Spotlight on Digital Media And Learning

4.19.10 | In December, neuroscientist Silvia Bunge, a professor at University of California at Berkley, conducted an eight-week experiment with students at a low-income school in Oakland, Calif., to see if she could improve their fluid reasoning and speed of cognition,  both of which occur in regions of the brain historically thought to be unmalleable. Her primary weapon: games.

Working with second-, third- and fourth-graders, Bunge and her team, led by graduate student Allyson Mackey, first tested the kids’ intelligence. The average IQ was 90. After two months of playing selected games twice a week for sessions of an hour and fifteen minutes, the children’s IQs rose an average of 32 percent, or 10 points.

Could students really become 32 percent smarter in eight weeks? By playing games? In a part of the brain thought to be unmalleable? The results seem too good to be true.

According to Jan Plass, director of New York University’s Games for Learning Institute, Bunge’s study is a game changer – and not just because of its use of games.

“There are certain parts of the brain people thought just weren’t malleable,” Plass said, “like fluid reasoning and speed of cognition. This study is remarkable in that it shows this isn’t the case.”

And then, of course, there’s the game factor – although be warned: The use of games in this study is not as cutting edge as some of the work done in the field of games and learning by researchers such as Katie Salen, executive director at the Institute of Play (and founder of the charter school Quest to Learn, which applies game theory in classrooms)  or Colleen Macklin at the New School. Bunge used off-the-shelf card and board games SET, Qwirkle, and Rush Hour, as well as Nintendo DS games “Picross” and “Big Brain Academy,” and computer games “Azada” and “Chocolate Fix.”

In other words, the kids were not playing “Grand Theft Auto IV” or “Left 4 Dead.” Rather, the games were classic brain-teasers. In fact, James Gee, author of “What Videogames Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy,” said he wouldn’t even consider Bunge’s selection “games” per se. He says they’re “tasks that also happen to be types of games that mimic tests items on IQ tests.”

Still, studies using any kind of games at all to increase cognitive abilities are limited. Richard Nisbett, a cognitive psychologist at University of Michigan and author of “Intelligence and How to Get It,” couldn’t think of any. Neither could Torkell Klingberg, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute, and an oft-cited author on the subject.

And Bunge herself said she didn’t think she would have obtained such strong results if she had used anything other than games.

“Games are an optimal way of learning,” Bunge said, “because of the way they hook you in and motivate you to succeed.” Games also allow players to progress at their own natural pace.

Jan Plass at New York University’s Games for Learning Center was particularly interested in the fact that the group that played games designed to promote fluid reasoning showed no increase in cognitive speed, and the group playing games designed to increase cognitive speed showed no increase in their fluid reasoning abilities.

“This study is the first attempt to actually show there can be a significant impact of games on cognitive development,” Plass said, “and, more specifically, what kinds of games affect what areas.”

Plass said this could be the beginning of a topology of games, which could help scientists and educators develop certain kinds of games to develop certain cognitive abilities. Also, with so much excitement about the possibility of games and learning these days, but so little quantifiable research on actual effects, Plass said studies like Bunge’s are crucial. It’s that sort of work that will help convince educators that investing in games and learning is worthwhile.

“Right now, we see a lot of promise in games,” Plass said. “But we don’t have enough research to quantify it.”

Excitement aside, Nisbitt, of the University of Michigan, issued a cautionary warning about results as positive as Bunge’s: There is no follow-up. Nobody knows if the IQ increase is a temporary bump based on the eight weeks of testing or a permanent boost.

Nisbitt was skeptical that, if tested again in six weeks, the kids would retain those extra IQ points. Bunge conceded that until the next version of her study, which she hopes will contain follow-up testing, there is no way to know for sure. She remained optimistic, however.

“We think that cognitive skills wax and wane as a function of use,” she said. “Strength training will improve muscle tone, but one can’t expect to go to the gym for eight weeks and then be strong for life. At the same time, though, we do think that training certain skills could lead to a snowball effect. When you teach a child to read, you open up a world of possibilities for future learning.”

Photo courtesy of Institute of Play.