New Study Finds a Link Between Online Gaming and Higher Grades

[Lizzy Finnegan]

New Study Finds a Link Between Online Gaming and Higher Grades

A new study finds a positive link between online gaming and higher grades.

A new study - more likely to earn higher grades [http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5586/1742] in core subjects in school.

The students filled out forms which discussed their lifestyle and behavior choices, with use of single and multiplayer online games being one of the options on the questionnaire. They also participated in a Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test, which measures abilities in literacy, math, and science. When scores were compared with the questionnaires, it was found that students who play games online almost every day scored 15 points above average in math and reading and 17 points above average in science.

Not all online behavior showed such a positive result - students who spent a lot of time using social media sites like Twitter and Facebook performed 4 points below the average.

"The analysis shows that those students who play online video games obtain higher scores on PISA tests, all other things being equal," writes Alberto Posso, an associate professor at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, who published the research [http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5586/1742]. "It is argued that social networks have a high opportunity cost of study. Although this may also be true of video games, gameplay appears to equip students to apply and sharpen knowledge."

"When you play online games you're solving puzzles to move to the next level and that involves using some of the general knowledge and skills in maths, reading and science that you've been taught during the day."

It's not clear from the research whether the games themselves are contributing to higher test scores, or if higher scoring students are more drawn to online gaming. Either way, it's nice to see a positive study about video games.

Permalink

 

[mad825]

It's not clear from the research whether the games themselves are contributing to higher test scores, or if higher scoring students are more drawn to online gaming. Either way, it's nice to see a positive study about video games.

...Is there some sort of discussion value too all this? You kinda blow the whole study with that one paragraph. I was gonna say "Correlation does not imply causation" and make some sarcastic joke about it but it seems kinda redundant.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Hmm, no, this doesn't seem right. Why only online games? They are mostly reactionary, whereas single player experiences are potentially more driven towards problem solving. How does correlation somehow equal causation to this guy? Who is funding this study? I think there are other factors to take into account here. Sorry, just seems a little off to me.

 

[Synigma]

Hmm, no, this doesn't seem right. Why only online games? How does correlation somehow equal causation to this guy? Who is funding this study? I think there are other factors to take into account here. Sorry, just seems a little off to me.

I wouldn't say it 'sounds off' because I think it's very feasible; I mean if you did the same study 10-15 years ago you'd probably get similar results because most online gaming was done by 'nerds' and probably still is. Assumptions are just assumptions until they get worked on so disregard the researcher's musings.

Whether one is caused by the other or they are both the result of a 3rd variable is not in the testing but it's still more proof that gaming is, in fact, a positive thing and not just a series of murder simulators.

 

[Solkard]

Hmm, no, this doesn't seem right. Why only online games? They are mostly reactionary, whereas single player experiences are potentially more driven towards problem solving. How does correlation somehow equal causation to this guy? Who is funding this study? I think there are other factors to take into account here. Sorry, just seems a little off to me.

My guess would be because a lot of online games involve evolving strategies and metas, due to either the evolving nature of the game, or the fact that you're pitting yourself against other players. Where as most single player games are static experiences that people are just as likely to just google the answer of a puzzle to, than try to figure it out themselves.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I wouldn't say it 'sounds off' because I think it's very feasible; I mean if you did the same study 10-15 years ago you'd probably get similar results because most online gaming was done by 'nerds' and probably still is. Assumptions are just assumptions until they get worked on so disregard the researcher's musings.

Whether one is caused by the other or they are both the result of a 3rd variable is not in the testing but it's still more proof that gaming is, in fact, a positive thing and not just a series of murder simulators.

Who is even still calling them murder simulators though? This looks merely like a late confirmation that games aren't bad, y'all. But considering there have already been studies previously covering a much wider focus group, I do not see what motivation this study has. People who have access to online gaming generally have that access through methods that allow them further access to a variety of information and inspiration. Why pin it solely to online gaming? Without testing other factors? It appears a little amateur, i'm hesitate to say.

My guess would be because a lot of online games involve evolving strategies and metas, due to either the evolving nature of the game, or the fact that you're pitting yourself against other players. Where as most single player games are static experiences that people are just as likely to just google the answer of a puzzle to, than try to figure it out themselves.

Perhaps, but hardly much more than pattern recognition and maybe social interaction alongside teamwork tactics. Which are all positives, no doubt. But none that can't be acquired elsewhere or learnt beforehand. Nevertheless, It's more the motivation behind this fairly vague study and stretched conclusion that has me wondering.

 

[Avnger]

So.... Nerds play videogames. Am I missing something?

Note: I'm a nerd too before people lose their shit -.-

 

[Synigma]

Who is even still calling them murder simulators though? This looks merely like a late confirmation that games aren't bad, y'all. But considering there have already been studies previously covering a much wider focus group, I do not see what motivation this study has. People who have access to online gaming generally have that access through methods that allow them further access to a variety of information and inspiration. Why pin it solely to online gaming? Without testing other factors? It appears a little amateur, i'm hesitate to say.

*sigh* No one is calling them murder simulators, I was just trying to sum up all the negative press that gaming has gotten over the years in one sarcastic remark.

I think you're misunderstanding the study; It's not about video games directly and it doesn't imply that gaming is directly responsible for the educational difference. It was a study directed at how 15 year olds use the internet and how that correlates to their education. That is also why it's specifically ONLINE gaming and not single player, they were interested in internet usage.

But this is a gaming website so of course they pulled out the detail relevant to gaming. The study itself is about something different so I'd recommend not judging it on one statistic pulled out of context.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

...Maybe it's because of their competetive nature? In single player games you don't compete against other people, in online games, you usually do(or with them on your side). Maybe it's a spirit of rivalry in online gaming that reflects itself in the real life? It'd be wise to compare these results with kids who compete irl, in sports, for example.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Sadly, my first instinct is almost always to cry "bullshit" to every study. My first reaction to this one was (the same as everyone else's) to say that it seems more believable that smarter kids might just enjoy online gaming more. But, before I can say any of that, I need to read the study. And I tried. But that thing is 26 pages long, devoid of any graphs or charts, and boring as hell. On page 11 of the study I read the following...

"That is, it is possible that children who are already gifted in the areas of math, science, and reading are also more likely to play online games and children with lower academic abilities spend more time socializing.11"

and the 11 footnote says:
"11 I am thankful to an anonymous referee for making this point."

So, thank you Alberto Posso for crying bullshit on your own paper and acknowledging some anonymous douchebag like me on the internet for calling you out.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

*sigh* No one is calling them murder simulators, I was just trying to sum up all the negative press that gaming has gotten over the years in one sarcastic remark.

I think you're misunderstanding the study; It's not about video games directly and it doesn't imply that gaming is directly responsible for the educational difference. It was a study directed at how 15 year olds use the internet and how that correlates to their education. That is also why it's specifically ONLINE gaming and not single player, they were interested in internet usage.

But this is a gaming website so of course they pulled out the detail relevant to gaming. The study itself is about something different so I'd recommend not judging it on one statistic pulled out of context.

Ah, sorry, I think my wording and lack of spacing made it read far less calm than I was actually meaning; was in a rushed, frantic moment whilst typing at current location due to hectic environment that probably contributed.. It is just a common niggling doubt I have with various studies, alongside that the paper wouldn't load on device, so had to take the article at face value, But I see and understand your point now.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I find that hard to believe based on the type of person I run into playing online games...

 

[Obbi]

I refute this study based on the anecdotal evidence of my first semester in college paired with WoW launching.

 

[Major_Tom]

Oh, so this study is totally legit? The one about sexism from a few months ago was "severely flawed". Let's not bother dissecting this one because "it's nice to see a positive study about video games". Reality and truth be damned, the only valid studies are the ones that confirm our views.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Oh, so this study is totally legit? The one about sexism from a few months ago was "severely flawed". Let's not bother dissecting this one because "it's nice to see a positive study about video games". Reality and truth be damned, the only valid studies are the ones that confirm our views.

We Aussies know our study methodology.

 

[Strazdas]

So online gamers arent toxic after all. we needed a study to figure it out apparently.

Hmm, no, this doesn't seem right. Why only online games? They are mostly reactionary, whereas single player experiences are potentially more driven towards problem solving. How does correlation somehow equal causation to this guy? Who is funding this study? I think there are other factors to take into account here. Sorry, just seems a little off to me.

I learn english by chatting with people in a MMO, so theres plenty to learn i online gaming. Online also has the competition and meta that are far more problem-solving demanding than singleplayer game where you can just "try it over and over again". Puzzlers are small in terms of popularity and their answers are all online nowadays.

 

[FalloutJack]

I dunno about this. Online games tend to suck people in and end up using alot of their time, more so than regular video games. I would say that it's not the actual reason any of them are A-OK, and that they'd be even more improved without the game. Not, mind you, without unwinding and relaxing from the stress of classes and study, but specifically without online games and the massive distractions therein, since it seems to me that the world agrees that there is a certain obsession with these things.

 

[Vigormortis]

Online games. Smarter kids. Better test scores. Blah, blah, blah. Don't care.

The thing that caught my eye was - "Not all online behavior showed such a positive result - students who spent a lot of time using social media sites like Twitter and Facebook performed 4 points below the average."

This? This pleases me. I quite literally 'laughed out loud' when I read that.

I've been saying it for years: Facebook and Twitter are systematically making the human populace dumber, angrier, and more ignorant, either by draining people of logic and critical thought or by attracting the knuckle-draggers of society and giving them a podium.

Stay. The. Fuck. Off. Of. Facebook and Twitter. It's for your own good.

 

[Voxoid]

Studies also show that 67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Given that most kids would love to beable to play online games all day, I'm going to assume those that don't likely have after school work, or otherwise too poor to afford a decent rig ... or engaged in juvenile delinquency (often problematic outcomes of poor households) where in lieu of playing games they skip school or spend all evening with their friends.

The number of variable causal sociological factors seems to suggest nothing. As I'm certain some kid studying will outscore someone who doesn't. In one of the linked articles one person said as such that it was speculative at best.

Put it this way... if you have a laptop to study on, and play games inbetween researching, you're going to have better access to information regardless than a poor youth with no laptop. Which suggests more that every Australian parent on welfare with children should be given a laptop and internet credits than given games.