Missed Part I? Read it now. It'll give you some background not just about why this is an issue, but also why it's an issue separate from screen time. Fascinating, we know. But for now, onto the games.

Back in 1983, girls just wanted to have fun. Now it seems that all girls—and boys—want to do is play video games, and it's affecting their educations as well as their opportunities to live successful and productive lives…or is it?

That's the million-dollar question these days, so let's dive in and see if we can find some answers.

What's not to like?

For starters, video gaming is, for the most part, a sedentary activity. Sure, your heartbeat may race as you navigate the third level in Halo, but—sorry!—it doesn't count as cardio, and it's not toning your quads. It's also not getting sunlight on your face or scoring you that much-needed Vitamin D.

Okay, we'll admit it—there are games like Dance Dance Revolution that will help you get your sweat on if you go all out. And yes, these games can actually have health benefits, as suggested in the this article from the Let's Go! program. But they tend to be the exception, not the rule.

And then there's the thing of how video games reflect society (or don't so much). A lot of games have been critiqued for not exactly making things better as far as racism, violence, and sexism. For the love of Princess Peach, why, when male characters are in flak jackets and riot gear, are the female characters perpetually adorned in busty tank tops? And that's, like, one of the less problematic things, too.

So aside from turning people into couch potatoes with offensive views about society, what's the problem? Educationally speaking, the primary complaints against video games are typically that

• they cause students to balk at learning that isn't presented as a game; and
• there is little evidence that skills learned via video gaming translate into greater academic performance, intelligence, cognitive ability, or life skills.

Indeed, regarding that second point, a 2012 review of 39 scientifically rigorous studies examining the correlation between video games and academic achievement "found some evidence for positive effects of video games on learning languages and history, and in physical education, but little support for such effects on learning science and math." So there are some positive effects. Well, that's something.

Obviously, as Vanderbilt University professor Douglas Clark points out, more research is needed. Clark also notes, however, that although games are not always effective educational tools, it would be foolish to dismiss their value altogether. As Clark says, "The research shows that games as a medium can be effective, but not always. Design is really what matters. Nobody assumes that all lectures, labs or books are good simply because of their medium." Sure, but most lectures aren't teaching you shoot-em-up tactics via bulky men and scantily clad ladies.

Well, we said most.

The other side of the token

Of course, many educators and researchers are now coming out in favor of video games, both as tools for learning in the classroom and tinder for cognitive growth outside the classroom, too.

In their article, "Multiplayer High: How Games Help Learning," Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown assert that "games may in fact be one of the best models for learning and knowing in the twenty-first century," and that "the ability to play may be the single most important skill to develop for the twenty-first century."

But why?

Because (they say) in the context of Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games—the type Thomas and Brown focus on—players must adopt a "questing disposition" which requires constant experimentation, innovation, and adaptation, as well as self-evaluation and the constant integration of new knowledge. And strange as it seems, that sounds an awful lot like the goal of current teaching models such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, and experiential education. Who woulda thunk it? Aside from Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown, we mean.

Furthermore, the first two letters of MMO stand for Massively Multiplayer, which seems to contradict the idea that video games are, in essence, solitary and antisocial pursuits. As Thomas and Brown point out, in MMO games, "there is no way for a single player (or even a small handful of players) to succeed alone. The team relies on everyone to understand that their success as individuals creates something that amounts to more than the sum of its parts."

So going it alone? Isn't an option in many of today's more sophisticated games. (Unlike Frogger, of course, in which going it alone was really the only option.) Meaning that teamwork really does get learned from these games? They're perfect and educationally sound after all? What's the deal?

The verdict

As is the case with so many hot-button issues, we don't have a definitive answer for you on this one. What we can tell you is that researchers are continuing to look at the value of video games, and at present, their popularity as educational tools appears to be trending, even if that's often with a grain of salt.

To keep an eye on this issue, we recommend checking in with organizations like The American Psychological Association from time to time to see what new research has been conducted.

Think that's all on the issue? Think again. Continue on to Screen Time: Part II of our segment on the digital world.