Blog #3 September 22, 2009

Gee: If the human mind is a powerful pattern recognizer—and the evidence very much suggests it is—then what is most important about thinking is not that it is “mental,” something happening inside our heads, but rather that it is social, something attuned to and normed by the social groups to which we belong or seek to belong (192).

Priebe: Certainly we are shaped by society and the social groups that we are members of—and some shape us that we are not members of, but I simply do not understand why our great ability to recognize patterns means that we are automatically shaped by social groups. So what? Why would my ability to recognize different species of birds or races or adherents to a particular religion mean that I am normed by my social groups. I am normed by my social groups but this has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to recognize patterns, and I don’t think that you articulated this very well at all. I know what you are trying to say. You’re saying that society teaches us what to recognize. OK, fine. I can go along with this, but I still think you’re really stretching it to say that “what is most important about thinking is . . . social.” There are still rebels in this world that will rebel and recognize what they want to recognize. Many times they are called artists. Independent thinking still exists--thank God--although you would obviously prefer our young people to band together into think tanks where they are never separated from their tools (the computer) lest they actually learn how to act autonomously. What a picture you paint! We had damn well better leave room in our curriculum for independent thinking and action lest we raise a generation of the helpless. I know what you’re driving at, but again, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Gee: I have first wanted to argue that good video games build into their very designs good learning principles and that we should use these principles, with or without games, in schools, workplaces, and other learning sites (216).

Priebe: This I understand, and this I agree with wholeheartedly. I am doing my best to bring some of your practices into the classroom. Here is one last thing I will say to you, for I have now finished your book. I am convinced that young people spend so much time with these games because they have the time to spend with these games. But what if I told young Adrian that he was to practice his violin three hours a day? There is a reason why young people are more adept with computers than their parents; they have the time to play with them!

Williams: Lack of alignment is probably the biggest cause of unpleasant looking documents. Our eyes like to see order (43). Strong alignment is often the missing key to a more professional look (46). I want to repeat: find a strong line and use it (48). The trick is you cannot be timid about breaking the alignment—either do it all they way or don’t do it. Don’t be a wimp (49).

Priebe: What can I say but what I said last week? I am learning a lot from you. Your field is really never something that I considered or ever really knew about, but I think that you have designed and written your book brilliantly, and I am learning about design. I just hope that I can retain these principles. Your book is a keeper! I hope that my cards and websites will look as good as yours.

Russell: Discussions of “practical” writing in the disciplines went against the grain of the conference, with its concern for liberating students from “the system, the machine” (11).

Priebe: Typical rhetoric of the period. Youth versus the establishment or the system. It is to these educators’ credit however, that they were trying to help.

Russell: I think John Dewey, now much maligned in America, took a more comprehensive, balanced view of education with a clearer eye to both practical and intellectual interests, and to individuality as something that can be fully developed through communtiy (11).

Priebe: Hey, you sound just like Gee when you talk about developing through community.

Pratt: I propose to say a few more words about this erstwhile unreadable text, in order to lay out some thoughts about writing and literacy in what I like to call contact zones. I use this term to refer to social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today.

Priebe: asymmetrical means having parts that fail to correspond to one another or that are unequal, so you are talking culture clashes where cultures don’t fit together, and in fact, fight with each other because of some perceived inequality.

Blog #2

Gee: This view of the mind, as I pointed out earlier, is quite different from the traditional one psychology takes. In the traditional view, concepts are like general definitions in the mind (like definitions for words in dictionaries). In the traditional view, the mind thinks through stored “facts” and grand generalizations that are like statements in logic (like “All books have covers”). In the view I am developing here, the mind thinks and acts on the basis of something like stored images (simulations) of experience, images that are complexly interlinked with each other (thereby attaining some generality) but that are always adapted to new experiences in ways that keep them tied to the ground of embodied experience and action in the world. . . . If you believe the traditional view, you think schools should teach children to memorize facts and should overtly tell them important generalizations (91).

Priebe: Mr. Gee, in your book there are a great many abstract concepts, or to put it another way, there is a great deal of your writing about thinking, and some of these concepts you have labeled with terms like situated learning and embodied actions. Now, we readers, of course, are not using your concepts (as of yet) in any type of situated meaning; therefore, we are and you are, at least up to this point in your book, embracing what you claim is the traditional view of learning, i.e., we are using and memorizing definitions which we, the readers, have not put into any type of action or embodied action that would make it, by your definition, memorable for us. For example, last week in class, Dr. Muhlhauser, asked us for the definitions of terms from Gee’s book, and in point of fact, I agree with him on this. I myself have determined or hypothesized that the way to grasping the abstract concepts in Gee’s book is to internalize a short mental definition of them, that is at my fingertips, so to speak. Furthermore, I am daydreaming or mentally rehearsing these concepts as I read Gee’s book. I have already determined a number of ways that I might employ Gee’s ideas into writing assignments for my students—and undoubtedly, I will learn many more before Gee is through.

From these facts, I would hypothesize that both Dr. Muhlhauser and myself believe in memorizing facts or at least labels for concepts, abstract concepts, that we have not yet performed embodied actions in. So, my main point here is that learning is a combination of both the traditional view and Gee’s view that “the mind thinks and acts on the basis . . . of stored images (simulations) of experience” (91). I am memorizing (or at least trying to) definitions for Gee’s concepts, and in fact, he is giving them to me to internalize although I have yet to perform an embodied action with them. Score that round for the traditionalists.

In my opinion, I will soon forget most of what I am learning here if I do not employ it in an embodied action, i.e., some kind of assignment for my students that I design and implement. Of course, Gee would agree with this, and Dr. Muhlhauser, this is certainly what you have in mind—I would guess! But again, my central idea here is that in attempting to grasp Gee’s book, I am memorizing terms, and that I am finding it useful to memorize terms; however, I recognize that first, I am tying some of these ideas back into my past teaching experience, or past embodied actions, and older studied (hopefully memorized) definitions, and second, my learning would be easier if I was practicing inside some semiotic domain like a video game—although I have never played a video game in my entire life.

But what of the internal actions of the mind? Do we really have to practice a concept to memorize it? Internally (by this I mean cognitively), do we not practice and link concepts to already learned concepts? Of course, we do, and the only embodied action we need is the internal action of the mind.

Where is Gee headed? In one way, he is headed for a roomful of students playing video games that will give them active practice in the semiotic domain of essay writing. We, the teachers, will monitor our students’ progress by walking around and seeing how they are doing. If we are fat and out of shape, we undoubtedly can even sit at our desks and monitor and talk to our students from there. Sound cozy? Some students stare into their computer screens all day now anyway, so I guess, what is the difference?

There must be a marriage between Gee’s ideas and the traditionalists. As the old saying goes, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Just for fun, here is another one from George Patton: “If everyone is thinking alike, then, no one is thinking.”

Gee: The four-stage probe-hypothesize / reprobe / rethink process that underlies the formation of the child’s mind [and any kind of serious practice in writing or the arts and music, and so on] is not different in kind from the process by which expert practitioners operate (92).

Priebe: Absolutely agreed and noted.

Gee: In the end, my claim is that people have situated meanings for words when they can associate these words with images, actions, experiences, or dialogue in a real or imagined world (105).

Priebe: Maybe this is why I understand what you mean a good deal of the time, for I have had enough experience to know that learning by doing is the best way. In fact, let me elaborate. You have discussed practicing in a subdomain, and you have emphasized that this practice is useful, but that in the end, there is no substitute for embodied action in the semiotic domain. Of course, we learn to write by writing, and not so much by reading about writing until after we have written. So I understand you perfectly. Another analogy: no matter how much I practice my guitar, it is never the same—or hardly ever the same—as playing in front of a live audience. Another guitarist said to me once that we are all two different guitarists; the one we are at home and the one we are in front of an audience. I knew what he meant, alright.

Gee: The dilemma then is this: For efficacious learning, humans need overt information, but they have a hard time handling it.

Priebe: Mr. Gee, I hear you, and I have already stopped telling my students too much. I am trying harder than ever to elicit their responses and interpretations before I tell them. For example, today, we were reading a NY Times’ article about how “the month of August had knocked the White House on its heels.” Now this was a reference to how Congress had recessed before passing the President’s proposed health care legislation causing it to lose steam (sorry, another metaphor), but nowhere in the article did it explain that. I questioned them thoroughly about what kind of language was being used in this sentence. Then I asked them if they understood the reference, before I told them what it referred to. And I have become very reluctant to tell them anything they can figure out for themselves. They did well on Friday & today.

Gee: Of course, no child can do this [refashion himself] if no such virtual identity and world—a world of imagined scientists and science enacted in words, deeds, and texts—is present in the classroom.

Priebe: I think your idea of a virtual identity is a good one, so I am going to try something this week in my classroom—perhaps tomorrow. I am going to tell my students that if they have ever felt as if they were not good at history, or have ever felt limited in academic ability, then, they might give themselves a new virtual identity when they come into my social studies class. I have set up the next worksheet with a place for two names; their name and a name blank immediately underneath it that is labeled Virtual Identity/Historian. What have I got to lose?

I will also explain that gang affiliations or gang names will probably not be sufficient unless they feel that their gang identity is academically adroit. “In other words, guys, your new name, your new virtual identity is your new chance to transcend past deficiencies. This is your chance to remake yourself when you come into our classroom with a new virtual identity as an able and proficient historian.” Something like that.

Williams: When several items are in close proximity to each other, they become one visual unit. . . . By grouping similar elements into one unit . . . the page becomes more organized (17). Don’t be a wimp (18). Information that is subsidiary to the main message . . . can often be as small as 7 or 8 point (20). The idea of proximity doesn’t mean that everything is closer together; it means elements that are intellectually connected, those that have some sort of communication relationship, should also be visually connected (21).

Priebe: Wow, you obviously know what you’re doing, and everything you worked on looked great. I did not even notice the name of the Shakespearean reading group until after you fixed their advertisement; First Friday Club. What an improvement.

Williams: . . . Don’t run the risk of losing potential customers because they give up searching through the vast field of slanted text. . . . Upgrading your design skills is a gradual process and begins with clear communication (23). Group the items that have relationships (25). . . . All caps are hard to read (27).

Priebe: I got it. Start with the proximity principle first. I think you explained things very well and it is fun reading your book. Your examples and explanations are great. Time for an embodied action? I’m a little nervous.

Gee: We are fluid creatures in the making since we make ourselves socially through participation with others . . . (4).

Priebe: Absolutely true, however, it is possible to think, make statements, and act outside of these groups without social approval. In many cases, it is our emotional programming that stops us from moving outside of a group, not the power of the group. Even deep learning can take place without social approval. The best (and easiest) active and critical thinking will happen with social approval, however. Being a member of an affinity group and sharing its internal and external design grammars.

Gee: Wouldn’t it be great if kids were willing to put in this much time on task on such challenging material in school? (5). You see a Darwinian sort of thing going on here. If a game has . . . good principles of learning built into its design—that is, if it facilitates learning in good ways—then, it gets played and can sell a lot of copies (6). So we can also ask how the theory of learning in good video games compares to teaching and learning work in school (7).

Priebe: What Gee seems to forget is what Twain said in Tom Sawyer. “Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”

If educators were to develop an exciting, challenging video game entitled “Writing the Great American Novel,” or “Write the Essay and Climb to the Top of Your Social Group,” they would suddenly find that these particular video games would not be quite so popular, for then, they would be called work and would consist of what a body was obliged to do in school.

This is not to say that we cannot learn sound learning theory from studying video games. In fact, perhaps we should try to construct a video game like one of the imaginary titles above, but in the end, a certain percentage of your students will tell you how boring your assignments are because they are called work and not play.

Why do we need to make excuses for reading textbooks and novels if they are good, exciting textbooks and novels? A classic novel is a classic because it says exactly what its author intended it to say in a beautiful, precise way. Perhaps this is what Gee will tell us; he will explain what makes a video game exciting in a way some classrooms are not, but why would expressing one’s self in an essay be less exciting than a video game unless the fault lies in the writer?

Gee: This work argues that human learning is not just a matter of what goes on in people’s heads but is fully embedded in (situated in [Situated Learning]) a material, social and cultural world (8).

Priebe: Absolutely agreed. How will we use this? To fan class debates and argumentative essays over issues like Gun Control and the Bill of Rights and then mailing them to legislators? This would be one way I could construct a lesson that employed critical and active thinking.

Gee: The learner must see and appreciate the semiotic domain as a design space . . . (40).

Priebe: And this is obviously where the act of creative thinking comes in. This I suspect is Gee’s Valhalla and our destination with him.

Gee: Such a commitment requires that they are willing to see themselves in terms of a new identity, that is, to see themselves as the kind of person who can learn, use, and value the new semiotic domain (59).

Priebe: Yes, as a teacher, I need to take a good look at my students and listen to them to determine if they are ready to embrace their new found virtual identity as a essayist / writer. My experience is that many students, who would be considered rebellious or troubled, are more than ready to embrace new identities if they can have an instructor’s approval. We teachers are powerful in this regard.

Gee: If players have just routinized their behaviors . . . and keep reacting to problems in the same now well-practiced way, a level of the game will be reached at which the game will realize this and disreward [punish is what you mean, Gee!] these behaviors (69).

Priebe: Yes, and isn’t reality exactly the same way. If I master one aspect of my field and remain content with that one area of mastery, eventually I will stagnate. My comfort zone will shrink. Cognition will become less dexterous.

Williams: But first I want to tell you a little story that made me realize the importance of being able to name things.

Priebe: I agree that being able to name things is important and that this aids in our cognitive or mental mapping. Knowing the names of things facilitates mental connections. Also, this reminds me of the importance of writing with nouns and verbs in the active voice, and the poet Herb Scott’s advice to “call things by their names.”

Williams: Now, the Joshua tree is a really weird-looking tree. . .

Priebe: As important as the name of a thing is, it was also, obviously, the visual image of the tree that aided Williams in his identification. He had the book with him when he went outside and discovered much to his surprise that his neighborhood had many Joshua trees. Still the power of the name reinforces the mental image and makes remembering it easier somehow. The mind wants to catalogue and classify—sometimes to its detriment.

Williams: I had lived in that house for thirteen years, and I had never seen a Joshua tree.

Priebe: I know what Williams means, but actually, this statement is false. He had seen Joshua trees, but he had not recognized nor identified what he was looking at. We all see so many things that we do not recognize. As Robert Bly wrote, “What is it that we see and that we don’t see.” Or, “So many things happen when no one is watching.” There are so many important things that our before our eyes that we don’t recognize. Can we see grief or mourning if have a name and a picture to help us out?