Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

The Role of Video Games for Children 30

Posted by Zonk from the mario-taught-me-the-joys-of-jumping dept.
jZnat wrote in to alert us to a BBC article discussing the role of video games in the classroom. The New York Times (registration required) has a more general article regarding young children and their relationship to video games. It's interesting to see the major news outlets refer to gaming in an academic light, and without the usual "the sky is falling" theatrics.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Role of Video Games for Children More

The Role of Video Games for Children

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe if they teach with video games... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xanderwilson ( 662093 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @01:53PM (#10666012) Homepage
    ...kids will sneak textbooks into the classroom and read them under their desk.

    Interactive learning tools have a lot of potential, especially for learning outside the classroom, but I have trouble believing that a video game can be more engaging than a good teacher.
    • You've obviously never played Oregon Trail (or I never had a good teacher in middle school).
    • "I have trouble believing that a video game can be more engaging than a good teacher."

      Video games are cheaper and easier to find than good teachers, and IMO are far better than (more numerous) bad teachers.

    • Yeah, but how many of your teachers were a good teacher???

      I've been educating myself at the library except for 3 courses and my programmer-analyst degree, thanks you. My teachers were THAT bad.

      I think that teachers that are _consistently_ worse than an educational videogame should be fired or something. And replaced with educational video games if replacements are no better.

      I sincerely hope we can get good teachers instead, and have educational video games on the side out of schools, but that would be li

  • Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spicy salsa ( 826249 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @01:54PM (#10666021)
    As long as the game has some kind of educational value I see nothing wrong. They do put TV programs on in the classroom so why not games? I don't think they should be playing Smash Brothers Melee or anything but games like Myst can promote problem solving skills.

    Free Flat Screen HERE! [freeflatscreens.com]


    • I'd gladly get kids addicted to "a tale in the desert" for a psychology/sociology class.

      It certainly would teach about addiction, unlike other games you might get from a teacher.

      The group psychology thing is also a must-have. How come so-and-so gets himself to be a leader? How come so-and-so has built 10 times more than average?

      Kids learn from those questions.

      It sure beats the old trick of giving some kids cookies, some kids the milk, some kids candy and some broccoli, and some kids ice cream that will
  • we could /. my old high school!!!!!!! hehe :)

  • It's Possible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wickedj ( 652189 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @02:05PM (#10666159) Homepage
    When I was younger, many of my teachers also used some form of a game to teach the subject matter. From simple flash cards, to Jeopardy like quizes, to full blown video games. I majored in Computer Science and a lot of the projects we implemented were also video games. For those naysayers who believe games are "the devil", consider how many games you played growing up and what you learned from them. Now, bringing video games into the mix may be a little different. Certainly, if used properly, video games can also be used to teach. However, I feel that there is a certain limit. One thing, flash cards are alot cheaper than computers/consoles. Two, many use computers as a short cut before learning the proper way to solve something. It promotes a sort of laziness. A lot of children can't do simple arithmetic because of the calculator. But more times than not, if you are having fun learning something, you are more likely to remember it. If you want your children to learn, make it as enjoyable as possible. If you can make a video game to do this, more power to you. Just don't overdo it.

  • The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mixtape5 ( 762922 ) <hckymanr@yahoo.com> on Friday October 29, 2004 @02:10PM (#10666212) Journal
    I had to play a game for a grade in an intro to engineering class. I dont think it worked very well. The "game" aspect of it was not fun. The FPS feel just wasn't right for an engineering game. Certain parts of the game required shooting things that were far away, but I had no crosshairs. It was clearly made for educational purposes and it was a sub-par game. Most of my class switched the game over to task mode, which just gave you the actual 3D modeling asignments. Much like a sylabus.

    Unless they start making the gameplay of educational games not just educational but also fun and addicting, I see no future in it. "Educational Games Suck" Can often be heard comming from my younger brother after a mathblasters session.

    Bottom Line
    *The point of a GAME is fun.
    *The point of an educational game is learning.
    **How about "educational software" rather than "educational games".

  • Simple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quill_28 ( 553921 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @02:17PM (#10666290) Journal
    It all depends on the game and what you are trying to learn.

    Books, video games, TV are all the same in this respect.

    All three can teach various things some better than the others.

    But there are also mindless books, mindless video games, and mindless tv shows.

    Video games can be a great learning tools, but they can also be a pretty good waste of time(though usually fun).

    But the same can be said about books and tv.

    Ok done rambling.

  • Civilization should be required (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @02:30PM (#10666469) Journal
    (I really ought to put this somewhere permanent, I keep re-writing it.)

    Civilization, the game, should be required parts of any school cirriculum, and should I ever have kids and homeschool them, they will play something like it.

    Civilization is an extremely unusual game, even in its supposed genre of turn-based strategy, because it is not a wargame, it is a resource allocation game. You have a very, very limited amount of resources, how do you spend them? The answer to that is quite complicated because of the realistic number of ways you can spend them.

    More conventional turn-based wargames typically have at most a handful of ways to spend resources (fairly generic infrastructure or troops), and are much more generous with the number of troops you can pump out, because that is what the game is about. You rarely end up with a choice between building a defensive unit, or finishing the Granary.

    This is obviously a continuum and I can't say I've played all turn-based strategy games. But the Sid Meier Civ games (including Alpha Centauri, my favorite, and not including Call To Power, which as the name indicates is a military game from what I've heard) are far over on the "limited resources" side. The only other thing that comes close is SimCity.

    Civ can teach several valuable lessons that many people never learn, and that probably includes many people reading this message:
    • No matter how rich you are, you can't do everything. Your expectations rise with your power.
    • Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. (In a two-player Civ game, a "rush" is only viable if you do it right away; otherwise the other player may out-infrastructure you. This is particularly true in Alpha Centauri, where you can make a very tightly targeted defensive unit, which results in them being quite cheap.) What seperates a First World civilization from a Third World one is the infrastructure. (Also a culture that makes sure to maintain and expand it, and not destroy it for short-term gain, but that doesn't come up much in Civ.)
    • Military conflict isn't the answer to everything, but sometimes it is the only answer, especially when the troops are knocking on your door.
    • Related to that, there is a big difference between being prepared and not being prepared. One of the biggest mistakes I personally make almost every time I play is to overallocate to infrastructure, and neglect my military, until someone comes a-knocking, at which point it is often too late.

      In this case, I would like to point out that I'm not necessarily emphasizing the "military" aspect; consider "invasion" as a stand-in for many other problems as well. A hurricane isn't all that different from an enemy attack in effects. The "preparedness" is important; if you have to interrupt yourself to deal with an emergency because you weren't ready it can be immensely disruptive.
    Of course, most people aren't going to face the problems a Civ player faces literally in real life, but the lessons are still sound and the evidence suggests a lot of people still don't learn them. How many people run around thinking the US is infinitely powerful, and therefore think (we can provide infinite free healthcare for the world)/(we can engage in any military endeavor infinitely safely)/(the US could come over and fix my country but they are just to lazy and greedy to do so)/(nothing could ruin this country so who cares about fixing huge money sink X)? As you can see, the attitude is not a characteristic of one political side or another, there are weak thinkers on all sides who think and act on this premise.

    I don't know how to teach these vital things. But video gaming, a.k.a. "simulating", in a controlled and otherwise-harmless enviroment, is the best guess I've got. Better to learn these things from Civ then the first time you get a credit card... statistics say a lot of people learn this lesson then, too.

    Conventional teaching just won't work with this. You can say this as much as you want, but the vast majority of people learn from experience. At least give people a good opportunity to learn it safely.

    • I don't know how to teach these vital things. But video gaming, a.k.a. "simulating", in a controlled and otherwise-harmless enviroment, is the best guess I've got

      I said something similar here a couple of days ago but my focus was engineering education.

      Kids learn amazingly fast once you can engage their brains. Much of what is taught is just rote and a reason to keep those damn kids off my lawn until they are 18. Then the bastards piss on my fence.

      You just can't win.

  • Video Games as marketable skill! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BenVis ( 795521 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @02:34PM (#10666513)
    So this is slightly off-topic, but I thought it a fun coincidence that I just got through interviewing someone for a job who I had invited to the interview specifically because of the video games she played.

    Somewhat more on-topic: there's a great essay in The Video Game Theory Reader [amazon.com] on the role of computer games in the classroom. Check it out if you're interested.
  • One, this is never going to be adopted by teachers that don't know how or won't learn themselves how to adopt new technology or ideas. I know that teachers that are within 5 even 10 years of retiring won't put in the effort to do this. Two, you need a computer for every child, either at a computer lab where visits will be less frequent or have a computer at every child's desk, which public schools can't afford, unless they slash art, gym, and music which are all important.

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close