Pelletier (2009)

Caroline Pelletier's piece links well to Patricia Lange's. There are some particularly useful insights in terms of thinking about how you might broach your various tasks. The argument about "in here" and "out there" is an interesting device to open up the many pre-existing dispositions many teachers have about computer games. She does a good job locating the work of a number of key players, including Gee in a broad and useful mapping of the field. Her critique of his work is worth a quiet ponder. The Making Games study reported in the paper, draws attention to the now familiar notion of people being not just consumers of things digital but also producers. Her last point about the way to think about learning (p. 100) is, I think, useful for your current thinking.

This is probably the most demanding as well as the most theoretically sophisticated paper of the readings. She summarises (p. 87) an important point re games and learning:

My argument is not therefore with Gee’s approach in general, but with the consequences of trying to remedy formal education through a particular construction of games and gaming.

And perhaps the most useful question in our collection of questions is at the end of this long quote:

One way of interpreting the research data would be to see them in terms of the colonization of a popular media form by the oppressive, authoritarian forces of such “traditional schooling”; students indeed did not make games that could be recognized according to many generic norms of commercial games, and in organizing their production work, realized social identities specific to the classroom. However, this interpretation assigns a particular essence to games that remains foundational across time and space. In effect, it extracts games from their context of emergence, which is precisely what “traditional schooling” is often understood to do to knowledge. If the relationship between games and learning is not to be conceptualized in terms of what games do to learners or the education system more generally, how can it be understood?