back channel

I find that it interesting that our first 2 presentations today were on games and pedagogy. I know that it is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, but who knew that other (closet) gamers were bridging the gap between fun an work (even when those 2 things are sometimes the same.

Comments

FUN

okay. so can i just say: when did we decide that our students don't think learning in more traditional ways can be fun?

have we asked our students? is it possible that some of the reason our students aren't having fun is that they're stressed about the larger game of the university?

plus, not everyone games. some people actually enjoy interacting with other students more than gaming. like me, for example.

so, i guess my question is: have we asked our students about what they think is good, fun, or important? if not, why?

I talk to my students about

I talk to my students about it all the time. Every semester I've taught, I've done a unit about student apathy where we talk about the perceptions of freshman apathy and why they are or aren't accurate. From what I've heard, if information is too complicated, too simple, or perceived as irrelevant, students shut down and stop learning.

I am not talking about gaming in a wow-only, flash-only, or even digital-only sense. In fact, your point that not everyone is a gamer is exactly why I am skeptical about teaching an entire comp class through games. Certainly, gaming doesn't mean you aren't interacting with other people.

But, I would argue that you are a gamer in the sense I'm talking about. Which I don't have a good definition for yet, because I'm still working through these ideas.

For my two cents.

awesome. i know that most

awesome. i know that most instructors are reflective--and, of course, had no doubt that /you/ are reflective about what students want/think/need.

i think that we can also look so much to "formal gaming" that we miss some of the more "organic" games that can come from the classroom. This, it seems is included in the "gaming" that you're talking about.

I really like that term

I really like that term "organic" for the gaming I'm talking about. It's the unnatural/forced gaming that I wonder about.

I like your answer, Ethan,

I like your answer, Ethan, because it gets at this notion that we can't get past orality or literacy once we have experienced it-- but I think we can agree that something different is going on here.

Which is why I wonder if it is really conceit that is fueling microblogging-- because microblogging isn't about the "self" but the meaning is made only through reaction and response from an "other." Perhaps wanting affirmation is conceded, but it is much more dynamic than how I think about conceit.

ethan brings up an

ethan brings up an interesting questions about who can speak about new media...do you need to be a gamer to write about gaming? do you need to code in order to write about the rhetoric of websites?

it seems like one of the things we work towards is helping students /participate/ in the work of making the kinds of texts that they interact with. if we hope for that for our students, then should we hold ourselves to the same standards?

if not, then why?

i think, also, that bridging

i think, also, that bridging the gap between gaming and other more "standard" composition themes like collaboration is important. This makes it easier for nongamers to understand how it is we address gaming /as/ composition.

or composition as gaming.

or composition as gaming.

or education as gaming.

or education as gaming. Aren't they all just gaming the system?

or aren't WE all just gaming

or aren't WE all just gaming the system... or maybe not even gaming it but rather gaming in it/with it/etc.? I wonder how long we game the system before we no longer "game it" (which seems to connote something more like "jacking" technology [Banks, yes?]) but rather play it and then design it.

I'm interested in this idea

I'm interested in this idea of how we, as undergrad and grad students, play the game and then, as TAs and Profs., design it. My question is, how much leeway is there in that design vs. how much are we tied to institutional histories and other constraints. The same thing goes for gaming though - if you design a game that totally blows all our expectations of what it means to play a game out of the water, how well would it be accepted? [Although I could just be babbling here; it's that time of the semester. . .]

indeed. that is a great

indeed. that is a great point. that's one of the reason I'm so interested in this idea of exposing the system as gameplay-- it would be an interesting way to question the institution.

The System. This is

The System.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot and wonder what would happen if we had a class the brought together institutional rhetorics and gaming--what would happen if Sam and Thomas taught a class together or if someone did a mapping of the "game" of the institution. any institutions really.

If we think about the system, we have to think about who gets to create the system, change the system, and then who chooses to engage with the system.

Remember "Postmodernism: The Game"?

Not sure how well THAT went over. Even Thomas was stumped by that one!)

Yes! I remember it. I

Yes! I remember it. I couldn't see the board, but it was crazy. Lyotard, lyotard lyotard. You can change the rules of the game!!!

Total chaos!!!

Thomas was cool about it though. He had me role a die to decide my grade!

wow. that's crazy amounts of

wow. that's crazy amounts of awesome.

and then you have to work

and then you have to work toward XP or achievement points. The trick is...if you don't end with 100 points you die/fail.