I was trying to be a good classmate by keeping up with blogs, and I must say that I'm failing miserably. I think the tendency for me is to read the post, respond in my head and then forget to acknowledge it by forming my own comment. It's certainly easier that way, so I will take this opportunity to inform my classmates that I do make it a point to read your carefully crafted thoughts - I just don't translate my response into text. And that brings me to how we view literacy. Literacy is almost always in the form of an artifact of some sort, be it text (typograph or chirograph), images, videos, ... you get the point. But does literacy includes all that is visibly communicated? On my part, more information processing is required before I come to a definite conclusion.
[And yes, I was exercising what I learnt in class - CHIROGRAPH. For the uninitiated, that means handwriting. Wewt. I remembered. Score one. Do I win? I should really stop my stream of consciousness typing. Ahem, back to the point. And I do have a point somewhere.]
Class discussions on interactivity centered on how individuals may learn if there is deep immersion and interactivity. In my experience with MMORPGS, I can definitely say that no content learning can occur even if there is immersion and interactivity.
Now, this seems to go with flow theory on the surface and I'll get to this later. Simply put, the theory states that if a player is deeply engaged in tasks that match their ability, they experience a state of flow or intense concentration. Players feel like they have mastery over the task that they are engaged in and go through, what I call, losing time. Motivation is also intrinsic and curiosity is what drives inquiry.
Many players that I've played with arguably are focused on the goal of the activity, and very motivated to achieve their aim. Let's talk about a hypothetical player called Leet who happens to be a He IRL . Since Leet's ability does not match the task that he is engaged in, he is often frustrated because he is failing (ergo no flow). However, since he really really really wants to achieve the outcome, he asks someone to help him- let's call this player, Aweful, who is already an expert player. Arguably, Aweful should be able to help and also inform Leet how to L2P (learn to play). However, this almost always is an exercise in futility. It's like talking to a wall. So Aweful gives up and Leet has mastered the outcome through other means. So is there no flow for Leet? There is arguably no content learning, but Leet has learnt to manipulate others to do his bidding (or maybe to end the incessant whining - hello, negative reinforcement). You've probably come across one of these people in your lifespan. You know, that kid that manages to coast through classes by hanging out with hardworking kids and tap on their expertise.
Flow theory is fantastic in explaining how personal motivation can drive learning. However, how do we account for these master strategists and the social games they play? Is this a kind *gasp* of literacy?
Yes, two points for you for remembering even how to spell CHIROGRAPH! I wanted to respond to a couple of points in your blog... You pose the following: "Literacy is almost always in the form of an artifact of some sort, be it text (typograph or chirograph), images, videos, ... you get the point. But does literacy includes all that is visibly communicated?" Definitely not just the visual... Think about gesture and aural types of communication (and for that matter any type of communication between two entities really). Van Leeuwen has done some nice work on aural literacy... The kind of literacy you suggest here would probably fall under games literacy or gaming literacies (see Buckingham and/or Salen's recent work).
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "content" learning, are you talking about disciplinary content? I think that this is an interesting topic for debate in the games literature... Some argue that games are a separate domain and have their own literacies (a games for games sake argument), while others argue for games as a way of delivering content more successfully (e.g., in serious games). It sounds like you fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, recognizing the importance of gaming literacies while still being tied to some form of content as being important. Am I interpreting you correctly?
Are you SURE you aren't from the literacy, culture, and education department? You last two lines form a fabulous intro to any socio-cultural view of literacy (the view in vogue, at least here at IU, among all of the profs I've encountered): " . . . how do we account for these master strategists and the social games they play? Is this a kind *gasp* of literacy? " Forget grad school, you are ready to be a tenured professor!
ReplyDelete