Yeah, because how good are the teachers at teaching and how the school-enviroment is doesn't matter?
[QUOTE=EskillV2;48883112]Yeah, because how good are the teachers at teaching and how the school-enviroment is doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]
They're saying video game use correlates with worse GCSE scores, not that video game use is the only/most important contributing factor to GCSE scores.
fuck school
[editline]11th October 2015[/editline]
(or specifically, the idea that gradeschoolers should be tested to this degree)
we have something in our state called ISTEP that does nothing else than introduce anxiety to little kids. Proudly ranks and labels them stupid just because they aren't good at doing a thing one way.
[quote]Although 81% of the young people in the study reported using social media daily, many for several hours, it found no link between social media use and exam performance.
The report says there is "no statistically significant association between pupils' intensity of participating in social networking activities and educational attainment at GCSE level".[/quote]
Sounds like they gave social media a free pass here, while gaming ended up being the study's scapegoat.
:snip:
Through personal experience I noticed that myself/people around me would use video games (and drugs etc too) as a form of escapism/distraction when school became super stressful around 14-17ish
Especially when they'd lecture us every day in Grade 8 onwards talking about lifelong career choices and massive exams coming up, it's really easy to say "oh it's just video games fucking kids up in school and that's it" instead of all the other issues.
Like yeah monitor your childrens time on video games etc, but generally there's a reason other than just video games causing kids problems in school.
More time playing video games = less time invested in school
It's not a hard concept to understand
[QUOTE=EskillV2;48883112]Yeah, because how good are the teachers at teaching and how the school-enviroment is doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]
This was a study into "how young people’s use of ICT and the amount of screentime impacts on GCSE attainment" so those things were not within the scope of the study.
[QUOTE=Fangz;48883192]Sounds like they gave social media a free pass here, while gaming ended up being the study's scapegoat.[/QUOTE]
Well they 'gave social media a pass' in that their results indicated that there was no link, and they 'scapegoated' gaming in that their results indicated that there was a link. They also cited another study from this year which found that children who play video games occasionally tend to have less behavioural issues, whereas kids who play a shitton of games tend to have more.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;48883299]Through personal experience I noticed that myself/people around me would use video games (and drugs etc too) as a form of escapism/distraction when school became super stressful around 14-17ish
Especially when they'd lecture us every day in Grade 8 onwards talking about lifelong career choices and massive exams coming up, it's really easy to say "oh it's just video games fucking kids up in school and that's it" instead of all the other issues.
Like yeah monitor your childrens time on video games etc, but generally there's a reason other than just video games causing kids problems in school.[/QUOTE]
One of the study's recommendations (Recommendation 4) was that further research be conducted "to understand in greater detail the factors (in addition to gaming) that lead to poor educational outcomes amongst those who are prolific gamers".
[QUOTE=General J;48883166]fuck school
[editline]11th October 2015[/editline]
(or specifically, the idea that gradeschoolers should be tested to this degree)
we have something in our state called ISTEP that does nothing else than introduce anxiety to little kids. Proudly ranks and labels them stupid just because they aren't good at doing a thing one way.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad I got out before they started putting out all these fascist tests here, but like I said before now I'm doing them in College :v:
You don't have to spend much time at all for GCSEs, its not a case of opportunity cost (I.e games or GCSEs) it's simply apathy. Which having done GCSEs and moved onto the next stage I can completely understand and it's not gaming's fault in the slightest.
Can we quit with the anti games bollocks again, I was just getting used to not having it.
I'd say it's more likely that increased levels of gaming are a symptom of other root problems that cause poor grades/bad habits, not the cause itself.
So, what's their solution? Take away games?
Yeah sure, there's no way they might turn to something else for their entertainment, drug problems wouldn't go up at all I'm sure /sarcasm.
so brits are implying that if i play games, it will impact my exam results?
i call it bullshit, i passed all the final exams from acceptable to perfect
I would kill for the day when the educational system becomes more focused on learning and less about being a rote learning contest to see how high you score. When it comes to a .20 percentile deciding who gets in and who doesn't, not to mention when people bypass the system via bribes and lock-ins, the system's already failed and needs to be overhauled.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48884168]You don't have to spend much time at all for GCSEs, its not a case of opportunity cost (I.e games or GCSEs) it's simply apathy. Which having done GCSEs and moved onto the next stage I can completely understand and it's not gaming's fault in the slightest.
Can we quit with the anti games bollocks again, I was just getting used to not having it.[/QUOTE]
How do you explain these results?
[editline]12th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;48884330]I'd say it's more likely that increased levels of gaming are a symptom of other root problems that cause poor grades/bad habits, not the cause itself.
So, [B]what's their solution[/B]? Take away games?
Yeah sure, there's no way they might turn to something else for their entertainment, drug problems wouldn't go up at all I'm sure /sarcasm.[/QUOTE]
Their recommendation is to a) encourage parents to try and limit the time their children spend playing games to like 2-3 hours a day max (because there is evidence that low levels of video game use can have a positive impact on grades), and b) conduct more research into why there is a link between video games and GCSE results
[QUOTE=General J;48883166]fuck school
[editline]11th October 2015[/editline]
(or specifically, the idea that gradeschoolers should be tested to this degree)
we have something in our state called ISTEP that does nothing else than introduce anxiety to little kids. Proudly ranks and labels them stupid just because they aren't good at doing a thing one way.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, 15 year olds aren't little kids anymore. On top of that, an exam similar to a GCSE is taken just about everywhere. Either centralised or by middle (in US parlance High schools) and works as an entrance exam more or less. It might not be as usual for americans, since the ISTEPs serve absolutely nothing. They are just a ranking. They have no purpose. For just about everyone else, the purpose is there.
Which makes quite a lot of sense. It's not something particularly stressfull
[QUOTE=EddieLTU;48884369]so brits are implying that if i play games, it will impact my exam results?
i call it bullshit, i passed all the final exams from acceptable to perfect[/QUOTE]
Hey, how was your statistics class in math?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48884477]
Hey, how was your statistics class in math?[/QUOTE]
i didn't really had math
I've played video games all through Primary and Secondary school and got good results so suck it.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;48883124]They're saying video game use correlates with worse GCSE scores, not that video game use is the only/most important contributing factor to GCSE scores.[/QUOTE]
Correlation=/=Causation
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48884168]You don't have to spend much time at all for GCSEs, its not a case of opportunity cost (I.e games or GCSEs) it's simply apathy. Which having done GCSEs and moved onto the next stage I can completely understand and it's not gaming's fault in the slightest.
Can we quit with the anti games bollocks again, I was just getting used to not having it.[/QUOTE]
So much this.
I didn't give a flying fuck about my GCSE's, i didn't do any work set for me and i still passed with A's and B's (and one E)
GCSE's are easy and boring
in one of my gcses (film) i did almost none of the coursework and passed with a C because i got 100% on the exam
our curriculum is so bad
GCSEs are a joke anyway, minimal effort to pass yet required to learn some of the most obscure shit you'll never need.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48884382]I would kill for the day when the educational system becomes more focused on learning and less about being a rote learning contest to see how high you score. When it comes to a .20 percentile deciding who gets in and who doesn't, not to mention when people bypass the system via bribes and lock-ins, the system's already failed and needs to be overhauled.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately the majority of people that see that way (such as myself) are low graders and are therefore dismissed with "you're just salty because you do badly" which is probably true to some extent but the people making that accusation are still ignoring a huge issue simply because it doesn't affect them.
[QUOTE=EddieLTU;48884929]i didn't really had math[/QUOTE]
Yeah it shows. One off experiences may not be indicative of the overall shift at all. The fact that you've had no issues, doesn't mean others, perhaps the majority, didn't see a grade decline. This study has also done certain steps to eliminate other factors to get out of the correlation causation loop.
[QUOTE=Duskin;48885211]GCSEs are a joke anyway, minimal effort to pass yet required to learn some of the most obscure shit you'll never need.[/QUOTE]
In part it's because you don't understand the point of that obscure shit.
a) a lot of that obscure shit exists in order to test your learning ability. Because that is incredibly important the higher you get.
b) some of it exists as a so called cultural base. Yeah, you probably don't need to have read wuthering heights in order to be an englishman. But having done so gives you a certain standard level of knowledge about your own culture.
c) It gives you information to work with, a way to learn how to work with easily accessible information
Honestly I find it really interesting since I have family members that are actually teachers, so I get to see a lot of essays, tests and similar things. There's actually a huge subset of people (I'd say the majority) that would benefit as hell if they got to study an extra hour instead of doing stuff like playing a videogame.
On top of that, it doesn't really matter how the course would be constructed. Those are people that don't really understand what they're learning. For them one of the few ways of actually learning said stuff is rote memorisation and repetition. This is incredibly incredibly visible in two things.
a) math
b) essays
As both require you to either understand what you're doing or constant drilling until you can do it, without actually understand why you're doing it. Just think about how many adults can't write a decent CV and that's an incredibly simple textform and that's a skill that's applicable in the real world.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48884382]I would kill for the day when the educational system becomes more focused on learning and less about being a rote learning contest to see how high you score. When it comes to a .20 percentile deciding who gets in and who doesn't, not to mention when people bypass the system via bribes and lock-ins, the system's already failed and needs to be overhauled.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I think that's already underway. Schools that benefit from alternative entrance exams do them. Art schools, conservatories, sport schools, literature or stuff like germanistic, bohemistic and the like don't have simple exams. Instead they tend to have interviews, deal with applicants directly and review them on various different merits.
It's law, engineering, economya and or sciences and similar disciplines that have entrance exams often based on rote learning. Because how the hell are they going to select applicants anyway. Not to mention these are generally unis that have only something like 20-40% completion rates.
Yep, while some of this stuff may be time consuming, I'd assume there's a high level of diminishing returns wherein the value of another hour of study just gets lower and lower until there's virtually no benefit only time and effort costs. Especially at GCSE. Courses being based off rote learning isn't necessarily a good thing of course.
Also, I've gotta pose this question: is it right for us to have a society that singles out individuals as 'objectively better' than others on a numerical system from ages as early as 4 years old?
Less time spent studying = lower grades
Not really much to dispute here, using gaming as a scapegoat isn't right, you might as well use any activity that isn't learning.
Can't this be applied to anything?
How about doing it for people who fish more than they study?
Or people who do whatever else more than studying?
As said, less time studying = worser grades, and you needed a goddamn study for this?
I play games for at least 3/4 hours a day and I passed all my 9 GCSEs, with mostly Bs, I have a friend who does the same who got 5 A/A*s.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
