Digital Game Involvement

Calleja, G (2007) Digital Game Involvement: A Conceptual Model, Games and Culture 2(3), 236-260

In this article Calleja argues for the need to re-conceptualize game involvement normally represented through the metaphor of ‘immersion’ as a sort of uni-dimensional ‘mental’ (noetic) plunging into the virtual world. Involvement in game playing is physical in addition to mental, and also multifaceted rather than uni-dimentional. It involves several dimensions of game playing—strategic (engagement with all forms of decision-making within the game), performance (with all modes of avatar or game piece control in the digital environment), affective, sharing (with all aspects of interaction with other agents in the game world), narrative (with design-based and/or player-generated stories), and spatial (with a wider game area than what can be seen on the screen). These dimensions are experienced in a “complected fashion” with various degrees of intensity and fluid shifts in the relevance of one dimension over another. Game involvement is thus better represented in the metaphor of ‘incorporation’—“the subjective experience of inhabiting a virtual environment facilitated by the potential to act meaningfully within it while being present to others”(p. 257, my emphasis). ‘Incorporation’ is thus the result of “this fluid intermingling of players’ experiential intensities” and the notion attempts to account for the mental inhabiting of the virtual world as much as for our actual physical embodiment to and embodied interaction with others in that world through avatars. This re-conceptualization of the metaphor for gaming and online world experience —from ‘immersion’ to ‘incorporation’—also entails less of a separation between the virtual and immediate physical environment of the player.

Calleja adopts Goffman (1974) ’s notion of ‘frames’ through the work of Fine (1983) who redefines these ‘schemata of interpretation’ through which we organize and label experience as “worlds of meaning”, and establishes the above mentioned dimensions of involvement as “involvement frames”. He cautions us to remember that they are only described separately for heuristic purposes since in actuality they are never experienced in isolation but always in relation to each other, with some acquiring more relevance than others at certain stages of the involvement development. An important argument made against prior theoretical stances in game theory is that game activity (or ‘ergodicity’) should not be seen as a simple function of direct action or input by the player visible on the screen, potential and readiness to act are also crucial indicators, only perceivable from the multidimensional model of player involvement proposed here.

I very much like Calleja’s multicomponential and fluid or emergent perspective on involvement (which I closely associate with ‘motivation’). It seems much more useful than the classical intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy. It allows for a very systemic perspective on what causes or encourages it. However, the multidimentionality of the matter also makes it very challenging to believe that as teachers and designers of learning experiences we can have any real control over it. And yet, game design theory—to which Calleja is contributing—as well as gaming experiences show that ensuring and enhancing involvement is possible, at least in the game. How different can leveraging involvement in L2 learning really be?

Book review on New (digital) literacies

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2006) New Literacies: Everyday Practices & Classroom Learning, 2^nd edition, Berkshire: McGraw Hill

 Summary

In the (revised) second edition of their widely acclaimed book New Literacies: Everyday Practices & Classroom Learning Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel explore the impact of the massive growth of electronic information and communication technologies on the practice and concept of literacy to then discuss its implications for formal instruction. The authors’ contribution—as reflected in the tripartite organization of their book—is at once ethnographic, conceptual, and programmatic. From an insider (or emic) perspective they thoroughly account, on the one hand, for the ‘digital’ or technical novelty of the multiple new ‘post-typographic’ forms of texts, text production and dissemination afforded by the rise of the Internet and its associated technologies. On the other hand, (on the shoulders of former New Literacy Studies scholar) they further develop the concept of ‘new literacies’ locating novelty in the unprecedented forms of texts and text production afforded by the new technologies—the new ‘technical stuff’—as well as in the new collaborative, participatory and distributive paradigm—the new ‘ethos stuff’— underlying current ways of producing and exchanging texts. Lastly, they explore the insights that the study of young people’s out-of-school literacy practices might yield for classroom learning. New literacies, according to Lankshear and Knobel, are attached to a new logic of social interaction, a drastically new mindset about the world centered on the values of collaboration, participation, distributed expertise, and—most importantly—relatedness (not information!). These new literacies are being strongly embraced by young people outside of school and yet largely ignored by educational systems. New Literacies’ potential contribution to formal instruction can be vast yet it remains subject, the argument goes, to educators’ deep understanding, value and experience of the new paradigm. Their work attempts to contribute to such understanding by describing, classifying and analyzing the nature and possible educational impact of new online and digitally-mediated literacy practices.

Website review--Onestopenglish.com

Macmillan English Campus. (2010) One stop English Number one for English language teachers. Retrieved from www.onestopenglish.com

One Stop English: EFL material developers in contact with the users of their products

One Stop English is a teacher’s resource website published by the Macmillan Education Group. In its subscription version (available for about 60$ a year) the website offers a large amount of fairly good quality resources in all skills of EFL teaching. Materials are designed from a Communicative Language Teaching paradigm by “ELT authors” with Macmillan who also keep their own blogs on the site or link out to other relevant one on different tips and resources for teachers (like one on web resources to improve your classroom practice (http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2011/04/17/visualization-update/ and another one by the author of “An A-Z of ELT”, a McMillan dictionary of terminology on English language teaching who felt his publication would benefit from an online update and enrichment from practicing classroom teachers. (http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/). All activities have a section for users’ comments which according to their authors shape activities update and design. Materials address all skills as well as grammar and vocabulary work and have some sort of agreement to use news published issues from the british newspaper The Guardian, whose stories tend to feature lesson activities. Materials offered on this site are highly multimodal with an emphasis, however, on aural than iconographic information. They come in multiple-level versions and can be searched and retrieved according to age of learners, levels of proficiency, age of learners, ESP areas, skills, and assessment purpose.

A feature of particular interest from an intercultural competence as well as World Englishes perspective is their brief (3-5 minutes) “Live from… authentic interviews” podcasts which gather the views of all kinds of English-speakers (native and non-native) around the world on specific topics (e.g., What stereotypes about Spanish and Spanish people annoy you?, addressed to people in Andalucía). Exposing students to non-native accents of English seems particularly valuable in an EFL, particularly if the teacher is a NS.

            Another potentially valuable aspect of this website is its emphasis on work around the written language and the integration of reading&writing with listening practice and other aspects of communicative and interpretive competence development. Three of this website’s features stand out in this respect: the “Serialized Macmillan readers” with downloadable read-alouds, transcripts and accompanying activities; weekly episodes of the soap opera “The road less traveled” (with podcast, transcripts and exercises), also featuring NS and NNS speech; and “mini-plays” aimed at giving students insights into “relevant modern day UK society and associated language”, again reaching beyond national standard dialects and resorting to various modes beyond verbal language.

In terms of CALL the site does not seem to particularly promote the use of computer and internet-mediated language learning but its lesson plans and general materials include fairly well-prepared “Webquests” on specific topics, which give students enough structure and guidance on web research (with links which actually work!) and yet also encourage a certain degree of individual and further exploration of other topics. As to the approach to language learning, I found that the way in which questions and webquest tasks are prepared seemed to allow for a fairly good integration of language skills through a literacy-based approach to FL learning emphasizing reflection, interpreting and analysis of different approaches to the topics researched. Finally, a last feature of the site which seems interesting from a multimodal, i-mode (language) learning and new literacies perspective is the “video projects” model lesson plans posted under the site’s “integrated skills” subsection, under the major “skills” section. Here an ‘ELT author’ guides teachers and students to develop their own multimodal texts (going from movie reviews to be posted on the web to short promotional videos or oral history documentaries local themes or community members) through comprehensive teaching notes and student worksheets as well as tips for recording and downloading videos.  Students are requested to work with personal digital cameras or mobile phones. Sharing the products on sites like you YouTube and Google video is one of the final goals of these activities. Emphasis is put on not relying excessively on writing and combining it with sound and (moving) images.

Halliday's view of "literacy"

Hi!

A couple of weeks ago as we were commenting Lankshear and Knobel’s as well as Reinhardt and Thorne’s work on digital (L2) literacies development, I mentioned how the definition of literacies as the ability to make meaning valid to a certain community of practice through a variety of codes including but not restricted to verbal and written language was not ‘bought’ by my ‘hero’ Michael Halliday. I meant to share a couple of his quotes on the subject with you and I will in a sec. But basically his idea is that written language, i.e, the way in (or wordings with) which we make meanings in writing, has evolved—like language in general—to serve specific purposes in the ‘social semiotic’ (the dialectically shaped semiotic whole/system made up of language and society). It is not just spoken language written down, it arose to serve specific social functions and then also shaped and was shaped by a specific way of knowing: scientific knowledge as opposed to everyday knowledge. It thus represent or talks about the world in a different way than spoken language does (more statically, as things; as opposed to in movement, as processes). This different representational perspective is inscribed in the wordings used in writing, which are largely different from the wording of spoken discourse. We come to command the written way of meaning through a long and often unconscious process of socialization into the ideal of literacy predominant in our communities. Such command of the written way of making meaning, was unfortunately for too long privileged against the spoken way of meaning making. Despite the welcome current validation of spoken language (regardless of the medium used to convey the meanings it expresses), in no small part due to the rise of internet technologies, command of written language is still an important gatekeeper to arenas of intellectual prestige like academia. Now, despite its clearly distinctive features, not all written discourses are purely written in their form, people rather talk of a spoken/written continuum; however tendencies towards the poles are distinct and real. Research also shows that command of the written language is most often not acquired naturally, unless highly exposed to it. So if we are in anyway committed to education as a vehicle for social equity and the exploration of the potential of the diverse codes we have at hand to mean and how these combine, it will have to be taught and be an object of inquiry. That is why Halliday, as I understand it, argues for the importance of retaining a word to talk about our ability to use written language to mean.

Now the 'master' himself...:

“In many instances the term literacy has come to be dissociated from reading and writing, and written language, altogether, and generalized so as to cover all forms of discourse, spoken as well as written. In this way it comes to refer to effective participation of any kind in social processes. Having argued for much of my working life that we still do not properly value spoken language, or even properly describe it, I naturally sympathize with those who use the term in this way, to the extent that they are by implication raising the status of speaking, of the spoken language, and of the discourse of so-called "oral cultures". The problem is that if we call all these things literacy, then we shall have to find another term for what we called literacy before, because it is still necessary to distinguish reading and writing practices from listening and speaking practices. Neither is superior to the other, but they are different;  and, more importantly, the interaction between them is one of the friction points at which new meanings are created.4 So here I shall use literacy throughout to refer specifically to writing as distinct from speech: to reading and writing practices, and to the forms of language, and ways of meaning, that are typically  associated with them.” Halliday, 2007, pp. 97-98

Note 4: The situation is similar to that which arises with the term language. If we want to extend it to mathematics, music and other semiotic systems, in order to emphasize their similarities of form or function or value in the culture, then we have to find another term for language. The expression natural language arose in response to just this kind of pressure. I am not aware of any comparable term for literacy in its canonical sense.

The entire article goes on explaining the specific features of written language from a linguistic perspective and detailing the distinct contexts were it has developed and the functions it has come to serve. In the name of the paradigm of ‘dispersion, relatedness and sharing’ here’s a digital copy I ‘happen’ to have on his writings on educational linguistics, in case you’re interested...:) 

 (Wait! I still need to work on my new literacIES skills to post it... If I can't pull it please ask me and I'll email it to you)

Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Literacy and Linguistics: A Functional Perspective (1996) In J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 97-132). London; New York, NY: Continuum.

SNSs potential for FL pedagogy

McBride, K. (2009), Social-Networking Sites in Foreign Language Classes: Opportunities for Re-creation. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.) In The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp.35-58). San Marcos, TX: CALICO

Summary:

SNSs potential for FL pedagogy: ‘self-authorship’ development

In this theory-driven chapter, McBride reviews the potential of Social Network Sites (SNS) for second language (L2) pedagogy as ideally posed to develop two crucial aspects of L2 learners’ interactional skills: the pragmatic knowledge and ability to participate in today’s most significant space of social interaction—the Internet—and the intellectual autonomy and critical awareness to pursue learning beyond contexts of formal instruction. Such potential rests on the emerging view, among literacy scholars, of Web 2.0 technologies—of which SNSs are crucial exemplars—as promoting values of information dispersion (as opposed to scarcity) and participation (as opposed to information consumption) and therefore affording fundamentally new literacy and social practices anchored in new modes of authorship, meaning and identity construction.

SNSs are not only described as integral to the lives, learning styles and peculiar thought patterns of “neo-millenial”, “net-generation’ or ‘digital natives’ students, but, similarly to meaningful L2 learning contexts,  also fundamentally organized around the features of self-expression, social interaction and the ‘performance of identities’. This in itself justifies exploring their use in L2 pedagogy. In particular, McBride invites us to value the potential of SNSs as spaces where “users “write themselves into being” through their personal profiles”(38) and notice the contribution of this technology to learners’ practice of “self-authorship”—or “the writing/remixing [of] the self through the manipulation of text and media”(40). She compels us to understand this concept dually: not only from an expressive perspective furthering a pragmatically appropriate literacy development but also as the development of critical awareness skills which will prompt learners into an exploration of the views and worlds of themselves and others. Practice of “self-authorship may lead to self-authorship”(42)—or intellectual autonomy—in the design of learners’ own meanings and understandings of their and others’ contexts of practice and interaction.

Difficulties

But the use of SNS technologies for promoting such skills in L2 learners is not without obstacles, often restricting the achievement of both of McBride’s pragmatic competence and critical awareness goals. A first set o difficulties is derived from the limited critical approach to media often common among younger users’ of SNSs. Of particular concern is their scarce awareness of the difference between public and private social practice as well as of the social consequences of their casual attitude to such difference. Another concern is the common narcissistic mode of participating and using SNS, which is likely to hinder critically aware forms of social interaction. The medium itself also imposes certain obstacles to meaningful L2 and literacy skill development. First, the level of L2 pragmatic skills required for full participation in non-class based SNS is generally high. Second, intrinsic social character of the medium will naturally create in and out-groups, potentially leading to the alienation of certain learners from the classroom community and, worse, from L2 learning in general. Third, the prominence of physical social markers as crucial resources for the ‘writing of self’ in SNSs, makes their users much more vulnerable to social discrimination than other CMC technologies, like instant messaging, for example. Finally, the widespread use of SNSs in out-of-school settings may render its mandatory use for instruction forced and inauthentic. Now, the medium is also said to involve important difficulties for teachers who may resist it out of lack of familiarity with sheer technology or, if they are younger and technologically-acculturated, with the proper ways of using SNSs for pedagogical purposes. Other issues teachers need to deal with are getting native or advanced L2 users involved in SMSs set up for class purposes and devising productive and manageable ways of grading work through this medium.

SNS uses in the FL class

Before advocating for specific SNS projects in the FL classroom, McBride reviews general best practices in leveraging the potential of SNSs for FL pedagogy along three crucial aspects: the way to use SNSs; teachers’ role while using them; selection of SNS type. First of all, the use of SNSs should be clearly and explicitly aligned with learning goals. Single pairing of SNS use with certain topics (cultural, as opposed to personal experience and identity) and languages (L1, as opposed to L2) should also be avoided. Medium, topic and language configurations should not be fixed. Secondly, teachers should not retrieve to the side but offer “substantial guidance” in preparing students for critical exchanges. This can be done through a reflective exploration of own identities and beliefs and the anticipation of upcoming projects and interaction problems. Thirdly, the choice of SNS types should consider their appropriateness in terms of the kind of advertisements they feature, the availability of L2 interfaces and students’ disposition to deal with membership in multiple SNSs at one time.

SNSs have mostly been used as “online points of coordination”(47) around several classes or common academic interests (like learning a specific L2). McBride advocates instead for “comfortable first step”(48) task-based uses recurring only once or a couple times during an entire course. A first project is the creation of personal (real or alternative) profiles within networks limited to the class. Organized around several brief assignments on self-description and a few visits and interactions, these uses are seen as particularly suitable for beginner levels as well as for intercultural reflective practice in the case of assumed identity profiles of imaginary L2 users. Secondly, group profiles of a single imaginary L2 character are projects which have the advantage of requiring negotiation for meaning and the use of metalanguage in order to collectively enact the lives of the created characters. A more systematic global simulation approach along the UA-Cercll experiences recorded in Dupuy 2006 and Waugh et al 2008 may thus allow for only occasional online exchanges or for more extended task-based experiential learning. Other projects proposed by McBride include image or video searches and postings on media sites like Flickr and Youtube. Through their image description features, these offer some potential for vocabulary development and even cultural learning through the study of associations between image or video and geographical groups or people’s profiles, when available. Finally a last option includes organizing the creation of profiles around themes, events, social associations or other cultural phenomena. Activity design should always consider grading and the inclusion of reflection on participation in the SNSs.

Comments:

McBride makes an excellent case for the affordances of SNSs for FL learning based on the significance of SNS in the lives of today’s learners as well as on how this Internet-based medium encapsulates crucial aspects of meaningful FL learning: self expression, social interaction and the exploration of identities. Most importantly, in my view, her understanding of language competence development is not restricted to mere linguistic ability but includes reflective practice and thus accounts for a literacy and reflection-based view of communicative and intercultural competence. An other strength of her review lays in providing concrete examples of activities to carry out in the FL classroom. I particularly liked her idea of restricting the scope of activity designs and ensuring the alignment of CMC-based activities with overall learning goals and teaching philosophies. “If done well”(51), she argues in her conclusion, SNS-based FL instruction will not only develop L2 proficiencies but also general intellectual development. I take “well” to mean ensuring enough critical awareness on meanings drawn from and made in SNS interactions as well as instructors’ close attention to how students diversely experience and signify those interactions. To these two quality requirements I might add instructors’ responsibility in guiding students to understand the social and semiotic links between the specific social and linguistic practices around SNS as a media and textual genre. Becoming aware that SNSs involve highly linguistic practices worth understanding and learning to use in an L2 might go a long way in improving their FL literacy skills as well as their interest in the medium as a relevant FL learning tool.

Transformative power of open-ended video games: What does it really take to make them transformative?

 

Squire, K. (2008), “Open-Ended Video Games: A Model for Developing Learning for the interactive Age”. In Salen, K. The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 167-198.

Summary:

Through a series of ethnographic studies and a game-based intervention in an afterschool program, Squire reflects on the use of, and the communities created around, two commercial games in the “open-ended simulation or sandbox” genre: Grand Auto Theft: San Andreas (GAT:SA) and Civilization III. With questions like: How do open-ended games work? What are their main characteristics? and What drives the communities of players created around them?, his ultimate goal is to outline, from a “design for learning” standpoint, a theory of game-based learning environments. His study reveals these environments as “designed experiences” evolving in tight connection with interpretive communities of practice built around them. As open worlds with no single but multiple solution paths, for players sandbox games are constituted as “possibility spaces” in which they can live, discover, experiment, and develop new expertise and identities sometimes used beyond the game world. When applied to academic content, as in Civilization III, sandbox games are imbued with the transformative power of turning players into designers or creators of knowledge.

Games’ different pathways to learning are the variable which organizes Squire’s categorization of game genres. From this point of view, his open-ended or sandbox games—elsewhere also referred to as ‘strategy games’— display three crucial features which constitute them in “possibility spaces” for experimenting in the world and learning: they represent entire ideological worlds and not mere stories; development of knowledge occurs through performance in those worlds; the meaning of those performances is negotiated by players through participation in interpretive communities. Open-ended games thus introduce players into complex system of ideas, interpretation and negotiation of meaning, and thus individual and collective practices.

Squire’s first set off evidence for such view comes from interviews with three different groups of young poor black and white players of GTA: SA (a game about crime-prone car dealing in US multiracial inner-city settings) whose diverse interpretation and uses of the game reveal multiple context-dependent modes of playing based on players’ diverse interests and identities. These players’ accounts also reveal them as socially critical individuals aware of how the socio-cultural representations in the game world relate to the ‘real’ one they live in. When probed on their reactions about the social and cultural “controversies surrounding the game” (174), players thus report a certain satisfaction with the game world’s ‘realistic’ mapping of their own world of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation. They recognize the use of racial stereotypes as driving the game play and competition, and also identify discrepancies between the real and the game world—for example, as to black people’s economic mobility— thereby revealing a fair understanding of the structural causes of racism. Players are thus seen as active and critical agents in the game’s ‘possibility space’, carving different gaming cultures based on their own developing interests, identities and experiences and asserting themselves as “sophisticated media consumers” (176) “playing [beyond the game] race, gender, and class” (174) with “a fairly serious critique of the current socioeconomic order in the US” and the opportunity through the game “for talking about very real social issues.”(177)

A second set of ethnographic work explores the use of open-ended games in academic domains. It focuses on a school setting experience with Civilization III and on the nature of learning in one of the game’s on-line learning communities. Beyond representing a renewed, less abstract and more patterned, geographical and materialist view of History (much closer to students’ understanding and realities), Civilization III is viewed as confirming the concept of games as ‘possibility spaces’ offering multiple’s paths of engagement and practices with it. Common to all the modes of playing is, however, the highly social nature of the game experience and the influence of local contexts on it. An emerging awareness of the game’s underlying ideological framework or logic (with its renewed perspective on history as a system of rules and a management problem) is also evident in most players. Players’ slow internalization of the game’s ideological framework has two important consequences for learning. On the one hand, as the game “becomes a model with which to think” (183) it acquires a cognitive value; on the other hand, as it gives players a concrete sense of achievement in school related topics, it becomes a self-esteem booster and “good bridging mechanism”(184) especially for “disengaged” students.

However, the constraints inherent to the models of learning in traditional education (single pace of work for all, restricted time windows of work, and a privilege of breadth of exposure to content over depth of understanding) are seen as challenging a full and productive use of games’ potential for educational purposes. Researchers thus turn to the study of the learning occurring in an online community of Civilization III players and attempt to reproduce its successful patterns in an afterschool and summer camp program with poor 5^th and 6^th graders. Learning there was again a “deeply social experience” (187) bringing together expert and novice players. It was also an instance of reflective practice, with reporting on problems and options made in the game a condition for participation in the learning community. Most importantly, learning here entailed a powerful culture of apprenticeship with highly experienced players “unabashedly playing as experts” (189) yet at the same time parsing the complex rule system for their novice peers through the creation of playing ‘scenarios’ and periodic invitation to “lift the hood” of the game and intervene its very design. This is what revealed the online-community players’ “productive” or “design orientation” toward the game and “open[ed up] new trajectories of experience” (189) for the children in the after-school program allowed them to regain school affiliation and become, beyond information consumers, game designers and knowledge producers, i.e. “from players to creators.” (190)

Comments:

The breadth of Squire’s effort to document player’s experiences with open-ended games and their representations of it in diverse interview settings (individual, focus groups and in a classroom or lab environment) is extremely valuable, as is his attempts to compare experience and use for entertainment as well as educational purposes. His “action research” effort exemplified in the establishment of a pilot program is even more admirable. His overall conclusions as to the agency of players, their relative ability to see the ideological features of the world presented to them in the game, the relevance of the social dimension of gaming, and the general opportunities for identity exploration and learning seem highly plausible and relevant for innovative educational endeavors. Further studies, however may look more closely at how these phenomena are played out differently in the diverse contexts (non-instructional vs. instructional, for example) covered in this study. Squire focused on how GTA and Civilization playing modes and contexts confirmed his “possibility spaces” hypothesis and consequently devoted little attention to differences between them. A couple things that called my attention were the crucial role of “adult experts” (as players as well as pedagogues or facilitators of learning!) in the afterschool experience. How does the absence of this trained facilitator impact the “transformative” power of gaming in the GTA context? I also wondered how much of the GTA players’ critical views of the ideological representations in the game world were triggered by the questions of the researchers and how these views might play themselves out in more “natural” interactions within the communities of practice surrounding the game. Gathering information along these lines would of course require different research methodologies and design. Finally, I read the “geographical and materialistic” view of History promoted by the Civilization game less optimistically than Squire. How does it account for the role of ideas in historical change and development?  Equating the end of teleologies (or ‘grand narratives’) to the embracement of a purely materialist and resource management view of History might soon lead us to some version of environmental determinism which dominated all of XIX Century Geography and have long been proven unfruitful. Like tool and learner, natural resources and people (‘s ideas and communities) also mutually influence each other. A social view of history (one of people’s everyday lives) might be a good complement to the much celebrated resource management approach. One of the main cognitive effects of these ‘strategy’ games being, according to Squire, to give learners/players experiential learning of the ideological framework behind the game, I guess my question is how to use game-based learning designs to convey more subtle and complex ideological logics and frameworks.