Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

America's Army As a High School Education Platform?

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Sep 21, 2008 01:28 PM
from the wait-what? dept.
GamePolitics reports on a recent press release from the US Army which says they will be partnering with various military, education, and non-profit organizations to bring an education curriculum to high school students via America's Army. Quoting the press release: "The partnership ... will incorporate Army technology, gaming and simulation resources to enhance student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The platform for the new curriculum is the America's Army PC game, a free online game that provides civilians with a virtual role in the US Army by introducing them to Army technologies, Rules of Engagement, training and missions. Used as a communications tool, the game has also been adapted for use within the military to produce effective and engaging virtual environments that enhance Soldier training in a number of areas including force protection, convoy survivability and nuclear, chemical and biological detection."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] US Army To Invest $50 Million In Game Development 68 comments
$50 million in funding has been approved for the Army to establish a unit that will develop games. The purpose of the games will be to train soldiers for various tasks, and they say there is no intent to compete with commercial games. We've previously discussed other efforts by the Army to integrate games into their training programs. "Col. Mark McManigal, the capabilities manger for gaming under the Training and Doctrine Command, said the selected game must provide low-cost training and must not require large number of technicians to run. It must also have a play-back function for after-action reviews, he said. 'One of the major events for training is to be able to capture all these events, good or bad, throughout the entire scenario,' he said. Trainers must be able to edit the game during play to change the difficulty level or add complexity to an exercise. For example, they must also be able to edit terrain to replicate training areas or combat zones, he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Lessons on how to obey without question.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:15PM (#25094833) Homepage Journal

      Actually I took ROTC in high school. They covered illegal orders and UCMJ. They would go as far as to give you simple "illegal" order like calling at ease from a parade rest. The correct response was not to do it without question but to respond with "As you where sir!"
      This was just High School ROTC and we covered things like war crimes and how saying "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
        contempt.

      • by wasmoke (1055116) on Sunday September 21 2008, @03:58PM (#25096009)
        I'm currently doing ROTC in college, and it really sickens me when people give the old argument that military personnel are trained to obey orders without question.
        My experience is much the same as yours in JROTC; that is, we are being taught as future officers to question those orders which seem unreasonable or dangerous.
        The main problem is that most people who have not had any exposure to the military do not know anything except what the media says. Nobody bothers to actually speak to a Marine, for example, because it's so much easier to just watch CNN for the REAL news. Ah well, I'm involved in what I am to protect the public's right to protest what I'm involved in, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
        • by hey! (33014) on Monday September 22 2008, @08:14AM (#25102199) Homepage Journal

          Well, let's get out of the realm of the abstract for a moment. Anybody who is reasonably educated knows that an order to do something illegal, say to murder a prisoner, is not valid. So you don't have to feel so injured by misunderstanding. There's always going to be a few or course.

          On the other hand, the principle that soldiers should not obey an illegal order is really only good as the ability of a soldier to distinguish between legal and illegal. There isn't always a clear line, say between legal, aggressive interrogation techniques and illegal torture. One of the benefits of ROTC is, hopefully, and officer corps with greater critical thinking skills. Still, by in large troops and the officers who lead them are not lawyers, they have to use their ethical common sense to get them through dilemmas.

          The real danger when you give a man a lethal weapon and put him under orders is not particular to the military. It is group think. And don't say that isn't a problem. Every military person I have talked to has plenty of stories of bureaucratic pigheadedness on a massive scale.

          I have known many military people over the years, and one thing that I think is fair to say is that good soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors have a can do attitude. That contributes to the both the dynamism and dysfunction of the military. Survival may trump that, but the first response to an order to take a fortified position is to view it as a solvable problem. This takes an implicit trust in the competence and judgment of your superiors, and that habit means going along with things you know are damnably stupid -- so long as they aren't illegal or immediately fatal.

          Trust and a willingness to go along with anything short of illegality are good things in a soldier, but bad things in a citizen and especially a civilian leader. A good citizen has to question the competence and judgment of the leadership. When political mistakes reach the military, it's too late to question. One military saying I've heard is that shit rolls downhill, and it's the military's job to deal with the politicians' shit. A politician's ought to avoid handing the shit down to the military by being skeptical.

          Skepticism is not a military virtue, which is not to say anything negative about military service. No profession is the beginning and end of all virtues. One of the problems I see of certain political viewpoints is that they like to promote the military as the entire repository of American virtue because obedience or rather willingness to get behind the mission, is so useful to them.

          Look at Colin Powell, a great soldier, a top notch military leader, and a bad Secretary of State. He brought his military values of duty and loyalty into the job, and ended up being a catspaw. It wasn't that he accepted an order to lie; he accepted the mission he was given and took ownership of it, the way good soldiers do. It made him both useful and an object of scorn within the administration. By giving his superiors more than they deserved, he gave his true masters less.

          • by Kagura (843695) on Sunday September 21 2008, @05:55PM (#25097107)
            An illegal order is something like "Shoot this prisoner we just captured. I don't want to fucking bring along extra baggage for 24 hours until we can get him to the rear." These kinds of orders are rare enough that most people go their entire enlistment without coming upon an illegal order.

            Most people in the Army are not crazy and are reasonably well-natured enough that stuff that falls into the category of "illegal orders" are very uncommon.
        • I remain mystefied as to the origin of the "illegal war" argument. Congress authorized the President to invade and occupy Iraq in accordance with the War Powers Act of 1973 - how is that illegal? Not even the UN has challenged the legality of the US presence in Iraq.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Not even the UN has challenged the legality of the US presence in Iraq.

            The US has veto rights in the security council. What exactly do you expect the UN to do? The UN has the same problem with Russia in Chechnya.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Ah, the old "at least our inhuman b@st@rds are less inhuman than their inhuman b@st@ards" argument.

            Inhuman b@st@rd.

            HAL.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not too different than what is taught in school anyway. This is just more overtly propaganda.

    • by bravobulldog6 (1365139) on Sunday September 21 2008, @07:23PM (#25097785)
      My name is MAJ Paul Stanton and I am a former infantryman and current computer scientist in the US Army. The views that I present here are entirely my own and do not represent an âoeofficial statementâ for the government or military. In your comment, you insinuate that Army Soldiers obey without question and are members of a non-thinking organization. Please allow me to explain a little about the current operational environment that our Soldiers are fighting in and the educational preparation they receive prior to deploying overseas. We are fighting a complex, asymmetric, thinking enemy who constantly creates ambiguous situations that our Soldiers face daily. Our Soldiers must think and be creative to defeat this enemy â" and they do. You may not hear about it, because our media chooses to tell the isolated story of a mistake instead of the countless examples of Soldiers doing the right thing, but I have much experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that supports our thinking Soldiers. How do Soldiers prepare for the challenges that theyll face? There are many formal educational venues â" ROTC, West Point, and officer schooling for officers and Basic, Advanced Individual Training, and unit training for Soldiers. At each opportunity, Soldiers learn about ethical decision making and have the opportunity to practice via scenario based training (the same time of scenario based training that Americas Army supports). The result is an intelligent and capable Soldier who thinks on the battlefield. Yes, you probably have a mental picture of a negative instance â" one that the media discussed at length. . . .has it happened? Yes. But is it the extreme exception? Yes. Soldiers face âoeshoot / no-shootâ scenarios in real time, with real bullets, on a daily basis. They make the right decisions â" they are not automatons, but rather smart, competent, ethically-minded people who want nothing more than to do the right thing. Please take the time to think about the challenges Soldiers face, and then consider how they can operate without thinking. I believe that you will find that it would be impossible.
  • but your society has jumped the shark.
  • by whitroth (9367) <whitroth.rcn@com> on Sunday September 21 2008, @01:53PM (#25094569) Homepage

    So, will all military references be removed for educational purposes, or is this an attempt to militarize education, and sucker more kids into the US military, for more colonialism and adventurism?

    And before anyone starts arguing, are *you* in the military? If not, and you agree with the miltitarization of education, and you are in your 20s or thirties, and not incapacitated, what excuse do you have for *not* being in the military, right now?

    Oh, I see, like Dick Cheney: you have "other agendas" (read, get rich, and risk somebody else's kid's neck for your money).

                    mark

  • I was a bit confused as to how America's Army could be educational(it's a pretty run of the mill FPS, similar to CS, with a lot of U.S military "atmosphere" to it). However it seems that they plan to expand a little bit for this education initiative.

    The first educational module will be incorporated into the PLTW Principles of Engineering course. Students will use the America's Army gaming technology to explore kinematics in a ballistics project. They will be able to test the accuracy of their calculations i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The first educational module will be incorporated into the PLTW Principles of Engineering course. Students will use the America's Army gaming technology to explore kinematics in a ballistics project. They will be able to test the accuracy of their calculations in the virtual environment to observe how different variables such as displacement, time, velocity and elevation angles affect the principles of engineering.

      ROFL! Please tell me this is some kind of joke. The guy is saying that kids will get better at

  • It sounds to me like they're modding the America's Army game to make physics simulators for students to try out, and maybe increase their interest in science or engineering. It's probably cheaper for the government to do this than to develop a whole new system that incorporates many of the same features AA already uses. Just because the programs are based off of a popular shooting game doesn't mean 15 year olds are going to be playing military shooters in school (although I'm sure many of them have no qualm
  • ... our armed senior class overlords.

  • Perfect. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Sunday September 21 2008, @04:39PM (#25096371) Journal
    I always wanted a simulation that would allow me the visceral experience of getting an education, with out actually learning anything.
  • by JonathanBoyd (644397) on Sunday September 21 2008, @05:51PM (#25097065) Homepage

    Jack Thompson accuses games of corrupting our youth: results in moral indignation from Slashdot, saying that games don't turn anyone into anytihng.

    Schools mod America's Army for educational purposes: results in moral indignation from Slashdot, saying that the military is using games to brainwash people.

    Don't know if any individuals hold to both views, but it's interesting how these seem to be vocal opinions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'm wondering if the same people who are supporting this would have issue if oh say, a school required a child to participate in a class that uses Grand Theft Auto as a learning tool with a curriculum by a gangster rapper?

      It's not about the video game (no one had/has issue with kids playing AA on their own time), it's about the teaching of ideology.

    • by Bragador (1036480) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:00PM (#25094657)

      I actually am hoping for such a game to eventually exist. And if nobody makes it I might do it but I don't have the skills...

      Look at websites like http://www.hackthissite.org/ [hackthissite.org] where you basically learn many things. When you find the solution to a problem, you are awarded points. This pushes you to learn more and achieve more.

      Instead of having HTML, javascript, programming, etc challenges, why not make something like that for general science?

      Make learning FUN!

      Also, I'd LOVE games to learn languages like http://www.tbns.net/knuckles/ [tbns.net].

      Again: MAKE. LEARNING. FUN!

      • by Daimanta (1140543) on Sunday September 21 2008, @03:49PM (#25095925) Journal

        Sounds like a good idea but personally I am against it. It is a disease of the modern society that everything you do has to be fun. If you make everything "fun", people will be more likely to refuse doing something because it lacks fun. People need do things because they need to do things. You need to learn how to calculate if you want to do anything that involves numbers(like filling in your tax papers). Having the knowledge should be its own reward.

        Note, I didn't post this because it is fun, I posted it because I felt like I needed to respond to you.