn't forget multiplayer games - we've been playing those in gym class for years! A fun game with a competetive aspect will be well-received for sure.

As others have stated, I don't like the "less books" part of the bargain. Different things require different teaching methods, and I don't think games are appropriate tools for a whole lot of 'em. Games' strength as a teaching tool lies in logic application, and their weakness in teaching facts. If video games are to be used in school, serious thought needs to be put into finding out where they are appropriate and engaging.

lazy teachers, lazy parents, lazy kids

[misanthrope101]

Kids want to be entertained, not taught. Parents want their kids to have good grades and they don't want to hear, ever, from a teacher that their kid isn't trying, is not keeping up, and so on--the "there are no bad students, only bad teachers" mantra. Teachers have to work with the kids every day, their employment can be affected by complaining parents, and ultimately they, like everyone else, are going to take the path of least resistance.

We are gutting education to the extent that it won't be verifiable anymore. If you reduce education to a videogame, you can't very well test on it, and you won't have quantifiable data to point to to show that little Johnny is an idiot. They'll dazzle you with buzzwords about emotional intelligence and self-esteem while fighting standardized testing. I don't blame the teachers all that much--they are subject to the demands of parents, and parents have long brought their power as consumers and taxpayers to bear on the school systems. The parents don't want to fault their own little angels because to do so would call their own parenting into question. It isn't even about the kids.

Frankly, we shouldn't even have computers in the classrooms until high school. It should be all books, chalkboards (cheaper than dry-erase boards/markers) and that's it. Kids need to read. For that matter, adults need to read. But will it change? I doubt it. Parents view teachers as their own contracted employees. Even when I was in high school back in the 80s it was changing--one of my best, most challenging teachers was fired becasue parents complained.

More like if parents actually had time for the kid

[Moraelin]

More like if parents actually had time for the kid. Now I know that an anecdote isn't exactly data, but let me tell you how it worked for me.

I learned to read and write long before I got to school, because my grandma took the time to teach me that, and to make it interesting. I can't remember much from that age (she started with it when I was 2-3 years old), but from what I'm told it involved pictures of animals whose name started with that letter, and stuff like that. Kids are pretty much pre-programmed to hang around and learn from a parent or, in this case, substitute parent, so playing some game with letters with grandma and getting lots of attention, hey, it must have been fun times.

I already had basic understanding skills in English and French by the age of 7. No, I couldn't have written Les Miserables, but it was a start, you know? Grandma is again responsible for French, using some Pif comics as material. Kids like to be told stories, you know? _Illustrated_ stories with a cat and a dog doing mean things to each other? You tell me if that doesn't sound like fun. Plus, again, hey, I was getting lots of attention from grandma. Mom and her English language tapes are responsible for English, but again, some time doing it together was involved. (It worked too. I think I'm doing decently in English, wouldn't you say?)

Incidentally, in school, I have grandma to thank for another piece of wisdom, which strangely enough the school didn't teach me. School told me to just keep reading something again and again until it's memorized. Except at some point you feel like your head is numb, and keeping at it any longer isn't getting you any further. It just gets you more frustrated. I can see how lots of kids just concluded that learning is boring, and gave up. Grandma gave me this little piece of advice: so take a 10 second break. Nowadays I know that that's just enough to flush the brain's shortest term buffer. Why couldn't school teach me that? She also helped check my homework and stuff.

At some point, you know, a kid gets to ask stuff like "why is the sky blue?" My parents, bless their nerdy souls, gave me some physics books. You'd be surprised how I could accept the real explanation just as well as other kids accept the fairy tale versions. The whole family, all the way to the great grandma, also were always available to talk about it, which is always a plus. In retrospect, it might have been a tad boring to listen to a kid ranting and raving about a transformer, but someone or another always had time for that. I should be thankful.

Dad also helped provide some maths knowledge needed there, such as teaching me to do a derivative, and how to get there by way of really small delta X... in elementary school. It helped with, for example, understanding mechanics early.

Computers... ok, now for that one I didn't need any special encouragement. It was experimenting with something and seeing some results, which is fun. Still, in retrospect, it wasn't as much spontaneous interest in programming, as Dad showing me how some small BASIC programs are entered and run. I was pretty quick to get interested from there. At some point, basic was kinda slow, so Dad gave me the CPU instruction set manuals and a very quick introduction to Assembly. And to translating it all to hex by hand, because the old ZX-81 had 1k memory total, and an assembler just didn't fit in there. It would be another half a decade until I understood _why_ assembly is faster than BASIC, or how does the computer understand either of them, but it got me happily coding away anyway.

By contrast, the things I was the _least_ interested in was the stuff that just came pretty much by royal decree, so to speak. (Not meaning actually from a king, but from any authority figure, parents included.)

So exactly what are you going to solve by just turning off the TV? "Young man, go to your room and don't come out until you've done your homework." Damn, if that had been all the parent input and attention I got, I'd probably be w

Re:How will they ever learn to study?!

[subsonic]

I agree with your line of thinking. Part of the trouble in having literate students is not just that they are not able to simply read, but they don't even know where to begin to search for information on their own. OK, sure you can tell them that Google has everything, but then they don't know how to critically analyze the sources of their information. Part of literacy is being able to think critically about what it is you are reading/watching/listening to. This is a critical step that many teachers and schools are now being forced to gloss over, simply in order to teach dogmatic standardized-test-answers.

It is one skill that you can teach kids that they will end up using regardless of anything else they do in life.