Okay, it has happened. Yes, I candidly admit this specific reading assignment has me completely stunned with a lack of understanding. The theoretical jargon is so profound I could not fully grasp what I extracted from Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth by Kevin M. Leander and Jason F. Lovvorn. Except maybe this reading has something to do with gaming as a useful research tool. I am also looking forward to the lead discussion, which will bring total simplicity and clarification to me.

The ways in which individuals conceive of the relationship of literacy to space–time, I hope, is, too, simply defined in physics as any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur. If that is the case, then it makes sense, “Although reading and writing are often conceptualized and examined as social and cognitive processes independent from other activities, many reading and writing practices are interwoven with other forms of activity” (292). Thus, it would make sense to attempt to introduce new concepts in education. Then again, I could be all so wrong about this.

Subsequently, I guess we can consider that “researchers are in need of moral means of making distinctions among literacy practices and their relations to space–time” (292). A balance of science and research appears to be in question when it comes to literacy practices and space-time. For “construct has been conceived in various ways. “Strong-text” theorists provide descriptions of the underlying principles, one might say, the tools by which they attempt to understand literature, such as the mentioned theorists, who argued that texts enable the literate to break free from the limits of space and time. Sounds like breaking bonds and ties in that “the development of literacy of this perspective assumes an understanding of texts (and of the literate self) as detached from social context” (294), also sounds far above my reasonable comprehension.

This is groundbreaking news to me: “ANT, developed within the broad area of science and technology studies, has begun to influence work in social psychology, geography, medical sociology, management, economics, and other areas of the social sciences” (295). I have read this account repeatedly, and I still cannot clench the entire meaning of ANT. Please don’t fault me. This is a complex read. However, I find this part of the reading agreeable, “Although it is relatively easy to imagine the connections within any given social–literacy–technical practice, the logic of translation processes is not nearly so apparent” (300). Let the church say Amen because it is surely not easy for me to imagine the connections. But thank goodness, Latour wrote that ANT, as a “theory of translation,” is essentially a theory of metaphor, where one thing means something else” (300). Here, I believe I have discovered a better understanding of ANT.

Then comes Brian’s participation in schooling and gaming, which obviously involves a complex array of practices and could be compared along many dimensions. Moreover, it is clear from the reading that analysis and discussion intend not to provide an exhaustive account but rather to draw together the two central arguments of the article (329). Thus, this concept yet leaves me with the question: what/who exactly is Brian? In the end, I get the jest of what is being said: that classrooms and game worlds are not dull and unmotivating merely because they are filled with unmotivated people. They are unmotivating because they are immobile. (336). In other words, they are motionless, unable to move. The end.

Seeing the length of this article sent a chill up my spine. It was so intimidating! When I skimmed and saw the data, images, and words like “space,” “time,” and “twilight zone,” I thought, gosh, what is this about? However, when I saw it had to do with literacy, I immediately had a change of heart.

It’s no secret that I’m an English teacher, but I genuinely enjoy learning about the education system and how we can better our children’s quality of learning. I often find myself researching these issues, so literacy is definitely an interest of mine.

Currently, America is in a literacy crisis. Over 20% of adults don’t read on level, and 1/3 of kids cannot read at a basic level, so this truly is an issue. Articles like this are really important for those reasons exactly. There needs to be more conversation around literacy, how students develop it, and how we can get them to excel.

I thought analyzing literacy practices via two classes versus an online game was very creative. As someone who grew up playing online role-playing games, this instantly brought me back to the late 2000s and early 2010s. I also thought it was clever to have a framework of five dimensions. It gives clear intention and allows the audience to be perceptive when reading.

Hearing about Brian’s struggles with note-taking and how his history class was taught set off fireworks in my mind. One, it reminds me of the importance of the teacher’s engagement and enthusiasm for the subject, as it influences the students. (“Brian also noted that there was something about the way that the teacher “presented herself” that he found motivating for learning history – she had a sense of presenting “where kids would actually pay attention.”” pg.308) Two, be considerate when navigating note-taking. Personally, I think kids should take notes, but there should be a variety. For example, it could be straightforward note-taking or annotating; you can grade it, not grade it, anything. As a teacher, whatever you decide on, make sure it’s considerate and fair. Without that, students will be like Brian, getting lost in the sauce and writing poor notes they’ll never use.

Brian’s belief that English is uninteresting was heartbreaking. His relationship with the subject depicts the exact reason why, as English teachers, we have to try to reach students like him. There’s a stigma that it’s a boring subject and that if you know how to read, that’s enough to suffice. As Brian did, once students have accepted their identities as students, it’s hard for them to grow and change their perspectives. Hard, but not impossible.

Overall, I think this article was very eye-opening from a teacher’s perspective. Here are my takeaways as they pertain to Brian’s literacy practice and the five dimensions:

Translation: Brian absorbed the translation best via the online game because there was interest in the modality, familiarity, and identity present. Before the study, he already enjoyed video games and was familiar with that setting, allowing him to build and act on a version of himself. In his classes, the translation was seen through aspects of note-taking, which was straightforward. Since these things were graded, he completed tasks, but they lacked quality since this was not something he identified with.

Space & Time: In History, Brian thrived when the information was verbalized instead of written. For his English project, though it was independent research, it was very procedural. When things connected to history, his interest, a shift was seen as he wrote/absorbed the information in a spaceless/timeless manner. (Skimming, brief annotations, etc.) Brian struggled to navigate the broad space of the online game and spent a lot of time wandering and exploring, which left him being slower and more thoughtful in his decision-making.

Movement & Positions: While playing the game, Brian was very physically engaged. This was a reflection of his identity within the game. Brian rarely reached for his notes in his classes, and the dynamic was more like a back-and-forth, call-and-respond manner.

Rhythm & Speed: While taking notes in history, there was a disconnect, and Brian found himself slipping. He was a fast typer but a slow writer. This resulted in his weak, incomplete note. This also connects to his identity with English, as he found himself working at a slower pace and turning parts in at the last minute. At times, Brian was pensive, which can slow things down, but overall, he was consistent and routined in his gameplay. This kept things steady.

Network Continuity: In his classes, Brian rarely participated. Outside of not being interested in English, he didn’t contribute to larger discussions in either class and only interacted with his friends. Though he stopped playing for a short period of time, overall, Brian’s gameplay was continuous throughout. This being something he genuinely enjoyed, it allowed for more continuity.

“Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth” by Kevin M. Leander and Jason F. Lovvorn was a difficult paper for me to process given its length, and complexity. I will do my best to digest the important aspects of it but will abstain from using direct quotes so I can allow my thoughts to flow freely.

Basically, this paper explains how literacy is related to space and time (a term that the authors can’t seem to let go of) and influences our understanding of space and time. This concept reminds me a bit of code-switching (hopefully I am not entirely off-base with this connection) which is the unconscious practice of changing one’s demeanor based off his/her setting. The paper also describes something called the Actor Network Theory which describes how the world is made up of countless variables (which can be humans or non-living things that exchange information such as computers/technology) that all influence one another creating a complex web of events and ideas. This is a complicated theory, but it fascinating in the sense that all literature is influenced by either: 1.) previous writings/ art/ speech/ etc. or 2.) the observable world and circumstance (kind of reminds me of the “remixing” article from last semester). To put it simply, this paper deals a lot with the nature of inspiration, in a sense.

At any rate, that’s my best shot at processing this article and I didn’t even get to Brian and his school and Star Wars video game adventures. I must say that his purpose in the article did fall flat on me at times and I am uncertain if his case study was all that effective in reinforcing the authors’ message.

This probably won’t be my best work of blog posts, so keep that in mind please. Truth be told, reading everyone’s blog posts made me feel a little bit better. As Tyler stated, we’re grad students and 50 pages should be a breeze. However, this was torture. I guess the reason it was 50 pages, I could not re-read the paper to understand it better. Till this day, I don’t think I’ll ever really understand what “Space-time” means, or even try to understand what it had to do with this reading. Space-time continuum? I don’t even know!  From my understanding, as well as the understanding of my peers this is a research on Brian’s literacy practices in two different settings. Classroom versus outside at home in an online computer game. One thing I can say is that the study concept was very interesting. We have Brian who loves playing video games, as well as Brian who is also a student. His ways of learning varied within both. On page 315 it seems as if the research concluded that Brian’s way of interpreting/interacting in video games with strategy and memorization, plays a huge role in his education. I don’t think I ever really thought about literacy to play hand in hand with video games. Truth be told, I was able to read about 30 pages until I started to realize I couldn’t understand anything after that. I am not a slacker at all, but something about this one really got me. I am hoping that we can all understand this together in class tomorrow. I am really looking forward to Daniel’s presentation because I hate not being able to give my 100% in my work, as well as not understanding something.

Just a quick note before we get started. Go see the new Dune movie. It’s awesome!

In keeping with the bullet point list theme, here it is again.

• First thoughts:
  • 51 pages is daunting, but we are in grad school.
  • Using the phrase “space-time” makes this reading seem complex.
    • I am 10 pages in and I believe in this reading, space-time in relation to writing means that a lot of researchers will say when a student is in the classroom they do a certain kind of writing and when they are at home playing video games they do another kind of writing.
    • This article is suggesting a different way of thinking about the above saying that the same type of writing can happen in different settings and contexts.
    • In this article, we are looking at Brian’s reading and writing in 2 classroom settings and in an online video game setting.
    • Conventional wisdom might say that Brian will do academic scholarly writing in the classroom settings and do casual non formal writing in the online video game settings.
      • This article has set out to disprove that theory.
    • I am only 7 pages in so let’s see if that is what the authors are suggesting once I get to page 51.
• Another complex word is heterogeneity. I Googled it and I think the word diversity is a good synonym for heterogeneity.
• Using an online video game that I am familiar with to learn about a research theory is a really interesting and fun way to learn.
  • The talk of Brian and his video game character being coagents really resonates with me. 
  • My guy in FFXIV is named Marcus Blackfist. When I created him, I worked within the constraints of the character creator and also put my own spin on things.
    • For example, his hairstyle is a big afro! There were at least 20 hairstyles to choose from, but as soon as I put the afro on him, I knew that was his hair. It’s almost like Marcus already existed and I just had to use the game to create him.
  • He has definitely taken on a life of his own. He is my creation, but he is not me. I control his actions, but there are scenes of scripted dialogue where he speaks for himself. He is a character in a large world where my actions affect his impact, reputation, and standing in this giant world. I have helped him save the world on more than one occasion.
  • We really do need each other. I can’t enter his world and he can’t enter mine. When we work together, we can help protect his world from evil and he helps protect me in the real world from depression and boredom.
  • This is what the authors mean by human non-human interaction chains I believe.
  • When the authors talk about Brian and literacy in action, they say how Brian would use skill screens of the video game to influence his characters actions.
    • For example, he would use a pistol instead of a weapon that does higher damage like a rifle. This was because he needed to “level up” his pistol experience to complete a box on the skill screen. Brian would go back and forth between his character and the skill screen.
    • I know this feeling all too well. In FFXIV, you can be a class that does damage or a gathering class. You can switch back and forth at will. There are times when I want to “level up” my gathering class, so instead of doing the main story and saving the world, I will do gathering. There are gathering logs where you get experience points for gathering a certain number of a certain items. So I would follow these screens when determining what to gather. The gathering log was directly influencing my choice to use a gathering class and gather specific items.
  • Getting into the data about Brian’s school environment and playing Star Wars Galaxy is important for the article, but it is also really dense and somewhat hard to keep up with at times. I’m waiting for the conclusion section of the article to make sense of everything. I know it is important to read the data section even if it’s not fully understood by me because this data is what the researchers conclusion is going to be based on.
    • And it makes sense that this is hard to get through because imagine if it was a bunch of numbers, stats, and math equations. It wouldn’t make sense if we just see the data, but it will make sense to see what the researchers interpret from the data in the conclusion of the article.
    • I’ll see you in a bit for my thoughts and understanding of the conclusion summing things up.
  • We’ve made it to the conclusion folks. Buckle up.
    • When the authors state “This example illustrates how enrollment or engagement in literacy is not predetermined by institutional contexts writ large, but can be shaped by the particular space–time dimensions of teacher and student practices.” (Leander and Lovvorn 330)
      • I think I see a connection between that quote and Dr. Zamora’s class. The style where we present the material each week is different from other classes. So our engagement with the material is not predetermined just because we are in a college classroom. It was different from a traditional college classroom because it was shaped by Dr. Zamora’s and our actions. 
    • Another connection is the distinction between local and global sources. In the article, the stories that Brian’s history teacher tells are local stories while textbook sources are global sources.
      • In Dr. Zamora’s class, the stories she tells us about research that she has done would be a local story? I think. Would a published article be a global story? So maybe some of Dr. Zamora’s research stories would be local, but when talking about research that has been published or presented, would that be global? 
    • Okay so I got to the end of the article and I am having a hard time wrapping my head around everything. I’m looking forward to Dan’s presentation as I feel it will clear some things up. I do like how they used an MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role playing game) to explain the concepts. That helped me MASSIVELY and I didn’t know you could study videogames! How cool!

“Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of the One Youth”

I like to think of myself as someone who can pretty much get through anything. I typically might find readings interesting but that’s just because I am picking and your girl likes to be INVESTED. I have quickly learned that I do not need to be super interested in a work to finish reading it, understand the information, take what I need and move on. This week’s reading has made that process nearly impossible. Not only did I have no clue what I was reading but it was also super long. There is a lot of jargon that is just completely over my head so I was constantly stopping to make sure I understood what I was reading… I didn’t. I kept telling myself if I just kept going it would get better and eventually the reading would just click for me… it didn’t. I`m not even sure if I fully understand what some of the terms used in the reading actually mean, even after looking up definitions.  Unfortunately, I have to admit that this reading definitely won this week. It single handedly beat me up. If you want to scare someone away from getting in MA in Writing Studies this is what you show them.

Overall, what I gathered from the reading, if correct, is very limited. Basically they follow Brian a student and analyze his relationship with school, 2 different classes, and when he is gaming at home. They continue to mention “space-time”. I am not clear on what that exactly means but to ease my mind I honestly kept thinking of “time and place”, which is a phrase we hear on a daily basis. They notice that Brian`s reactions to his History class and English class differ and the different routines and environment affect his learning. One thing I did take away from the reading is that point. I absolutely think everything in the classroom and even the way information is taught affects a student’s learning. In text it says “From a relational perspective, the literacy networks in Brian’s school experiences have limited possibilities for engagement, identity, and agency because they primarily contain homogeneous representations of space–time.” This was interesting to me because I never thought about how doing and learning the same way over and over with the same circumstances is not always beneficial in a learning environment. This makes a lot of sense for younger me in environments where I felt like I excelled academically and ones where I did not. 

All in all, this reading through me for a loop. I tried my best to absorb and take away what I could.

Full disclosure, fellow classmates, this reading was another one that sent me seeking out your blog posts and, as of the writing of this post, I have checked out Daniel’s reaction paper and Fran’s blog post. I am impressed by Daniel’s grasp of “Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth,” by Kevin Leander and Jason Lovvorn. My own experience reading it was more similar to Fran’s. This text was super challenging to get through–I stopped reading the article early on and watched a few videos about actor network theory to try to get a handle on it. I also had to look up lots of the jargon, like Fran, and I considered abandoning the reading several times–I actually fell asleep while reading it more than once! But I did eventually get through it.

After I finished the article and started thinking about writing this blog post, I realized that most of what I read had very little impact on me. The only part I found interesting was the researchers’ interpretation of the teachers’ choices and their effect on Brian’s participation in class. As a former teacher, it was interesting to enter Brian’s school day and see how other teachers operated and how Brian reacted. It was both enlightening and humorous to learn that “Brian practiced the space–time of the English classroom not as a place to engage in research activity, but as a place merely to be informed about work that would be done elsewhere” (316-317).

This reading reminded me of “Body Ritual of the Nacirema,” by Horace Miner. Miner’s satiric anthropological paper pokes fun at American behaviors in the 1950s. Throughout the paper, Miner assigns extreme significance to unimportant daily rituals (Miner 505). Similarly, “Literacy Networks” exaggerates the importance of very minor details in Brian’s day. For example, his English teacher asked the students to put their research notes into a tub rather than a paper tray, so the researchers theorize that “Ms. Marshall was delayed in reading the cards, perhaps in part because the plastic tub was less of a well-worn and visible route in her evaluation processes” (314). No, dudes. Ms. Marshall is a high school teacher. She was delayed in reading the cards because she was teaching five classes and had a million things to grade and lesson planning to do. Maybe she decided to exercise one night or do her laundry instead of reading the cards, but I can most assuredly tell you that the reason she didn’t return the cards to Brian right away was NOT because of the tub! 

In his reaction to “Literacy Networks,” Daniel writes that “the emphasis on the importance of all non-human actants seems overstated,” and I agree. He explains that “[s]ince a pen can not analyze data, it can not be more important than a researcher.” The impact of the objects should be attributed not to the objects themselves, but to the people creating and using them. Placing an equal value on objects and people seems silly to me. Daniel sums it up perfectly when he says that “tools are important, but are definitely not as irreplaceable as people willing to do and capable of doing the research.”