Sabio Column

By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL

Many families experience conflicts due to computer games. The obsession with games is mainly seen in male students, and even in the case of the students I teach, their research progress is often delayed for no particular reason. In most cases, they are so absorbed in the game that they neglect the work they should be doing.

There seems to be no clear answer as to how to solve this. Korea once implemented the “Cinderella Law,” which prohibited minors from playing online games after midnight. (On the other hand, the United States tends to leave it to the individual’s responsibility and leave it alone, as is typical of the United States.)

There are many articles and news articles about introducing various systems and providing addiction treatment, but there is no news of actual solutions. This is similar to the phenomenon of a new “miracle weight loss method” appearing every week. Numerous solutions appear and become popular, but the problem is getting deeper and deeper.

I don’t know how to solve this problem either. However, I am writing this article to inform you that one proposed method is not the right answer.

There is an idea of ​​“teaching math through games” based on the plausible-sounding principle of “taking advantage of the enemy’s strength to attack” or “fighting with fire.” Even I think it sounds plausible. Even leaders of Tesla like Elon Musk, who should know everything about what math and what a game are, or economist Steve Levitt, author of “Freakonomics,” have said in interviews, “My child only studies for a short time, but he can play games indefinitely, so it would be good to teach him to study through games.” And there have been many companies that claim to “teach through games” before.

But I think they’re getting it all wrong. First of all, there is math that can be taught with games and math that cannot.

The math that can be taught with games is simple math. In the U.S., we have a win-win education policy of using calculators in the early grades to 1. increase the profits of calculator companies, 2. minimize the effort of teachers to teach students who make math mistakes, and 3. make students confident in math, all at the expense of students’ math skills. (People say “math doesn’t matter because it’s the computer age,” but that’s because people who have already mastered math are instinctively used to reaping the benefits and don’t recognize the spillover effects of weak math skills.) In short, the argument is that playing games will “naturally” make up for this math skill, which is true in theory. However, in practice, the question is, do students who are hooked on games want to play cumbersome games that require them to do this math over and over again? Especially when there are so many more fun games out there for free that don’t require math. And what top-notch game developer would want to get a bad reputation by polluting their work with math problems?

Even if you can somehow make math into a game, the next level of math cannot be packaged as a game. The reason we teach math as a compulsory subject to students is not to compete with computers in computational speed, but to dominate them: to understand the principles of the universe and human psychology so that computers can make decisions and predict the future. This is not the kind of math that can be learned or solved by reflex. It’s math that requires hours, days, or even years of thought, so how can you pack it into a game? It’s the same idea as teaching “meditation” or “patience” in a game, and you can predict a similar effect.

In any field, money can influence “scientific research”. In the 60s, there were advertisements for “doctors’ favorite cigarettes” and scientific studies showing that “cigarettes are good for you.” It hasn’t changed since then, and nowadays, we are being bombarded with “scientific studies” about the benefits of these games, but parents should be wise enough to recognize what can and cannot be taught by games.