Most helpful client reviews
15 of 17 persons found the following review helpful.
Tough Reading, Not Yet Proved
By Kevin L. Nenstiel
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 conceptions he considers. This division 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 assert precisely what the title says.
Similarly, Gee often doesn’t so much state his points as quote references where others already said what he means. Many of his points merely name an idea, then drop parenthetical notes, once in a while running to eight or ten citations, and let you determine whether you may bother to look them up. Then he relies on a continuous barrage of acronyms and undefined buzzwords, trusting that you’ll recognise 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 conception he adapts from the sciences. Not to give anything away, but this scheme 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 person or team, but a collaborative group accrued for the purpose, sharing burdens and achievements together. He makes it sound more like artistic workshopping than conventional scientific research.
On the one hand, as a learning model, this in truth stimulates me. It proposes a method by which students and teachers part the instructional process, and students own their learning, rather than sitting as passive recipients. Graff and other instructional scholars have attested for decades that students learn best when engaged in significant discourses that touch their spirits. I hope to test this conception in my own classes.
On the other hand, as Gee demonstrates it herein, it seems to stay somewhat 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 achievements travel outside the game or will ever employ to professional or academic discourse. Essentially, he proves that game players learn the language of game play; he does not prove that achievements are portable without the mentorship of a good teacher.
Gee offers feed for thought, and I’ve recorded assorted 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.”
See all 1 client reviews…
