"We are no longer particularly in the business of writing software to perform specific tasks. We now teach the software how to learn, and in the primary bonding process it molds itself around the task to be performed. The feedback loop never really ends, so a tenth year polysentience can be a priceless jewel or a psychotic wreck, but it is the primary bonding--the childhood, if you will--that has the most far-reaching repercussions."
I have previously mentioned gaming[1] as a minor element in other topics. However, after I saw an article[2] about a new element of education, I began to wonder. Computers have become a crucial part in our everyday culture, just like numbers, languages, music, etc. These subjects are taught to children and used for further educational purposes – you cannot know physics without knowing maths, you cannot know chemistry without knowing language, music helps remember things by acoustic association. And computers help teach every single one of these.
At school, when a teacher states a problem that you have to solve, it usually has about one solution, rarely there are more. It is a linear cycle where the pupil cannot consider the effectiveness of different approaches to problems as there aren’t enough options for the effectiveness to matter. In a way, it constricts creative thinking and independent learning. But take a standard 4X (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) game, such as the classic Sid Meier’s games (SMAC, SMAX, Civilization, Colonization), you get countless options in every single game. You can focus on research, economy, warfare, diplomacy or population, while taking care of every unfocused area. There are different ways to succeed in the focused area. Besides managing one’s own ‘empire’, one has to keep an eye on and consider reactions to the opponent players’ strategy, random events such as floods, market crashes, sudden wars, to name a few. It therefore teaches maths in connection with economic thinking, language as the games tend to have advanced vocabulary (ambivalent, omniscient), even history as 4X games almost always have a storyline that is somehow connected to real events (Colonization is a great example with the founding fathers and whatnot), adaptive thinking and quick decision-making (4X games are usually turn-based so quicker turns means more gameplay per time unit). There is also a fierce competitive element, yet usually cooperation is key, thus it also teaches teamwork – being magnanimous towards a weaker player can pay off later on. The games end when either the player or the player’s ally/allies complete a specific task (ally all nations/be the only one left/be the first one to become an independent state/be the first one to go to space/…), after which the player’s skills are evaluated and a score is given that shows his or her efficiency. By learning new strategies and reconsidering micromanagement techniques the player can improve the score and actually see how he or she is learning to think creatively. The other possible ending is defeat, either by running out of human resources or somebody else completes a specific important task before the player. In this case the player is prompted to try again and learn from his or her mistakes. A simple 4X game does not only teach what to think, but also how to think. But 4X games are surprisingly rare and most of the good ones are already abandonware.
Coming to adventure/mystery games, such as Broken Sword, it does not take a genius to figure out that these teach logic (obviously excluded in the Discworld games), because one the one hand the player has to collect clues and figure out what has happened, what is going happen and why, on the other hand he or she has to interact with different types of people (from diligent guards and violent thugs to flirting archaeologists and French journalists), decide how much to trust them, how to get as much information out of them as possible or how to get out of a sticky situation while avoiding resorting to violence. It teaches common human interaction, people’s wants and fears, often enough it teaches about different real cultures and sometimes about the history of these cultures. Learning all that while having fun sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
Going on to racing (Colin McRae) and shooters (Death to Spies), there isn’t much to say. All they teach is quick reflexes, sometimes teamwork, but more importantly, they teach human psychology. In a typical shooter, the player has to assume that every opponent is at least as good as him or her in terms of accuracy – it boils down to lucky shootouts. Unless you want an edge, something to tip the odds in your favour – being sneaky, surprising the enemy, concealing oneself to avoid detection, anything a typical opponent might not expect. However, every time a trick is used, the chances of it working drop significantly and the trick can start working against the player. That means that the moves have to be innovative and randomized. Not to mention that the player can expect opponents to expect a used trick, which can easily be used against the opponents. By thinking about what your opponents are thinking you can learn to outwit them. Basically it is a simple case of chess with a lot more immediate action. In racing games, reacting to unanticipated corners or obstacles is an important part, but to win, efficient driving is a must. By this I mean acquiring the proper techniques to keep up the average speed in sharp turns by braking exactly at the right time, moving along the edges that allow larger curves in corners, hence allowing for turns at greater speeds. It takes a lot of learning to master any racing game.
There are a lot more types of computer games out there, such as simulation (The Sims) that teach time-planning, basic relationships, the concept of death, strategy games (Gettysburg!) that teach prioritizing, efficiency (again), awareness and quick reaction, and arcade games that teach quick, methodical thinking. There are also genres that have gone unmentioned, such as RPGs, due to the small fact that I have little experience with good RPGs. The main purpose of computer games is entertainment, but any really good computer game also teaches the player something new. The problem with really good games is that they are addicting, but without persistent trying, how could they keep teaching? A single game of Patrician 2 (trading game set in the Hanseatic age) takes weeks to complete (I would assume so), yet by the end the player knows a lot more about the history of tradesmanship and cities that belonged to the Hanseatic League (such as Reval and Riga), has gained a basic understanding of production, supply and demand, why it is generally better to remain noble, how to influence power, and much else. Games supply one option of learning, but they demand balance to remain useful. As far as actual factual knowledge is concerned, games are lousy teachers. They teach methodical thinking, persistence, problem-solving and prioritizing information. For hand-eye coordination or anything else that pertains to physical skills, sports is the method of preference. In conclusion, trying out computer games in early youth can be very rewarding later in life due to their inherent complexity, but are far from perfect. The topic itself is far from closed, but for now I will have to leave you with an appropriate quote I’ve used before and probably will use again.
“Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson
No comments:
Post a Comment