I posted my participation on NGD@yl on my blog: back2basics [dot] blogspot [dot] com. It is in an entry titled 'A day at the library'. I'm looking forward to doing more events like this. Liz's advice about planning now for next year is a good idea.

Follow your bliss,
JJ

Arg. Because I couldn't put the URL in I type it incorrectly. Here is the correct link: back2rpgbasics.blogspot.com

Regards,
JJ

Big whoop. Now what? Where's the momentum? What's the follow-up plan?

A toys & games manufacturer whose overseas suppliers pay its factory workers 112$/month and
shortchanges laid-off workers their severance pay can afford to generously donate its products. 300K
"free" games? Those were paid for - in sweat, tears, fear, labor violations, violent riots, and
international investigations.

The magnanimous sponsoring entertainment entity (having garnered young, captive US libraries audience just in time for its upcoming Discovery TV Channel programming network venture) can now re-
calculate [after losing its position of strength in a Disney/Mattel deal] its speculated share of revenue in
the lucrative 5.7B$ branded-licensing market. Think not that the NGD2009 surveys of those 1,365 libraries won't tally in that final count. And did its host -the ALA- even reap facilities rental fees for pre-view marketing access to its captive patrons? 300K "free" games? Somebody's paying for that, too: in staffing payroll, utilities, equipment, broadband, security, administrative, maintenance, lost taxes (these are, after all, donations to a non-profit), and other costs.

That's 300K too many.

But that's not a fault of Hasbro; it's a share-holding corporation. It fully comprehends on what side of
the desk it sits; it understands its raison d'être. I daresay that ALA's Gaming contingent seem to have
forgotten, or quite possibly mis-perceived itself from inception. However loosely defined, libraries are
primarily in the business of knowledge enterprise. Before anything else, the principal mandate is to serve information needs, render professional research assistance, augment educational services, supplement scholastic endeavors, and samesuch, in the pursuit of knowledge. ALA's stated mission "is
to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to
information for all.” But, NGD 2009 -as conceived and carried out- rendered its librarians as nothing more than Romper Room co-hosts (do recall the RR controversies of the 1960s), reduced to serving as GameStop clerks. Let parents, babysitters, and nannies execute playdates. Recreation and leisure should
have been deemed secondary or even tertiary aims of the events. NGD devalued the profession and ALA
promoted not improvement but inanity, and that on a national scale.

ALA's NGD initiative missed the mark, misunderstood its mandate, mis-conveyed its mission, mis-directed its energies, squandered its resources, misled the public, mis-guided the masses, and -all-in-all- mis-apprehneds its place along the value proposition.

Not one event was directly aimed to ensure that the 2009 Verizon Libraries, Literacy, and Gaming grants
were justified and would deserve re-funding in 2010. These events could have readily tied in with and
complemented the Department of Education's Race-To-The-Top Awards, its SFSF Invest In What Works
competition & Innovation Funds, E2T2 grants, and the National Science Foundation's Math Partnership
Program and its Innovative Technology for Students & Teachers testing and educational grants (and thereby, could have drawn from the more than 50B$ in stimulus funding). Despite all of the hype and hoopla, not one announced program among the 1,365 registered libraries highlighted learner and
academic outcomes in STEM (science, tech, engineering, maths) gaming. Not one NGD2009 outcome survey addressed or enumerated the place of gaming vis-à-vis these US Department of Education's
Institute of Educational Sciences NCES statistics on performance and achievement gaps:

..."However, the reading score of 12th-graders was 6 points lower in 2005 than in 1992". [...]

"The percentage of 12th-graders performing at or above Basic (Basic achievement level on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessment) was lower in 2005 than in 1992 (73 vs. 80 percent), as was the percentage of 12th-graders performing at or above Proficient (35 vs. 40 percent)".

Did NGD distinctly demonstrate that any students' assessment scores could be upped? It could have, if not so heavily invested in frivolity.

"Students in grade 12 scored 6 points lower on the reading assessment in 2005 (the last year 12th- graders were assessed in reading)than in 1992, but their 2005 score was not measurably different from their 2002 score..." (which means that when they weren't doing worse, they were doing no better).

Which Hasbro game addressed the matter of students' international comparisons of mathematics literacy?

"The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 reports: U.S. 15-year-olds performed below the international average of 29 industrialized countries in both mathematics literacy and problem
solving in 2003".

"U.S. 15-year-olds, on average, scored below the international average for participating OECD countries
in combined mathematics literacy, specific mathematics skill areas (space and shape, change and
relationships, quantity, and uncertainty), and problem solving (see table 17-1). In combined mathematics literacy, students in 20 OECD countries and 3 non-OECD countries outperformed U.S. students, while U.S. students outperformed students in 5 OECD countries and 6 non-OECD countries. In
problem solving, students in 22 OECD countries and 3 non-OECD countries outperformed U.S. students,
while U.S. students outperformed students in 3 OECD countries and 5 non-OECD countries".

Incompetence is not "darned cool".

Did the Super Smash Brothers Brawl (which I viewed) tackle the following scholastic challenge?:

"The OECD average score of males was greater than that of females in combined mathematics literacy and in each of the four mathematics subscales in 2003 (see table 17-2). Males outperformed females in two-thirds of the participating countries in combined mathematics literacy; Iceland was the only country
where females outperformed males. In the United States, males outperformed females in both combined mathematics literacy and the space and shape subscale."

"The cutoff scores for both the top and bottom 10 percent of U.S. students (the highest and lowest achievers) in combined mathematics literacy were lower than the overall OECD cutoff scores for these percentiles, respectively (see table 17-3)".

Did NGD incorporate STEM gaming as a desired NEEDED public service to its patrons, because according to NCED's International Comparisons of Science Literacy:

" [...] The 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2006) reports on the science literacy
of 15-year-olds in 57 educational jurisdictions, including the 30 member countries of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 27 non-OECD countries and sub-national education systems.

"T

continued...

Did NGD incorporate STEM gaming as a desired NEEDED public service to its patrons, because according to NCED's International Comparisons of Science Literacy:

" [...] The 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2006) reports on the science literacy
of 15-year-olds in 57 educational jurisdictions, including the 30 member countries of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 27 non-OECD countries and sub-national education systems.

"The average U.S. science literacy score was below the average of the 30 OECD-member countries. U.S. students had a lower average score than students in 16 OECD-member countries and a higher average score than students in 5 OECD-member countries".

"On specific scientific skill subscales measured in PISA 2006, the average score of U.S. students was below the OECD average in explaining phenomena scientifically and in using scientific evidence".

And it's not as though the ALA Gaming contigent had no knowledge of or access to pertinent products that could aim towards addressing these deficits.

"Science performance of students at grades 4, 8, and 12:

"In 2005, the average science score of students was higher at grade 4 than in previous assessment years,
was not measurably different at grade 8, and was lower at grade 12 than in 1996. Achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced), which identify what students should know and be able to do at each grade, provide another measure of student performance".

Ineptitude sucks; it decidedly does not rock.

"International Trends in Science Report:

"The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), conducted in 2007, assessed students' science scale average scores." "The four countries with higher TISS science scale average scores grade 4) than the United States were Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), and Japan". "The nine countries with higher (grade 8) average scores than the United States were Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Republic of Korea, England, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and the Russian Federation".

"The average science scores in 2007 for both U.S. 4th- and 8th-grade students were not measurably different from those in 1995 (see tables A-16-3 and A-16-4)". (That is, no better, no worse...)

And fecklessness is not a virtue. Stop touting and trumpeting it as such.

ALA's gaming program is disjunctive, disjointed, and wholly disconnected from anything meaningfully
measureable. "Where the rubber meets the road" with your mis-guided ilk at the helm has led to a
mindless descent towards a steep decline in sense and usefulness.

Laverne,

You're comparing librarians to GameStop clerks, and saying that because NGD does not have an immediate, measurable, positive impact on education that it's a waste of time? You're saying that gaming is not in with the mission of the ALA? I could hit rewind and play on my tape recorder and spout the usual "mountains of research...positive benefits over time...reinforces various literacies--including technological and social" but I see that all of that would be lost on you. You are all about the facts: the numbers, the charts, the graphs. If we were to reduce all library services to those which could be supported by such indicators, libraries the world over would offer nothing. We can't immediately prove that a diverse and current reference collection will help students with college research, or that a well-stocked juvenile fiction collection will lead to a lifetime love of reading: why are you holding games and gaming to these standards? No, because a kid played Super Smash Bros. at their library, they may not ace that math test they have the next week at school. But by playing that game, the same mental muscles they use to do math have been exercised. Plus, they may have met some new friends or saw a book that piqued their interest. If nothing else, that kid is no longer intimidated by the library or the librarians they saw at NGD, making them more willing to approach the staff when they need help on their homework, when they are looking for a math tutor, or the like. Can I prove this? No. It is what is called an "immeasurable outcome," and it's what libraries operate on. Sure, Circ stats are great, but face it: the only reason a library ever does anything is based on immeasurable outcomes. Every book ordered, every program planned, every dollar spent is something that MIGHT help somebody: not something that WILL. So while you're waving your stats around, we're trying to find ways to engage youth, to get them into the library, to make the library a place they want to be and librarians people they want to talk to; we're trying to offer them activities that will help them use their brains, build better social skills, and become all-around better people. Meanwhile, you're glad to point out how all this is not helping while not really saying a whole lot on how it can be improved. And further more: so we helped Hasbro advertise. Are we to turn away any donations by any for-profit corporation now? If Apple donates us laptops, or Microsoft donates us software, are we to say “No thank you, good sirs: we cannot abide this free advertisement?” If a patron donates their private collection to us, do we say “No! You can use that donation as a tax break, and we cannot abide by that!” This is a give-and-take world, especially in the current economic climate. Hasbro might see some financial benefit from these donations, but we’re going to be able to use these games for programs over the next several years. We’re benefiting just as much, if not more than they are. Finally, you seem to be the type that wants libraries to be hallowed halls in the ivory tower, where only discriminating academics frequent. I have news for you: they are not. Libraries, especially public libraries, are used by all walks of life: researchers, pleasure readers, job seekers, and yes—caffeine-riddled, basement-dwelling gamers. If you want all walks of life to continue to use the library—and hence boost those numbers you love so dearly—then you need to appeal to all walks of life. And in case you haven’t noticed: there are a lot of gamers out there. That’s not to say that games are just a means to an end; after all, there’s a lot of research out there discussing the intellectual and educational values of games, which I alluded to at the beginning of this response. So it would seem to me that: games and gaming have a place in the library, NGD was a huge success on all levels, and you’re just a nitpicking naysayer: which I am surprised at, given your lengthy discussion on this blog, recently, about games and gaming as a valuable learning tool. But, I supposed you were only considering games with an overt educational purpose, which would tie in nicely with your “hallowed halls” ideas about libraries (I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you only want books with overt research/instructional purposes on the shelf). Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a Dungeons and Dragons program—the one where I have participants keep in-character journals to improve their creative writing and thinking skills, and where I (as a player) get them thinking about strategy and tactics and calculating risks—to plan for.

Madame, your analytical and interpretive skills are sorely lacking, as evidenced above. Which is further evidence why you are barely equipped to guide patrons across the street, much less usher them into the future of 21st-century literacy.

I myself am a gamer; I also produce a nanogaming/nanoart/nanoscience blog. I've disseminated information regarding the correlation between gaming and scholastic achievement.

The stats aren't mine; they were produced by the same educational entities which qualify and assess the same young scholars whom you're leading down a dank ditch.

When the call was first put out by the Gaming interest group(during this past spring)for ideas re NGD, I proferred suggestions, products, tools, and proven programmes (some especially created/developed by/for gamers within academia and school systems) wholly suitable and compatible with the higher and longer-term aims of this effort and this institution.

That Hasbro's sweatshop labor scandals do not disturb you (or at least elicit response from you) is another measure of
your mind.

And, indeed, this is all about the MIND; the collective mind, that which governs actions, choices; thoughts of the group which underly understanding of what an institution is, what a nation wants, and what its populace needs. Moreover, the Mind of a governing body establishes its intents. So, quintessentially, my challenge to the Gaming contingent was/is: what are your INTENTIONS? What are you doing and WHY?
Any trustee board, any state treasury asks the same when it allots library budgets.

And, as I, too, am one of the group, I expressed my MIND about what I see manifesting.

You presume much about me personally, Liz, and that much incorrectly.

Your sarcasm and snideness are misplaced: I am not your enemy. Your self-satisfaction, self-delusion, and self-deception are.

I perceive that if the present course of you mis-guided mavens is not altered, by next year this time, the Gaming contingent will be BSoDed.

And so might this column.

Foremost, LaVerne, your ad hominem attack is risible because you don't even bother to recognize whom you are talking to. If you actually read my posts in the past, you would know that I sign my own comment-responses with my own name. Although I agree with many of the things he says, I am not level250geek. He has commented on a number of occasions and also been a guest blogger, as you were.

Frankly, the petty sarcasm and rhetorical failures embedded in your wall of words creates commentary that hardly merits the time to craft the response I began earlier. You show no interest in dialog or discussion, only in verbally savaging anyone within reach. That's not about improving anything, and thus your remarks are no different from those of the common Internet troll.

I don't feed trolls.

I AM NOT LIZ DANFORTH.

Librarians participating in NGD and integrating gaming into their programs and services as a whole have spent many, many words about our intent: what we hope to accomplish, how we hope to accomplish it, so on and so on. If you haven't heard us say anything, might I suggest you actually pay attention when we speak?