Better Learning Through Video Games

For high school seniors, pouring through a biology textbook isn’t always the most effective introduction to a complex topic like immunology. What if students instead had the opportunity to learn about the immune system in combination with an activity that might already be familiar, like playing a video game?

Earlier this year, the Federation of American Scientists released Immune Attack, a first-person, 3D computer game that puts players in control of a nanobot they must pilot through a woman’s immune system, warding off invading bacteria. FAS developed the game with a grant from the National Science Foundation and in collaboration with the University of Southern California GamePipe Laboratory. The game is free for educational purposes and available for download on the FAS site.

For those who doubt the utility of teaching AP Biology with a video game, FAS argued in a press release that, “Preliminary surveys show that the students who play Immune Attack show an increase in knowledge when compared with students who did not play the game. After playing the game students also showed a higher interest in biology.”

Well-designed instructional games allow students to repeat challenges until they thoroughly understand a problem, and can can highlight skills that require improvement, much like focused tutoring. The video game model, which involves constantly testing and refining skills, FAS President Henry Kelly argued in a Science Progress column, is actually a better alternative to infrequent, high-stakes educational tests. “Surely it’s possible to create challenges in biology, history, or engineering that can capture and hold attention,” he wrote, going on to explain that the federal government should play a lead role in the development of advanced educational technology.

Fortunately, Congress recently authorized the creation of the National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies, a stand-alone nonprofit organization that will support research, development, and adoption of digital learning technologies.

Unfortunately, Congress neglected to provide sufficient funding for the center.

Jeffrey Brainard reports in The Chronicle of Higher Education that, “Early plans called for a dedicated endowment of $20-billion, generating annual income of $1-billion for operations. Instead, faced with a tight federal budget, proponents are initially seeking only $50-million in the 2009 fiscal year, which begins in October.” But given the outgoing administration, it is unlikely that legislators will finalize the FY2009 budget until after next January.

Created by an amendment to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R. 4137), the center has the potential to leverage a host of untapped technologies and educational research for high schoolers, college students, and life-long learners. In a Center for American Progress report, Tom Kalil and John Irons explain the chasm between the prospects for this technology and the dearth of effective applications:

One of the reasons that there is such a gulf between the potential of learning technology and its actual impact to date is that the federal government invests 0.03 percent of total kindergarten to 12th grade expenditures on research and development. The market for educational software and digital content, particularly at the K-12 level, is unattractive to private sector investors. School spending on software is only $10 per student, the market is fragmented and hard to reach, especially for new entrants, and the review and adoption process is lengthy. The home market for educational software in the United States has declined precipitously from $498 million to $152 million in 2004. [Emphasis added. For the source on the 0.03 percent education investment, see this report from the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee.]

Kalil and Irons go on to argue for growing the funding commitment for the center up to $1 billion annually, with an expectation that outside donations could bring in another $2 billion. The center’s charter allows it to accept money from any domestic sources, including corporations and private donors.

Fruitful work does already exist in this area, Brainard, reports, and it’s important with this issue to avoid the “technology trap,” or the assumption that the solution to the problem requires breakthrough research. Brainard consulted with Susan B. Millar of the University of Wisconsin, whose “research indicates that university scholars have already developed a wealth of better teaching methods, including ones using technology, but academic institutions and schools have failed to adopt many of them because of institutional and cultural roadblocks.”

That’s a legitimate concern, but the legislation does stipulate that one of the three pillars of the center’s mission is “to encourage the widespread adoption and use of effective, innovative digital approaches to improving education, teaching, and learning.” If Congress can come through with the funding, then perhaps the first project would be to identify the innovative approaches that already exist, like Immune Attack, and make sure that they end up in the hands of capable educators and enthusiastic students.

Tags: STEM Education

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.