Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The classroom arcade
As a 7th and 9th grade science teacher, my husband can attest that many high school students aren’t all that hyped up about science. (And I can attest that it’s not due to a lack of effort on his part!) But the Federation of American Scientists has a plan to revolutionize science education–and it hinges on introducing video games to the classroom.
FAS president Henry Kelly thinks video games have enormous potential as teaching tools simply because they make learning fun.
“The goal is to hook you,” Kelly said. “You can reach people who think they hate the subject. The minute you get swept up in the thing, you sort of forget that you hate science.”
But is it that simple? Some critics worry about the long-term effect on students, arguing that such educational video games will leave students unprepared for textbook-based higher education.
“You have to take into account that any type of video or computer game is in fact a simulation,” [said Eugene Provenzo, a professor in the University of Miami's School of Education] who deals with issues involving technology and children. “Simulations aren’t necessarily what the real world is like. It has terrific potential … but it is not neutral, and may not be accurate.”
What’s your take?
back to top13 Comments to “The classroom arcade”
Report comment to moderator
Is this another example of letting the inmates run the asylum? Perhaps more hands-on labs which show the students what science can be would go much farther than another video game.
Report comment to moderator
I’d love to see more video games that promote actual learning. I visited the science museum in Nashville, TN, last January when they had an emphasis on the human body. One of the exhibits was a video game where two teams rushed to get rid of the germs and viruses trying to harm the body. I wanted to push the kids out and play myself. Fortunately, I was not that selfish. As long as science classes aren’t reduced to just video games, I think they would be a great addition.
Report comment to moderator
Used as they are intended – as a supplement to the regular curriculum – they can enhance learning. Not every science topic will lend itself to being presented as part of a video game, but this first one, with the immune system, sounds very good.
Yesterday our family watched a DVD of Mythbusters (to celebrate Fathers Day – my husband really loves that series). We both commented on how good a tool it could be to get kids interested in science, seeing how the Mythbusters crew has to take into account the various variables that could be affecting their results, providing a control group to compare with, looking for various ways to approach the same question, etc.
There’s no reason why it has to be a choice between traditional study and use of fun new technology – they both have their place.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Pauline about Mythbusters.
Given my experience with smart kids and computers, they get enough game playing at home. A lot of science is hands-on and taking another aspect of their education and making it less kinetic, is problematic and short sighted.
Science should be about exploring the world, not observing it through a screen and someone else’s experience.
Report comment to moderator
“…such educational video games will leave students unprepared for textbook-based higher education.”
Who says higher education is going to remain textbook-based? The dumbing down of education has not been constrained to K-12.
Report comment to moderator
“The goal is to hook you,” Kelly said. “You can reach people who think they hate the subject. The minute you get swept up in the thing, you sort of forget that you hate science.”
This is the goal of any educator. If the “thing” the student gets “swept up in” is the science and not the game, then it will translate into books, labs, field studies, whatever.
Report comment to moderator
The tutoring program through which I volunteer (reading) uses the Orton-Gillingham method, the foundation of which is a multi-sensory approach. Therefore, playing games is one method we use. My particular student had the career goal of designing computer games, so after we had tried some of the routine games, we took to developing our own. This was an awesome tool in many ways. We got to think through a project together; we got to try and critique our ideas; we used a repetitive cycle of testing and improving; and we had great fun playing our own games. One week he actually sat and wrote out 450 cards, each with a consonant-le on it (dle, cle, tle, etc.) that were going to be part of a larger set of cards. He was very excited about it. Think of the contrast to how he would have felt if I’d shown up and said, “Today your assignment is to write dle, cle, tle, etc. 450 times.”
Report comment to moderator
I had a hockey coach who was also very well versed in physics. He taught a lot of math, geometry and physics concepts through hockey. I learned a lot of physics that way (and was a better player for him as well).
If done right, it will be beneficial, if done poorly it will not.
Report comment to moderator
“Who says higher education is going to remain textbook-based? The dumbing down of education has not been constrained to K-12.”
The world is not textbook-based. THE premier way of teaching, for example, physics, is not by reading it in a text book, but by the “modeling” curriculum. Modeling Physics The emphasis is on observing, building models, and applying those models, and it is a very powerful way to achieve deep understanding – deeper than most textbooks can possibly cover.
It is more difficult to do well than simply following along a text book, but those who use it mostly foreswear texts, or use them only in a supplemental way, after they have developed the basic models.
As for video games, I had the opportunity last fall to do a week of observation of two master teachers. They aren’t doctrinaire in their use of the modeling curriculum, including more direct instruction methods at the beginning of each unit, for example.
Anyway, these two teachers have developed literally hundreds of lab activities for their students – no two lab groups in any unit are doing the same activity. I was surprised that some of the units include use of videogames.
For example, they have students analyze the motion of characters in maze-like games, to develop concepts of distance versus displacement, and use of vectors. Other video games required the students to estimate distances based on something like the height of a character, and then use frame-by-frame analysis to determine whether, or how realistically, accelaration while falling is built into the game world.
The physics that are built into many of the newer video games are indeed very richly detailed, including surface behaviour, light and optical ray tracing, mass, accelaration, force and on and on.
Less detailed “games” are very effective in teaching particular concepts. There are very good “physlets” – Java-based applications – some of which feel a bit like a video game. All require some direction by the teacher in order to be really useful.
When you recall that what we are doing in physics really is just building a very detailed model of the world, using mathematical tools, it makes sense that video games set in simplified model worlds have a place in visualizing, learning, and applying, science.
Report comment to moderator
This is the goal of any educator. If the “thing” the student gets “swept up in” is the science and not the game, then it will translate into books, labs, field studies, whatever.
Just a hunch, Adios, but knowing our culture these days, I have a feeling what they will get swept up in is the game.
I used to play a Weather game, and I don’t remember much at all about weather. I remember the funny character and giving the crocodile a candy bar to keep him busy, but no weather at all. I predict the “science video game” will be the same way.
Report comment to moderator
Many science “experiments” are on video so there is less chance for the “little darlings” to get hurt; lawsuits and all.
Hands on? Not so much…
Report comment to moderator
One word, FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology).
FIRST pairs students with volunteer engineers, scientists, and machinists. They work together to build a remote control device (robot) to play a game. They have about six weeks to come up with a concept, prove it, build it, program it, and ship it. The robots weigh up to 145lbs and are typically 30″x36″x60″, though the game and size requirements change from year to year. Driving one is like playing a video game in real life.
They play the game in teams of three robots at local competitions. The competitions are loud and exciting, it is like being at a sporting event. In fact we use sports venues for Regionals and the Championship has been held for the past few years in the Geogia Dome.
Last year we had about 1500 teams competing in 42 Regional competitions across the US and in Brazil, Canada, and Israel. The average team has 20 students, but they range in size from four to over 100.
It is fun
It is science-based
It is hands-on
It shows students how to do engineering
It shows student THEY can be engineers
There are almost $9M in scholarships for the participants
and did I mention it is fun?
More details on their website http://www.usfirst.org
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!