In #112CWR this week, we saw the first two class sessions devoted to students' pecha kucha presentations, all of which addressed Part 1 of the Major Media Representations assignment. This is the earliest in the semester such presentations have ever happened in any of the courses I have designed. As I'm still learning students' names as well as their speaking and writing styles, I find these presentations to be functioning as further introductions to me and the rest of the class.
There's a certain bravery to students' presentations, too. For some, it's just a matter of going first, of "getting it over with," but this also means providing an example for the rest of the class to either avoid or follow to the letter. For others, it was an opportunity to get personal, to give the origin story behind their choice of major and/or intended profession.
That students took cues from the model pecha kucha presentation I gave in Week 2 was no surprise. This was also a bit of a disappointment. For as important as I think it often is to provide students with examples and models of successful projects, I worry that doing so stifles their creativity. The model provided can be an easy way for students to think less about what they want to communicate and how they want to communicate it. I suppose, though, that I'm only giving them a possible approach and template. All students produced their own memory cues, note cards, and scripts to accompany the 20 images on their 20 slides.
And for as involved as we allegedly are now when it comes to new media, I remain somewhat surprised at the clear dominance and influence of movie and television references in students' work in the MMR assignment. There are countless Vimeo, Xtranormal, and YouTube videos portraying various and sundry professions in positive and negative ways. These remain as much untapped sources for this particular assignment as videogames. Perhaps the presentations next week will have greater variation.
If interested in the next two class sessions devoted to students' pecha kucha presentations, all our related tweets can be found here.
Due to illness and/or weather, overall presence in #342VS was uneven this week. I still talked too much on Tuesday and discussion often felt forced, even unfocused at times. This may have been due to the topic (which is somewhat difficult to understand we're talking about videogames) or a lack of preparation (which is more understandable).
So, with in-class discussion already growing too stagnant for my tastes, I pitched a different approach for Thursday's class. Having assigned the introductory chapters to Half-Real and The Meaning of Video Games for that day, I asked students to identify and summarize Steven E. Jones's and Jesper Juul's approaches to and arguments for studying games. I then asked students to use their laptops and smartphones to find and play games with Jones and Juul in mind. In other words, students read/reread and discussed Jones and Juul in small groups before playing videogames for about an hour.
When later sharing summaries of Jones and Juul as well as what videogames they played, a few students admitted to experiencing some difficulty in playing Amnesia and Angry Birds while keeping Juul's "real rules/fictional world" idea in mind. One student even went so far as to express worry that #342VS would be ruining videogames for him.
This is an interesting point of reservation and resistance that I've noticed in prior sessions, the idea that we play videogames for pleasure and that critical thinking and deeper learning about videogames lessen that pleasure. My first response is to go on and on about how we can gain a deeper appreciation for what videogames are and do through that critical thinking and deeper learning about them, just as my appreciation for and understanding of Citizen Kane broadened by way of an undergrad film studies class, just as my learning how to play the guitar provided me with greater awareness of song structure and the tenets of punk rock music. However, based on the abridged version I gave in class, such an explanation rings hollow for some reason.
A second explanation could incorporate arguments and ideas from the likes of Tom Bissell, Ian Bogost, Heather Chaplin, and Jane McGonigal about what videogames can do, but I don't know how well this would work either. At least for some, playing videogames are all the justification they need. It's enough to play, their attitudes seem to say.
My lone #513DR session this week was mostly show-and-tell based on the Approaches to Digital Rhetoric assignment. Students' own Pen.io pages are more revealing than anything I could provide here, so I'm happy to just provide links.
However, I don't know if we're any at all closer to defining digital rhetoric for ourselves. As better definitions might be better enacted than found, perhaps this is okay as student-led facilitations begin in two weeks. I'm quite interested in the deliberations scheduled as I know some students have very clear pedagogical interests they want to explore. I also know that other students are much more geared toward ideas of videogames as digital, rhetorical forms. In all, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the deliberations, who takes responsibility for what while maintaining little overlap with the facilitations of others in the class.
With a mere eight students enrolled, #513DR is the smallest class I've ever had. This size is almost comical in comparison to our assigned classroom which has a capacity of 48. The last two weeks have seen us push four tables together so we can all face each other. We've been making a discussion-oriented space out of a larger, lecture-oriented space. I hope we continue to do that.
This is a lengthy post and for that I apologize. However, my reasons for sharing these are more instructive for #112CWR, #342VS, and #513DR students than anyone necessarily interested in the subject matter. I want to say that this is what revision looks like. I think I'm right, but all are welcome to prove me wrong. Perhaps my editors will.
INITIAL DRAFT OF INTRODUCTION
Pedagogy that encourages more play in college-level writing courses often comes coupled with an acknowledgement of technology as an increasing influence in students’ lives (Sirc 2001; Moberly 2008; Robison 2008; Shultz Colby & Colby 2008). It is here that various questions concerning implementation arise. Without a more thorough understanding of technology and how it is manifest in society, any incorporation is doomed to failure. Historical inquiry of the root of technology, techne, can result in a more beneficial balance between pedagogy and technology. This chapter endeavors to present techne as a way of understanding videogames as applicable to composition pedagogy. Primary emphasis is upon historical roots over contemporary applications, but implications for the future of teaching writing will not be disregarded.
Often defined as art, craft, skill and/or the active application of knowledge, techne's ambiguity remains intriguing and many redefitions are in the service of pedagogy. With discourse so shaped by computer technology, there comes a need to "return to Composition's rhetorical roots to find a language and a methodology" (Penrod 26). Because of technology's influence on us and our influence on technology, it is beneficial if not necessary to explore techne. Again, prior scholarship reveals an acknowledgement of techne's ambiguity, a characteristic embraced because it allows for particular ends.
It is possible to view techne as a field of practice with its own knowledge and skills and inseparable from politeia, “the proper order of human relationships within a city-state” (Winner 97). This is because “what appear to be merely instrumental choices are better seen as choices about the form of the society we continually build, choices about the kinds of people we want to be” (105). Political and scientific aspects of technical and technological production “modify and stimulate each other so as to lead to the development of a comprehensive philosophical program of revolution” (Rosen 79), one impossible to designate as theoretical, practical or productive because it is all three. As such, techne is "the knowledge of those social practices that characterize the acts of insiders…[and] enables cultural critique and becomes the means by which new social possibilities are invented" (Atwill & Lauer 37-38). This enabling aspect further solidifies and strengthens the relationship between technology and civic action.
For as serious as we might understand techne in relation to politics and society, there is also an element of play in its performance. Embracing techne's ambiguity, Ryan Moeller and Ken McAllister use Greek and Roman historical anecdotes to illustrate. In revealing techne as conversation about an art, as ingenuity, cunning, trickery, chance, and artisanship, Moeller and McAllister seek better ways to teach technical communication, “letting [students] learn and play with the rudiments of technical communication before requiring them to act like experts and professionals” (187). To see techne as "creative, ingenious, tricky, unpredictable, and utterly human" (Moeller & McAllister 204) echoes Heidegger's definition of technology as both a means to an end and as a human activity because "to posit ends and procure and utilize the means to them is a human activity" (4). Techne is thus the name for the activities and skills of the craftsman as well as for the arts of the mind (13). However, we may also see techne as a mode of revealing (Ong 1982), as the suggestion of learning within a tradition (Hodgkin 1990), as possessing aesthetic and technical characteristics (Rutsky 1999), as a kind of control over chance (Gordon 2002), as a situational bridge over the gap between theory and practice (Dubinsky 2002), as techniques for situating bodies in contexts (Hawk 2004), as reflection on aesthetic criticism (Penrod 2005). As a result, the pervasiveness and scope of techne also remains a point of contention. Techne is a tool used, working in tandem with knowledge/wisdom to produce an effect or event; techne is also more than a tool, often exhibiting a kind of autonomy which some embrace and others fear. Divorced from or saturated with emotion, separate or inseparable from knowledge and science, ‘mere craft’ or exalted art, various interpretations of techne illuminate freedom of opportunity.
Similar to techne is the concept of play, which "stands for a category of very diverse happenings" (Sutton-Smith 3). In part, it has to do with how discussions of play place it "in context within broader value systems" (Sutton-Smith 8), quite similar to how some view techne. It could be argued that this has to do with how culture arises out of play (Huizinga 1950). Influencing rhetorics of play are historical sources, particular functions, specialized advocates, and the contexts of specific academic discplines (Sutton-Smith 214). Neutral interpretations are as impossible for play as they might be for techne, given how ambiguity creeps into "the relationship between how they are perceived and how they are experienced" (Sutton-Smith 216). Roger Caillois' definition of play is illustrative here as he describes it as "an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill, and often of money" (5-6) while also emphasizing it as essential to social development. For a host of reasons, Sutton-Smith concludes with an explanation of how play is "characterized by quirkiness, redundancy, and flexibility" (229). Below signifies an attempt to paint techne in a similar light.
The nebulous nature of both techne and play invite tangible examples. Videogames are an evolving, popular medium that refashions earlier media and promotes a greater degree of interactivity (Bolter & Grusin 2000) while also being representative of learning (Gee 2003). As such, they constitute an important example of how techne, play, and techne as play might be understood. This may very well be because "videogames teach biased perspectives about how things work" (Bogost 260). What follows then is analysis of videogames as of techne as play with an eye toward implications for teaching composition. Techne provides a historical foundation and videogames provide a current literacy practice, both of which serve to improve approaches to teaching composition.
If we understand techne as an aesthetic, affecting and autonomous art to be learned and practiced in context, videogames represent an arena in which we might explore epistemology and apply to composition pedagogy. Furthermore, if we view techne as a kind of play, videogames work as a collective example, inviting a rethinking of composition, a reimagining of approaches and sequeneces designed to promote active, critical thinking. Technology is an integral part of teaching writing, and it is therefore important to go beyond acknowledgement and awareness by discussing and implementing approaches that encourage and complement new ways of making meaning.
This chapter will explain how Platonic, Aristotelian, and Isocratic notions of techne function within videogames, remaining flexible and diverse while requiring different forms of principled, rule-based interaction and the acquisition of means to desirable and fulfilling ends. Videogames reveal techne as flexible and diverse, requiring different interactions in relation to particular principles and the acquisition of means to desirable and fulfilling ends, achieved through tapping into the potential presented within. Each in-game encounter shapes literacy practices, causing reflection and/or revision in light of new knowledge; learning becomes an ever-present possibility, revealing techne as a kind of play, a fluid, contextual form of action. It can also be through videogames that we are better able to understand ourselves and the identities we create and comprehend and enact the changes we want to see. There is also a certain richness to historical inquiry that makes for a worthy addition to discussions of composition pedagogy and videogames. This chapter endeavors to provide a degree of that richness.
Again, techne can be vague. Rare is the occasion for Plato, Aristotle or Isocrates, to call techne by name, but it is possible to discern how they understood it. From Plato is the idea of techne as flexible and diverse, with each artful craft requiring communication in concepts and construction. Such action is necessary prior to production. Aristotle takes this further with the idea of potential within, of something to be acquired and applied, but this something is more than the means. Rules govern and inform methods of making; absence of principles often means absence of production. Both are necessary aspects of literacy, its acquisition and action, which Isocrates understands in bringing principles and production together in his rhetorical pedagogy.
Divergent ideas about techne can cause confusion, but divergence also allows for greater understanding. In drawing together Plato’s idea of techne as flexible and diverse yet principled, Aristotle’s of a ‘capacity to make’ and Isocrates’ pedagogical amalgamation of parameters and potential production, we can come to understand techne as a kind of play.
----
REVISED DRAFT OF INTRODUCTION
Pedagogy that encourages more play in college-level writing courses often comes coupled with an acknowledgement of technology as an increasing influence in students’ lives (Sirc 2001; Moberly 2008; Robison 2008; Shultz Colby & Colby 2008). Related is the revisiting and/or revitalization of old Greek words like kairos and techne for similar purposes, i.e., the teaching of writing in acknowledgement of technical and technological influences (Moeller & McAllister 2002; Penrod 2005; Losh 2009). In light of research into play and old Greek words for the purposes of composition-rhetoric pedagogy, I desire to bring these two research areas together in arguing for understanding techne as play.
However, the nebulous nature of both techne and play invite tangible examples. Videogames are an evolving, popular medium that refashions earlier media and promotes a greater degree of interactivity (Bolter & Grusin 2000) while also being representative of learning (Gee 2003). As such, they comprise important instances of how techne, play, and techne as play might be understood. What follows, then, is an exploratory analysis of three interstices of gaming that signal opportunities for play and provide potential models for writing instruction.
Before such analysis, though, it is important if not necessary to acknowledge that the pervasiveness and scope of both techne and play remain points of contention. This acknowledgement is not to imply a lack of similarities between the two; in fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. As signifiers, play “stands for a category of very diverse happenings” (Sutton-Smith 3) and techne acts as the name for the activities and skills of the craftsman as well as for the arts of the mind (Heidegger 1977). In other words, both are sort of catch-all descriptors for various and sundry things. Of course, divergent ideas about techne and play can cause confusion, but such divergence can also allow for greater understanding.
As such, many have been encouraged rather than dissuaded from alternate understandings of each term. For instance, Sutton-Smith (2001) observes how rhetorics of play are influenced by historical sources, particular functions, specialized advocates, and the contexts of specific academic disciplines. Much the same occurs with techne, given views of it as a mode of revealing (Ong 1982), as the suggestion of learning within a tradition (Hodgkin 1990), as possessing aesthetic and technical characteristics (Rutsky 1999), as a kind of control over chance (Gordon 2002), as a situational bridge over the gap between theory and practice (Dubinsky 2002), as techniques for situating bodies in contexts (Hawk 2004). Decidedly neutral interpretations are as impossible for play as they might be for techne, given how ambiguity creeps into "the relationship between how they are perceived and how they are experienced" (Sutton-Smith 216). Roger Caillois' definition of play is illustrative here as he describes it as "an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill, and often of money" (5-6) while also emphasizing it as essential to social development. While absent are arguments about techne as wasteful, Winner (1983) and Rosen (1993) each assert its inseparability from society. So, if we might perceive of play as “characterized by quirkiness, redundancy and flexibility” (Sutton-Smith 229), attempts to paint techne in a similar light should be acceptable.
As this edited collection overall attests, videogames represent an area in which we might explore epistemology and possible applications to composition pedagogy. In a way, I think this reveals the imperative that we go beyond the acknowledgement and awareness advocated by Selfe (1999) and implement approaches that encourage and complement new ways of making meaning. In seeing techne as play, videogames work as a collective example, inviting a rethinking of composition pedagogy, a re-imagining of approaches and sequences designed to promote active, critical thinking. Again, what follows is an exploratory analysis of three gaming instances that reveal techne as play and, in turn, indicate a writing-instruction model that leads to learning rather than just skills dispensation.
Two weeks into the semester and I'm still talking too much. I suppose that doing so is important/necessary in helping all students understand all course aspects while moving forward. Talking more in #342VS and #513DR also makes sense because I designed each course as an introduction to an academic field of inquiry. As students may not know that much about videogame studies or digital rhetoric, I suppose I'm the resident expert. Furthermore, as students may not know much about tweeting (for academic purposes or otherwise), I'm the one to dominate their Twitter timelines. I remain concerned about precedent, though. If I'm the one introducing, modeling, and outlining everything, what reason will students have to rely on each other later? That first day of class gives so much power to the instructor. I suppose at least some of the rest of the semester will be spent giving that power back to students. I expect many to resist.
The tools I ask students to use is decided in part by this awareness. In addition to Twitter, which is perhaps the lone constant over the last 3 years of teaching, students in all courses this semester are using Pen.io. I also provided each #112CWR student with a Field Notes memo book for in-class writing and to maintain a more direct line of communication with me.
Part of the reason for the switch to Pen.io concerns how last semester's blogs became more and more informal. I didn't do much to discourage this because I think that one of the best ways to get better at writing is to write a lot. Blogging can be a productive aspect to almost any kind of writing-oriented class, but I wanted to do something different this semester. I wanted to do something different because Posterous, while a rather solid blogging platform, underwent significant changes and became a full-fledged social network. As I wouldn't be asking or requiring students to use any of the new features, I figured there might be something else that was simple and easy to use.
For the most part, I think Pen.io's proven me right. It's pretty close to featureless (but allows for HTML), which is fine for what I'm asking. While talking too much about course particulars, I explained to students how it might be helpful to view their Pen.io work as comprising an online portfolio, the idea of which I first explored while an M.A. student at TAMU-CC. Some of the more tech-savvy students miss having an autosave feature as well as any way to implement Google Analytics, but the majority across #112CWR, #342VS, and #513DR don't seem to have found any substantial lack in the service. With a substantive Pen.io page and 5 tweets due every week, I think all students will be able to maintain online presence as required without difficulty.
Now, regarding the sustained use of Twitter, I was very close to eliminating the "experiment" hedge of the Twitter assignment. As a communicative format and as a distribution channel, Twitter's become a vital part of my professional work. If I wasn't on Twitter, I can't imagine how many important discussions related to digital rhetoric and videogame studies I'd be wholly unaware of. I don't know how else I'd be able to keep up with all that's going on. This is not to imply that all one needs is Twitter, but what's to be found there can lead one down important avenues to elsewhere. If #112CWR students elect to do away with Twitter as a course requirement, I'll understand. If #342VS or #513DR students elect the same, though, I imagine I'll feel like a failure.
Of course, I may only feel that way because of how I designed these courses, i.e., what works for me. Using Field Notes memo books to ask questions, jot down ideas, and think things through works for me. Twitter works for me. Pen.io works for me. In this respect, I suppose I'm teaching students to be like me. Again, I expect many to resist (and they should…probably).
[Amended from Mark Sample]
This will be an entirely new experience for most students. You will spend about 10 minutes playing an unfamiliar NES game. While playing, you will “think aloud” every thought that goes through your head concerning the game, its design, and your playing of it. You will film this 10-minute sequence, using any kind of videocamera, smartphone, flipcam, webcam, etc. You will also watch this 10 minute clip, and annotate it, highlighting significant moments of confusion, negotiation, or understanding, as well as formal elements of the game that are revealed upon close inspection.
The project is a rather open-ended investigation about process and discovery. You will generate a written analysis, but there is no concrete end-product envisioned here. Proceed in a deliberate manner, guided by the concepts encountered in our discussions and readings.
1. Select a game. There are three routes to finding and playing a game for this assignment. The first, more robust method is to download the NES emulator Nestopia. There are Mac and PC versions available. After you have installed Nestopia, you can find many classic Nintendo ROMs at the Old Computer Room. The advantage to this method is that Nestopia allows you to save your games and capture screenshots, which could be useful for this assignment. The second method is to play online at Virtual NES. This site has hundreds of NES games that you can play in your browser via Java. Finally, if you have access to a Nintendo Wii, you can use the Wii Virtual Console to download classic NES games. If you don’t know which game to choose, sample some of the games reviewed in one blogger’s list of The 100 Best NES Games Ever. Try to select a “rich” game for this inquiry, by which I mean a game that is more textured or complex than Space Invaders or Frogger.
2. Play the game. Be thorough and thoughtful while playing and videorecord yourself doing so. You can use a tripod or simply have someone else operate the camera. I recommend an over-the-shoulder perspective, in which the camera is aimed at the screen over your shoulder, so that the camera approximates your own point of view. You’ll want to be sure that the camera has an unobstructed view of the screen. Also, ensure that the camera is picking up sound clearly—both the sound of the game and the sound of your own voice as you talk. And finally, as you play the game, play it aloud. That is, verbalize every thought that crosses your mind as you move through the game, trying to solve puzzles, overcome obstacles, and reach your goal. This kind of constant articulation will take a few minutes to get the hang of, and you’ll feel self-conscious at first. Nonetheless, keep talking about your playing and what you notice about the game as you play. I encourage you to play longer than 10 minutes, but you only need to record 10 minutes of yourself playing aloud.
3. Upload the video to YouTube. Various videorecording devices have different means of uploading videos to YouTube, but in general, YouTube makes it quite easy to upload videos to the service. See YouTube’s help page on uploading videos if you have any trouble. Keep in mind that YouTube limits the length of videos to 15 minutes.
4. Watch the video. Upon your first viewing simply jot down your impressions. Note which specific moments are interesting to you or catch your eye. These could be moments about the game, or about your commentary about the game. Use the video’s time code to keep track of these points.
5. Watch the video again. This time try to describe what makes those moments you noticed interesting. These might be moments in which some element of the game’s formal design becomes evident, or they might be moments in which you as a player make a connection or encounter difficulty or confusion. What were your playing strategies? What techniques did you use to negotiate the game? Also begin paying attention to the peripheral actions of the game. Keep in mind Galloway’s theory of four gamic actions. It’s easy to focus on the diegetic operator acts (what the player does in-game), but don’t overlook the other three realms of gamic action. Also consider the game’s representation of space and time. How is space structured in the game? How is time conveyed in the game? What different actions are available to the player as gameplay unfolds?
6. Create a timeline. Map significant moments of gameplay onto a timeline of your 10-minute session. Here is an Excel file for you to download and use for this expressed purpose:
7. Annotate a still image. Using a screen capture tool, take a “snapshot” of one significant moment from your playing session.
8. Write a reflection. Now begin to assemble a 1000-word reflection upon the playing aloud exercise, in particular focusing on the intersection of the game’s formal elements and your playing of the game. What does your timeline reveal about the game that a casual playing of the game would not? How do your findings align with Galloway’s theories about the four moments of gamic action? What does your annotated still image tell you that you did not notice when you played the game?
Be sure to include a full citation for the article at the beginning of your paper (including the URL). Every aspect of this assignment, including the video, timeline, image annotation, and reflection should be posted as a Pen.io page by Tuesday, February 21, 2012.
[amended from Mark Sample]
The default final project for ENG 342 is a series of Pen.io pages of at least 2000 words offering a critical interpretation of a videogame or of some phenomenon central to the social significance of videogames. Outside research and using sources from established scholarly journals and/or books are required.
Consider formal and narrative elements of gameplay as well as the dynamic between them. Remember that form includes rules, interface, graphics, music, and sound effects, while narrative concerns evocative symbolism, cultural assumptions, explicit or implicit ideology, and so on. Beware, too, the game's procedural rhetoric.
Which videogame and/or social phenomenon you examine for this project is up to you. A game as old as Goldeneye for the Nintendo 64 could be just as satisfying as...well, Goldeneye 007: Reloaded. There are plenty of top-notch indie games, too, and a good source for discovering them is Play This Thing.
The bare minimum number of scholarly sources for this project is five. Think of your work as entering the ongoing conversation about videogames, either generally or more specifically in regards to a title, a genre, or a common issue. Scholarly sources are necessary for understanding how that conversation has developed thus far. Your entrance into the conversation will be marked by clarifying or disagreeing with what’s been said before and/or by exposing a critical issue that has so far been overlooked. You may cite your sources in APA, Chicago, or MLA style as long as you are accurate and consistent.
Alternative Final Project
As an alternative final project, you are welcome to design your own (small) videogame, using development tools available online like MIT’s Scratch or Inform (if you're interested in interactive fiction). The content and design are up to you, but the game should be a self-aware game that incorporates, reflects upon, and even challenges what we’ve discussed this semester. If you choose to design a game, please run your ideas by me sooner than later.
If you decide to pursue an alternative final project, you will also write an artist’s statement to introduce your game. This statement will be an essay of at least 1000 words that outlines the goals of your project. In your statement, please consider the following questions:
- What were you trying to achieve?
- What effect or meanings were you after?
- What subtextual meanings were you trying to evoke?
- Why did the project take the form it did?
- What was your decision-making process regarding design?
- Why did you do what you did and how do those choices mesh with the themes or goals of your work?
- What difficulties and/or epiphanies occurred as you created your project?
- What would you do differently next time?
With your game and your statement, I’ll be looking for evidence that you absorbed and thought about many of the issues discussed this semester regarding play, games, ludology, procedurality, and so on.
[amended from Mark Sample]
As a field, videogame studies is in a rapid evolution. While only a handful of scholars, researchers, and designers were thinking about the social, economic, and political meaning of videogames a few years ago, a multitude of approaches have since come to the fore. This proliferation has resulted in a lively, ongoing conversation about videogames in a growing array of academic journals. The following assignment provides an opportunity to explore this conversation and to read deeper a single article that you find compelling or engaging.
1. Browse various journals and find that one article you think is worth a deeper, more attentive read. Here are some of the best sources for videogame criticism:
Check out different issues and volumes of these journals in order to get a sense of the breadth and depth of their coverage, the kinds of issues they tackle, and the disciplinary approaches they adopt. In time, hone in on a single article, one that resonates with you, one you find worth reading and sharing.
2. Read your chosen, primary article with care and thoroughness. Then, prepare a response of at least 500 words which addresses these questions:
- What is the context of the journal or publication? Who publishes it? Who is the primary audience?
- What particular scholarly conversation or debate is the article intervening in? That is, what previous findings or theories is this article attempting to refute, refine, or broaden? How do you know?
- What is the central claim or question of the article?
- What’s at stake in the article? Why is the finding important and what are its implications?
- What is your response to the article’s argument? Do you find it persuasive, unpersuasive, interesting, uninteresting? What part of the article seems the least convincing and what part makes the strongest case?
- What methodological approach does the researcher take? What kind of disciplines does he or she draw from (sociology, psychology, film studies, literary analysis, art history, and so on)? Can you imagine another approach to the same issues and questions?
- What questions come to mind as you read the article?
- How does the article’s claims give you traction for your own interests? Are there ways to play off, build upon, or refute the argument?
Be sure to include a full citation for the article at the beginning of your paper (including the URL). Your response is due as a Pen.io page by Tuesday, January 17, 2012.
Course: ENG 342 Videogame Studies
Semester: Winter 2011
Teacher/Guide: Dr. James Schirmer
E-mail: jschirm@umflint.edu
Office: 320D French Hall
Hours: Tues/Thurs by appointment
Mailbox: 326 French Hall
Writing Center: 559 French Hall
Writing Center Phone: 810.766.6602 (call ahead to make an appointment)
Writing Center Website: http://www.umflint.edu/departments/writingcenter/
Course Description:
This course examines videogames, dense products of socioeconomic and technological forces, as viable cultural artifacts layered with multiple meanings. Through a variety of critical perspectives, we will explore videogames and their broader social contexts - how they are designed, who plays them and why, and how videogames can be more than entertainment. Such exploration is important and warranted due to the attention paid to the medium. The popularity of videogames as well as the median age of gamers means that we ignore videogames at our own peril. Arguably at the forefront of controversy now, videogames have usurped the roles once reserved for film and literature. It also makes sense, then, for a course studying videogames to be housed within a discipline of the humanities. This is because the examination of videogames as cultural artifacts is a practice that has much in common with (but is not limited to) critical, historical, rhetorical, and textual analysis. Understanding the context and history of a work as well as its potential meaning is what often happens in college-level humanities courses and that is what will also happen in ENG 342. This course represents a modest introduction to the field, providing opportunities to discuss videogames in ways that are complimentary and deserving of both the medium and the humanities.
Required Texts:
Bogost, Ian. How To Do Things With Videogames. [ORDER BY 1.24]
All other readings will be available online or provided via email.
Course Contributions:
The grading contract outlines many parameters for the course, but not all. Below is more information about the contributions required of all students: Presence (in class): I expect you to come to class on time, prepared, having completed the assigned reading and writing, and ready to contribute thoughts to class discussions, to listen with attentive respect to the thoughts of your peers, and to participate in all in-class work. I urge you to attend every class, as most of the work done in class is necessary for successful completion of the course.
Presence (online): To create and sustain further conversation this semester, all students are required to create and maintain Pen.io and Twitter accounts. At least one Pen.io page is due every week for the duration of the semester. One “tweet” per weekday is required for at least the first four weeks of the semester. Further details on Pen.io are available here. Further details on Twitter are available here.
Class Facilitation: Each student group is responsible for facilitating 60 minutes of class once during the semester. Student groups will meet with the instructor at least one week prior to their facilitation to discuss and finalize approaches. As course texts are instructor-provided, student groups are responsible for reading them at least one week prior to the scheduled facilitation. While the facilitation should begin with a group-led pecha kucha presentation, what follows that is for each student group to decide. Beyond the group presentation, the facilitation can take whatever format is comfortable for the presenting group (discussion questions, in-class activities, online activities, etc.).
Sequences: For particular course themes, there are some larger, longer assignments. These provide opportunities for not only greater attention and focus but also practice and preparation for the final project. Designed to stimulate further critical thought about videogames, the sequences are as follows:
- Approaches to Videogame Studies (800-1200 words) - due Week 3
As a field, videogame studies is in a rapid evolution. While only a handful of scholars, researchers, and designers were thinking about the social, economic, and political meaning of videogames a few years ago, a multitude of approaches have since come to the fore. This proliferation has resulted in a lively, ongoing conversation about videogames in a growing array of academic journals. The following assignment provides an opportunity to explore this conversation and to read deeper a single article that you find compelling or engaging.
- Play Aloud - due Week 8
This will be an entirely new experience for most students. You will spend about 10 minutes playing an unfamiliar NES game. While playing, you will “think aloud” every thought that goes through your head concerning the game, its design, and your playing of it. You will film this 10-minute sequence, using any kind of videocamera, smartphone, flipcam, webcam, etc. You will also watch this 10 minute clip, and annotate it, highlighting significant moments of confusion, negotiation, or understanding, as well as formal elements of the game that are revealed upon close inspection. The project is a rather open-ended investigation about process and discovery. You will generate a written analysis, but there is no concrete end-product envisioned here. Proceed in a deliberate manner, guided by the concepts encountered in our discussions and readings.
- Videogame Studies Project (2000-2400 words) - due Week 14
The default final project for ENG 342 is a series of Pen.io pages of at least 2000 words offering a critical interpretation of a videogame or of some phenomenon central to the social significance of videogames. Outside research and using sources from established scholarly journals and/or books are required. Your analysis should consider formal and narrative elements of gameplay as well as the dynamic between them. Remember that form includes rules, interface, graphics, music, and sound effects, while narrative concerns evocative symbolism, cultural assumptions, explicit or implicit ideology, and so on. Beware, too, the game's procedural rhetoric.
On Technology Usage:
Because a great majority of thinking and writing about videogames is online, we will engage a range of computer tools and web-based applications. No prior skill is needed, however, only a willingness to engage and learn. I am more than willing to take extra time; all you need to do is ask. The tools we will be using in and outside of class are web-based, so you will not need any special software. I do, however, have some recommendations (not requirements) that I will provide at appropriate intervals. Furthermore, you should have an email address that you check regularly for this class. While I prefer to contact students via university email, I am open to other email addresses. While technology makes life easier, it can also be difficult (computer crashes, deleted work, unavailable Internet connections, etc.). So, plan accordingly. "The computer ate my homework" or "the Internet was down" are not reasons to forgo the work assigned. It is in your best interest to leave extra time, especially in the first few weeks, to ensure that technology does not get in the way of your coursework. How to Reach Me: The best way to reach me though is by email < jschirm@umflint.edu>. You can also find me online via Twitter <twitter.com/betajames>. I am online almost every day. If you email or @ me and do not receive a response within 24 hours, please feel free to email or @ me again (as I might not have received your first message) and give me a reminder. I promise not to consider this harassment. If you are more comfortable with face-to-face communication, you are welcome to schedule an appointment Tuesday/Thursday. My office is 320D French Hall. Final Note: Should any aspect of this class confuse/concern/trouble you, don't hesitate to contact me.
All due dates and required readings are tentative Week 1 - Expectations & Introductions 1.3 Expectations and introductions Read: grading contract, syllabus, Pen.io guidelines, Twitter guidelines
1.5
Due: Twitter and Pen.io account creation and first tweet/page
Read: Aarseth - “Computer Game Studies, Year One,” Kazemi - “How Not To Write A College Essay About Videogames," Bissell and Ferrari - “On Videogame Criticism”
Introduction to Approaches to Videogame Studies (AVS)
Week 2 - Games & Play
1.10
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Read: Caillois - “The Definition of Play,” “The Classification of Games,” and “The Social Function of Games,” Koster - “What Games Are”
1.12
Pen.io page(s) discussion and visitation
Read: Koster - “What Games Teach Us,” Gee - “Semiotic Domains”
Week 3 - Games & Play
1.17
Due: Pen.io page(s) (AVS)
Read: Koster - “What Games Aren’t,” Huizinga - “The Play-Element in Contemporary Civilization”
1.19
Read: Jones “Introduction to The Meaning of Videogames” & Juul - “Introduction to Half Real”
Week 4 - Games & Play
1.24
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Read: Jones - “Collecting Katamari” & Wark - “On Katamari Damacy”
1.26
Read: Bogost - “An Alternative to Fun,” Frasca - “Videogames of the Oppressed”
Group facilitation: Candace L., Brandi M., Kurtis B.
Week 5 - Ludology & Procedurality
1.31
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Read: Frasca - “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology,” Aarseth - “Genre Trouble”
2.2
Read: Bogost - “The Rhetoric of Videogames,” Galloway - “Gamic Action, Four Moments,”
Group facilitation: Kyle B., Michael B., Hannah K.E.
Week 6 - Culture & Industry
2.7
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Read: Aoyama & Izushi - “Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation? Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese videogame industry” & Consalvo - “Console video games and global corporations : Creating a hybrid culture”
2.9
Read: Kerr - “The spatialisation of the digital games industry: Lessons from Ireland”
Group facilitation: Mike K., Wes D., Jessi N., Zeke Z.
Week 7 - Gender & Race
2.14
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Read: Cassell - “Genderizing HCI” & Schleiner - “Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons? Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games”
2.16
Read: DiSalvo - “Learning in Context: Digital Games and Young Black Men” & DeVane & Squire - “The Meaning of Race and Violence in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas”
Group facilitation: Ken K., Amanda T., Jonathan S.
Week 8 - Violence
2.21
Due: Pen.io page(s) (Play Aloud)
2.23
Read: Anderson, et al - “Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Day & Hall - “Déjà vu: From Comic Books to Video Games: Legislative Reliance on ‘Soft Science’ to Protect against Uncertain Societal Harm Linked to Violence v. The First Amendment”
Group facilitation: Andrew R., Andrew S., Heather B., Zack A.
Week 9 - SPRING BREAK Week 10 - Videogame Studies Project (VSP)
3.6 Due: Pen.io page(s) Read: Mayra - “Preparing for a Game Studies Project" Introduction to Videogame Studies Project
3.8
Research session
Week 11 - VSP - Pecha Kucha!
3.13
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Due: VSP PK proposals
3.15
Due: VSP PK proposals
Week 12 - VSP - Pecha Kucha!
3.20
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Due: VSP PK proposals
3.22
Due: VSP PK proposals
Week 13 - VSP - Peer review!
3.27
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Due: VSP drafts
Peer review
3.29
Due: VSP drafts
Peer review
Week 14 - VSP - Peer review!
4.3
Due: Pen.io page(s)
Due: VSP drafts
4.5
Due: VSP drafts
Week 15 - Reflections & Revisions
4.10
Due: All revisions to Pen.io page(s)
4.12
Due: Self-evaluative essay (email to instructor)
Having read, researched, compiled, annotated, commented, and reflected on academic sources related to your intended major/profession, we should have a better foundational knowledge of what constitutes quality and/or expertise within a specific field of study. Part of this greater understanding concerns expectations of quality and/or expertise in writing for future courses. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward a specific end.
Using sources from the Pop Up and Mashup Scholarship assignments as models (and/or as references), compose a piece adhering to the conventions, arguments, and styles of writing associated with your major/intended profession. This can be any kind of a piece appearing in one of the major journals in your field of study. It could be a substantial book review, a research essay, or a critique of a past article.
The piece composed should showcase an argument similar to those appearing in discipline-specific journals. The piece composed should also showcase positive format and style characteristics similar to those highlighted during the Mashup and Pop Up Scholarship assignments. So, while you should adhere to the default 2400-word requirement, the main requirements for this assignment are those specified by dominant journals in your field of study. If you have any trouble getting started, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Part 1 (pecha kucha, due 3.13, 3.15, 3.20, 3.22). In a 6-minute, 40-second presentation, propose and summarize your approach to this assignment, including discourse adoption and potential source support.
Part 2 (online, due 3.27, 3.29). In a series of Pen.io pages, execute your proposal in time for instructor and peer review.
Part 3 (online, due 4.3, 4.10). In light of comments received during instructor and peer review, revise and update your Pen.io pages.
In "The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism," Jonathan Lethem pulls from an incredible variety of sources to make an argument about the nature of originality. Part of what makes his argument so compelling has to do with how he makes it, drawing from the work of others and relying very little on his own words. Lethem does, of course, acknowledge his source material, but in a way contrary to established academic forms. Instead of proper citation format, Lethem offers a "key," combining partial quotes and authors' names in red along with the occasional anecdote about a particular source. Like VH1’s Pop Up Video, Lethem's mashup essay is another kind of writer/text collaboration that involves more than one kind of text and more than one kind of author. Mashup is a further invitation to make and see connections between texts, to make something cohesive out of things not our own.
The Assignment
Craft an essay of at least 800 words using 5 strong sources. Potential reference points for this assignment include Jonathan Lethem's "The ecstasy of influence," Danger Mouse's The Grey Album, Wugazi's 13 Chambers, and Wikipedia. Look at how these works are derivative of their source material. Note the revisions made to establish transitions between hooks and lyrics, sentences and paragraphs. Take inspiration from previous mashups; allow them to influence the construction of your own work. You have the opportunity to flex your MLA citation muscles with this assignment, but I encourage you to design a "key" as Lethem does or some other method of giving credit where credit's due.
Part 1. (online, due Tuesday, 2.21.2012) Select 5 strong academic sources from journals and magazines related to your area of interest and mash 'em up. Don't just throw the sources together; make a cohesive argument out of them. Don't pull 5 paragraphs at random and simply list them; integrate at the sentence level. Keep your own words to a minimum.
Part 2. (online, due Tuesday, 2.21.2012) Use Part 1 as the basis for an additional Pen.io page. How you construct the page is up to you. I encourage you to provide a simple walkthrough of your mashup process, a conventional collection of bulleted/numbered points of interest, or a scan/upload of the mashup itself accompanied by your own further commentary. No matter your choice, be sure to be reflective and draw some conclusions about the following:
- mashup in general (or specific to academic writing, e.g., should it be allowed?)
- plagiarism in general (or specific to academic writing, e.g., how should it be addressed?)
- what your mashup (or those by your peers) reveals about academic discourse
|
