Andy Chalk said:
Samwise137 said:
As much as I'd love to let my students play Portal in class, I'm not even going to TRY to convince the administration where I work that it's educationally valid. Sorry, Valve, points for effort but you're missing the mark a bit here.
Is it Valve missing the mark, or is it your administration?
It's Valve.
Saying
Portal has educational value in a science class is like saying
The Patriot (Mel Gibson movie, American Revolution) has educational value in a history class. Yes, it presents some accurate information and establishes a context through narrative. Yes, if you really try, you can "learn" something from it...
...but if you want to talk "learning per minute," the pay-off is obscenely low compared to other educational methods. It's an interesting "fun day" diversion, good for substitutes or a reward for your high-performing students. Or maybe to reinforce something that was
already taught. It's not an 'innovative' educational practice.
Games require resources. You need computers (including all necessary hardware and software) for each student. You need more space for each student, as well. All in all, this means you need a ton more money, or you need a smaller group of students -- we aren't getting
either of those in education any time soon.
Even if we did get all of this, what would the pay-off be? We claim they've learned something... but what? The claim is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that they have gained knowledge they are then able to apply to novel situations appropriately and accurately. So far, no proof of learning. But, hey, maybe instead our claim is that Little Johnny is now more
excited about science than he was before, so it means he'll be more apt to learn
afterward.
Not quite. Use games in class, and Little Johnny might be more excited about science
class... as long as "science class" means "We get to play
Portal." All the lessons that
aren't games will still get the same treatment. Of course, you can try to tell Little Johnny, "If you do well on the other lessons,
then you get to play
Portal." But now the game isn't about learning, but about incentive. And incentives lose power over time. Rapidly. When he beats
Portal, what then? Or maybe he just gets sick of it? Will Little Johnny continue to learn science even in the absence of this incentive, or will you need another (stronger) incentive to keep things going?
Incentives are a currency that is subject to high inflation -- they lose "buying power" the more you use them. And as a side effect, they overshadow and atrophy the
intrinsic motivation you could have been building if you weren't swindled by shiny gimmicks.
Summary: It's a piss-poor educational tool. It's a hazardous incentive. But it's an okay diversion with loose ties to the content. Let's just not over-sell this idea.
ASIDE:
I don't blame Valve
alone. It's also a result of a movement among some of the more politically-minded teachers. They've noticed administration really jumping on this "Shoehorn technology into everything, even if it's not applicable (or sustainable with our current budget situation)" thing, and they're tossing stuff like this out there to score brownie points.
And, of course, they only do this with their high-performing classes. As a result, the data comes back and says, "Wow! These kids are doing great!" We can then (falsely) attribute that to the inclusion of
Portal (or something similar), rather than the fact that this is a group that already performs at that level.
On the other side of the coin, some teachers will instead use assignments like this with the lower-performing groups. They then grade these "assignments" and present the higher grades as proof that their 'innovation' is paying off... when really, it's just that the assignment has gotten easier. While I don't think it's a bad thing to occasionally give lower-performing kids a chance at an easier "win," it's being grossly misrepresented for political gain.