Gaming in the composition classroom

In his article "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities fro Transformation," Jonathan Alexander argues for the inclusion of online gaming--and the written elements included in the gaming experience--within the composition classroom. According to Alexander, there are multiple opportunities for students to incorporate their gaming literacies into academic literacy, teaching the instructor about their literacies as well as learning something new from the instructor.

Alexander argues that "incorporating a strong consideration of gaming into composition courses may not only enliven writing instruction for many of our students, but also transform our approach to literacy" (37). The multimodal nature of students increases their ability to relate and incorporate classroom skills in the world outside of the class--in other classes or in a career. Also, Alexander argues that gaming increases critical thinking (36), a skill necessary for any career. By incorporating the literarcies a student already knows, say gaming, with new, rhetorical literacies taught in the classroom, a student will be more prepared to learn further and apply his or her knowledge in other situations; for example, students may be better understand culture through a game: "games and new media experience can promote not only a toleration of and even interesting in cultural difference, but also an understanding of the role of communication in mediating that difference and the role of literacy in working collaboratively with cultural differences in mind" (Alexander 49). The collaboration of people working with others and learning about different groups (the French Canadian learning what slang terms actually mean) can improve intercultural knowledge, understanding, and possibly acceptance. For a real life example of meeting new people and learning of different cultures, I will briefly explain the relationship of my teammate Luke and his girlfriend Rian. He is from Washington, and she lives in Texas. Through WOW, they met by fighting in the same Guild. Months after meeting, they have visited each other; her learning about the Pacific Northwest and he learning of the South. Is this an example of communication that Alexander promotes? Or is this a just an interesting story?

As these literacies of new media have implications for the academic classroom, I also think of other literacies of my own and potentially of other students that could be included in the composition classroom. For example, I know how to read music and understand an eight-part choral composition. In a different area, I am also literate in the languages of international track and field as well as that of western horsemanship. However, I speak nothing of any gaming language, unless you count Oregon Trail (Yes, I would like to raft down the river!) If Alexander is correct to promote the use of online gaming--World of Warcraft, in particular--how am I to understand, relate, or include this type of literacy in the classroom? Furthermore, how are other students whose literacies do not include gaming join in the conversation? I suppose this is where Alexander's assignment suggestions may be utilized and, perhaps, this is where I would learn something new from my students.

Doug Hesse and Cynthia L. Selfe discuss certain aspects of writing in the classroom, particularly what should be taught in the classroom. They counter each other in regards to various questions; in particular, this question stands out to me: "Whose interests should the composition class serve?" (Hesse 603). Selfe also asks, "What is the proper subject matter for composition classes?" (606). I, too, wonder. Can gaming be included in the curriculum and stand as a form of writing? And does it actually include a rhetorical situation that is complicated, critical, and applicable in academia? (In the reading, the rhetorical situation is defined as "the rhetorical situation is the situation in which we all write" [611].) Overall, if gaming is a literacy in itself and promotes writing, reading, communication, and critical thinking, it should be available for students to utilize as a tool for learning. Selfe suggests that educators are "obliged to teach [students] how to compose with modalities that may be unfamiliar and difficult but expected of educated citizen within workplaces" (608). If a student learns to communicate through multiple mediums, problem solve in groups, and write in a clear, purposeful manner, his or her education was successful... I hope.


Works Cited

Alexander, Jonathan. "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom." College Composition and Communication 61:1 (September 2009): 35-63.

Hesse, Doug. "Interchanges: Response to Cynthia Selfe's 'The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.'" College Composition and Communication 61:3 (February 2010): 602-605.

Selfe, Cynthia L. "Response to Doug Hesse," College Composition and Communication 61:3 (February 2010): 602-610.

Orality and expression

Despite the growth of literacy and widespread use of writing in the United States, oral culture still exists. It has survived public education and Web 2.0, and will likely continue to affect students and educators alike. As oral culture and tradition is passed from generation to generation, whether intentional or not, stylistic elements and approaches to writing that are characteristic of orality show through even the most literate students. As shown by in his chapter “Some psychodynamics of orality,” Walter Ong delves into the details of characteristics of oral culture, based on thought and expression. Similarly, in her article “Plateau Indian Ways with Words,” Barbara Monroe discusses these characteristics by focusing on how they manifest in a focused group in the American Northwest.

Monroe lists characteristics of writing by students with a background of oral culture such as the Plateau Indians, including using “personal experience as supporting evidence and high-affect techniques, such as hypothetical dialogue, humor, and sardonic tone” (322). More broadly, Ong shows that oral discourse is embedded in context: “Written discourse develops more elaborate and fixed grammar than oral discourse does because to provide meaning it is more dependent simply upon linguistic structure” (38). Oral culture is dependent on adjectives, elaboration, and attributions—“aggregative” language (Ong 38). As narrative is related to storytelling and performance, oral culture requires elements of speech, elements that students incorporate into their writing. By understanding this relationship to performance, it may be seen that the audience is of utmost importance. As speakers repeat themselves so that their listeners do not lose interest or forget importance elements, so do writers repeat themselves to a point of apparent “redundancy” (39-41). However, it is not a fault if this repetition is seen as an organizational tool necessary to maintain the attention of the audience. The personalization of writers from oral backgrounds is used as evidence to support their arguments or stories (Monroe 329-330); this support is built on their our characters, or the characters of their parents—ethos. In a similar manner, the use of emotional language to elaborate and improve their writing shows an understanding of pathos and how it affects an audience.

Ong’s work further explains oral culture by examining the effects of literacy on thought processes; for example, even the small exposures to reading and writing of the slightly literate change the manner in which a person responds to questions (Ong 42-43). Oral culture is tied to human nature, it maintains a relationship with reality and the constructs of the present. In contrast, writing—and literacy—allows people to think abstractly, naming shapes by their geometric names and not their real-life counterparts (Ong 43). Literacy, and writing in particular, allows people to spend more time on things not related to memorization, such as writing a list of groceries for the weekend, rather than remembering it all week. This saves energy that can be used elsewhere. Monroe discusses these variations in thinking by comparing and contrasting analytic versus holistic thinking (334). Holistic thinking allows for multiple voices; to oral cultures, multiple perspectives are important and valued. Analytic thinking values a strong argument where the writer supports one perspective. Attempts to switch between the two thought processes is likely difficult, if not impossible to compartmentalize one or the other. I wonder, can the two be effectively combined? If not, which is appropriate for students in a university setting?

Is it possible for a student of an oral culture to switch between the two discourses of persuasion, of orality and academic discourse? Monroe notes that translation can weaken an argument or meaning, particularly when translating from an oral, narrative context to a straightforward purpose (325). Perhaps the use of modern media, technology, and varied rhetorical mediums can ease the transition between the two, meshing them together, ever so slightly. At the end of her article, Monroe urges educators to employ computers and varied media—visual rhetorics—that contextualize learning through the use of popular culture and technologies that may enhance writing (338-339). Also, these alternative teaching methods may reduce power relations of the teacher held by certain students, making the teacher more approachable or accessible. By incorporating new mediums into the classroom and in assignments, teachers may learn to teach old tricks using modern methods.

From personal experience as a student, I have found that modern technology and mixed media enhanced my learning and broadened my perspectives as a student and as a global community member, so much that I am earning a double degree in English and Digital Technology and Culture. Perhaps other students may too benefit from multiple medias, adding alternative literacies to their home literacy.

Works Cited

Ong, Walter. "Further characteristics of orally based thought and expression" in Ch. 3of Orality and LIteracy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge, 1988. Pp. 36-57.

Monroe, Barbara. "Plateau Indian Ways with Words." College Composition and Communication. 61 (September 2009): W321-W342.