#steinkuehler

We can learn from games and gaming not just new ways to build better games but also ways to build better learning, assessment, production, participation, design, and creativity for all people, old and young, in a fast-changing, high-risk, global world.

The claim that videogames are replacing literacy activities that is bantered about in the American mainstream press is based not only on unspecified definitions of both “games” and “literacy” but also on a surprisingly lack of research on what kids actually do when they game... I argue that forms of videogame play such as those entailed in MMOGs are not replacing literacy activities but rather are literacy activities.

“Scientific habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds” - Steinkuehler & Duncan

“We need to think deeply about what people are doing with the technologies that are becoming so ubiquitous and engaging.” (CS&SD, p.542)

Presumption: Videogames as a viable alternative to textbooks and science labs.[1] (CS&SD, p.531)     > “Previous ethnography of such online worlds demonstrates their function as naturally occurring learning environments (Steinkuehler, 2004, 2005)(…)” (Ibid.)                 > offering educational experiences about the inquiry process. (Ibid.)                                 > “As simulations, games allow ‘just plain folk’ (Lave, 1988) to build situated understandings of important phenomena (…) that are instantiated in those worlds amid a culture of intellectual practice that render those phenomena culturally meaningful (Steinkuehler, 2006).” (Ibid.)

Central issue: Examining forms of scientific reasoning that emerge in informal online discussions related to Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) gameplay. (CS&SD, p.532)    > Unanswered Q: “What specific content areas of the game elicit these forms of informal science literacy practice?” (CS&SD, p.539)

“This collaborative construction of knowledge, parallel to what takes place in the scientific community[2], is not aimless contentious discussion (…), but rather part and parcel of the collective intelligence [3] (Levy, 1999) amassed through patterned participatory consumption (Jenkins, 1992), which is a hallmark of interactive ‘entertainment’ media such as games.” (CS&SD, p.531)    > “In the context of game related forums, informal social dialogues are indeed ‘genuine, open debate of complex, unanswered questions’ and therefore may very well lead participants toward a more reflective stance toward knowledge ultimately. Such a hypothesis is certainly worth future consideration in studies that follow.” (CS&SD, p.541)

   > Collaborative construction (CS&SD, p.535):                 - build on ideas of others                                 > elaboration                                 > disagreement                                                 > challenge                                                 > alternative interpretation/explanation (CS&SD, p.538)                 - supported by data/evidence                                 > direct observation (CS&SD, p.538)                                                 + computation                                 > external resources                                                 > beyond current discussion (but inside the forum)                                                 > beyond the forum    > Discussion pattern (CS&SD, p.535-536):                 - Q/problem                                 > game mechanics                                 > game-play strategy                     + (often) theory proposal                 - initial response (support by data)                 - swarm of secondary responses                                 > construction alternative hypotheses                                                 >> repeat (return to the beginning of the cycle)

>>> No segregation                 > “In fact, we found no relationship between a given poster’s character level (which represents their experience with the game) and the quality or quantity of the attributes for which we coded (…).” (CS&SD, p.535)

Data-collection included demographic data of contributors. (CS&SD, p.533)    - level/race/class/guild stat.    - player-vs-player ranks    - posts per individual

“(…) [our] findings are useful in that they enable us to more accurately characterize virtual worlds as learning contexts that stretch across both intra-game and extra-game spaces. As our study shows, forms of inquiry within play contexts such as these are authentic although synthetic (…).” (CS&SD, p.541)    >>> “Overwhelmingly, game related forums (…) are rich sites for social knowledge construction.” (CS&SD, p.540-541)                 > “(…) they were designed such that particular user-controlled configurations (…) [have] powerful and important implications for the success of one’s game play. In fact, in these synthetic worlds designers can manipulate these dynamics so that they are most likely to breed rich conversations as users struggle with the most appropriate configurations.” (CS&SD, p.542)

[1] Based on the idea that the ‘social environment of peers’ has positive impact on learning (cf. Zone of Proximal Development):                 “(…) does school experience in fact offer the opportunity for the kinds of exchanges of ideas and argumentative discourse that would enhance development of argumentative thinking?                 (…) In the informal social interaction that is a major part of school experience, ideas are tested and inevitably challenged; thus social experience serves as the natural challenge to individual thought.                 (…) Even in the best schools, what may appear to be genuine group debates about an issue are usually heavily controlled by the teacher (…) [who] already possesses the understanding of an issue that he or she wishes students to attain… (Kuhn, 1992, pp.175-176)” (CS&SD, p.541)

[2] Scientific discursive practices (CS&SD, p.534):                 - Social knowledge construction                 - Build on others’ ideas                 - Use of counter-arguments                 - Use of data/evidence                 - Alternative explanations of data                 - References to outside resources.

"So we have this massive disparity: why suddenly are they reading - if you let them choose the text - why are they reading at this incredibly, of much higher level of comprehension performance. What it came down to was something called self-correction rates. When the choose the texts, when they care about it, they actually fix their own comprehension problems more than two times as often as when they don't care about the text. It's kind of stating the obvious, but we forget it schools all the time: that if you care about understanding the topic, you will sit and work through, you will persist in the face of challenge in a way that you won't do if you don't care about the topic."