On 2010-03-14, at 20:19, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 March 2010 02:59, Michael J. Forster <mike@sharedlogic.ca> wrote:
On 2010-03-14, at 16:09, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria. fr> wrote:
A friend of mine sent this interesting links
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2008/09/gamesfron...
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2009/id20090114_362962.htm
Worth to read.
Stef
The students might have employed the scientific method, but the article itself is not a good example of even populist science writing.
The author states that enrollment in the sciences has fallen because of boring presentation of facts and that video games offer a rejuvenated quest for facts. How do we know that enrollment has declined for that claimed reason? How do we know that it's not the subject matter of video games that interests the students, and that students won't shoe the same disinterest when we apply video games to, say, biology or particle physics?
I would never discard a new viable approach to teaching and learning, but this sounds a lot like the ethanol solution to climate change.
Hmm, i didn't read a second link, but from a first one i think it says that it doesn't makes students to be more interested in theory or fundamental science. What it does, is teaching them the way of thinking, exactly how scientific method works. So, then, once they realising that, it is much easier for them to learn more diffucult things and apply the same approach to a different areas.
Well, as I said, the articles themselves are hardly scientific in their assertions and analysis. My point is that, as I have observed in students I have studied with and those I have taught, understanding the scientific method is not the hurdle. Finding the motivation and patience to carry out the slow painstaking work of applying that scientific method -- doing the work of science -- is what turns people away. Science is very hard work, and, materialistically, the pay sucks. So, if I were to reason as recklessly as the authors, I would argue that as much of the problem lies with a generation of instant- gratification seeking people as it does with boring old science classes. Further, I might rant that it was video games that created that problem. Heck, the best that we can hope for is that these kids will end up applying the scientific method to online poker. Of course, that wouldn't be very scientific of me ;-) Anyway, yes, it was worth a read. Thanks for that, Stephane. Mike