The Effect of Learning on Identity

Patrick D. Huff


Dr. Kathleen Plinske
EDOL 755.20
Pepperdine University

Abstract

This missive addresses the questions posed by Dr. Plinske in Forum-6 pertaining to Chapter 3 of James Paul Gee’s book, What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Dr. Plinske indicates that in Gee's Chapter 3 he emphasizes how all learning is about forming a new identity. Specifically, Dr. Plinske’s questions are, “Do you think that your identity has been changed at all thus far in the EDOL program? If so, how? If not, why do you think that is?” Specifically then in the context of Gee’s observations on learning he suggests that there are essentially twelve basic learning principles that apply as related to interfacing with and “being drawn” into a “committed” learning experience in the context of interactive video games that perhaps may have an effect on ones identity. The twelve basic learning principles he cites are: 1) Active Critical, 2) Design Principle, 3) Semiotic Principle, 4) Semiotic Domain, 5) Meta-level Thinking, 6) Psychosocial Moratorium Principle, 7) Committed Learning Principle, 8) Identity Principle, 9) Self-knowledge Principle, 10) Amplification of Input Principle, 11) Achievement Principle, 12) Practice Principle, 13) Ongoing Learning Principle, 14) Regime of Competence Principle. In Gee’s Chapter 3 he focuses on principles 6 through 14 as referenced above. By placing Dr. Plinske’s questions in context with Gee’s Principles this paper reflects on perhaps how our E-learning studies, directed internet exposures and readings embedded within the Educational Doctorate Of Leadership Program have affected or changed our identity’s; and if so, how? This missive cites numerous affects or impacts on my identity as a result of these learning exposures and elaborates on why within the context of Gee’s Principles in Chapter 3.

Introduction

Prior to becoming emerged in Dr. Plinske’s E-Learning course I felt reasonably certain I was operating comfortably within my “regime of competency” as a senior level executive and consultant in the fields of architecture, engineering and business management. Global changes in the areas of social, political, economic, legal, inter-cultural and technology turned that identity upside down. The causation of this incident was rapid and unmitigated change in my associated semiotic domains. These changes came in the form of ever increasing amounts of information that effected values and outcomes in each of the areas referenced that had served me in the past.

What I needed was a rebuilding program embedded within a low risk environment. I felt just such a environment could be found within the learning center of a university. Well, I was right! However, what I was about to experience was totally unexpected. Each time I attended a class the professor turned my identity “apple cart” upside down! In this case, the apple cart was the identity I believed I was totally comfortable with and proud of.

The Problem

Aside from my general identity crisis, I discovered in the context of Dr. Plinske’s E-learning course, I did not appreciate just how “out of touch” with digital media technologies I had become. This came to me as somewhat of a surprise. I was fully employed in the course of my professional work and operating in accord with my client’s needs and requirements performing with excellent and profitable results; at least in the view of my clients.

In my line of work, not unlike many others, the true mark of success is valued by receiving a commissioned appointment, accomplishing it in such a fashion as then to be recommended for another. Perhaps a true sign of success came from being acknowledged for your competency and ability to perform in a professional venue after being continuously commissioned (employed) for a minimum of let’s say five to seven years.

Having accomplished this mark and beyond in my professional practice I felt I was highly competent. Well, maybe not! Somehow, in a quite unexpected fashion, yes, Dr. Plinske shamed me into a self-admission that somewhere along the way my “ongoing learning principle” had in fact become derailed.

Exploring the Importance of the Problem

Although I do not believe this lapse of competence came as the result of a “psychological moratorium principle” related to work place learning opportunities I do believe a contributing factor to my lapse in the digital “semiotic domain” came from the fact that those work places I was exposed to did not openly endorse risk taking (at less in most instances). In fact, the undertaking of low levels of risk in light of relatively low potential consequences was discouraged in favor of continuity, normative or predictable outcomes.

This perhaps may be truer pertaining to the practice of architecture, engineering and large business, but then, I think a lot of executives may fall into this operational trap after the first two to three years of continuous (successful) commissioned assignments. Post this initial period of employment one becomes subject to and perhaps falls into a comfortable or relaxed mode of operation. Once established in this mode, one focuses on other forms of enjoyable pursuits. For example, enjoying family and other pleasures in life, e.g. ”the beach, and just hanging out”. After all, they have climbed to the top of their profession. What could possibly go wrong?

The problem is human knowledge is doubling roughly every twenty-five years. One can no longer allow human comforts and the absence of focus to negatively affect a continued learning process, or what Gee calls the “ongoing learning principle”. By not exposing yourself to self reassessment and yes “to risk” you are entering troubled waters.

What is the risk? The risk is thinking your current “real-world” identity is going to serve you well in the next epoch of your life. As you move forward developing a virtual and projective identity you may find yourself stumbling into a sizable rabbit hole with no ladder out.

Relevant Scholarship

Gee and Dr. Plinske expose new and innovative thinking pertaining to how one should continue on a “committed learning” quest for knowledge and discovery in order to stay relevant and serve our community. Barring removing the barriers to “self-knowledge” we tend to continue to build comfort barriers around ourselves. We accept our identities as we alone see them. Unfortunately, identities in these fast moving times are suspect to significant challenges in both a virtual (digital) environment as well as those that become a reflection of what we represent in projective domains.

Time to Re-assess and Evolve

It’s simple in concept but under the surface where “the devil is in the details”, what Gee and Dr. Plinske propose in a subtle way is for one to engage in a process of active reassessment and redesign of identity possibly at the metalevel of our semiotic domains. In fact, I believe they are venture partners in offering us a psychosocial moratorium, “yes” a reset button with relatively low risk allowing us the opportunity to explore and reinvent our identity.

Simply stated, I believe pushing the reset button as Gee and Dr. Plinske suggest will assist me in a low risk environment to reset and adapt to a new and natural identity. By virtue of a committed learning process I believe this awakening will serve to raise my awareness sufficiently enough that in the days ahead relapses to the evolution of my identity will be limited and manageable.
 
Discussion

The Central Questions

Dr. Plinske’s indicates that in Gee's Chapter 3 he emphasizes how all learning is about forming a new identity. Specifically she asks, “Do you think your identity has been changed thus far in the EDOL program?”

After examining what I have been exposed to since the beginning of this journey I would suggest from “day one” my identity has been challenged and under the “influence of change”. The challenge has been one of defining “who I am” and who my “Board of Directors” are. That considered I have moved on in an attempt to get to the bottom of what my needs are and what motivates me.

How did this happen to me?

The process of self-definition, assessment, re-assessment and redefinition started as we commenced with identifying personal trait inventories and emotional intelligence surveys. This experience was causational to me removing my comfort barriers and accepting a reconstruction of my identity.

Why did this happen to me?

In a well planned and semiotic way, all of the coursework and learning endeavors have served to enforce each other. In fact, I would suggest all the cohorts in the program have joined a semiotic “affinity group”. Perhaps the university’s semiotic (learning) domain is changing all of the cohorts identities, for certain it is changing mine.

What remains is to continue removing chips and reshaping those figurative granite shapes we arrived in by removing undefining portions of the rock as we continue along. In the end, our learning path will leave us in a more perfect shape, character and identity. This collaborative semiotic domain coupled with committed learning with a psychosocial moratorium has initiated a journey, one that is redefining who I am and who I shall become.