May 8, 2014, Neurogaming Conference, San Francisco—A panel discussed gaming technologies leveraging the latest advances in neuroscience and gaming to accelerate learning. Greg Toppo from USA Today moderated the panel. Panel members included Tom Butt from BrainRush, Bruce Wexler from C8 Sciences, Jocelyn Faubert from Neurotracker, and John Cammack from Curiosityville.
Is putting games into an educational environment disruptive?
Wexler noted that brain training for kids can be coupled with a physical assessment package to provide a complete testing and evaluation suite.
Faubert declared that training systems have already made the transition to real life in areas like the NHL, manufacturing, and the Atlanta Falcons.
Why are schools and curriculum having such implementation hurdles?
Butt suggested that this is a different social environment that is not built for change. Acceptance is growing for neural training with more computers in classrooms, low-cost sensor hardware, and greater comfort levels for the sensor arrays. There is still a need to change the teaching paradigms from rules and regulations and a lecture format to more interactive modes. External changes are moving into the schools.
Cammack considered that we still need to create critical thinkers. The public educational market is a poor sales marketplace due to high fragmentation. Nevertheless, blended learning is unstoppable, so teachers will have to become curators and directors. Serious games and apps provide good feedback. Investing in brain development changes the trajectory of the child and calls for a change in investment philosophies.
Convincing funders to work with schools?
Faubert stated that schools offer a different business model that is curriculum driven and has some defined minimum requirements. One problem is that the current teaching models don't work for many kids. Teaching styles are a factor, but trials and demonstration software in schools have demonstrated economic benefits outside improved test scores. The number of discipline issues drops with better teaching technologies. There is still a need for more data.
Wexler added that there are different entry points into the educational markets. Turn-around schools need massive changes to succeed. Special education has similar challenges for kids and unique requirements. Distinguished schools need an edge to maintain their status. The overall challenges are in implementation, costs, teacher training, and lesson construction.
Butt commented that the entire school system needs changes in all facets to optimize per student. Businesses have to address free, modular, and scalable systems while creating centers of excellence. These characteristics are risky for startup companies.
Wexler considered that schools are resource poor. Kids need early interventions since studies show that attention deficits at age 6 lead to an 8X increase in dropout rates later. To sustain their efforts, the thought of classroom knowledge has to change from not fun to exciting. The challenge is to balance entertainment with appropriate training.
Butt declared that it is hard to scale the technology base, but the changes result in high payoffs. The return on learning and theories on early interventions come from some work in Baltimore. This study generated the first aggregate data on neural-feedback, cognitive training, etc. and showed educational and economic results.
Another area for research is in addiction treatment and public boarding schools. The social and emotional learning in these environments raises some brain issues related to high stress which leads to delayed brain integration.
Other cities?
Wexler responded some cities are starting neural-plasticity investigations to sort out all of the offerings and increase awareness of the issues. Consumers need more education of the issues as there are many other variables like homes family, etc.
Are 3-month trials sufficient for proof?
Butt noted that one issue is learning velocity. There is a gap between the research and the schools, but the gap is shrinking and the myths are changing. The best results come from spaced repetition which involves long-term retention. The myth of an appropriate learning style is being replaced with the concept of an all-styles–at-once.
Cammack added that the teacher schools do not address brain-based learning.
Games reduce the pain for a positive students?
Cammack suggested there is a disconnect between principals and test scores. For kids to become more involved, they need visionary principals to invest in long-term results. The results will appear over time, but need personalization.
Wexler offered that programs can increase test scores, while interventions to change attention also translate to improved test scores. The changes for the kids are that their efforts need assessment to define the interventions. An alternative is to have the program adapt to focus on areas of challenge.
A worry, this new environment will create "Christian Rock" of video games?
Wexler said not to worry. Books have moved into computers so we can use technologies for traditional materials and add adaptive feedback for the teacher or make content independent tasks. The real question is how do games hold the gamers' attention, by overriding the command and control centers in the brain.
Faubert offered a balance between entertainment and engagement through positive reinforcement. It is possible to combine fun and entertainment in some percentage of game and education. The efforts for the game creator should address the kids' missing or weak functions. Game developers are very imaginative and creative.
Butts made a point about maximum learning volatility and how much to learn. The game as entertainment is addictive if the difficulty is balanced with frustration and boredom, leading to higher attention. There is a definite overlap between fun and other education.
Intrinsic motivation?
Butt offered care with motivational tools to monitor performance is ok for a short term. A challenge is that interactions decrease after getting a reward. It is important to design games to reinforce the material.
Faubert noted the importance to define what motivates a child. This information is useful in development engagement.
People engaged with a topic, can we assess what they are engaged by?
Butt declared that today teaching is teacher centric, but this has to move to student directed in the future.
Cammack offered that exposing the child to content and basics is important, but kids are naturally curious and will change the world. Their resilience and growth mindset can lead to them becoming life-long learners.