Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

Anyone who has ever had a Candy Crush addiction will tell you that the game is a major time sink. The game seemingly never stops, and even if you beat all available levels at some point, more are shortly added. What keeps people coming back? The game does feature many of the principles of games identified by Gee, however the real appeal of the game seems to be that it takes an activity that is “hard, long, and complex” (Gee 34) and makes it seem like it is shorter and much simpler. The time needed to play a single level is deceptively short, and it is only when factoring in level after level that the true time drain is apparent. Also, the game is a seemingly simple match-three game that anyone could master, but through the addition of bonuses, power-ups, obstacles, and game challenges it becomes far more complex. Rather than try to memorize every one of the principles that Gee outlines, I opted to focus on the key goal of “get[ting] someone to learn something long, hard, and complex, and yet still enjoy it?” (Gee 34), and use a little Candy Crush inspiration for techniques to reach that goal, namely reducing the perceived time or energy investment involved, and making things seem more simple by breaking down complex tasks into smaller chunks. For example, if the purpose is to have the students create a writing portfolio, rather than assign it all at once as a large project, instead do a number of smaller short term projects that they accumulate and edit along the way, and then at the end select a few pieces that they are proud of to submit for the final portfolio. In this way the class could learn “how to play the game” (Gee 34), in this case become familiar with a number of strategies for writing in different genres, in response to a number of prompts, and so on, without being overwhelmed by a long, complicated project all up front. The time commitment and difficulty of any one writing activity would be fairly small, and also this example includes many of the other principles of gaming, including encouraging risk taking, agency, exploration, cross-functional teams (if you do peer reviews, for example), and performance before competence (Gee 35-37), and likely others. While this might seem like a bit of a trick, to trick students into doing a fairly large volume of complex work by breaking it into smaller pieces, it is a very effective tactic to help keep students engaged with a “hard, long, and complex” (Gee 34) process of learning, while keeping the risks low and preventing them from feeling overwhelmed by the scale or difficulty of the project.

Works Cited

Gee, James Paul. “Good Video Games and Good Learning.” Phi Kappa Phi Forum 85.2 (2005): 33-37. Web. 14 July 2014.

~ Amanda Cameron

In Gee’s article “Good Video Games and Good Learning”, he touts gaming as being better at promoting learning than school. One of his arguments is that books and textbooks that are used in schools are passive, while games are able to talk back. In this sense games are interactive, while schools are not as they allow the players to, “ “write” the worlds in which they live – in school, they should help “write” the domain and the curriculum that they study” (35). I do not fully agree with this argument. Although students may not be writing they IRP, many teachers often consult them on what they are interested in learning. This feedback often helps to create the learning goals for the class. Another point Gee makes is that good video games lower the consequences of failure, so players can start from the last saved level (35). This then encourages players to take risks, explore, and try new things. Contrastingly, school allows much less space for risk and hinders exploration. This is an excellent point. Often school can stop students from being creative because they fear failing. However, with the current importance placed on formative assessment and assessment for learning, this fear should decrease.

Students must also have agency in their learning. Gee states that because players are able to choose the level of difficulty that suits them, and help “write” games, they feel far more agency in what they are doing. I agree strongly with the notion and feel that it is also possible, and present within classrooms through inquiry. Students who are allowed agency in their learning are able to participate in a more meaningful learning experience through the discovery of new knowledge. By allowing students to choose the topics they wish to study they will be encouraged to “learn how to learn” rather than simply memorize facts. Inquiry based learning allows students agency in their learning, encourages curiosity, and personalizes learning in an engaging way. In addition to agency, Gee also claims the games are superior at providing well-ordered problems. Gee draws on the fact that games have levels, which challenge the players, but not before they are ready to be challenged. However, school also has levels, they are called grades. Although, within a grade level students are at varying levels of strength it is the role of the teacher to teach within the student’s Zone of Proximal Development. This allows students to be challenged, but just enough so they are able to reach understanding without being frustrating and giving up. Gee points out many positives aspects of games. However, school is growing in its use of technology, and beyond the old school teaching model of rote memorization. Teaching is becoming more advanced and is continually changing and improving.

Anna Fenn

Questions:

How can schools integrate student agency into the curriculum?

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

The Failed Prototype

My first media project can be found on the following web link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/markwesterl/

In Gee’s article “Good Video Games and Good Learning”, he talks about the motivating factors behind student learning and achievement. He begins with the premise that what makes good video games “motivating and entertaining” is the “challenge and learning” these games provide and that “Humans actually enjoy learning” (34).

This article was interesting to me, as while I read the article, the thought that kept coming back to me was that “yes, these characteristics/reasons he’s giving why games can teach students to learn are valid. However, these are characteristics which are prevalent in all forms of effective learning” and that “if learning were to engage learners in such a manner without being in the form of video games, it’d be equally effective.” It turns out that such an idea is actually presented in Gee’s conclusion, as he says, “so the question that I leave you with is not about the use of games in school – though using them is a good idea – but this: How can we make learning in and out of school, with or without using games, more game-like in the sense of using the sorts of learning principles that young people see in good games every day, when and if they are playing these games reflectively and strategically?” (37).

Keep reading →

Both Baron and Carrington’s articles raise the question of whether texting or other forms of computer-mediated communications are “degrading the language” (Baron 29). Carrington quotes a BBC news article which states that “text messaging, email and computer spell-checks have long been blamed for declining standards of spelling and grammar” (162). It also links “txting to youth to declining standards to poor achievement to social” (163).

I find these claims interesting because it appears to create a dichotomy between the two. You either text or you write “properly”. There does not appear to be a middle ground. What is not being recognized is the fact that different mediums have different expectations and conventions, and that while written English has its areas of use, so too does txting. If someone texted or wrote on social media like they did on their essay, their peers would view such a practice with eyebrows raised. Likewise, submitting an assignment as the Scottish girl did completely in text will draw the ire of teachers.

Keep reading →

A few scattered thoughts on today’s presentations and readings:

I am not a gatekeeper of language.  I do not possess the skills or the will to protect so called “standard” English against other invaders.  I do agree that there is a time and a place for different registers, but this needs to be taught explicitly.  Different registers should not be condemned in and of themselves.  Informal language has it’s place in our lives, as does academic or standard English. But we should not be placing different registers or dialects of English (or other languages) in hierarchies to each other.  As Carrington notes, arguments and crisis such as the one presented by the Australian media on the decline of standard English “establishes battle lines between competing textual forms and social practices” (168-69).  Language helps us communicate, think – particularly about more abstract constructs, and express ourselves.  Both Standard English and texting are used to communicate but in different arenas at different times.  We cannot the practice of communication in one area and context because it does not look like what we expect or want it to look like.

There are also unintended benefits and spin-off effects of being fluent in several registers or dialects.  For example: I grew up without the internet.  My family did not have a computer until I was 13.  I was terrible at typing in school and it was A CLASS.  JC! – we had a TYPING CLASS, and was terrible at it.  FML.  Anyways, it was not until MSN Messenger came around that I could actually type. It was slow at first; it wasn’t instantaneous, but if you wanted to IM, it was less embarrassing to not take fifteen minutes crafting a three sentence paragraph all the while your chat partner looking on watching the screen as “typing…” flashed.  The more I engaged socially, the more adept I became at a very real life skill – typing. And the more engaged I was with the medium, the more fluent in it’s lingo and structure I became.  So this debate is not brand new.  This text language did not just show up with the advent of the popularization of the cell phone.  I was saying “G2g”, “LOL”, “BRB” before it was kool too (I AM a hipster, why do you ask?).  Being fluent in this speak/text did not impair my learning or knowledge of standard English; if anything it deepened my understanding of it.  Being fluent in one register, dialect or form of language does not need to impede on the other.   As noted, “all competent language users shift between various types and forms of textual and other language use on a daily, even hourly basis in the course of our daily activities” (Carrinton 168) already. Going from talking to your boss, to your co-workers, to your clients/employees, family, parents-in-law, people you went to high school with, lovers, spouses, or friends, already takes a lot of skill.  These language skills are slowly honed and (sometimes) taught; why is texting treated any differently?

Languages evolve, mutate, change and go backwards.  Languages are lazy and constantly adapt and look for shortcuts.  As Carrington states on this discussion: “[p]olemic, or oppositional positions, between Standard English and texting are
discursively constructed, with txting represented  as the abnormal intruder” (167).  Setting up this black and white dichotomies is not a valuable or useful activity.  English is not that simple.  Our job as language arts pupils is not to be complete prescriptive in our approach to language (there is obviously some prescription in the classroom, but we have to be flexible). because language itself never stops changing.  We have to observe how it adapts, describe that adaptation, and deal with the new and resulting patterns and forms.  We can TRY to hammer English down, peg it, classify it, and make it  one thing all we want, but the only language to stop changing is a dead one (ex. Latin).

Carrington, Victoria.  “Txting: The End of Civilization (Again)?” Cambridge Journal of Education 35.2 (2005): 161-175. Online.

My presentation today was based on the theory that having kids adapt material is the best way to assess their knowledge and retention of classroom content. In terms of fidelity discourse and the Bortolotti-Hutcheon article, I share their opinion that a work can be ever-changing and evolving much like we are as people. In support of this theory, I quoted Stephen King.

In a recent letter on his website, where he addressed “concerns” from his fans that the television version of Under the Dome is not faithful to the original story, King quotes the late James M. Cain in an interview with a young reporter in which they had much the same conversation about his books The Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity: “’The movies didn’t change them a bit, son,’ he said. ‘They’re all right up there. Every word is the same as when I wrote them.’” (King’s full letter can be found here, and is definitely worth a read.) In an interview with Buzzfeed appropriately titled Stephen King Isn’t Afraid Of The Big Bad Adaptation, King addresses the same topic, stating: “writing a book or writing a story is like being in a room that has a lot of doors. I chose one to go through, but you only get one choice when you’re writing a novel. So this is getting a chance to go back.”

The “5 Cs” as outlined in the presentation are:

1. Creativity. Manipulation of subject matter is an essential skill for students to acquire, and the creative adaptation is a simply effective way to teach it. When a student is given the opportunity to choose how they approach a subject (choosing a show to adapt, as in the Shakespearean Sitcom assignment, or choosing format, language and style as in the Romeo and Juliet scene studies), they are not only identifying with the material but they are learning what skills they possess and can use to their advantage (ie. performing on stage vs using video; using original language vs translating, etc.).
2. Control. Put plainly, a student can’t adapt material if they don’t understand it. Following Bloom’s Taxonomy, adaptation is one of the last steps towards mastery. Showing they can adapt subject matter shows students not only understand the material itself, but they also understand the elements of the style to which they are adapting.
3. Conciseness. The ability to take a multitude of information, pick out what’s important and turn what’s left into a coherent narrative is, again, an essential skill.
4. Compounding. According to my Microsoft Word dictionary, compounding is defined as “the act of combining things to form a new whole”. This, combined with classification, is the heart of the adaptation.
5. Classification. The ability to classify or organize information into a logical format is not only important in creative projects, but is essential to anything from expository essays to recipes, or even learning trade skills.

I follow and assent to Naomi Baron’s central thesis, namely that the idiosyncratic codes of CMC (computer-mediated communication) do not represent an essential degradation of formal or Standard English. She does not, however, see text-speak (or IM lingo) as an unequivocal good: for her there is a threat that students who apprehend this type of  lingo at a very young age might struggle to switch between formal registers and the informal textual codes that they’re immersed in. Nearly ten years on I think that her fears remain relevant, but so does her prescription for addressing this potential problem: conscientious teaching of linguistic conventions, forms, and standards in Language Arts classrooms. I do support and appreciate her call for vigilance in this regard, but I don’t actually believe that teachers, as a cohort of professionals, have ever even needed to have this caution made explicit. Just as students are more linguistically sophisticated and sensitive to register than many imagine, so are teachers able to teach academic register and diction even as they incorporate, respond to, and learn the felicities of the CMC that their students use. There is much room to play in an English classroom.

I do, however, find some disturbing revelations in Baron’s short article; revelations to which she responds blithely, if not enthusiastically:

Participants in focus groups reported feeling comfortable juggling multiple online and offline tasks. Several of them     indicated that engaging in only a single IM conversation (doing nothing else online or offline) would feel odd. IMing, they    suggested, was something they did under the radar of the other virtual and physical activities vying for their attention. (30)

This narrative of “natural” multitasking–perhaps emergent in 2005 but seemingly widely professed amongst youth currently–is one that demands pause. It is true that all significant new technologies encounter an apocalyptic (perhaps pseudo-) humanist rhetoric about the costs of acceleration and some sort of concomitant loss of “soul” on the part of younger generations. I want to be careful to avoid re-marshaling such a line. However, I think there is now some evidence that this comfort with multitasking that Baron observed masks a degradation not in language, necessarily, but in cognition itself. Clifford Nass’s work at Stanford (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/21/0903620106.abstract) and Jiang et al’s at MIT (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040608070625.htm) strongly suggest that multitasking is inefficient, at least. I wonder–at the risk of rehearsing a sort of belated nostalgia–whether the vacillations of the various modes and media of contemporary information technology have effects on the human mind that need to be described in something other than utilitarian terms.

Works Cited

Baron, Naomi. “Instant Messaging and the Future of Language”. 48 Vol. New York: ACM, 2005. Web.

– Peter MacRaild

James Paul Gee argued that game is actually a form of learning. People are actually learning something from the process of gaming. He listed out sixteen learning principles that would occur when playing video games. I think video game is definitely a good way to engage students because it allows them to access their background knowledge and to think critically. According to Gee, video games allow students to take on different identities, which can lead to them being more empathetic. Since every one of us can only experience that much, video games provide a medium for students to try out different things, experiencing with a new perspective. It will be beneficial if there are some educators who are willing to make games based on novels, which can probably enable students to understand or interpret the novel differently. I also agree that students will be more willing to take risks since video games provide a virtual environment. Failure in video games do not matter because no one is recording how many times you have failed or how many times you can fail. Video games allow players to keep on trying until they master the skills that are needed in order to succeed. I find this element very intriguing because it revolves individualized learning. You go through the levels based on your interests and skills. It is just unfortunate that in the reality, the education system cannot necessarily provide such environment for students.

In my opinion, Gee’s article really allowed me to reflect on my teaching style. I think some of the learning principles that he stated can possibly be integrated into my teaching. The question then I would ask is how. Is it possible to get my students structure their own learning pace, so once they have mastered a particular skill, then they can move onto a more difficult level? Will they be more willingly to take risks if there are no grades assigned to their homework? Once I was asking myself these questions, I thought of trying them in an ELL class. What if I grouped my ELL students based on their abilities, and I would be helping each group to develop skills that are suitable to their abilities?

Questions
Can every game help gamers learn something?
Does every game have its educational value?

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

Read it!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118562/emoticons-effect-way-we-communicate-linguists-study-effects