Chapter 7 & 8 Lundsford Assignment. (Excused Absence 4/8)

I would classify my research as evaluative rather than fact or definition. Evaluative arguments tend to compare one thing to another, and my research tends to compare the standard teaching methods such as classroom lectures to a more modern method of using computer games. Lundsford gives examples of evaluation arguments such as arguing about how you may think that Miss Alabama would have been a better Miss America than Miss New York. The research that I have found by Prensky, Gee, Van Eck and Johnson does essentially the same thing. It evaluates how each of these researchers thinks that digital game-based learning has more to offer than traditional teaching methods. My articles do not argue for the definition of digital-game based learning like Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola argue about what the definition of digital literacy is and should contain. My research also does not pertain to a situation like that of Malcolm X. Malcolm X used facts such as being in prison and writing dictionary words to show how he learned to be literate, but the research I found is not conducted in this same way. The articles I am using for my argument are characterized by reason. They do not involve numbers, but rather, are shaped by language and various kinds of logic (Lundsford, 256). On page 262, Lundsford also states that in order to develop an evaluative argument, one should establish a claim, imply his/her belief, draw out a warrant, and then state evidence. Each of my articles states a claim about digital game-based learning being effective. They each then follow their claim with reason. For example, Johnson uses cognitive learning as his learning. Next they each make their own warrant pertaining to how digital game-based learning allows students to interact and engage certain skills while learning, and then each article lists its own evidence. For example, Prensky uses the military as evidence to support the use of digital game-based learning.
My research is not necessarily based on fact. It is difficult to use numbers, surveys, statistics, etc. to prove that digital game-based learning is effective because rather than there being one or two specific skills that can be learned, there are multiple skills that can be learned by playing computer games. Also, each game that is played allows a student to apply the information he/she has just learned but each game uses different information and requires different types of interaction; therefore, making it hard to come to a conclusion with numbers when researching this topic. In Lunsford, examples of fact include seeing and hearing things; however, the effects of digital game-based learning cannot clearly be seen or heard.
While each of my articles states that digital game-based learning includes the use of computer games as a method of learning, they are not arguing about what the definition of digital game-based learning should entail, they are arguing for the use of computer games as an educational tool in classrooms. The arguments do not fall under the category of formal definitions, operational definitions, etc., therefore, they are not considered arguments of definition.