Since the first day I told someone that my minor was
in videogames and every time I meet a new researcher
in the games field, I have been compelled to link the
discipline to my professional one, mathematics. The
most obvious but least likely of these is a math
videogame. It what follows below, I try to reason
about the current states of math videogames. In some
sense, it is a prerequisite to talking about what a
good math videogame needs to be. On the other hand it
doesn't do much to describe the need for good math
videogames. One reason could simply be, well there
are math videogames, might as well make a decent one.
But a more convincing explanation would describe the
pedagogical merits of videogames and how they
synchonize with shortcomings of traditional math
curricula. Even better would be a reason that didn't
ever mention the phrase "test-scores". So until I
have the time to write more, you're stuck with this
rant about the norm in mathematical game design.
There have been and continue to be many attempts to create a math videogame. The prototypical failure to do this well is Mathblaster. To anyone unfamiliar with the game, the player makes pretty things happen on-screen (like launching spaceships) by answering math questions correctly. Literally that's it. You see 2+2=_. If you enter 4, you get to see something pretty. This sort of game completely misrepresents both mathematics and videogames, but since the target purchasers are parents and schools that don't seem to have much experience with either of these, the mistakes get repeated over and over again.
To slow down a bit, a game like Math Blaster has a very limited understanding of what it means to do math. All it can be doing is reinforcing the confused notion that the subject is nothing else than the memorization of trite facts and procedures, whose best use extends no further than its own symbolic notation.
The game treats videogames no better. The software is used as little better than a pavlovian lever; answer the question, get a prize. Even if games were all about titilating the senses, this kind of game still has it backwards. Their notion of games is really a naive view of movies, Televison or other passive media. But games are interactive. The big difference is the connection between what the player does and what the player sees. In Math Blaster type games the two are totally disconnected. In good games the two go hand in hand.
Not that my big problem is with Math Blaster. It's not a very good game, true. But what's wrong is that no one seems to be paying attention to why. Newer, fancier clones are popping up all the time. Parents and educators apparently fall for it, just like there must be someone out there willing to transfer $26 million for the Nigerian investor or buying Viagra from the adds in their emails.
Part of this can be understood by a more realistic look at what mathematics is for the majority of parents and educators. This is something very hard for mathematicians to do. It is hard to see an uneducated view of one's discipline as real. What parents and educators want, at least what they are able to see, is for their kids to do well on math tests. Kids have to take a lot of math tests these days and their lots in life are to a large extent determined by performance on these tests. Regardless of what I know as a mathematician about being abler to do math, for the large majority of people it means being able to fill in the blanks on the test.
Math tests are not usually spoken of so cynically. The usual argument goes like this: Knowlegde of mathematics is something large and to some extent ineefable. But there are measurable indications of basic proficiency. If someone can do math then they should be able to answer some of these questions. Someone who doesn't know math probably won't be able to answer them either.
It's also amazing how little people question this line of logic, especially as it comes down to the particulars of 'should' and 'probably'. mathematicians, though quick to question the ability of such tests to uncover mathematical thinking, and also the exact statistical relevance of performance thereupon, are slow to see the cracks in the usual implications of poor test performance.
Regardless of the ontological connections, teaching math tests is most certainly not the same thing as teaching mathematics. But most people have only ever been taught to take math tests. To do math means to come up with the answer to a question that follows from allowed steps.
That I find this to be selling math short is not the point. I can not make this viewpoint disappear by denying it. It will only change insofar as the circumstances under which it developed are removed, and that is unlikely to occur soon. It can be mitigated at a local level, of which I'll speak more later.
But back to the popularity of MathBlaster type games. This can not only be attributed to a certain viewpoint on what it means to do math, but also a critical misunderstanding of what videogames are and do. Like the misunderstanding with math, this has to do with a lack of experience with the real thing. Unlike math, most people have not had videogames shoved down their throats for most of their lives. Because of this, I hope the misunderstanding re videogames ability and role as teacher can be better understood.
What we understand about MathBlaster's view of videogames role as teacher goes back to what I was saying about its shortcomings as a videogame. With one hand the game is essentially an animated workboook. Material is presented didactically and is disconnected from anything else. Content without context. The other hand distracts the learner. Rocketships and the like are spoonfuls of sugar made to coat the bitter pill of math exercises. The game and teaching are successful insofar as a the animations and such make the rote work palatable. The player is bribed.
This philosophy of education is somewhat dishonest and it also ignores why videogames have great potential to teach. If we instead look at how good videogames do teach, we see something entirely different.
What do vidoegames teach? Principally, how to play them. Today's games are not simple flashing lights and bleeps. They are complex systems in which a player needds to amass a great deal of understanding in order to proceed. If a player does not perform adequately, there are consequences that are relevant to the situation. The on screen character dies, you lose points etc. The game is successful insofar as it convinces the player to identify with the system and situation as presented and the players actions as meaningful towards progress or failure in that situation.
Without going into too much more detail now (there is a lot to go into if we are to theorize a reasonable math game), games like MathBlaster, and the people who make them popular, misunderstand the way in which videogames can teach. Content must be connected to content and what makes a game fun is dependant more upon the player's actions being meaningful than the explosions looking good.
There is however one fly in the ointment. Games are considered to be fun and not serious.
The Popularity of MathBlasters
There have been and continue to be many attempts to create a math videogame. The prototypical failure to do this well is Mathblaster. To anyone unfamiliar with the game, the player makes pretty things happen on-screen (like launching spaceships) by answering math questions correctly. Literally that's it. You see 2+2=_. If you enter 4, you get to see something pretty. This sort of game completely misrepresents both mathematics and videogames, but since the target purchasers are parents and schools that don't seem to have much experience with either of these, the mistakes get repeated over and over again.
To slow down a bit, a game like Math Blaster has a very limited understanding of what it means to do math. All it can be doing is reinforcing the confused notion that the subject is nothing else than the memorization of trite facts and procedures, whose best use extends no further than its own symbolic notation.
The game treats videogames no better. The software is used as little better than a pavlovian lever; answer the question, get a prize. Even if games were all about titilating the senses, this kind of game still has it backwards. Their notion of games is really a naive view of movies, Televison or other passive media. But games are interactive. The big difference is the connection between what the player does and what the player sees. In Math Blaster type games the two are totally disconnected. In good games the two go hand in hand.
Not that my big problem is with Math Blaster. It's not a very good game, true. But what's wrong is that no one seems to be paying attention to why. Newer, fancier clones are popping up all the time. Parents and educators apparently fall for it, just like there must be someone out there willing to transfer $26 million for the Nigerian investor or buying Viagra from the adds in their emails.
Math = Tests
Part of this can be understood by a more realistic look at what mathematics is for the majority of parents and educators. This is something very hard for mathematicians to do. It is hard to see an uneducated view of one's discipline as real. What parents and educators want, at least what they are able to see, is for their kids to do well on math tests. Kids have to take a lot of math tests these days and their lots in life are to a large extent determined by performance on these tests. Regardless of what I know as a mathematician about being abler to do math, for the large majority of people it means being able to fill in the blanks on the test.
Math tests are not usually spoken of so cynically. The usual argument goes like this: Knowlegde of mathematics is something large and to some extent ineefable. But there are measurable indications of basic proficiency. If someone can do math then they should be able to answer some of these questions. Someone who doesn't know math probably won't be able to answer them either.
It's also amazing how little people question this line of logic, especially as it comes down to the particulars of 'should' and 'probably'. mathematicians, though quick to question the ability of such tests to uncover mathematical thinking, and also the exact statistical relevance of performance thereupon, are slow to see the cracks in the usual implications of poor test performance.
Regardless of the ontological connections, teaching math tests is most certainly not the same thing as teaching mathematics. But most people have only ever been taught to take math tests. To do math means to come up with the answer to a question that follows from allowed steps.
That I find this to be selling math short is not the point. I can not make this viewpoint disappear by denying it. It will only change insofar as the circumstances under which it developed are removed, and that is unlikely to occur soon. It can be mitigated at a local level, of which I'll speak more later.
Videogames as teachers
But back to the popularity of MathBlaster type games. This can not only be attributed to a certain viewpoint on what it means to do math, but also a critical misunderstanding of what videogames are and do. Like the misunderstanding with math, this has to do with a lack of experience with the real thing. Unlike math, most people have not had videogames shoved down their throats for most of their lives. Because of this, I hope the misunderstanding re videogames ability and role as teacher can be better understood.
What we understand about MathBlaster's view of videogames role as teacher goes back to what I was saying about its shortcomings as a videogame. With one hand the game is essentially an animated workboook. Material is presented didactically and is disconnected from anything else. Content without context. The other hand distracts the learner. Rocketships and the like are spoonfuls of sugar made to coat the bitter pill of math exercises. The game and teaching are successful insofar as a the animations and such make the rote work palatable. The player is bribed.
This philosophy of education is somewhat dishonest and it also ignores why videogames have great potential to teach. If we instead look at how good videogames do teach, we see something entirely different.
What do vidoegames teach? Principally, how to play them. Today's games are not simple flashing lights and bleeps. They are complex systems in which a player needds to amass a great deal of understanding in order to proceed. If a player does not perform adequately, there are consequences that are relevant to the situation. The on screen character dies, you lose points etc. The game is successful insofar as it convinces the player to identify with the system and situation as presented and the players actions as meaningful towards progress or failure in that situation.
Without going into too much more detail now (there is a lot to go into if we are to theorize a reasonable math game), games like MathBlaster, and the people who make them popular, misunderstand the way in which videogames can teach. Content must be connected to content and what makes a game fun is dependant more upon the player's actions being meaningful than the explosions looking good.
There is however one fly in the ointment. Games are considered to be fun and not serious.
