Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: Why boys' literacy skills lag behind girls' and how to bridge the reading gap [View all]Mosby
(17,947 posts)10. not a good comparison
Playing with dolls is a social activity, when girls play with dolls they create dialoge and story lines, including extensive back stories. Its a way to model and mimic adult behavior through play.
Video games by contrast are a passive activity that has virtually no social component and doesn't require the gamer to use his/her brain in any meaningful way.
Below I linked to an experiment that clearly shows the damage that video games cause in young children. They discovered that time spent playing these stupid games displaced other, more constructive activities like reading.
Of course, the fact that video games are irrationally vilified doesnt mean that they are automatically harmless. Theres still a need for decent studies that assess their impact on behaviour. One such study has emerged from Denison University, where Robert Weis and Brittany Cerankosky have tested what happens when you give young boys, aged 6-9, a new video game system.
They found that after 4 months, boys who had received the games had lower reading and writing scores than expected, failing to improve to the same degree as their console-less peers. They also faced more academic problems at school. At first this might seem like support for the rewired brains of Greenfields editorials, but the reality is much simpler the games were displacing other after-school academic activities. While some children were finishing their homework or reading bedtime stories, those with games were mashing buttons.
There is much to like about Weis and Cerankoskys study. For a start, it is a randomised controlled trial (RCT), one of the most reliable ways of finding out if something is truly causing a specific effect. Indeed, it is the first such trial looking into the effects of video games on the academic abilities and behaviour of young boys.
The duo recruited 64 lads who didnt already have a video game system. Half of them the experimental group were randomly chosen to receive a Playstation 2 via their parents along with three all-ages games. The other half the control group remained without a console. The parents were told that the study was designed to examine the boys development and that the video games were merely incentive for participation.
Four months later, Weis and Cerankosky caught up with the boys. They found that the budding gamers had significantly lower reading and writing scores than those who never received the PS2. In the intervening months, the control group became better at reading and writing, while the gamers stagnated or, if anything, became slightly worse. This didnt escape the notice of their teachers, who said that they were showing more problems at school in reading, writing and spelling.
They found that after 4 months, boys who had received the games had lower reading and writing scores than expected, failing to improve to the same degree as their console-less peers. They also faced more academic problems at school. At first this might seem like support for the rewired brains of Greenfields editorials, but the reality is much simpler the games were displacing other after-school academic activities. While some children were finishing their homework or reading bedtime stories, those with games were mashing buttons.
There is much to like about Weis and Cerankoskys study. For a start, it is a randomised controlled trial (RCT), one of the most reliable ways of finding out if something is truly causing a specific effect. Indeed, it is the first such trial looking into the effects of video games on the academic abilities and behaviour of young boys.
The duo recruited 64 lads who didnt already have a video game system. Half of them the experimental group were randomly chosen to receive a Playstation 2 via their parents along with three all-ages games. The other half the control group remained without a console. The parents were told that the study was designed to examine the boys development and that the video games were merely incentive for participation.
Four months later, Weis and Cerankosky caught up with the boys. They found that the budding gamers had significantly lower reading and writing scores than those who never received the PS2. In the intervening months, the control group became better at reading and writing, while the gamers stagnated or, if anything, became slightly worse. This didnt escape the notice of their teachers, who said that they were showing more problems at school in reading, writing and spelling.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/23/trial-finds-that-video-games-hamper-reading-and-writing-skil/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why boys' literacy skills lag behind girls' and how to bridge the reading gap [View all]
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
OP
Yeah, we didn't have many books on the curriculum that appealed to young boys
4th law of robotics
Oct 2012
#7
Better argument: lack of video games is to blame for girls poor science and math skill
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2012
#25
No no, that's because we don't make special efforts to reach out to girls
4th law of robotics
Oct 2012
#33
My dad taught me to read, too, and I suspect that's part of the key...
TreasonousBastard
Oct 2012
#37