“Review - New Digital Media and Learning as an Emerging Area and ‘Worked Example’ as One Way Forward.” - Georgia Durán
“As I read his arguments, I actually wondered if digital immigrants can truly understand DMAL or if we are like anthropologists studying another culture. We may have learned to speak the language, but we will always impose our biases since we are not truly members of the group. Perhaps the study of DMAL will fluctuate until digital natives join the discussion.” (GD, p.2)
“Teachers [and practitioners] need significantly more professional development to close the divide between adults who are more like tourists [or immigrants] in digital worlds and youth under 30 who function as digital natives.” (Banks et al., 2007, p.17 in GD, p.5)
“Although popular, I question the reliability of Wikipedia, which bills itself as ‘the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,’ whether one is a scholar or not.” (GD, p.3)
> Being cautious concerning the reliability of Wikipedia is certainly not a careless thing to do. However, questioning it on the basis of the (professional/educational) background of the contributors is questionable in itself. The idea that only scholars can be relied upon to contribute to the creation of a body of trustworthy knowledge is a slippery slope that leads to Ivory Tower Thinking of academics. It is hard to hold such a position as a social scientist, since research and knowledge coming forth from the humanities or social sciences are infused by what happens in society, among people, within and between cultures.
“There are many who might benefit from this book, provided that readers are culturally literate in academic studies and popular culture, specifically digital gaming, and have time to absorb the dense content.” (GD, p.8)
> The previous remark also relates to this quote by Durán, only directed the other way around. It is hard to imagine that anyone (researcher/scholar, practitioner, or others) who is genuinely interested in the theme of the book would be unaware of, or unfamiliar with, popular culture. Add to this Durán’s own conclusion (which she offers by quoting Gee): “one can develop an appreciation for some texts without participating in the practices of the group whose texts they are (…)” (Gee, p.20 in GD, p.8). Combined this leads to the idea that there is little reason to regard the required cultural and/or academic literacy as a downside of Gee’s discourse.
> Whether or not the example worked example Gee gives in the book is poorly chosen is irrelevant. The book focuses on the idea of the ‘Worked Examples’ itself, not on giving them. Crucial to this idea is the fact that the examples are open to discussion, alteration and dismissal. The only relevance of the comment concerning the fitness of the example worked example is the judgment itself, since this is the start (but only the start) of what Gee calls the ‘working’ of the example (Gee, p.49).
“(…) I find it much easier to read on my Kindle because I control the layout.” (GD, p.6)