I really liked Patricia Dunn’s article “Re-Seeing (Dis)Ability: Ten Suggestions” because she argued that making curriculum more inclusive for students with disabilities is better for all students in the classroom. Her list of ten suggestions would definitely benefit all students because her recommendations are very general: using technology, using various types of assessment, having thoughtful discussions about disability, etc. I definitely agree with her suggestions because they echo a lot of what we have learned in class this semester. They are suggestions that would make the classroom more inclusive for students with all different identities, not just related to disability. Her suggestions recognize that all students have various strengths and interests that should be understood and valued in the classroom.

Still, I feel like students with serious learning disabilities would still need special accommodations in the classroom. Varying the types of assignments and assessments may not do enough to ensure that each student is getting the quality education that they deserve. I think Dunn’s ideas on more inclusive pedagogies must still be integrated with special needs programs to address students with more severe disabilities. I really don’t know anything about these types of programs and I would be curious to learn more.

The Gee article for this week reminded me of a series of Nancy Drew-themed video games that I used to play on my computer in middle and high school. In each game, you are Nancy Drew and you get to solve a mystery. They have titles like “Nancy Drew and the Haunted Mansion” and “Nancy Drew and the Secret of the Scarlet Hand.” In the games, you control Nancy as she walks around the game world. There was a lot of reading involved because there would inevitably be a creepy library full of books or a bunch of old love letters that Nancy found hidden in a secret box, and some of the clues to solve the mystery were contained in the written text, so literacy was directly involved in the game in that way. Nancy also got to interview lots of suspicious people and talk to them throughout the game, so you had to listen carefully to what they said to pick out clues.

My favorite part of the games was that there would be a lot of puzzles to solve. The puzzles could be anything from organizing  a lot of objects in the right order to reading up on how to play chess and then having to beat another character at chess in order to “win” some vital information for the case. Solving these puzzles applies to many of the points Gee brought up about video games, such as co-design, distributed knowledge, well-ordered problems, system thinking, and skills as strategies. The puzzles also relate to the Frey and Fisher article about motivation. I felt motivated to complete each task because it was a do-able challenge and I could contribute to the outcome.

I always played the Nancy Drew games collaboratively with my younger sister. We would fight about whose turn it was to “be the mouse.” Whoever didn’t get to control the mouse that day was the secretary. We kept meticulous notes on each game and wrote down clues, observations, and numbers we had to remember like lock combinations. Sometimes we would have to identify specific objects, like in one game where we had to know the difference between various types of clouds (stratus, cirrus, cumulus, etc.), so the secretary had to draw pictures of all the different clouds so we could identify them later in the game. Taking notes outside the game helped us keep track of our thoughts so we could better analyze the game. I think this example shows that video games can be much more social than we assume. We often picture “gamers” as nerds with no people skills who sit at home playing video games all day to avoid social contact. However, video games can be a collaborative effort. Sometimes my sister would be better than me at solving a certain puzzle and she could teach me how to do it, so I learned new skills with her help. Three of my (female) cousins also played the Nancy Drew games around the same time that we did, so we had a LOT of discussions and debates about them: which game was the best, which was the scariest, which was the hardest, which had the best characters, etc. Video games can promote thoughtful discussion and engage various literacy skills.

The readings for this week redefine what it means to learn something. Many teachers believe their job is to teach the students some kind of truth or lesson that conveys information. For example, the purpose of a lesson about the Diary of Anne Frank might be to convey the prepackaged idea that Anne is a symbol of optimism within a bad situation. However, the authors of both readings want to challenge the idea that the teacher’s role is to tell their students universal truths. Instead, teaching is about giving students the tools they need to analyze the world around them. Learning should not just be listening to a lecture where the teacher tells the students everything they need to know about Anne Frank. Learning should be encouraging the students to figure out information by themselves using different sources that might contradict each other. It is more useful for the students to be able to analyze these sources for their validity and their significance, rather than simply telling the students what is important. I loved the examples in both readings because the students were actively engaged in their learning. The authors value the students’ input and don’t just see students as empty vessels that need to be filled with information.

The readings reminded me that learning should be an empowering experience. As a student, I feel empowered when I am challenged to creatively analyze the course content in my own way. Teachers should be aware of how they view their students and how their assignments might be either empowering or disempowering to students. The readings for this week are also similar to the education as social justice readings we did before break because the students in these classrooms were expected to understand social inequity. I liked how Larry Steele ended his article by explaining that he doesn’t care what jobs his students will have in the future, but he hopes that they bring knowledge about social justice to whatever job they might work at. Teaching students to think analytically about social justice does not necessarily mean they will all end up working for non-profits or other like-minded organizations; it means that they will be prepared to consider social and environmental costs at any career they choose. They will be empowered to promote change in whatever area becomes their passion.