Kyle's+Journal

Week 1 Journal

1: I don't have much of a background with video/computer games. I've played them, had various gaming consoles, but I never really got into them. I found them frustrating, and too difficult most of the time. I could never understand how to use the controllers, or what the objectives of the games were, etc. So I mostly avoided them. I think "gamers" have this grit to stick with games when they become challenging, but if a game is challenging to me, if I can't figure out a solution within a certain time, I quickly lose interest and move on to something else. The funny thing is, in reality, I try hard to figure out issues and problems, but with games, I'm just not interested. For me, games should be relaxing. If I'm going to pick up a game it's to unwind from the day, so I just have little interest in thinking too hard. I know this is an ignorant way to look at games. I don't think they are a waste of time, I believe they can help with learning and problem solving skills. I just didn't grow up playing them much, and have never bothered to explore the gaming world.

2: What are some of the real/virtual "identities" I take on? This shows how out of my depth I am with gaming, because I really don't understand this question. In reality, I'm just me. If you want to go deeper, I'm a single white male who is a teacher, student, son, brother, friend, Oregonian, etc. My only real virtual identities are my student accounts with Pacific, and my own gmail accounts. I'm not sure what else to write about this...

3: I liked how Gee discussed literacy, because so often we only focus on academic literacy. While I believe the ability to read and write and communicate in a common language are essential for surviving and thriving in this world, other "literacies" are also important and underrated. It's interesting that he refers to some of these things as "literate" verses just specific content knowledge, but I can see where he's going with it. As a teacher, I need to understand that while a student may not have the strongest reading/writing skills, it doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. They may be stronger in problem solving skills, outside the box thinking, etc. Essentially, they can contribute to the class in other ways. I agree with Gee's argument that school should //not// be about drill-and-kill, but rather focus on building more practical life skills. You can use the content as a backdrop and vessel to develop other life skills versus making the content the most important thing. Gaming is a great example of this because as Gee discovered, while trying to accomplish a task in a game, you are engaging problem solving skills and strategies, and actually learning with instant results (i.e., finishing a level, or beating a boss).

4: "Semiotic Domains" are an interesting concept. It goes back to Gee's idea of expanding the definition of literacy. From what I understand, semiotic domains are the ability to understand the meanings of symbols and/or other visual cues within a situation/event/etc. For me, it's easy to recognize semiotic domains with relation to sports like football, baseball, soccer, etc. All the hand gestures, the specific verbiage/language, the signs, and rules (established and unwritten) are examples of semiotic domains within sports. I notice this on the occasions where I'm watching a sport like football with someone who doesn't usually watch football. The questions they ask me about what's going on are things I take for granted that I know. I forget that it may not be common knowledge. This is how I feel watching people play video games. I usually have no clue what's going on and ask many clarifying questions to the person playing the game just to keep up.

5: I played Dragonbox Algebra, and tried to play the Evolver games. Dragonbox was fun, easy to use, and a fun way to learn algebraic steps. Evover, I couldn't figure out what to do. That's pretty much it. No real revolutionary insights.