Staredit Network

http://www.alternet.org/story/41587

This is my English final exam. To read the essay and analyze it, then I go take the test and answer a given question with an essay of my own. I still haven't written it yet, as my exam starts at 6:45PM and it's only 5:46PM, but I feel that the essay is a very good read by which many of you will be interested in discussing. I'll probably write a rough post of what I remember of the essay which I will write along with my assigned question, of course.

Feel free to debate away.

That was a long but great read.


I agree with him in this quote. A textbook can tell you the name of the person who invented light bulbs or the date in which it was invented, but a video game can teach how a light bulb works and how Edison invented it. I think that the latter is more important. Knowing who invented the light bulb is near useless information for any career - if you're planning on being a historian, this won't help because this information is and will be for the next few hundred/thousand years on the internet and in books. Knowing how the light bulb works, on the other hand, can by itself encourage you to become an engineer and teach you about important scientific concepts, how electricity works, what metal makes a good/bad conductor, and more - all taught faster and much more effectively than a textbook could have taught it. And a textbook would very rarely encourage you to become an engineer or a scientist.

Connecting the dots, like building the light bulb, is the most important part of today's education. The current education system doesn't recognize this and tries to stuff facts down our throats - facts will be forgotten within a month, skill at making connections stays forever. Take, for example, music - if we know that, for example, Baroque music makes heavy use of polyphony, and we know that a current song is a polyphony (and if you're a good listener and know what seperates the Baroque period from others, you can make an educated guess with 99% chance of being correct), we can take an educated guess that the current piece is from the Baroque period. Granted, this requires you to learn the characteristics of the Baroque, but I never said completely throw away books - you need them for facts, just people overuse them. You made a connection, without having to memorize the name of the piece and its genre and its features. It's like knowing that AxB=AB without memorizing what AB is.

I'm back from taking the test. Took the whole 2 hours to write a 3 page essay. I'm quite displeased with the test, the fact that the question they gave me was a generic one that really only had one approach greatly limited what I could write about.

The question was similar to the following:

Decide whether or not using video games would be better than our current system. Explain and provide evidence.

Okay, the question wasn't like that at all, but the general idea behind the question could easily be summarized like that.

Basically all I did was agree with the essay and expand upon it. Many times I used rhetorical questions and then stated that someone from the essay has already answered this and then proved it with either a statistic, a fact or a quote.

The conclusion was quite good however. It's what I like to call a two-sided double conclusion. At first I said that education with video games can't be compared to the textbook system because it has so many advantages and benefits over the age old system. (More or less like that ) Then came the good part, the other side. I then stated to counter any people against video game education something like this:

If we are complaining so much about how the younger generations barely have the knowledge to write a decent essay, why are we not providing the beset means for them to acquire it? Why are we negating the best tools available for us to help them? is there a reason for the system, which controls how children are taught, to not provide the best teaching means available? It is not the student's fault that they cannot write a proper paper, but the system itself that will not use new methods which have proven to work.

Then I re closed my conclusion with quoting the quote which Centreri posted.

Basically, it's a two-sided double conclusion because it has to summaries of the essay, my initial summary and the quote at the end, hence a double conclusion. Then I have a whole other idea, which is related to the question that arises from "Where did the problem come from the needing of usage of video games?". This opens up a whole other field of possibilities. You get smacked in the face with something out of topic, but indirectly related. You did not expect it and therefore it'll be very hard for you to analyze it, therefore you will most probably agree with it. Since you agreed then you will have to agree with my essay because you see the initial problem that started this and since there is a problem, change needs to be done and it is through video games. If you didn't agree, then I don't care because you'll have to agree/disagree with the rest of the essay anyways.

People won't get creative from reading books. Even if you read all the books about art, you may not become a decent artist.

But let's not forget about books - they are needed for dry facts, formulas ect.

Learning through "fun" for young people is the best way to learn in general. I watched cartoons on CartoonNetwork while being a little kid, later, when I became a bit older, I watched almost everything about science on Discovery. So I learned the basics of English by watching TV, without learning grammar or vocabulary.
My grandfather teached me to add and subtract 3-digit numbers even before I went to the 1st grade. I learned how it's done because it was also fun for me - I was interested and thrilled about discovering something new for myself.

About them saying, that classes are boring for students: it all depends on the teacher. My russian/literature teacher (who I respect) makes every lesson interesting by discussing serious problems with us, revealed in the work that we're currently analyzing.

I did a report on this exact topic. It wasn't nearly as well written, but I got 48 points taken off because of the topic I chose.

Now they take points off for 'bad' topics? Wow...harsh.

It's called America. Learn it, memorize it.

Pretty impressive and I'm still trying to finish my topic on left brained vs. the right brained world. My philosophy on video games is that only tetris is the one that can improve brain usage and any other edu games like brain age,soduku crossword pluzzles and memory games.

This might connect to my homework but right brain people learn better with video games because there right side focuses on visuals while left brain people tend to be smarter by writing and literature like crossword puzzles or a book.

I frankly disagree with the essay.

I played the original Myst at the ages described in the essay and yes, I was more creative than my peers, and better at problem-solving, but I lacked social skills. To be brutally honest though, I think that was just me - I read a lot of books as well, and showed some Aspergic tendencies (e.g. obsession with esoteric facts about dinosaurs, aircraft and so on). I don't think computer games contributed much to my intelligence.

I don't think the problem today is that kids want a 'digital classroom' - I can almost guarantee that they would piss about just as much, if not more, and get just as bored as they would have done in a traditional classroom. If they see education as a game, then surely that's bad too. Education is the pursuit of learning - I think you have to enjoy learning (or be very motivated) in order to have a successful education. Games are primarily about entertainment and I don't think we should lose sight of that. In education, learning should not be subordinated to entertainment. It's fine if it's the other way around - you might have a funny teacher and I think that could help people learn - but I would warn against making learning into a game.

Analytical skills are best learned by oneself, I believe, at least earlier on in development where the education system doesn't really teach them. I spend a lot of time in libraries cross-referencing arguments and evidence, then synthesising it all into a coherent argument by analysis and deduction. I think this can only really be done through actual written texts. I can't stand reading PDFs on a computer screen - I have to print them out to derive any benefit from them.

I find the idea of substituting computer and video games for traditional methods of learning almost completely laughable. The problem is not that kids find traditional forms of education 'boring,' it's because kids are kids and not all of them want to learn. This isn't a problem with the society of today, it is perennial and no amount of gimmicks will make it go away. Discipline is a problem but I don't advocate the return of beating kids, though there are some I would sorely like to give the cane.

Of course, you won't be able to get a scientific work done with the materials give in games. But look at yourself, CaptainWill - you're an university student, and you learn only in your small "path" (whatever it may be). But what is school? It's a bit of everything, it's learning to learn and communicate. Children have a wonderful ability to soak up a lot of information through things that entretain them without too much effort.

The only problem that I understood (while typing this post) is that learning the way we do now helps you to orginize yourself, and understand, that to have good results you must work.

Sure - I played computer games and learned from them in my spare time, though, and I think that's better than playing them in class as part of the curriculum.

I feel like there should be a mix between books and the internet/computer. We wouldn't want to drive libraries out of business even though they are starting to become dated. I also feel like most jobs will be very boring when a person graduates from all levels of schools.

I would be very disappointed to have a fun school life, only to grow up and have a really boring job. School today (lol) almost prepares you for THE most boring job life you will probably have when you grow up (lol).

So we're going to impede technological progress because it means somebody might lose their job? *checks to make sure your screenname isn't 'Ned Ludd'*

Keeping libraries alive in no way would impede technological progress. You took a pretty large jump from one point to reach another my friend.

Keeping libraries doesn't in itself, no. However, keeping libraries when everyone's switching to electronics and has no more use for libraries does.

How exactly? If the people were physically forced into using the library, then I could see it would impede technology, please enlighten me

Well, okay, maybe it's not directly damaging new advances in technology. It's just keeping the old technology around when it's no longer useful, so on the whole it's keeping things more primitive than necessary. And of course, it uses up valuable money, land and human labor, which would eventually indirectly affect progress in other areas.

Amen. Down with libraries, up with libraries full of public computers. [/notsarcasm]

In schools, though, I think technology is most effective. Would you rather read from a textbook or from a universal collection of facts in textbook format on a webpage, which you can refer to do your homework from anywhere where there is an internet connection?

The library will never become outdated. Computers are useful as databases and catalogues for searching libraries, but actually reading anything from them is a chore. Most people print off the stuff they want to read from the web - e.g. PDFs - and this kind of defeats the point of not having a library.

There are some useful online resources such as JSTOR (a massive collection of journals) and the ODNB (a database of very good biographies), but they aren't available to the general public.

Well, if it was undertaken to print out every work ever to the internet the library would become obsolete - but since that will never happen within the next 100 years, libraries will still be useful.

Yeah, and sewing machines were evil, and man wouldn't fly for a thousand years, and color TV would never completely replace black and white. Face it, so far most of your predecessors in the Underestimating Technology Department have been proven wrong very conclusively. Don't kid yourself you're any different.

Personally I don't find it that bad, especially if it's light on a dark background (like these forums are). I'd even say it's better than many books.

I don't see the relevance of Luddism to this debate. Mechanisation of industry is a completely different issue from the 'decline of the library.' For one, libraries don't employ nearly as many people as the spinning and weaving industries did, and besides we're talking about academia here, not economics.

Getting back to the point, libraries have been around since at least the time of Ancient Greece. I doubt that they will ever become extinct and I have a great respect for them - reading a book which was printed in the 1830s, with its marbled cover and gold-edged pages is a satisfying experience for me, but that's because I'm an historian and I'm fascinated by old things.

I don't doubt the ability of humans to create virtual libraries, and I see the many benefits (the fact that the books will always be there being the most important) of such a venture, but I also foresee problems - will authors go bust because people will simply download electronic copies of their work? Will they have to charge for you to use these libraries as a result? Most online 'libraries' of today have restricted access (and are not searchable on Google) because of the intense load on the servers and databases that would be caused by the general public having access to them.
Besides, I'm sure that there will always be people like me who prefer to read a book than stare at a screen for ages.



Well, ok - it's a matter of personal preference then. I just find it ironic (though only to an extent) that people print out books or articles which have been lovingly scanned and put on the Internet.

No, it is very much the same in the sense that both of them involved underestimating the capabilities of technology in the future.

150 years ago you could have said the same thing about horse-drawn carriages. Yet they have been almost completely replaced by cars in developed countries, and are primarily used for anachronistic entertainment purposes. Same thing goes for abacuses, and quill pens, and not being able to fly.

As far as I know, most authors don't write entirely for money. I'm sure people (or whatever we turn into in the next hundred years) will go on writing stories, or at least creating story-like artwork (in the future it may take on the form of movies or interactive games- or maybe even something we haven't thought of yet) in their spare time, even if they aren't being paid for it.

This is assuming people will always have biological eyes.

That is certainly ironic, yes. At the same time it makes some sense, though; basically what you're doing is transporting a paper document very quickly (and using up extra paper and ink in the process). Pretty much what a fax machine does, only slower.

Why are you so against keeping libraries around?

Doesn't anyone here think its a little bit unhealthy to stare at your computer screen all day? Or at least increase the amount of time on the computer? Shouldn't people at least have a chance to exercise by walking to the library?

I also think its faulty to get rid of libraries becuase there is a major problem with electronic libraries. Power. Power shuts off cause a wind storm, 12,000+ university studies can't do their home work. Theres nothing like a good hard copy of something you got to read. And you can take books places where most computers can't go, such as mmm outside your wireless area. Theres also the problem with hackers and other bad guys who would want to mess up the system. It has already happened with sophmores at my school doing it at the library....

My point is, you shouldn't place all your faith on one machine, that there should always be places to find a hard, real copy of what your looking for.

Books have their benefits, but they don't promote exercise what so ever.

No one is placing their belief on just one machine. The internet is made up of thousands of different machines. You're sounding a little bit like some hardcore liberal saying stupid stuff like, "What if all the roads in the world were gone? What would man do then hmm?"