Week 5 – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies

Week 5 Discussion

lgoochee — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 21:46:38 +0000

I’m a little late on my week 5 post, but I wanted to respond to the portion of the Granic article where growth mindset is referenced. I pasted the portion below my comment.

I wondered about these different domains of cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social development that they were observing regarding playing video games. It seemed like some variable that could lead in gains in one domain could lead to a deficit in another domain. In regards to where the ideas of entity vs. incremental theories of intelligence or cognitive development were presented, it seemed like they could actually work against a child’s emotional development in the sense that the mindset of constant incremental gains could keep a child always exerting effort to prove themselves. That feeling in and of itself could be emotionally exhaustive. I don’t know much about the growth mindset, so I may have misinterpreted it here.

Excerpt from Granic:

Children who are praised for their traits rather than their efforts (e.g., “Wow, you’re such a smart boy”) develop an entity theory of intelligence, which maintains that intelligence is an innate trait, something that is fixed and cannot be im- proved. In contrast, children who are praised for their effort (e.g., “You worked so hard on that puzzle!”) develop an incremental theory of intelligence; they believe intelligence is malleable, something that can be cultivated through effort and time. We propose that video games are an ideal training ground for acquiring an incremental theory of intelligence because they provide players concrete, immediate feedback regarding specific efforts players have made.

Further, research has shown that the extent to which individuals endorse an incremental versus entity theory of intelligence reliably predicts whether individuals in challenging circumstances will persist or give up, respectively (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Thus, these implicit theories of intelligence have implications for how failure is processed and dealt with. If one believes that intelligence or ability is fixed, failure induces feelings of worthlessness. But if intelligence or ability is presumed to be a mark of effortful engagement, failure signals the need to remain engaged and bolster one’s efforts. In turn, this positive attitude toward failure predicts better academic performance (e.g., Black- well, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).

DQC Week 5

thuygon — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:57:45 +0000

I thought it was incredibly interesting that the University of Washington essentially crowd-sourced video gamers to manipulate and develop the genetic make-up of proteins to eventually find a solution to a monkey virus related to AIDS. This is clearly a lot of potential applications in other areas of medical research (which is currently being used here at Stanford as well). I’m curious about the implications for the gamers and the rights the gamers have to these significant discoveries.

It was refreshing to read Granic et al.’s paper that highlighted how the benefits of video games are so under-emphasized in comparison to the harms. Though there is clear potential for cognitive development with shooting games- I wonder how feasible it would be to leverage the components of attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities in shooting games to create a non-violent, yet attractive and successful game?

Week 5 response

marcc — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:37:18 +0000

I am curious about the “culture of simulation” that Squire mentions on the first page of his paper. I have read plenty of arguments that the introduction of computers has fundamentally changed our culture, but I have never encountered a critique from this approach. I wonder:

What are the other significant simulations we encounter each day? And how does Squire define “simulation?”
What are the advantages and disadvantages to such a culture? Are we learning things better? Are we out of touch with reality? Both?
How deeply has this culture really reached into the larger society? I think there are plenty of people (older people come to mind) who are fairly cut off from many simulation-based forms of culture.

Something related to simulation that wasn’t covered in these readings: Where does the literature currently stand about our ability to separate fantasy from reality, or the impact on children of subjecting them to ever-more-realistic fantasy worlds? Does it matter that so much time is being spent in computer simulations? We read last week about the potential social impacts of robots; couldn’t computer simulations affect our perceptions of the real world in the same way?

Week 5: Squire Reading Response

apoduval — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:56:58 +0000

Squire’s 2006 publication argues that educators need to adapt to the greatly evolving world of gaming– a medium that holds a strong influence over adolescent children. I was particularly interested in the discussion on the social component of gaming, children “participating in a social world.” One manifestation of gaming as a means of social media is the adoption of pseudonymity, kids having partially anonymous identities. If gaming is refocused for educational purposes, I feel as though this safety blanket might increase confidence. After all, education sites like Piazza leverage this with success.

My main questions relates to the benefits of the virtual worlds created by games. To what extent might the adoption of pseudo-anonymous characters influence a child’s learning experience? While Squire argues that gaming is a source of education– improving literacy, increasing leadership opportunities, etc– is the validity of these experiences discredited by “game world” simulation?

Week 5

myupa — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:56:13 +0000

In The Benefits of Playing Video Games by Granic et al., I found the information about cognitive benefits intriguing and especially in the context of gender. Going back to our readings and classroom conversations last week about gendered toys and girls being more open and creative with toys that they viewed as being feminine, this reading left me wondering how much shooter games appeal to girls. Shooter games in particular were shown to create “faster and more accurate attention allocation, higher spatial resolution in visual processing, and enhanced mental rotation abilities.” Spatial skills in turn are a large predictor for “achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.” Thus, are these shooter games, or the gamer culture built around them, appealing enough to girls so that they can also reap the cognitive and creative benefits? Extending these thoughts to other minority groups, as brought up by Williams et al, can an increase in representation across video game characters have increased increased cognitive, emotional, or social benefits?

Week 5 Discussion

mfaulk — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:59:28 +0000

When playing video games, there appear to be two major pillars that foster cognitive engagement: representation and interactivity. In The virtual census, Williams et al mentioned that the “absence of portrayals should lead to a feeling of relative unimportance and powerlessness” (820). This comment was powerful. When discussing the sources of stereotype threat for minorities, we commonly think of the negative stereotypes perpetuated in media or the lack of positive role models in various industries. However, we rarely think of this deep psychological concept of “unimportance” and “powerlessness” that could be instantiated from a young age. This lack of representation can foster an unhealthy mentality for these children and a disassociation from the cognitive benefits of gaming. Granic reveals that “children develop beliefs about their intelligence and abilities, beliefs that underlie specific motivational styles and directly affect achievement” (71). Yet, minorities cannot equally develop such positive beliefs when they cannot visually associate themselves with such achievement. Evidently, we have created a environment where there is not only a concrete detriment to minority mindset but also a new achievement gap in the cognitive benefits of gaming.

Week 5 – Video Games as Designed Experiences

hajhasan — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:34:34 +0000

Reading this article made me think back to one of the most influential games in my life, which just happened to be the game I made my first post on: Sim City. The game is even mentioned in this article, and I played a lot of simulation games. I remember their early days, when they could be “hacked” and their logic could be exposed (as was mentioned in the article), although I still found it a useful learning experience to figure out the hack, because it has some underlying “truth” to how to model the real world. Actually, I believe finding these hacks was able to provide a better learning experience sometimes. For example, it was an easy hack to figure out that you should ALWAYS build clean power plants and NEVER build coal power plants if you wanted your city to survive, because you always needed to demolish your coal power plant as your city grew larger. This taught me a valuable lesson on pollution and the environment, and lessons like these really stuck in my mind. I could go on and on about these kinds of games and how I am a big believer in their potential to teach.

Week 5 Discussion – Juan G

juang7 — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 02:04:55 +0000

I do not have a group project and I would love to be part of one. I am willing to work in any area as I am looking to expand my knowledge in different areas. My previous educational experiences involved working with ESL middle and high school students on developing social emotional skills.

As I started reading the article of the benefits of video games, I took of moment to realize that if I were to list the benefits and hindrances of video games. I could list more hindrances than benefits (this is including the fact that I love technology). The availability bias of having more articles and the media stating video games’ negative effects has had a clear effect on me. It is nice to see that research is trying to show the great benefits (cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social) that video games can have on children.

Also, I like that as in many other areas, people are trying to show the importance of having a diverse representation of characters in video games. Publishing articles as “The virtual census: representations of gender, race, and age in video games” places pressure on designers and video game companies to create an inclusive gaming experience for all kids.

Week 5 Post: Lack of transfer in learning?

mjiang2 — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:39:01 +0000

I was drawn by the title “The Benefits of Playing Video Games” since I personally think that video games have more harm than good. After reading the paper, I learned a lot about different benefits video games can bring, but it seems to me that those benefits have an effect only within the scope of the games. There is little research indicating that those benefits have positive real-world outcomes. For example, does working in a social environment in video games automatically make someone a good teammate in class project? Would being adaptive in video games make the person adaptive in real life as well? The answer is, not necessarily, and as a result, there is a lack of transfer in learning. How might we bring the benefits from video games to other learning environments and to kids’ daily life?

Final Project Idea

ccolgan — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:50:41 +0000

Looking at media literacy/digital literacy for pre-teen/teenage girls.

Group: Corinne, Jessie, Shelley