Comments on: RCT: video games can hamper reading and writing skills in young boys by displacing other activities

By: NERS Review of the Year Part 3 – Science and society | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Fast Free News

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:38:44 +0000

[...] 7) RCT: video games can hamper reading and writing skills in young boys by displacing other activities [...]

By: IanH

IanH — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:35:30 +0000

At the risk of feeding the trolls.
@Jack (#24)
You need to (a)read the title (b)read the blog and ideally (c)read the paper before you comment.
Iy had long been claimed/suggested/feared that computer games decrease academic performance, but science is about data, not anecdotes. This study suggests a mechanism for the reduction in performance (displacing academic activities) as well as showing that it really does happen (in this group, etc etc. I don’t think the article/blog post suggested that it made the gamers stupider, just that it slowed down their progress with literacy activities. This would seem to me to be summed up by the idea of hampering their (acquisition of) reading and writing skills.
I am going to, with great difficulty, refrain from making the obvious ad hominem comments regarding time spent playing computer games and a lack of reading and writing ability.

By: jack

jack — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:46:54 +0000

WHAT A MISLEADING ARTICLE TITLE.
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.
OBVIOUSLY if you play games you dont study for school. However it doesnt make you any stupider or hamper your abilities.
Dear author, YOU SUCK.

By: MissPrism

MissPrism — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:25:43 +0000

I’m boggled that nobody ever bothered doing a straightforward controlled trial before! I suppose having a controversial speculative rant about kids these days and their badly-wired brains is just too tempting.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:08:00 +0000

I agree that the types of games were not a confounding factor in this study. I suppose my real issue is that aside from video gaming time, were these children really doing the same activities? There is no real way to tell if the gaming group went from playing games to watching television in their spare time while the control group did no such activity and were instead riding bicycles or activity “X”. Therefore, perhaps the video games had nothing to do with it at all and it was actually the television watching time which was replacing their after-school academic endeavors. After all, the control vs. the experimental groups only had a 9 min. vs. 40 min. difference in gaming time. How many hours after school are there in a day? Maybe 6? How can these 31 minutes spent playing video games be the only activity difference that these boys had? How many more rhetorical questions will I ask?
I will concede that regardless of whether it was time spent gaming or time spent picking their noses, the experimental group certainly spent less time preparing for school with a 14 minute differential on academic-related after school activities. Regardless of whether this was a study or not, shame on these parents! (Dismounts high horse).
I admit that this is pure conjecture on my part and I could be completely off-base here. I fully admit that your summary is the only real exposure that I have to this study so I certainly do not have all of the information that I need. If this were a true RCT then you would be, of course, correct and the games would be the only cause of the reading deficiecies. I have no direct evidence to lead me to conclude that the two groups were, in fact, behaving differently aside from video games. This is purely my opinion based on personal observations of human behaviour. It is not based upon any fact and therefore can certainly be treated as such.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:05:26 +0000

Hang on a minute – remember this is an RCT. Confounding factors are much less of a problem than in observational studies, and aside from the presence of games, the two groups should have been the same, unless you can think of a reason why something else would have systematically varied between the game and control groups. The stuff about the type of games the children were given is a valid point but that’s not a “confounding factor”.

By: Dr. Jason

Dr. Jason — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:54:32 +0000

I played video games constantly while growing up (NES and Sega) and they certainly didn’t seem to cause me much harm scholastically. In fact, Super Mario Bros. improved my timing and coordination, The Legend of Zelda improved my problem-solving and math skills (how many more rupees before I can buy the red ring), and Final Fantasy improved my reading comprehension and speed (you should have seen me scroll through those screens).
I understand that I am an N of 1 but I still think that, as many have stated in previous comments, there are far too many confounding factors to truly conclude anything from this study.
Perhaps I am a bit biased.

By: Briana

Briana — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:19:44 +0000

Ed: Most of the DOI links in your articles don’t work when I click on them. I don’t know how many other people have this problem?
I find it curious why such young children were chosen for this study. It seems like it was meant to be a “door opener” to further investigations, instead of being comprehensive. So with all the questions people are posing, I guess they did a good job.
I remember when I was in the 6-9 bracket word-munchers and number-munchers were fun, even though I was substantially frustrated when I didn’t get the right answers to problems. I think the difference between those games and some other “learning” games is they were not interupted with academic questions… I’ve noticed many games want you to solve a problem that looks like it came off your spelling quiz before it allows you to continue the game. You just lost a life if you got an answer wrong, it never asked direct questions about a subject.
As far as the addictive factor, it is true that not just video games can be addictive. But from what I see it is far more likely that they will be, espeically when introduced at a young age. Computers are even worse, because the light from the monitor messes with light/dark cycles and arousal (though don’t make me find the reference for that). In addition to that, many after-school activities for children are active, like karate or ballet. They tire the kids out and can’t be sustained for long periods of time like video games (and reading, however).

By: southlakesmom

southlakesmom — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:22:10 +0000

Thinking more about this, and reading Steve and Ian’s comments — it is apparent we have LOTS of questions! I wonder if a study looked at teen habits with social interaction sites there would be a corresponding trend. My teen daughter can do her homework with several windows of “conversation” open at the same time, and with music playing. My instinct says she’ll be more time-efficient if she shuts all the rest off and focuses on the homework at hand. But perhaps being able to chat while she does it gives a level of social interaction that encourages her to stay on task.
I hate it when my ‘parenting instincts’ smack up against this generation’s use of technology in a completely different way than we did. What is ‘entertainment’ to me (using the computer after work hours) is ‘lifeblood’ to them. Sigh.
I note that I have spent so much time this morning on the machine that I am now running late for meetings. I guess my kids aren’t the only ones…

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:44:49 +0000

Not sure why the DOI link isn't working but here's an alternative: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/17/0956797610362670.abstract