222 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2016
    1. Too often factors like race, gender, social class, or disability play a prominent role in school without the student‘s ability to choose how to define and use his or her own identity

      Religion, sexual orientation / identity, group or club association, neighborhood, brand of shoes, the list goes on and on. This is why some schools require uniforms to lessen sense of identity based on appearance. Affinity groups do not have to be virtual or online, they can be face to face in person. Wouldn't these stereotypes that affect others perception of identity also be included based on physical appearance?

    2. A common endeavor for which at least many people in the space have a passion—not race, class, gender, or disability—is primary
    3. They function in certain ways that we believe are good for learning and human growth. Since not all affinity spaces function this way, we will call these ―nurturing affinity spaces.‖
    4. Affinity spaces are a ―fuzzy concept‖ in the logical sense that they are defined by fuzzy boundaries
    5. Affinity spaces do not have to be virtual
    6. ―who belongs‖ is simply to say that whoever enters the space (the fan site) is in the group and belongs.

      What about affinity spaces for professionals, especially those that require certification or credentials? Such as an affinity group for lawyers or doctors - would this still classify as an affinity group if group moderators deem who "belongs" based on credentials?

    7. ―group‖ is defined by a space in which people associate, rather than some readily identifiable criteria like registering with a political party or completing professional training.
    8. Imagine the transformation in schools if learning in school became about how to make good choices in science, mathematics, art, and civic participation

      But who defines what is a "good" choice? Teachers, students, collective class or group? Good choice is a moving target based on trajectory? Who decides what is a fair assessment?

  2. Jan 2016
    1. ‖ (e.g., newcomers may be flamed when they unknowingly break a norm or fail to already know what they ―should‖ know).

      Has anyone ever experienced this and care to tell?

    2. If human learning and growth flourish in a nurturingaffinity space, then it is of some concern that school has so few features of such a space

      Sleep deprivation, stress, bullying, and many other negative influences tend to come out in school especially middle - high school. Assuming conditions could be improved by nurturing affinity spaces, what are some good suggestions for making school more like a nurturing space?

    3. Affinity spaces and other sorts of communities can give people a sense of belonging, but they can also give people a sense of ―us‖ (the insiders) against ―them‖ (the outsiders).
    4. What does ―belonging‖ really mean?

      Anyone one who enters the space! Anyone belongs.

    5. Of course, we will argue that a principle of good meta-game design is involving players as designers. That is, most positive social engagement
    6. Designing, thinking like a designer, reflecting on the interaction between design and human interaction (as in a game), and thinking of complex relations in systems (as in the rule set of a game and the way it interacts with players and they interact with it) are all 21stcentury skills (ZIMMERMAN, 2007)
    7. fan sites to discuss, critique, analyze, and mod the game

      Affinity spaces.

    8. Those of us who have made the claim that games are good for learning have meant, of course, that well-designed games are good for learning, not poorly designed ones.
    9. games that stress the involvement of players as designers in the first sense, by making game design a core game mechanic, facilitating modding, and encouraging robust design communities to develop around the game are, we believe, particularly good for fostering skills with technology,

      minecraft everyone loves it.

    10. Using the term ―group‖ over-stresses the people at the expense of the structure of the space, and the way the space and people interact.

      Interesting thought - people can assume as many identities or personas as they choose when interacting with online affinity spaces. Thus why it's also important to designate as "space" and not group to de-emphasis "people." Because many times, "people" in online affinity spaces are internet personas that may never leave the virtual space. In some sense strong personas become a permanent fixture in the online space because of the permanence of forums and postings.

    11. We will call such games big ―G‖ Games with a plus: ―Games+‖. We can claim that ―Games+ are particularly good for learning.‖

      I think Gee is turning this read into a game. Lets see if we can get +50DKP by the time we finish this text.

      Dragon Kill Points

    12. ―metagame‖ has been increasinglyused to describe ―‘the game beyond the game,‘ or the aspects of game play that derive not from the rules of the game, but from interplay with the surrounding context‖

      In social games like World of Warcraft, and because of the variety of different types of play one can engage with, Wow has rich potential for metagame play. Such as, role play servers, or RP, where players may join in a voice chat session, emote in game, and dress their character in certain fashions to play through acting or assuming a role in the setting of the game. This type of play including a chat session outside of the game in skype, curse, teamspeak, ventrilo, etc. would officially combine play in and outside of the game which Gee calls "Game." see below.

    13. that sets up game play; i.e., what comes ―in the box‖ or increasingly, is downloaded from the game distributor‘s website. We will call the social practices that happen inside and/or outside the game, the ―meta-game.‖ We willcall the combination of the two—game and meta-game—the big ―G‖ ―Game,‖ with a capital ―G‖ (see GEE, 1990, for a similar distinction between discourse and Discourse).

      ILT students who have taken Remi's Digital Storytelling course should recall "Discourse" from New Literacies

    1. Good video games are complex, challenging, and long; they can take 50 or more hours to finish. If a game cannot be learned well, then it will fail to sell well, and the company that makes it is in danger of going broke.

      The concept of a "good video game" now as compared to when Gee wrote this is interesting. How do we measure "good" video games today? How many copies it sells or how much money it makes? How much fun you had while playing it? Number of players, downloads, and so forth...? What are some recent examples of good games you've played and how do you measure it's quality?