Category Archives: Social and emotional learning

About

  By laurelfelt | April 8, 2012 - 9:43 pm | , , , ,
Leave a comment

The world is complicated.

While I AM willing to state the obvious, I refuse to back down from a challenge — and this complicated world presents quite a challenge. Too often, we peek out at it, catch a glimpse of the various social problems beleaguering folks near and far, and we shut down, numb out, close our eyes, disavow responsibility — that is, if we even stop to consider others. Now, that “we” I alluded to was a sincere “you and me” — I’m definitely including myself in this bunch of overwhelmed onlookers. We’re overwhelmed by so much; for, not only is the world complicated (as I so insightfully pointed out), but our own little lives are complicated, jampacked with sundry obligations and constantly buffeted by eddies of social/political/natural/technological change. I’m not sure that life was ever “easy” (and I’m not sure that that’s ever been the point), but life certainly isn’t easy in the 21st century.

Still. Just as bridging the local and the global has introduced complication, so too does it present possibility. We have the extraordinary opportunity to engage with one another, foreign and domestic, mediated and face-to-face, to try to make things better. In my opinion, the best way to fix a problem is to prevent its manifestation in the first place. That means ensuring communities’ and individuals’ access to the developmental assets they need to thrive. The second best way to fix a problem is to support locals as they endeavor to fix it. That means fostering communities’ and individuals’ mastery of the primary skills they need for lifelong learning.

Scholarship for Social Change is about working to bring about that rising tide that lifts all boats. There are several ways to get at it –conversation, rumination, theory-building, fieldwork. Luck. Love. Lots of good food… I hope you’ll join this team effort by commenting and, more importantly, getting out there and dirtying your hands in this messy business of making the world a better place.

Thanks. :)

_____________________________________________________________

“The greatest truth must be recognition that in every man, in every child is the potential for greatness.”

-Robert F. Kennedy

Scholarship for social change demands prowling the borders between cultural difference and universality, bridging diverse fields in order to identify and implement fundamental skills for rich learning. It requires using multi-disciplinary theory and real world data to craft curricula that better engages students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and ethically. If we can strike the right balance, respecting the old, the new, the unexpected, and the unstructured, then we will have discovered something truly extraordinary – not only the mechanisms of meaningful learning, but the means for better realizing our individual and collective potential.

How do we facilitate meaningful learning? Do certain skills function as a universal point of departure, enabling all learners’ future exploration and growth? How best can we share these primary skills with every individual who aspires to learn?

Most would agree, contemporary education requires retooling. Domestically, issues pertaining to students’ physical wellness (e.g., reproductive health, obesity) and social functioning (e.g., bullying, self-esteem) follow them to school, impacting both classroom climate and academic achievement. Internationally, education has been recognized as an imperative for development (Roudi-Fahimi & Moghadam, 2003), yet its efficacy is often blunted by lack of resources and community support[1]. Meanwhile, contemporary emphases on standardized testing and digital opportunity[2] call into question what to teach and how to teach it, often engendering controversy and highlighting the disparity between the world’s “have’s” and “have not’s.”

A Primary Skills Set

To respond to these challenges, as well as take on twenty-first century learning benchmarks (Trilling & Fadel, 2009) and millennium development goals (United Nations, 2010), educators must support the basics. But the basics do not refer to classic “reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic”; the basics are even more fundamental, constituting the skills that enable learning of “the R’s” in the first place. These primary skills pertain to new media literacies (NMLs), social and emotional learning (SEL), asset appreciation, and narrative.

New media literacies.

Seminal publication Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robinson, 2006), defined NMLs as “a set of cultural competencies and social skills that young people need in the new media landscape” (p. 4). This bears repeating for the skills’ name is somewhat of a misnomer. While NMLs have become increasingly vital due to the demands of new technology, neither are the NMLs new nor are they technology-dependent (Felt, 2010c). The 12 NML skills are: play; performance; simulation; appropriation; multitasking; distributed cognition; collective intelligence; judgment; transmedia navigation; networking; negotiation; and visualization. Mastery of these useful, versatile skills both taps and fosters the development of dynamic processes, such as critically thinking, collaborating, and problem-solving. Because these processes are indispensable to learning (Gee, 2007; Lankshears & Knobel, 2003; Lyman, Ito, Thorne, & Carter, 2009), NMLs can be understood as elements of a “primary skills set.”

Social and emotional learning.

Self-awareness, self-regulation, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making constitute SEL’s five core groups of competencies (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2009). Empirical research has found that recipients of SEL training tend to utilize more daily behaviors related to getting along with and cooperating with others, and report “more positive attitudes toward self and others (e.g., self-concept, self-esteem, prosocial attitudes toward aggression, and liking and feeling connected to school)” than peers in a control group. SEL programming has also been linked to an average gain on achievement test scores of 11 to 17 percentile points (Payton, Weissberg, Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Schellinger, & Pachan, 2008, pp. 6-7). Moreover, SEL programs provide an impressive return on investment in terms of dollars and cents and sustained behavior change (Botvin, 1998, 2002; Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill & Abbott, 2008; Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 2004). This sense of intrapersonal integration and social connectedness prepares individuals for meaningful learning (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Goleman, 1996, 2006; Hoffman, 2000; Zins & Elias, 2006) by freeing them from preoccupations and hang-ups and enabling richer engagement. Bulwarked by social and emotional health, learners are ready – ready to learn across their ecologies, participate fully, experiment courageously, collaborate productively, fail spectacularly, and keep on going.

Asset appreciation.

Immersion in diverse bodies of literature inspired the theoretical bricolage[3] that is the “asset appreciation” construct. Asset appreciation unifies academically separate yet philosophically complementary theory from research on resilience (Luthar, Cichetti, & Becker, 2000; Yates, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2003), possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Clark, Miller, Nagy, Avery, Roth, Liddon, & Mukherjee, 2005), positive deviance (Pascale, Sternin, & Sternin, 2010; Singhal, Sternin, & Dura, 2009), asset-based community development (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1997; Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, & Puntenney, 2005), intrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste, 1996) and appreciative inquiry (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Asset appreciation aims to capture the extent to which an individual and/or community recognizes the availability of internal and external resources and exploits them to their fullest potential. Simply knowing about resources can help people to get their needs met with greater ease and comprehensiveness, particularly in times of stress. Appreciating resources as assets can boost people’s quality of life perceptions and sense of self and/or collective efficacy (Bandura, 1994; 1997) because it frames the environment as rich and oneself as embedded in a support network. Behaving resourcefully and framing situations productively facilitates meaningful learning because such acts, like NMLs, tap and foster processes of critical thinking, collaborating and problem-solving. Implicit in these acts are the SEL skills of self-awareness and social awareness; as such, asset appreciation similarly enables learners’ engagement and seeds unfettered exploration and growth.

Narrative.

The fourth pillar of this paradigm is narrative. Stories are hailed by various constituencies as a universal attribute of humankind (Campbell, 1949/2008), the most natural mode of thought (Schank & Abelson, 1995; Sarbin, 1986), a tool for establishing identity (Siegel & Hartzell, 2003), a frame for constructing reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), a means to gratify needs (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974), a commodity of enormous value (see Hollywood), or simply a good ol’ way to pass the time. Lately, health communication scholars have documented (Bandura, 1977, 2004a; Green & Brock, 2002; Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2004) what Aesop’s and de la Fontaine’s fables long ago established: stories can teach. Moreover, stories can assess (Carr, 2001; Davies & Dart, 2005). Thus narrative skills – the capacities to comprehend and weave stories – can be understood as learning prerequisites.

[1] Sadly, the same can be said of education in the United States.

[2] which does not mean universal access and/or preparation, as access (“the digital divide”) pertains to equipment while preparation (“the participation gap”) pertains to literacy (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robinson, 2006)

[3] A French term, bricolage is used by many American academics to refer to “a construction made of whatever materials are at hand; something created from a variety of available things” (Random House, Inc., 2010).

Convergence Culture

  By laurelfelt | April 8, 2012 - 8:03 pm | , ,
Leave a comment

Thursday, March 22, 2012, was the inauguration of the USC Annenberg School of Communication & Journalism‘s Dean’s Open Forum: One School, One Book. Dean Ernie Wilson chose to explore Henry Jenkins’s seminal 2006 Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

At the event, Henry discussed the the context in which he wrote this book and reflected a bit on its relevance six years post-publication. He also invited four of his students — Francesca Marie Smith, Kevin Driscoll, Meryl Alper, and myself — to speak about the book’s impact(s) on our scholarship and the research we’re currently conducting.

Francesca talked about disability rhetoric and the utility of fan culture/writing around Batman’s the Joker for demystifying mental illness.

Kevin, a member of the Civic Paths research group, discussed a couple of cases in which fans leveraged both their mutual passion for making music and the affordances of networked information and communication to fight for their rights.

Meryl discussed her work with Flotsam, a children’s transmedia play experience that enables story creation, telling, and re-telling across multiple analog and digital media platforms.

And I explained my motivations for doctoral study and the philosophies and projects that constitute the PLAY! program. In the video embedded below, I speak from 16:15-23:30.

Here are my notes:
-”all sides want to claim a share in how we educate the young, since shaping childhood is often seen as a way of shaping the future direction of our culture” (p. 177)
-”…what rights we have to read and write about core cultural myths–that is, a struggle over literacy. … We may also see the current struggle over literacy as having the effect of determining who has the right to participate in our culture and on what terms” (pp. 176-177)
-Youth were motivated by their passions to engage deeply. A yearning for creativity may have stoked their passion, and the communities and processes in which they engaged were certainly creative. Colearning occurred organically as they sought information, mutually struggled to realize their visions, and shared the roles of learner and mentor. Their passions and these communities seemed relevant to them, hooked into their identities and goals, delivering a meaningful reward. As such, youths connected this experience to their larger learning ecosystems in such grand ways as the Harry Potter Alliance, where they applied the morals from that world to the injustices in ours, attempting to act as Dumbledore’s Army in stamping out manifestations of the Dark Arts like illiteracy and exploitation, and more “modest” ways, like talking about Harry Potter at home and bringing one’s personal experience into fandom (as in youths’ profiles on The Daily Prophet).
-these are the CPLs: motivation & engagement; creativity; colearning; relevance; and learning ecosystem
-”more and more, educators are coming to value the learning that occurs in these informal and recreational spaces” (p. 185); “Gee and other educators worry that students who are comfortable participating in and exchanging knowledge through affinity spaces are being deskilled as they enter the classroom” (p. 192)
-conclusion of CC also mentions a participation gap (which is “the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow” (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006, p. 3)) — “… we need to confront the cultural factors that diminish the likelihood that different groups will participate. Race, class, language differences amplify these inequalities in opportunities for participation” (p. 269)
-So, we at PLAY! are trying to support the adoption of these best practices from informal spaces into formal spaces
-we have begun by:

  • ELED: running a youth program that relied on the CPLs and digital citizenship (Explore Locally, Excel Digitally);
  • SS & POTB: then leading a two-part professional development workshop for LAUSD teachers in participatory learning and play (Summer Sandbox and PLAYing Outside the Box);
  • PLAYground: asking teachers and their students to alphatest an online, multimedia platform for participatory learning that bridges to transmedia experiences ;
  • PLAY! On workshops: simultaneously supporting teachers’ applied experiences of playful learning and technological exploration (PLAY On! workshops); and
  • Laughter for a Change: extending this experience back to students and educators alike in an afterschool improvisational theater workshop

    • -”…role-playing both as a means of exploring a fictional realm and as a means of developing a richer understanding of the yourself and the culture around you” (p. 185)
    -OVERALL, we have a healthy respect for games and voice; we hope to create ourselves and encourage our colleagues to co-configure with students a non-hierarchical culture in which it’s safe to be who you are, try, fail, reflect, and keep on going

    Here is a series of images that ran in the background as we spoke, illustrating themes of participatory culture. And here are our collective notes:
    Questions to Consider

    About the Book

    What do you see as the most important new developments in media since 2006 when Convergence Culture was published? Which of the emerging trends identified in the book blossomed, and which of its predictions came true? What needs to be adjusted in the book’s argument based on subsequent developments? If you could add a new chapter to the book, what would you talk about?

    How might the growth of social media impact the book’s core themes?

    How do you think convergence culture and spreadable media models are contributing to shifts in journalistic practices and also to how we talk about journalism?

    Do you think that convergence culture and spreadable media have altered the nature of what it means to be a public figure, locally and globally? If so, how? (e.g., how one becomes a public figure, how one maintains their public image, how one becomes a public figure while attached to a story they might not want to be publicly associated with)

    Reflect on enduring phrase “the whole world is watching” from Chicago in 1968, Jenkins asks in Convergence Culture, “Is there any place on the web where the whole world is watching?” (p. 211). How might we compare the livestreamers at the Occupy Wall Street protests to the protestors at the 1968 political conventions?

    What similarities or differences might we see between fans “spoiling” Survivor and the impact that WikiLeaks and Anonymous have had on contemporary politics? Are there other political ramifications of convergence culture beyond what’s described in the book that we might talk about?

    One recurring idea in Convergence Culture is the “Black Box Fallacy”: “the attempt to reduce convergence to a purely technological model for identifying which black box will be the nexus through which all future media content will flow” (p. 280). Is this fallacy still in play? Where have you seen it recently? Can we identify material effects of this ideology in the products and services available to us today? (Think about Netflix, Apple TV, or Xbox Live…)

    Reflecting on the election in 2004, Jenkins wrote that “candidates may build their base on the internet but they need television to win elections” (p. 213). Is this still true in 2012? What is the relationship of broadcast media to the internet so far in this year’s election?

    Jenkins writes, “For some, the concern is with the specific content of those fantasies—whether they are consistent with a Christian worldview. For others, the concern is with the marketing of those fantasies to children—whether we want opportunities for participation to be commodified. Ironically, at the same time, corporations are anxious about this fantasy play because it operates outside their control” (p. 205). So, various adults with different agendas are struggling to control youths’ experience. This suggests that such a thing can be controlled, and that youths need adults to play the role of cultural gatekeeper because youths lack the strength or skepticism to resist “harmful” influences. What do you think of such a position? First, is it possible to shape (or even predict) youths’ experience? Second, is “protection” for youths best achieved from adults’ censorship or adults’ guidance?

    About Yourself

    Are there stories that you consume across media?

    Do you watch television on a television set or on your computer?

    How do you think YouTube shapes the way that you assess and value information? How do you think you shape your own YouTube experience? How are these two forces complementary or contradictory?

    Do you pass along YouTube videos to others? If so, which videos have you wanted to spread?

    What forms of popular culture are you a fan of? What does being a fan mean to you?

    How, if at all, have you been affected by the push/pull between consumers and producers of popular media products? Have you illegally downloaded music or movies? Scored your own YouTube videos with copyrighted songs?

    Jenkins discusses a then-emerging concern over the shift from Thorburn’s “consensus culture” to de Sola Pool’s “communication niches” (or Negroponte’s “daily me” or Sunstein’s “echo chambers” or “digital enclaves”) (pp. 236-237). Jenkins writes, “Sunstein’s arguments assume that Web groups are primarily formed around ideological rather than cultural axes. Yet, few of us simply interact in political communities; most of us also join communities on the basis of our recreational interests” (p. 238). He adds, “We need to create a context where we listen and learn from one another. We need to deliberate together” (p. 239). Do you have spaces in your life for listening and learning with people from different political points of view? Where do you find them?

    Many teachers complain that youths’ adoption of digital norms has harmed their writing skills, specifically in terms of their spelling and grammar. But Chapter Five paints a different story vis-à-vis writing development. Have you ever experienced a similar phenomenon as Heather and Flourish—growing as writers, but also as responsible and responsive community members—due to reading and writing emails, Facebook notes, blogs, fan forum posts, etc.?

    About Annenberg

    Jenkins writes, “These kids are passionate about writing because they are passionate about what they are writing about. To some degree, pulling such activities into schools is apt to deaden them because school culture generates a different mindset than our recreational life” (p. 194). What do you think about this? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t? Have you ever had an experience at ASCJ in which you were able to work on a passion project, where interest in the subject dictated the extent of your participation (as opposed to consideration of grades/rubrics/etc.)? If so, what happened? What occurred in terms of the hours you put in relative to other projects, your feelings about working on this particular project, your relationship with the passion, and outcomes after turning it in? How can ASCJ encourage professors and create curricula that allow students access to their passions without deadening their recreational quality?

    Convergence Culture declares, “Schools impose a fixed leadership hierarchy (including very different roles for adults and teens)” (p. 193). What are the assets and drawbacks of such a hierarchical configuration? Is it useful or obsolete in this “world of constant change” (Thomas & Seely Brown, 2011)? Should merit, passion, or some other trait dictate leadership? Should classrooms be staging grounds/practice arenas for students to prepare for leadership?

    Have you ever taught an adult how to do something? Has this ever occurred in the classroom? What happened and how did it feel?

    To what degree does the mix of expertise in Annenberg help to prepare students for a convergence culture?

    Have the trends we are discussing impacted the relationship between faculty and students? Have they impacted the ways researchers interface with the larger public?

    What roles should academics play in relation to the entertainment and news industries they study?

    What ideas from the book might help us have better classrooms? Better jobs after USC?

    What skills would you want to make sure every Annenberg student has mastered by graduation (perhaps drawing from the list on p. 176 as a starting point)?

    Students in the past were expected to master medium-specific skills and knowledge. Now, many of you will work across many media in the course of your careers and often will be working at the intersections between different media and industries. What should Annenberg be doing to give you the flexibility you need to navigate this unpredictable path and get access to jobs that may not even have names yet?

    The Business of Impact Games

      By laurelfelt | March 22, 2012 - 4:56 pm | , , , ,
    Leave a comment

    (from left) Laird Malamed, Laurel Felt, and George Rose grin post-panel discussion on the business of impact games

    On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, I moderated a discussion with Activision executives Laird Malamed and George Rose that considered impact games in terms of business models and market prognostications (as opposed to pedagogy, assessment, design, etc). Co-hosted by USC Impact Games (a cross-campus group that I co-chair) and the USC Marshall Society & Business Lab, this event introduced undergraduate business majors to the field, as well as united like-minded scholars university-wide.

    While the definition (as well as the terminology — impact game vs. serious game) is contested, one might characterize an impact game as a game that has been designed for a purpose beyond pure entertainment. While the game must entertain in order to effectively engage users’ attention, it aims to impact users’ knowledge, attitudes, and/or practices. Impact games have taught players about international conflicts (as in USC Impact Games co-chair Susana Ruiz’s Darfur is Dying), emotional regulation strategies (as in GameDesk‘s Dojo, the focus of my dissertation), and the pathways to and protocols for college access (as in USC Collegeology‘s Application Crunch and Mission: Admission). They have provided contexts for exercising (as in the Nintendo Wii and the Xbox Kinect), rehabilitating (as in the work of Marientina Gotsis with the USC Creative Media & Behavioral Health Center), accessing tailored health plans (as in My Fitness Coach 2), and building community (as in USC Annenberg Innovation Lab‘s ParTour).

    A FEW TAKEAWAYS
    According to Laird:
    Funding — Sponsorship seems a more reliable source of funding than short-term and/or volatile grants. Find companies that support your goals, that want to support/celebrate these goals — principally for-profit businesses that would benefit from being associated with the project. If the outcome is social awareness/understanding, that’s a tougher sell…

    Sustainability — Can’t think of a game in absence of a sustainability model, even going into the concept of it, even outlining/coming up with a design. It’s okay to say, in the case of an impact game, there is no business model for this, but what’s not okay is to add it in at the end (similar argument goes for assessment). When you’re evaluating design and deciding what to cut, you don’t cut the things that you’re selling/marketing/getting sponsored for. Another lens to look through that should be done in an iterative fashion. Take multiple passes to consider technology, art, and sustainability factors. No one lens is the right blanket way to do it.

    Horizon — Are you making one per year or one every few years? Does it have to survive more than three years (that’s a long time for an interactive project to survive, it will look dated)? It’s more like you’re creating an event that will be online for a 1000 days vs. creating an enduring product. iPhone games being a good example to look at in terms of life-span synced with business plan and goals.)

    According to George:
    Product development and marketing — You’re creating a product that does something novel, or does better or more efficiently a legacy product. You must overcome built-in resistance from the idea that games and screentime are frivolous and unnecessary, reading books onscreen isn’t real reading, etc. In-fighting among entrenched, interested entities.

    Future directions — Impact games are used robustly in Europe to inform citizens about corporate social responsibility. Stateside, we may see growth in this sector as well as in the areas of exergames and rehabilitation, among others.

    —–

    Here is our PR blurb, a better-than-nothing video of the event, our agenda, and a few pix snapped during the discussion and immediately afterwards:

    PUBLICITY
    The Business of Impact Games: A moderated discussion with gaming executives

    From Darfur is Dying to Sim City, the field of “impact” or “serious” games is on the rise. Panelists will discuss what it takes to build up a market for these games and offer strategies for developing and selling commercial products. They will also explore these games’ tremendous potential for inspiring global change and bringing awareness to various issues, from education to public health.

    Panelists:
    Laird Malamed, Adjunct Faculty, USC School of Cinematic Arts and President, Creative Learning Technologies;
    George Rose, former Chief Legal Officer and Chief Public Policy Officer and current Senior Consultant to Chief Executive Officer of Activision Blizzard

    Moderator:
    Laurel Felt, Doctoral Candidate at USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

    AGENDA

    1. Introductions: (5:05-5:10 pm)
    Tell me more about your background and experience. Chronologically, please share your titles, affiliations, and years spent in each position.

    2. Definitions: (5:10-5:20 pm)
    What are “serious” or “impact” games? Why the vernacular distinction? What are the potential problems as well as potential benefits of each term? Considering the interdisciplinary nature of this field, how should we move forward regarding a shared (if not, common) language? Issues of “perception” (i.e. games, in the general public’s mind, are not to be taken seriously).

    3. Personal Connections: (5:20-5:35 pm)
    Why do YOU care about serious or impact games? What brought you from a more purely commercial origin to working in this philanthropically-influenced domain? Was there a key moment or insight, a seminal piece of literature or game, that changed your way of thinking and/or inspired a new agenda? Why should the commercial game industry take this field seriously? How is productive collaboration fostered in a space typically (and perhaps, necessarily) inhabited by multiple cultures?

    4. Business Considerations: (5:35-5:50 pm)
    Let’s talk about practical strategies for developing, disseminating and selling these products/experiences commercially. How do we assemble productive diverse teams, monetize ethically and significantly, and get these games out there? How can teams and businesses plan in a sustainable way?

    How can academic game programs and business programs educate students to co-experiment and innovate around new business models for projects/services that seek to make a profit as well as advance social justice and education? For example, past one grant-funded project, how can a studio/developer continue to create high-quality products and keep a roof over her head while competing (or, at least, existing in parallel with) with richly funded commercial entities?

    5. Personal Insights/Advice/Lessons Learned + Future Forecasting: (5:50-6 pm)
    What have you discovered as a result of your experience? What would you advise our audience members in terms of what TO do and what NOT to do? Five, 10, and 20 years down the pike: What do you see in terms of this field? Paint that picture (in terms of the culture, the technology, and the creative aspects).

    6. Q&A: (6-6:20)
    Let’s hear what the people have to say!


    Marshall's Vertical Lead for Social Impact Careers Nicole Butler chats with USC Impact Games co-chairs Kristy Norindr and Susana Ruiz

    That’s MR. Roboto…

      By laurelfelt | March 18, 2012 - 1:08 am | , , , , , ,
    Leave a comment

    Putting together my post-DML 2012 thoughts for a guest essay on 21st Century Scholar , the blog for USC’s Pullias Center for Higher Education.

    TITLE: Digital devotees are made of people! : Leveraging our humanity to enrich digital media and learning
    THEMES/CONCEPTS:

    Walking the talk, Being the change we (earnestly) recommend
    The most engaging, productive moments of the conference occurred when we applied our own best practice by: allowing DML attendees to pool their collective intelligence and creativity; inviting their interactivity, play, relationship-building, and reflection; offering students the opportunity to present their own work in their own words.

    Enough of singing to and talking at the (albeit brilliant) choir. We need to connect, think, and make together. And that “we” needs to get blown even wider.

    Tangibility
    In the digital shuffle, we can’t lose the face-to-face and tactile. There’s intimacy in looking another person in the eye. There’s comfort in snuggling with a grandparent and beloved book. While time and distance may sometimes prevent corporeal communion, I think it should be the preferred option, with virtual meetings a better-than-nothing back-up. Breakthroughs in presence and haptics are exciting but there ain’t nothin like the real thing.

    Portion size and frequency
    A yearly grand reunion is also inadequate for making and sustaining change. So too, perhaps, are our smaller, monthly meetings. How can we harness the tech tools we love(/hate) so well in order to expand opportunities for contributions and micro- (hopefully leading to macro-) changes? Do we pipe every Impact Games member’s Tweets into a homepage feed? Do we post a daily poll to our FB site? Do we create a quick, casual game application that allows for simple service (e.g., Google Image Tagger)? And, at the same time, how do we avoid irrelevance by appearing like so much noise? In a bursting Inbox, information overload world, how much is too much and how much is just right?

    BIO:
    Laurel Felt is a Ph.D. candidate, researcher, and curriculum designer focused on nurturing youths’ social and emotional competence, critical thinking, and communicative capacities. She is currently investigating participatory learning with the Annenberg Innovation Lab’s PLAY! Project, and emotional regulation with GameDesk via biofeedback-enhanced impact game Dojo.

    EMBEDDED LINKS:
    Laurelfelt.org
    http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral%20Students/Felt%20Laurel.aspx
    Annenberglab.com
    Playnml.wikispaces.com
    Gamedesk.org
    Gamedesk.org/projects/dojo

    MY TWEETS:
    https://twitter.com/#!/laurelfelt

    Cooperation

      By laurelfelt | March 10, 2012 - 2:26 pm | , , , , , , , ,
    Leave a comment

    Cooperation is neither the province of women nor an artifact of maturity; cooperation fuels all peoples and emerges from our earliest days.

    Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (1958) position obedience as preceding negotiation; thus, cooperation cannot emerge until the capacity for a certain amount of cognitive complexity has been achieved. While Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982) illuminated several deficiencies in Kohlberg’s vision, it did so on the basis of gender bias. According to Gilligan, “They [women] developed in a way that focused on connections among people (rather than separation) and with an ethic of care for those people (rather than an ethic of justice)” (Huff, 2001).

    Designating empathy and cooperativeness as expressions of subgroups rather than universal human traits, though, is incredibly problematic. First, just who or what are men and women anyway? I wonder how, if at all, Gilligan’s paradigm accommodates for socially-constructed gender vs. biologically-tied sex. What happens when these superficial distinctions break down, as in the case of butch females, drag queens, transsexuals, intersex individuals, etc? Second, how do the historical record and contemporary social structures support this theory of opposing, partisan priorities? While I tend to distrust biological determinism, human evolution and culture, broadly defined, suggest that all peoples value collaboration and connection. Similarly (and sadly), abuse can induce individuals from all walks of life to commit atrocities that tear those institutions asunder.

    Dacher Keltner’s Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life (2009) argues that we are hard-wired to reach out and love someone:

    “Jen science is based on its own microscopic observations of things not closely examined before. Most centrally, it is founded on the study of emotions such as compassion, gratitude, awe, embarrassment, and amusement, emotions that transpire between people, bringing the good in each other to completion. Jen science has examined new human languages under its microscope—movements of muscles in the face that signal devotion, patterns of touch that signal appreciation, playful tones of the voice that transform conflicts. It brings into focus new substances that we are made of, neurotransmitters as well as regions of our nervous system that promote trust, caring, devotion, forgiveness, and play. It reveals a new way of thinking about the evolution of human goodness, which requires revision of longstanding assumptions that we are solely wired to maximize desire, to compete, and to be vigilant to what is bad” (Keltner, 2009, para 3).

    Along a similar vein, Richard Sennett’s Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation (2012) conceptualizes cooperation as a homegrown, human craft. Excitingly, he draws on developmentalist Erik Erikson and children’s gaming to strengthen his argument:

    “Reflexive, self-critical thinking doesn’t imply withdrawal from other kids; children can be reflexive together. One piece of evidence Erikson provides for this process is game-playing. At the age of five to six, children begin to negotiate the rules for games, rather than, as at the age of two to three, take the rules as givens; the more negotiation occurs, the more strongly do children become bonded to one another in game-playing…

    “Erikson’s sweeping point about this passage is that cooperation precedes individuation: cooperation is the foundation of human development, in that we learn how to be together before we learn how to stand apart. Erikson may seem to declare the obvious: we could not develop as individuals in isolation. Which means, though, that the very misunderstandings, separations, transitional objects and self-criticism which appear in the course of development are tests of how to relate to other people rather than how to hibernate; if the social bond is primary, its terms change up to the time children enter formal schooling” (Sennett, 2012)

    Our mission, therefore, is to support the skills and spaces that facilitate development of the ties that bind. I’ll stop short of calling for hand-holding and Kumbayah-singing — but if you start the song, you know I’ll chime right in.