Live data from Hacker News

Video Games Are the Future of Education

nabeelqu.co

201–210 of 392 posts

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#201
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. I received a small ($150k) NSF grant back in 2010 and made a semi-popular science education app/game for iPad. It was featured by Apple a few times and was even in an iPad commercial - it made basically no money.

Can you share the name and does it still exist?

It's this: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/powers-of-minus-ten/id42912355...

(note: I am not OP)

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#202
post #59

I own a educational game company. Long story short: it doesn't sell. At my company we identified, at least if your target is kids, two ways to sell edu games. 1. Sell them to institutions, like governments, schools, companies, whatever. Thing is, the features they look when choosing a game to buy, are ones most likely to make the game unfun, the end result is often boring stuff noone WANTS to play. 2. Sell them to th…

> Long story short: it doesn't sell.

This can often be a problem with education in general, not educational games specifically.

Trying to make money in education is like trying to make money in news: you can’t. Both are vital, and both ultimately no one wants to pay for.

Disclaimer: I used to work at an educational startup, which failed. No, I’m not bitter. (Well, maybe a little.)

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#203
post #53

The language in this article about knowledge you "feel in your body" is only briefly mentioned is the concept of "tacit" knowledge, further developed here: Tacit knowledge is more important than deliberate practice https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23465862 The article rightly prizes tacit knowlege, but does not lay any argument for why games would give us tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is primarily gained only…

Games have certain advantages over real life in terms of providing experience:

--- shorter feedback loops: you can play through a game of Civilization in a few hours/days. There is no analogous real-life experience.

--- non-severe failure consequences: If you fail in Kerbal Space Program, there is no Challenger explosion

--- repetition: Real life usually doesn't provide similar conditions to make for valid experiments. Games can do exactly that

--- breadth of experience: In the same way books transport us, and let us visit other places and situations, games can do the same.

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people, poker will probably more likely lead into a gambling addiction (or at least a habit of regularly flushing money down the train at the tables) than an inquiry into probability and statistics. Most people are probably just not inquisitive enough to dig into the maths behind poker.

I think you need a teacher to put the game in context. Let's put aside for a moment the optics of a school teacher having their class play Poker (even though obviously they wouldn't be using money). I can imagine a lesson plan going something like: 1. Have kids play some individual games with each other. 2. Stop the games, and go over some of the actual math concepts behind Poker. At this point, the kids are engaged…

Learning via video games is so powerful for many kids because of the agency they're provided. Also they are intrinsically motivated to play the game and they can't help but learn.

"Stop the games", "put the game in context", etc. mostly kills this feeling for many kids. Only the most skilled teachers are able to do this without making the whole thing unfun.

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#205
post #59

I own a educational game company. Long story short: it doesn't sell. At my company we identified, at least if your target is kids, two ways to sell edu games. 1. Sell them to institutions, like governments, schools, companies, whatever. Thing is, the features they look when choosing a game to buy, are ones most likely to make the game unfun, the end result is often boring stuff noone WANTS to play. 2. Sell them to th…

I think it's this simple: Making successful, novel games is very difficult. Most people/groups fail. Adding an educational component multiplies the unlikely probability of success by a very unhelpful coefficient. Adrenaline, story, polish -- this aspects now compete with an educational aspect.

It is true that making games is hard and making a profit on them even harder. I disagree, however, that adrenaline/story/polish necessarily compete with the educational aspect. I think The Learning Company soundly disproved that through the mid-90s.

I happened to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the height of the education game boom in the early/mid-90s, so I got to play the fun Math Blasters, ClueFinders, Carmen Sandiegos, Incredible Machines, Dr. Brains, Zoombinis, and also a bunch of adventure games which featured some logical/observation puzzles like the Myst series (never mind others mentioned like Oregon Trail, Civilization, etc). So I'm a strong believer that -someone- could pick up the magic that The Learning Company (and Broderbund) once owned.

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#206
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need a teacher to put the game in context. Let's put aside for a moment the optics of a school teacher having their class play Poker (even though obviously they wouldn't be using money). I can imagine a lesson plan going something like: 1. Have kids play some individual games with each other. 2. Stop the games, and go over some of the actual math concepts behind Poker. At this point, the kids are engaged…

Learning via video games is so powerful for many kids because of the agency they're provided. Also they are intrinsically motivated to play the game and they can't help but learn. "Stop the games", "put the game in context", etc. mostly kills this feeling for many kids. Only the most skilled teachers are able to do this without making the whole thing unfun.

In this case though, you're stopping the game to teach strategies on how to win the game.

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@adrianhon: here's my trick. Instead of creating serious games. Teach people to be serious players! I have learned a ton from the following games: - Poker (statistics) - Any game (English) - Factorio (programming / software design) - Warcraft 3 (mental arithmetic and resource management) - World of Warcraft (market manipulation -- I created a temporary monopoly on an item and earned 500 gold within an hour as level 2…

I really like Factorio but I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe it as teaching programming or software design. Maybe, conceptually, data flow. Certainly, Human Resource Machine does teach programming.

Factorio quickly demonstrates to the player the danger and cost of bolt-on / ad-hoc / spaghetti code solutions, and likewise the benefits of a bit of forethought.

Doing some pre-planning of your factory's eventual layout will have you advancing through the tech tree much, much faster (and without rebuilding critical sections all the time!)

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#208
Carl Sagan, in his book The Dragons of Eden (p.p. 153–154 — ___emphasis mine___):

> Computer graphics are now being extended into the area of play. There is a popular game, sometimes called Pong, which simulates on a television screen a perfectly elastic ball bouncing between two surfaces. Each player is given a dial that permits him to intercept the ball with a movable “racket.” Points are scored if the motion of the ball is not intercepted by the racket. The game is very interesting. There is a clear learning experience involved which depends exclusively on Newton’s second law for linear motion. As a result of Pong, the player can gain a deep intuitive understanding of the simplest Newtonian physics — a better understanding even than that provided by billiards, where the collisions are far from perfectly elastic and where the spinning of the pool balls interposes more complicated physics. This sort of information gathering is precisely what we call play. ___And the important function of play is thus revealed: it permits us to gain, without any particular future application in mind, a holistic understanding of the world, which is both a complement of and a preparation for later analytical activities.___ But computers permit play in environments otherwise totally inaccessible to the average student.

> A still more interesting example is provided by the game Space War, whose development and delights have been chronicled by Stuart Brand. In Space War, each side controls one or more “space vehicles” which can fire missiles at the other. The motions of both the spacecraft and the missiles are governed by certain rules — for example, an inverse square gravitational field set up by a nearby “planet.” To destroy the spaceship of your opponent you must develop an understanding of Newtonian gravitation that is simultaneously intuitive and concrete. Those of us who do not frequently engage in interplanetary space flight do not readily evolve a right-hemisphere comprehension of Newtonian gravitation. Space War can fill that gap.

> The two games, Pong and Space War, suggest a gradual elaboration of computer graphics so that we gain an experiential and intuitive understanding of the laws of physics. The laws of physics are almost always stated in analytical and algebraic — that is to say, left-hemisphere — terms; for example, Newton’s second law is written F = m a, and the inverse square law of gravitation as F = G M m/r2. These analytical representations are extremely useful, and it is certainly interesting that the universe is made in such a way that the motion of objects can be described by such relatively simple laws. But these laws are nothing more than abstractions from experience. Fundamentally they are mnemonic devices. They permit us to remember in a simple way a great range of cases that would individually be much more difficult to remember — at least in the sense of memory as understood by the left hemisphere. Computer graphics gives the prospective physical or biological scientist a wide range of experience with the cases his laws of nature summarize; but its most important function may be to permit those who are not scientists to grasp in an intuitive but nevertheless deep manner what the laws of nature are about.

> There are many non-graphical interactive computer programs which are extremely powerful teaching tools. The programs can be devised by first-rate teachers, and the student has, in a curious sense, a much more personal, one-to-one relationship with the teacher than in the usual classroom setting; he may also be as slow as he wishes without fear of embarrassment. Dartmouth College employs computer learning techniques in a very broad array of courses. For example, a student can gain a deep insight into the statistics of Mendelian genetics in an hour with the computer rather than spend a year crossing fruit flies in the laboratory. Another student can examine the statistical likelihood of becoming pregnant were she to use various birth control methods. (This program has built into it a one-in-ten-billion chance of a woman’s becoming pregnant when strictly celibate, to allow for contingencies beyond present medical knowledge.)

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#209
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what criteria? Which countries? When was it better and by how much? Also worth mentioning that everyone is the best armchair quarterback in the world. If you've got new perspectives that are so effective, start your own school and show the experts how wrong they are. Get rich by offering such a better product. It should be child's play to do measurably better than an abject failure.

Most people will just home school their kids. I am in the US so that is what I was referring to. Not really worth the effort trying to argue the point - many people on this site went through the US educational system and would cite it as not preparing them for their adult lives, and in many cases caused immense harm to their growth as educated citizens.

> Most people will just home school their kids.

Wrong and by a huge factor which is why I asked for sources. This source [1] says 3% of children in the US are home schooled. This source [2] says about 3.5%. Even you could give a source that triples those number to 10%, you are are still completely wrong about "most".

> many people on this site went through the US educational system and would cite it as not preparing them for their adult lives

How many? Not only are you speaking for other people, but this is anecdote, not evidence. So far you have a sample size of one: yourself.

> not preparing them for their adult lives

That's partially a failure on the part of parents, not schools. Schools can only do so much. Their job is basic English and math literacy along with some exposure to STEM, perhaps a foreign language and other electives. A high school education will no longer prepare you for adult life, which is why so many countries offer affordable university education. So at the best you might be able to claim that the job of public schools is to prepare you for university. Which loads of public schools in the US are capable of doing. If you work hard in most high schools you can get into a good university.

Are there underperforming schools and especially in some states? For sure. And especially in poor areas. I agree that needs to be fixed. Unfortunately that's not unique to the US.

But if all of US public education is an abject failure like you claim, then you should be able to show how much better either home schooled kids do in life (adjusting for income of parents as causation) or how much better in life kids from other countries do. Lacking either of those, then public schools are doing a pretty good job at least relatively to all available options.

I repeat again: if it were so easy to beat public schools and provide a better service, everyone would already be doing it. It's not that easy. Just as one example, after accounting for the socioeconomic background of students, public school students scored higher than their private school peers on a federal math test [3]. Abject failure?

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/lit_history.asp

[2] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/statist...

[3] http://www.nea.org/home/17824.htm

Re: Video Games Are the Future of Education

#210
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best fun things are maker projects. The tangible outcome is understandable to people. The educational content/value varies though. Yeah, every parent these days seems to have the attitude "god forbid we teach more than one algorithm for addition, but it's unacceptable that you don't have CS in middle school!" And even get outright angry if you try to point out that teaching more than one algorithm that meets th…

perhaps a short list of things for parents to study, a little bit of reading/study material along with some tests. Shouldn't be to hard to pick some topics and crudely compile something for parents who are interested. 4 classes per year seems entirely reasonable.

Unfortunately, the response to that is going to be something to the effect of "Are you calling me stupid?"

Many parents are not going to accept that they had a bad education and could use some catch up. Even fewer are going to accept it if the catch up in question is of elementary school level.

Post reply on HN