arcade

“Arcade” may seem like a strange choice to describe wireless instructional areas in the era of university as transnational bureaucratic corporation (see Readings, 1996). After all, games and gaming are commonly associated with childishness and leisurely pursuits. According to James Gee (2003), however, good video games, when played actively and critically, help players inculcate multiple literacies, encourage players to develop an increased awareness of meaning as situated within particular contexts, and encourage metalevel critical reflection. And, as Gee put it, “people get wildly entertained to boot” (more on this in a moment) (p. 48). In total, Gee identified 36 principles of learning, extrapolated from video games, that he asserted are equally relevant for learning in more traditional educational environments. Though Gee focused on science instruction as the primary beneficiary of his insights about the connection between gaming and learning, applying the arcade metaphor to wireless places could benefit writing instruction as well.

For example, this metaphor might invite writing students to view their video gaming experience “as a fruitful precursor domain for mastering other semiotic domains tied to computers and related technologies” (p. 48). Professional writing and technical communication are two “semiotic domains tied to computers” that certainly come to mind. Furthermore, labeling wireless settings as “arcades” could aid students in connecting their video gaming experience with their academic and professional pursuits.

The arcade metaphor could also imbue these settings with a sense of playfulness [1]. In “Conversation and Carrying-On: Play, Conflict, and Serio-Ludic Discourse in Synchronous Computer Conferencing,” Albert Rouzie (2001) closed the schism between play and work when he suggested that the play element in synchronous computer-mediated conferencing in writing classes can help form and maintain relationships, negotiate and destabilize power relationships, provoke and relieve tensions related to gender issues, and prepare students for more satisfying participation in future workplace contexts. As Rouzie demonstrated, the meaningful coalescence of work and play can further our pedagogical goals.

Employing the arcade metaphor to challenge the work/play split that dominates so many instructional settings, however, is not without its drawbacks. In light of increasing electronic surveillance in the workplace, we potentially harm our students by encouraging them to connect workplace writing with play. In addition, this metaphor could further jeopardize writing’s already tenuous institutional standing. The concept of play “comes loaded with negative cultural baggage” (Rouzie, 2001, p. 252). Furthermore, the arcade metaphor could also alienate older students who may already feel disconnected from their surroundings and youthful peers.

[1] Outlining the formal characteristics of play, Johan Huizinga (1955) characterized play as an absorbing activity that stands outside the boundaries of everyday life without being serious. Play is devoid of opportunities for profit. It occurs in an orderly fashion, adhering to fixed temporal and spatial restraints.

Read a few conclusions.