Author: aniak

Baron highlights how there is a problem with viewing Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) as either good or bad. I personally feel torn on this subject, and while I understand the need and place for proper grammar, I do not think at times it is of highest importance. Baron writes how in the mid twentieth century, “writing instructors were commonly advised to focus on content and de-emphasize mechanics” as some of the finest graduates could not spell properly nor could they use correct grammar.

I’m torn on this subject for two reasons. While I personally appreciate proper grammar, and generally feel quite irked when someone engages in a horrific display of linguistic murder, I also know that some of the brightest individuals I have ever met, cannot spell to save their lives. When it comes down to it, is proper grammar and spelling really a necessity, or is it something that has been drilled into our heads as required etiquette? I’ve met social workers, teachers, doctors, and other professionals who excel in their areas of work, but cannot connect the dots when it comes to linguistics. Sometimes I fear that as a society, we have grown too rigid in our definition of what we classify as intelligent, and may at times look down on individuals who do not display perfect grammar.

However, because we live in a society which values proper grammar, perhaps educators should place a greater emphasis on teaching kids how to write and spell properly. Baron explains how at times, teachers may “tolerate IM novelties in classroom written assignments” so as not to appear “out of touch with contemporary culture”. I do not see a problem with teachers allowing text lingo in certain assignments, however I do believe that if IM lingo is used too often, students may out of habit, forget how to write ascribing to proper grammar etiquette. If students become too comfortable with writing in abbreviations, they may find themselves struggling when the time comes to write a resume or a cover letter. It is great that teachers are making an effort to engage the culture rather than oppose it, but they must do so carefully and still keep in mind the best interest of their students. If our future society points towards the extinction of IM language, then our teachers must do their best to discourage its use. However, if we are headed towards a greater openness to language of all form and variation, then this diversity should not only be celebrated, but encouraged in all.

Works Cited

Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.

James Paul Gee’ article, Good Video Games and Good Learning focuses on the learning principles incorporated by video games serving a challenging and educational purpose. He proposes that “challenge and learning are a large part of what makes good video games motivating and entertaining”. It is an interesting concept, considering some of the opinions floating around Canadian education today. Just last week the topic of discussion in my inquiry class (EDUC 452) centered around the fact that 40 is the new 50 in regards to student performance. Students, who are now coming close to meeting the 50% passing requirement, are pushed through to the next level without being required to complete the necessary work.

Is it possible that these same students who hate challenge and learning in the classroom, are then heading home and spending hours being challenged and vigorously learning on a different platform? Gee points out how some of the criticism aimed at video games claims that “what you learn when you learn to play a video game is just how to play the game” but he argues that along with playing the game, the player inhabits its surroundings and engages with sixteen various learning principles.  I find this article very interesting and it challenges a lot of the preconceived notions I hold about video games. I seldom played video games as a child, and when I did the occasional time at a friend’s house, I’d always feel guilty that I was not playing outside or better yet, doing something more productive with my time. I would walk away from a two hour game of Mario-Kart or Super-Mario, feeling as though I had wasted too much time playing around with video games and had now successfully contributed to the rotting of my brain. Looking back now, I had no concrete evidence to back up my reasoning and my sentiments towards video games had arisen out of what others had told me or what I had seen on the news.

In taking a look at the fifteen principles present in good games, I now see video games presented from an entirely different angle. Previously, I had thought that a person’s interaction with the game was a purely responsive one, without any initiative or truly intellectual engagement on part of the player.

References:

Gee, J. (2005). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85 (2), 33-37.