Learning about money is often boring. Playing video games is fun. So wouldn’t it be great if we could make educational video games that are fun to play, thereby tricking students into learning?
The dream has had a few successes. I fondly remember playing Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego. But honestly, those games were failures educationally. I may have gleaned a few history and geography tidbits, but I mostly remember wanted to play Oregon Trail so I could shoot up some bison.
So, what is the actual effect of these games? Can they actually teach something useful?
The answer is yes, games can be effective, according to a recent randomized trial. Video games can teach people about money, but there are still some serious limitations.
Gaming your way to riches
The experiment results were described in The Economist:
[A non-profit called Doorways 2 Dreams] recently released a paper showing the results of a randomised control trial, in which participants took financial self-confidence and financial-knowledge quizzes and then were assigned either to play “Farm Blitz” or to read a pamphlet before taking the quizzes again. Both groups improved on both measures, and although the pamphlet-readers improved more, the comparison that matters most is not whether D2D’s games are better than reading, but whether they are better than nothing.
There is promise in that video games were instructive. People who might not otherwise be receptive to learning could at least get some knowledge by playing games.
But the study, Can games build financial capability?, also highlighted two big limitations of video games.
Problem 1: reading is still better
Both groups achieved statistically significant improvements, from baseline to follow-up, on both the financial confidence and financial knowledge measures. A regression analysis comparing knowledge gains between the two groups finds that the pamphlet treatment was associated with a slightly greater improvement
Video games can help, but the game tested was not even as good as a boring old pamphlet. Sounds like there is still a good reason to keep textbooks and handouts.
Problem 2: reading is more efficient
It’s conceivable that video games could someday impart just as much knowledge as a textbook. But even then, they might not be preferable to textbooks.
Here is part of the experiment design I found interesting:
The participants then either played Farm Blitz for 45-60 minutes or read the pamphlet for 15-20 minutes according to their treatment group. Afterwards, they completed a follow-up survey of the same confidence and knowledge questions.
People had to play the video game for 3 times as long as they had to spend reading. So even if video games could be effective in teaching knowledge, there is an opportunity cost to the extra time required to play them. If reading would mean 10 hours of homework, then playing video games might mean 30 hours of homework. Students are often busy as it is; they might not have time to learn so slowly with video games.
Reading pamphlets about money matters might be boring, but it’s probably the best thing we have so far.
Video games can teach financial literacy, except…
No comments:
Post a Comment