[Pharo-project] about video games
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
Really interesting. The last sentence from the first link, when the kid says "I'm just cheating the game", makes me wonder if scientists are kids trying to cheat the real world game ;) On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:09 PM, 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Patrick Barroca
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. Mike
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.
Mike  _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
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
the second is scary :) On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:19 AM, Igor Stasenko 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.
Mike _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 15 March 2010 08:00, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
the second is scary :)
WoW and alike is the most stupid games i ever seen. What is frustrating that these games are not progressing over a years, no! Instead i see the tendency how they becoming less and less challenging to players. Every new game i read about or taking a look - everything is the same, just with more fancy graphics. Raising a herd of 'creative' executives using WoW, would be a stupidiest thing which i would do :) Because its pool of creativity is very shallow and primitive. "The degree of complexity and challenge increases dramatically as you advance across levels, and the number of experience points needed in order to advance also increases sharply with each level." Bullshit. The degree of complexity and challenges become same. Its just become more time consuming, because a usual quest, on say level 5 is to kill 10 monsters, and on level 50 is to kill 100 or 200 monsters. This is an 'increase' of challenge :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 March 2010 08:00, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
the second is scary :)
WoW and alike is the most stupid games i ever seen. What is frustrating that these games are not progressing over a years, no! Instead i see the tendency how they becoming less and less challenging to players. Every new game i read about or taking a look - everything is the same, just with more fancy graphics.
Raising a herd of 'creative' executives using WoW, would be a stupidiest thing which i would do :) Because its pool of creativity is very shallow and primitive.
"The degree of complexity and challenge increases dramatically as you advance across levels, and the number of experience points needed in order to advance also increases sharply with each level."
Bullshit. The degree of complexity and challenges become same. Its just become more time consuming, because a usual quest, on say level 5 is to kill 10 monsters, and on level 50 is to kill 100 or 200 monsters. This is an 'increase' of challenge :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On a positive note, my daughters love to work with Scratch. Mike
On a positive note, my daughters love to work with Scratch.
That is positive, and the perfect segue into my criticism of the article's claims about kids learning science from video games. While I agree that WoW presents "personally meaningful" objectives to the players, causing them to take an interest in the "science" defeating the monsters, I do not think it engages the creative mind at the same level the constructionism element present in Scratch and Etoys do.. - Chris
participants (6)
-
Chris Muller -
Igor Stasenko -
Michael Forster -
Michael J. Forster
-
Patrick Barroca -
Stéphane Ducasse