On 15 March 2010 02:59, Michael J. Forster <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-03-14, at 16:09, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A friend of mine sent this interesting links >> >> >> http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2008/09/gamesfrontiers_0908 >> >>> >>> http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2009/id20090114_362962.htm >> >> Worth to read. >> >> Stef > > > The students might have employed the scientific method, but the article > itself is not a good example of even populist science writing. > > The author states that enrollment in the sciences has fallen because of > boring presentation of facts and that video games offer a rejuvenated quest > for facts. How do we know that enrollment has declined for that claimed > reason? How do we know that it's not the subject matter of video games that > interests the students, and that students won't shoe the same disinterest > when we apply video games to, say, biology or particle physics? > > I would never discard a new viable approach to teaching and learning, but > this sounds a lot like the ethanol solution to climate change. >
Hmm, i didn't read a second link, but from a first one i think it says that it doesn't makes students to be more interested in theory or fundamental science. What it does, is teaching them the way of thinking, exactly how scientific method works. So, then, once they realising that, it is much easier for them to learn more diffucult things and apply the same approach to a different areas. > Mike _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
