Gee Chapters 5+6: Learning Modeled, Culture Modeled

Telling and Doing

One of the most fascinating aspects of this chapter was Learning Principle #25: Concentrated Sample Principle. I also thought about this yesterday in class while we were talking about the way educational models often replicate the idea of skill and drill learning.

The principle says that it is important for the initial stages of learning to deal with the condensed, basic forms that the player/student will deal with later. For example, in Gee's description of games he talks about the way games direct the virtual player to "hold forward" or "the action button" which is actually directed towards the person playing the game. Players then have a more merged sense of identity with the characters they are playing. Along with the "lesson" on game language, players learn basic skills in the beginning in a very condensed way that they might be able to build off later.

In the same way that the typical educational game becomes another way to drill students, the type of condensation applied to the material often considers the material in terms of rote skills. It will be easy, when we teach 103, to pretend that the condensed, fundamental information is knowing the buzzwords like ethos, pathos, logos, etc. We might make the mistake of trying to have the students understand the words, force them to use the words X number of times in their essay, or say that they must have one paragraph on each of the three parts. The problem is, students can regurgitate ethos, pathos, logos back to the teacher, but they won't be able to apply those principles when they get to their rhetorical analysis. When looking at a complex visual arrangement, such as an advertisement, knowing the definitions won't help the students much because they won't know what signs to look for to analyze.

I saw a fair number of students in the writing center who knew that ethos, pathos, and logos were important, and they could almost give a definition, but they couldn't really use the terms for visual analysis. On the other hand, it would also be a problem if the students were left to their own devices to simply figure out how these terms relate to visual apparatuses. Gee discusses this as well, in terms of the distinction between immersion and overt information. While humans recognize patterns, being simply dropped into an environment won't force students to learn actively and critically. The solution to this polemical thinking is to use learning models that games use, in which they begin with fundamental concepts (which we sometimes forget as teachers doesn't have to correspond to vocabulary terms).

So what would this mean for teaching 103? Or even for the games we will be creating in this class? To begin, we will need to think about what fundamental concepts underlie the things we are trying to teach our students. I suppose that I would try to teach my students about the social construction of language (in everyday speak) and then move into some really basic things to look for in an image in order to analyze it rhetorically. But I will leave this more to the question at the end.

Cultural Models in Games

I really enjoyed this chapter, possibly because it reminded me of Gorgias' encomium of helen, and the whole problem of making decisions within a moral structure. This wasn't particularly what Gee is getting at, but there is a definite relationship between Gorgias' argument for Helen, and Gee's treatment of how we make decisions based on cultural models. Ultimately, I feel, Gee leaves off with a Gorgias-esque portrayal of the situation. Gorgias plays with the idea of Helen's innocence though appealing to the way that her decisions were not entirely in her control. In the same way, Gee is portraying this concept of cultural models in a way which opens up the space where we not only control our characters (and ourselves) but we are also controlled.

Gee's three examples of in-game cultural models was also fascinating. I've played many games where the player is given the decision between "good" and "evil," and I've almost always played through the game twice in order to gain both experiences. I find this especially true when I end the game satisfied that I have destroyed "evil," and there seems to be no way that there could be two sides to the story. I open up a second campaign because I'm curious, and I often end up playing the whole way through in order to hone my abilities and to learn about how the side of "evil" is introduced. Even more interesting, though, was when I played Dragon Age, and the decisions were so multifaceted that there often wasn't necessarily a "good" and "evil" to choose between, but a series of complex consequences.

Addressing Cultural Models

I also, easily, enjoyed the part of the chapter where Gee discussed the conflict between the cultural models and scientific models in the physics class. But I, alas, am at my 800 word limit.

Questions For Discussion:

What are some ways to think about teaching fundamental concepts if it is not, as commonly understood, learning the vocabulary terms? What are the fundamental concepts we will need to start with for Second Life, Minecraft, or our future classrooms?

What would make you want to play "both sides" of a game, instead of just playing the "good" or "bad" side and leaving it be?

In what ways might the cultural models of our students in 103 come into conflict with the ideas we teach in 103?

Photos Found At:

http://www.djphresh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/reading_is_fundamental.jpg

http://www.sonicstadium.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sks3-front.jpg

Gee Chapters 3+4: Identities and Situated Learning

Games and Identity

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?

Photos (In order of appearance):

http://games.germanblogs.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/deus-ex.jpg

http://techgyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/boy-playing-video-games.jpg

http://www.spanish-only.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sleep-learning.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1152/1154620703_dd645a1889.jpg

http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/success-failure%202.jpg