1. The use of commercial off-the-shelf computer games (COTS) in primary classrooms is gaining interest, but the evidence of their educational value is limited.
2. Previous studies have shown mixed results regarding the link between gaming and academic achievement, with stronger links seen in mathematics.
3. The motivating characteristics of gameplay, such as flow, goal orientation, and self-regulation theory, are often discussed, but few authors have explored the relationship between games use and self-concept or self-esteem.
The article titled "Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of ‘Brain Training’ programme on computation and self‐esteem" discusses the use of commercial off-the-shelf computer games (COTS) in primary school classrooms. The article highlights the potential benefits of using these games for learning, particularly in terms of computation skills and self-esteem. However, upon closer analysis, several critical points can be identified.
Firstly, the article acknowledges that there is limited research evidence regarding the educational value of COTS games. While it briefly mentions some potential benefits such as faster processing of information and high levels of engagement, it fails to provide substantial evidence or examples to support these claims. This lack of empirical evidence weakens the overall argument for using COTS games in the classroom.
Furthermore, the article acknowledges that there are concerns about the use of computer games by children but does not adequately address these concerns. It briefly mentions a study by Byron (2008) that raises concerns about computer game usage but does not delve into any counterarguments or potential risks associated with using COTS games in schools. This one-sided reporting undermines the credibility and objectivity of the article.
Additionally, the article relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and case studies rather than rigorous research methods. It mentions a small-scale exploratory study conducted as a pilot exercise for a larger controlled trial but does not provide any details or results from this study. Without access to this information, it is difficult to evaluate the validity and reliability of the findings presented in the article.
Moreover, while discussing theories related to gameplaying and learning, such as flow theory and goal orientation theory, the article fails to explore alternative perspectives or counterarguments. It presents these theories as if they are universally accepted without acknowledging any potential criticisms or limitations.
Another issue with the article is its promotional tone towards COTS games. It repeatedly emphasizes their potential benefits without critically examining their limitations or drawbacks. This bias towards promoting COTS games for learning purposes undermines the objectivity of the article and raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Overall, the article lacks a balanced and critical analysis of the use of COTS games in primary school classrooms. It relies on limited evidence, fails to address concerns or counterarguments, and presents a biased perspective. As a result, readers should approach the claims made in this article with caution and seek additional research and evidence before drawing any conclusions about the educational value of COTS games.