 |
| Click to hear podcast |
Another teacher in our
school ordered a kit from a manufacturer, however, with carbon dioxide,
temperature, pH, and other probes, and did a few biology experiments with his 9th
graders. I was setting up my room late one summer and played around with his
equipment. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't gimmicky at all and I
enjoyed the process and the clarification it provided. My students did a
substantial number of experiments with the devices that year and I altered my
physics and chemistry curricula significantly to accommodate this digital
laboratory device.
How did my students
respond? There was a higher level of empowerment than previous laboratory
excursions. They loved the format and
approached the laboratory with a gusto I had not witnessed in my career.
Instrument settings were manipulated to bypass the default program for each of
the procedures and the students went into the menu to create the parameters, a
creative advance in laboratory work. Improvements were made every year
incorporating applications that would never have been considered if I stayed
with the former methods.
Because science project work was mandatory
in a few courses in my high school, students were encouraged to use the
interface devices to initiate their experimentation, often starting with a
middle school procedure from the company's lab manual and branching out to
full-scale projects that received awards at regional and even international
science fairs. It allowed, at the very least, a way to engage students that did
not have scientific inclinations or were not initially turned on to science
project work. Some even took the modules home and worked on their experiments.
It sparked an interest and made the experience enjoyable. Why?
I believe the success
of this laboratory innovation and its extension to science projects was the
engagement that mirrored what computer games do as entertainment.
The incremental improvements and immediate feedback kept students on
task and willing to challenge themselves to experiment further because success
was within reach. This was a unique opportunity because they could place the
probes everywhere, get instant results, and create a meaningful plan.
Laboratory is innately a cooperative experience and the use of the modules
intensified the collaborative aspect, building on
the division of labor with both the lab apparatus and interface elements. My
observation, too, was that the students were more engaged than ever, and I
derived satisfaction as a lab science teacher, taping in on what the video game
industry has known for years about how children become enthralled with
digitized instruments. The firm that makes the scientific version of the
hardware apparently did as well and my students were happy to use the many
probes in my classroom. A great deal of research has been done to find out how
video games affect children and adults.
Brain,
neurotransmitters, and digital gaming
What I learned is that
students benefit from computer interface instruction. Why does that work and do
video games provide cognitive enhancement as well? Because of the explosion of
video games the past thirty years, the effects on the brain have been evaluated
in several studies. Scientists have discovered that specific regions are
stimulated along with a buildup of gray matter, or neuroplasticity, when children use these consoles, analogous to learning
to play an instrument, skill development in a sport, or mastering an academic
subject such as mathematics or foreign language. While there are drawbacks, the
general conclusion from the studies is that video games have a positive effect
on the cognitive as well as social development in children.
One way this has been
detected is through positron-emission tomography (PET) that tracks cerebral
glucose metabolic rates.
What Richard Haier, a professor of psychology at the University of California
at Irvine, found was that metabolic rates increase in the brains of subjects as
they learn to play "Tetris", a game where falling blocks are
manipulated into designated positions using the arrow keys. The subjects showed a seven-fold improvement
after a month of practice as they ascended to higher levels of difficulty.1
Another study using PET had volunteers manipulate the movement of
balls on a computer screen to prevent space reduction on one side of a divider
using the arrow keys. They found that gameplay not only activated areas of the
brain associated with visual processing as expected but also regions in the
medial forebrain pleasure circuit. While both
men and women showed activation in these regions during game trials, the effect
was more pronounced in men. The authors cited that the drive to play and improve came intrinsically, without
requiring tangible rewards such as tokens or words of encouragement. Along
the line of topics stressed in this book, play elicited dopamine release in the
nucleus accumbens that sustains people
through the multitude of steps to achieve a goal, not unlike the pleasure received by puffing
a cigarette, gambling, or finishing a quiz.2
Using fMRI, a team of scientists
at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development found substantial
gray matter development in the right hippocampus, right prefrontal cortex, and cerebellum in adults during a
two-month period when they played "Super Mario 64" for thirty minutes
per day. These are regions of the brain associated with spatial navigation,
strategic planning, working memory, and motor performance. The authors felt
that this neuroplasticity also wards off
neurodegenerative diseases such as post-traumatic stress, schizophrenia, and dementia.3
Cognitive
benefits
What are the associated
effects when students play video games on a consistent basis? James Gee, Professor of
Literacy Studies at Arizona State University, feels that…
…the designer of video games accelerates learning by keeping
participants at a “regime of competence”, the premise analogous to effective
classroom instruction when subjects are delivered at the edge of student
abilities: not too easy, but not too hard.
Moreover, the brain
adapts to master the complexity as players progress as the patterns become more
intricate and 'enemies' swifter. Like board games, video
games improve a person’s critical thinking and problem-solving skills by
tapping in on the brain's logical-mathematical intelligence. Furthermore,
gamers become quite good in the areas of sequential and abstract reasoning.4
In October 2006, the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS), one hundred
executives from education software publishers, game developers, teachers, and
the U.S. military endorsed video games because they develop a vast assortment
of “higher-order thinking skills, such as strategic thinking, interpretive
analysis, problem-solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to
rapid change.”5
Gender
Daphne Bavelier, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of
Geneva, Switzerland, studied the effects of action video games on brain
plasticity and learning.
We did not
find a gender difference in our studies. The bias seems to be in what females
decide to play –
usually social or interactive games. Males on the other hand, tend to pick
action video games. However, if you subject females to action games, they
exhibit the same improvement as males. This is probably because most males have
already been exposed to action games so they have less room to improve.6,7
Social
What about the social
element? Do video games enhance cooperation or do they isolate children, making
them loners? The evidence leans toward improved socialization when play is
moderate, that is, about an hour a day, but detrimental when it extends beyond
that to three hours, multiple days a week, covering most of a child's free
time, becoming addictive. It is an activity that is relentlessly inclusive
because all parties are engrossed in the action and responding immediately when
the signal arises.
John Beck, Senior Research Fellow at University of
Southern California's Annenberg Center for the Digital Future, examined white
collar workers and found that digital gamers were more social, confident, and
likely to use creative means to solve problems than non-gamers. He adds that
they were "more competitive ….and did not exhibit the stereotype of a
loner in the basement."8
In a study published in
2014, Dr. Andrew Przybylski, behavioral scientist at the University
of Oxford, surveyed five thousand children and teens in the United Kingdom. His
pool was equally divided between males and females and asked how much time they
spent on console-based games as well as inquiries related to satisfaction with
their lives, attentiveness, empathy, and peer relationships. He found that children
who play console or computer games for up to an hour a
day were more likely to express satisfaction with their lives.
The highest level of camaraderie was found in children that participated in
computer games up to one hour a day and had fewer emotional or hyperactivity
issues than other subjects in the study.
For those of you that
wondered if there were drawbacks, he noted a tipping point where poorer social
adjustment occurred in children that played for three hours or more per day.
Przybylski speculated that this could be because they miss other enriching
activities, perhaps exposing themselves to inappropriate content designed for
adults. However, elevated levels of video game-playing are weakly linked to
children's behavioral issues in the real world.
He adds, too, that the
positive benefits in moderate levels of play "do not support the idea that
video games on their own can help children develop in an increasingly digital
world" and that the impact of video games on children is not as great as
the more “enduring factors” of family life and material needs.9
Concerning children
that have become addicted by playing multiple hours a day, Gregory West explains that they likely: "have
reduced hippocampal integrity, which is associated with increased risk for
neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease."
Psychologist Aric
Sigman adds: "There are concerns among
neuroscientists that this dopamine being produced every
single day for many years, though, for example, playing computer games, may change the reward circuitry in a child’s brain and
make them more dependent on screen media."18
The fact of the matter
is that over seventy percent of gamers do so with friends. For instance,
"World of Warcraft" has twelve million regular players and
"Farmville" hosts five million daily! These are virtual social
communities where participants continuously make decisions on exerting
leadership and whom to trust.
Douglas Gentile, professor of psychology at Iowa State
University, found that playing prosocial games led to causal, short-term
effects on “helping” behaviors, and longitudinal effects were also found, in
that children who played prosocial games at the beginning of the school year
were more likely to exhibit helpful behaviors months later.10
David Ewoldsen, professor of Psychology at The Ohio
State University, found that even playing violent video games cooperatively
develops prosocial behaviors. He observed tit-for-tat conversation, a
process in which participants match their own talk with partners and opponents.
He enlisted one hundred nineteen (ninety-six men, eighteen women, and five
unspecified) volunteers to play "Halo". Ewoldsen found that
Cooperative
play in video games—whether violent or not—has the potential to improve
cooperation in different circumstances. Thus, the cooperative behaviors that
video game players may learn when playing cooperatively with others to kill
fantasy creatures may, in turn, influence subsequent behavior.11
Furthermore, a study
divided sixty-four undergraduates into groups based on anti-social, violent,
non-violent, or prosocial video games. The group playing the most violent games
"Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Call of Duty" did not reduce
prosocial behavior.12
Creativity
Boys and girls who play
video games tend to be more creative, regardless of whether the games are
violent or nonviolent, according to research by Michigan State University
scholars. The first evidence-based demonstration of a relationship between
technology use and creativity was done by Linda
Jackson, professor of psychology and lead researcher
on the project. Her team surveyed four hundred ninety-one middle-school
students as part of MSU’s Children and Technology Project, which is funded by
the National Science Foundation.
The survey assessed how
often the students used different forms of technology and gauged their
creativity with the widely-used
Torrance Test of Creativity-Figural. The Torrance test involved tasks such as drawing an “interesting
and exciting” picture from a curved shape, giving the picture a title, and then
writing a story about it. Regardless of gender, race, or type of game played,
the study correlated video game playing with greater creativity.13,14
Processing
speed
Daphne Bavelier enlisted dozens of
18-25-year-old volunteers who were not regular video game players to play fifty
hours over several weeks. After this training period, the subjects were asked
to make decisions while viewing a dynamic random dot motion display by quickly
indicating the net direction and answer a question about the action.
They found that those
that played the fast pace "Call of Duty 2" and "Unreal
Tournament" made decisions twenty-five percent faster without a loss of
accuracy than the group that played the slow-pace strategy-based game "The
Sims".
Her team claimed that playing action
video games train people to make appropriate decisions faster while maintaining
heightened sensitivity to what is going on around them. The carryover extends
to everyday activities like multitasking,
driving, reading small print, keeping track of friends in a crowd, navigating
around town along with more extreme activities performed by surgeons and
soldiers.
Bavelier adds that as we
receive bits of visual or auditory information during the games, our brains
undergo a process called probabilistic
inference to make
accurate decisions in response.15
Continuous and
rapid feedback
As stated in the previous
chapter, surfing the Net and texting speed brain processing but have the
potential to create an information overload. This tends to minimize memory
enhancement by hampering the development of the neuronal pathways in the
frontal lobes associated with
retention.
Video games are different in that they provide a continuous
and rapid feedback processing system which helps people sustain
concentration for long intervals to achieve the game's goal.
In one case a research
team found that adults that volunteered to be evaluated in the extremely
confined and loud MRI machine while playing "Tactical Ops" were so
engrossed in the action (trying to prevent a terrorist attack as part of the
Special Forces Team) that they bypassed the break at the twenty-minute mark and
kept playing for at least an hour.16
This is the
dopaminergic effect discussed at much
length throughout this book because of how task completion is correlated with
novelty. It is the prefrontal cortex recognizing an
imminent reward and sending the
signal to release the neurotransmitter, perpetuating the individual's concentration to achieve
the reward even if it requires multiple steps (and a noisy fMRI device). The prolonged attention to the tasks
results in neuroplasticity, that is, the reinforcement of the neural pathways by
producing more dendritic connections to nerve axons. This is memory development for the task at hand, which allows
the individual to move to the next, more complicated level in the game because
they have mastered the prerequisite goal.
In addition,
empowerment is intrinsically induced because there is no teacher encouragement
or tangible reward like a token, but
rather onscreen increments that allow a person to derive pleasure during the process.
I have watched my sons struggle through challenging contests with their
Nintendo console, experiencing failure but overcoming obstacles to subsequently
go to the next round. Their responses were visceral and vocal, but they did not
quit, maintaining intense concentration for long stretches in their pursuit.
They found pleasure as they played, even with failed attempts, striving to get
the highest score or beat the avatar opponent. Children will not complete
school or home chores unless they are motivated, and this may come in the form
of a presumed punishment for failure to perform the task or some tangible
reward such as an allowance. However, a video game provides a significant
step-by-step challenge that children find enjoyable as they succeed.
Furthermore, video games keep their attention for prolonged periods, an
engagement level that often surpasses anything they do in their lives.
It is an intensity that
almost never occurs in school because the feedback loop is
comparatively less and one way – teacher to student. The dopaminergic effect during the school
day does not come close to that of playing a video game.
Consider, too, that
children will not find a video game enjoyable once it becomes too easy because
the interaction must have some uncertainty of success and a feedback loop that rewards
that success by advancement to the next level. Richard Haier saw lower glucose metabolism levels,
for instance, on PET scans for the volunteers that became adept at
"Tetris" over the month period.
As teachers, we need to
create lessons that are at the edge of student abilities: not too easy, not too
hard, but at the “regime of competence”. This is in line with our discussion about patterns
described previously where they are encoded in the brain from previous
learning, a starting place for a lesson in order to maximize assimilation. Students working toward well-defined goals
that are in the range of their challenge level will become engaged much like the focus
and perseverance that transpires during video games. It is this strategy by
schools and the constituent teachers that nurtures joyful classrooms, attentive
students, and motivation to complete homework exercises.17
Want automatic student empowerment?
Procure subject-relevant video games and use them in the classroom or assign
them as homework. The problem is that product development has not reached
the needs of most curricula such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
programs. In many instances, digitized video games cover only bits and pieces
of a class curriculum and many are not in a game format, and thus might not
meet the requirement of a comprehensive course syllabus.
As a science teacher, I
found the use of the hardware in the laboratory and the online homework service provided the
interactive elements that
students appreciated, similar but not close to the feedback Bavelier saw when her
participants played "Call of Duty 2" and "Unreal
Tournament".
The rapidity of
feedback, clear cut goals, and well-designed graphics sustains concentration
for extended periods and affect diverse regions of the brain. The question is
whether those benefits (processing speed, cooperation, strategic thinking,
spatial navigation, and motor performance) are utilized in classrooms. That is
an incredible list of processes desired by educators, touching base with the
dopaminergic effect to expedite their
utilization and improve facilitation of subject matter and promote
collegiality.
*******
Keeping attentive and the regime of competence
|
I
have observed students that have been nurtured in this manner and were
already highly motivated content area facilitators as they entered my classroom for the first
time. They had the reinforcement from some source—parents, teachers, or a
personal experience that drove them to academic success. It was my
responsibility to use a methodology to keep them motivated and generate
enthusiasm among their peers. Here are a couple of ways I maintained
attentiveness in my courses.
1. Gave frequent
short quizzes that mimicked the homework.
2. Allowed students
to work collaboratively on tasks.
3. Used graphic PowerPoints.
4. Adopted an online
homework service that contained a progress chart including test and quiz
scores. Extra help could be elicited from me digitally through a contact
button on the screen.
5. Kept homework to a minimum and not too repetitive.
6. Kept lectures short and interspersed discussions or
practice exercises.
7. Provided
worksheets that mirrored questions on tests.
8. Allowed
students to serve as leaders in the distribution of content.
|
Validate and Empower: Jackie
Robinson and Branch Rickey
|
 Jackie Robinson broke the
'color barrier' when he was promoted to baseball's Major Leagues in 1947 by
Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Rickey noted Robinson's vast
physical attributes from football, baseball, basketball, tennis, and track at
UCLA. Rickey said: "There was never a man in the game who could put mind
and muscle together quicker and with better judgment than Robinson. He's the
best prospect I've ever seen."1 Anticipating harsh treatment
from fans and opposing players, he told Robinson he was looking for a man who
“had guts enough not to fight back." Robinson demonstrated amazing
composure and resolve during his career and was honored repeatedly: Rookie of
the Year, Most Valuable Player, five-time All-Star Team selection, and eventually
Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Jackie Robinson validated every black citizen in the
country with his on-field exploits and calm demeanor amidst the storm of
insults. According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robinson's
"efforts were a monumental step in the civil-rights revolution in
America ... [His] accomplishments allowed black and white Americans to be
more respectful and open to one another and more appreciative of everyone's
abilities."2 He was energetic in his approach to life,
asserted himself effectively, and was an American hero. The enormity of his
influence led to Major League Baseball retiring his number (42) for all teams
and honoring him with a day in his memory every year.
1.
Kahn, Roger, (2015) Rickey & Robinson: The True, Untold Story of the
Integration of Baseball, Rodale Books.
2.
Williams, P., Sielski, M. (2004). How to Be Like Jackie Robinson: Life
Lessons from Baseball's Greatest Hero. HCI. pp. 211–212.
|
References
1. Haier, R.,
(1992). Intelligence and Changes in Regional Cerebral Glucose Metabolic Rate
Following Learning., Intelligence, v16
n3-4, 415-26.
2. Hoeft F., Watson
C., Kesler S., Bettinger K., Reiss A., (March 2008). Gender differences in the mesocorticolimbic
system during computer game-play, J
Psychiatr Res.42(4):253-8.
3. Kühn, S.,
Gleich, T., Lorenz, R. C., Lindenberger, U., Gallinat, J. (2013). Playing
Super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: Grey matter changes resulting
from training with a commercial video game. Molecular Psychiatry advance
online publication.
4. Gee, J. P.
(2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-6538-7
5. National Summit
on Educational Games, Fact Sheet, (2006).
Retrieved from:
https://fas.org/programs/ltp/policy_and_publications/summit/Fact%20Sheet.pdf
6. Your (Smarter)
Brain on Video Games Interview with Daphne Bavelier
Retrieved from:
http://www.medgadget.com/2012/12/your-smarter-brain-on-video-games-interview-with-daphne-bavelier-ph-d.html
7. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance (JEP:HPP) (Vol. 32, No. 6, pages 1,465-1,478)
8. Beck, J.,
(2006). The Kids are Alright: How the Gamer Generation is Changing. Harvard
Business Review Press
9. Przybylski, A.,
(July 2014). Electronic Gaming and
Psychosocial Adjustment, Pediatrics
Retrieved from:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/07/29/peds.2013-4021
10. Gentile, D. A.,
Anderson, C., Yukawa, S., (June 2009).
The Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial Behaviors:
International Evidence from Correlational, Longitudinal, and Experimental
Studies, Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 35(6): 752–763.
11. Ewoldsen, D. R.,
Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J.
(2012). Effect of playing violent video
games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15, 277–280.
12. Tear, M. J.,
& Nielsen, M. (2013). Failure to
demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior.
Retrieved from:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068382
13. Jackson, L. A.,
et al. (March 2012). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from
the Children and Technology Project. Computers
in Human Behavior, Computers in Human
Behavior, Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 370–376.
14. Torrance, E. P.
(1987). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing.
15. Green, C.,
Pouget, A., Bavelier, D., (September 2010).
Improved Probabilistic Inference as a General Learning Mechanism with
Action Video Games, Current Biology,
Volume 20, Issue 17, 1573–1579.
16. Ritterfeld, U.,
Weber, R., Fernando, S., & Vorderer, P. (2004). Think science! Entertainment education in
interactive theaters. Computers in
Entertainment, 2(1), 1-58.
17. A Neurologist
Makes the Case for the Video Game Model as a Learning Tool, (April 14, 2011).
Retrieved from:
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/video-games-learning-student-engagement-judy-when
the brain
18. Simon, S.,
(September 2016). How much screen time
is healthy for children? TechAdvisor,
Retrieved from:
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/feature/digital-home/how-much-screen-time-is-healthy-for-children-benefits-3520917/
