|
|||
But that's a simplistic black-and-white way of looking at it. For instance, depending on the "game", a kid may also be learning typing skills. Is this a bad thing? I sure don't think so; I didn't learn to type until I was in seventh grade (when I took a summer school class), or to use a mouse until I was 32. But a lot of kids are entering kindergarten now with at least some ability to type and use a mouse. These are valuable skills. Another thing is that a lot of games involve reading, at least to some extent, and in some games there is a very strong written component. Likewise, many of the games being played involve sharpening a kid's reflexes and eye-hand coordination, plus learning to make quick decisions. And depending on the game there will be observation, object recognition, problem solving, planning and organizational skills. These are all valuable. (I bet a lot more first graders now have at least some reading skills than was the case when I was that age.) I'm certainly not saying that this means that playing "Elmo's alphabet game" (or some such) is a waste of time and that all kids should be concentrating on Quake 3 Arena, though I would suggest that a kid playing Sim City or Roller Coaster Tycoon is learning a heck of a lot. I'm trying to say that education operates on a lot of levels, and having fun almost always involve some degree of learning. Anything which engages a kid's brain is a good thing. I'd much rather a kid be interactive with a game then passive watching TV. (And if you can't get kids to read books, then getting them to read web pages is the next best thing.) (discuss) |
|||
