Chapter 3 of Gee is a discussion about identity. Gee believes that one reason for the dysfunction of current educational models is the way that they fail to consider the way our identities help us learn.
For this task, Gee sets up three ways of looking at the identity of a gamer interacting with the game.
1. Virtual Identity- This is the value of the virtual character within virtual space. This can include skill points or other attributes that are a part of the game dynamics. The player still has some control over this identity, as many games depend on the continued advancement of these attributes throughout the course of the game.
2. Real World Identity- This is the identity of the physical person in front of the keyboard or holding the controller. The emphasis here is on the types of things that affect the real person. How well can the person physically (pressing buttons) play the game? What are the social circles and associations that are made by the player?
3. Projective Identity- This was the most complex identity for Gee to explain. The projected identity is both what the user projects into the game from their own value system as well as the idea that the game identity is a project that needs to be worked on. This consists of decisions that are not based on the game mechanics. According to Gee, the player gets an idea of what they want the character to be or become, and will make decisions in order to support that identity. In this way the projective identity becomes a conglomeration of the in-game character along with the value systems from the person playing the game.
This is important when we think about conventional classrooms and the way students are so often taught against what they see as their identity. If students have connected their identity to doing poorly in school (which happens often in underprivileged communities) then they won’t see classroom instruction as something that is important or attainable.
The solution, Gee claims, is to rebuild the student’s identities through several steps which encourage the students to try, to work hard, and to realize their accomplishment in learning. When the identities of the students are valued, and when they value their own identity as a part of the community, they will be more willing to put forward a considerable amount of effort.
The problem, for me, is that I think that students are too mistrustful of the idea of “school” to be convinced to imagine their identities any differently. Where there is potential, though, is to build off the way that many students already understand their identity in gaming communities. It almost seems more useful, then, to move the identity from gamer to learner before they go from learner to learner of _______. Which is kind of the way we’re going in this class.
Games and Situated Meanings
One of Gee’s main points in this chapter is to distinguish between learning to recognize a certain set of symbols, and understanding how to play with and use those symbols to do real work. Gee sets up the subject through a discussion of humans as pattern recognizers. Though we might be able to recognize patterns, which we might think of in terms of base-level reading comprehension, we won’t be able to contextualize what those patterns mean, or how to interpret them. This next level, where students are able to actually use and interpret the information, is the vital step that students are going to need when they leave the classroom. Unfortunately, as Gee points out, school’s too often depend on measuring comprehension (and really defining the very act of reading) by asking students if they can recognize patterns instead of if they can use them.
Using patterns is what Gee calls embodied learning. Students learn while doing instead of splitting up a preliminary stage of learning then doing. Gee then points to multiple successes of embodied learning, from Gregory Mendel to Physics modeling to more general science classrooms.
In an important turn later in the chapter, Gee contests the popular conception that gamers don’t read any directions, and presents an interesting model for the use of game manuals. Gee claims that all game manuals look like extraordinary jibberish until the point where the person has played the game to understand what the manual is talking about. Gee also talks about the way gamers read the in-depth guides and walkthroughs. Gamers will turn to these dense texts when they have a problem, when they have a specific frustrating issue that needs to be solved. And while the complex tables and graphs found in the guides might look excruciating to someone who has never played the game, they become a useful guide to someone looking for precise detailed information.
3 Questions:
On p 63 Gee discusses how it was great to have in-game rewards for his actions, but that he didn’t want to receive the same rewards as much better players because it would mean that his success was not worth as much. How do rewards-systems in the classroom work in a different way than Gee’s description of the in-game rewards?
At the end of Deus Ex, Gee was given a choice between multiple endings, what are the benefits of these multiple endings and how might this system be translated into the classroom?
To what extent are strategy guides cheating? How do arguments surrounding strategy guides relate to conversations on cheating in the classroom?
No comments:
Post a Comment