New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and "Worked Examples" as One Way Forward (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur ... on Digital Media and Learning) [Paperback]

James Paul Gee (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0262513692 | ISBN-13: 978-0262513692 | Publication Date: November 20, 2009 | Edition: New edition

A proposal to move the academic area of digital media and learning toward more coherence.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

James Paul Gee is Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies at Arizona State University. He is the author of Social Linguistics and Literacies, a foundational work in the field of New Literacy Studies, and Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul.

Product Details

• Paperback: 92 pages
• Publisher: The MIT Press; New edition edition (November 20, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0262513692
• ISBN-13: 978-0262513692
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.3 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,114,145 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Tough Reading, Not Yet Proved, August 17, 2010

By 

Kevin L. Nenstiel "omnivore" (Kearney, Nebraska) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and "Worked Examples" as One Way Forward (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning) (Kindle Edition)

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."