I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sticking a child by themselves in front of a screen for hours on end during a school day. Social interaction with peers and adults is pretty important, especially for students who don't have a positive environment at home. Taking a kid from a shelter or a neglectful environment and providing them a computer for the day instead of a classroom would be bad news.
Political Machine is very adept at teaching through gaming how and why our campaign system works the way it does.
There's another one done by a tiny British company, Democracy, where the actual election was kind of a formality and you were trying to balance policy issues and spending to keep people happy and get reelected. Sometimes you just lost, and there was really nothing else you could have done, which was a nice (if frustrating) touch of verisimilitude.
Hell, Tropico could probably be a decent tool to teach about how local government and economics works with a couple of modifications (no ability to declare yourself dictator, no chance of a coup.)
I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sticking a child by themselves in front of a screen for hours on end during a school day. Social interaction with peers and adults is pretty important, especially for students who don't have a positive environment at home. Taking a kid from a shelter or a neglectful environment and providing them a computer for the day instead of a classroom would be bad news.
Meh... no reason you can't have the games involve working with other kids. Team based stuff, competitive stuff... games do not preclude interaction. I would go so far as to say learning how to interact with others is probably more important than any other single thing kids are likely to learn in school, and you know what? We don't actually bother teaching it. We stick kids together, make sure they don't act too horrifically to each other(where a teacher can see it) and shovel information at them.
You can have social interaction built into the games. If we move some of the education duties too the teacher, the time they would have used lecture could be used to make sure the social interaction that is going on is actually a positive thing and that students aren't falling behind in terms of social or scholastic skills.
I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sticking a child by themselves in front of a screen for hours on end during a school day. Social interaction with peers and adults is pretty important, especially for students who don't have a positive environment at home. Taking a kid from a shelter or a neglectful environment and providing them a computer for the day instead of a classroom would be bad news.
I think you are taking this to an extreme. Gaming in school could simply be a 15-30 minute "intro" to a lesson or a way for kids to solve a problem together.
Many schools in my area are switching to "hybrid instruction" where kids work on online courses and also receive instruction from teachers. In the program I coordinate kids work through classes for 5 or 6 hours of the school day at their own pace which allows them to earn more credits than they normally could. They have regular breaks/lunch just like other kids and there are two certified teachers available to them at any time, but mostly it's working through courses on a screen all day. The thing I most wish would be different about this program is the ability for the kids to interact during course completion. I think that games allow for a lot of social interaction and cooperation.
I envision games not as a "plop kids in front of a screen that will do the teaching" but more as a way for kids to be engaged and to interact (via co-op). Kids (and adults) are generally engaged by games because games as designed to be engaging. As much as teachers want their traditional lessons to be engaging, my personal experience is that the more we bridge between what we are teaching and what kids enjoy (games), the more kids learn.
Anyone remember the educational game series where you were an Alaskan goldrush person? You bought supplies in town and then did minigames. I think there was also another one in the same series which took place in the amazon.
0
Options
South hostI obey without questionRegistered Userregular
Rome: Total war taught me the different units in the pre-Marian Roman Legions.
And Aces of the Pacific/Aces over Europe taught me a lot of different planes used in WW2.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Yeah I think the cart is being put 50 miles in front of the horse if we're concerned about kids being plopped in front of a video game all day long at school without any human interaction.
I'm saying that right now, video games, non-video games, and non-game interactive technology, could all be used vastly more than they are, and to a huge effect.
I don't think any time in the forseeable future we'll be wiring kids into the Matrix 24/7. That's not on the radar as a concern just yet.
Some books (olol books wtf are those):
Rainbows End
A ubiquitous super-Internet HUD is wired directly into your brain, or I think your clothing, like Geordi LaForge's visor times a billion. One of the more notable effects on society is the educational benefits; by the time kids are in middle school, they are practically a new species, demigods compared to the older generation who didn't grow up "wearing."
The Diamond Age
Massive resources and the best technology and creative design talent in the world are brought together to create an fantasy/educational book that is totally AI and interactive. Each page is an iPad basically, and in general the book is a fantasy story of a youth overcoming various conflicts. But the book completely tailors every aspect and detail of the story to the educational level, personality, and current events in the life of the book's owner, and each character and sub-plot of the story is geared towards academic, physical, and personal growth training. Previous chapters can be re-read and will automatically adjust themselves to the current academic aptitude of the owner. Designed to follow the owner from pre-reading through adulthood. Even guides the owner through things such as being a child in an abusive home. Capable of elevating the lowliest wretch to the peaks of high status in the world.
Anyone remember the educational game series where you were an Alaskan goldrush person? You bought supplies in town and then did minigames. I think there was also another one in the same series which took place in the amazon.
I don't know, but this game was incredible. I didn't even get into it as educational. But it actually was quite educational.
I think a more useful cultural tack would be to kill the notion of video games as a brain-dead endeavor, and treat it as more akin to reading books...
A reasonable person, concerned with facts and truth, cannot equate video games with books. Think about reading a Sherlock Holmes story. First, you are engaged in the process of transforming the squiggles on the page into meaningful statements. Second, you are imagining the scene as it is linguistically described. Third, you are projecting an anticipation of what shall transpire as you continue to read. There is a mental creative process to reading that does not occur in most video games. When I play a video game I do not have to creatively imaging a mental visual representation of the situation, given that I am passively looking at a visual representation on the monitor.
Granted, many games offer mental stimulation in other ways, usually by puzzles or problem solving. That can be considered a kind of mental stimulation. But were an individual to encounter the same sort of puzzle or problem in a book, I content that the book version would involve far more mental processes and effort given that one not only has to solve the puzzle, but also has to imaginatively construct the scenario. This is opposed to video games, which already present the visual context in which the puzzle occurs.
It's akin to the manner in which watching a PBS biography on Einstein is less mentally engaging than reading a biography of Einstein. The act of reading, the act of transforming those little squiggles into meaning, and then imaginatively constructing those biographical scenes, is more mentally engaging than passively watching the television show.
Yes, video games can play a role in education. In the same way that television shows, movies, or field trips can play a role. But let's not over-state that role.
A reasonable person, concerned with facts and truth, cannot equate video games with books. Think about reading a Sherlock Holmes story. First, you are engaged in the process of transforming the squiggles on the page into meaningful statements. Second, you are imagining the scene as it is linguistically described. Third, you are projecting an anticipation of what shall transpire as you continue to read. There is a mental creative process to reading that does not occur in most video games. When I play a video game I do not have to creatively imaging a mental visual representation of the situation, given that I am passively looking at a visual representation on the monitor.
Granted, many games offer mental stimulation in other ways, usually by puzzles or problem solving. That can be considered a kind of mental stimulation. But were an individual to encounter the same sort of puzzle or problem in a book, I content that the book version would involve far more mental processes and effort given that one not only has to solve the puzzle, but also has to imaginatively construct the scenario. This is opposed to video games, which already present the visual context in which the puzzle occurs.
It's akin to the manner in which watching a PBS biography on Einstein is less mentally engaging than reading a biography of Einstein. The act of reading, the act of transforming those little squiggles into meaning, and then imaginatively constructing those biographical scenes, is more mentally engaging than passively watching the television show.
Yes, video games can play a role in education. In the same way that television shows, movies, or field trips can play a role. But let's not over-state that role.
Well, the basics here aren't so complicated. Pavlov and all that. I do something, then something happens that makes me happy, and thus whatever I did is reinforced and I'll want to do it lots. Many of us higher species have evolved to really exploit this, because we have an innate desire to pretend and play games, especially pretending and playing at useful survival stuff, and it makes us happy to do this. It makes us even happier to win. This reinforces all kinds of learning and behavior, without having to risk actual survival in the process.
If a book involves educational material and grasping that material is an interwoven prerequisite to the enjoyment of the book, then yeah, you'll learn. But I'm firmly convinced that the role that is being overstated here is the role of books, and the role being understated to a despicable degree is the role of fun and games. Fun and games are supposed to be one of our primary means of learning. That's how our brains work.
All the stuff you talk about with respect to creating the imagination in your head based on what you're reading... that's all part of the same irrational fondness for books that really doesn't add up to as much as you want it to. Reading books are the best method to make you better at reading books. Perhaps a superior method for teaching internal visualization and imagination, which I'd guess could be quite important. But I think it's pretty indisputable that the more a learning process resembles the actual application of that learning, the more you'll actually learn it and be able to demonstrate that learning. And the actual application of most knowledge is more interactive and alive than what's involved in the process of translating printed symbols into related scenes and sounds in one's mind.
We've had centuries of history where learning to read and getting ahold of some books was the single ultimate key to tranforming yourself from a two-legged animal into a civilized and capable citizen. We've understandably put a massive cultural focus on the book as the sole store of academic value and purpose. But, television and the Internet fufill that promise far better than books ever did.
There is a lot to be said for the fact that reading allows you to organize and process information iteratively, at your own pace and in your own style. Email and text are wildly popular even though we've had phones longer. I don't think reading is going away or should go away. I do think that its value is grossly exaggerated in modern times, and the value of more interactive, competitive, enjoyable teaching mechanisms are unfairly viewed as negative.
I mean, give me a break with your reasonable person and facts and truth stuff. Given just about any material, you write it down and I'll make a game out of it. We'll see whose students know it better after a couple hours. This kind of thing is already being studied in some detail.
First, you are engaged in the process of transforming the squiggles on the page into meaningful statements. Second, you are imagining the scene as it is linguistically described. Third, you are projecting an anticipation of what shall transpire as you continue to read.
I want to point out that a number of these things do not occur for students who struggle with reading. Perhaps the first always occurs for students who read at a 3rd/4th grade level or above (simply decoding words). However, one of the most surprising things to me when I started teaching was that many students who struggle with reading do not imagine the scenes described in a book this is one of a variety of reasons why reading is not engaging for some students. Also if students are focusing solely on decoding they are usually not making predictions from the material. It is often the case that when a student is asked to read aloud they are so focused on saying the words correctly and fluently that they cannot summarize what they read.
Anyway that was all a sidebar and I just want to point out that for most students reading alone is not the best way to learn material. That being said, I think proper reading skills (including the three skills you listed) are vital to success in a job/college/living, but we can't assume students already have these skills when teaching them other subject areas such at science and math.
This is another reason why I think games can help education by providing low-readers with opportunities to read in context or to learn material in another way.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Anyone remember the educational game series where you were an Alaskan goldrush person? You bought supplies in town and then did minigames. I think there was also another one in the same series which took place in the amazon.
Posts
There's another one done by a tiny British company, Democracy, where the actual election was kind of a formality and you were trying to balance policy issues and spending to keep people happy and get reelected. Sometimes you just lost, and there was really nothing else you could have done, which was a nice (if frustrating) touch of verisimilitude.
Hell, Tropico could probably be a decent tool to teach about how local government and economics works with a couple of modifications (no ability to declare yourself dictator, no chance of a coup.)
Meh... no reason you can't have the games involve working with other kids. Team based stuff, competitive stuff... games do not preclude interaction. I would go so far as to say learning how to interact with others is probably more important than any other single thing kids are likely to learn in school, and you know what? We don't actually bother teaching it. We stick kids together, make sure they don't act too horrifically to each other(where a teacher can see it) and shovel information at them.
You can have social interaction built into the games. If we move some of the education duties too the teacher, the time they would have used lecture could be used to make sure the social interaction that is going on is actually a positive thing and that students aren't falling behind in terms of social or scholastic skills.
I think you are taking this to an extreme. Gaming in school could simply be a 15-30 minute "intro" to a lesson or a way for kids to solve a problem together.
Many schools in my area are switching to "hybrid instruction" where kids work on online courses and also receive instruction from teachers. In the program I coordinate kids work through classes for 5 or 6 hours of the school day at their own pace which allows them to earn more credits than they normally could. They have regular breaks/lunch just like other kids and there are two certified teachers available to them at any time, but mostly it's working through courses on a screen all day. The thing I most wish would be different about this program is the ability for the kids to interact during course completion. I think that games allow for a lot of social interaction and cooperation.
I envision games not as a "plop kids in front of a screen that will do the teaching" but more as a way for kids to be engaged and to interact (via co-op). Kids (and adults) are generally engaged by games because games as designed to be engaging. As much as teachers want their traditional lessons to be engaging, my personal experience is that the more we bridge between what we are teaching and what kids enjoy (games), the more kids learn.
And Aces of the Pacific/Aces over Europe taught me a lot of different planes used in WW2.
I'm saying that right now, video games, non-video games, and non-game interactive technology, could all be used vastly more than they are, and to a huge effect.
I don't think any time in the forseeable future we'll be wiring kids into the Matrix 24/7. That's not on the radar as a concern just yet.
Some books (olol books wtf are those):
Rainbows End
A ubiquitous super-Internet HUD is wired directly into your brain, or I think your clothing, like Geordi LaForge's visor times a billion. One of the more notable effects on society is the educational benefits; by the time kids are in middle school, they are practically a new species, demigods compared to the older generation who didn't grow up "wearing."
The Diamond Age
Massive resources and the best technology and creative design talent in the world are brought together to create an fantasy/educational book that is totally AI and interactive. Each page is an iPad basically, and in general the book is a fantasy story of a youth overcoming various conflicts. But the book completely tailors every aspect and detail of the story to the educational level, personality, and current events in the life of the book's owner, and each character and sub-plot of the story is geared towards academic, physical, and personal growth training. Previous chapters can be re-read and will automatically adjust themselves to the current academic aptitude of the owner. Designed to follow the owner from pre-reading through adulthood. Even guides the owner through things such as being a child in an abusive home. Capable of elevating the lowliest wretch to the peaks of high status in the world.
And IRL, this. Totally that.
I don't know, but this game was incredible. I didn't even get into it as educational. But it actually was quite educational.
A reasonable person, concerned with facts and truth, cannot equate video games with books. Think about reading a Sherlock Holmes story. First, you are engaged in the process of transforming the squiggles on the page into meaningful statements. Second, you are imagining the scene as it is linguistically described. Third, you are projecting an anticipation of what shall transpire as you continue to read. There is a mental creative process to reading that does not occur in most video games. When I play a video game I do not have to creatively imaging a mental visual representation of the situation, given that I am passively looking at a visual representation on the monitor.
Granted, many games offer mental stimulation in other ways, usually by puzzles or problem solving. That can be considered a kind of mental stimulation. But were an individual to encounter the same sort of puzzle or problem in a book, I content that the book version would involve far more mental processes and effort given that one not only has to solve the puzzle, but also has to imaginatively construct the scenario. This is opposed to video games, which already present the visual context in which the puzzle occurs.
It's akin to the manner in which watching a PBS biography on Einstein is less mentally engaging than reading a biography of Einstein. The act of reading, the act of transforming those little squiggles into meaning, and then imaginatively constructing those biographical scenes, is more mentally engaging than passively watching the television show.
Yes, video games can play a role in education. In the same way that television shows, movies, or field trips can play a role. But let's not over-state that role.
Well, the basics here aren't so complicated. Pavlov and all that. I do something, then something happens that makes me happy, and thus whatever I did is reinforced and I'll want to do it lots. Many of us higher species have evolved to really exploit this, because we have an innate desire to pretend and play games, especially pretending and playing at useful survival stuff, and it makes us happy to do this. It makes us even happier to win. This reinforces all kinds of learning and behavior, without having to risk actual survival in the process.
If a book involves educational material and grasping that material is an interwoven prerequisite to the enjoyment of the book, then yeah, you'll learn. But I'm firmly convinced that the role that is being overstated here is the role of books, and the role being understated to a despicable degree is the role of fun and games. Fun and games are supposed to be one of our primary means of learning. That's how our brains work.
All the stuff you talk about with respect to creating the imagination in your head based on what you're reading... that's all part of the same irrational fondness for books that really doesn't add up to as much as you want it to. Reading books are the best method to make you better at reading books. Perhaps a superior method for teaching internal visualization and imagination, which I'd guess could be quite important. But I think it's pretty indisputable that the more a learning process resembles the actual application of that learning, the more you'll actually learn it and be able to demonstrate that learning. And the actual application of most knowledge is more interactive and alive than what's involved in the process of translating printed symbols into related scenes and sounds in one's mind.
We've had centuries of history where learning to read and getting ahold of some books was the single ultimate key to tranforming yourself from a two-legged animal into a civilized and capable citizen. We've understandably put a massive cultural focus on the book as the sole store of academic value and purpose. But, television and the Internet fufill that promise far better than books ever did.
There is a lot to be said for the fact that reading allows you to organize and process information iteratively, at your own pace and in your own style. Email and text are wildly popular even though we've had phones longer. I don't think reading is going away or should go away. I do think that its value is grossly exaggerated in modern times, and the value of more interactive, competitive, enjoyable teaching mechanisms are unfairly viewed as negative.
I mean, give me a break with your reasonable person and facts and truth stuff. Given just about any material, you write it down and I'll make a game out of it. We'll see whose students know it better after a couple hours. This kind of thing is already being studied in some detail.
I want to point out that a number of these things do not occur for students who struggle with reading. Perhaps the first always occurs for students who read at a 3rd/4th grade level or above (simply decoding words). However, one of the most surprising things to me when I started teaching was that many students who struggle with reading do not imagine the scenes described in a book this is one of a variety of reasons why reading is not engaging for some students. Also if students are focusing solely on decoding they are usually not making predictions from the material. It is often the case that when a student is asked to read aloud they are so focused on saying the words correctly and fluently that they cannot summarize what they read.
Anyway that was all a sidebar and I just want to point out that for most students reading alone is not the best way to learn material. That being said, I think proper reading skills (including the three skills you listed) are vital to success in a job/college/living, but we can't assume students already have these skills when teaching them other subject areas such at science and math.
This is another reason why I think games can help education by providing low-readers with opportunities to read in context or to learn material in another way.
Yukon Trail, which was the best game.