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?