Games that make leaders
Games that make leaders: top researchers on the rise of play in business and education
Jason Stitt and Les Chappell • Published 01/20/05
Print this article • E-mail this article • 39 comments
Madison, Wis. — If the last video game you played was Pac-Man, you might have missed the advances that turned games into immersive training tools for skilled professionals and leaders.
Three University of Wisconsin-Madison professors, among the top researchers in learning through game-playing, explained the advantages of games over traditional teaching tools Thursday evening.
See a video of the event, which was held in Madison by Accelerate Madison and WTN
Ed Meachan, CIO of the UW System, called their research one of the better-kept secrets of the university. But the games they study, such as Halo, Half-life, and Lineage, are anything but secret.
The $10 billion-a-year gaming industry has already eclipsed Hollywood box-office sales, said Constance Steinkuehler, a UW-Madison cognitive researcher, and is on track to beat the music industry and home-video rentals. About 37 percent of both men and women say they play online games, she said, and more play a variety of single-player games.
“When you consider that we have 50 percent who even vote, we’re not doing that bad,” Steinkuehler said.
She and fellow UW professors James Gee and Kurt Squire argued that these types of games are much more than mindless entertainment, and derivatives of them could be used in schools or for corporate training. They work with the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory at UW-Madison, a testing ground for learning games.
Video games let their players step into new personas and explore alternatives. Not only that, but people can try to solve problems they’re not good at yet, get immediate feedback on the consequences and try again immediately.
Gee said the ability to explore right away makes games more engaging than textbooks or lectures. In schools, “you have to read 500 pages of biology and then you get to do biology,” he said. “Of course you only actually read 200. [A video] game allows you to perform before you’re competent.”
Because games keep things “pleasantly frustrating,” Gee said, players have incentives to keep on improving their performance. That can lead to learning outside the game as well. After his son started playing Age of Mythology, he started reading more about real-world mythology, Gee said.
“It’s the next big thing just because teachers have tried for the longest time to grab students’ attention, teach them concepts such as science,” said Ankur Malhotra, chief operating officer at NeuronFarm, which makes Web-based games meant to improve reading skills. “Gaming deals with a lot of these concepts, as they learn about all the tools, classifications and what makes a civilization function… I think there are some real lessons to be learned.”
One of the biggest users of games as training tools is the U.S. Army, which released the free tactical game America’s Army to boost its recruitment and has worked with commercial game companies on a variety of other titles.
“Gaming is old as dirt in military culture,” Squire said. Now, though, video games are becoming a more viable alternative to mock combats in the field.
Games such as America’s Army and Full Spectrum Warrior—which is available commercially with a fraction of the features the Army’s version has—are part of a culture shift in the military, he said. They contradict the view that soldiers are cannon-fodder and bolster the Army’s new branding of itself as a high-tech, professional workplace.
In Full Spectrum Warrior, Gee said, players lead a team of soldiers and must keep them all safe by using the right formations and maneuvers. Losing even one means the game is over.
Gee and his colleagues would like to make similar games that let players be scientists or take on other professional roles. Squire has worked on a game called Biohazard in which firefighters must react to dangerous situations. They learn the most effective ways to, for example, evacuate people from a mall after a sarin-gas attack. Firefighters like the game and even play it over break because it allows them to be heroes, he said—and because the game characters are smartly dressed.
Read more about the use of games in health-care training and the Games for Health conference in Madison
Games also let players be producers rather than just consumers. Many recent games allow “modding,” the insertion of new plot-lines, graphics and characters, or even the creation of entirely new games.
Squire mentioned the strategy game Civilization III, as well as first-person shooters such as Half-life. Role-playing games such as Neverwinter Nights also allow players a high degree of control.
“You can use Neverwinter Nights as an application development environment,” said Preston Austin, chief architect at Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. The game includes an event-driven programming language that lets people set up their own complex plots and scenarios, which they can share over the Internet.
Parents and teachers have not seen all of the current crop of games as good for children—some say violent games lead to violent behavior—but the three researchers said they contain valuable learning technologies.
“We’re not pushing games as good or bad,” Gee said. “It depends on what you’re doing.”
Jason Stitt is WTN's associate editor and can be reached at jason@wistechnology.com. Les Chappell is a staff writer and can be contacted at les@wistechnology.com
See other articles by Jason Stitt and Les Chappell.
Talk back
Flaor:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:23 CST
Great article, I am glad the event is getting coverage.
Hopefully someday we'll all look back at this and say this is where Wisconsin's World reknowned educational videogame industry began.
nathan stiles:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:30 CST
I have long believed that games further education rather than hinder. I am a med student and think the idea behind the biohazard game is particularly interesting
mcp:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:57 CST
“We’re not pushing games as good or bad,” Gee said. “It depends on what you’re doing.”
Violence isn't always bad, but using violence as a means to train someone is.
I'll only be interested in games that are realistic, extreme situations arn't needed. It's like killing a ant with a hammer.
m:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:07 CST
Demons, guns, known gods and evil.... How could this really create a caring society ? The techniques are great but some of the topics, tools and
ideas are evil. That needs to change.
bob dobbs:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:08 CST
you gonna trust your surgery to a surgeon trained only on video games and not books? I have news for you- the human mind is more powerful than any video game will ever be. By reading, you exercise the mind, so it can handle any situation that comes up. Video games only stimulate the sensory and motor skills, which leaves the mind weak since it wont have a base of data to deal with new and unknown situations.
The idea that video games are a legit way to train for anything other instrument panel driven activities (flying, driving) is ridiculous. Full simulators are another story of course- but consumer games are a joke.
Matt:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:11 CST
Games are fine for teaching pre-cognitive reactions, which is why firefighting, army training, and that sort of thing works so well. If what you want to do is ingrain instinctual reactions, simulation works fine. The example of Neverwinter Nights is a bad one - now the student isn't *gaming* at all, but using a game as a *programming* platform. Are you going to teach the programming *inside* the game, or through some other mechanism? I totally believe that Neverwinter nights can be a great motivation for programming, but not a mechanism for teaching it.
Show me a game that can teach partial differential equations, that's also fun on its own and I'll change my mind.
hcw:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:11 CST
To the above poster: maybe that's true for most first-person shooters, but what about RPGs games that require interaction and solving puzzles?
There's more to gaming than Half-life, despite that being what everybodys making a big deal about.
J-F:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:27 CST
I disagree with the above statement. Books can be mentally stimulating, but so can video games.
On the other hand, books can only be mentally stimulating. They do not develop sensory or motor skills.
To be honest, I would rather be operated by a surgeon that played it than the one that read it.
keith:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:33 CST
UW-Madison are not the only people researching the potential of games for learning - check out http://www.seriousgamessummit.com and http://www.seriousgames.org.
Some Call Me Tim:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:36 CST
The ideology of a game can be adapted to to culture of the student; obviously religious zealots will not be inclined to allow teaching their kids outside their ideological idiom, unfortunately most of their idioms are so narrow as to allow only simulations of going to church and praying without wandering into the moral minefield of real life situations - se la vi. My children will eat theirs for lunch, because they won't cry when somebody says boo -- in the game, of course ;) If you find our imaginations repugnant, wait till you awaken and see our lives.
Dan:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:44 CST
So what does the Army do when the video game hero gets in a real battle situation and fills his pants due to fear. Video games might simulate a real situation, but don't seem to simulate the real emotion one feels in that situation. Does the doctor that performed very well on a video game using a controller all the sudden have shaky hands and can't handle the unexpected when surgery occurs because it didn't happen that way in the game?
I think games along with true knowledge gained from study and books would be good tools together.
Tim:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:46 CST
When I was a kid all the adventure/RPG games on computers required you to type out sentences. I was 4 years old and learning terms like "inventory" of my own volition, and went on to read books that most would consider far out of my age range (e.g., Lord of the Rings when I was 6 or 7). So I completely agree that games are not just evil time-wasters. Many of them are, no doubt, but games with high cognitive requirements for kids, or games with subject matter that stimulates interest in history are terrific. Anyone ever play Oregon Trail in grade school?
The one issue I have with things like simulations is that it is very hard to code for the type of unpredictability you would find in a real operating room or airplane. However flight simulators have been extremely successful, so I see no reason why you can't train a surgeon this way.
Shadow:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:56 CST
An unexpected event can always be simulated, if they log enough hours. Who says that they are only going to run through one possible situation?
This is an excellent idea, and will possibly give people the right idea that video games are not always immature, or mindless. They require a great deal of consideration (take Myst for example). They involve the user, instead of show, and what is most important is that people will stay interested.
mike:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:58 CST
I'm sorry but the majority of you guys seem to be missing the point. They werent mentioning this as an alternative to all other learning. They are hopeful that it can ADD to training and education that is already in place. To enhance it not to replace it. I believe that if used properly it can add a great deal to the learning process in just about any field that it is applied.
Steph V.:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:04 CST
"To be honest, I would rather be operated by a surgeon that played it than the one that read it."
I agree with you! What the article says, is that by playing simulations, you could also get MORE interested in that field (ie: Age of Mythology). Playing AoM doesn't make you a historian, but reading afterwrads on the matter could very well lead you to studying History and become one. Everything is not Black & White as Mr. Bob Dobbs suggested above. And by ONLY reading on a topic, you won't be better at something than by ONLY playing/simulating it. Same applies to maths: you cannot learn all mathematical functions just by reading them, you have to try some on your own. Be it in a game or not, you have to DO it in order to perform better.
Chris:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:14 CST
I think some may have missed the point of the article, espicially those that are imagining playing Half Life or Doom as a school assignment. The idea being presented is to use the technology: the graphics rendering of Half Life, the advanced scripting of Neverwinter Nights, and so on. These tools could allow the creation of content that is truly useful for learning purposes.
I would never, ever allow someone who's only read a book about surgery to operate on me. Heck, I can go to the library or purchase medical texts, but it doesn't mean I know what I'm doing. By the same token, someone who just played a game isn't going to be anywhere near qualified either. The hope is that books and specialized games could supplement each other.
While we're on the subject I'd like to address the few zelots who seem to be posting: I am a gamer. I played Doom at 10 years old, and Half Life before I made it to high school. I'm also sane, social, and don't own a gun. I'm not a violent person, and I have a firm grip on reality. Demons, guns, known gods and evil indeed. I seem to recall certain religons committing atrocities in the name of a certain god, but I don't think I'd hold the many responsible for the faults of a few. I'd ask the same in return.
Ed Bishop:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:16 CST
It seems from some of these posts that people are assuming the logical extreme, but while at the event I at no time heard anyone say we should have our doctors in training play lineage and skip med school. I believe they argued that games (some types at least) can be a valid learning tool / cognitive experience to help people learn. They are not "The" substitute. They allow people to take risks they could not do in real life (an important contributor to learning) and do so cheaper than a real world simulation would do. If studies show that a surgeon who warms up with Monkey Ball before she operates or one who plays a few hours of video games a week (both valid published study results) show that the surgeon has a statistically significant smaller chance of (sometimes fatal) complications, I know who I'm going to want working on me. How about you? Same goes for combat medics and regular soldiers - games are a potential learning tool and if they don't totally prepare a soldier for the grim realities of combat, so what? If what they learn saves one extra life in a hundred, for once I count that as a win for the game, not just the player.
JBrew:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:23 CST
I'm in high school,
and I'm glad someone's
finally standing up
to the common "video
games make murderers
" school of thought.
yurimi:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:28 CST
"The techniques are great but some of the topics, tools and
ideas are evil. That needs to change."
Even violent games have their merits as kids and adults work through their frustrations in a controlled, fantasy environment.
frankly:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:29 CST
I played a couple games once. I learned that I wasn't very good.
WGibson:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:40 CST
As an Athropology major that is currently studying a videogame for it's story content, I'm glad a university is showing that there is more to videogames. I agree that they can be a valuable tool when coupled with other forms of learning.
August West:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:49 CST
Dang, man.
I'm really excited by the prospect of the video game interface for educational advancement! I think that some of the people here (who seem so vehemently against the notion) probably haven't played many video games themselves.
I mean, crap man, has anyone ever played Diablo (D2X)? My wife started to appreciate the complexity of the game as I explained to her the different skill tree matrices and such. I play single player and feel like a champ. I play online and am "schooled" by some of these 14-year olds who know more about this game and its sundry errata than a college course in the same could afford!
I mean, think about it!
"Statistical Warrior II: The Rise of Regression"
"Hey Josh! You gotta come over quick! I just got factor analysis capability on my IB (Inferentials Barbarian)! It's killer, man! Only 200,000 more experience points and I'll get progressive adjustment!! Think about it...moderators!"
amnesia:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:52 CST
Anyone who says games only exercise motor skills and don't exercise the mind is clearly an imbecile. Even simple arcade games like Pacman build reactive decision making skills - and more complex simulations like Civilization or SimCity promote a wide range of neurological skills. Studies have proven over and over that people who regularly play video games have quicker reflexes, better problem solving skills, and more creative cognitive skills than people who don't. MRI scans have shown brain activity is greatly heightened during game play - much more so than reading a book (which actually only exercizes a very small part of the brain by comparison). The comment about surgeons who only read books being more proficient is ridiculous - I read a recent study that showed that cosmetic surgeons who regularly played video games had a 35% less chance of failures/mishaps - because they had better coordination, better reflexes, and better problem solving skills. I know I definately wouldn't want to ride in a plane who's pilot had only read books and not spent any time in a flight sim. I know NASA would never send anybody up in a billion-dollar probe who had not gone through rigorous computer simulation. My 5 year old nephew has learned far more from educational software than from kindergarden -- in fact he's well above the reading/counting level of most of his classmates, mainly due to playing educational childrens software. MMORPG's often promote and reward teamwork and community effort - which also promotes good social behavior and teaches valuable cooperative skills that are essential in the real-world (why do you think every job description says "must have good communication skills - must be a team player"). Playing strategy games, like Warcraft or Command & Conquer, especially against others, promote more cognitive skills than I have room to mention here. There are far more options and decisions and problems to solve in your typical computer strategy game than in traditional strategy games like Chess or Go - are you saying Chess doesn't exercise the mind? That's funny, because for more than a thousand years, most of civilization has thought otherwise. There's also a logical dichotomy here -- if Chess is an accepted "brain booster" in real life, but computer games "don't exercise the brain", then what happens when you play chess on the computer? Does it magically loose all of it's benefits just because the board is represented electronically? That's absurd!
Sure, games like GTA are inappropriate for younger players. But I'm sick of people blaming the video game for bad parenting skills. If your child is too young to understand the content of mature games, then don't let them play it! You don't let them watch porn or snuff films do you? If your child is old enough to play those games but can't discern right from wrong, it's not because the game is evil, it's because you are a lousy parent! I'm sick and tired of video games getting a bad rap just because some parents can't control their children and don't take the time to actually be a parent to them. As a parent, it's up to you to give your child the knowledge to be able to properly sort out whatever data is given to them - whether in the form of a video game, movie, song, tv show, or any other media. If your child doesn't understand that killing people is wrong, or that in real life you can't just run up to any car in the street and jack it - don't blame the media, blame yourself!
One final point in my long rant. Everytime I read an article like this, I'm surprised that they always leave out one of the most glaring benefits of the gaming industry in general - the fact that the game industry is largely (indeed mostly) responsible for pushing the hardware industry to make things bigger, better, faster, and cheaper. You don't think nVidia and ATI spend millions each year trying to make faster and cheaper graphics chips so people can do their taxes with higher frame rates? You don't think hard drives are getting bigger, processors getting faster, ram becoming cheaper is all because of spreadsheets and the internet? Nope, it's because the computer game industry is constantly pushing the limitations of the hardware. So even if you don't like video games - you should be happy the rest of us do, because if we didn't, your computer would be much slower and more expensive than it is.
Final note: does this mean video games should replace books? Of course not! It means we should look at the benefits of gaming as a positive thing, and find a way we can create educational software that utilizes those benefits. I think the point of this discussion is not that we should have kids playing Half Life in the classroom rather than reading books - I think the whole point is that printed text is incredibly out-dated in our "multimedia age". Kids find textbooks boring, plain and simple. Kids find games interesting and engrossing. If we can find a way to utilize the benficial aspects of gaming to create an educational environment that kids WANT to learn in, then I think we'll have a winner.
UntamedPlayer:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:53 CST
I note that I came to this thread through the Slashdot link title "Games: Games Better Than Books?". As titles go, this is misleading and inflamatory. Effective performance in any complex endeavor typically involves the fusion of theoretical understanding, analytical skills and instinctive reactions. Whether you are driving a car, surviving a streetfight, giving a speech, or handling an angry customer, theory an analysis are useful before and after, but not during. IMHO the opportunity to fail without consequence, analyze, adjust,and try again is priceless.
Ferry:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:01 CST
Very good. Playing a videogame is like reading a novel. The only difference is that you (partly) write it yourself. For example Half Life 2. In this kind of game you really have to puzzle to get your way around. So, contrary to what is said before, videogames do not involve a passive brain. I think it will be the way to learn in future, giving more equality between people. Best would be to have a game extra to a book. So when you want to succeed in the first chapter of the game you need to have studied the first chapter of the book. This will be stimulating for those that don't like to read. An internet site under supervision of the teacher with the results (eg high scores) of the students on the subject will give competion between the students and will further stimulate certain students. For the ones that don't need all that, they can just do it the old fashioned way, just with the book.
GamingScientist:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:04 CST
Something a RPG game like Neverwinter Nights can help people do is plan ahead! As your character advances in the game you make decisions about what professions to learn, skills to learn, etc. It can teach people how to build skills and how to think of where you want to be x years from now and what you have to do between now and then to get there. What would be great is if someone could take that game engine and simulate a 4 (or 5!) year college plan where your character takes different classes and then you see where their skills are at the end of it. What would be tricky or difficult is fitting that into a specific school's curriculum and having some way to assess whether your final character build is what you want or not (ie if you want to be a doctor vs if you want to be a mechanical engineer vs if you want to be a historian, etc). The author(s) of such a program would have to determine what skills sets are necessary for various professions, which wouldn't be that easy. But it would still teach college freshmen the value of planning ahead and how to apply what's a fairly basic practice in RPG video games now to their real life.
amnesia:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:09 CST
Anyone who says games only exercise motor skills and don't exercise the mind is clearly an imbecile. Even simple arcade games like Pacman build reactive decision making skills - and more complex simulations like Civilization or SimCity promote a wide range of neurological skills. Studies have proven over and over that people who regularly play video games have quicker reflexes, better problem solving skills, and more creative cognitive skills than people who don't. MRI scans have shown brain activity is greatly heightened during game play - much more so than reading a book (which actually only exercizes a very small part of the brain by comparison). The comment about surgeons who only read books being more proficient is ridiculous - I read a recent study that showed that cosmetic surgeons who regularly played video games had a 35% less chance of failures/mishaps - because they had better coordination, better reflexes, and better problem solving skills. I know I definately wouldn't want to ride in a plane who's pilot had only read books and not spent any time in a flight sim. I know NASA would never send anybody up in a billion-dollar probe who had not gone through rigorous computer simulation. My 5 year old nephew has learned far more from educational software than from kindergarden -- in fact he's well above the reading/counting level of most of his classmates, mainly due to playing educational childrens software. MMORPG's often promote and reward teamwork and community effort - which also promotes good social behavior and teaches valuable cooperative skills that are essential in the real-world (why do you think every job description says "must have good communication skills - must be a team player"). Playing strategy games, like Warcraft or Command & Conquer, especially against others, promote more cognitive skills than I have room to mention here. There are far more options and decisions and problems to solve in your typical computer strategy game than in traditional strategy games like Chess or Go - are you saying Chess doesn't exercise the mind? That's funny, because for more than a thousand years, most of civilization has thought otherwise. There's also a logical dichotomy here -- if Chess is an accepted "brain booster" in real life, but computer games "don't exercise the brain", then what happens when you play chess on the computer? Does it magically loose all of it's benefits just because the board is represented electronically? That's absurd!
Sure, games like GTA are inappropriate for younger players. But I'm sick of people blaming the video game for bad parenting skills. If your child is too young to understand the content of mature games, then don't let them play it! You don't let them watch porn or snuff films do you? If your child is old enough to play those games but can't discern right from wrong, it's not because the game is evil, it's because you are a lousy parent! I'm sick and tired of video games getting a bad rap just because some parents can't control their children and don't take the time to actually be a parent to them. As a parent, it's up to you to give your child the knowledge to be able to properly sort out whatever data is given to them - whether in the form of a video game, movie, song, tv show, or any other media. If your child doesn't understand that killing people is wrong, or that in real life you can't just run up to any car in the street and jack it - don't blame the media, blame yourself!
One final point in my long rant. Everytime I read an article like this, I'm surprised that they always leave out one of the most glaring benefits of the gaming industry in general - the fact that the game industry is largely (indeed mostly) responsible for pushing the hardware industry to make things bigger, better, faster, and cheaper. You don't think nVidia and ATI spend millions each year trying to make faster and cheaper graphics chips so people can do their taxes with higher frame rates? You don't think hard drives are getting bigger, processors getting faster, ram becoming cheaper is all because of spreadsheets and the internet? Nope, it's because the computer game industry is constantly pushing the limitations of the hardware. So even if you don't like video games - you should be happy the rest of us do, because if we didn't, your computer would be much slower and more expensive than it is.
Final note: does this mean video games should replace books? Of course not! It means we should look at the benefits of gaming as a positive thing, and find a way we can create educational software that utilizes those benefits. I think the point of this discussion is not that we should have kids playing Half Life in the classroom rather than reading books - I think the whole point is that printed text is incredibly out-dated in our "multimedia age". Kids find textbooks boring, plain and simple. Kids find games interesting and engrossing. If we can find a way to utilize the benficial aspects of gaming to create an educational environment that kids WANT to learn in, then I think we'll have a winner.
dale:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:10 CST
Im 40 years old and grew up in the video games are evil world for the last 30 years or so. Videos games are not evil, yes they can be over the edge, but thats why we have those things called parents. Remember them? Parents teach their children what is right and wrong and choose for them.
I personally let my children play video games a few hours a day, they can tell you more about the history of the game (and maybe some real history becuase of it) and the articles/stuff they are using. They can also learn to budget, save money to buy more things, the thoery that working for something pays off in the end (and sometimes it doesn't). Pong wasn't the devlis work, Asteriods didn't make me rob people for quarters, Galaxia Didn't turn me into a druggy. In fact they all turned me into a (i think) well rounded business man who works very hard to achieve his needs. sadly they never taught me to speel correctly.
Sam:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:53 CST
Video games are a good supplement. Personally, I think textbooks teach the trivia, while videogames are the more in depth exploration. According to my Calculus teacher, a deep exploration of 1 thing's far better than knowing the surface of many (in grad school at lead). Although some skills learned in the games don't really get you anywhere in life (i.e. saving up 100k gold ever since you started the character and spending it all on the best weapon isn't really a good thing to teach), simulations are the closest you can get.
As for the med school students and residential trainees, perhaps an ER or OR game could be developed, and that could be a good place to practice for 3rd and 4th year students. It's better than failing on a real patient and getting yourself and/or the school sued. Perhaps just to add pressure, we could have a strict grading procedure based on video game aptitude (similar, but better than the way DDR grades the way you dance). It'd be hard to put in "the patient's life's at stake" situation and really make the student/trainee feel that, but an economic reason to perform well is still a good reason. That way they could get more of a feel for what it's like to operate under pressure, no pun intended.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm also a high school student so I wouldn't really know what's best, but videogames are like any public media; they're good if you use them well.
The Wooden Badger:
Jan 21, 2005, at 12:35 CST
I find this story very interesting. Education and true learning can truly be stimulated by game play. In some cases it can prove to be superior, in some inferior. In many cases a joint approach would be ideal. I find some of the comments interesting and some downright laughable. I'll pick on one and call it a day. I would not allow a surgeon to touch me that learned solely by book or game. I would much rather have a surgeon that learned by current methods. Having taken multiple anatomy classes in my college degree program, I can't even imagine a game that can come within lightyears of the experience of looking at many different cadavers and seeing how the body's parts sit next to each other and how amazingly different people can be from each other and the examples in anatomy books ( or the limited variety that would occur in a game). Games can be great, but there are significant limits on the "reality" they attempt to portray. This is doubtlessly true in many other fields and examples.
Jon:
Jan 21, 2005, at 12:58 CST
The key here is the emmersive environment that video games represent. Like movies and television but interactive. We now know that tv can b used for both valuable and worthless things. I agree video games can be similarly harnessed.
This has been long enough in comming. So long as it's done right videogames can become an invaluable resource.
Greg:
Jan 21, 2005, at 1:02 CST
The experience isn't the primary target for replacment here. Condensing book work and keeping interest in the mundane that's the primary focus.
kikimusume:
Jan 21, 2005, at 1:10 CST
it is a very misleading title and a poorly written article.
Barry Kelly:
Jan 21, 2005, at 2:52 CST
Interestingly enough, I finished reading "generation kill", the story of an emedded reporter in the latest Iraq war. One of the points he makes is that in WW2, a suprisingly high percentage of soldiers didn't fire their guns - even when faced almost directly with the enemy. Now-a-days, the ratio is extremely high. After a particular firefight the reporter went through (in generation kill), the soldiers were comparing it to GTA, a video game. I thought that was pretty interesting, the effect that gaming has had on those soldiers. From a military point of view, a good effect (the people are better at killing). From a civilian point of view, a bad effect (the people are better at killing).
ufoathome:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:09 CST
To the above poster, I'm not sure if GTA would be a prototypical game to makeing people "better at killing." Frankly, a FPS would do a better job, but still, only on a psychological level. Even then, if you had any emotional reponse, I doubt games would actually deaden one's fear of killing in real life.
mercury:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:13 CST
I think its fascinating to read this kind of research. One of the things that feels most lacking in educational environments is a non-intrusive interactive environment. Often a class setting is either too interactive, pushing the boundaries of a student's comfort levels, or not engaging enough.
The teachers I have had throughout the years have always tried pushed their students to interact, often saying that group interaction and class interaction simulate the real world, but as a young person, most people have an adverse reaction, because of the way this forced participation feels unnatural. It only seems logical that video-game type software, where the consequences of action and interaction don't seem so harsh, is a good direction to go.
Markian:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:27 CST
It's the Next Big Thing (tm) is it?
Socrates was the Next Big Thing. So was radio. Moving pictures was going to revolutionize the way people taught and learnt. Television was going to change the classroom irrevocably; combined with the telephone, everyone would be able to learn at home, all the time. Universities and schools would be obsolete. Until the computers changed everything. It would never be the same after that, until the internet came along. The internet will make travel entirely outmoded.
It is a great relief to hear that it is actually GAMES that will change the world. As I do research at the University of Alberta with the GAMES group (www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games), I am both relieved and vindicated!
Jason:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:35 CST
A video game could actually train soldiers to have faster and more accurate enemy-identification skills, thus reducing the number of civilian deaths. GTA is not that game, and can't be blamed for producing the opposite effect. It is the army's job to develop games (or other methods) that train soldiers to reduce wartime casualties for both sides (while still achieving victory). If the soldiers are killing civilians, then it's the failure of the army, not the failure of Rockstar games.
Marjee:
Jan 21, 2005, at 4:12 CST
As a student of the people that presented I would simply like to say that I am really glad that this semi-controversial topic is prompting people to talk about what learning is, what it means to "know" to problem solve, and how it is that we become good at things. One of the early posters made the embarrassing comment that once someone develops a compelling game that teaches differential equations-than s/he will be convinced. This shallow understanding of teaching and learning is the foundation upon we built modern schooling, and exactly the type of thinking the game research challenges.
Jason Stitt and Les Chappell • Published 01/20/05
Print this article • E-mail this article • 39 comments
Madison, Wis. — If the last video game you played was Pac-Man, you might have missed the advances that turned games into immersive training tools for skilled professionals and leaders.
Three University of Wisconsin-Madison professors, among the top researchers in learning through game-playing, explained the advantages of games over traditional teaching tools Thursday evening.
See a video of the event, which was held in Madison by Accelerate Madison and WTN
Ed Meachan, CIO of the UW System, called their research one of the better-kept secrets of the university. But the games they study, such as Halo, Half-life, and Lineage, are anything but secret.
The $10 billion-a-year gaming industry has already eclipsed Hollywood box-office sales, said Constance Steinkuehler, a UW-Madison cognitive researcher, and is on track to beat the music industry and home-video rentals. About 37 percent of both men and women say they play online games, she said, and more play a variety of single-player games.
“When you consider that we have 50 percent who even vote, we’re not doing that bad,” Steinkuehler said.
She and fellow UW professors James Gee and Kurt Squire argued that these types of games are much more than mindless entertainment, and derivatives of them could be used in schools or for corporate training. They work with the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory at UW-Madison, a testing ground for learning games.
Video games let their players step into new personas and explore alternatives. Not only that, but people can try to solve problems they’re not good at yet, get immediate feedback on the consequences and try again immediately.
Gee said the ability to explore right away makes games more engaging than textbooks or lectures. In schools, “you have to read 500 pages of biology and then you get to do biology,” he said. “Of course you only actually read 200. [A video] game allows you to perform before you’re competent.”
Because games keep things “pleasantly frustrating,” Gee said, players have incentives to keep on improving their performance. That can lead to learning outside the game as well. After his son started playing Age of Mythology, he started reading more about real-world mythology, Gee said.
“It’s the next big thing just because teachers have tried for the longest time to grab students’ attention, teach them concepts such as science,” said Ankur Malhotra, chief operating officer at NeuronFarm, which makes Web-based games meant to improve reading skills. “Gaming deals with a lot of these concepts, as they learn about all the tools, classifications and what makes a civilization function… I think there are some real lessons to be learned.”
One of the biggest users of games as training tools is the U.S. Army, which released the free tactical game America’s Army to boost its recruitment and has worked with commercial game companies on a variety of other titles.
“Gaming is old as dirt in military culture,” Squire said. Now, though, video games are becoming a more viable alternative to mock combats in the field.
Games such as America’s Army and Full Spectrum Warrior—which is available commercially with a fraction of the features the Army’s version has—are part of a culture shift in the military, he said. They contradict the view that soldiers are cannon-fodder and bolster the Army’s new branding of itself as a high-tech, professional workplace.
In Full Spectrum Warrior, Gee said, players lead a team of soldiers and must keep them all safe by using the right formations and maneuvers. Losing even one means the game is over.
Gee and his colleagues would like to make similar games that let players be scientists or take on other professional roles. Squire has worked on a game called Biohazard in which firefighters must react to dangerous situations. They learn the most effective ways to, for example, evacuate people from a mall after a sarin-gas attack. Firefighters like the game and even play it over break because it allows them to be heroes, he said—and because the game characters are smartly dressed.
Read more about the use of games in health-care training and the Games for Health conference in Madison
Games also let players be producers rather than just consumers. Many recent games allow “modding,” the insertion of new plot-lines, graphics and characters, or even the creation of entirely new games.
Squire mentioned the strategy game Civilization III, as well as first-person shooters such as Half-life. Role-playing games such as Neverwinter Nights also allow players a high degree of control.
“You can use Neverwinter Nights as an application development environment,” said Preston Austin, chief architect at Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. The game includes an event-driven programming language that lets people set up their own complex plots and scenarios, which they can share over the Internet.
Parents and teachers have not seen all of the current crop of games as good for children—some say violent games lead to violent behavior—but the three researchers said they contain valuable learning technologies.
“We’re not pushing games as good or bad,” Gee said. “It depends on what you’re doing.”
Jason Stitt is WTN's associate editor and can be reached at jason@wistechnology.com. Les Chappell is a staff writer and can be contacted at les@wistechnology.com
See other articles by Jason Stitt and Les Chappell.
Talk back
Flaor:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:23 CST
Great article, I am glad the event is getting coverage.
Hopefully someday we'll all look back at this and say this is where Wisconsin's World reknowned educational videogame industry began.
nathan stiles:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:30 CST
I have long believed that games further education rather than hinder. I am a med student and think the idea behind the biohazard game is particularly interesting
mcp:
Jan 21, 2005, at 8:57 CST
“We’re not pushing games as good or bad,” Gee said. “It depends on what you’re doing.”
Violence isn't always bad, but using violence as a means to train someone is.
I'll only be interested in games that are realistic, extreme situations arn't needed. It's like killing a ant with a hammer.
m:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:07 CST
Demons, guns, known gods and evil.... How could this really create a caring society ? The techniques are great but some of the topics, tools and
ideas are evil. That needs to change.
bob dobbs:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:08 CST
you gonna trust your surgery to a surgeon trained only on video games and not books? I have news for you- the human mind is more powerful than any video game will ever be. By reading, you exercise the mind, so it can handle any situation that comes up. Video games only stimulate the sensory and motor skills, which leaves the mind weak since it wont have a base of data to deal with new and unknown situations.
The idea that video games are a legit way to train for anything other instrument panel driven activities (flying, driving) is ridiculous. Full simulators are another story of course- but consumer games are a joke.
Matt:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:11 CST
Games are fine for teaching pre-cognitive reactions, which is why firefighting, army training, and that sort of thing works so well. If what you want to do is ingrain instinctual reactions, simulation works fine. The example of Neverwinter Nights is a bad one - now the student isn't *gaming* at all, but using a game as a *programming* platform. Are you going to teach the programming *inside* the game, or through some other mechanism? I totally believe that Neverwinter nights can be a great motivation for programming, but not a mechanism for teaching it.
Show me a game that can teach partial differential equations, that's also fun on its own and I'll change my mind.
hcw:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:11 CST
To the above poster: maybe that's true for most first-person shooters, but what about RPGs games that require interaction and solving puzzles?
There's more to gaming than Half-life, despite that being what everybodys making a big deal about.
J-F:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:27 CST
I disagree with the above statement. Books can be mentally stimulating, but so can video games.
On the other hand, books can only be mentally stimulating. They do not develop sensory or motor skills.
To be honest, I would rather be operated by a surgeon that played it than the one that read it.
keith:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:33 CST
UW-Madison are not the only people researching the potential of games for learning - check out http://www.seriousgamessummit.com and http://www.seriousgames.org.
Some Call Me Tim:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:36 CST
The ideology of a game can be adapted to to culture of the student; obviously religious zealots will not be inclined to allow teaching their kids outside their ideological idiom, unfortunately most of their idioms are so narrow as to allow only simulations of going to church and praying without wandering into the moral minefield of real life situations - se la vi. My children will eat theirs for lunch, because they won't cry when somebody says boo -- in the game, of course ;) If you find our imaginations repugnant, wait till you awaken and see our lives.
Dan:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:44 CST
So what does the Army do when the video game hero gets in a real battle situation and fills his pants due to fear. Video games might simulate a real situation, but don't seem to simulate the real emotion one feels in that situation. Does the doctor that performed very well on a video game using a controller all the sudden have shaky hands and can't handle the unexpected when surgery occurs because it didn't happen that way in the game?
I think games along with true knowledge gained from study and books would be good tools together.
Tim:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:46 CST
When I was a kid all the adventure/RPG games on computers required you to type out sentences. I was 4 years old and learning terms like "inventory" of my own volition, and went on to read books that most would consider far out of my age range (e.g., Lord of the Rings when I was 6 or 7). So I completely agree that games are not just evil time-wasters. Many of them are, no doubt, but games with high cognitive requirements for kids, or games with subject matter that stimulates interest in history are terrific. Anyone ever play Oregon Trail in grade school?
The one issue I have with things like simulations is that it is very hard to code for the type of unpredictability you would find in a real operating room or airplane. However flight simulators have been extremely successful, so I see no reason why you can't train a surgeon this way.
Shadow:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:56 CST
An unexpected event can always be simulated, if they log enough hours. Who says that they are only going to run through one possible situation?
This is an excellent idea, and will possibly give people the right idea that video games are not always immature, or mindless. They require a great deal of consideration (take Myst for example). They involve the user, instead of show, and what is most important is that people will stay interested.
mike:
Jan 21, 2005, at 9:58 CST
I'm sorry but the majority of you guys seem to be missing the point. They werent mentioning this as an alternative to all other learning. They are hopeful that it can ADD to training and education that is already in place. To enhance it not to replace it. I believe that if used properly it can add a great deal to the learning process in just about any field that it is applied.
Steph V.:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:04 CST
"To be honest, I would rather be operated by a surgeon that played it than the one that read it."
I agree with you! What the article says, is that by playing simulations, you could also get MORE interested in that field (ie: Age of Mythology). Playing AoM doesn't make you a historian, but reading afterwrads on the matter could very well lead you to studying History and become one. Everything is not Black & White as Mr. Bob Dobbs suggested above. And by ONLY reading on a topic, you won't be better at something than by ONLY playing/simulating it. Same applies to maths: you cannot learn all mathematical functions just by reading them, you have to try some on your own. Be it in a game or not, you have to DO it in order to perform better.
Chris:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:14 CST
I think some may have missed the point of the article, espicially those that are imagining playing Half Life or Doom as a school assignment. The idea being presented is to use the technology: the graphics rendering of Half Life, the advanced scripting of Neverwinter Nights, and so on. These tools could allow the creation of content that is truly useful for learning purposes.
I would never, ever allow someone who's only read a book about surgery to operate on me. Heck, I can go to the library or purchase medical texts, but it doesn't mean I know what I'm doing. By the same token, someone who just played a game isn't going to be anywhere near qualified either. The hope is that books and specialized games could supplement each other.
While we're on the subject I'd like to address the few zelots who seem to be posting: I am a gamer. I played Doom at 10 years old, and Half Life before I made it to high school. I'm also sane, social, and don't own a gun. I'm not a violent person, and I have a firm grip on reality. Demons, guns, known gods and evil indeed. I seem to recall certain religons committing atrocities in the name of a certain god, but I don't think I'd hold the many responsible for the faults of a few. I'd ask the same in return.
Ed Bishop:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:16 CST
It seems from some of these posts that people are assuming the logical extreme, but while at the event I at no time heard anyone say we should have our doctors in training play lineage and skip med school. I believe they argued that games (some types at least) can be a valid learning tool / cognitive experience to help people learn. They are not "The" substitute. They allow people to take risks they could not do in real life (an important contributor to learning) and do so cheaper than a real world simulation would do. If studies show that a surgeon who warms up with Monkey Ball before she operates or one who plays a few hours of video games a week (both valid published study results) show that the surgeon has a statistically significant smaller chance of (sometimes fatal) complications, I know who I'm going to want working on me. How about you? Same goes for combat medics and regular soldiers - games are a potential learning tool and if they don't totally prepare a soldier for the grim realities of combat, so what? If what they learn saves one extra life in a hundred, for once I count that as a win for the game, not just the player.
JBrew:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:23 CST
I'm in high school,
and I'm glad someone's
finally standing up
to the common "video
games make murderers
" school of thought.
yurimi:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:28 CST
"The techniques are great but some of the topics, tools and
ideas are evil. That needs to change."
Even violent games have their merits as kids and adults work through their frustrations in a controlled, fantasy environment.
frankly:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:29 CST
I played a couple games once. I learned that I wasn't very good.
WGibson:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:40 CST
As an Athropology major that is currently studying a videogame for it's story content, I'm glad a university is showing that there is more to videogames. I agree that they can be a valuable tool when coupled with other forms of learning.
August West:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:49 CST
Dang, man.
I'm really excited by the prospect of the video game interface for educational advancement! I think that some of the people here (who seem so vehemently against the notion) probably haven't played many video games themselves.
I mean, crap man, has anyone ever played Diablo (D2X)? My wife started to appreciate the complexity of the game as I explained to her the different skill tree matrices and such. I play single player and feel like a champ. I play online and am "schooled" by some of these 14-year olds who know more about this game and its sundry errata than a college course in the same could afford!
I mean, think about it!
"Statistical Warrior II: The Rise of Regression"
"Hey Josh! You gotta come over quick! I just got factor analysis capability on my IB (Inferentials Barbarian)! It's killer, man! Only 200,000 more experience points and I'll get progressive adjustment!! Think about it...moderators!"
amnesia:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:52 CST
Anyone who says games only exercise motor skills and don't exercise the mind is clearly an imbecile. Even simple arcade games like Pacman build reactive decision making skills - and more complex simulations like Civilization or SimCity promote a wide range of neurological skills. Studies have proven over and over that people who regularly play video games have quicker reflexes, better problem solving skills, and more creative cognitive skills than people who don't. MRI scans have shown brain activity is greatly heightened during game play - much more so than reading a book (which actually only exercizes a very small part of the brain by comparison). The comment about surgeons who only read books being more proficient is ridiculous - I read a recent study that showed that cosmetic surgeons who regularly played video games had a 35% less chance of failures/mishaps - because they had better coordination, better reflexes, and better problem solving skills. I know I definately wouldn't want to ride in a plane who's pilot had only read books and not spent any time in a flight sim. I know NASA would never send anybody up in a billion-dollar probe who had not gone through rigorous computer simulation. My 5 year old nephew has learned far more from educational software than from kindergarden -- in fact he's well above the reading/counting level of most of his classmates, mainly due to playing educational childrens software. MMORPG's often promote and reward teamwork and community effort - which also promotes good social behavior and teaches valuable cooperative skills that are essential in the real-world (why do you think every job description says "must have good communication skills - must be a team player"). Playing strategy games, like Warcraft or Command & Conquer, especially against others, promote more cognitive skills than I have room to mention here. There are far more options and decisions and problems to solve in your typical computer strategy game than in traditional strategy games like Chess or Go - are you saying Chess doesn't exercise the mind? That's funny, because for more than a thousand years, most of civilization has thought otherwise. There's also a logical dichotomy here -- if Chess is an accepted "brain booster" in real life, but computer games "don't exercise the brain", then what happens when you play chess on the computer? Does it magically loose all of it's benefits just because the board is represented electronically? That's absurd!
Sure, games like GTA are inappropriate for younger players. But I'm sick of people blaming the video game for bad parenting skills. If your child is too young to understand the content of mature games, then don't let them play it! You don't let them watch porn or snuff films do you? If your child is old enough to play those games but can't discern right from wrong, it's not because the game is evil, it's because you are a lousy parent! I'm sick and tired of video games getting a bad rap just because some parents can't control their children and don't take the time to actually be a parent to them. As a parent, it's up to you to give your child the knowledge to be able to properly sort out whatever data is given to them - whether in the form of a video game, movie, song, tv show, or any other media. If your child doesn't understand that killing people is wrong, or that in real life you can't just run up to any car in the street and jack it - don't blame the media, blame yourself!
One final point in my long rant. Everytime I read an article like this, I'm surprised that they always leave out one of the most glaring benefits of the gaming industry in general - the fact that the game industry is largely (indeed mostly) responsible for pushing the hardware industry to make things bigger, better, faster, and cheaper. You don't think nVidia and ATI spend millions each year trying to make faster and cheaper graphics chips so people can do their taxes with higher frame rates? You don't think hard drives are getting bigger, processors getting faster, ram becoming cheaper is all because of spreadsheets and the internet? Nope, it's because the computer game industry is constantly pushing the limitations of the hardware. So even if you don't like video games - you should be happy the rest of us do, because if we didn't, your computer would be much slower and more expensive than it is.
Final note: does this mean video games should replace books? Of course not! It means we should look at the benefits of gaming as a positive thing, and find a way we can create educational software that utilizes those benefits. I think the point of this discussion is not that we should have kids playing Half Life in the classroom rather than reading books - I think the whole point is that printed text is incredibly out-dated in our "multimedia age". Kids find textbooks boring, plain and simple. Kids find games interesting and engrossing. If we can find a way to utilize the benficial aspects of gaming to create an educational environment that kids WANT to learn in, then I think we'll have a winner.
UntamedPlayer:
Jan 21, 2005, at 10:53 CST
I note that I came to this thread through the Slashdot link title "Games: Games Better Than Books?". As titles go, this is misleading and inflamatory. Effective performance in any complex endeavor typically involves the fusion of theoretical understanding, analytical skills and instinctive reactions. Whether you are driving a car, surviving a streetfight, giving a speech, or handling an angry customer, theory an analysis are useful before and after, but not during. IMHO the opportunity to fail without consequence, analyze, adjust,and try again is priceless.
Ferry:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:01 CST
Very good. Playing a videogame is like reading a novel. The only difference is that you (partly) write it yourself. For example Half Life 2. In this kind of game you really have to puzzle to get your way around. So, contrary to what is said before, videogames do not involve a passive brain. I think it will be the way to learn in future, giving more equality between people. Best would be to have a game extra to a book. So when you want to succeed in the first chapter of the game you need to have studied the first chapter of the book. This will be stimulating for those that don't like to read. An internet site under supervision of the teacher with the results (eg high scores) of the students on the subject will give competion between the students and will further stimulate certain students. For the ones that don't need all that, they can just do it the old fashioned way, just with the book.
GamingScientist:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:04 CST
Something a RPG game like Neverwinter Nights can help people do is plan ahead! As your character advances in the game you make decisions about what professions to learn, skills to learn, etc. It can teach people how to build skills and how to think of where you want to be x years from now and what you have to do between now and then to get there. What would be great is if someone could take that game engine and simulate a 4 (or 5!) year college plan where your character takes different classes and then you see where their skills are at the end of it. What would be tricky or difficult is fitting that into a specific school's curriculum and having some way to assess whether your final character build is what you want or not (ie if you want to be a doctor vs if you want to be a mechanical engineer vs if you want to be a historian, etc). The author(s) of such a program would have to determine what skills sets are necessary for various professions, which wouldn't be that easy. But it would still teach college freshmen the value of planning ahead and how to apply what's a fairly basic practice in RPG video games now to their real life.
amnesia:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:09 CST
Anyone who says games only exercise motor skills and don't exercise the mind is clearly an imbecile. Even simple arcade games like Pacman build reactive decision making skills - and more complex simulations like Civilization or SimCity promote a wide range of neurological skills. Studies have proven over and over that people who regularly play video games have quicker reflexes, better problem solving skills, and more creative cognitive skills than people who don't. MRI scans have shown brain activity is greatly heightened during game play - much more so than reading a book (which actually only exercizes a very small part of the brain by comparison). The comment about surgeons who only read books being more proficient is ridiculous - I read a recent study that showed that cosmetic surgeons who regularly played video games had a 35% less chance of failures/mishaps - because they had better coordination, better reflexes, and better problem solving skills. I know I definately wouldn't want to ride in a plane who's pilot had only read books and not spent any time in a flight sim. I know NASA would never send anybody up in a billion-dollar probe who had not gone through rigorous computer simulation. My 5 year old nephew has learned far more from educational software than from kindergarden -- in fact he's well above the reading/counting level of most of his classmates, mainly due to playing educational childrens software. MMORPG's often promote and reward teamwork and community effort - which also promotes good social behavior and teaches valuable cooperative skills that are essential in the real-world (why do you think every job description says "must have good communication skills - must be a team player"). Playing strategy games, like Warcraft or Command & Conquer, especially against others, promote more cognitive skills than I have room to mention here. There are far more options and decisions and problems to solve in your typical computer strategy game than in traditional strategy games like Chess or Go - are you saying Chess doesn't exercise the mind? That's funny, because for more than a thousand years, most of civilization has thought otherwise. There's also a logical dichotomy here -- if Chess is an accepted "brain booster" in real life, but computer games "don't exercise the brain", then what happens when you play chess on the computer? Does it magically loose all of it's benefits just because the board is represented electronically? That's absurd!
Sure, games like GTA are inappropriate for younger players. But I'm sick of people blaming the video game for bad parenting skills. If your child is too young to understand the content of mature games, then don't let them play it! You don't let them watch porn or snuff films do you? If your child is old enough to play those games but can't discern right from wrong, it's not because the game is evil, it's because you are a lousy parent! I'm sick and tired of video games getting a bad rap just because some parents can't control their children and don't take the time to actually be a parent to them. As a parent, it's up to you to give your child the knowledge to be able to properly sort out whatever data is given to them - whether in the form of a video game, movie, song, tv show, or any other media. If your child doesn't understand that killing people is wrong, or that in real life you can't just run up to any car in the street and jack it - don't blame the media, blame yourself!
One final point in my long rant. Everytime I read an article like this, I'm surprised that they always leave out one of the most glaring benefits of the gaming industry in general - the fact that the game industry is largely (indeed mostly) responsible for pushing the hardware industry to make things bigger, better, faster, and cheaper. You don't think nVidia and ATI spend millions each year trying to make faster and cheaper graphics chips so people can do their taxes with higher frame rates? You don't think hard drives are getting bigger, processors getting faster, ram becoming cheaper is all because of spreadsheets and the internet? Nope, it's because the computer game industry is constantly pushing the limitations of the hardware. So even if you don't like video games - you should be happy the rest of us do, because if we didn't, your computer would be much slower and more expensive than it is.
Final note: does this mean video games should replace books? Of course not! It means we should look at the benefits of gaming as a positive thing, and find a way we can create educational software that utilizes those benefits. I think the point of this discussion is not that we should have kids playing Half Life in the classroom rather than reading books - I think the whole point is that printed text is incredibly out-dated in our "multimedia age". Kids find textbooks boring, plain and simple. Kids find games interesting and engrossing. If we can find a way to utilize the benficial aspects of gaming to create an educational environment that kids WANT to learn in, then I think we'll have a winner.
dale:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:10 CST
Im 40 years old and grew up in the video games are evil world for the last 30 years or so. Videos games are not evil, yes they can be over the edge, but thats why we have those things called parents. Remember them? Parents teach their children what is right and wrong and choose for them.
I personally let my children play video games a few hours a day, they can tell you more about the history of the game (and maybe some real history becuase of it) and the articles/stuff they are using. They can also learn to budget, save money to buy more things, the thoery that working for something pays off in the end (and sometimes it doesn't). Pong wasn't the devlis work, Asteriods didn't make me rob people for quarters, Galaxia Didn't turn me into a druggy. In fact they all turned me into a (i think) well rounded business man who works very hard to achieve his needs. sadly they never taught me to speel correctly.
Sam:
Jan 21, 2005, at 11:53 CST
Video games are a good supplement. Personally, I think textbooks teach the trivia, while videogames are the more in depth exploration. According to my Calculus teacher, a deep exploration of 1 thing's far better than knowing the surface of many (in grad school at lead). Although some skills learned in the games don't really get you anywhere in life (i.e. saving up 100k gold ever since you started the character and spending it all on the best weapon isn't really a good thing to teach), simulations are the closest you can get.
As for the med school students and residential trainees, perhaps an ER or OR game could be developed, and that could be a good place to practice for 3rd and 4th year students. It's better than failing on a real patient and getting yourself and/or the school sued. Perhaps just to add pressure, we could have a strict grading procedure based on video game aptitude (similar, but better than the way DDR grades the way you dance). It'd be hard to put in "the patient's life's at stake" situation and really make the student/trainee feel that, but an economic reason to perform well is still a good reason. That way they could get more of a feel for what it's like to operate under pressure, no pun intended.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm also a high school student so I wouldn't really know what's best, but videogames are like any public media; they're good if you use them well.
The Wooden Badger:
Jan 21, 2005, at 12:35 CST
I find this story very interesting. Education and true learning can truly be stimulated by game play. In some cases it can prove to be superior, in some inferior. In many cases a joint approach would be ideal. I find some of the comments interesting and some downright laughable. I'll pick on one and call it a day. I would not allow a surgeon to touch me that learned solely by book or game. I would much rather have a surgeon that learned by current methods. Having taken multiple anatomy classes in my college degree program, I can't even imagine a game that can come within lightyears of the experience of looking at many different cadavers and seeing how the body's parts sit next to each other and how amazingly different people can be from each other and the examples in anatomy books ( or the limited variety that would occur in a game). Games can be great, but there are significant limits on the "reality" they attempt to portray. This is doubtlessly true in many other fields and examples.
Jon:
Jan 21, 2005, at 12:58 CST
The key here is the emmersive environment that video games represent. Like movies and television but interactive. We now know that tv can b used for both valuable and worthless things. I agree video games can be similarly harnessed.
This has been long enough in comming. So long as it's done right videogames can become an invaluable resource.
Greg:
Jan 21, 2005, at 1:02 CST
The experience isn't the primary target for replacment here. Condensing book work and keeping interest in the mundane that's the primary focus.
kikimusume:
Jan 21, 2005, at 1:10 CST
it is a very misleading title and a poorly written article.
Barry Kelly:
Jan 21, 2005, at 2:52 CST
Interestingly enough, I finished reading "generation kill", the story of an emedded reporter in the latest Iraq war. One of the points he makes is that in WW2, a suprisingly high percentage of soldiers didn't fire their guns - even when faced almost directly with the enemy. Now-a-days, the ratio is extremely high. After a particular firefight the reporter went through (in generation kill), the soldiers were comparing it to GTA, a video game. I thought that was pretty interesting, the effect that gaming has had on those soldiers. From a military point of view, a good effect (the people are better at killing). From a civilian point of view, a bad effect (the people are better at killing).
ufoathome:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:09 CST
To the above poster, I'm not sure if GTA would be a prototypical game to makeing people "better at killing." Frankly, a FPS would do a better job, but still, only on a psychological level. Even then, if you had any emotional reponse, I doubt games would actually deaden one's fear of killing in real life.
mercury:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:13 CST
I think its fascinating to read this kind of research. One of the things that feels most lacking in educational environments is a non-intrusive interactive environment. Often a class setting is either too interactive, pushing the boundaries of a student's comfort levels, or not engaging enough.
The teachers I have had throughout the years have always tried pushed their students to interact, often saying that group interaction and class interaction simulate the real world, but as a young person, most people have an adverse reaction, because of the way this forced participation feels unnatural. It only seems logical that video-game type software, where the consequences of action and interaction don't seem so harsh, is a good direction to go.
Markian:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:27 CST
It's the Next Big Thing (tm) is it?
Socrates was the Next Big Thing. So was radio. Moving pictures was going to revolutionize the way people taught and learnt. Television was going to change the classroom irrevocably; combined with the telephone, everyone would be able to learn at home, all the time. Universities and schools would be obsolete. Until the computers changed everything. It would never be the same after that, until the internet came along. The internet will make travel entirely outmoded.
It is a great relief to hear that it is actually GAMES that will change the world. As I do research at the University of Alberta with the GAMES group (www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games), I am both relieved and vindicated!
Jason:
Jan 21, 2005, at 3:35 CST
A video game could actually train soldiers to have faster and more accurate enemy-identification skills, thus reducing the number of civilian deaths. GTA is not that game, and can't be blamed for producing the opposite effect. It is the army's job to develop games (or other methods) that train soldiers to reduce wartime casualties for both sides (while still achieving victory). If the soldiers are killing civilians, then it's the failure of the army, not the failure of Rockstar games.
Marjee:
Jan 21, 2005, at 4:12 CST
As a student of the people that presented I would simply like to say that I am really glad that this semi-controversial topic is prompting people to talk about what learning is, what it means to "know" to problem solve, and how it is that we become good at things. One of the early posters made the embarrassing comment that once someone develops a compelling game that teaches differential equations-than s/he will be convinced. This shallow understanding of teaching and learning is the foundation upon we built modern schooling, and exactly the type of thinking the game research challenges.
posted by ffpaladin at 2:44 PM
0 comments
