Identifying Protoform Practices: Leadership

Research Project Overview

A growing amount of evidence points to a literacy crisis among teenage boys in the United States. Nationally only 65% of all boys graduate (Greene & Winters, 2006), and of those who persist, by age 17, only one in seventeen can read well enough to understand information from a specialized text such as the science section of a newspaper (Thinking K-16, 2001). Overall the “typical boy lags a year and one-half behind the typical girl” (Kleinfeld, 2006). On the bright side, a growing body of research points to the potential of games as routes toward literacy learning (Steinkuehler, 2007), and as we know, teenage boys comprise a large share of their market. If boys love games and games, under the right conditions, foster literacy, then can we use games as a way to re-engage young men in reading and writing digital and print text?

We’ve spent the past two years exploring this question in the context of an after school online games based lab using World of Warcraft. We work with boys from working-class and low-income populations who are either at-risk of failing literacy related courses at school or report feeling disaffiliated with school in general. Our goal has been to tap into the boys’ passion for gaming and develop a bridge toward those literacy practices that should serve them well in school and in life (Steinkuehler, 2008; Steinkuehler & King, 2009; Steinkuehler, King, Fahser-Herro, Simkins, & Alagoz, 2008). Our approach is to homegrow a learning community where boy culture (Newkirk, 2002) and gamer dispositions are nurtured and valued; these interests and dispositions then become the basis for cultivating literacy practices as a means toward their own ends.

References

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2006, June). Leaving boys behind: Public high school graduation rates. Civic Report, 48.

Kleinfeld, J. (2006, June 6). Five powerful strategies for connecting boys to schools. Paper for White House Conference on Helping America’s Youth, Indianapolis, IN, June 6. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.singlesexschools.org/Kleinfeld.htm

Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3), 297-318.

Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Massively multiplayer online games as an educational technology: An outline for research. Educational Technology, 48(1), 10-21.

Steinkuehler, C., & King, B. (2009). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after school contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. On the Horizon, 17(1), 47–59.

Steinkuehler, C., King, E. M., Fahser-Herro, D., Simkins, D., & Alagoz, E. (2008). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after school contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. Workshop presented at the 7th Conference on Interaction Design for Children, Chicago, IL, June 11-13.

Thinking K-16, Publication of the Education Trust. (2001). Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/85897615-327E-4269-939A-4E14B96861BB/0/k16_winter01.pdf

Structure of the After School Lab

Staggering amounts of pizza and cases of Mountain Dew set the stage as 27 middle school to high school age boys descend upon UW-Madison’s gaming lab to participate in research activities (interviews, focus groups, observational play sessions and minimally-designed learning activities), contribute to the development of the group’s in-game guild, and game with peers and adult mentors. The campus-based games lab provides a quasi-naturalistic space for conducting design experiments (Brown, 1992) around authentic, game-related learning activities following the interests of the boys (Barron, 2006) such as developing our guild’s website and forum or sharing strategies for problem-solving within the game. Since the majority of our participants live outside of the Madison area, the program uses a hybrid model (Martyn, 2003; cf. Young, 2008) where participants game together virtually from home during the week via an in-game guild between monthly campus meetings. The guild, which serves as the hub for virtual ethnographic research, has become a “third place” for informal socializing (Steinkuehler & Williams) and serves as a channel for the boys’ in-game intellectual and “academic-like” work (Yee, 2008). This is a space where they share their stories of game-related success (and epic fails), theorize and debate play strategies, trade barb, and vent about the stresses of school and life. It’s a place where witty banter, including scatological humor and jokes about Chuck Norris, transitions into serious debate over such things as the statistical build of one’s character or the best strategies to make money in game. Sparked by the “work of the game,” many conversations involve multi-participant critiques of such things as fan-created user manuals (Steinkuehler & King, 2009) and commonly used models for constructing the most powerful avatar characteristics (Steinkuehler, & Duncan, 2009) – conversations that, in part, constitute the collective intelligence (Jenkins, 2006; Levy, 1999; Pea, 1997) of the guild. As participant observers, our data collection methods center on sharing the boys’ game space and using virtual ethnographic methods to capture these powerful literacy-related moments as they evolve and are practiced by the members of our program.

References

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.

Brown, A. K. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Jenkins, H., III. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.

Levy, P. (1999). Collective intelligence (Robert Bononno, trans.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quarterly, 26(1), 18-23.

Pea, R. (1997). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2009). Informal scientific reasoning in online virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education & Technology. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-008-9120-8.

Steinkuehler, C., & King, B. (2009). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after school

contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. On the Horizon, 17(1), 47-59.

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1.

Young, J. R. (2008, September 16). Study finds hybrid courses just as effective as traditional ones. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 22, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3321&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Yee, N. (2008). The Daedalus Project: The psychology of MMORPGs. Available online, from http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/arch_cat.php

Context of Example

One challenge we face in our longitudinal study of individual and collective game-related literacy practices is in identifying what we call “protoforms” of practice when they emerge. The data excerpt analyzed in this worked example is just one such early practice whereby Coldcuts, a newer member of the group, emerges as a leader within the guild (individual level) and the guild, here only in their first few months of gameplay together, conscientiously develops their first collective strategy for team problem-solving within the game (group level). The data excerpt is taken from a debriefing session that took place in the winter of 2008 during an on-campus meeting. At the time of data collection, the group had been in operation for just three months and Coldcuts, the central figure of the story, had only recently joined the program. In this analysis, we attempt to unpack the dynamics of this transitional moment in both the group’s history and in Coldcut’s relative position within it.

The Story of Coldcuts

Coldcuts is a 15 year old boy from the inner-city of one of Wisconsin’s urban areas. He is the eldest of four boys being raised by a single mother who places great importance on education and strives to ensure her boys have access to school affiliated opportunities such as after school tutoring services and summer enrichment programs. Try as she might, as Coldcuts has progressed through school his achievement has dramatically declined; at the time of this interaction, he is at risk of not graduating or at least not graduating on time. According to his mom, Coldcuts is a “social-body” at school and spends more time goofing off with his friends than doing his schoolwork. In fact, he identifies himself as the class clown and admits to “sort of” enjoying school only because it’s an opportunity to socialize (interview 08.10.25). Each semester has been marked by last minute pushes to get Coldcuts to pass his classes after spending the entire semester disengaged from his coursework, reluctant to complete homework and, in the end, at risk of failing courses essential for graduation.

Coldcuts describes himself as an easy-going guy who doesn’t get angry easily, which he sees as both an asset and a flaw; in his experience people who are easy-going get picked on more readily than those who are quick to anger (interview 08.10.25). Although his laid-back style and sense of humor is seen as a positive among his immediate circle of friends, it’s not easy for a young man with this disposition in an urban population plagued by gang influences. Among his extended social network he lost three friends to gang violence in the first four months of school. To be sure, the teen culture of his school (and arguably most schools) does not readily value being a good student (Newkirk, 2002) and status is often obtained through maintaining the “boy code” (Pollack, 1999) – displays of physical strength, and in cases such as this one, gang affiliation (Staff & Kraeger, 2008). These factors have led Coldcuts to a general feeling of disempowerment in the school setting where he sees his way of being in the world as a vulnerability (Smith & Welhelm, 2002). On the other hand, within the affinity space (Gee, 2004) of our after school gaming lab, knowledge and expertise is valued – so much so that others will, in fact, at times even jockey for position as expert.

The videodata of this worked example represents, in retrospect, an important transitional moment for both the dynamic of the guild and Coldcuts personally. Coldcuts came into the program about six weeks after the rest of the participants and had been working diligently to catch up (and pass) the rest of the group. He had endured several situations where veterans verbally marked their status as expert (“You suck, Noob,” for example) at his expense, but until this session, he had been relatively quiet during group activities. In the moment analyzed herein, Coldcuts takes the stage for the first time, risking simply reinforcing his noob (novice) status in order to attempt to demonstrate his own understanding of the game as a designed system with clear cause and effect. When his gaming peers challenge his emerging authority, he meets those challenges using humor and his customary easy going manner - characteristics that, in this setting, prove to be assets rather than liabilities.

A Transition Moment

Immediately prior to the episode presented in this video, the boys in the program were divided into five-man teams and assigned a “instance” (dungeon) to run – an activity that requires teamwork, coordination and leadership in order to complete successfully. Solving such content requires several known strategies which, at this time, were still largely unknown to our participants. Because many of the boys have a background only in single player console games featuring a great deal of solo play and first person shooter strategy (just shoot stuff…anything!), they struggle particularly with the team game mechanic of World of Warcraft. As the teams tackle unfamiliar collaborative content, many face frequent and total destruction (known as “wipes”) due to group members using a “every man for himself” strategy. On this day, only one instance group was successful – the one that employed a collective rather than individual strategy, led by Coldcuts who astutely leveraged his own design knowledge of the game toward group success.

Subsequent to this episode, Coldcuts is oriented to as a leader within the group and henceforth becomes recognized as an expert among his guildmates – something Coldcuts derives great satisfaction from. Shortly after this incident, he even tries replicating these strategies in school by striving to complete his class work ahead of his friends so as to become the “go-to guy” (personal interview 09.02.17). Although his stint as “expert” in school proves to be short lived, it demonstrates to him his potential as a leader. Since the time of this excerpt, he has earned an officer position in the guild and currently serves as assistant raid leader.

References

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). Reading don’t fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Staff, J., & Kraeger, D. A. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status and high school dropout. Social Forces, 87(1), 445-471.

Pollack, W. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Random House.

Data Analysis Nuts & Bolts

Periodically throughout the academic year, the Games, Learning, and Society (GLS) community gathers to engage in collective data analysis as a way to calibrate our thinking about data and its relationship to theories of learning. Based on Jordan and Henderson’s (1995) “interaction analysis” methods, these sessions almost always involve the presentation of a videodata excerpt along with its transcript by one GLS member to an interdisciplinary group of peers who study digital media and learning. In each session, a given “host” of the data presents the transcribed video to the group. After a few reviews of the entire excerpt, participants dissect the interaction collaboratively, sharing their observations and hypothesizing about what appears to be happening in the moment-by-moment interactions by pointing to specific evidence for their “theory” or explanation within the data itself. These collaborative data sessions are then recorded so that the owner of the data can take a record of the discussion with them for later examination – so called “cannibalizing” of the data session recording for their own purposes. Across GLS, we use a variety of other analytic strategies in addition to such sessions, but collaborative data analysis is one robust means for grounding our individual and collective views on what it means to learn and what evidence we take as support for it.

On the Pop.Cosmo research team in particular, led by Constance Steinkuehler, we use a combination of NVivo and Transana to analyze our data corpus, consisting of both naturalistic studies of online game-related literacy practices as well as longitudinal data from the after school lab. The entire data corpus, of which the segment analyzed here is only one small part, is large and diverse, including videodata, participatory observations, multimodal field notes from our monthly after school program, in-game chat logs, and interviews. We use Jeffersonian notation (Jefferson, 1984) throughout our transcripts to capture the details of social cognition and collaboration as it occurs. While Jordan and Henderson’s (1995) method typically eschews predetermined analytic categories, we analyze our data for emergent themes and use a priori coding schemes depending on the focus and goal of the analysis. The data examined in this worked example was targeted based on our preconceived bias toward moments of transition and a standing interest in informal teaching and apprenticeship; its analysis as a protoform of leadership practice, however, is based solely on an emergent theme.

Transana

To view larger versions of these Transana screenshots, please click the thumbnails below.

References

Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. xi-xvi). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.

Segment 1. Abdicating Authority & Control

Analysis

The episode begins when Constance, the lead researcher on the project, hands Coldcuts control over a diagram on the board (by handing him the whiteboard marker) and therefore control over the ongoing group conversation. She begins by drawing a stylized, abstracted version of the in-game “instance” problem that participants, in groups of five, had just faced and mostly failed: taking down a difficult “boss” monster in a lower level instance in World of Warcraft. In so doing, she creates the context for an impromptu “problem based learning” (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) type of episode in which the group, having just faced a contextualized and messy version of a core form of gameplay content, is now given a somewhat abstracted version of the content that contains just those key features that are most crucial to problem-solving success (Steinkuehler, 2004): the basic layout of the room given its entrance, the “boss” itself, and the four additional monsters surrounding him.

The diagram structures the group interaction and coordinates activity; control over it is therefore an important source of authority (Wertsch, 1998; Wertsch & Rupert, 1993). Moreover, it acts as a kind of material scaffold that enables a particular “vision” of the problem by organizing the ways of seeing and understanding the event in a manner that correspond directly to the broader in-game community (cf. Goodwin, 1994). That this “vision” represents standard gamer culture is reflected in her use of the specialized language of the game (Gee, 2003; Steinkuehler & King, 2009): “adds,” “boss,” “wipe,” “trashmobs.”

Constance’s requests to Coldcuts for confirmation about details of the diagram as it takes shape highlight this abdication of authority, in this moment, from research leader to teenage participant. Here, we see the expected role relationships of master (typically, the older person) and apprentice (typically youth) inverted in a manner characteristic to gamer culture more generally (Steinkuehler, 2004; Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). The transition is complete with her utterance “so YOU tell ME” at the end of the scene and Coldcut takes over as the temporary authority.

References

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp.521–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Steinkuehler, C., & King, B. (2009). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after school contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. On the Horizon, 17(1), 47–59.

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Rupert, L. J. (1993). The authority of cultural tools in a sociocultural approach to mediated agency. Cognition & Instruction, 11(3&4), 227-239.

Segment 2. Authority & Control Accepted, Defended

Analysis

Just as Coldcuts gains control of the diagram and begins to respond, however, he is challenged. Drawing a line on the diagram from the entrance to the corner to show where the group should move, Coldcuts is interrupted. Steamroller interjects, razzing Coldcuts by saying “and you’re scared” – a form of hypermasculine language (Kalliney, 2001) that sometimes characterizes typical boy culture (Newkirk, 2002). With this interruption, Steamroller challenges Coldcut’s status (by saying he is afraid) and authority (by interfering with his turn of talk) (Goffman, 1959). Initially, Coldcuts ignores the remark, turning back to his solution on the board.

Steamroller threatens his authority a second time, however, interrupting again with the escalation “like a little girl!” – a, playful, challenge to Coldcuts’ masculinity. If Coldcuts responds angrily to what Steamroller says, he signals that Steamroller has revealed a potential insecurity. Instead, Coldcuts overcomes the challenge by turning the barb around. Rather than negate Steamroller’s assertion directly, he attributes the same status to his opponent, all without overtly signaling that it was a face threatening (Goffman, 1959) move in the first place. Steamroller then makes a third attempt to establish dominance, rejecting the return accusation that he is the one who is scared, stating instead he is a “mage-tank” – a World of Warcraft player who, despite being designed to give damage and not to take damage, brazenly (often fatally) attempts both. The group, including Steamroller, laughs. Coldcuts then transitions back to the diagram and therefore out of this tangential conversation (ribbing). Throughout the exchange, Coldcuts uses so-called “soft skills” (Boyce, Williams, Kelly & Yee, 2001; Gewertz, 2007) to minimize the overt tension and prevent the interruption from becoming a complete loss of control.

References

Boyce, G., Williams, S., Kelly, A., & Yee, H. (2001). Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: The strategic use of case studies in accounting education. Accounting Education, 10(1), 37-60.

Gewertz, C. (2007). Soft skills in big demand: Interest in teaching students habits of mind for success in life is on the rise. Education Week. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/12/40soft.h26.html

Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Kalliney, P. (2001). Cities of affluence: Masculinity, class, and the angry young men. MFS Modern Fiction Studies, 47(1), 92-117.

Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Segment 3. Designating Group Roles

Analysis

In this segment, Coldcuts begins to cognitively model (Brown, Palinscar & Resnick, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991) his strategy and tacit design knowledge for other group members, beginning with group composition. In World of Warcraft, an instance is a group activity that requires substantial time and energy; success (i.e. defeating the boss monster) comes only with the appropriate group composition, group coordination, and good strategy. Coldcuts articulates the necessary group configuration on the board beginning with tank (a large X for himself), damage dealer (lowercase x for Darkresolve), a healer (a smiling face), and two additional types damage dealer (gun for a hunter, fire for a mage).

While other members of the group (Darkwalker, Steamroller) focus on where they themselves are individually, Coldcuts focuses on functional roles of the group as a whole. While Darkwalker and Steamroller talk about themselves in first person, Coldcuts uses third person and refers to each player’s functional role and not their name. In making icons for group members, Coldcuts moves from an abstract “X” to increasingly iconic symbols, reflecting the functional role each player has in the group. In contrast, Steamroller interrupts again with another joking reference to “mage tanks” stating, “or you could just draw me being attacked by everybody at once.”

By focusing on the role differentiation by function instead of individual identity, Coldcuts abstracts away from the specific “who’s” that are involved to the roles that should be included. This subtle shift is important, allowing him to talk about strategy – what to do and NOT to do – without the episode coming off as a performance review (and therefore criticism) of what the other group members had done. The diagram continues to scaffolds his knowledge display; he uses it both rhetorically (tapping on it, turning to it, etc.) and as an external memory device. His use of the diagram on the board reflects this, functioning as both a problem space to populate with content (given by Constance as lead researcher) and an external representation that organizes his seeing and understanding the event as one about roles and not individuals, evidenced by is visual articulation of role by icon, not person.

References

Brown, A. L., Palinscar A., & Resnick, L. B. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Segment 4. Fundamental Instance Strategy: Adds First, Then Boss

Analysis

The section begins with Constance asking guiding questions that scaffold (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) Coldcut’s knowledge and help him to cognitively model (Brown, Palinscar & Resnick, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991) his instance strategy for the team. Generally speaking, the basic strategy of an instance is to isolate the boss, a powerful enemy that requires special tactics to defeat, by first removing all the adds, less powerful monsters that attack with the boss if left alive and, together, can easily overcome most groups. In this segment, Coldcuts explains, through a think aloud process (Ericsson & Simon, 1980) and largely without interruption, the maneuvers required to achieve the goal. He details how, through careful maneuvering, the group must isolate each of the adds individually while carefully avoiding the boss and in so doing displays his understanding of the underlying system of the game (Senge, 1994).

Coldcut’s task, as given him by Constance, is to outline a strategy for defeating the boss, yet there are two other complexities that he must balance as he does so (Goffman, 1959): saving face for himself, by underplaying but not denying his role as leader, and saving face his audience who, just moments before, utterly failed in the task he now cognitively models. In truth, this tension belies a deeper tension in the program more generally – that between informal playspace (with everyone equal) and informal learning environment (with some presumed more knowledgeable than others). Coldcuts’ solution is to use verbal and gestural resources for communicating his continued affinity to “boy culture” (Newkirk, 2002) and therefore his audience – resources that contrast with normative teacher behavior and with Constance as lead researcher – while at the same time overtly displaying his superior understanding of the gameplay content. He describes the boss as “actin’ dumb”, jokes with his audience, and punctuates the death of each last add with “bam,” “bam,” and “bam.”

References

Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.

Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Segment 5. Interrogating Knowledge to Make the Underlying Model Explicit

Analysis

Two main themes continue to dominate this segment: systems thinking in the strategy Coldcuts describes to his team and the leadership skills he continues to demonstrate through the manner of his explanation. The understanding that Coldcuts cognitively models for his peer represents the “instance” as a complex system of cause and effect with logical and sequential components. Throughout this segment Constance uses a short sequence of scaffolding questions to further draw out Coldcuts’ understanding of the instance as a system. First, she asks “why not walk straight in front of the boss?”  He confidently replies “Cuz he’d come and get us.”  This turn of talk suggests Coldcuts understands the instance as a complex, integrated system in which proximity to a target has a distinct and definite reaction (Senge, 1994). Assumed among veteran players, this systems understanding is novel to many novices who have not yet broken down the content of the instance into its fundamental interacting components. When Constance interrogates his understanding a second time, asking why he wouldn’t have each person in his team tackle an “add” individually, Coldcuts’ answer again focuses on his solution at the level of the system, now including not just the problem content but the constituents of the team as well: “Because not everyone can handle an add.”

From a leadership perspective, this segment is equally revealing. Throughout it, Coldcuts approaches the instance debrief from the vantage point of the team as a whole, focusing on individual roles and assets within that group and collective strategy – a focus which is juxtaposed by that of his peers who display a kind of preoccupation with their own individual capabilities. The most illustrative evidence is the four turns of talk initiated by Constance’s query as to why they shouldn’t have each person in his team tackle an “add” individually. Coldcut’s response, “Because not everyone can handle an add,” is countered by Steamroller’s immediately declaration, “I can,” followed by yet another audience member also declaring “Exactly, I can.” We see a similar juxtaposition near the end of the segment when Coldcuts describes the purpose of the team functioning together, asserting in a matter-of-fact tone “That’s why we have…tanks to take those for them while they help the tank stay alive.” Ironically then, while Coldcuts overtly rejects having each person fend for himself and instead presents the logic of working as one functional unit, two of his teammates overly assert their own individual ability. For Coldcuts, unlike his peers, the instance requires that group that must operate as one unit; for other participants, it is more or less a free for all whose success or failure presumably depends on individual abilities and accomplishments – a model that, in large part, lies as the fundamental cause of their epic “wipes” immediately prior to this explicit strategy debriefing.

It is worth noting that, throughout this segment are standard pedagogical practices that create a context for Coldcuts to articulate his knowledge and understanding of the problem for the group. As facilitator, Constance yields control over the interaction to the participants themselves but ask questions at strategic moments in order to draw out key points. In this segment in particular, for example, Constance uses scaffolding questions intended to problematize conceptual components of Coldcuts thinking and strategy. This line of questioning is reminiscent of the “what if” questioning process in problem based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) designed to help students query the edges of their understanding.

References

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Segment 6. Revoicing into Academic Language

Analysis

In this final segment, Constance takes the floor back from Coldcuts to topic transition to more specific discussion of each functional role, beginning with mages. After another brief competition for the conversational floor between Coldcuts and Steamroller (this time, regarding whether or not Steamroller himself is topically relevant for discussion), Constance recapitulates the topic, summarizing the activity that Coldcuts has just completed. She labels it “debriefing,” then goes on to define it as an attempt to figure out what worked in their strategy and what did not so “we can TRY and do this instance again.” Note that Coldcut’s cognitive modeling episode is now framed as directly in the service of future action. Note too the emphasis on “TRY,” which seems to intimate mild condescension or annoyance that contrasts with the at-times-razzing but calculatedly- not-condescending stance that Coldcuts takes.

Constance continues to query the mages of the group, stating that she has never been a mage and therefore, ostensibly, is not an “authority” on how they might view this debriefing information. Again we see a handing over of authority – although, here, not control as she maintains the floor and regulates the remaining interaction. Her request to the mages to report out on how they interpret Coldcut’s strategy is structurally parallel to her initial request to Coldcuts; the difference is that now the bid for overt strategy discussion is made to an entire functional class and not one individual.  Her query, “So, when you’re a mage, how do you approach that problem?” essentially functions as a request for one subgroup of participants in the program to do collaboratively (and only from their own functional perspective) what Coldcuts just did individually (yet from the perspective of the group as a single unit of analysis).

In the final moments of the episode, Constance revoices (O’Connor & Michaels, 1996) what Coldcuts has just done, stating “Coldcuts just walked through like the basic fundamental strategy of doing a boss with add-ons.” This reformulation recasts Coldcuts’ work as a form of practice that the World of Warcraft community presumably is familiar with and considers normative practice. And it is: guilds regularly debrief after collaborative runs within the game as a way to improve the practice (Steinkuehler, 2006). This revoicing not only recontextualizes Coldcuts’ activity in this way but also crucially recasts it in thoroughly academic language: “debriefing,” “instance,” “scenario,” “fundamental,” “strategy,” “approach” (see the Academic Word List used in Commeyras, in press; Laufer & Nation, 1995; Steinkuehler & King 2009). Thus, at the end of the episode we see the lead researcher both mark Coldcuts presentation as representing a valued gamerly practice and re-encodes it academicly oriented discourse.

References

Commeyras, M. (in press). Drax’s reading in Neverwinter Nights: With a tutor as henchman. eLearning.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size & use: Lexical richness in L2 written productions. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.

O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a Discourse. Mind, Culture & Activity, 13(1), 38-52.

Steinkuehler, C., & King, B. (2009). Digital literacies for the disengaged: Creating after school contexts to support boys’ game-based literacy skills. On the Horizon, 17(1), 47-59.

Video Transcript

Download a PDF version of the transcript here.

---

Constance: well here. I’ll give you- I’ll give you a problem if you…

Constance: [[draws square on board]]

Constance: So one of the ones that we had, we had an entrance somewhere around here [[draws entrance on board]].

Constance: And we had a boss monster [[draws circle for boss monster]],

Constance: And we had, like, four adds was it? [draws 4 smaller circles] Was this the one we wiped on? Was it was something like that?

Coldcuts: (yeahhh)

Constance: So, these were ADDS [[labels 4 circles in diagram]]

Constance: And this was the boss. [[labels larger circle in diagram]]

Constance: Right?

Constance: Everyone know what I mean by ADDS?

Steamroller: Like, the little guys.

Constance: Right. Like, trash mobs. [[taps 4 circles on board]]

Constance: Mobs that are just like- this is the boss [[taps larger circle]] that’s gonna take forever but these [[taps smaller circle]] are the little guys that will still [kill you] and they’ll …

Steamroller: [guards]

Constance: [[hands marker to Coldcuts]] So YOU tell ME where everyone’s at=

Steamroller: =those annoying guys will slow down your spells

Coldcuts:: (Alright?)

Coldcuts:: Let’s say we walked around this way [[draws on boards]] and we’re at the little corner, alright? (.)

Steamroller: And you’re scared.

Coldcuts: Well?]

Steamroller: [Like a little girl? (.)

Coldcuts: Like Steamroller.

[[group laughter]]

Steamroller: Yea that’s why I’m a ma::ge ta::nk.

Coldcuts: Ummm, okay.

Coldcuts: I’m in front, [[draws an X]], uh, the X.

Coldcuts: (Darkresolve) is, uh, next to me, [[draws another x]], he’s the little x.

Coldcuts: And uh, what are [the other guys?] What should the healer-

Steamroller: [MA:::GE]

Coldcuts: The healer, [[draws smiley face on board]] is in the back=

Darkwalker: =Of course.

Coldcuts:: So we can keep her safe so she’s a smiley face=

Darkwalker: =I’m right next to the healer.

Coldcuts: We’ve already used an X so you’re a: a: you’re a gun. [[draws gun on board]]

[[laughter]]

Constance: What about a triangle.

Cliffjumper: You just shoot stuff.

Magelord: Gun. That works. Bam.

Coldcuts: Um, and uh. Who else did we have? Oh yea, we had a mage. I’ll put fire. [[draws fire on board]

Steamroller: Or you could just draw (me being attacked by everybody at once).

[[laughter]]

Coldcuts: Alright then.

Constance: So what- what do you do first?

Coldcuts: Well first we take care of the:: add- adds.[[points to smaller circle]]

Coldcuts: You’ve got the boss walking around in circles, [[traces loops on board with marker]] acting dumb? Alright.

[[laughter]]

Constance: Why kill the adds first?

Coldcuts: So that uh, we will (.) get them out of the way just in case, like- like- If we get the boss, he’ll probably drag all of the adds with him. And, they will all bleh [[makes a face, taps smaller circles]], alright.

Coldcuts: So, like- if we take like- walk over here [[draws a line from group symbols on board to adds on L]] and like get these adds. Like, uh, this one? [[taps smaller circle]]

Coldcuts: Let’s say we pull the one? He’s dead.[[draws X thru smaller circle]]

Coldcuts: And then, (.) we like- if these two [[points to two smaller circles]] came at once, then like I put a skull right here [[gestures to smaller circle]] and then I put uh, an X right here [[gestures to other remaining smaller circle]] to tell Darkresolve to SAP that thing?

Coldcuts: And then like that would be down for like ten seconds or whatever and then this one [[puts X thru smaller circle on R]] would be out cuz we’d kill it.

Coldcuts: Then we’d come around [[draws line on board from group to L smaller circle]] and get that thing and that’d be dead and then we go [[draws line from L area to R area]] A:::LL the way over here, and-

Darkwalker: -and attack the (xxx XX xxx).-

Coldcuts: -and this [just went] bam bam bam bam bam bam [[draws Xs thru smaller circle]]

Coldcuts: Then [we go all the way [[draws loop from R to center big circle]]

Constance: [Nice. Why- Why not go- why not walk straight in front of the boss?

Coldcuts: Cuz he'd come and get us.

Coldcuts: This [[draws line straight in front of boss]] is a NO NO [[draws X thru line]]

Coldcuts: Then we come right here [[draws arrow from bottom R corner to boss in top L corner]] after we get ALL of those [[gestures to small Xed our circles]], then we come right here [[gestures to big circle]] and then we just ATTACK him.[draws X to big circle]

(group rumble)

Constance: Okay, what- what if we all- why not ha::ve each person pick one of the adds to take down themselves?=

Coldcuts: =because not everyone can HANDLE an add.

Steamroller: °I can°.

Coldcuts: That’s why we have uh- tanks to take those for them while they help the tank to stay alive?

Constance: Right.

Darkwalker: Exactly, I can.

((group rumble))

Constance: So, raise your hand if you’re a mage.

Coldcuts: A mah-jay.

Steamroller: A mah-jay? A mah-jay. Can I be (matrashey the mage?)

Coldcuts: You’re not a mage=

Constance: =I mean- Guys? What we’re doing right now is called debriefing, right? So what we’re trying to figure out is what worked, what didn’t work, so we can TRY and do this instance again.

Constance: So, MAGE. I’ve never played a mage. Honestly. I’ve only been a healer. So as a MAGE, when you look at this scenario, right? Coldcuts just walked through like the basic fundamental strategy of doing a boss with add-ons. So, when you’re a mage, how do you approach that problem?