Do Gamers Score Better in School?- David McDivitt Yes. But not because they are gamers. Here’s my story.
The entire town of Converse, Indiana – population 1,200 – is smaller than some high schools in America. So it might surprise people to know that, despite our diminutive size, we are doing some big things with interactive technology here at Oak Hill High School where I teach Social Studies and World History. And during the course of writing this article, it has also dawned on me that I (and my students) am carving out new territory in the world of education. They tell me I’m a “trailblazer” for using video games to teach serious subjects. Heck, I’m just happy if our football teams wins. (I’m also a football coach.) Anyway, until such time as there are standards for video game-based curriculum, or a set of state or federal guidelines on using video games in the classroom, we are pretty much left to our own initiative to explore these new ideas. That’s good and bad, depending upon who you are. If you are like me, and are growing increasingly concerned about what and how our teenagers are learning . . . you’ll push the envelope every chance you get. Our chance first arrived last fall when we started experimenting with a new turn-based strategy game called Making History by Muzzy Lane Software. It’s the first video game I’ve come across that is designed to work in the classroom at higher grade levels, namely high schools and colleges. The game tasks students, either in teams or individually, to assume leadership of a country in the World War II timeframe, from about 1938 to 1945. You can choose a variety of scenarios and time segments depending upon what you’re teaching in class. The key is that students become responsible for the fate of their country. As a simulation game, the kids actually live the history, they don’t just read about it. Why The Time Has Come As a sports coach, a teacher and, by the way, a parent of three daughters, I feel like I’ve got a good perspective on the “whole student.” Too often the educational system sees our young students – and our future leaders – as abstract entities. Vessels that have or haven’t absorbed some volume of knowledge, as if it were a liquid. There are still too many old stereotypes about learning that are the basis for setting policies and testing standards. Public education in America operates on a manufacturing metaphor. Line up the parts, send ‘em down the line, inspect them, then ship them out. The assembly line idea couldn’t be more out of synch with the way a wired (and now wireless) teenager deals with information and with other people. They are social in fundamentally different ways than when we were in high school. Yes, there is still peer pressure and acne. But what’s new is what isn’t there: Barriers to communication and sharing of information. Technology has reduced and in some instances eliminated the distances and timeframes that defined the way we learned 20 years ago. This is a destabilizing thought for some people. So was rock ‘n roll. The teenagers walking into my classroom have iPods, cell phones (with movies on them) and twitching fingers from constant IMing and video games they play when they are not in class. So I jumped at the chance to try Making History when it first came out. To their credit, the company behind the game was extremely honest about how to use the game and how not to use it. They warned against using the game just to babysit antsy teenagers. As an educator, I was very impressed with the depth of educational sensibility they built into the game. Anyway, we dove in and after the first game session it was abundantly clear that we were onto something quite new and different. If nothing else, the enthusiasm level of the kids in my class easily tripled. Even the zoned out kids who rarely participate in class started to perk up. The excitement over something new to do in class, especially something electronic, was not all that surprising. But what did grab my attention was the degree to which the kids talked about the game outside of the classroom. My first anecdotal evidence on the teaching potential of games was this ‘carryover’ effect; conversations about game scenarios spilling out in the hallways, the lunch room and even after school (kids coming in after 3:00 wanting another turn!). The important thing was what they were talking about. Things like “hey dude, you weren’t supposed to invade my country, we had a defense agreement!” Extracurricular conversations about the politics of leadership are not something I typically see after reading a chapter of a textbook. These ambient discussions, combined with the new kinds of “teachable moments” the game served up during class, convinced me to take things to another level. Game Forward So, back to the future. Just a couple of weeks ago I completed a week-long series of Making History game sessions with three different classes, totaling about 65 students. The big difference this semester is the scope of the effort and the fact that I set up a control group to try and find out if the game players were learning differently or better than the non-game players. While the kids were answering questions like: “What was the purpose of the 1938 Munich Conference” I was asking: “Do students using the right kind of video game actually learn more about the material being taught in school?” And the answer, at least in specific areas, seems to be “yes.” My testing protocol involved 110 students across five classes. Three classes (65 students) played and two classes (45 students) did not. All the students were covering the same material, in this case the period of Western Europe just prior to World War II. My educational objectives are to teach kids about the causes of WWII and to understand the key events and political maneuvers that set stage for global conflict. The non-game classes were my control group. They addressed the material the same way we always do: with textbooks, lectures, reading assignments and in-class discussion.
The game groups replaced their text books with the video game. For an entire week the gamers did not once open their textbooks. We of course also held in-class discussions, a piece of the teaching equation that, as I alluded to earlier, became much more pronounced while using the video game. Just prior to game week, to help me decide what impact the game itself would have on the students’ learning and retention of the material, I pre-tested all students with a set of identical questions. The test covered geography, leadership and causes for war. One of the tests was a blank map outline of Europe in 1938. I asked the kids to write in the names of the countries. At the end of game week, I tested the kids again, to see what improvement they made and to compare the scores of game players versus a control group of students not playing the game (but learning the same material). To be honest, I am still going over all the results and evaluating the qualitative experiences of the two groups as well. But here are a few conclusions I have drawn already regarding some of the key subject matter covered during the week, indicated in this graph.
These results clearly indicate a measurable gain in the comprehension of core educational material by the kids using the video game. I should also note there were no questions on which game players did more poorly than the control group. In addition, I found that the game group was more thorough, and you might say “thoughtful,” in their follow-up writing assignments. Essays are extremely useful in the education process because they show me about a student’s thought process, how they sort and connect information. The answers that the students wrote before game week were, to be honest, simple and uninformed. Given the same writing assignment after game week, I thought the gamers’ papers were considerably more thought provoking.
As I read through the answers it became apparent that a connection was made by the game-players that was not made by the control group. Understanding the workings of the Munich Conference was real to the students who participated in the game since it was the focus of the scenario we played. However, the control group, who covered the material in the traditional manner did not get it. Lessons Learned One of the most important things I would tell other educators is don’t be afraid of video games. First, if you are using the right game for the right reasons you are bound to have a more controllable experience that will feel to you and your students like a familiar part of their school experience. Likewise, if the company that develops and supports the game has its roots in education, you will have the kind of help you need to set up your class plans and deal with any usability or technical issues that come up (which in my experience were literally none).
Games are not a panacea to all the problems of education. It would be silly to look at any educational tool that way. I realize that the hype, both for and against, can sometimes make the decision to use video games in the classroom feel apocalyptic. My advice: Don’t get so worked up. Our students . . . these digital teenagers . . . see technology, including things like video games, as a seamless part of their every day lives. They see the Internet the way we see telephones: “what’s the big deal?” But try living without it! Recent studies have shown that teenagers don’t even consider the Internet to be a technology. It’s just there. The change has already occurred. It is now a question of whether educators will update their repertoires to address that change. My argument, therefore, is that video games belong in the same breath (and budget) as other “traditional” teaching tools.
|
