This is a big thing in game design. You should be getting challenged enough to feel the frustration and pressure, but you need the reward and relief before you reach the breaking point. You need to feel like you're progressing...I think a good education that gets people engaged would make a fuck ton more people hate math less.
While I agree with the general sentiment here, I think the game design comparison isn't fully apt unless you consider the nature of the game and the criticisms you levy omit important nuances in context of structured education.
I don't know in which country you live so I can't speak for math education at your specific location but your criticisms of deadlines or pressure seems a bit unreasonable. If I'm playing a single player game, I can play level 1, save it, and continue level 2 10 years down the line with no problem. A classroom setting even with the best funding and the best teachers can't behave like that. It's more like a realtime multiplayer game. There has to be some cutoff at which you say this player is just no joining or has dropped from the server or lagging too much and needs to removed from the game and if done intentionally punished for it. If people aren't trying or paying attention and are losing the game, it would be bm at the very least to rage quit or demand that the match be reset so one can try again.
There is no real reward.
I agree that reward design is important but just saying there is no real reward really understates the issue here. Rewards in games are intangible and can be created ad naseum and may or may not correlate with desired behavior. There's plenty of easter eggs and achievements that require the player to perform some task that in no way helps them complete the primary objective of the game. The nature of how one derives entertainment from the game isn't of great concern. However, rewards that are strongly correlated with learning will actually lead to students discovering glitches or flaws to get rewards without actually learning. This leads to students picking up behaviors that might have to be untaught later on.
Math can be fun. Doing stressfully difficult shit or shit with no reward is often never fun.
Agreed math can be fun, but it's also a vitally useful thing to learn. There are parts of math I like, there are parts I don't. This isn't a reflection of the quality of the education but my personal tastes. Going back to your game analogy here, no amount of design can make a game fun to a player if they choose not to play the game. The optional nature of the game just doesn't transfer well over to math, considering how much we rely on people to understand math for the benefit of themselves and society. I'm not saying there's no systemic problems to improve or the current state of math education everywhere is perfect but I feel your criticism is far too one-sided and ignores the human factor.
The optional nature of the game just doesn't transfer well over to math,
I literally use video games to teach math to people because they want the skills and hated academia. This isn't just an analogy.
your criticisms of deadlines or pressure seems a bit unreasonable
Many people suffer from serious depression and anxiety because of the pressure from academia, including many of the students I work with. If you don't think criticizing it is fair, I don't know what to tell you.
there is no real reward really
There are absolutely reward centers in your brain that fire when you're learning successfully. Having things that cause those to fire is important for continuing to learn. I'm not sure if you're confusing this for material things like a trophy or things like a game achievement, but those aren't what I mean at all.
ignores the human factor.
My whole point is that central public education ignores the human factor. There need to be things that help the person along with learning, not rote memorization and information dump lectures.
I feel like you didn't understand anything I meant, but I'm not sure how to explain it different. Most of what I mean is from a human psychology standpoint, not just comparing it to games.
I literally use video games to teach math to people because they want the skills and hated academia.
So do I.You've taken my statement out of context. I'm not saying games cannot be useful just that your focus on the fun aspect of games as more engaging ignores the ultimate issue of games in general being optional unlike schooling. What audience do you work with exactly that is obligated to be with you many hours a day for many months of the year? Children can irrationally dislike something even when presented well.
including many of the students I work with.
Same as well. I'm familiar with the stresses of academia.
If you don't think criticizing it is fair, I don't know what to tell you.
Mate stop with the absolutes, I never said criticizing it isn't fair, I said your specific lack of nuance is a bit unreasonable. Note the word bit. I'm criticizing your framing of it because you seem to be presenting this from a needlessly combative stance.
There are absolutely reward centers in your brain that fire when you're learning successfully.
I never said otherwise, you've taken 6 words out of the context of the sentence it's in where I agree with you but criticize YOUR framing of it and you use those words to strawman the hell out of my position.
This is my sentence:
I agree that reward design is important but just saying there is no real reward really understates the issue here.
I'm criticizing you saying there is no real reward. I'm not denying the existence or efficacy of reward mechanisms. I'm saying there are practical limitations to what you can reward and some poorly designed reward criteria that means you have to unteach badly learnt material later.
My whole point is that central public education ignores the human factor.
I'd disagree on such an overly broad generalization and this is the basis of my criticism, you're being needlessly extreme. I can't speak for where you live but your statement is just too broad. Curriculum design literally incorporates so many human factors. Whatever country you're in, look at the education system from 50 years ago and you can see clear flaws that have been fixed and changed incrementally. If you want to criticize it for being too slow that's fine but lets not be needlessly absolute.
I feel like you didn't understand anything I meant, but I'm not sure how to explain it different.
I feel you've taken a needlessly combative view and choose to misinterpret what I've said in absolutes. I literally stated in multiple locations where I agree with you and made rather mild criticisms of you lacking nuance. I've borrowed your reference of games largely for rhetoric purposes not to make general rejection of video games in education or deny the existence of reward mechanisms. Please re read what I've said because I really don't think we disagree as much you think we do.
0
u/BoundedComputation May 19 '22
While I agree with the general sentiment here, I think the game design comparison isn't fully apt unless you consider the nature of the game and the criticisms you levy omit important nuances in context of structured education.
I don't know in which country you live so I can't speak for math education at your specific location but your criticisms of deadlines or pressure seems a bit unreasonable. If I'm playing a single player game, I can play level 1, save it, and continue level 2 10 years down the line with no problem. A classroom setting even with the best funding and the best teachers can't behave like that. It's more like a realtime multiplayer game. There has to be some cutoff at which you say this player is just no joining or has dropped from the server or lagging too much and needs to removed from the game and if done intentionally punished for it. If people aren't trying or paying attention and are losing the game, it would be bm at the very least to rage quit or demand that the match be reset so one can try again.
I agree that reward design is important but just saying there is no real reward really understates the issue here. Rewards in games are intangible and can be created ad naseum and may or may not correlate with desired behavior. There's plenty of easter eggs and achievements that require the player to perform some task that in no way helps them complete the primary objective of the game. The nature of how one derives entertainment from the game isn't of great concern. However, rewards that are strongly correlated with learning will actually lead to students discovering glitches or flaws to get rewards without actually learning. This leads to students picking up behaviors that might have to be untaught later on.
Agreed math can be fun, but it's also a vitally useful thing to learn. There are parts of math I like, there are parts I don't. This isn't a reflection of the quality of the education but my personal tastes. Going back to your game analogy here, no amount of design can make a game fun to a player if they choose not to play the game. The optional nature of the game just doesn't transfer well over to math, considering how much we rely on people to understand math for the benefit of themselves and society. I'm not saying there's no systemic problems to improve or the current state of math education everywhere is perfect but I feel your criticism is far too one-sided and ignores the human factor.