"School Should Look Like" A.U.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Mace
Students shouldn't need anything to keep them "focused" or "motivated" other than their own desire to learn and better themselves. If they need something (other than their desire) in a classroom to keep them focused or motivated, then they should get out of the classroom and do something they can keep focused on, or do something that does motivate them.

I disagree. The way learning opportunities are presented can have a drastic impact on whether the student's own innate motivations are applicable or not.

There isn't just one type of motivation. Even a motivation towards X can be different for different people. My motivation to learn may be based on something entirely different than someone else's motivation to learn. Then there are other motivations that can either be competing with the motivation to learn, or working with it. "Fun" + "Learning" appeals to two motivations, while "Dull" + "Learning" appeals to only one, and is unappealing to another.

I love learning, always have. I almost always hated school though. I wasn't interested in being spoon fed facts and then reciting them on demand, which most classes ended up being.

The only class I ever had that really interested me was a 3 hour science course offered in my freshman year of high school. (It was credited Biology, Earth Science, and PE). It was a non-standard course that the teacher had designed himself, and spent a lot of his "free" time fighting to keep credited. The class involved a lot of hands-on projects, many of them outdoor projects (thus the PE credit, mountain biking or hiking to where the project was to be) and our own projects we developed.

There were a lot of days that I'd normally just stay home, that I went to school just because of that class. The other classes being the reason I would have stayed home.

I'm sure there are some kids that would have hated such a course and not learned a thing there. If every course had been structured that way though, I would have loved school. Everyone has their own interests, and no one set formula can appeal to them all.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Mace
Students shouldn't need anything to keep them "focused" or "motivated" other than their own desire to learn and better themselves. If they need something (other than their desire) in a classroom to keep them focused or motivated, then they should get out of the classroom and do something they can keep focused on, or do something that does motivate them.

If education is worth investing countless billions of dollars, euros, pounds, and so forth of tax money in, it is just plain silly to write off children as not worth teaching just because they aren't as self-motivated as we would like them to be in an ideal world. Good teaching can motivate children to take an interest in subjects they never found interesting before, while bad teaching can be so boring that children have a hard time paying attention even when the subject is one that they normally find interesting. If we want the best education systems we can get, we have to make motivating children and capturing their interest one of our goals.

I've lived through a very interesting object lesson in the importance of capturing students' interest. In an "Introduction to College" class that I took before my regular college classes started, one of the things we were taught was the "seven laws of learning." The first two of those laws fascinated me because I'd never thought about their importance before: "Want to know it" and "Intend to remember it." What about the other five? I don't remember exactly what they were because they were similar enough to other things I'd heard before that I didn't particularly want to know them or intend to remember them.

If teachers can find ways to motivate children to want to know what the teachers are teaching and intend to remember it for reasons beyond just their grade on the next test, that can have a major impact on the teachers' effectiveness, especially in making the knowledge something children will be able to draw on in the distant future. Of course teachers have to be careful not to get so caught up in trying to capture children's interest that it seriously undermines the amount of material they are able to teach. But I'd rather children really learn a little bit less material and find it interesting enough that they want to remember it for the rest of their lives than have them go through the motions of learning a larger amount of material but forget most of it within a couple years because they never really cared about it.

Finally, note that a lot of children (and even some students entering a university) haven't figured out yet what career they plan to pursue. As a result, they don't have a clear picture of how what they are learning now will be important to their futures, and that can leave them a lot less interested and motivated than they will be once they have firmer plans for their futures. If we can capture children's interest enough that they can learn a lot when they don't have clear plans for their future, they will have a much wider range of options available later on.

[Rommel2D]

I don't know if this is exactly supporting Mace's position, but 'motivated learning' can be spun into 'brainwashing' and vice versa. I think a good qualitative test of a society is how compulsive the indoctrinization of the next generation is. Can't say I'm too impressed with where Western Civilization has been headed the last 150 years, although I've only experienced 'education' in my little corner of America. Things seem to have improved some that last half-century, but it has been a matter of degree and we need a change of kind...

Why is education worth investing heaps of tax money to accomplish something so physiologically and culturally basic as to be considered instinctive?

[Mace]

Originally posted by Aeson


I disagree. The way learning opportunities are presented can have a drastic impact on whether the student's own innate motivations are applicable or not.

I agree with your statement there--who wouldn't? I didn't intend to imply that the presentation had no effect on motivation--only the method that was proposed.

Wasn't the original point Mr. Foreman made was that it was "ok" to use a video game to instruct students?

[Mace]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If education is worth investing countless billions of dollars, euros, pounds, and so forth of tax money in, it is just plain silly to write off children as not worth teaching just because they aren't as self-motivated as we would like them to be in an ideal world.

Who said to do that? I didn't mean to imply such a thing...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Mace
I agree with your statement there--who wouldn't? I didn't intend to imply that the presentation had no effect on motivation--only the method that was proposed.

Wasn't the original point Mr. Foreman made was that it was "ok" to use a video game to instruct students?

Why isn't it ok to use a video game to instruct students? You agree that the presentation matters. If a video game can present the object lesson in a fun and instructive manner, why not use it?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Aeson

Why isn't it ok to use a video game to instruct students? You agree that the presentation matters. If a video game can present the object lesson in a fun and instructive manner, why not use it?

It seems to me that the biggest obstacle to using games as a means of instruction on anything resembling a widespread basis has to do with time-efficiency. If a game can teach children about as much as other forms of instruction while at the same time doing a better job of capturing their interest, it's a good instruction tool. But if children learn significantly less from a game than they would learning in other ways, and factors such as encouraging children to learn more outside school and capturing the students' interest enough that they remember what they learned longer do not make up the difference, then games are not an efficient use of school time.

[duckilama]

Wow, congratulations to alexman!

Oh yeah, hi everybody! Sorry about that PBEM game.
Can't wait to fix my computer so I can actually install C4 and start playing AU courses again!

[Zevico]

As someone who first played CivII at the age of 10, I learnt about practically all of my general knowledge (at the time) from that game. Civilopedia and Wonders movies--great stuff. I would always check the background info for each of the units, read up on them--the game interested me so much I wanted to know what was behind it. I think it instilled in me a love for history. It can be a succesful method of learning in many subjects.

[Arrian]

I learned basic Carribean geography from Pirates! (the original). After all, it's not like we spent any time on Carribean maps in school. It's not that I'd never seen maps of the Carribean before, or that I didn't know where Cuba was or something (I did, since my Dad is a big proponent of geography and I love maps - those two are clearly related), but rather that endless playtime resulted in knowledge of where Curacao is, where Vera Cruz is... etc.

-Arrian

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon


This is not entirely correct; as an educator myself (and a consultant of Firaxis who came originally from Apolyton, as far as that goes) many educators recognize that some strategy games are actually quite relevant to learning.

I know a math teacher that swears she can use Age of Mythology to teach proportions, fractions, and in some cases algebra in comparing the "rock, paper, scissors" mentality of the units.

{...}

There is a well-respected member of the official forum for Europa Universalis II who uses that game in his history classes; the game forces the player to focus on European history of the period 1400 to 1820. More information on how this is done can be obtained from member Carlec at the official forum: Paradox Plaza EU2 Forum