Synthesizing Gee

36 Ways to Learn a Video Game
The text will primarily focus on video games that center around a "fantasy character, moving through an elaborate world" in order to solve problems (1). First, the reader needs to know that reading and thinking are continually contextual acts, filtered through a belief system, a cognitive mode derived from society. Gee then relates reading and thinking to video games by saying that these games required new ways of learning, ways that “make hard things life enhancing” (6).
Gee’s purpose for the text is to show the reader current research in the areas of New Literacy Studies, “situated cognition,” and connectionism in relation to video games. He concludes this introductory chapter with some caveats, concluding with a brief discussion of the issues of violence and gender in video games. I found his address of gender interesting, how Gee is choosing to play a game as his opposite (an African American female) and his twin is upset that he cannot be a representation of himself (a balding, overweight, aging white male) in the role of the “hero.”
Semiotic Domains: Literacy and Semiotic Domains
Video games teach a “new literacy,” a visual one. With so many ways of reading and writing, a reader must learn to think beyond print but remember to consider social contexts. Knowledge of social practices gives the reader an inside glimpse, a special understanding that allows them access to (understanding of) texts on those subjects. Now, I’ve just said that knowing about certain social practices is the only thing required to understand a certain text, but the ability to enact or participate in the social practice can “potentially give deeper meanings to those texts” (15).
This fact seems to be often disregarded in the school system. Gee seems to propose that if writers make better readers, children should be taught to write, instead of focusing on drills and basic regurgitation.
A working definition for “semiotic domain” in this text is “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities to communicate distinctive types of meaning” (18).
An Alternative Perspective on Learning and Knowing
Gee seems to support this perspective that there is no way of learning “in general,” but within semiotic domains. This view takes the emphasis off of content, and requires the student to experience and learn in new ways. This is one component of “active learning:” “experiencing the world in new way, forming new affiliations, and preparation for future learning” (23).
Internal and External Views
Gee identifies two ways to look at semiotic domains: “internally and externally” (26). He uses several examples, but he begins with the semiotic domain of first-person shooter video games. An internal look at FPS games involves the content found in the game, like “using weapons to battle enemies,” but an external view reveals something Gee calls an “affinity group,” insiders who know about the ways of thinking and reading involved in that particular game and can recognize the same attributes in others. This discussion stuck out to me for several reasons. I have some experience playing some first person shooter games (Call of Duty: Black Ops and Halo Reach & ODST mostly?). My experience has been mostly with the online multiplayer components of the game rather than the individual plot/storyline itself. I feel stupid for admitting this but even though others have classified me as an insider in these particular groups, my interactions with what I classify as “insiders” has informed me that I do not possess the insider knowledge or skills true members do.
Design Grammars
Design grammar is also classified according to Gee in internal and external terms. Internally, grammar is a set of principles a reader or member uses to identify acceptable and unacceptable content within the domain. Externally, it is a set of principles a person uses to recognize what is and is not acceptable “social practice and identity in regard to the affinity group” (30). What’s the difference? The internal grammar seems to involve interaction between the domain (the game) and the player. The external view includes all users of the domain (all members of the affinity group) and the formation of social practice and identity in relation to the domain (the game). Here, Gee discusses the new type of game Microsoft’s Xbox made possible (allowing players to save at any point rather than only at certain checkpoints).
Video Games: A Waste of Time?
I am skipping ahead to Gee’s conclusion of Chapter 2 because here he begins to ask questions relating to the internal/external perspectives and design grammars. Instead of a question of content, issues could be, “Is this a good or valuable affinity group to join?” (46). After Gee’s discussion of design grammars and external views, a reader begins to understand the “Alternative Perspective” he introduces earlier. “Content” is not the only important factor when interacting with a game. Gee mentions four things (out of many more) that can be learned from engaging actively and critically with the semiotic domain of video games that do not deal with content at all. Gee successfully argues that video games are not a waste of time, but is he referring to all video games or just the type he stated would be his focus on page 1 (ones that follow a “fantasy character, moving through an elaborate world”)?

Discussion Questions:

1.      On page 11, Gee talks about being an African American female in a particular game and how his twin wishes to unsuccessfully represent himself as the “hero.” What role does the word “hero” play in the realm of video games and how does it affect a player’s way of thinking?

2.      On pages 26 & 27, Gee defines internal and external views of semiotic domains. This seems to relate to an earlier discussion on page 15 of participation in semiotic domains leading to a deeper understanding. How does this idea apply to members of this class? Because we are studying learning through video games, are we granted access to this internal view or must we engage in these domains to understand?

3.      One of Gee’s concluding questions on page 46 deals with affinity groups. What effect do affinity groups have on active and critical learning? Is active and critical learning primarily an individual or social thing and if social, is it social in a general sense or only within a particular affinity group?