Multimodality, Learning and Decision-Making: Children's Metacognitive Reflections on Their Engagement with Video Games as Interactive Texts
Saved in:
| Title: | Multimodality, Learning and Decision-Making: Children's Metacognitive Reflections on Their Engagement with Video Games as Interactive Texts |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | von Gillern, Sam (ORCID |
| Source: | Literacy. Jan 2023 57(1):3-16. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Junior High Schools Middle Schools Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Children, Middle School Students, Metacognition, Play, Video Games, Interaction, Student Attitudes, Decision Making, Reflection, Semantics, Syntax, Learning Processes, Written Language, Symbolic Learning, Symbolic Language |
| DOI: | 10.1111/lit.12304 |
| ISSN: | 1741-4350 1741-4369 |
| Abstract: | This study examines how 31 middle-school children conducted multimodal analyses of video games. Over four consecutive days, students played video games for 30 minutes and then wrote written reflections about the multimodal symbols within the game and how these symbols influenced their interpretation and decision-making processes during gameplay. Students produced 124 reflections in total, which were analysed via template analysis to determine how children metacognitively reflected on different types of multimodal symbols and used those symbols to comprehend the games and make decisions. Results illustrate how students engaged in metacognitive semantic and syntactic processes with a variety of multimodal symbols, such as written language, dynamic visuals and abstract symbols, during gameplay that aided their understanding of the games and influenced their decisions. This study contributes to the limited empirical research on video game literacies and illustrates children's meaning-making processes while engaged with video games as multimodal interactive texts. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1362246 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGnpJq1ps8_rLQSlOIoMgDsAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPDMDMiHS6lwMg3SgAIBEICBm366-THJuGxvkwNR8A8B5LogbBIaflBrQc8tNFsVIErhPHXKQbn3NapnzGVTGMnfF4m9gKScCvKjIbGFKqnBilQiut80iPxEWp74m89qg1mQwOEx9EEI2pJFiAs3hwwhYeX7-qTQZduKmwVr22aR6vwQixQkkVr1aT4LJAJ8EMVQEdVQeACmVg-7yQE6u2bwc_YtCCPh4NHhUcKn Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0161310434;0lo01jan.23;2023Jan17.05:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161310434-1">Multimodality, learning and decision‐making: children's metacognitive reflections on their engagement with video games as interactive texts </title> <p>This study examines how 31 middle‐school children conducted multimodal analyses of video games. Over four consecutive days, students played video games for 30 minutes and then wrote written reflections about the multimodal symbols within the game and how these symbols influenced their interpretation and decision‐making processes during gameplay. Students produced 124 reflections in total, which were analysed via template analysis to determine how children metacognitively reflected on different types of multimodal symbols and used those symbols to comprehend the games and make decisions. Results illustrate how students engaged in metacognitive semantic and syntactic processes with a variety of multimodal symbols, such as written language, dynamic visuals and abstract symbols, during gameplay that aided their understanding of the games and influenced their decisions. This study contributes to the limited empirical research on video game literacies and illustrates children's meaning‐making processes while engaged with video games as multimodal interactive texts.</p> <p>Keywords: digital literacies; video games; new media; metacognition</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Conceptions of literacy have broadened substantially over the last 25 years to emphasise the importance of interpreting and creating multimodal texts, processes often mediated by technology (Cope and Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]; Serafini, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>]; The New London Group, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref3">56</reflink>]). While scholarly investigations of these digital and multimodal literacy practices have examined a wide variety of concepts, processes and activities (Alvermann and Kaminski Sanders, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]; Bezemer and Kress, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]; Coiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]), the perspective and investigation of video gaming as a literacy practice have received relatively limited attention, despite the massive popularity of video games in modern culture (Muriel and Crawford, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref7">44</reflink>]). Gee ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]) was a pioneer in the field and highlighted a variety of connections among video games, literacy and learning. Squire ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref9">52</reflink>]) specifically examined the concept of video game literacy and highlighted the interactive and multimodal nature of reading and playing video games.</p> <p>Much of this early work was largely conceptual in nature. For example, Gee ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>]) examined connections between video games, learning and literacy by identifying mechanisms embedded in games' structures that facilitate learning, such as providing just‐in‐time information and well‐ordered problems. Scholars have more recently examined the connection of video games and literacy with empirical studies. Researchers including Beavis ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]), Berger and McDougall ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]) and Harvey ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]) examined video games as literature and how they can be integrated to support English language arts (ELA) curricula and learning. Such research demonstrates the complex ways students and teachers engage with literacy practices through reflecting on stories and characters within video games. Other scholars have examined various popular games and considered the ways games can support language and literacy practices, such as community building (Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]), responding to literature (Marlatt, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]), and connections between video games and traditional literacy practices and texts (Abrams and Gerber, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]). Different scholars have examined different games, and there are a wide variety of game genres, each of which requires players to engage in a unique variety of learning and literacy practices. Thus, it is valuable to examine how different games can be used in different contexts to impact student learning. There are few studies that examine how children analyse video games (Berger and McDougall, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]; Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). Thus, this study aims to make a contribution to the literature by examining children's reflective writing to understand how they interpreted multimodal symbols and made decisions during gameplay, a process that was mediated by their engagement with the Gamer Response and Decision (GRAD) Framework (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]). This approach also contributes to the literature in that it reveals students' metacognitive processes while engaged with video games as multimodal interactive texts by investigating the following research question:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do middle‐school children interpret multimodal symbols during video gameplay and make decisions based upon their interpretations?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0161310434-3">Conceptual framework</hd> <p>Our conceptual framework for this study consists of two components: the GRAD Framework (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]) and metacognition, more specifically, metacognitive comprehension processes (Block, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Together, these components help illuminate ways that our participants engaged in metacognitive processes in conjunction with video game literacies.</p> <p>The GRAD Framework (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref23">59</reflink>]; see Figure 1) demonstrates key aspects and processes of video gameplay. It draws from Rosenblatt's ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref24">48</reflink>]) reader response theory that posits that readers all have unique backgrounds that affect how they interpret written text and what textual elements they pay attention to, which Rosenblatt refers to as selective attention. The GRAD Framework applies these same ideas to video games and also illustrates how gamers' decisions are a critical aspect of video gameplay, as gamers' decisions influence the way the game unfolds, in a way that is not true of traditional media, such as books, music or movies. For example, in video games, players regularly need to decide which tools to use, skills to upgrade and their paths for progression (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]), which stands in contrast to other forms of media, such as books or movies, in which the reader/viewer has no impact on the outcome of the story. While reader response theory recognises that the reader's/viewer's background will influence the way he or she interprets the story, the final paragraph in a book or final scene in a movie is the same for everyone (e.g. the words do not change in books nor the scenes in movies). This stands in contrast to video games in which the final scene or experience in a game can be drastically different from player to player based on a player's decisions within the game. Additionally, in order to understand video gameplay, the GRAD Framework utilises perspectives of both ludology (Juul, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]), which focuses on game structures, and narratology (Arsenault, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]), which focuses on game narratives. Together, these perspectives can be complementary and provide a deep understanding of how players experience games and their stories (Frasca, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Kokonis, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LO/01jan23/lit12304-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="lit12304-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The Gamer Response and Decision Framework (von Gillern, [59]). Reprinted with permission from SAGE Publications" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Another key aspect of video gameplay highlighted by the GRAD Framework, one that is central to this study, is multimodality. Gamers constantly view/read/hear a variety of multimodal symbols that they need to interpret to understand and progress in the game. Multimodality is a critical aspect of modern literacy (Cope and Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]; Lankshear and Knobel, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]), and it is also a critical aspect of video game literacies (Stufft and von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref32">54</reflink>]). Multimodality in video gameplay takes a variety of forms (see Table 1).</p> <p>1 Table Multimodality in video gameplay</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Types of multimodal symbols&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Examples from video gameplay&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dynamic visuals and images&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Constantly shifting visuals one experiences when exploring a 3D digital world&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Still images&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Maps, pictures and items available during active gameplay and the pause screen&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Audio representations&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sound effects and music&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Oral language&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dialogue between characters, narration of events and verbal language from other human players playing online&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Written language&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Notes and journals found during gameplay, commands and suggestions from the game to the player, and written text messages from other human players playing online&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Abstract symbols&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Health, item, and ammunition metres and dynamic maps on the heads&amp;#8208;up display (HUD)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tactile experiences&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Vibrating controllers that indicate one is taking damage or driving off the road; additionally, physical interaction with the controller carries meaning about the location of buttons and the amount of force necessary to push a button to accomplish an objective&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 von Gillern ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref33">59</reflink>]) – reproduced with permission from SAGE Publications.</p> <p>While the GRAD Framework incorporates a variety of concepts and processes, the concepts of decision‐making and multimodality served as two primary areas of focus for the students in our study when they analysed their video gameplay experiences. Additionally, their written analyses of video gameplay reflected their selective attention (i.e. what they paid attention to) and ability to engage in metacognitive processes that illustrate their interpretations of multimodal symbols and interactions with video games.</p> <p>The concept of metacognition is the second key component of our conceptual framework and relates to the self‐awareness and self‐regulation of thinking and learning processes. Flavell ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) defined metacognition as "knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena" (p. 906). A robust research based on metacognition has developed over the last 40 years, investigating metacognitive phenomena and processes across a variety of educational disciplines (Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). In terms of literacy, scholars have explored metacognition in literacy practices and instruction in various ways. McKeown and Beck ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]) investigated the role of metacognition in reading comprehension. They noted that metacognitive processes including self‐regulating, planning, evaluating and monitoring are closely tied to reading comprehension and that educators can help students develop these metacognitive skills to support reading comprehension. In terms of writing, Hacker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]) argue that "writing is applied metacognition" in that it requires writers to engage in self‐regulated, goal‐directed behaviours to translate thoughts into written words (p. 154). In short, both reading and writing require a variety of metacognitive processes that help readers interpret and writers produce texts (Cer, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref39">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>While literacy activities involve a variety of metacognitive processes, this study focuses on two specific aspects: semantic processes and syntactic processes (Block, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]). Semantic processes involve understanding word meanings, and syntactic processes involve understanding grammar and structure (Bauserman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]; Block, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]). Given that this current study focuses on video games as texts with a particular emphasis on multimodality, we conceptualise semantic processes as not only understanding the meaning of words but also understanding information conveyed by multimodal symbols in video games, such as visual images and oral language. For example, there are a variety of visual images that gamers need to interpret when playing <emph>Minecraft</emph>, such as the 3D world, which includes various objects and resources (e.g. stone and lumber) and different creatures (e.g. monsters and animals). These objects represent specific meaning within the game, and these ascribed meanings are dependent on the game's context. The same objects may bear different meanings in other games or popular media texts (Burn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). For example, the symbol of a heart has a particular meaning in <emph>Minecraft</emph> (and many other video games), which is health; however, hearts in other contexts and media often have a different meaning, such as love or romance. Thus, our focus is to consider students' meaning‐making related to multimodal symbols specific to their contextualisation within the video games used in this study.</p> <p>Additionally, while semantic processes typically relate to the grammar and structure of a written text, we conceptualise syntactic processes as related to the structure of the games, which consists of a variety of rules and mechanics that allow certain options and possibilities for gamers and disallow others (Juul, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]; Pérez Latorre, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]). Game rules and mechanics are embedded in game worlds in ways that ultimately affect players' gameplay experiences (Aarseth, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]). Such rules and mechanics function within game structures created by game designers that players interpret and strategically act upon as they navigate and progress in games (Bogost, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]). For example, in <emph>Minecraft</emph> Survival Mode, players mine materials, craft tools and resources, and then try to survive when attacked by enemies or otherwise lose their hard‐earned resources. This structure dictates what is possible, what is not possible, and how gamers approach and play the game.</p> <p>Ultimately, our study adapts important metacognitive processes used in reading written texts and applies them to a context wherein students engaged with video games as interactive multimodal texts (Mackey, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]; Squire, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref49">52</reflink>]). By learning the meaning of semantic features in video games in conjunction with the game's syntax (i.e. rules and mechanics), players can make informed decisions about how they play the game. Overall, this study explores the ways that students reflect on their video game experiences via writing through the conceptual framing of multimodality, decision‐making and metacognition.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-5">Methodology</hd> <p>This research utilised a qualitative case study design (Baxter and Jack, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]). Case studies examine a bounded system (Merriam and Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]), which in the case of this research was an educational unit in a middle school in which we examined how the students interpreted multimodal symbols in video games and how these interpretations influenced their decision‐making processes during gameplay. Data were collected over the course of four consecutive days during the morning block of instructional time at Mountain View Middle School (pseudonym). This school is a private laboratory school affiliated with a college in the Southeastern United States. Approximately one‐third of the students receive financial aid, and 8% are students of colour. Participants included avid gamers as well as novices.</p> <p>The sixth‐ and seventh‐grade classes participated in our study. The 31 student participants played Xbox video games and engaged in reflective writing each day. In total, 14 sixth‐graders (5 male and 9 female; ages 11–12) and 17 seventh‐graders (7 male and 10 female; ages 12–13) participated.</p> <p>Teachers created four groups for the study with each group having seven to eight students including male and female sixth‐ and seventh‐grade students. Data collection took place in two classrooms that each had an Xbox connected to a smart board. In one classroom, the Xbox was set up with four wireless controllers and the choice of two video games: <emph>Minecraft</emph> (Mojang Studios, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]) and <emph>Zoo Tycoon: Ultimate Animal Collection</emph> (Blue Fang Games, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>]). In the other classroom, the Xbox was set up with two wireless controllers and the choice of two video games: <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph> (Telltale Games, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>]) and <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> (Traveller's Tales, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref55">57</reflink>]). These games were selected because they are popular and family‐friendly and include multiple genres for the students to choose from.</p> <p>Each student group had more members than there were available Xbox controllers, so students worked together to determine who would play first on a given day and when controllers would be passed to other group members. During moments when particular students did not have possession of a controller, they were still actively engaged by sharing suggestions to their peers with the controllers and reacting to gameplay on the screen. Additionally, student groups rotated such that each group was in each of the two classrooms for two of the 4 days, meaning that the students all had the opportunity to choose among the four available video game titles. For each of the four project days, all students in the first classroom chose to play <emph>Minecraft</emph> (Mojang Studios, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref56">42</reflink>]) and none of the students played the other video game title, <emph>Zoo Tycoon: Ultimate Animal Collection</emph> (Blue Fang Games, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]), likely because <emph>Minecraft</emph> allowed four players to play simultaneously. In the second classroom, both groups played each of the available video game titles during the week (i.e. <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph> and <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph>).</p> <p>Each gameplay session lasted 30 minutes, after which students completed independent reflective writing in response to researcher‐provided prompts. While reflective writing can be considered a traditional literacy practice, which in this case was connected to the digital literacy practice of video gaming, the researchers utilised reflective writing as it was a clear way to address the research question and develop an understanding of students' thinking and decision‐making practices. This format was followed for each of the 4 days, with the list of writing prompts varying from day to day to allow students to focus on different issues on different days and keep the reflection prompts fresh. During the second day, we presented the GRAD Framework (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref58">59</reflink>]) to the students and discussed with students the types of multimodal symbols commonly found in video games and the types of decisions gamers make during video gameplay. Students received a copy of the GRAD Framework, along with a list of multimodal symbols that might be present in the video games they played and that they could include in their written reflections. Our hope was that this resource would support students in understanding the presence of multimodal symbols in the video games as they considered the role of these symbols and that the resource would provide students with relevant terminology (e.g. abstract, tactile, etc.) to consider for their reflections. Students were informed that the purpose of the study was for us to gain insight regarding the ways that middle schoolers analyse video games. One example of a reflective writing prompt used in this study was: "How did these informative symbols influence your decisions during gameplay? What did you see, hear, or read that influenced your decisions in the game? Consider the things you did, strategies you chose, places you visited, and items you chose while playing." The primary data source for our study is the 124 written reflections produced by students over the 4‐day period; individual daily responses were around one to two pages of notebook paper in length.</p> <p>We used template analysis (King, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]) to guide our individual reviews of the dataset. The purpose of template analysis is to, after an initial review of the data, develop a template of codes that guides data analysis. In this approach, we each considered the dataset as a whole and became familiar with the students' written responses and then crafted a template containing a priori codes that aligned with the research question to use during data analysis. This template included two primary types of a priori codes: process codes and descriptive codes. The process codes included two main categories of codes to categorise student processes during video gameplay. Students interpreted multimodal symbols and made decisions during gameplay (see Table 2).</p> <p>2 Table Process codes and examples</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Process code&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Description&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Example participant quotes&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interpreting&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Participants identified how they understood important information in the game&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"The tutorial cutscenes helped you to tell how the game works. The red or green flashes on your screen told me when I was getting damaged or healed."&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;"There was a mini&amp;#8208;map in the top right corner that [showed] the island, landmarks on it, and important spots"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Decision&amp;#8208;making&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Participants reflected on their actions and decision&amp;#8208;making processes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"The tone and expressions helped [me] decide what to make Jessie say in order to keep everyone else from getting too mad and escalating the situation."&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;"Sometimes things would glow, which made me want to check them out. One time, there was a glowing treasure chest, so we looked in it and got some money"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>We used these two process codes (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref60">49</reflink>]) to explore the instances in students' writing related to our research question (Brooks et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). Throughout the data, we also found student references to various multimodal symbols encountered during gameplay, such as audio, visuals and tactile experiences, that they used to interpret information within the game. Students also referenced how these multimodal symbols influenced their decision‐making during gameplay. Thus, we also incorporated descriptive codes into the template, which summarised key ideas in the data, to help us consider students' use of multimodal symbols as part of their interpretation and decision‐making during video gameplay. Table 3 illustrates the codes related to specific multimodal symbols. Ultimately, our template analysis (King, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]), which utilised process codes and descriptive codes (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]), identified various ways students interpreted multimodal symbols and made decisions during gameplay.</p> <p>3 Table Descriptive codes related to multimodal symbols (adapted from von Gillern, 2016b)</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Code&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Description&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Example participant quote&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dynamic visuals&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Visual components that continuously change in relation to movement or exploration in the game&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"I also noticed that the world has a sudden drop on all 4 of its sides; the world is limited in size, and you can fall off"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Still images&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Visual components that do not change in appearance, which can include different in&amp;#8208;game artefacts and static maps&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;N/A &amp;#8211; students did not identify still images in their reflections&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Audio&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Music played within a video game, as well as sound effects, such as dogs barking in the background&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Minecraft "used sound effects to help you understand exactly what animal or monster you were looking at"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Oral language&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dialogue spoken by on&amp;#8208;screen characters in a game, as well as background information presented by a narrator&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"Instead of us having to figure out on our own how to use the different tools the game's [narrator] told us how to use them"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Written language&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;On&amp;#8208;screen written text in the form of commands, such as pressing a button to jump, or written text such as a journal entry a character can access&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"The game had bubbles showing people's text and they would tell you what to do."&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Abstract symbols&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Symbols that have meaning specific to the game, such as hearts to indicate health status or icons to indicate the location of an object&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"The hearts at the top, I knew meant life."&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tactile experiences&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Physical sensations associated with the game, such as when the game controller vibrates to indicate one is taking damage&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"The controllers would vibrate when something important happened"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Lastly, data analysis incorporated the metacognitive framing of semantic processes, which explored how students made meaning of various symbols, and syntactic processes, which relate to how they understood game mechanics. In some instances, students identified semantic features independently of syntactic features (and vice versa). In other instances, students reflected on these processes in tandem. For example, students would only understand a game mechanic by understanding the meaning of a particular set of multimodal symbols within a certain context. For instance, Hailey, a sixth‐grader, reflected: "The pictures of buttons were very useful, like when I was using the paint tool, I didn't know how to stop, so I looked around the screen and saw what I needed to do. The button pictures also told me how to talk to someone to complete their quest." In this example, Hailey identified how she understood the meaning (i.e. the semantics) of the controller button icons on the screen in conjunction with the functions of those buttons (i.e. the game's mechanics).</p> <p>With the issues of multimodality, metacognition and decision‐making in mind, the results are structured in the following format: sections for various types of multimodal symbols in video games are presented, each of which includes results from data analysis related to the students' semantic and syntactic processes, which are sometimes presented separately and sometimes presented together, depending on the students' reflections and how they conveyed their understanding. Then, each section includes a description of how students made decisions in the games, processes that were influenced by their understanding of the games' semantic and syntactic features. Overall, these findings illustrate how students metacognitively reflected on what and how they learned from the game in terms of the meaning of multimodal symbols and game mechanics, as well as how they made decisions based on these understandings to interact with the video games as multimodal texts.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-6">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161310434-7">Written language</hd> <p>Written language in video games can convey story elements and help students understand the meaning of the game's story by presenting important written information about the game world and how players can interact with it. Students' reflections often highlighted written language in ways that combined both semantic and syntactic features. For example, Jenna, a sixth‐grader, reflected on how writing was used in <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph> (see Figure 2). She noted that written language in the dialogue trees influenced player options as to "what do you want to say, do, or even which direction do you want to go ... I found out that you can make the main character sassy or sweet, sometimes mean. But you can make the character [act] however you want." In this example, Jenna understood the semantic meanings of the written words, which presented different dialogue styles (e.g. sassy or sweet) that influence the overall story. Additionally, these dialogue options directly relate to the game's syntax as dialogue trees are an integral mechanic of the game and influence how players make decisions and progress during gameplay.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LO/01jan23/lit12304-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="lit12304-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Screenshot from Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Another common purpose of written language identified by the students was how they interpreted it to understand game mechanics. Raquel noted that in <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph>, "The game sometimes shows icons that resemble controller buttons with words that explain their function, so you know what different controls will do." Sixth‐grader Jace reflected on a learning experience of his in <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> and wrote: "I was confused for a bit because when I used the paint tool, it did not work. But then the screen displayed a notification that said, 'A to paint.' I was pressing 'X'." In instances such as these, students learned game rules and mechanics related to the controller buttons via written language.</p> <p>Students' understanding of the semantics and syntax of the games influenced their decision‐making processes during gameplay. Jenna reflected on the story of <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph>, the importance of the written dialogue trees and how she, as an interactive participant in the story, made decisions. She noted that the game had:</p> <p>lots of different options to choose from. The options were like be nice and the other one was a little more mean. I saw that if I was in our rival town then you could talk a little more rude, but if I was talking to my friend [a non‐player character] in the game then I would act more nice.</p> <p>Jenna consciously reflected on her role in the game and decided that she wanted to treat her in‐game friends more nicely than characters from a rival town. Each player gets to choose their own adventure and create their own story in this game, decisions that were influenced by their comprehension of the narratives, preferences and goals. Owen, a seventh‐grader, reflected on these issues and wrote: "When I was playing the game, I knew that how I answered the questions affected the rest of the story. Knowing this, I wanted to make is [sic] interesting a story as possible." These processes were mediated by students' understanding of written language in the game, which revealed the meanings of the story as well as game mechanics. The written language of dialogue options and trees allowed the students to make choices in the game and be interactive participants and co‐creators of the story.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-9">Oral language</hd> <p>The most common instances of oral language in the video games these students played revolve around cutscenes, narrations and character dialogue. Cutscenes are short video‐like segments of the game in which players do not have control of their character. Cutscenes regularly include character dialogue and narration to convey important information to the gamer. Nolan, a sixth‐grader, illustrates the value of cutscenes for conveying semantic information to the players in <emph>Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2</emph>. He wrote: "At the start there was a cutscene that told us what had happened last time, and there were also words a lot. The characters also talked and they referenced past, future, or present happenings." Sixth‐grader Austin echoed these ideas and noted: "To make it more of a story, the game uses cutscenes to explain what's going on."</p> <p>Cutscenes were also used in <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> to convey syntactic game mechanics. Austin noted that "Tutorial cutscenes were the big way Lego Worlds gave info to the gamer." For example, once a player collects 'the discovery tool' at the beginning of <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph>, a narrated cutscene is presented and the narrator says: "The discovery tool. Use the powerful discovery tool to scan and collect new models, vehicles, creatures, and more." The narrator of <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> also speaks during regular gameplay, not just during cutscenes, to explain game mechanics and give tips to players. For example, early in the game, the narrator provides valuable information, such as:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "Your first LEGO World. So much to discover, but your rocket took a beating. A few gold bricks should fix it right up" and</item> <p></p> <item> "You really should take a closer look at that crash site"</item> </ulist> <p>Such oral narrations provide valuable information to players to help them understand the game, its syntax (e.g. mechanics) and how players can progress through the game.</p> <p>Students' reflections also illustrated the importance of character dialogue in their decision‐making processes during gameplay. Seventh‐grader Addison wrote about the importance of dialogue, its influence on her thinking and decisions, and the impact of her decisions on the story itself. She wrote:</p> <p>The people [i.e., game characters] talking to me [in the game] influenced my decisions because they affected the way I thought and the things I said. Also, the buttons helped me make my decisions ... Everything you say and do changes things in the game ... The decisions I made affected the storyline.</p> <p>Similarly, sixth‐grader Lily noted that "The tone and expressions helped [me] decide what to make Jessie say in order to keep everyone else from getting too mad and escalating the situation," and seventh‐grader Julee dug deeply into character dialogue and relationships, which also impacted her decisions. She reflected:</p> <p>The characters in the game [MC Story Mode] told me a lot about everything that was going on. I could tell by the tone of their voice or facial expressions if they were mad, happy, etc. When Petra started to talk about Stella I could tell that she did not like her by the tone of her voice. For Stella, I could tell that she did not like Petra or Jesse because she was so fake towards them. I learned who I could trust and who I could not. I also learned who was nice and who wasn't. When I found out Stella is not trustworthy I would not give her what she wanted. When Petra was in need of help during the race fighting off spiders, I helped her because she was kind and would do the same for me.</p> <p>As the quotes in this section demonstrate, students interpreted semantic meanings of oral language related to the story of the game as well as syntactic game mechanics, both of which influenced their decision‐making processes and their interactive participation in these video games as texts.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-10">Audio representations</hd> <p>Sound effects in video games carry meaning that is often connected to specific actions or the state and location of objects and characters within the game. For example, animals are a valuable resource in <emph>Minecraft</emph>, and as seventh‐grader Madelyn wrote, "When there were animals, they made sounds that let you know when they are close"; Austin wrote that <emph>Minecraft</emph> "used sound effects to help you understand exactly what animal or monster you were looking at." In these instances, students derive meaning from sound effects (e.g. understanding which creatures are nearby).</p> <p>Sometimes sound effects were tied to specific game mechanics, such as taking damage in <emph>Minecraft</emph>. Wyatt, a sixth‐grader, reflected: "I used my health bar and heard when I got hit to not get killed." In this instance, there is a specific sound effect that occurs when one takes damage, which relates to a larger theme of audio in its role of informing players of threats and influencing their fight‐or‐flight decisions. For example, seventh‐grader Cora noted: "Sometimes you can hear a monster coming and that alerts you," and her peer, Madelyn, wrote "Sounds let me know when I should fight." Ultimately, as students mentioned in their reflections, sounds carried meaning that influenced their understanding of the game world and their decisions within.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-11">Abstract symbols</hd> <p>Many students reflected on not only the presence of abstract symbols within the video games but more specifically on the meaning ascribed to such symbols. While playing <emph>Minecraft</emph>, students focused primarily on two abstract symbols: hearts and chicken wings, which represented a character's health and hunger metres, respectively (see Figure 3). The students noticed these abstract symbols and their associated meaning. Nolan reflected, "Your health was shown by four hearts," and sixth‐grader Jace noted: "I also noticed a bar with hearts on it. This displays health."</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LO/01jan23/lit12304-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="lit12304-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Screenshot of Minecraft" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Students not only reflected on the meaning of these symbols but also their significance in terms of the game's syntax and structure. Cora reflected that "the bar with hearts told you how healthy you are or if you are close to dying. Another bar told you if you need to eat." Sixth‐grader Mia reflected on the implications of low heart and chicken wing metres. She wrote: "When you [sic] hearts run low, you knew you were close to losing your items and dying. If your chicken wings disappeared, you'd become slow and would eventually die." This student's reflection illustrated her understanding of <emph>Minecraft</emph>'s syntax (e.g. rules), including that when a player runs out of hearts or chicken wings his or her character would die, which results in the loss of the hard‐earned resources they have gathered and crafted. This is a central mechanic of <emph>Minecraft</emph>'s Survival Mode, and students reflected on their understanding of this mechanic and its significance.</p> <p>In terms of gameplay decisions, students identified symbols that represented controller buttons displayed on‐screen (such as A, B, X or Y), which is a relatively common way for games to communicate information to players about when they can or should push various controller buttons. For example, Cora wrote, "When you need to do something, the game will show you which button you need to press ... to make a certain decision." Sixth‐grader Hailey echoed this idea in her experiences with <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> and reflected: "The pictures of buttons were very useful, like when I was using the paint tool, I didn't know how to stop, so I looked around the screen and saw what I needed to do. The button pictures also told me how to talk to someone to complete their quest." Hailey interpreted the on‐screen controller button symbols, learned how to engage in various actions and then made decisions accordingly. As evident from these reflections, the students were able to understand the meanings of abstract symbols, which enhanced their understanding of the games' syntax and influenced their decision‐making processes.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-13">Dynamic visuals</hd> <p>The visual 3D nature of the video game worlds contributes to players' understanding of the setting. For example, <emph>Minecraft</emph> incorporates dynamic visuals, such as the shifting 3D world that players explored when moving their character throughout the game. The in‐game map in <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph> informed players of the location of valuable items and places in real time. Students derived both semantic and syntactic meanings from these maps (see Figure 4). In terms of semantic meanings, students recognised that these maps, which are situated in the top‐right corner of the screen, represent the LEGO World they are currently exploring and shift in real time to show the player's movement through the layout and topography of the world including water, sand, forests and more. Nolan reflected "There was a mini‐map in the top right corner that showed the island, landmarks on it, and important spots." Seventh‐grader Shaylee echoed these ideas and noted: "There was a triangle on the minimap to indicate where you and all the other players were so you could see the game as a whole."</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/0LO/01jan23/lit12304-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="lit12304-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Screenshot of LEGO Worlds" /> </p> <p></p> <p>In addition to conveying meaning about the game world's layout, the maps also highlighted important game mechanics by demonstrating areas to visit and items to collect to progress in the game. For example, collecting gold bricks is an important mechanic of <emph>LEGO Worlds</emph>, because gold bricks, which are highlighted on the map, are required to advance in the game and visit new worlds. Sixth‐grader Savannah recognised the importance of this mechanic and wrote: "I used the map to find my way to gold bricks and observe my surroundings. This helped me understand the game's objective and dictate where I would travel and for what purpose." Other game features and mechanics presented on the maps include quests, treasure chests, villages, dungeons and other points of interest, all of which serve various functions in the game. Shaylee noted that the game uses a "mini map so that you know where to go," and her classmate, Bryson, wrote: "The mini map ... told you where to go and where important locations were."</p> <p>Dynamic visuals influenced students' decision‐making processes as well. For example, the time of day in <emph>Minecraft</emph> (e.g. day or night), which is represented visually and shifts over time, carries important strategic implications for players. Julee noted: "there was night and day [and] certain things occurred during the night that wouldn't during the day." Sophie went further and reflected how the day/night cycle influenced her decision‐making; she wrote: "The sky told me whether I should stay inside or explore. If it was at night, I would be in the house to avoid monsters and during the day I could explore because there weren't monsters." Julee echoed this sentiment about her goal and decision‐making, reflecting: "My goal was to build a small house. I knew I couldn't achieve that goal during the night because there were so many risks. I knew that the best time to build was during the day." As the students noted, the dynamic visuals of the day/night cycle represent a highly important mechanic for <emph>Minecraft</emph> players; this is because one of the primary threats of the game, monsters, come out at night. Thus, to avoid being killed by a monster, which results in the loss of resources, students reflected on how they collected resources and built structures and tools during the day, which would keep them safer at night.</p> <p>A note on still images: while many games include still images, such as in the form of static maps and various in‐game artefacts, the students in this study did not identify still images in their reflections, which may be because these games do not have many still images or the students' attention was focused on other types of multimodal symbols.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-15">Tactile experiences</hd> <p>During gameplay, a player's controller may vibrate to provide tactile feedback to indicate on‐screen action or to relay important information, such as when a gamer is taking damage. Only a few students reflected on tactile experiences in their writing. In terms of semantics, Sophie noted: "The controllers would vibrate when something important happened" (i.e. vibrating controllers signified an important event or occurrence). In terms of mechanics, Madelyn referred to the most common tactile experience of video gameplay, the fact that one needs to interact with the controller to progress in the game. She noted: "Once you have the target, you know that you have [to] move using the controller."</p> <p>Owen had the most detailed reflection on tactile experiences that conveyed his simultaneous learning of semantic and syntactic information, which informed his decision‐making processes. He reflected:</p> <p>The game also used a type of multimodal symbol called tactile experience? to display information to me. In this particular case, the controller vibrated, telling me that I was taking damage and was losing lives (hearts). I was engulfed in lava, so that made sense. When I was in the lava and my controller vibrated and the screen turned red, I knew that I wasn't going to be able to do much in the game. I wasn't going to be able to build there, move around, or do anything. This influenced my gameplay. Not only did I learn that I could not build while taking damage, but I also learned that you could not place an object.</p> <p>These reflections illustrate how students understood the significance of tactile experiences during gameplay in ways that influenced their attention, learning and decision‐making processes.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-16">Connections to the research</hd> <p>In examining how middle‐school students engage in metacognitive processes and reflections through multimodal video game analysis, this study makes a few key contributions to the literature. First, it builds upon the limited research that examines how video games serve as texts for analysis in ELA classrooms (Beavis, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]; Berger and McDougall, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]) by investigating the use of video game titles during instructional time. This study, through the emphasis on using multimodal symbols to interpret the games and to make decisions during gameplay, also underscores the interactive nature of video game literacies (Squire, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]) and provides empirical evidence on specific ways students not only interpreted multimodal information but also how they make decisions within the games to impact how the game unfolds. This aligns with Alberti's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]) notion that "video game players are simultaneously readers and writers whose gaming decisions are inscribed within a certain horizon of possibilities but not predictability" (p. 258). The video games led to different outcomes, on‐screen action and experiences for each gamer, based upon each gamer's use of multimodal symbols to understand and make decisions as part of gameplay. The students were constantly making meaning from the multimodal symbols within the games; while some decisions were confined by a game's mechanics, the gameplay outcomes were nonetheless unpredictable in nature due to the students' ongoing use of multimodal symbols to interpret on‐screen information and make decisions in response.</p> <p>This study contributes to the literature that investigates how children engage with and examine various multimedia texts including video games (Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]; Mackey, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref70">38</reflink>]) by presenting an approach to metacognition related to the analysis of multimodal texts that differs from existing conceptions of metacognition in literacy practices, which largely focus on reading and writing (Block, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]; Hacker et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]). This study demonstrates ways students can think critically to make sense of video games, including their worlds, structures and narratives via their metacognitive reflections. In doing this, students' analyses incorporated elements of both ludology (Juul, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]) and its focus on game structures as well as narratology (Arsenault, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]) with its focus on game narratives. By including both game structures and narratives in their analyses, students' demonstrated that both ludology and narratology can coexist during video game analyses, supporting the perspectives of Frasca ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]) and Kokonis ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref76">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, the approach of our study, including students' use of the GRAD Framework (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref77">59</reflink>]), highlights the ways that students grappled with the interplay of their analysis and decision‐making, both of which were dependent upon, influenced by and also exerted influence over the on‐screen multimodal symbols. In this sense, students' metacognitive reflections demonstrate that their understanding of multimodal symbols impacted their decision‐making, which in turn impacted subsequent presentations of symbols. This relationship of understanding and decision‐making is inherent to video gameplay, and this study's presentation of that relationship makes a valuable contribution to the literacy research base.</p> <p>This study also demonstrates students' selective attention (Rosenblatt, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref78">48</reflink>]) and how they can focus on and analyse various types of multimodal symbols within video games. Students tended to pay more attention to some communicative modes more than others in their reflections. For example, students reflected on dynamic visuals and written language more than audio representations and tactile experiences, which is likely due to the higher frequency and greater salience of these communicative modes in the games. Overall, students' ability to interpret a wide variety of multimodal symbols and reflect on the information communicated via these symbols is relevant to the current conceptions of literacy that emphasise multimodal learning and communication (Cope and Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref79">24</reflink>]; Lankshear and Knobel, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref80">36</reflink>]; Serafini, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref81">50</reflink>]). Multimodality is ubiquitous in modern society, and while some scholarship examines the multimodality of video games conceptually (Gee, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]; Lemke, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref83">37</reflink>]), this study contributes to the literature by providing an empirical account of how children analyse multimodality in games to support their comprehension and decision‐making processes, which yields implications for literacy teachers as they incorporate new media in the classroom. While students wrote their multimodal analyses individually, they played the game in a socially vibrant environment in which students provided general commentary and suggestions to one another during gameplay. The content of this commentary was not the focus of this study; however, further research should continue to examine how gaming can lead to collaborative educational communities and meaning‐making. For example, Bailey ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]) investigated how children created communities connected <emph>Minecraft</emph>, which involved both in‐person and virtual interactions. Students passionately discussed the game and game world with one another and jointly sang songs about their experiences. Thus, interesting communities that engage in valuable literacy practices can emerge in conjunction with gameplay, and further research needs to investigate this phenomenon.</p> <p>This study also contributes to the literature on metacognition in literacy practices. Much of the work in this field focuses on traditional perspectives of literacy related to reading and writing (Bauserman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>]; Hacker et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref86">30</reflink>]; McKeown and Beck, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]). However, this study focuses on the metacognitive comprehension processes specific to semantic and syntactic features (Block, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]), but applies them to the multimodal context of video game literacies (Bourgonjon, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]; Squire, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref90">52</reflink>]) to make a unique contribution to the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-17">Classroom implications</hd> <p>This study demonstrates one way that video games can be integrated into the classroom as interactive multimodal texts, moving beyond reading and writing in their more traditional sense to focus more broadly on the role of digital literacies in ELA classrooms. Given that students regularly engage with a wide variety of text types, including books, videos, music and more (Flood et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref91">26</reflink>]), we believe it is important for video games to also be included in ELA classrooms as texts, particularly given that they are an incredibly popular and culturally significant form of media for children (Muriel and Crawford, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref92">44</reflink>]; NPD Group, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref93">45</reflink>]). Similar to the manner in which students read, analyse and respond (in writing or via discussion) to other texts, so too can students use video games to engage in critical analysis. Teachers can use students' gameplay experiences as a springboard towards a variety of literacy goals. For example, teachers can consider students' understanding of the meaning of abstract symbols in video games, such as chicken wings and hearts in <emph>Minecraft</emph> representing hunger and health, to scaffold literacy instruction related to symbolism in traditional texts; by taking the context‐specific representation of multimodal symbols within a video game and their student‐identified meanings within the game, teachers can provide more in‐depth instruction related to the ways that objects in texts can represent literal meanings while also representing something beyond the literal meaning. Additionally, given that <emph>Minecraft</emph> is a game where players literally build their own digital worlds, there are opportunities for teachers to allow students to (re)create worlds from other texts in <emph>Minecraft</emph>. For example, Marlatt ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref94">39</reflink>]) examined how <emph>Minecraft</emph> can serve as a medium for literary analysis in the high school in which students can recreate scenes from novels and imbue <emph>Minecraft</emph> worlds with a novel's characters, themes, symbols and motifs to promote engagement with key ideas from a text and stimulate reflection in ways that support comprehension. This is obviously a different approach to textual analysis than the present study (as it focused on analysing a novel through engaging with <emph>Minecraft</emph>), and other forms of textual analysis can also occur with games, such as those that focus primarily on the game's story, characters, plot and setting.</p> <p>Furthermore, teachers can leverage students' interest in video games to support students' literacy development by incorporating games into the curriculum to scaffold critical thinking and literacy skills during gameplay that can also extend to other texts. For instance, video games can help students interpret information presented explicitly in a text (i.e. video game) while also drawing inferences; this process is applicable to a variety of other texts used in ELA classrooms. In the same way that students use noises from approaching monsters in <emph>Minecraft</emph> to decide to seek shelter in the game, a process that involves using inference clues to help them identify and analyse risk and act accordingly in the absence of such risk being explicitly defined or presented, students can also consider subtleties in other texts to help them interpret the text more broadly, such as by recognising a character's state of mind or motivations based on inflection present in oral language of a multimodal text. Through in‐class collaborative gameplay, discussion and/or reflective writing, students can reflect upon the meanings of multimodal symbols and the ways that they analyse those symbols and make decisions based on their understandings. This process can be extended by teachers into a variety of literacy classroom activities, such as having students identify symbols and context‐ or media‐specific meanings within books, movies, games and more (Burn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref95">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our study builds upon work such as that of Burn ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref96">19</reflink>]) regarding a framework for the use of video games for multimodal analysis. Such analyses can support students' understanding of game‐grammar (Burn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref97">18</reflink>]), which deals with the structure of games and how the player can perform certain actions but not others. For example, in some games, players can only traverse land on foot, yet in others, they can ride horses, drive cars and/or fly helicopters. The options provided to the player result in a structure/grammar for gamers to understand that they then use to decide how they want to play and progress in the game given its structure. Multimodal analyses can in part or in whole focus on game‐grammars to deeply understand the game's structure (Burn, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref98">18</reflink>]) and paths for progression (von Gillern, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref99">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, as Beavis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref100">10</reflink>]) found, teachers hold a pivotal position in terms of if and how video games are used in classroom settings. Our study provides one example of how teachers can incorporate video games into ELA instruction to support students' metacognitive reflections. While this study focused on students' written reflections, metacognitive processes and multimodal analyses of video games as interactive texts, additional opportunities for students to engage with video game literacies include creating game reviews, analysing games' stories and creating how‐to guides (von Gillern et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref101">60</reflink>]). Additionally, while multimodal literacy practices involved with video gaming may support learning in other content areas, particularly given that digital game‐based learning has shown positive learning effects in a variety of disciplines (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref102">22</reflink>]), examining such processes was not in the scope of this study and represents an area for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0161310434-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>Ultimately, video games have received relatively little attention in literacy research, even though they are a highly vibrant, engaging and popular form of media. Video gaming is a form of literacy and promotes learning (Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref103">6</reflink>]; Gee, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref104">29</reflink>]; Squire, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref105">52</reflink>]), and further research is needed to understand how video game literacies can facilitate student learning, not only through gameplay itself but via tangential activities including reflection, analysis, writing and other approaches to literacy learning and development (Stufft, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]). As literacy educators and researchers, it is important for us to value the literacy practices of children. The lived experiences and out‐of‐school literacy practices of children deserve to be acknowledged, respected and nurtured by educators (Burnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref107">20</reflink>]; Morrell, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref108">43</reflink>]). Children around the world regularly play video games of their own accord and volition. They talk about games, read and watch game reviews, and participate in wikis and discussion forums. These are valuable literacy practices that we believe deserve inclusion in ELA classrooms. By incorporating video games into the literacy curriculum, teachers can harness student interests in new media while fostering metacognitive reflection and valuable literacy processes (Beavis et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref109">10</reflink>]).</p> <ref id="AN0161310434-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aarseth, E. (2003) ' Playing research: methodological approaches to game analysis ', in Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference. Melbourne, VIC : RMIT University, pp. 28 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abrams, S. S. and Gerber, H. R. (2014) Cross‐literate connections: contemporary frames for meaning making in ELA classrooms. English Journal, 103. 4, pp. 18 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref68" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alberti, J. (2008) The game of reading and writing: how video games reframe our understanding of literacy. Computers and Composition, 25, pp. 258 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alvermann, D. E. and Kaminski Sanders, R. (2019) ' Adolescent literacy in a digital world ', in The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy. Wiley, pp. 1 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arsenault, D. (2014) ' Narratology ', in M. J. P. Wolf, B. Perron (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies. Routledge, pp. 475 – 483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, C. (2016) Free the sheep: improvised song and performance in and around a Minecraft community. Literacy, 50. 2, pp. 62 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bauserman, K. (2005) ' Metacognitive processes inventory: an informal instrument to assess a student's developmental level of metacognition ', in S. Israel, C. Block, K. Bauserman, K. Kinnucan‐Welsch (Eds.) Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 165 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref50" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13. 4, pp. 544 – 559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beavis, C. (2012) Video games in the classroom: developing digital literacies. Practically Primary, 17. 1, pp. 17 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beavis, C., Rowan, L., Dezuanni, M., McGillivray, C., O'Mara, J., Prestridge, S., Stieler‐Hunt, C., Thompson, R. and Zagami, J. (2014) Teachers' beliefs about the possibilities and limitations of digital games in classrooms. E‐learning and Digital Media, 11. 6, pp. 569 – 581. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.6.569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berger, R. and McDougall, J. (2013) Reading videogames as (authorless) literature. Literacy, 47, pp. 142 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bezemer, J. and Kress, G. (2015) Multimodality, Learning and Communication: A Social Semiotic Frame. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Block, C. C. (2004) Teaching Comprehension: The Comprehension Process Approach. Allyn &amp; Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> BLUE FANG GAMES (2017). Zoo Tycoon: Ultimate Animal Collection [Xbox One Video Game]. Microsoft Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogost, I. (2008) Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourgonjon, J. (2014) The meaning and relevance of video game literacy. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 16. 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E. and King, N. (2015) The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12. 2, pp. 202 – 222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burn, A. (2005) Potter‐literacy – from book to game and back again; literature, film, game and cross‐media literacy. Papers: Explorations into Children's Literature, 14. 3, pp. 5 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burn, A. (2016) ' Games, films and media literacy: frameworks for multimodal analysis ', in M. Knobel, C. Lankshear (Eds.) Researching New Literacies: Design, Theory, and Data in Sociocultural Investigation. New York : Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnett, C., Davies, J., Merchant, G. and Rowsell, J. (Eds.) (2014) New Literacies Around the Globe: Policy and Pedagogy, 1st edn. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cer, E. (2019) The instruction of writing strategies: the effect of the metacognitive strategy on the writing skills of pupils in secondary education. SAGE Open, 9. 2, 2158244019842681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, D. B., Tanner‐Smith, E. E. and Killingsworth, S. S. (2016) Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86. 1, pp. 79 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. and Leu, D. J. (2014) ' Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research ', in J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, D. J. Leu (Eds.) Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum, pp. 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2016) A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by Design. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flavell, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34. 10, pp. 906 – 911.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood, J., Heath, S. B. and Lapp, D. (Eds.) (2014) Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts – Volume II. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frasca, G. (2003). Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate that never took place, Digital Games Research Conference 2003 Proceedings. DiGRA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2003) What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, Vol. 1. Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2007) Good Video Games + Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning, and Literacy. Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C. and Kircher, J. C. (2009) ' Writing is applied metacognition ', in D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser (Eds.) Handbook of Metacognition in Education. Routledge, pp. 154 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, M. M. (2018) Video games and virtual reality as classroom literature: thoughts, experiences, and learning with 8th grade middle school students (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/educ_llss_etds/90/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juul, J. (1999). A Clash Between Game and Narrative – A Thesis on Computer Games and Interactive Fiction. MA Thesis, Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juul, J. (2011) Half‐Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, N. (2012) ' Doing template analysis ', in G. Symon, C. Cassell (Eds.) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. SAGE, pp. 426 – 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kokonis, M. (2014) Intermediality between games and fiction: the "ludology vs. narratology" debate in computer game studies: a response to Gonzalo Frasca. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies, 9, pp. 171 – 188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2011) New Literacies, 3rd edn. Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemke, J. (2009) ' Multimodality, identity, and time ', in C. Jewitt (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge, pp. 140 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackey, M. (2007) Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text, 2nd edn. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlatt, R. (2018) Literary analysis using Minecraft: an Asian American youth crafts her literacy identity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62. 1, pp. 55 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown, M. G. and Beck, I. L. (2009) ' The role of metacognition in understanding and supporting reading comprehension ', in D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser (Eds.) Handbook of Metacognition in Education, The Educational Psychology Series. Routledge, pp. 7 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MOJANG STUDIOS (2009). Minecraft [Xbox One Video Game]. Xbox Game Studios.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell, E. (2004) Linking literacy and popular culture: finding connections for lifelong learning. Christopher‐Gordon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muriel, D. and Crawford, G. (2018) Video Games as Culture: Considering the Role and Importance of Video Games in Contemporary Society. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NPD GROUP (2020). The Evolution of Entertainment. NPD Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez Latorre, Ó. (2015) The social discourse of video games analysis model and case study: GTA IV. Games and Culture, 10. 5, pp. 415 – 437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, J., Lundie, D. and Golder, G. (2019) Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71. 4, pp. 483 – 500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L. (1994) ' The transactional theory of reading and writing ', in R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th edn. International Reading Association, pp. 1057 – 1092.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edn. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serafini, F. (2015) Multimodal literacy: from theories to practices. Language Arts, 92. 6, pp. 412 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N. and Riffo, B. (2019) Reading comprehension and metacognition: the importance of inferential skills. Cogent education, 6. 1, 1565067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Squire, K. (2014) ' Video‐game literacy: a literacy of expertise ', in J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, D. Leu (Eds.) Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Routledge, pp. 635 – 670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stufft, C. J. (2018) Engaging students in literacy practices through video game book groups. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 67. 1, pp. 195 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stufft, C. and von Gillern, S. (2021) Fostering multimodal analyses of video games: reflective writing in the middle school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 65. 3, pp. 245 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TELLTALE GAMES (2017). Minecraft: Story Mode – Season 2 [Xbox One Video Game]. Xbox Game Studios.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66. 1, pp. 60 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TRAVELLER'S TALES (2017). LEGO Worlds [Xbox One Video Game]. Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Gillern, S. (2016a) Perceptual, decision‐making, and learning processes during video gameplay: An analysis of Infamous ‐ Second Son with the Gamer Response and Decision Framework. Games and Learning Society 2016 Conference Proceedings. Madison, WI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Gillern, S. (2016b) The Gamer Response and Decision Framework: a tool for understanding video gameplay experiences. Simulation &amp; Gaming, 47. 5, pp. 666 – 683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Gillern, S., Stufft, C. and Harvey, M. (2021) Integrating video games into the ELA classroom. Literacy Today, 38. 6, pp. 64 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sam von Gillern and Carolyn Stufft</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref108"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1362246 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Multimodality, Learning and Decision-Making: Children's Metacognitive Reflections on Their Engagement with Video Games as Interactive Texts – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22von+Gillern%2C+Sam%22">von Gillern, Sam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6961-4236">0000-0001-6961-4236</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stufft%2C+Carolyn%22">Stufft, Carolyn</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Literacy%22"><i>Literacy</i></searchLink>. Jan 2023 57(1):3-16. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Games%22">Video Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reflection%22">Reflection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semantics%22">Semantics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Symbolic+Learning%22">Symbolic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Symbolic+Language%22">Symbolic Language</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1111/lit.12304 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1741-4350<br />1741-4369 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This study examines how 31 middle-school children conducted multimodal analyses of video games. Over four consecutive days, students played video games for 30 minutes and then wrote written reflections about the multimodal symbols within the game and how these symbols influenced their interpretation and decision-making processes during gameplay. Students produced 124 reflections in total, which were analysed via template analysis to determine how children metacognitively reflected on different types of multimodal symbols and used those symbols to comprehend the games and make decisions. Results illustrate how students engaged in metacognitive semantic and syntactic processes with a variety of multimodal symbols, such as written language, dynamic visuals and abstract symbols, during gameplay that aided their understanding of the games and influenced their decisions. This study contributes to the limited empirical research on video game literacies and illustrates children's meaning-making processes while engaged with video games as multimodal interactive texts. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1362246 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1362246 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/lit.12304 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 3 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Middle School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Metacognition Type: general – SubjectFull: Play Type: general – SubjectFull: Video Games Type: general – SubjectFull: Interaction Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Decision Making Type: general – SubjectFull: Reflection Type: general – SubjectFull: Semantics Type: general – SubjectFull: Syntax Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Written Language Type: general – SubjectFull: Symbolic Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Symbolic Language Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Multimodality, Learning and Decision-Making: Children's Metacognitive Reflections on Their Engagement with Video Games as Interactive Texts Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: von Gillern, Sam – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Stufft, Carolyn IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1741-4350 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1741-4369 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 57 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Literacy Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
