It is not uncommon to find students disengaged with activities and learning taking place in a classroom. Likewise, it is not uncommon to find kids highly engaged with video games at an arcade. How the latter can be used to improve the former is discussed in the article, "What Happens in the Arcade Shouldn't Stay in the Arcade: Lessons for Classroom Design" by Kathryn Whitmore and Lindsay Laurich. Though the idea may seem surprising at first glance, the article ultimately discusses aspects of literacy and the classroom that are addressed in other scholarship, not related to video games, in which students are given agency within the classroom.
The authors of this article observed multiple arcades in order to see what principles can be applied to the classroom, while also working with a classroom teacher, Jeff, to analyze his classroom and implement what was learned from the arcades. Initially, Jeff's classroom was assessed according to Loughlin and Martin's the Survey of Displayed Literacy Stimuli (SDLS) and Wolfersberger, Reutzel, Sudweeks, & Fawson's Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile (CLEP). From those assessments, Jeff's classroom was found to be quite lacking. Much of the classroom space was "owned" by the teacher, including a bookshelf meant to model the active reading life of the teacher at the expense of a more robust classroom library for the students. Additionally, the provisioning of literacy tools was inadequate, as was the access to environmental print and display space. This came as a shock to Jeff and he was committed to making a change.
The lessons learned from the arcade observations were centered around three areas: clustering and collaborating, inversion of power structures, and reconstituting access and ownership. Clustering and collaborating was exemplified by a vignette in which one child assisted another at an adjacent arcade game and then offered to join in. That child was the expert and taught the other child, facilitating his advancement in the game and his enjoyment thereof. The physical design and social expectations of an arcade set up an environment in which children can naturally scaffold the learning of other children.
The inversion of the power structure is addressed via a vignette in which the arcade employee is asked to come over and join a player in a game. In order to do so, the employee gives the responsibility of watching the desk to a nearby child. Here the roles and identities are fluid and children are trusted. Additionally, the authors note that the arcade goers opinions can have an impact on the layout and arrangement of games in the arcade.
Finally, the issues of access and ownership are introduced by a vignette in which kids arrive at the arcade after school, make a request of the manager, who then wheels out a table from a back room where many kids complete schoolwork and socialize throughout the evening. Clearly, this accommodation by the arcade helps the children to feel that this is their space. Additionally, notes are made of the volume of the arcade as compared to that of a classroom, and how the role of expert changes according to the game being played.
The application of these concepts to the classroom are applied first and foremost in letting the students have a say in the layout and design of the classroom. Students created maps individually and in small groups of an ideal classroom. Jeff then tried to incorporate student wishes as best he could. This both addresses student ownership and power structures within the classroom. Jeff also created more spaces for students to share their information and make reading suggestions via a graffiti board, thus shifting the expertise and again creating more space for ownership. Students were involved in creating new class rules, Jeff allowed students to address their bathroom and drinking fountain needs without permission, and students were asked to teach their classmates about areas of their interest in which they could be the expert or teacher. The literacies the students brought to the classroom from outside the school setting were given more value. Additionally, a higher tolerance for room volume was adopted, seeing it as social learning rather misbehavior.
With all these changes, Jeff experienced difficulties. Both the managing of the classroom itself was different, plus managing the expectations of his school and district was strained in light of a classroom that appeared so differently than that of his peers. Over time, Jeff had to reign in some of the freedoms initiated, but nevertheless the change seemed to have a positive result on his students engagement.
Similar to my recent work and reading on a Literacy Playshop, these efforts involved valuing students own literacies. Beyond that, the message seems to be placing more value overall in what our students bring to the classroom. Thinking of students as partners in their own education and empowering them seems to be one way to try and foster greater engagement in the classroom. Though it brings with it its own challenges in management, it does sound like a worthwhile goal.
Laurich, L., Whitmore, K.F. (2010). What happens in the arcade shouldn't stay in the
arcade: Lessons for classroom design. Language Arts. Vol. 88 (1). 21-31.
No comments:
Post a Comment