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