Popular Culture

I attended an invited panel session at CRPP today entitled: Popular Culture and Education is Asia. Panel included Peter Demerath (University of Minnesota), Zawawi Ibrahim (University Malaya) and Yoshitaka Mori (Tokyo University of the Arts).

What I take away for my research are these questions:

From Demerath

1. MMOG is a playground that attracts players from all nooks and corners of the world. Various culture and practices emerge when people of all background meet and interact. Players become "cultural innovators" whose identities emerge from the negotiation and "orchestration" of competing discourses and social structures.

Beyond MMOG, what are the multiple networks that have "educational effects" on players' identity development?

How is the mass culture associated with globalising era, consumerism and individual freedom mediate players' identity development?

What kind of cultural resources players draw on to make powerful moral judgment about appropriate selves?

How players' identities impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing?

How to establish players' critical media and digital literacy? How do they learn these? And how they impact how players "read" and what they take away from playing?

From Zawawi

2. Cosplay is one of the emerging popular culture associated with media and videogames that transcend beyond game environment into the real world. Granado Espada too is a big hit with players for its baroque period costumes. I wonder what motivate players to engage in cosplay and how immersing in this culture (whether they are participants or just observers) impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing.

From Mori

3. When popular icon in television or videogame crosses into the realm of players' everyday life (Mori used the example of Doremon who makes an appearance in textbooks and other print materials), how would players read this development?

Do they see it to mean that the television programme or videogame associated with the popular icon is accepted by society as safe and good?

How would this perception impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing?

Granado Espada is the first and so far the only MMOG recommended to be used in Singapore Schools. While it has yet to make an appearance in the curriculum hours, only find solace in after-school activities, still what does it mean to players when they can play GE in school.

Another day to go for the conference tomorrow. I hope to take away as many probing questions for my research as possible.

Values embedded in formal schooling

Dr M’s class discussion last Wednesday about informal and formal learning has opened up a lot of insights for me. What came out strongly from the discussion for me is about values embedded in teaching being carried out in schools. I am thinking about values and games a lot now and wonder what values players derive from playing. Do they derive values from conversations with other players or from overall interactions with players and game environment? Do they derive similar core values from playing or does each player take away with them different values? And how do values affect how they read the game? Is there a relationship between values and reading of games, and if so, how tight is the relationship?

Problematic values
One of the papers Dr M discussed with the class was the Scribner & Cole's paper (see left). That paper is a canonical piece because papers from the last three decades that talk about informal learning or compare it to formal learning, have their roots to that paper. An excellent read because not only did it contrast cognitive consequences between informal learning and formal schooling, it also implied in its argument the different values schooled and unschooled learners drive from their learning. For example, one of the cognitive consequences between informal learning and formal learning mentioned in the paper is where “...unschooled populations tended to solve individual problems singly, each as a new problem, whereas schooled populations tended to treat them as instances of a class of problems that could be solved by a general rule” (pg 554).

Dr M says that the value that is problematic here for formal learning is that learners see that they SHOULD generalize different sets of problems when searching for a solution. We all know that embarking on an inquiry to find out whether different sets of problems have enough attributes that warrant us to draw some form of generalization can be considered a scientific pursuit. However, the act of thinking that all problems can be and should be generalized without first making an inquiry and investigation whether they can be generalized in the first place is problematic.

I remembers there is a paper by John Seely Brown and Allan Collins (see right. They make reference to works by Lave who himself references to Scribner & Cole’s paper) that also follows this line of argument about problematic values when they mention how schooling culture negatively impact learning and is detrimental in preparing learners to get initiated into the practices of experts in related profession when they leave school.

Learning and performance
Dr M also talked about how the relationship between performance and learning differ in informal learning and formal schooling. In informal setting, learning collapses with doing and performance, while in school, there is this duality between learning and performance, and assessment is used to evaluate whether learning lead to performance. The presence of assessment is problematic on a number of counts but one that interest me a lot is that it comes with a certain value that views all learning can be measured to the point that even learning that cannot be measured are also assessed and reduced to number and symbols. Like how do you measure reflection? Or collaborations, how do you measure learners' collaborative learning?

This fascination with assessment cause teachers and learners to lose sight what is the real value and object of learning and in acquiring knowledge. And doing well in the assessment takes centre stage. Learning is geared more towards assessment. It happens to all of us. We get many ‘A’s for our O and A level exams but our knowledge lack depth that we are not confident enough to talk about our understanding and how can we apply what we have learn in real world setting.

Jayanthy's research
My reflection brings me to Jayanthy’s research (See left). Jayanthy hopes to do a comparative study between the way science is taught with a view to values in schools in Singapore and in India. I am thinking that perhaps it may be more meaningful to uncover problematic values resulting from formal schooling first before Jayanthy contrast the difference in values about science taught in science lessons in India and Singapore. A good way to find out more about them is to read and see how Scribner & Cole paper are cited by others.

Dr M shared an anecdote about Singaporeans students spending most of their out of school time with more formal learning like remedial, tuitions etc. I am assuming here that students in India have a more balanced formal and informal learning experience. If this is the case, I wonder how informal learning impact values about science learnt in formal learning for students in India. Jayanthy is very passionate about her research (from her introduction in class) and I feel her research is very interesting and would be of great interest to many people.

Patrick Williams

So these are the two books by Patrick Williams that Steve talked about last week. Williams is a sociologist and has written quite a fair bit on symbolic interactionism. He teaches on Sociological Psychology (Symbolic Interactionism), Sociology of Youth Subcultures, Qualitative Research Methods, and Cultural Sociology

I hope GPR allows me to take some of his modules next semester.