Just a quick post on Thomas Derrick's article on the DOSequis game that he plays in class-- perhaps I'm just an idiot and am missing something here, but I don't see the overarching pedagogical point of the game that he devised. Am I remiss in thinking that when students switch monitor cables and then play what appears to be an elaborate game that exists somewhere between "20 Questions," "Telephone," and "Madlibs," they're not really doing very much work in the class? I think the game is cool, don't get me wrong, but, and perhaps it's because I'm just missing the context in which the game is being played, I don't understand the larger focus in making up sentences in coordination. I like the "blind, collaborative composition" idea, but where's the rationale for having students create a discreet piece of writing around keywords? Are the lessons all about relying on collaborators to create projects in a very unreal writing situation? If the game doesn't have a relative real-world parallel, then will students understand its value? I guess I;m looking for where and when the meaning of the exercise is transmitted to the students performing the work.

I do appreciate his larger claim that "games that employ the computer as a dumb translator often exploit the intelligence of student writers," understanding that "exploit" is meant in a positive way. I'm also sure that I don't use games in Freshman Comp because I haven't had positive experiences in using them before.

Perhaps the main issue that I'm wrestling with here doesn't necessarily have to do with the game in particular, but with how we employ "fun" uses of technology within our classrooms. I just assume that a number of instructors use tech as a crutch that they know students will engage with without thinking about the rationale for its use. That's something that I'm sure will come up again and again throughout the semester.