|
Secure checkout & satisfaction guaranteed by 
|
|
|
New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and "Worked Examples" as One Way Forward |  | Author: James Paul Gee
Publisher: The MIT Press
Category: eBooks
In Stock
Rating:  1 reviews
Format: Kindle Book
Media: Kindle Edition
Pages: 92
Number Of Items: 1
Dewey Decimal Number: 302.231071
ASIN: B0030EGHHI
Publication Date: January 12, 2010
| | |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this report, noted scholar James Paul Gee discusses the evolution of digital media and learning (DMAL) from its infancy as an "academic area" into a more organized field or coherent discipline. Distinguishing among academic areas, fields, disciplinary specializations, and thematic disciplines, Gee describes other academic areas that have fallen into these categories or developed into established disciplines. He argues that DMAL will not evolve until a real coherence develops through collaboration and the accumulation of shared knowledge. Gee offers a concrete proposal of one way scholars in DMAL could move the area forward to a more cohesive, integrated, and collaborative enterprise: the production of what he terms "worked examples."
In Gee's sense of a worked example, scholars attempting to build the new area of DMAL would publicly display their methods of valuing and thinking about a specific problem, proposing them as examples of "good work" in order to engender debate about what such work in DMAL might come to look like and what shape the area itself might take. The goal would not be for the proposed approach to become the accepted one but for it to become fodder for new work and collaboration. Gee concludes by offering a sample worked example that illustrates his proposal.
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning
|
| Customer Reviews:
Tough Reading, Not Yet Proved August 17, 2010
Kevin L. Nenstiel (Kearney, Nebraska)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I would divide this paper, for reading purposes, into two main sections. In the first, comprising well over half the book, Gee defines his terms, contextualizes his discourse community, and provides a thumbnail history of how we came to need the concepts he considers. This section is well-nigh unreadable, for multiple reasons. First, Gee's language is opaque. Pause for a minute to look at his paper title, which is so grammatically convoluted that, even after reading the whole paper, I can't affirm exactly what the title says.
Similarly, Gee often doesn't so much state his points as cite references where others already said what he means. Many of his points simply name an idea, then drop parenthetical notes, sometimes running to eight or ten citations, and let you decide whether you can bother to look them up. Then he relies on a constant barrage of acronyms and undefined buzzwords, trusting that you'll know what he means, or that you'll find out. That's a lot more trust than I'd rely on as a scholar.
In the second, sorter section, Gee explains his real proposal, a learning system based on "worked examples," a concept he adapts from the sciences. Not to give anything away, but this system relies on proposals tested by claims and counterclaims, collaboratively refining an idea until it withstands scrutiny. The finished form is the product of not one individual or team, but a collaborative group accrued for the purpose, sharing burdens and accomplishments together. He makes it sound more like artistic workshopping than conventional scientific research.
On the one hand, as a learning model, this really excites me. It proposes a method by which students and teachers share the educational process, and students own their learning, rather than sitting as passive recipients. Graff and other educational scholars have attested for decades that students learn best when engaged in meaningful discourses that touch their spirits. I hope to test this concept in my own classes.
On the other hand, as Gee demonstrates it herein, it seems to remain fairly doctrinaire and parochial. Gee proposes, then defends, that playing Yu-Gi-Oh! and such fantasy card games helps students master complex multivalent vocabularies. Though Gee demonstrates that proposal to my satisfaction, he does not demonstrate that the learned skills travel outside the game or will ever apply to professional or academic discourse. Essentially, he proves that game players learn the language of game play; he does not prove that skills are portable without the mentorship of a good teacher.
Gee offers food for thought, and I've recorded several of his points in my idea book for further pedagogical research. But this paper calls to be fleshed out, because it reads like the wordy prologue to a book-length study Gee hasn't yet written. At this stage, I have to return a verdict of "not proved."
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. | |
