As I read the Kishonna Gray piece a few weeks ago I found myself considering the lack of empirical research in much of the gaming studies and computer based readings from this semester. Arguably, this absence could be the fault of writing studies’ fraught relationship with research methodologies, but the absence of research could also be understood in a lighter way–writing studies is always under development. The field is always looking to the next new cool thing to establish its relevancy and value to each new generation of writers and research. This is how we come to discuss interdisciplinary topics such as film, advertising, music, and video games in the English department.  Our field’s turn to new media (including the typewriter and computer, as readings from early in the semester revealed) is therefore a reflection of rhetoric and composition’s desire to become part of the “masses.” Near the end of the chapter “New Media Publics,” Lisa Gitelman says “the social meanings of new media are not technologically determined in any broad sense” (56).  She provides this statement after presenting a chapter about tin foil and under-appreciated sound devices that seemingly have nothing to do with writing, composition studies, or play as we have  discussed all semester, but the conversation Gitelman presents connects us back to the presentation of mass media and teaching the masses. Gray’s desire for more diverse and realistic representations in video games also reflects an acknowledgement that “the masses” has also changed. Perhaps it is time our fields caught up to these new publics.

1. I should be more grateful for scholars like Leonard who are willing to call out the video game world and its inability (or specifically, fear?) to address race and gender in equitable ways.

2. I should be more grateful that people are willing to explore and contribute to rich conversations about games and to develop metagaming theories and articles.

3. I should try to remember that for some people (read hetero-cis white men–4Chan’s elite) the representation of intersectionality in games can be easily ignored and, when it is acknowledged, unappreciated for the designers’ efforts.

4. I should be more generous to articles published in 2006 that only had a handful of games to use in their examples because gaming had yet to become the universally recognized cultural artifacts worthy of quality production and interpretation.

5. I should be excited for the affordances that video games give to writing and to classrooms as texts, which unlike their literary, artistic, or musical counterparts, offer an excellent combination of various arts to allow for engagement and access to social/political/historical issues on several subversive levels.

Perhaps I didn’t know these things when I first began learning about video games in academic contexts with Dr. Sam, but now they are ingrained in my experience with and around games. Is the conversation still happening in our journals in the same ways it was almost 10 years ago? Has academia become fatigued with WoW (as Patrick feels) and we should just wait for the next wave of academic articles? Since I don’t know if recent games (2010-2015) are being discussed in academic contexts and since academia is SLOW, maybe I am just being knit picky. I’m sure Dr. Sam will tell me.

Debra Journet opens the afterward with an interesting statement about the book’s assumptions that, “video games are were we are now” (205). I find this statement curious because the topic of video games only seems to be settled for a small group of rhetoric and composition scholars and an even smaller group of academia.  Thankfully, she does state later that the questions of video games only appears to be settled for the contributors of the collection. Journet brings up several good points here that are helpful for me to consider as I continue to think about video games and RC scholarship. The collection presents support of games as writing, narrative, rhetoric, writing process, classroom tools, and assessment models and what games offer for learning, but what does writing studies offer games. Why does it only have to be a one way influence?

At the end of the book (an in several chapters), there is a call to action for more exploration of games and and their intersection with rhetoric and composition. I wonder if there are plans for another collection (easy enough, right)? Bogost will be a guest editor hopefully…

Eds. Richard Colby, Matthew S. S. Johnson, and Rebekah Shultz Colby

Notable Works Mentioned:

Jonathan Alexander. “Gaming, student literacies, and the composition classroom: Some possibilities for transformation”

Ian Bogost, Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames

James Paul Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy

Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens

Jesper Juul, Half real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds

Richard Lanham, The Electronic Word

Cynthia Selfe and Gail Hawisher, Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century

Core Investigative Questions:

1. How can playing a video game encourage students to (re)consider how they write, read, and research?
2. How do gaming spaces function rhetorically and in what ways can/do gamers conduct rhetorical readings of them?
3. How do video games represent identity and community and how are these representations interpreted by gamers?
4. How do video games and gaming serve as metaphors for written discourse and writing?
5. How do video games’ rhetorical techniques differ from comparatively traditional texts?
6. In what ways do video game designers take into account audience (beyond its commercial function of consumption)?
7. In what ways do electronic games help us to reconceptualize classroom spaces?

Important Quotes to Consider:

Introduction

“We not only accept that video games are transmedial, but we also argue that they have certain unique qualities. For one, video games respond to player interaction regardless of whether the player is playing alone or with others” (3).

Play

“[T]heorizes the nature of play and game itself to better elucidate the intersections between playing, writing, and the teaching of writing” (5).

Composition

“[E]xplores how games can shape specific teaching practices and how they influence student (and teacher) learning” (5).

Rhetoric

“[A]nalyzes games through a rhetorical lens, considering specifically what we can learn about rhetoric from looking at games, and about games from looking at them rhetorically” (5).

Afterward

“[T]here is no going back over the old (and presumably defunct) arguments about whether violent games promote violence in players or whether games are or are not narratives, or even whether games are productive or just a waste of time. These questions appear settled—at least from the perspective of the authors of this book” (205).

“For many of the contributors, games are not just another way to teach academic writing; they are a legitimate form of academic writing. The book thus has particular theoretical and practical advantages for anyone considering teaching a game-oriented class” (206).

Day 1: Read through the quotes provided on your handout. Working with your partner, discuss the chapters and find ways that the two overlap either explicitly or implicitly.

Then create a shared Google Doc where you begin brainstorming an in-class activity or assignment for a first year course (it does not have to be FYC) that demonstrates the overlaps/values/interests/approaches you discussed. Set small goals for today, but try to leave with a solid activity/assignment. The activity will continue on Thursday with work time and discussion of your plans.

Share the link to your Google Doc in the comments section of this post.

I have read Gee before, but not his chapter SEMIOTIC DOMAINS: IS PLAYING VIDEO GAMES A “WASTE OF TIME”?.” In the chapter, he develops a rich definition of critical learning and its relationship to semiotic domains.

For active learning, the learner must, at least unconsciously, understand and operate within the internal and external design grammars of the semiotic domain he or she is learning. But for critical learning, the learner must be able consciously to attend to, reflect on, critique, and manipulate those design grammars at a metalevel. That is, the learner must see and appreciate the semiotic domain as a design space (40).

The definition of critical learning considers active learning as an elementary consideration of the types of learning possible in the classroom. Although video games may not be the medium in which I have students engage in critical learning, I appreciated how careful Gee is in his definitional work. The five principles that he closes the chapter with are especially helpful when considering other opportunities for learning with visuals. I could imagine using these to design a class on new media, print media, and document design.

This week I am fascinated by the fact that Huizinga ends his book with a discussion on time. I found this curious because my small group last week felt that Tony’s first question on Homo Ludens required an analysis and a discussion of the time in which the book was written. Within the first paragraph, Huizinga states, “A mind historically focussed will embody in its idea of what is ‘modern’ and ‘contemporary’ a far larger section of the past than a mind living in the myopia of the moment” (195). His point? Our past is always our present. Mic drop.

Homo Ludens is unlike any of the other readings we have had so far this semester. The highly theoretical/philosophical/historical text is written quite well and took a lot of time to get through, but there were several chapters that I found interesting. Chapter 6, “Playing and Knowing” discusses the role of riddles and sophistic debate in relation to epistemology and play. I found it made several good points about not only Western thought (through the Germans and Greeks) but also through Eastern philosophy (through the Chinese and Indians).  Much like the rest of the book, the connections to play are deeply rooted in cultural practices and beliefs about competition and value (such as winning in a debate). Huizinga presents Aristotle and Empedocles as masters of debate, problems, and play as a part of paideia. I had never thought of their word PLAY and emphasis on wrestling (mental and physical exercise) as PLAY.  I could get behind this. Homo Ludens seems like  great read– I wish I had more time to dig into it.

I was pleasantly surprised by the articles this week. They were studies that supported what we largely knew (well, those of us who participate in online spaces) — that they seem to be fair(er) spaces than f2f ones. Thinking specifically about the Wolfe piece, I thought the results (approximately a 50/50 split in online discussion participation) (161) to reflect what I have seen on the dramaful WPA Listserve.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the WPA-L, there is a gross lack of relevant topics and a obscene amount of tangential conversations. Most recently, a conversation about Native American topics in FYC became a discussion about trigger warnings and teacher rights. Interestingly, the discussion only included women. So they  were the ones responsible for taking the list off topic and for responding in somewhat aggressive responses.

This is not to say that the studies are wrong (they are very much so right) but analyzing their results in a discussion of f2f and online interactions amongst women could make them more interesting and relevant as more women enter (and take over?) online and f2f techy spaces.

In Tinkering with Technological Skill, Ann Brady Aschauer made me wonder more about the “add women and stir” solution (15) to address the (dis)belief that women lack certain technological skill as it presented itself in my ENGL106e class this semester.

My students are unlike any other students I have had. While there are larger systemic problems with the class structure and its partnership with TECH120 (don’t get me started), The treatment of the three young women in my class has increased in the last few weeks. While I am always attentive to the needs of my students, historically (As proven by this article) and currently the marginalization of women in technical fields was something I knew I needed to look out for. The three young women (PSL, POC, and SHY), are, for the most part, ignored by their male peers. POC and PSL have bonded well and use each other as support, but SHY is oftentimes ignored by her male peers and by the two female peers. Despite the fact that SHY is smart and has a larger technological skill than many other first years in the class, she has (so far) been passed up for each tech-based small group class activity.

The gender techno divide is a real one that we can observe in our every day. The micro-community of the classroom versus “the field” of technology are equally important for allowing female students like SHY to be a part of their discipline. The closing comments for Brady Aschauer echo this overlap, “both communities can benefit from an increased understanding of how social expectations and constraints influence the construction of technological skill and use” (21). The way that PSL, POC, and SHY are brought into the community of practice for the College of Technology will be important for determining their future success and development.

Redefining technology, as the article suggests, only matters when industry responds to new definitions. So, sorry, Brady Aschauer, you’re wrong. Idealistic, but wrong.