response to jonathan alexander's "gaming, student literacies, and the composition...

8
Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation" Author(s): Rebekah Shultz Colby, Richard Colby and Matthew S.S. Johnson Source: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 61, No. 4 (June 2010), pp. 761-767 Published by: National Council of Teachers of English Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27917874 . Accessed: 29/08/2014 07:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Composition and Communication. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: richard-colby-and-matthew-ss-johnson

Post on 16-Feb-2017

224 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the CompositionClassroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"Author(s): Rebekah Shultz Colby, Richard Colby and Matthew S.S. JohnsonSource: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 61, No. 4 (June 2010), pp. 761-767Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27917874 .

Accessed: 29/08/2014 07:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toCollege Composition and Communication.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

INTERCHANGES

Response to Stephanie Vanderslice

Rosalie Morales Kearns

University at Albany, SUNY

My article was originally accepted in 2005. Publication was postponed a num

ber of times, due, as I understand it, to unforeseen scheduling and budgetary issues. The regrettable result is that I seem to ignore many works that, in fact,

appeared after mine was submitted. Most of the relevant works mentioned by Vanderslice were published in the last five years, not fifteen.

In 2006, while still earning my MFA at the University of Illinois at Ur

bana-Champaign, I used excerpts from the Leahy collection in an orientation

program I organized for fellow MFA students who were about to start teach

ing creative writing to undergraduates. I am hoping to help develop a similar

orientation session here at the University at Albany and am looking forward to incorporating more recent works.

I am interested in the lived experience of non-academic creative writers

and continue to value their contributions, although not couched in theoretical

language. Many of the works I explored in my article were autobiographical accounts by such writers. I have also relied on presentations at (again, non

academic) writers' conferences and on personal conversations with many writers over the years, including individuals who dropped out of writing pro

grams, were blocked for years, or stopped writing altogether. Their troubling experiences of marginalization convince me that the gag rule and other aspects of the normative workshop are sufficiently widespread to justify an ongoing critical discussion.

Response to Jonathan Alexander's'Gaming, Student Literacies, and the

Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

Rebekah Shultz Colby and Richard Colby University of Denver

Matthew 5. S. Johnson

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Editors note: Rebekah Shultz Colby, Richard Colby, and Matthew S. S.Johnson have written a commentary on "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composi

761

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

CCC 61:4 / JUNE 2010

tion Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation" by Jonathan Alexander, which appeared in College Composition and Communication 61.1 (September 2009): 35-63. Jonathan Alexander then responds to their commentary. The

full text of the original article is available at the CCC website: www.ncte.org/ cccc/ccc.

As game studies and composition scholars, we were initially intrigued by Jonathan Alexander s article "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation." Alexanders goal of sug

gesting approaches to teaching and learning literacy practices by examining

games as primary texts follows the substantial interest the topic has garnered in recent years. His emphasis on the multiple literacies gaming reveals and the use of games to "enliven writing instruction for many of our students" (37) is, in fact, an approach worthy of consideration and practice. Our own courses

using games and gaming spaces to investigate rhetorical and research situa

tions have emphasized the application and cross-transfer of school literacies

and public literacies; however, certain points in Alexander s article concern us

as both scholars and teachers. Most notably, the breadth of background that

Alexander claims to provide the composition scholar who is unfamiliar with

game studies does not do justice to the diverse and well-established scholar

ship of that field. In addition, his view of our role as facilitators of such literate

practices in and beyond the classroom is somewhat idealized and therefore in

need of additional critical attention.

Early in his article, Alexander seems to reduce the rich and complex academic foci already established by game studies: he claims that "gaming has

generated a fair amount of scholarly attention," but "fair amount" is rather an

understatement. Several digital and print journals are dedicated to the aca

demic study of games (including Game Studies?established in 2001, Games

and Culture, and the Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds)-, an explosion of

books (several dozens of academic titles in our personal libraries alone, all

dedicated to gaming, published between 1997 and 2010, gaze at us from our

bookshelves even as we write this) has appeared from university and trade

presses (which include, merely as a few examples of many, the MIT Press, the

University of Minnesota Press, and Routledge); we have seen a proliferation of

peer-reviewed articles whose diverse foci and sheer number make it difficult even for the most dedicated game studies scholar to remain current; several in

ternational professional organizations devoted to gaming have been established; and countless conference presentations over the years (including many at our

762

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

INTERCHANGES

own Conference on College Composition and Communication, which a quick

glance at recent programs will reveal) have been delivered. Today, scholarship in game studies encompasses theory, practice, and history of games, gaming culture, game design, and gameplay, just to name a few, broad foci.

While the breadth of available scholarship might (should) already indicate

that game studies has arrived, Alexander's labeling of game studies in a 2009

publication as an "emerging field" (38) is only true in so far as all academic fields are constantly "emerging." Game studies has its roots in the earlier analyses

by Johan Huizinga in Homo Ludens (1950, although the original version was

composed in 1938) and Roger Caillois's Man, Play and Games (1961). These

studies examine the history of games and play, constructing frameworks for

the investigation of the impact that games have on cultures. Many early game studies articles used these frameworks to think about computer and video

games as ways of reading, writing, and revising play and games. Specifically on the topic of computer games and learning, studies began as early as 1980

with Thomas W. Malones "What Makes Things Fun to Learn?" and have pro

gressed from there in numerous fields. More importantly, such studies have not merely concerned themselves with sociological issues. Instead, scholarship within games studies also includes theoretical issues concerning gameplay mechanics such as whether or not the driving force behind gameplay derives

from the narratives games create or from the actual mechanics of gameplay itself?a debate that Jesper Juul recently tried to reconcile by conceding that

both are important. Game studies scholars such as Ian Bogost and Gonzalo

Frasca examine how games act rhetorically on players to ideologically influ ence them within the political public sphere. And while we would not expect a thorough introduction of such a history of game studies in a single article, the offer of some insight into the various approaches and fields that inform

game studies would have given Alexander's audience a better conceptual basis

for consideration of games as teaching tools and scholarly objects of study. Such conceptualization cannot be accomplished if game studies is solely

represented by two issues prominently addressed in mainstream media: "the

connection between gaming and violence" and the "promulgation of stereo

typical forms of identity in gaming spaces" (Alexander 38). Although fruitful

inquiry may follow from these issues, narrowing the field exclusively to them

while simultaneously making the claim to be introducing gaming's potential

relationship to composition studies to scholars "not yet aware of the possi bilities" and to "many in our discipline who have not yet considered the pos sibilities" (36) is thoroughly limiting. For instance, characterizing the field of

763

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

CCC 61:4 / JUNE 2010

games studies as primarily interested in the study of hot-button media issues

like game violence is akin to characterizing composition-rhetoric to the study of grammar instruction because "Why Johnny Can't Write" is a popular topic in Newsweek, and then introducing it that way to noncompositionists. While

Alexander later distances himself from these "issues" (52) in order to build a

different framework for writing and reading games in the composition class

room?his "juicier thinking about literacy" (53)?he does so by classifying game studies as only interested in sociological issues (52). This is simply not true.

If we accept that composition instructors may not be "aware of the possi bilities" that games introduce, we also need to be critical of such an introduction

specifically because of that potential unfamiliarity: a certain level of expertise, we would argue, is necessary to teach with games. Alexander imagines that

"instructors are going to worry that what I am proposing will not work for

them because, quite simply, they have never played a game before. In many

ways, these are the ideal instructors for such a course?because they can learn

with their students' (60). As an example of decentering teacherly authority, which many scholars agree can be pedagogically productive, we understand

certainly Alexander's argument that under these circumstances students may have "some opportunity to think authoritatively" (60). On the one hand, his

advice is sound: educational research beginning in the early 1980s clearly dem

onstrated the learning/memory advantages of "teaching" another (see Bargh and Schul; Fantuzzo et al.), a concept subsequently theorized in composition

scholarship (writing process movements emphasizing reflective practitioners, writers teaching themselves). On the other hand, Alexander's claim does not

fully capture how we have come to understand critical literacy practices. As

literacy teachers and scholars, we understand the reciprocity of teaching and

learning and recognize the same in connections between reading and writing (Nelson 443); we become better readers and writers of texts as we engage with texts (i.e., read/analyze and write and revise). If we consider games as texts but

only read them as outsiders, we may not be able to provide the feedback that our students might need to further develop their writing and research. If we are

not interacting in literate and critical ways with the tasks we ask our students to perform, then what is our place? If anyone can teach with games, then must

we ask if anyone can teach composition (if all that is needed is a reader?one

who isn't familiar with the rhetorical situations or with the language and theory necessary to respond productively and meaningfully)? Conceptually, we un

derstand and admire Alexander s approach, but we would be remiss if we did not strongly urge that teachers who have no gaming experience either need

764

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

I NTERCHANG ES

to get some or should not be using games in the classroom. Even as we share

Alexander's enthusiasm about games' potential productivity, we also support numerous other ways to enhance critical teaching and learning experiences.

We acknowledge that there are plenty of opportunities for students to

enact "game-" and "school-literate" practices with their peers and the public, in particular communities and at large. However, teachers who do not possess such game literacy need to think carefully about using games to teach writ

ing, as the practice presents a number of pedagogical constraints that can

be daunting unless the teacher is familiar enough with the game, the gaming communities surrounding it, and gaming technologies to think through these

possible problems. While games offer many valuable pedagogical opportunities, teachers with no gaming experience may not know that these opportunities even exist (let alone how to mine them productively in a classroom, despite Alexander's valuable introduction to a few). What's more, because students are usually not placed in a position to teach (or may decline the opportunity if so placed), even avid gamers may not know these pedagogical prospects ex

ist, either. Furthermore, avid gamers overwhelmingly do not represent typical student gamers who often play only casually.

Because students may not have the expertise or pedagogical power

positions with which to help their peers explore all the learning opportuni ties present in games, it is important that teachers do possess some gaming

expertise when they use games in their teaching. For example, in Shultz Colby and Colby's World of Warcraft (WoW) writing and research class, students

share their research findings with the Wo 147 community and then respond to

any community critiques in their writing. This gives students a chance to see

how their writing has actual effects on readers beyond their teacher and peers. Alexander sees these possibilities, but what he does not address is the complex

ity of the critiques students receive. These critiques from gamers usually focus on school literacies (e.g., research methods and grammar) and game literacies

(e.g., not enough proficiency with the game). If teachers are not familiar with the

game and its communities, then they may neglect these latter critiques?they

simply would not have the expertise. Such neglect diminishes the complexity and applicability of the rhetorical situations that these students are entering.

Without understanding the types of arguments that gamers make in these

public discourse communities (such as arguments about game mechanics or

the culture of the game space), the role of the teacher becomes little more than

that of grammar checker.

765

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

CCC 61:4 / JUNE 2010

We do agree that teachers who are interested in gaming should take some

time to play games (as much as we would argue that all writing teachers should

take some time to write); they may find themselves, much like Alexander and

Gee before him, enraptured by the amazing complexities of video games and

the pedagogical opportunities they introduce. Teachers should experiment and

explore the connections between gaming and the teaching of writing; after all, it is not necessarily a clear connection. However, digital games came into their own as a textual medium some time ago. They offer the same textual complexi ties as film or print media?to which we must add layers of interactivity, player identification, and the rules of gameplay?which enable a profound, critical

exploration of gaming literacy practices. We hope Alexander s argument resonates with writing teachers and schol

ars so that they might further investigate opportunities for students to study games, gaming, and gamers in ways that strengthen their school and public literacies in service of research and writing. Yet, if Alexander s article serves

as an introduction to those unfamiliar with game studies, we also hope that

teachers will explore the rich world of game studies and be aware of the conse

quential complexities inherent in integrating gaming with writing instruction.

Works Cited

Bargh, John A., and Yaacov Schul. "On the

Cognitive Benefits of Teaching." Journal

of Educational Psychology 72.5 (Oct.

1980): 593-604. Academic Search Com

plete. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.

Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: The Expres sive Power of Videogames. Cambridge:

MIT P, 2007. Print.

Caillois, Roger. Man, Play and Games. Urbana:

UofIllinoisP,2001. Print.

Fantuzzo, John W., et al. "Effects of

Reciprocal Peer Tutoring on Academic

Achievement and Psychological Adjust ment: A Component Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology SI.2 (June 1989): 173-77. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 23 Oct. 2009.

Frasca, Gonzalo. "Videogames of the Op

pressed: Critical Thinking, Education,

Tolerance, and Other Trivial Issues." First

Person: New Media as Story, Perfor mance, and Game. Ed. Noah Wardrip Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge: MIT

P, 2004. 85-94. Print.

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study

of the Play Element in Culture. Boston:

Beacon P, 1955. Print.

Juul, Jesper. Half-Real: Video Games between

Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cam

bridge: MIT P, 2005. Print.

Malone, Thomas. W. "What Makes Things Fun to Learn? Heuristics for Designing Instructional Computer Games." ACM

Computing Literature, Symposium on

Small Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd

ACM SIGSMALL, Palo Alto, CA. 1980.

162-69. ACM Portal. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.

Nelson, Nancy. "The Reading-Writing Nexus in Discourse Research." Handbook

of Research on Writing: History, Society,

766

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: Response to Jonathan Alexander's "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation"

INTERCHANGES

School, Individual, Text. Ed. Charles Ba zerman. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008.435-51. Print.

Shultz Colby, Rebekah, and Richard Colby.

"A Pedagogy of Play: Integrating Com

puter Games into the Writing Class

room." Computers and Composition 25.3

(Sept 2008): 300-312. Print.

Response to Rebekah Shultz Colby, Richard Colby, and Matthew S. S. Johnson

Jonathan Alexander

University of California, Irvine

Gentle Readers:

I wish to thank Professors Shultz Colby, Colby, and Johnson for their thought ful response to my article "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation." I very much appreciated their comments, and I completely agree with their call for instructors interested

in using gaming in the composition classroom to be as familiar as possible with?and actually to play, actively?the games they are working on with their

students. Such seems more than sensible; it's necessary for instructors and

students to explore together the literate, rhetorical, ideological, material, and

persuasive complexities of games and gaming platforms. The responders quibble with my characterization of game studies as

"emerging," and I believe there is good reason to label it as such. Just compare the number of PhD programs in game studies to that in, say, rhet/comp; one

field seems clearly to be emerging while the other?emerging in other ways,

granted?has recently been a-Norton-ized as a Recognized and respected

discipline. Different point of reference, different understanding of "emerging." Still, this is a quibble.

My more serious concern with their response has to do with a problem that many of us in rhet/comp studies face. Shultz Colby, Colby, and Johnson

justly point out that game studies is a wide-ranging and diverse field, and that

my characterization of it is limited. I won't deny that. My goal in the essay was to begin with how many compositionists had been engaging games?and not just any games, but computer games?in the composition classroom and

then proceed from there, hopefully making some provocative arguments for

the field as a whole to consider. Certainly, game studies?in scope, interests,

objects of study, and methodologies?far exceeds my initial starting point. But

I made a particular decision to delimit my point of entry, and I stick by that

767

This content downloaded from 85.159.90.66 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions