Should We Teach Our Kids Analogue Time? And Board Games vs Computer Games
Okay, so a total digression from my normal topics, but...
I was wondering about the skill of reading an analogue clock. Why do we still have them? Are digital clocks far superior, given their 24hr ability? And are analogue clocks' days and associated reading skills numbered, like (arguably) handwriting?
Let's shelve the idea that the skill is presently necessary for pragmatic reasons such that there simply are loads of analogue clocks about and people need to be able to access time from them.
I thought I'd do some research and couldn't really find many good reasons to keep analogue clocks past appeals to anecdote such as:
- They are good for the mind
- You can see time passing more visually
- Er, that's about it
Of course, it brings us on to the question as to whether everything needs to be a means to an end. Can something just exist for the sake of existing? In other words, should we exclusively use digital clocks because they are more efficient and less prone to mistake making? Here was an interesting quote that leaves the subject of clocks somewhat:
Instead of comparing analog time to cursive, I compared it to reading dice, which a lot of kids can’t do anymore, either. But the digital games they play instead:
"…are more cognitively demanding and require more planning, collaboration, and communications skills than board games. Plus, like any good teacher – the games they play don’t let them move on until they’ve mastered their current level while providing the motivation to continue. I’d love to be able to teach grit the way World of Warcraft does. My kids never asked me a geography or history question after playing Yahtzee or Monopoly, but they do after playing Assassin’s Creed."
Now I would be interested to see evidence to support this. I am sure it is out there and people will link to it. In primary maths teaching, there is a general consensus that children don't play enough board games because this actually helps them partition single digit numbers effectively, which leads on to greater numeracy abilities in mental maths. For example, if you are playing Monopolyu on a 10 x 10 board, and you are on the 6th square and roll a 9, then the brain, if well trained, quickly partitions the 9 into 4 and 5 to advance 4 to the corner and 5 along the next side. The partitioning of these simple numbers into their constituent parts then becomes a vital skill for mentally adding and subtracting, such that 47 + 9 becomes 47 + 3 + 6. This is aided by dice games.
Losing the use of dice games negtively affects such numeracy skills. But is this overshadowed by the other abilities that computer games apparently evoke and "teach"?
Sometimes I wonder whether pro-gamers have confirmation biases that lead them to seek benefits of gaming that might not necesarily be there as some kind of post hoc rationalisation. Or perhaps not. I will follow the evidence. When I get round to looking for it...
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:
A Tippling Philosopher