Steinkuelher (2010) makes a case for increasing student choice in the classroom. Steinkuelher prefaces this summary of an extended research project with the observation that secondary students exist in a “complex information ecology,” and that video games are a small part of that larger picture. Gaming is first described as a “narrative space that the player inscribes with his or her own intent” (Steinkuelher 2006, 2008). In other words, the gamer reads the game’s meanings, and uses them to write the next steps of game play. Gaming is next described as a “complex constellation of literacy practice”  as Steinkuelher takes into consideration the online community that develops around a successful game (2011, p. 62). Steinkuelher observed in his ongoing study that this community of game fans “collectively read[s] and write[s] vast cascades of multimodal text,” from user manuals to fan fiction. The author goes on to describe a case study of one seventh grade student who failed English and persistently scored below grade level in reading. However, when the student was allowed to self-select what he wanted to read, he chose 12th grade level texts, and read them independently. According to Steinkuelher, this is a case where “interest” was mistaken for “ability” (p. 63).

Steinkuelher organized this article by first presenting the counterclaim (and the research that backs it up) in his introduction. Then, the author goes on to build his case. The two previously mentioned perspectives on games and literacy are shared, and a comparison made to a narrow definition of literacy (encoding and decoding meaning into text plus images). Even with this very focused lens on literacy, participation in the broader community of game fans was described as a highly literate enterprise. Steinkuelher explains that the reason for this “disconnect” between school performance and game fan proficiencies is due to lack of student choice, and provides a case study to support his viewpoint. In terms of structure, it was nice to see those English skills of argumentation in play–presentation of a thesis with a counterclaim, followed by evidence, both academic and observational.

Steinkuelher makes a good case for student choice, completely at odds with the proscriptive English curricula that is being peddled across the country right now. Instead of students self-selecting as Steinkuelher advocates for, students all read and write the same things at the same time, as teachers guide them using step-by-step manuals. Some teachers, I know, appreciate the guides and use them diligently. With the workload teachers now have placed upon their shoulders, it’s no wonder that they welcome some help with their jobs. (I once counted tasks I was required to do every day, and conservatively came up with 35. Check this video out to see what I mean.)  But that same curricula that teachers appreciate alienates those students who just aren’t interested. As a recent article by Dede (2011)  indicated, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all answer to problems of practice in education. I’m thinking now that maybe I need to find some game-making software that is easy to access and use. I wonder how that could be used to facilitate teaching and learning in a sophomore English class? And I wonder how that process could incorporate elements of the creative process?

Dede, C. (2011). Developing a research agenda for educational games and simulations. Computer games and instruction, pp. 233-250. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Steinkuelher, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, M. Knoebel, C. Lankshear, & D.J. leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611-634).Mahway, MJ: Erlbaum.

Steinkuelher, C. A. (2010). Digital literacies: Video games and digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 61-63.

Steinkuelher, C. A. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. eLearning and Digital Media, 4(3), 297-318.