After watching the documentary, “Digital Nation” produced by Rachel Dretzin, my views on the internet and video games definitely altered. Dretzin discusses the substantial increase of internet, cell phone and personal electronic usage. To explain, Rachel Dretzin uses MIT the Massachusetts Institute of Technology because students there are constantly multitasking on multiple different sources of electronics. Numerous MIT students in the video claim there are completely able to multitask, and their work is not affected by it. Until, they are proven differently. To explain, a professor at Stanford University by the name of Clifford Nass tests people’s ability to multi task by performing several different tests. Nass states, “Classic psychology says, that’s impossible! No one can do that. In general, our brains can’t to do two things at once. We want to ask the question, how do they do it? Do they have some secret ingredient, some special ability that psychologists had no idea about, or what’s going on?” From then, Nass carefully selects a group of students from Stanford that are frequent multi-taskers. Brian, a junior at Stanford claims, “I’m watching a YouTube video, I’m checking my email, Nonstop refreshing the page. On facebook, facebook chat … “all so he can “stay connected”. Brian is convinced he is affective in his multi-tasking had no effect. But, his results stated otherwise. Brian’s results revealed that he is slower at completing a task while he is multi tasking, as opposed to him doing the same task consistently. Nass concludes that, “Virtually all multi-taskers think they are brilliant at multi-tasking, and one of the big discoveries is, you know what- you’re really lousy at it.” Aside from school observations regarding multi-taskers, Dretzin also touches base with the video game industry. To explain, games such as World of War Craft, or Second Life. One boy from South Korea plays online games so much his mother states, “When he starts a game, he just doesn’t know when to stop. He plays for hours….I think if I can’t control him right now, I may lose my son. This is an addiction, only an addict can act that way.” Children who are playing games so profusely in South Korea are offered to enter into internet rescue schools. In these schools most of the children who go there have had to seek medical attention prior, due to ear complication and eye strain. I find it ridiculous that people in South Korea or anywhere find themselves attending these types of schools, to help recover them from excessive internet use. I believe children especially in places like this need to be better monitored, so they don’t wind up in such locations.
Rachel Dretzins theory that video games have negative effects on children- is extremely useful because, it puts awareness into the parent’s of these children eyes. To explain, studies have shown that excessive gaming is forcing parents to place their kids into internet rescue schools (like said above) in South Korea. If this problem keeps escalating, more and more children all over the globe are going to be forced into this make believe world of video games, and be placed in rescue schools. I have never been much of a ‘video gamer’, so such things don’t necessarily apply to me, but just hearing about these things really opened my eyes and gave me some instant realization that internet gaming NEEDS to be monitored.
When reading this it changed what my views are a little from when I wrote my paper. I focused more on the postive and how teaching seems to be easier for kids to connect to when using technology. But when reading this I am starting to think that maybe this type of teaching and way to get an education isn't helping those who do have "gaming" problems. When watching the documentary it showed one class that was working with blogs and network type tecnhology, while others were working with video games to teach. I do believe that the blogging way is just the same as giving a printed copy of your assignment and I can see how it would grab kids more(and save paper(:)but that maybe the video game way could be making way to big of an influence in the childrens outside life. They are being taught by this method, but do they realize they are also teaching these kids that video games are good? So I completely agree that video gaming must be monitored, especially if it is even being used in teaching.
ReplyDeleteLindsay-
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that my essay had an impact on the way you interperet video games, and their effect on children. When you said, "They are being taught by this method, but do they realize they are also teaching these kids that video games are good?" I completely agree with you because, as we saw in the video- video games are not leaving a positive impact on children. For example, like I mentioned in my original post, the internet rescue schools for children who find them selfs addicted to video games. I believe (as do you) that there should be a fine line between school and video games- not combining the two in any way, shape or form.
I also looked at the positives of using technology in the classroom as a more fun, and more interesting way to learn rather than just reading out of a book. Although I agree that video games can be bad and should be monitored, using them in the classroom and to teach certain ideas may be a more effective and more interesting way for children today to learn. However, Dretzin provides ample evidence that suggests video games can be addicitive and bad for people which is why I feel they should be carefully monitored out of schools just was well as in schools. I agree that learning with video games may be more exciting and may save money on books and paper, but this concept also fails to overlook what is lost when we look to video games for teaching rather than a book or teacher. We really don't know what the long run affect of video games is going to empose on children in the future so I feel that there should be a very careful balance between school and video games.
ReplyDelete