Article review blogpost

Article Review: Revisiting Literacy through Gaming

“But even more, and specifically in terms of gaming, we argue that the very nature of games themselves, as rhetorically rich and performative spaces, serves to help students, with the right guidance, become much more aware of, familiar with, and conversant with the varieties of literacy and literate performance that different rhetorical situations may demand, prompt, or require.”

– Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh ( 2010)

Alexander, Jonathan and Losh, Elizabeth. (2010). “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a

First-Year Approach To Gaming Across Curricula.” Currents in Electronic Literacy.

As indicated in the article “Whose Literacy Is It Anyway? Examining a First Year-Approach to Gaming Across Curricula,” written by both Jonathan Alexander and Elizabeth Losh, they mention how a rising number of compositionists and rhetoricians are focusing their attention to the details and aesthetics of video games and how gaming can be transferred over to the teaching of reading and writing. Of course, that detail is of no surprise, considering the fact that technology continues to progress throughout the 21st century as more and more classroom instructions are starting to become much more involved with various forms of media and technology. In doing so, there has been outlets for instructors to include visual texts within their teaching pedagogies. Interestingly enough, video games are one of the many forms of visual texts that are being included in the pedagogical conversation. Additionally, video games are also being considered as another example of literary form and as vital tools for students to hone their skills in literacy. Nevertheless, the purpose behind Alexander’s and Losh’s article is to contribute to the ongoing conversation on the debate with using video games as tools for literacy.

What had once been considered as either “mindless” or “for entertainment purposes only,” video games are now making its way into the academic conversation as well. In the introduction of Alexander’s and Losh’s article, they state on the importance of scholars continuing their responses and participation to this debate on gaming and academia. They reveal that “James Paul Gee first argued that video games support many literacy practices and exemplify a model for successful situated learning in What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy” (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

They then continue state that since Gee’s theory on gaming and its connection with education and literacy, many researchers have
“begun to question how the literacy movement has attempted to colonize game culture by channeling subversive behaviors into supposedly productive and normative conduct.  They have also drawn attention to the naïveté of presuming that proprietary platforms and machine code would be transparent enough to novice learners to model the literacy practices of initiates” (Alexander and Losh, 2010) In consideration of these perspectives, Alexander and Losh are aware of critics’ concerns since they are aware of Gee’s generalizations being made on gaming and how it essentially becomes another pedagogical conversation in itself considering that the concepts of gaming and coding doesn’t appear to coexist with the teaching pedagogy of reading and writing. Additionally, it raises questions on whether intermixing theory of literacy and gaming is even necessary at all. Yet, Alexander and Losh bring up the issue on how there appears to be more speculative theory rather than contributing with actual studies on these disciplines combing forces into the teaching literacy. Both authors then ask the question “What does a multi-disciplinary approach to gaming offer students, both in terms of their ability to think critically about games as games, but also in terms of their ability to reflect critically about complex contemporary communication practices and how different disciplines might use awareness of those literacy practices to build and communicate knowledge production?” (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

This question serves as a hypothesis for their study on a first year year-long multi-disciplinary course which also key points into the main heart of their argument. The main purpose of their argument is the fact that the concepts of gaming can be an useful tool for literacy if given the right guidance and preparation by instructors. It has potential in providing a metacognitive awareness between the digital and literary text through rhetorical analysis. It all depends on the structure of the teaching pedagogy and whether the topics in discussion are congruent with the mechanics and theory of gaming (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

The majority of their article devotes their observation and study of a course called “Computer Games as Art, Culture, and Technology” held at University of California in Irvine. The course was taught by three faculty members from Informatics, Computer Science, and Media Studies. The task at hand was to provide guidance for students in developing their critical thinking skills with computer gaming and gaming studies while also fulfilling their general education requirements for humanities, social sciences, and writing. Thus meant that students were not expected to just study the concepts of gaming and design but to also incorporate the digital into their analysis. Of course, the authors are concerned with the use of computer games in teaching pedagogy, especially in regards on the complexities of gaming and whether that could translate well into the notions of literacy. The questions being raised are on just how faculty and students can navigate through the complex layers of gaming literacy and language literacy, considering that gaming and writing are both so vast in various layers. (Alexander and Losh, 2010). They then continue with “Put another way, while Gee might be correct in asserting that “[w]hen people learn to play video games, they are learning a new literacy” (13), we would amend his comment to say that they are learning new literacies and that those literacies might look very different than the traditional literacy skills advocated for by compositionists.  And while we may agree that such academic authoring skills are important, we want to forward the notion that a multi-disciplinary study of gaming may more successfully advance a complex meta-awareness of multi-literacies and rhetorical awareness—and that such awareness may ultimately be more significant than the completion of a standard academic research essay” ( Alexander and Losh, 2010). Essentially, the authors do contrive to a consensus on how such complexities can still be a possibility. In consideration to Gee’s identification of video games as a “new literacy,” that itself can generate a new option in literacy that further expands from the traditional standard of what makes an academic essay. Their amends to the term “new literacy” basically is an indication that despite video games being a different form of literacy, it still serves as potential for teaching literacy in an academic institution. Therefore, students can uncover new ways in further developing critical writing and thinking skills through critical reading of gaming.

Continuing onward with the authors’ observation, the article further explains the course, citing specifically on gaming critic Ian Bogost’s theory on how gaming is “a prime example of a “cultural artifact that straddle[s]” both humanistic and technologically-oriented disciplines” (Alexander and Losh, 2010). They continue to state on how Bogost argues that if gaming were to be discussed in the same vein as with literature, then there has to be a willingness to create a bridge between computer science and technology studies. Upon doing so, there has to be an awareness of the difference in rhetoric with gaming. Which, as indicated in this article, was the attempt with the course since it required students to not just interpret the game as a literary genre but to also interpret its dimension of algorithm and its game space.  And so, it would go deeper than what they know from knowledge and gaming experience but requires them to delve into the complexities of coding. This of course, lead into some difficulties for many students since they couldn’t just interpret on the surface but to also interpret and interact with the complexities of the gaming interface itself. Nevertheless, both Losh and Alexander theorized that either way students gained and developed a new understanding for gaming. It also pushed them to push their perspectives on gaming and to push that further with their schema of literary theory by thinking about the technological game space itself. The article concludes that gaming has potential in offering students a more complex rhetorical awareness and can serve as another option for further students to further develop meta-cognitive skills since the allegories of the literal coding space and overall gameplay can be parallel to how one approaches reading and writing literary text (Alexander and Losh, 2010).

In regards to this article as a whole, I feel that this serves as importance for the conversation on utilizing visual texts in an integrated reading/writing classroom. While I feel the article could’ve benefitted on a more in-depth case study which included a more intensive look on actual work from students, it overall provided a rather interesting perspective to think on. In a sense, it challenges its gaming audience by not just theorizing on games by its surface but to really think about the technological mechanics contained in such visual texts. Therefore, it also puts emphasis on how it can potentially be a practicing tool for students in furthering their literacy and encourages students to continue practicing their rhetoric through other disciplines. All in all, I feel that this article was beneficial for my interest and taught me on how evaluating visual texts should go beyond than what we can literally see.

Oldham, Joanna. “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3.” (new blog #5)

As seen in my current, and tentative, reading list, I have included an article entitled “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3” written by Joanna Oldham. While the article applies to secondary education, I had found it to be very useful for my previous analytical research assignment and feel that it would still be helpful for this current research assignment as well. In Oldham’s article, she reveals on a case study she did toward a class of young primary students, all of whom were studying Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. The class was separated into groups, one selection of students having watched the film adaptation simultaneously with the text while the rest of the class were only required to simply read the text. The group who got to watch the film adaptation also had the opportunity in participating in various in-class activities, one of which involved them re-interpreting a scene from the text as if they themselves were their own film cast. Such activities taught that group of students in enhancing their schema by utilizing their reading skills through film and interpretation. By doing so, it enhanced their reading comprehension and were able to perform with high marks on their tests for Oliver Twist since they could visually remember contexts from the novel considering that the film adaptation served as a tool in fueling their schema during the examination period. As for the other group, they struggled in their comprehension since they only studied the text without having a chance to practice and discuss their comprehension through innovative activity. She states that “If film aided the processes involved in reading with meaning, it would seem that reading with meaning assisted the processes involved in writing with control, range, and variety” (Oldham, 44). Therefore, she concludes that students are highly more likely in really comprehending with the text if they are given opportunities in comprehending with literary texts through the assistance of various activities incorporating their other learning styles while also reading visual and motion picture texts as well. That way, students can additionally learn on their own in discovering other modes of reading strategies

In my previous research, I noted that the one issue I had with Oldham’s study was that she unintentionally appeared to limit her definition of film as merely adaptation. Granted that even though the main focus of her research was on using film adaptation as a guide for the teaching of reading, I still couldn’t help but also think about how various film adaptations are so vast and still different from the original texts. So, there were still a few questions raised during my analysis of her article. And upon re-reading her article and re-evaluating some of my annotations, I still have a few of the same reservations. However, I now do feel that I shouldn’t overthink so much on her definition of film, since overall her case study provided an essential guide for me in seeing how theories of using film in the classroom can be incorporated. Plus, it’s an indication on how Oldham’s theory is just one of the many other examples of incorporating visual texts. Most especially considering that there are obviously many other aspects of visual texts due to the vast array of media and technology. Additionally, I am still fascinated with the classroom activities she revealed in her study, such as students playing film director and re-interpreting scenes of text for their own film, and feel that some of these can be re-incorporated and adjusted in order to fit into a college classroom setting. Thus, it also gives readers an idea on how this theory of enhancing literacy through film adaptation can come into practice through this case study. Therefore, I still feel that Oldham’s article provides the needed commentary for my continuing research.   

New Research topic (new blog #4)

Alexander, Jonathan and Losh, Elizabeth. “Whose Literacy Is it Anyway? Examining a First Year
Approach to Gaming Across Curricula. Currents in Electronic Literacy. 2010.

Alexei, Sherman. The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me. Writing about Writing.
362-366. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Baron, Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies.” 422-442. Bedford
St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

Constanzo, William. “Film as Composition.” College Composition and Communication.
National Council of Teachers of English. 79-86. Web.  Feb. 1986.

Freire, Paulo. “The Importance of the Act of Reading.”

Golden, John. Reading in the Dark: Using Film as a Tool in the English Classroom. National
Council of Teachers. 79-86. 1986.

Hill, Charles A. “Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes.” Intertexts: Reading Pedagogy
in College Writing Classrooms. 123-150. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. Mahwhah. 2003.

Lieberman, Max. “Four Ways to Teach with Video Games.” Currents in Electronic Literacy. 2010.

Malcom X. Learning to Read. Writing about Writing. 353-356. Bedford St. Martin Press. Boston: 2011.

McCormick, Kathleen. The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester university press. Manchester: 1994.

McKenney, Craig. “Building the Labyrinth: Adapting Video Game  Design Concepts for Writing Course Design.”  2007. Mar. 2, 2013.http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/gaming_issue_2008/McKenney_Building/index.html.

Oldham, Joanna. “The Book of the Film: Enhancing Print Literacy at KS 3.” English in Education. 1999.

To revise my entire project idea as a whole, the topic that I now want to explore is on theories in teaching reading and writing through visual texts. And by visual texts, my research and analysis would also include film, video games, and graphic novels. Prior to this semester, I had done some intensive research in regards to the teaching of film utilizing film. I want to continue my research but instead bring the focus to other mediums of visual texts. In doing so, I feel that it would be best in broadening my research a bit by also exploring other theories that aren’t just inclusive to the theory of teaching reading through film. As evident with my tentative reading list, I still want to include some personal narratives as well, such as the essays from Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie. That way, they can serve as examples where literacy was achieved through different modes of texts. And in doing so, I would want to showcase how their narrative would serve as purpose in setting an example for theories on how utilizing visual texts can be relevant in the theory for teaching literacy through visual texts. Most especially since they provide commentary on how the notion of reading and literacy can be furthered from the array of different modes of visual texts as well.

Nevertheless, I would have to be careful in approaching my analysis, most especially since I don’t want to unintentionally do a disservice to these theories by referring to their topics as “unconventional.” I recall earlier this semester, where there began a discussion on why do we label texts as “traditional, canonical” and unintentionally “other” texts that are presumably “unconventional” through an unforeseen “academic” lens. So, this research analysis project would require me to be dedicated and carefully consider the analysis for my sources while also synthesizing my own comprehension and schema of this research project.

What I hope I would accomplish with this research topic is that it would help confirm my own beliefs in the idea of these theories revolving around expanding theories of teaching pedagogies that choose to include aspects of technology and media in the classroom setting. Additionally, I would also be able to take a step back and consider the counter-argument, as to why some may be hesitant with such theories. Of course, that may be already be a bit of a challenge considering that, throughout this past semester, I’ve grown even more engaged with the theory of including visual texts in the classroom setting, especially in regards to the current wave of technology in today’s society. Yet, through this research project, I should be able to gain a much more intensive understanding of my research topic. And so, I plan to weave in my analysis and research through the synthesis of my comprehension as I touch upon the question “How can we teach reading through modes of literary text?”

I do hope that, unlike with my previous topic idea, this offers a better opportunity for me to create conversation by utilizing my topic idea. I feel that by researching such theories in relation to my topic, that I may be organize my own developing course units, in which I hope to incorporate visual texts within my teaching pedagogy, through my research project. I honestly feel quite excited with this topic since I want to uncover more theories that involve using visual texts in teaching pedagogies.