No Video Games on School Nights 337
Donkey Konga writes "In the latest round of the ongoing debate on the effect of video games and TV on academics, a new study in Pediatrics says that any amount of gaming is too much if if happens on a school night. '"On weekdays, the more they watched, the worse they did," said study coauthor Dr. Sharif. Weekends were another matter, with gaming and TV watching habits showing little or no effect on academic performance, as long as the kids spent no more than four hours per day in front of the console or TV." Of course we all know that correlation does not equal causation, but the study is sure to get many parents thinking about how much time in front of the Xbox and idiot box is too much."
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
No banana for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
If history is any guide, the parents who have failed to monitor their childrens' study habits and recreational activities in the past will continue to do so. And those parents who have been responsible in their child-raising duties will also continue to do so.
The study will have no effect whatsoever.
Yes, IAAP. (I am a parent.)
Re:Screw that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I play games on weeknights all the time (Score:2, Insightful)
TV or Games? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its just not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Being the top of your class because the course is not intended for exceptional students does not mean that games helped or hindered you. It simply means that you were too advanced for the class you took. If this allowed you additional free time to play video games, that is a failing of the school system.
Parental Involvement (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that moderate use of video games is only part of the solution. Ultimately, it comes down to parental involvement and interaction. When I was growing up, my mom and I often played the Atari 2600, NES and SNES together. She made it a point to just sit back and watch sometimes, too. This actually served two purposes:
She had supervision over the game console use and game content. She knew what kinds of games I played, how long I played them for, etc. This made it remarkably easy for her to anticipate which games to buy for me as gifts or rewards... Not to mention the fact that she played the hell out of Zelda, Super Mario Bros., Metroid and Tetris whenever I wasn't playing.
She also gave me encouragement as I played — sometimes offering other possible avenues of action when I was stumped, soothing words when I was frustrated, or positive reinforcement upon completing a major game objective. If I was acting too rashly in response to a game's difficulty, she would make me quit until I calmed down and approached it again with a fresh perspective and a cooler head.
Ironically, her method of coaching helped to sharpen my natural tendency for analytical thinking, further reinforcing it with the (sometimes negative) quality of persistence (some would also say stubbornness) in coming to an understanding with a thing or concept, or completing a goal. Parental involvement is A Good Thing(tm) for all involved, and a lot of parents nowadays have become disappointingly lax in that department.
One of the best things to do to encourage that such involvement or observation actually takes place? Put the console in the living room. If a kid is going to have his or her game machine and/or computer in their room, that's likely where they'll spend most of their time, thusly putting them outside the sphere of parental influence. Putting the console in a common, non-private area will give the parent(s) the opportunity to regulate usage and observe their child in action; it also affords the parent(s) an opportunity to see how their child reacts to and interacts with the game.
And believe me, if the infamous Chocolate Milk [google.com] video is any indication, a lot of these kids seriously need parental intervention. I can say, thankfully, that I've never acted like such an out-of-control heathen — I knew the fear of MOM, not God.
Some of the younger generation may look at such a suggestion with great disdain, but take it from someone who actually had a parent take the time to get involved — it may seem lame or embarassing, but is A Good Thing(tm). It's also a necessary thing. Take the time, parents; it does make a difference.
Re:Reading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I averaged a 94 in all honors classes while watching 8+ hours of TV a day and yet would have said that I could do better because i never tried hard. That's partially why they got the results they did, because they didn't look at academic performance, just feelings about performance. For a valid study, they need to sample a few random high schools, but take like ~100 students from each, then compare class rank to TV watching/video game playing.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is reasonably intelligent and even slightly motivated can get good grades in K-12. The trick is maintaining the discipline to develop good enough study habits to get you through college with the same marks.
Try replacing video game time with anything else.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, we all have limited time, particularly on weekdays. After dinner, getting ready for bed, baths, etc., there's limited time for homework or study. If you waste it, children will do worse, no matter how you waste it.
My wife and I limit our first grader to 30 minutes on the PS2, assuming that there's time, he'e been good at school, and that he'll complete his homework (which isn't that much) before snack time before bed. Anybody with an ounce of common sense could tell you that his academic work would suffer if we reduced study time to allow more play time, regardless of whether or not it was on the PS2 or playing Mille Borne or Sorry! or any other game...or even just playing with Legos.
This is a time management issue, not a video game issue.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my! (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when do grades matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout my life, my computer, TV, and video game time have never been limited. I've been a straight 'A' student my entire life (college is another matter, of course. ^_^) and video games have never brought me down. Through my experiences, I can confidently say that video games had actually made me more intelligent. Perhaps it's because of the kind of games that I prefer -- games like Civilization, RPGs (not the pop-culture crap that Final Fantasy is now, but REAL RPGs, like the old Final Fantasies, Dragon Quest, and other SNES-era JRPGs), and Strategy and Simulation games. Back when I used to come home from school and play games, I feel that I could read faster, had a better memory, and could retain data easier than I can nowadays when I come home and read the news on the computer. In fact, I can guarantee it so much that I'm trying to revert back to my old days of playing lots and lots of RPGs, again.
Playing video games has nothing to do with the lower grades. The problem comes when the child doesn't have enough discipline to make sure that their game-playing doesn't get in the way of their education. Of course, public schools are another problem as when I was homeschooled, learning was fun, whereas when I was in private and public schools, learning was more of a chore.
None at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
eh.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Screw that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, if the kids see mommy and daddy (or whatever) bothering to learn things on their own, whether for the existing job, a new one, as insurance against being trapped in a moribund industry, or just from curiosity, they won't give you nearly as much arguement about studying, and they will earn your good study habits naturally. Even a little good example goes a long way here. Just letting your children see you read matters more than most people think.
Frankly, a lot of the objections I'm reading here sound like people who don't have any good study habits to pass on, don't much like learning or encouraging their children, and are content to let a dead end job become a dead end life. Sometimes I still come here clinging to a tiny, forlorn, dusty hope that Slashdot averages better than that - way to crush my hope guys! (And no, I'm not new here.)
Interactivity (Score:3, Insightful)
Books are "interactive" by my standards in that for the jumble of characters on the pages to become meaningful, you have to actively give them meaning. Besides simply reading the sentences, which is mostly passive, you also have to analyze what's happening in the plot, what might happen next, and what particular themes and points the author is trying to explore. Reading a "good" book is very interactive.
Same could be said for music, but to a lesser extent - I can listen to music while I drive, but I can't read a book while I drive ^.^
TV and movies are as passive as you get, even with the really "deep" stuff. And lumping the other three in with TV is just bad. And I'm pretty sure the "burning hatred of humanity" was a joke on the parent poster's on introvertedness.
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the past few years I've had some interesting chats with my parents about it. (I'm 27 in case that matters to you)
Their take on my gaming was that when I first got into it they were really worried about how much time I was wasting on worthless pursuits. However, they let me do as I wished as long as I wasn't screwing up school too badly. I did have grades bomb some due to not doing homework... but then... I wouldn't have done the homework anyways XD
Anyways, as time went on, they realized that I was learning stuff from the games. I was learning how to allocate limited resources. I was learning how to formulate a plan, implement it, and adapt it to events as they happened. I was learning how to think and solve problems.
When I got into an online massively multiplayer text-based game, and involved with the leadership of a 300-400 member alliance, they were amazed at the political skills I picked up. (I spent a couple of years negotiating pacts with other alliances and dealing with the results when people broke them) My dad envies me that experience, because I'm evidently maneuvering the political scene at work waaay better than he did when he was fresh outta school. The same massively multiplayer game also taught me leadership skills... try getting 150 volunteers in an IRC chat to act in sync. It'll teach you how to lead and not just boss.
Hell, I learned time management out of making it a priority to find time to game. I set-aside gaming time each day and gamed regardless of schoolwork. Amazingly, despite gaming probably 20 hours a week on average I graduated with a 3.5+ GPA
There's a lot to learn from gaming that you're not going to find taught in any class. Too many people seem to focus only on the downside of gaming, and not on the what it offers.
Fucking whoa. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you've just done is the single most common error in any correlational study. Let's go through some remedial Statistics here.
Correlation coefficient {r} = [1/(n-1)][summation of((x-(mean of x))/(st.dev.x))((y-(mean of y))/(st.dev.y))]
Do you see "cause" or "effect" or "connect the dots" in that equation? No? Well, there's a good reason. The sole function of a correlation study is to find a relationship. Not a causal relationship. A relationship. When X goes up, Y goes up too, on average. When Z decreases, H increases, on average. X does not cause Y to increase. Z does not cause H to increase.
A few years back there was a study on cavities and reading level. Huge headlines! Kids with higher reading levels have more cavities! Connect the dots, right? Higher reading levels means more time spent reading, which means they're sitting around, eating candy, getting cavities, right? Or maybe the brain releases a chemical when you read better that breaks down your teeth, right? There's no question that having a higher reading level CAUSES the cavities, right?
Turns out that kids with higher reading levels are older than the other kids. Turns out that as you get older, you have more cavities, on average, than you did when you were younger. Turns out that the study forgot to take age into account.
There is absolutely no way to prove that more time spent on video games causes lower grades. Correlation != causation.
Re:Recreational Computer Use vs Playing Video Game (Score:3, Insightful)
You say it "certainly would have" improved your grades. Well, did it?
Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
Vocabulary? Speed reading? Critical thinking skills? Analytical skills? Concentration? Planning? Perseverance? Matching thought with precise input? Thinking from the perspective of the designer (be it a test or game)?
That's what I learned through my adolescence from videogames, anyway. I placed in the top 3% of my class in highschool, and except for the 3 people tied for valedictorian, all those with GPAs above mine took fewer AP/dual credit courses or took none at all. Sure I studied (only for my AP/dual credit courses) and did other stuff too. But I still played videogames a shitload.
Seriously, the very type of games you mentioned taught me more of the aforementioned skills than any other game type. RPGs require just those skills to more fully enjoy the plot and beat the game faster/with a lower rate of death. The only way they hurt grades for me was when they directly cut into time specifically allocated for sleep or schoolwork. But that's a matter of discipline; the same would apply for any other activity, be it partying, talking on the phone, sports, working, etc.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Once I hit the University level though I was totally unprepared. Almost flunked out during my first year while I figured out how to study. It's not about how you spend your free time, it's about meeting your responsibilities first. I'm sure would have done much better all the way through had I been monitored more closely.
Teach self control and decision making (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
Then we get into the argument of what constitutes learning... I learned a lot (about computers) by installing new games, getting device drivers to work, tweaking the graphics cards etc. Kids who play computer games are generally more adept when it comes to using a computer.
Also, many types of games a great vocabulary builders. I learned a lot about mythology, both western and eastern, from MMORPGs. WW2 stategy games gave insight into war. Even Need For Speed taught me a little about cars. I should clarify that I don't think thatgames are the best way to learn about these things; I'm just saying that it is possible to learn a lot from them.
Not to mention, my typing ability went through the roof when I started playing Ultima Online. You can't look at the keys to type "Help" while running from a monster, much less "Haha, I stole all ShortSpear of Vanquishing" with a group of players chasing you.
Grades in school may suffer because kids are playing video games, but this is probably because they are learning other things than what is required by the shool, not because they aren't learning anything.
Games can be educational too (Score:4, Insightful)
Analyzing a system. If you want to get good at a strategy game vs a computer, you do so by really understanding the system. You learn the rules, you figure out ways the can be manipulated to your favour, you figure out how to win by being superior at the system. It's something that I'm fairly good at and serves me well on tests. They too are a game with rules and if you can figure them out, you can do much better. I am (or perhaps I should say was since I'm not in school any more) rather good at that. I take a test and figure out plenty about it, I do better on that one, and much better on subsequent ones. I'm not just taking it, I'm analyzing the system. I figure out what kinds of questions are likely to be asked, if there are any tells in the answers (in the case of multiple choice tests), if questions interrelate and information from one can give you the answer to another.
Now, while I can't present any evidence of how I gained this skill, I can say that the same methods I apply to tests I apply to games like Civ 4. It's the same deal, I am analyzing the game mechanics, and how the computers react to what I do. I am not trying to come up with a list of "they do this so I do that" limited strategies, I am trying to gain a good understanding of the whole system so I can deal with anything. Maybe video games didn't give me that skill, but they probably helped hone it.
What you have to accept is that not everything in a child's life can or should be education focused. Especially since another valuable skill is learning how to learn from life. Everything in life can be a learning experience and it's valuable to take something you learned for no reason at all, and find an application to another part of life. Learning could and should be fun and a continuous experience, not something you have to go and so something special for.
Also kids need time to be kids. There's plenty of time to be grown up and responsible later and part of becoming a happy functioning human being is learning how to have fun, and to do so in moderation with work. I know far too many people who live for nothing but their jobs and it leads to things like depression, excessive drinking, and so on because they never learned how to fill the hours when they aren't being forced to do something. Really, it's ok for kids to just plain goof off at times, it will not cripple them for life.
Finally I think there's waaaay too much focus on grades. While it's important for a kid to do well in school, there seems to be too many parents worried that they need to get A's in all their classes. Fuck that, often grades and learning do not go hand in hand. Filling your head full of facts so you can get 100% on a test, only to then forget them is useless. However actually learning and understanding as many of the concepts and applications as you can, even if that only translates to an 85% on the test, is much better. That's something you might use in life.
You should be active in your kid's education and help them to learn things that will last a lifetime. So long as they are learning, trying, and are getting grades good enough to succeed don't sweat it. If they wind up with a B, or even C instead of an A, oh well. The important thing is they learned what they could that will last. Those are the kind of people I hire. I'm not interested in someone with a 4.0 that only knows how to cram themselves full of facts and formulas to pass a test. Ok, you are full of facts. Wonderful, so is my computer and it's much better at it. What I need is someone who can learn concepts and apply them to real problems.
What's the reason, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't matter whether you're playing video games or mowing the lawn, the results are the same.
There's something this study does -not- say. What should those kids be doing instead of gaming? Sitting and staring at the ceiling? Out at the club partying? Extra-curricular activities at school? If the answer is 'studying' I have news for them... You can forget that. Even if they stare at the book for hours, they aren't actually -learning- anything extra from it, and they'll hate you for it.
Previous posters have mentioned the relaxing effect of video games. I don't wholly agree, but I do agree they relieve stress. Just because it's not as stressful as being behind on your rent and work 3 jobs just to stay even, that doesn't mean school isn't the most stressful thing they've ever done. They need to learn to handle that stress, instead of having it eat them alive for the rest of their lives.
Now, I know some people jumped at the 'extra-curricular' activities option... And that's great for exercise, social networking, and learning to work as a team... But it doesn't really teach anything else. And apart from the exercise, games do all of that already. (Well, some... But then, some EC activities don't, either.)
No, the answer is to make the kids do their studying -before- they game (or watch tv, or whatever), and then let them at it.
Re:moderation & motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
The Publication [aappublications.org]
This study is also subject to several limitations. We used a self-report measure of school performance as our main outcome. Use of self-report for school performance is supported by previous studies showing that, whereas students may inflate their grades,14, 38 self-reports generally correlate with teacher reports. Specifically, Anderson et al14 reported that whereas self-reported grades were inflated from 0.26 to 0.37 points on a 4-point scale, they were highly correlated with transcript grades (r = 0.71-0.82). Hence, we believe that despite the probable grade inflation, the substantial and statistically significant correlative associations between the self-reported grades and all of the covariates are internally valid. The study was conducted in a limited geographic area, so it is possible that the findings may not hold true for children in other areas of the country. A national sample would be needed to determine whether the relationships between media use and school performance apply across populations, especially among minority populations. In addition, it is always possible that there are other unmeasured confounders that would explain the association between television exposure and school performance. Notably, our study did not include any measure of child intelligence quotient. It is possible that children with low intelligence quotient perform more poorly in school and, as a result, have less interest in school and greater interest in television, movie, and video game use. Finally, whereas we have established a relationship between exposure to adult content in television and movies and poorer school performance, because of our cross-sectional design, we cannot infer a before-and-after relationship between content exposure and school performance. Additional work is needed to clarify directionality, along with the intervening processes between adult content exposure and school performance. A longitudinal study, with data on potential mediators, as well as school performance, could be helpful in studying this relationship.
The authors themselves do a better job of critiquing their work than you do. With a correlation coefficient on self-reporting of grades this high, I am confident in kids' abilities to assess their own performance. Of course, I'm happy to be impartial. I'm not sure any piece of information would be sufficient to reverse your clearly strong beliefs (based on anecdotal evidence).
The conclusion they draw is correct, which is that more research should be done which controls for other factors. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the results were even more conclusive if they did this.
Re:moderation & motivation (Score:3, Insightful)
And what is the probability of achieving those r-values by chance? If you do not know that, you have no basis other than faith for any belief about its significance.
The state of statisitical practice in the social sciences is shameful. To simply say that an r-value of "0.71-0.82" is "high" is completely and utterly meaningless. I have seen experiments where an r-value of 0.98 is "low" and 0.998 is "high". The meaning of "low" and "high" for r is entirely dependent on the distributions of the underlying data, which is why a) no one ever gives a p-value for it and b) it is a terrible measure of association that ought never to be used.
If a reseacher publishes an analysis that does not include a p-value (extra credit for Bonforoni correction) the paper is not worth reading and the author ought to be publically laughed at and/or sent off to a political re-education camp until they learn that probability is meaningful and everything else is just wanking.
Ergo, these guys have done an inadequate analysis, and they have further made an assumption of homogeneity that is according to their own conclusions incorrect. That is, they claim that "all students over-report equally" when it comes to academic scores, and they then claim that their study population is inhomogenous with respect to one of the variables measured. This purported difference trivially invalidates their use of a measure of association that assumes all students over-report equally.
What they are saying is, "If we assume all students over-report equally, we find a difference between them."
Ergo, perhaps the assumption of equal over-reporting is false, and they have found this because they have sliced the population in a manner that is different from previous studies on self-reported grades. Every large population contains many significantly different sub-populations. Maybe they have found one. This is as legitimate a conclusion as any other, and in particular, perhaps gamers have a better ability to evaluate their actual performance due to the feedback they get from playing games.
That is at least as legitimate a conclusion as any other.
Re:moderation & motivation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its just not true (Score:3, Insightful)