Gee Chapters 6 and 8

Describe your reaction to Gee's cultural models approach.

I read the chapters several weeks ago. I wrote on the first page of chapter 6, "This chapters full of social commentary, etc. Question the status quo". Which is to say, his book (naturally) provides a platform for him to espouse his views and this is the chapter in which he does so. It is really a chapter on sociology rather than education. Some quotes...

"...video games are just as easy to design to allow you to play a sinner as a saint. (p. 147)" [So it's the message, not the media. Ok.]

"Cultural models are the tacit, taken-for-granted theories we (usually unconsciously) infer and then act on in the normal course of events when we want to be like others in our social groups. People who have no cultural models would have to think everything out for themselves minute by minute when they attempt to act. They would be paralyzed. (p. 153)" [An example of the sociology nature of this chapter.]

"Are cultural models, then, "good" or "bad"? They are good in that they allow us to act and be social in the world without having to constantly reflect and think. They are bad when they operate so as to do harm to ourselves or others but go unexamined. (p. 154)" [Not hard to guess Dr. Gee's political affiliation. And I agree, but we're getting off the topic of video games and education....]

"Hate groups like the National Alliance have long recruited members through the use of websites, white-power music, and books and magazines. However, there is concern, for just the reasons we have discussed, that interactive media like video games are a more powerful device than such passive media. But if they are, then they are potentially more powerful for both good and ill. (p. 159)" [This discussion reminded me of a program I heard on NPR not tool long ago about white supremacist groups passing out audio CDs with white-power music to kids at middle schools. Quite disturbing. I can see how such groups would be drawn to the power of video games for recruitment purposes.]

"Very often, if you are not very careful, you get shot and die without even having seen what direction the bullet came from. (p. 163)" [That's what happened to me with America's Army and was the point at which I felt I had suffered enough and I quit the game.]

"...progress was punishingly slow. (pp. 163-164)" [America's Army Escape and Evasion. Difference between me and Gee is that I had enough good sense to quit.]

"When we did accomplish our goals in fine fashion, I did not know how much or how little I had contributed to the "victory". (p. 164)" [So where's the learning?]

"In video games, losing is not losing, and the point is not winning easily or judging yourself a failure. In playing video games, hard is not bad and easy is not good. The six-year-old mentioned earlier was once asked whether easy or hard was better in a video game. Without a pause, he said hard is always good, easy is not. Would that children said such things about learning in school. (p. 175)" [This is really the whole point of Gee's book.]

"At one point she says to Solid Snake something that is not a proverb, of course, but is meant to have much the same effect: "Aren't you glad that you have the time to play a video game? Relax and enjoy yourself. ... Wouldn't it be great if we could say to children in school, when they are struggling mightily with hard problems: "Aren't you lucky you have the time and opportunity to learn?" and have them smile and nod? (pp. 175-176)" [Yes]

Considering the entire book, summarize what you believe Jim Gee's overall message is in one or two sentences.

Gee is not saying video games are good. He is saying here is something that is difficult and time consuming but holds children's attention anyway: what can we learn from that?

What do you say about the occasional critique of Gee's work that it is overly critical of traditional education?

Yes, he is critical, but I think that as a tenured professor at a he has earned that right. He might fend off some of that criticism by citing examples of better teaching. He might also discuss how his teaching has changed. I suspect most of his critics have only skimmed his book.

Describe two concepts or principles in Gee's work that most resonate with you.

In 1977 as a scout camp staff member, I learned about a teaching technique which was recommended by the BSA called "guided discovery". Much of what Gee says reminds me of guided discovery. A good gaming example is the notion of levels. Give someone a few tools or techniques, and "puzzles" which require the use of those techniques. Once those tools or techniques have been mastered, more complex tool or techniques can be introduced, along with appropriate "puzzles". I see this as guided discovery.

Continuing with the BSA metaphor, in the mid 1970s the BSA began giving out "Skill Awards" for accomplishing certain tasks. These were easier to earn than full rank advancements. They were kinda like "instant gratification." That's what the levels of video games remind me of. Maybe there needs to be more of that in education? And something other than letter grades and varsity letters? I don't know.