“The ultimate goal of this game is for players to learn to control their physiological reactions. Game interactions and challenges provide players practice and support for regulating their emotional reactions. By controlling these reactions, players experience success in the game, and become better prepared for success in future real-life challenges” (http://www.gamedesk.org/projects/dojo).
Suggestions for boosting Dojo’s potential
I. Creating complementary curricula
A. offering more emotional regulation activities as separate modules or associated with leveling up
-kinesthetic, like yoga or tai chi chuh
-community-based fieldwork, like volunteering
-expressive, like visualizations of emotional states and/or mechanisms for management
B. using Dojo to explore other SEL competencies (e.g., self-awareness, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision-making)
C. developing materials to train facilitators (adults and youths)
D. pursuing transmedia storytelling to expand creativity and community
E. exploring identity through construction of narratives related to Dojo
F. utilizing biofeedback hardware in other contexts
II. Expanding the Dojo game
A. integrating assessments of other SEL skills for leveling up
B. offering opportunities for group work
-partner-based activity for monitoring the other and faciltiating in his/her regulation through supportive talk and coaching to breathe, etc (honing social awareness, relationship skills, and self-regulation)
C. creating versions of Dojo for younger audiences
D. heightening Dojo’s sense of gender neutrality and/or appropriateness for females
-re-examine color scheme
-include more female characters (beyond guru of positive self-talk)
-offer avatar selection process (even though Dojo is first-person, this process might normalize females in the environment)
E. developing Dojo for smartphones
F. reimagining Dojo as an analog experience
-ARG
-board game
-card game
-theater game
III. Researching Dojo
1. INTERNAL VALIDITY: Does playing Dojo lead to increases in youths’ emotional regulation within the context of gameplay?
2. EXTERNAL VALIDITY: Does playing Dojo lead to increases in youths’ emotional regulation outside the context of gameplay? In other words, do game-related gains transfer to the “real world”?
3. SELF-EFFICACY: Does playing Dojo lead to more confidence in capacity to emotionally regulate?
4. GAME APPEAL: Do youths rate the Dojo game positively? (relevance, pacing, user-friendliness, etc)
5. ENGAGEMENT: Relative to other types of curricula, how engaging do youths find Dojo?
6. CORRELATIONS: Which indicators, if any, vary with Dojo-related increases in youths’ emotional regulation? (grades, test scores, truancy, conduct issues, reports of school connectedness, emotional wellness (e.g., depression, anxiety), health decisions (e.g., safe sex, delayed sexual initiation, calorie management, hygiene)
7. CONTEXT: How, if at all, are Dojo-related gains impacted by playing:
a. Environment — in the classroom, in the computer lab, at home?
b. Platform — on desktop computers, on iPads?
c. Socially — totally alone, simultaneously with others but everyone on separate consoles, in pairs together, in groups together?
d. Presence — unaware of other players’ performance, asynchronously aware of other players’ performance, synchronously aware of other players’ performance?
8. DOSAGE: How does varying amount of time per session, and frequency of sessions, impact gains? How does enabling users to control their dosage (“geek out” if they so desire) impact gains and/or game appeal?
9. DISCURSIVE COMMUNITY: How, it at all, do formal opportunities to discuss gameplay (e.g., game reporting statistics, newsletters, blogs, in-school recognition, in-school breakout sessions, mentor/peer supervision) impact gains and/or game appeal? How, if at all, do informal opportunities to discuss gameplay (e.g., off-the-cuff conversations, emergent blogs, self-organized gamer groups) impact gains and/or game appeal?
10. OWNERSHIP: How, if at all, does turning over the game to players for diverse purposes (e.g., community education, publicity, beta-testing, development of complementary curricula, organization of game-related events) impact gains, game appeal, and/or self-efficacy across multiple domains (e.g., communication, emotional regulation, education, game design, social competence)?
IV. Beyond Dojo
A. integration of SELs across the curriculum
-hone SELs via classroom instruction, games, configuration of physical space, all-school events, school-family connections, etc
B. fortify the participatory learning community
-honor colearning, motivation and engagement, creativity, relevance, and the learning ecosystem (PLAY!)
C. emphasize competencies of participatory culture
-circulation, connection, creation, collaboration (PLAY!)
D. promote participation
-permission, process, passion, productivity, participation, pleasure) (Henry Jenkins)
V. Mechanisms for realizing these grander visions
A. professional development
-instructors’ participation in and co-creation of training
-students’ participation in and co-creation of training alongside instructors
-school’s creation of training for families, community partners
B. consciousness-raising
-articulation of skills and values + why they matter
-team-building
C. co-learning opportunities
-participatory action research
-social justice initiatives
-interschool competitions
-governing councils
-regular “teach-ins” organized by rotating teams
-in-house communications (e.g., newspaper, radio station, television station, zines, YouTube channels, blogs, websitse, bulletin boards, loudspeaker announcements, newsletters)
D. multi-leveled aspirations
-move beyond individual/classroom to link across discipline, grade, school, household, community
VI. Literature
“Developing social-emotional competence is a key to success in school and life. We know that emotions affect how and what we learn, that caring relationships provide the foundation for lasting learning, and that important SEL skills and knowledge can be taught. Research shows shows that SEL has positive effects on academic performance, benefits physical health, improves citizenship, is demanded by employers, is essential for lifelong success, and reduces the risk of maladjustment, failed relationships, interpersonal violence, substance abuse, and unhappiness (Elias, Zins, Weissberg, Frey, Greenberg, Haynes, Kessler, Schwab-Stone, & Shriver, 1997; Weissberg et al, 2004)” (Zins & Elias, 2006, p. 3).
NOTE: All of these pdf’s can be shared by querying laurelfelt@gmail.com
CASEL.2008.Executive Summary of Meta-analysis of Three Reviews.pdf
CASEL.2008.Meta-analysis of Three Reviews.pdf
Clark et al. 2005. Adult Identity Mentoring- Reducing sexual risk in African American seventh grade students.pdf
Cohen et al.2010. Estimating the Costs of Bad Outcomes for At-Risk Youth and the Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions to Reduce Them.pdf
Cohen.2006. Social, Emotional, Ethical, and Academic Education- Creating a Climate for Learning, Participation in Democracy, and Well-Being.pdf
Cherniss,Extein,Goleman&Weissberg.2006.Emotional Intelligence- What Does the Research Really Indicate?.pdf
Durlak & Weissberg. 2007. Impact of after-school programs..pdf
Durlak et al.2011.The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning- A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions
Eisenberg.2000.Emotion, regulation, and moral development.pdf
Elias et al.2003.Implementation, Sustainability, and Scaling Up of SocialEmotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools.pdf
Elias & Zins.2006.Social and Emotional Learning.pdf
Graziano et al.2007.The Role of Emotion Regulation and Children’s Early Academic Success.pdf
Hamre&Pianta.2005.Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure?.pdf
Hawkins et al.2005.Promoting Positive Adult Functioning Through Social Development Intervention in Childhood.pdf
Hoffman.2000.Empathy and Moral Development.pdf
Lightfoot et al.2011.Protective Factors Associated with Fewer Problem Behaviors Among Homeless/Runaway Youth.pdf
McKown et al.2008.Effects of Social Development Intervention in Childhood 15 Years Later.pdf
McKown et al.2009.Social-emotional learning skill, self-regulation, and social competence in typically developing and clinic-referred children.pdf
Riconscente.2011. Mobile Learning Game Improves 5th Graders’ Fractions Knowledge and Attitudes.pdf
Wang&Singhal.2009.Entertainment-education through digital games.pdf
Numbers
“A dominant group, controlling the production of knowledge, shapes the construction and distribution of numbers, in order to convey authority and legitimize certain perspectives” (Wilkins, 2008, p. 17).
“Dating is a numbers game” (conventional wisdom).
Our country may be terrible at math and lousy when it comes to balancing its checkbook — but boy does it love numbers! Numbers are messianic; numbers are truth. And, in certain circumstances, numbers can be bought and sold to the highest bidder! Step right up, step right up, shape em, bend em, bring em home to your kids. Insignificant details or calls to action — pick your flavor! They can even julienne fries!
The problem, of course, is there might be no “there” there. Not only do I distrust the methods that produced most numbers, but I distrust the interpretation of their significance. An unpublished manuscript by Dr. Karin Wilkins (2008) urges numerical literacy: “This literacy needs to advance us toward asking the fundamental questions that resist obedient acceptance of numbers as objective truth” (p. 21). A recent (and heavily trafficked) Op-Ed by Paul Krugman declares plainly, “nobody understands debt.”
In other words, the emperor has no clothes on; and who made him emperor anyway?
My colleagues and I have been on a literacies quest. We’ve been crusading for the new media literacies, which is related to media literacy and social and emotional literacy; now I think we have to add numerical literacy into the salad bowl (don’t you call it a melting pot!).
I also might have to launch my own Torpedo of Truth Tour when it comes to dating. Through literature reviews and participant-observation, I can affirm that dating is not merely a “numbers game.” Its sampling frame, communicative modes, discursive material, and experimental activities differ widely according to participants’ narratives or “dating scripts.” Thus, driving up your numbers will never produce the desired outcome if you’re fishing in the wrong pond, or dangling the wrong bait, or misunderstanding the nibble on the line. Considering contextual variables is more demanding to do, and more tongue-twisting to mention, than parroting a pithy formula, but them’s the breaks. Reliable facts rarely make good soundbytes.
We need to stop valuing mnemonics above reality. The world is gray; accept it. And somebody get that emperor a robe, for crying out loud. It’s getting embarrassing…
Dating scripts
Who should pay on a first date? Why?
This question emerged organically, in a conversation with a male friend about our heterosexual dating expectations. I thought it’s always the man who pays on the first date. Period. A girl can offer tip if she’s feeling generous. The weight of this financial burden is alleviated by the inexpensiveness of the encounter — a cup of coffee or an ice cream or appetizers or two drinks max. My male friend thought this was “retrograde,” both in general and in relation to the dating scene he frequented 10 years ago. He doesn’t assume that anyone will pay for him, and he assumes that other adults feel the same — women included.
So I brought the question to Facebook, where brilliant friends (all of whom happen to be female and, because they hail from different parts of my life (PhD, MA, BA, high school, junior high school, elementary school), are mostly strangers to one another) shared their thoughts and built a fascinating dialogue. We discussed chivalry and wooing, the gender wage gap and gender norms, investment and obligation, politesse and evaluation metrics, hetero vs. GLBTQ cultural expectations…
I was hooked. This issue is too rich to abandon, I thought; it is the site for articulating and negotiating values around cultural norms, gender relations, romantic appropriateness, financial responsibility, and more.
So I set up an informal straw poll today and 39 people have weighed in thus far. My colleague Rhea and I might explore this in a more formal fashion later. But until that day comes, here is the initial, anonymous data. Please note, I modified the survey after receiving the first 36 responses by adding demographic questions (gender, sexual orientation, relationship status, age).
Most participants thought that the man should pay (assuming this was a heterosexual encounter), but also added interesting caveats. Here are some key quotes that represent the range (but not the frequency) of responses:
“Always the guy… ALWAYS!”
“It depends. As a female, I always offer to split. However, I’m more impressed by a man who declines and pays for the first date.”
“It depends on a range of scenarios, but I’ll just use the simplest ones. If the guy asked the girl out then he should pay. If she asked him out, they will probably go dutch.”
“The person who asked for the date, regardless of gender.”
“Split the bill. It shows both parties respect each other and if the relationship grows it sets the trend that they are both equal partners in it.”
A whole-hearted thank you to all who have participated! And it’s not too late to share your thoughts. The survey is still open!
Abstracts
One day. Two abstracts. Pray to the guest editors of Learning, Media, & Technology…
SPECIAL ISSUE: Digital Literacy and Informal Learning Environments
Vartabedian, V., Felt, L.J., Literat, I., & Mehta, R. Explore Locally, Excel Digitally: A participatory learning-oriented after-school program for enriching citizenship on- and offline.
KEYWORDS: participatory learning, digital, citizenship, after-school, pedagogy
Following Jenkins and colleagues’ elucidation of participatory culture and new media literacies-enriched education[1], this article argues that facilitating a culture of participatory learning stimulates the development of 21st century social skills and cultural competencies. To support this argument, we examine the components of a new pedagogical framework designed for participatory learning and explore a case study in which this framework was implemented — an after-school program in digital citizenship for Los Angeles public high school students.
A culture of participatory learning (often found in informal learning environments[2]) respects and nurtures: heightened motivation and new forms of engagement through meaningful play and experimentation; learning scenarios relevant to students’ realities and interests; creativity with a variety of media, tools, and practices; a community designed for co-learning; and contexts that are situated within a larger learning eco-system. Such a culture empowers learners to practice new media literacies (NMLs) and social and emotional learning skills (SELs)[3] because it allows for the expression of all voices and multiple ways of knowing.
How one negotiates digital tools and norms impacts citizenship on- and offline. As such, the after-school program “Explore Locally, Excel Digitally” (ELED) used hardware (iPod Touches, desktop computers), software (mobile apps, Twitter, GoogleMaps, Prezi), and team-building activities to investigate ethics, mapping, and their intersections. Students examined the characteristics of their own communities and the nature of their participation within these networks, looking at ELED, their friendship circles, their schools, and the neighborhood surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools. Using ethnographic fieldnotes, video footage, student-generated multimedia content, and baseline and endline survey measures, we found that this pedagogical framework supported a participatory learning culture in which students practiced NMLs and SELs. Importantly, it also facilitated students’ development of self- and collective efficacy.
[1] (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006)
[2] Recent studies have established a relationship between out-of-school spaces and learning outcomes (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse & Feder, 2009), as well as urged schools’ integration of Web 2.0 participation (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010). What facilitates learning in these informal, physical and virtual sites?
[3] (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004)
———————-
SPECIAL ISSUE: City Youth and the Pedagogy of Participatory Media
Felt, L.J. & Rideau, A. Pedagogy for appropriation: How Sunukaddu supports youths’, instructors’, and communities’ development by amplifying voices in Senegal.
KEYWORDS: Dakar, youth, pedagogy, media, voice, sustainability, skills
While the world’s urban population is expected to skyrocket 41% between 1950 and 2050, Senegal’s rate of urbanization has outstripped the average and is projected to ascend even more sharply, growing by 48% over that span[1]. Therefore, as global citizens consider how best to manage youths’ education within the volatile contexts of rapid urbanization, economic uncertainty, public health challenges, and technological shifts, a case study from Senegal can offer potentially useful insights. This article examines Sunukaddu[2], an instructional program in producing civic-oriented multimedia for Dakar youths.
Non-profit organization Réseau Africain d’Education pour la Santé created Sunukaddu in 2008 to support youths’ creation of digital HIV/AIDS messaging[3]. During the summer of 2010, staff redesigned Sunukaddu to facilitate its ease of appropriation. First, they established a collaborative curriculum design process that boosted instructors’ teamwork and ownership. Second, they increased participants’ hands-on exploration and access to local role models. Third, they adopted smartphones and encouraged sharing content online. Fourth, they addressed participants’ communicative capacities by harnessing new media literacies[4] and social and emotional learning skills[5].
Analysis of ethnographic photographs, participant-generated multimedia content, baseline and endline survey measures, participant focus groups, and instructor interviews suggests that Sunukaddu participation supported instructors’ professional development and facilitated youths’ holistic growth. This article argues that Sunukaddu’s design explains its success. Asking instructors and participants to personalize content and raise their voices[6] enriches the learning experience and helps to bridge the “second digital divide”[7] or the “participation gap”[8]. Nurturing fundamental skills[9] prepares individuals for productive negotiation of varied contexts. Finally, leaving open-ended specific activities and technology requirements respects the unpredictability and/or modesty of funding streams as well as the swiftness of social and/or technological change. Thus, Sunukaddu’s adaptable format should ensure its long-term viability — both an important ethical consideration and key development imperative.
[1](WORLD: 1950: 29% urban, 2050: 70% urban; SENEGAL: 1950: 17% urban, 2050: 65% urban; (United Nations Population Division, 2009)
[2](“Our Voice” in the indigenous language of Wolof)
[3](For a review, see Massey, Morawski, Glik, & Rideau, 2009; also Massey, Glik, Prelip, & Rideau, 2011; also Felt & Rideau, in press)
[4](Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006)
[5](Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004)
[6]via writing curriculum and producing documentaries, graphic novels, posters, songs, news reports, etc
[7](Somekh, 2007)
[8]which Jenkins et al (2006) define as “the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow” (p. 3)
[9]e.g., NMLs and SELs
Failure
Is there anything more provocative than failure?
By definition, we can’t have success without failure. How could we recognize either if there were no standard against which to pit them? “You wouldn’t appreciate the sun if we didn’t have the rain!” a belligerent character in a Weather Channel commercial once shouted. Yin and yang. Of course, this situates success and failure as binaries when a continuum is probably more productive and accurate. Still, the poles are out there. And like Harry and Voldemort, without the one, the other can’t survive (unless one sacrifices himself to kill the other and then comes back to life because he isn’t a gross baby in a train station. But anyway…).
According to research from resilience and positive psychology, in order to realize success, individuals don’t just need failure to exist conceptually — they need to experience it personally. Failure delivers a context for developing coping mechanisms, such as self-regulation, grit, and innovativeness. Too much success might set us up for failure for, when an all-mighty challenge rears its ugly (I mean, opportunity-studded) head, we gifted coasters will be tool-less, sans skills for managing. And down we will tumble (activating our panic attacks, eating disorders, and control issues along the way…).
How do we establish space for failure when the stakes are getting higher, the margins for error slimmer? How, then, with this pressure and such a narrow definition of success, can we expect anything BUT failure? We set the conditions for failure — then punitively disallow it. Yet we demand innovation!
I read a book last year, Eric Weiner’s The Geography of Bliss. This interesting albeit somewhat superficial text was part travelogue, part treatise on cultural definitions and strivings for happiness. From its New York Times book review:
“Icelanders relish personal failure and “indulge in ‘enjoyment of misery,’ ” while “Moldovans derive more pleasure from their neighbor’s failure than their own success.” … Denmark’s key to happiness is lowered expectations” (Paul, 2007).
How do we rationalize failure? And how do we go about developing the character traits necessary for surviving its visitation and ultimately enjoying our lives?
The New York Times Magazine recently featured an article by Paul Tough entitled What if the secret to success is failure?. I highlighted the text, pasted it into a GoogleDoc, highlighted sentence fragments and passages that resonated, and inserted my comments. This document is open for you to edit and I would love it if you would do so. What are your thoughts on this (admittedly lengthy) piece? What resources can you point me towards, as I have added in for you?
[Seligman] “…identified a set of strengths that were, according to his research, especially likely to predict life satisfaction and high achievement. After a few small adjustments (Levin and Randolph opted to drop love in favor of curiosity), they settled on a final list: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity” (Tough, 2011, emphasis added).
What do you think about the items on this list? What, if anything, does it say about our culture and/or the culture of our schools that these principals chose to replace “love” with “curiosity”? Isn’t what the world needs now love, sweet love?
Looking forward to our dialogue!
P.S. I’d also like to point you towards an online conversation amongst students on the topic of character. Fascinating!
P.P.S. I’d also like to welcome you to read my notes from Thursday’s Ken Auletta talk. In addition to exploring Google and the digital age, he talked a lot about what makes people tick…
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BFkTxCdgS3ElU3TUhHlf5JlgTgMB8aXwg8ozBu4_1Mo/edit?hl=en_US