DragonBox: Algebra beats Angry birds

Does anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that gamification is good for teaching STEM ideas in the long term? I am wary of rewarding the brain with in-game loot for memorizing the rules of algebra rather than with the deep satisfaction that comes with understanding. Obviously, this latter type of reward cannot be as consistently provided and requires a certain maturity (maybe), but ultimately I think it's what drives most insightful people.<p>Here's a good example of what bothers me:<p>&#62;As the game progresses, you’ll start seeing cards that are above and below each other, with a bar in the middle — and you’ll learn to cancel these out by dragging one onto the other, which then turns into a one-dot. And you’ll learn that a one-dot vanishes when you drag it onto a card it’s attached to (with a little grey dot between them). These, of course, are fractions — multiplication and division — but you don’t need to know that to play the game, either.<p>That last sentence is especially telling.<p>To me, gamification is suited for making necessary but painful tasks fun (e.g. cleaning your desk, tagging media, memorizing facts), but not for deep learning (e.g. algebra, quantum mechanics, object-oriented programming). But maybe, at 26, I'm just not with the times.<p>EDIT: I think ColinWright is getting at the same worry, and his comment is more fleshed out <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4106567" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4106567</a>

I was going to add this as an edit to my earlier comment, but I'm on a crappy connection, and was too late. Let me expand on my comment.<p>I think this is a brilliant idea, and it seems to be well executed. I don't have the necessary hardware to run it, so I haven't played with it, but it looks to be a wonderful game based on algebraic manipulations. I, along with everyone else, expect and hope that it will engage players and allow them to learn the rules and skills of such manipulations.<p>And probably that's a good thing. Let me try to explain the underlying reasons for my sense of unease, as best I understand them.<p>Firstly, I am concerned that this will merely enhance the sense that math is simply arbitrary manipulations with neither meaning nor motivation. Many of the kids I tutor can do the manipulation, but don't get the point, and never connect it with reality.<p>Next, some of the kids I tutor can't do the manipulations without making stupid errors, and I can't help but feel that even after practising with this, they will still make stupid errors. Link that to the apparent meaninglessness, and there's a recipe for frustration.<p>Thirdly, this doesn't help to connect the creation of equations with the physical problem to be solved, and it doesn't help interpret any final answer. These are the steps that the kids I deal with simply can't do.<p>Finally, as someone commented, this isn't intended to be the whole and entire course, and it's supposed to be just one tool to help one stage, and to be built on and leveraged by the teachers. I've lost count of the number of wonderful tools and ideas that I've seen whither and die because the teachers can't make use of them. In some cases the teachers don't really understand them, but I would hope that fate would be avoided by this.<p>So in summary, I think this is a wonderful tool, and it has the potential to be a fantastic aid to learning. I am deeply uneasy about the further divorcing of algebraic manipluation from any sense of meaning, but I look forward with interest to see if it can be used in a meaningful way.

I lack words to describe how awesome this game is, both from a pedagogical perspective and from "It's genuinely fun to play."<p>My fiancee has just ordered me to take a bath as a clever way to get me away from the iPad <i>because she wants to do algebra, by herself</i>.

I have an idea similar to this that would secretly teach circuits:<p>The game would be a water-tube building game. Voltage would represent the height drop that causes the water to flow, current would be, well... current, resistance could be marked by notches in the tube section, etc. Each scenario would involve building a water maze to reach a specific objective.<p>Gradually, different tube sections would be replaced by circuit schematics, until at the end of the game, you would be designing straight-up circuits.<p>Feel free to build this, just let me know when it's available :).

I have a deep unease about this. It's brilliant that the kids learn the manipulations (although it's unclear if they'll be able to follow the rules when not enforced by the app) but it's detached. It's unconnected, and there's no sense that it's actually potentially useful.<p>It will be fascinating to see where it goes, but I'm worried about how it will translate into actual solving of problems, which is what algebra is about. Too many people think algebra is about mindless manipulation, and this seems to reinforce that.<p>Yet to be seen. Interesting times.

Very cool. This actually intensely reminds me of Ed Yang's logitext sequent calculus tutorial: <a href="http://logitext.ezyang.scripts.mit.edu/logitext.fcgi/tutorial" rel="nofollow">http://logitext.ezyang.scripts.mit.edu/logitext.fcgi/tutoria...</a><p>You don't have to know the rules of the sequent calculus, you can just click around, but the theorem prover will ensure that you can't break them. Then, by fucking around and reading through the tutorial, you can pretty much learn how it works.<p>I think that things like this are the <i>right</i> way to start designing interactive education. Create a play space, enforce the rules, provide lessons that act as hints and tips for understanding how the rules work.

This is brilliant. You're teaching the mechanics of algebra but initially ignoring "this is math" which lets players avoid the mental barriers they may have erected about that particular subject.<p>Being able to "do" first makes explaining the "why" later much easier and more interesting.

When I saw the title, I thought "would it not make more sense to use trigonometry to beat Angry Birds?"<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1043491" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1043491</a>

Who's trying to prove the Goldbach conjecture before they learn the rules of algebra? Most kids in middle to high school math classes aren't worried about their "mathematical maturity" or about having powerful insight. Rather, this obviously shows that the rules of algebra can be applied to other sets of symbols, and that letters and numbers are simply a subset of a much larger set. How is that not a powerful notion? If you're bothered by this, then go back and read Herstein, or any other intro to group theory. Seriously, this is a great way to get kids actively thinking about the rules of manipulation of symbols.<p>The seeds of abstraction must be planted before you can play with more lofty ideas. If games aren't a good way to enjoy mathematics, then you have missed the point of a lot of math.

Very innovative, I love seeing educational apps that make the player think and solve puzzles instead of just repeatedly showing them rules to memorize.

Hi, as the guy behind the game concept, I am thrilled to read all these comments and discussions. For those interested I can explain how I thought of this game and which goals we try to reach with it. First of all, the game is a direct translation of my view of math. Abstract objects, relations between them, and playing around with it. Obviously there is no One mathematics. Each of us we have our own subjective understanding of it. Secondly, I have three kids, and I want the best for them. Mathematics can be used to understand better our world and can give access to better decisions. The earlier, the better. That means I d like them to learn K-12 math as soon as they can get it. And they could get everything now, if we had the right tools. Just to say that I make sure that the games we create transfer to useful knowledge. I am not here to sell another game, I am here to make children learn. Third, first we teach how to solve equations and then, how to set up equations. 4. Our goal is to make players think and learn. For example, players have to figure out themselves how to solve an equation with x in denominator. I think we are the only ressource that let a kid find out that by herself. School has no time to let kids spend time on high level thinking... 5. most importantly, this game is about discovery learning. Trial and error. The only reason there are texts, is that parents feel unease with textless discovery games. Children and parents learn completely differently. So imagine what a teacher does to our poor kids (i am myself a teacher, so i try to replace myself...). She cant test her teaching as we tested our game... how can you be better without feedbacks? 6. no teacher will be able to beat this game. Because of feedbacks, discovery mechanisms, beautiful symbols, tests etc.. players solve 200 equations in 1,5 hours without any prerequisite... and explanations. This game avoid many pitfalls that communication with words create when explaining algebra. Teaching algebra from arithmetic, concrete to abstract is to my mind crazy. It s an unecessary step. This game is the result of a thinking process where I sat as a big hairy goal to teach K-12 math in less than 20 hours. It is obvious that to do that, we have to think very differently. For example none has noticed that the equation is set up in two dimensions. The game seems simple and obvious and it is easy to start discussing the effect of it. It was pretty complex to make it that simple.... Make complex things simple without oversimplifying, that s the point to discuss to progress in learning science. That s what the game is about. And i hope it inspires many to work with it.

I just bought this for my 5-year-old daughter. She mastered the first level (or chapter, as the game calls levels) in about an hour, with minimal input for me (I just read the minimal instructions at the beginning).<p>I am really excited about this game, and others like it.<p>As someone from the former Soviet Union where we started learning rudimentary algebra in first grade, I remember variables being explained as a box that you have to figure out what is in it by putting everything else on the other side of the equals sign. This game literally takes this concept and gamifies it.

I studied pre-Algebra in the 6th grade - about 12 years old. The author's child is learning the same things from Dragon Box at 5 years old. That gives kids nowadays a 7-year jump on the standard American public school curriculum. It's amazing to think of how much more kids will be able to learn and accomplish with their lives with iPad based learning tools.

This is awesome, I'm going to buy this for my little brother.<p>I can imagine expanding upon this concept to get kids to solve word problems. Present a simple word problem, give the player some variables/cards and operators to pick from, and let her arrange them into a suitable equation or three. Award points for reaching states like a fully isolated variable, which is basically the solution.<p>Maybe specific guided processes could be created for different varieties of problems, e.g. distance-time problems, simultaneous equations, algebra applied to geometry, combinatorics...each type of problem could be broken up into sub-components which the player first arranges into the right combination, and then returns to the original algebraic solving process as the final step.<p>Hmm. If my current startup idea doesn't work out, I might have to look into venturing into education. I always liked tutoring anyway.

I convinced my mother to purchase the iOS version for all her grandchildren ... and then I played it. There was a distinct change in my behavior when there was a distinct change in the cards - they go from colorful bugs with different backgrounds to different symbols in black on white backgrounds. That's when I had to concentrate on what was actually on the screen and think about what moves to make.<p>I have yet to see what the younger ones do with it, but my 13yo found it somewhat interesting until he had to <i>think</i> - that made it less of a game for him and he became less interested.<p>My anecdotal experience with this game suggests that the same people who would excel at math (with a trait for "why is this wrong? let's try something else; let's dig deeper") will also excel at this game. Those that don't want to <i>think</i> are going to give up when the game changes.

Great idea, look forward to playing this with my daughter.<p>But, from the article: "the flip side to that in the case of DragonBox is that you don’t learn the reasons for the rules. My kids (particularly my five-year-old) have no idea why, when you drag a card below another one, you have to drag it below all the other cards on the screen."<p>Games like this still have a place, but knowing the reasons and the why of things is still incredibly important.