Mobile legends is one of the most addictive mobile games nowadays. This game allows players across the globe communicate with each other, they can form groups virtually and fight other groups.
But the "should this be avoided during class" is a no-brainer question. Let us not mix things up. There is absolutely nothing wrong playing games like Mobile Legend. What makes it wrong is to actually play the game during class hours. What's the difference of playing Mobile Legend, or any thing during versus our of class hours?
Mobile Legends is affecting the mental health of its players, especially the students. Addiction to video games or mobile games is not just an issue of time-management. It is also a raising issue of attention and affection.
Players who spend most of their time playing Mobile Legends and are not able to accomplish tasks on their daily routines are starting to get addicted to the game. They lose opportunities to be productive in their reality and choose to settle on a digital platform to accomplish roles which can give them more fulfillment and a sense of pride. It becomes their escape to the reality and detach to the things that bother them.
If Mobile Legends or other mobile games are really the cause of this addiction, let’s answer the following questions:Is it possible that the those who’d rather spend their time on mobile games are seeing their worth in playing their roles online?Do they feel more sense of purpose as they communicate with their team mates in the game than in their families and friends?Do they feel more sense of belongingness with the people they meet online than the people they interact with in reality?Does the digital platform for mobile games show a more accepting community rather than in reality?
What is Mobile Legends?/Ano ang Mobile Legends?
Should playing Mobile Legends be banned in schools?
What are the effects of playing Mobile Legends to students?/Ano ang mga epekto ng paglalaro ng Mobile Legends sa mga mag-aaral?
scientific revolution. the scientific revolution took place from the sixteenth century through the seventeenth century and saw the formation of conceptual, methodological, and institutional approaches to the natural world that are recognizably like those of modern science. it should not be seen as a revolution in science but a revolution in thought and practice that brought about modern science. although highly complex and multifaceted, it can essentially be seen as the amalgamation of what was called natural philosophy with various so-called subordinate sciences, such as the mathematical sciences, astronomy, optics, and geography, or with separate traditions, such as those of natural magic and alchemy. the traditional natural philosophy, institutionalized in the universities since their foundation in the thirteenth century, was almost entirely based upon the doctrines of aristotle and followed rationalist procedures. when those trained in natural philosophy began to recognize the power of alternative traditions for revealing truths about the physical world, they increasingly incorporated them into their natural philosophies. in so doing, these natural philosophers inevitably introduced different methods and procedures to complement and refine the earlier rationalism. to fully understand the scientific revolution, however, requires consideration not only of what happened but also of why it happened. before looking at this, it is necessary to consider the status of the scientific revolution as a historiographical category.
simple answer: false