Gamification: Questing to integrate content knowledge, literacy, and 21st Century learning (in press) Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.

FEATURE ARTICLE

1

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy xx(x) x 2015 doi: 10.1002/jaal.426 © 2015 International Literacy Association (pp. 1–11)

Gamification Q U E S T I N G T O I N T E G R AT E C O N T E N T K N O W L E D G E , L I T E R A C Y, A N D 2 1S T- C E N T U R Y L E A R N I N G

Tara L. Kingsley & Melissa M. Grabner-Hagen

Gamification offers the unique opportunity to combine content area instruction, literacy, and 21st-century learning skills in a highly engaging learning environment.

Twelve- year- old Colette enters Mr. Wallen ’ s (pseudonym) classroom, reads the ad-vanced organizer on the board, and then

logs on to her iPad to begin today ’ s 3D GameLab (3dgamelab.com) quest. She and her partner com-plete a “Conservation of Matter” lab using a triple beam balance and LEGOs. This activity is worth 100 experience points (XPs) toward her next 3D GameLab badge. First, Colette imports the PDF for the lab sheet into the writing app, Notability. The quest starts with a short video developed by Mr. Wallen that shows how to use a tri-ple beam balance. The students begin the lab using materials to ex-periment and iPads to record information.

Colette enlarges the response box, using pinch- to- zoom, allow-ing her to easily control the space to finger- write her hypothesis. She and

her partner use the iPad to sketch their observations using shape boxes and colors and adjusting line widths as needed. When writing the lab conclusions, the girls struggle to answer the question, “What is the conservation of matter?” They do not know the defini-tion of conservation . Colette exits to the home screen and opens the dictionary app. She types in “conserva-tion” and reads the definition aloud several times, discussing ideas with her partner. Swiping back to Notability, she rereads the question, “What is conser-vation of matter?” She continues to multitask, swiping back and forth from the definition to the lab question until she feels confident about her response.

Colette and her partner record their lab findings in a new note on the class Padlet wall (see https://padlet.com ), instantly uploading their activity for the class to view. When the lab is complete, Colette takes a screenshot of her lab sheet, uploads the image, and submits her work electronically to her teacher.

Gamification for Learning The scenario with Colette describes a typical student experience in Mr. Wallen ’ s gamified classroom.

Tara L. Kingsley is an assistant professor at Indiana University Kokomo, USA; e- mail [email protected] .

Melissa M. Grabner-Hagen is an assistant professor at Indiana University Kokomo, USA; e- mail [email protected] .

Authors (left to right)

2

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

XX

(X)

X 2

015

FEATURE ARTICLE

Nearly all of today ’ s adolescents (ages 12–17) are gamers who primarily play games socially in house-hold or online environments (Lenhart et al., 2008 ). Gaming, in real or virtual worlds, can provide motiva-tion for students to complete tasks (Glover, 2013 ; Lee & Hammer, 2011 ). Gee ( 2007 ) has argued that well- designed games engage the player in complex and critical thinking, embodying dispositions necessary for 21st- century learners.

Game- based learning (GBL), or the use of video games for educational purposes, has been shown to be an effective means of enhancing both learning motivation and academic performance (Chang, Wu, Weng, & Sung, 2012 ; Chun- Hung et al., 2013 ; Virvou, Katsionis, & Manos, 2005 ). The 21st- century literacy skills involved in GBL allow information and communication technologies (ICTs) to become in-creasingly social and user- centric, with Internet users no longer sole consumers of information but also producers of information (Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013 ). Through 3D GameLab and various apps, Mr. Wallen has created a unique way to teach science and literacy skills through technology. Colette must blend knowledge of science content, literacy, and specific technology skills to complete the gaming quest described in the opening scenario.

A newer concept to GBL is the notion of gamifi-cation, which incorporates attributes of GBL in non-game applications (Simões et al., 2013 ). Gamification may involve the teacher gamifying an activity or teaching a concept by including mechanics such as achievement badges, levels, and XPs for mastering a given level (see Bunchball, 2010 , for common gam-ing elements), thus increasing student engagement without ties to any one specific game. Students are, therefore, learning content and practicing literacy skills as if they were playing a game, making the edu-cational experience both challenging and fun (Vassileva, 2008 ).

The purpose of this article is to examine how gamification, coupled with effective pedagogy, can support the acquisition of 21st- century skills. The following questions frame our study:

1 . How can gamification support the multimodal and social nature of new literacies?

2 . How does gamification provide opportunities for creativity, critical thinking, communica-tion, and collaboration?

In the following, we discuss the theoretical framework, New Literacies theory, that has informed our case study of one teacher ’ s journey using gamifi-cation. Additional discussion will place this frame-work within two educational reforms and initiatives: the Common Core State Standards and Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21).

We begin our observation analysis by first sharing Mr. Wallen ’ s transformation to gamification. In do-ing so, we highlight essential qualities of gamifica-tion. Second, we provide snapshots of the integration of new literacies skills into 3D GameLab, arranging these examples according to P21 ’ s Learning and Innovation Skills category. Third, we report learner perceptions of the 3D GameLab platform, sharing results from our survey with Mr. Wallen ’ s students. Finally, we discuss implications for teachers who wish to meet student needs and state literacy require-ments through a gamified learning experience.

New Literacies: Multiple, Multimodal, and Multifaceted Generally speaking, new literacies refers to literacies enabled by digital or Internet technologies. Accurately defining the term is difficult, if not impossible, be-cause new literacies are, by nature, rapidly changing and situational (Leu et al., 2015 ). Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and Henry ( 2013 ) addressed the conundrum of this evolving context within two levels: New Literacies (uppercase) and new literacies (lowercase). Lowercase theories inform specific areas of study or new technologies, such as practices associated with ICTs (Kingsley & Tancock, 2014 ; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004 ). Common findings within lowercase new literacies research inform and guide the development of principles within uppercase New Literacies. This study explores a specific area of low-ercase new literacies, gamification, as a means to con-tribute to the ever- expanding theory of uppercase New Literacies. Thus, this study is situated within both contextual levels.

One key principle of New Literacies acknowl-edges new literacies as multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted (Leu et al., 2013 ). The New London

“Students are learning content

and practicing literacy as if they

were playing a game.”

3

Gam

ific

atio

n Q

uein

g to

Int

egra

te C

onte

nt K

now

led

ge,

Lite

racy

, an

d 21

st-C

entu

ry L

earn

ing

Group ( 2000 ) places multiliteracies within various communication modes, including linguistic, audi-tory, spatial, visual, and gestural. Books, games, and digital media are all modes of literacy requiring read-ers to both take in and make meaning (Gee, 2013 ). Thus, our discussion of multiliteracies includes mul-tiple modes and contexts. New Literacies theory rec-ognizes research within multimodality theory and asserts that new literacies involve reading, examining, and creating with both print and digital texts (Jewitt & Kress, 2003 ; Kress, 2003 ). Creating and comprehend-ing multimedia messages is the key to multimedia literacy (Mayer, 2008 ). Learners today, many using 1:1 devices, are able to engage in multimodal digital composing, using both linguistic and media modes to create and share artifacts (Dalton, 2013 ).

Further, new social practices evolve from the use of new literacies (Leu et al., 2013 ). The characteris-tics and combination of New Literacies creates a new, contemporary mind- set, fully acclimatized within Web 2.0 modalities. Central to this principle is what Lankshear and Knobel ( 2006 ) refer to as the ethos of new literacies, meaning new literacies are more participatory, collaborative, and distributed when compared with conventional literacies. They argued that simply fitting new technologies into stan-dard classroom practices may allow students to learn a particular technology at the surface level rather than embed technology within everyday social prac-tices. These surface- level attempts to technologize learning (e.g., using PowerPoint instead of a poster to present information) tend to “perpetuate the old, rather than to engage with and refine or reinvent the new” (p. 55). Thus, in order for literacy to be consid-ered new, it must be embedded within authentic sit-uations and used to promote 21st- century student outcomes.

Gee ’ s ( 2004 ) recognition of learning within affin-ity spaces (physical or virtual) contributes to the mul-tifaceted and social nature of New Literacies. Affinity spaces are shared social spaces, used to connect with others and pursue interests. Members of affinity groups understand the group ’ s identities and social norms. These spaces foster collaboration and typify the ethos of new literacies.

Capitalizing on multiliteracies requires a shifting mind- set of schooling, one that incorporates play, imagination, the unpredictability of learning, and a fun learning environment (Jacobs, 2014 ). This study examines the use of gamification as a means to embody the multifaceted, multimodal, and social

aspects of New Literacies. Games can be structured to create a virtual reality in which students use new literacies skills to navigate through and participate within multiple formats and modalities (Apperley & Walsh, 2012 ).

New Standards and Initiatives Informing the present study are national education reforms, which notably recognize the advancement of new literacies. First, the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center & CCSSO], 2010 ) promotes new literacies skills. The English Language Arts Anchor Standards require higher order thinking through complex texts, close reading, and vocabulary acquisition, with an increased emphasis on expository text. Anchor Standards include the use of digital tools to produce and publish writing, draw inferences and evidence from text, and conduct research. These Standards represent the advancement and promotion of both critical thinking and digital literacy skills in K–12 education.

Second, P21 ( 2009a ) has developed a framework incorporating 21st- century learning. This collected vision describes the “skills, knowledge and expertise students must master to succeed in work and life; it is a blend of content knowledge, specific skills, exper-tise and literacies” (p. 1). No longer are the three R s of reading, writing, and arithmetic sufficient for stu-dents, who must develop the skills necessary to com-pete in today ’ s global economy. Rather, an integration of the content subject knowledge, along with what P21 refers to as the 4Cs—critical thinking, communi-cation, collaboration, and creativity—will prepare students for 21st- century learning.

Our Methods For the present case study (Creswell, 2014 ), we com-pleted data collection over four weeks while Mr. Wallen ’ s classes participated in a technology- based, gamified science unit. A mixed- methods approach was used to observe the interactions within the online and real- life classrooms (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013 ). Data were collected through classroom obser-vations, analysis of the gamified learning environ-ment, semistructured interviews with the teacher, and a survey of students (Creswell, 2011 , 2014 ). Students in Mr. Wallen ’ s class were surveyed about

4

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

XX

(X)

X 2

015

FEATURE ARTICLE

using iPads, 3D GameLab, and gamification of learn-ing ( n = 47). Questions were open- ended (two ques-tions) or Likert- scale (10 questions) covering motivation, instruction, and preference.

Mr. Wallen was one of two teachers within a large, Midwestern metropolitan intermediate school (grades 5 and 6) chosen to implement 1:1 iPad tech-nology in the classroom. His four science rotations were diverse and of mixed abilities, including general education students, high- ability students, and stu-dents with identified learning disabilities. Overall, school demographics indicate that 20% of students receive free or reduced- price lunch. Approxi ma tely 70% of students were of white/non- Hispanic origin.

Within the curriculum, we examined ICTs use, the gamification platform, and the teacher- designed content, structures, and activities. Time logs and event recordings were used for the descriptive obser-vation of real- time classroom events and procedures. Classroom variables observed over time included interactions of the students with technology, the teachers’ classroom management, and instruction between teachers and students. Interobserver reli-ability between the two researchers on coding was 94%. For this report, we sorted data thematically for examples of P21 ’ s Learning and Innovation Skills for creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. Data triangulation (Patton, 2002 ) oc-curred through teacher interviews, classroom obser-vations, and electronic learning environment analysis. Teacher feedback and student survey infor-mation further supplemented the triangulation pro-cess (Patton, 2002 ).

Mr. Wallen ’ s Example Mr. Wallen, a longtime gamer himself, received train-ing on gamification platforms through his own initia-tive. As we describe his class ’ s transformation to a gamified classroom, we share the following key quali-ties of gamification to situate this approach to learn-ing: (a) introducing technology, (b) designing curriculum, and (c) assessment and mastery learning.

Introducing Technology Mr. Wallen began the academic year with what he calls “boot camp” to teach basic technology skills. Boot camp empowered students to navigate in online settings, including iPad tips and tricks, setting up on-line file storage, and use of various applications. He gamified his classroom through3D GameLab, a quest- based learning platform where students earn XPs, badges, and awards competing against them-selves to progress through hierarchical tasks.

The paid 3D GameLab platform simplifies the teacher management of quests and tracking student progress; however, gaming mechanics can be incor-porated into any existing learning management sys-tem, including free open- source learning platforms such as Moodle ( https://moodle.org ). Figure 1 depicts a student ’ s view of the 3D GameLab homepage, in-cluding gaming mechanics.

Designing Curriculum Mr. Wallen first transformed his existing science curriculum into “quest chains,” or roadmaps for instruc-tion. Within the quest chain, students had options for reaching leveled XP requirements and could select

FIGURE 1 Annotated 3D GameLab Screenshot

5

Gam

ific

atio

n Q

uein

g to

Int

egra

te C

onte

nt K

now

led

ge,

Lite

racy

, an

d 21

st-C

entu

ry L

earn

ing

quests of interest, rather than completing assignments in a fixed, linear progression (see Figure 2 ). They had to earn the required amount of XPs before “leveling up.” Quest chains increased in difficulty in terms of con-cepts the students were learning, providing a measured approach to build knowledge at a gradual pace (Gee, 2003 ). Through gamification and technology, students could self- regulate their learning (Abrams & Walsh, 2014 ). Students picked what activities to complete based on skill, knowledge, interest, and time. Therefore, his students were in control of their learning choices. A student ’ s survey response illustrates this: “In GameLab, I get to decide which lessons I want to do. In my other classes, I have to go by the teacher ’ s schedule.”

The progression of quests began with a big idea, such as the principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Using the backward design principle (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ), Mr. Wallen provided his students with a bigger picture or template statement to help his learners make sense of details within the quest. Next, students were exposed to a variety of multimedia. For example, students could view short video clips, either found online, such as “States of Matter” on

BrainPOP ( https://www.brainpop.com ) or Bill Nye ’ s “Phases of Matter” hosted on YouTube, or through teacher- developed videos, such as Mr. Wallen ’ s pre-sentation on linear measurement ( https://iu.app.box.com/linearmeasurement ). The goal of interacting with a variety of texts was to front- load science concepts and build schemata within the matter unit.

As students progressed through the quest levels, they earned awards or badges. Badges, by design, used science vocabulary to reinforce key concepts and build a deep understanding of related terms. As shown in Figure 3 , students began the quest as a solid and evolved through the states of matter as they leveled up through the curriculum. Their goal was to reach the highest level, sublimation. The game itself was associ-ated with the unit ’ s vocabulary words, rather than iso-lated definitions, and students were able to attach words to real- world contexts (see Figure 3 ).

Assessment and Mastery Learning By Mr. Wallen ’ s design, instruction through gamifica-tion offered a low- threat experience. Failure in the in-structional environment had a low cost and provided an

FIGURE 2 Quest Chain for Science Matter Unit

6

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

XX

(X)

X 2

015

FEATURE ARTICLE

opportunity for additional practice (Gee, 2013 ). In Mr. Wallen ’ s classroom, students were given opportunities to repeat content, complete alternate assignments, or re-quest additional time before passing quests, allowing stu-dents to demonstrate mastery learning of the topic. Included in the quest chain were frequent formative as-sessments, called “mini bosses.” These were preparation for beating “the boss,” better known as a final assessment. Progress bars within 3D GameLab were visible to the stu-dent and used to document growth toward the final unit goals. For Mr. Wallen, the game elements were impor-tant because they took advantage of the motivation that video games offer to promote mastery learning. “They want, just like any video game, to achieve the highest score. They want one hundred percent, and if that means getting a perfect score on a second or a third try, they learned it” (personal communication, May 7, 2014).

Observations of Mr. Wallen ’ s Classroom We used our theoretical framework aligned to new ini-tiatives to organize our observations into the following P21 Learning and Innovation Skills: (a) creativity and innovation, (b) critical thinking and problem solving, and (c) communication and collaboration. Within each subsection, we provide snapshots of the integra-tion of new literacies skills into 3D GameLab observed within Mr. Wallen ’ s classroom and contextualize these snapshots within New Literacies.

Creativity and Innovation Creative thinking allows learners to produce some-thing new or original. 21st- century skills for creativity and innovation include brainstorming and refining

ideas, seeking diverse perspectives, and implementing innovations (P21, 2009a ). Creative thinking includes a wide range of cognitive skills to pattern knowledge in new, innovative ways (L.W. Anderson, 2009 ).

Colette worked with a group of students to com-plete the quest “Act It Out.” Their job was to create an iMovie to document a change in matter, acting like molecules. They gathered outside of their class-room, iPad mounted on a tripod, writing their script within a storyboard. According to task requirements, their collaborative final product included an informa-tive narration and video effects and was published within the learning management system.

The quest activities required the use of multilitera-cies skills and knowledge, including linguistic, auditory, spatial, visual, and gestural, to create a participatory cul-ture for students (New London Group, 2000 ). Specifically, students were required to brainstorm ideas, craft a script, and perform, all while implementing new literacies skills to navigate iMovie, synthesize and edit content, and publish a final product online. Students engaged in creative and innovative thinking when com-pleting the quest while paying attention to what was ap-propriate for the given audience. The literacy skills involved in the quest were extensive, allowing students to think creatively and work creatively with others to showcase knowledge of a topic in an innovative way. Mr. Wallen ’ s students became multimodal designers of con-tent through this technology- rich quest (Dalton, 2013 ).

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving The push for critical thinking traces back to Dewey ’ s ( 1910 ) time, when value laid in knowing what to do with acquired information rather than simply

FIGURE 3 Badges Representing a Unit ’ s Vocabulary Terms

7

Gam

ific

atio

n Q

uein

g to

Int

egra

te C

onte

nt K

now

led

ge,

Lite

racy

, an

d 21

st-C

entu

ry L

earn

ing

repeating facts for a test. Gee ( 2013 ) illustrated the connection between games and critical thinking, stat-ing that games are “just well- designed experiences in problem solving” (p. 19). To problem solve quests, Colette and her peers must think like a scientist by implementing disciplinary- specific strategies, one of the major literacy shifts in the Common Core. Proficient science readers must know how to read text, often including tables and charts, focusing spe-cifically on text features to support interpretation (Krajcik & Sutherland, 2010 ).

Take, for example, Mr. Wallen ’ s “Super Block” quest in which students measure the mass, volume, and density of various metals (e.g., gold, silver, copper). Students first explore quest- embedded hyperlinks to read about density control before generating a hypoth-esis, evaluating data, and drawing conclusions. Students assimilate learned information in new contexts to reflect on the following question: “If you were a superhero, what could you do with the power to change your den-sity, either to make yourself more dense or less dense?”

When she did this quest, Colette, like field scien-tists, had to consider multiple sources of data to gener-ate connections, build arguments, and support claims. The quest required her to synthesize and compile in-formation in new ways to propose a solution for her fictitious superhero. Her thinking needed to be system-atic and include deductive and inductive reasoning for critical thinking and problem solving (P21, 2009b ).

Mr. Wallen designed this quest experience within multiple learning modalities, including digi-tal, print, and other multimodal formats. Responses were crafted using new literacies skills within digital contexts that required “new forms of strategic knowl-edge” (Leu et al., 2013 , p. 1162). Students uploaded screenshots of their responses or typed out their con-clusion within a collaborative writing platform. Part of the task was to view other students’ work without duplicating previous student responses, thus adding an additional level of critical thinking to create new expressions of information. A sample of student re-sponses can be found in Figure 4 .

FIGURE 4 Super Block Student Responses

8

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

XX

(X)

X 2

015

FEATURE ARTICLE

Communication and Collaboration Gamification of curriculum affords students opportu-nities to use technology to communicate and collabo-rate within both traditional and online environments. Transforming a traditional science activity into a gaming quest allows technology to foster the collabo-ration process. Indeed, gaming in itself is a collabora-tive undertaking (Gee, 2013 ), and the Common Core ’ s Anchor Standards include participation in conversations and collaborations with diverse part-ners, purposeful presentation of information, and use of digital media to express information and enhance presentations (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010 ).

Colette joined a triad to create a tutorial video for the quest “Teach Me How to Measure.” Her group ’ s chosen topic was measuring volume. In this quest, the task was to teach others how to measure liquid volume using a graduated cylinder by creating a tutorial video with an interactive whiteboard application. The pur-pose of the tutorial creation was to share knowledge with a larger audience. Specifically, the group video was to be used by Mr. Wallen ’ s colleague, who, in fu-ture weeks, would be teaching this concept to her class.

The use of online communication technologies can motivate students to write for a larger audience, provide meaningful exchanges, and help students de-velop social identities (Kuteeva, 2011 ; Lewis & Fabos, 2005 ). Creating and collaborating for others can shift writing away from a grade- based task. It becomes situ-ated within a social context with an increased focus on style, genre, and audience (Sweeny, 2010 ).

Within the gamified unit, Colette worked to-gether with her peers to develop an iMovie, discussed concepts within a lab, created tutorials, and shared new knowledge within collaborative writing platforms. Colette and her partners engaged with science con-tent while providing scaffolded instruction to others in digital literacy skills, sharing tips and demonstrating technology applications. Learning became situated within an affinity space (Gee, 2004 ) to provide in-creased opportunities to pursue interests and collabo-rate on projects. Embedding collaborative tasks was a central aspect of Mr. Wallen ’ s quest design.

It used to be the whole class was doing the lab together at the same time, or the whole class would be doing an activity where they ’ re partnered up. It seems like the quest collabora-tion now is more genuine. It ’ s individuals coming together to do an assignment. It ’ s more purposeful and real. (personal communication, May 7, 2014)

Quests can promote meaningful conversations with students, as they use literacy skills to discuss and problem solve quest activities, all while focusing on 21st- century student outcomes. “Good games can cre-ate talk and text both in the game and outside of it in an interest- driven site where players discuss the game, game play, and problem solving, gaining metacogni-tive and metalinguistic skills” (Gee, 2013 , p. 19).

Student Perceptions of Gamification To establish student perceptions about ICT use, the 3D GameLab, and gamification in the classroom, we surveyed the students in Mr. Wallen ’ s class. Students ( N = 47) reported that they looked forward to days when they used iPads for 3D GameLab, with 95.8% marking agree or strongly agree. This demonstrates an overall enjoyment of this teaching method. Students stated that using the technology made learn-ing easier (87.2%), and the quality of their work was better when learning through the gamification tool (87.2%). Subject matter is easier to learn in 3D GameLab according to 82.9% of the students, and 91.5% reported 3D GameLab as being better for learning than paper- and- pencil tasks. Most students (93.6%) stated that they enjoyed earning gaming badges. These findings have implications for instruc-tion as well as motivation.

Students were asked about the activities in which they use technology outside of school. The top re-sponses included looking up information for own in-terest (58.5%), role- playing and virtual games (48.8%), and looking up information for school (43%). The activity that was most commonly reported for within- school technology use was looking up in-formation for school (89.5%).

Open- ended, qualitative questions were asked to gain a broader understanding of students’ perspectives. In a frequency count for the responses ( N = 47), the five most common descriptions for gamification activi-ties were fun ( n = 22), easy ( n = 8), exciting ( n = 7), favorite ( n = 6), and free choice ( n = 10). Students identified that 3D GameLab learning, when compared with other types of instruction, was less boring ( n = 11). They enjoyed the games/quests ( n = 16) and the pace ( n = 30) of learning. A student commented, “GameLab gives you options of what to do and how to do it. Most other classes go in one straight line. GameLab is more like a web. You do different things but end up with the same results.” Figure 5 presents additional findings re-lated to student survey responses.

9

Gam

ific

atio

n Q

uein

g to

Int

egra

te C

onte

nt K

now

led

ge,

Lite

racy

, an

d 21

st-C

entu

ry L

earn

ing

Concluding Remarks As the observations illustrate, this case study shares the potential of gamification to become a construc-tive force in education by supporting new literacies involving creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. To ensure meaningful ap-proaches for technological practices, there is a need to align instruction to the ethos of new literacies. Not only is literacy situated within social contexts (Gee, 2001 ), but digital tools afford new and increased op-portunities for social interaction and collaboration, therefore providing authentic opportunities within multiple modalities. New modes and multimedia are reshaping how learners communicate (Kress, 2003 ). The kinds of learning that take place through well- designed games—and, through extension, gamifica-tion—provide an environment that negotiates text and images, pulling together the principles of New Literacies theory (Gee, 2007 ).

Building on research about engagement and achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004 ; Griffiths, Sharkey, & Furlong, 2009 ), future research may explore the specific impact of gamification on student literacy performance. This is one case study. Research in gamification would benefit from more controlled, experimental studies within adolescent classrooms.

Future predictions for 2025 compare Internet sharing with the flow of electricity, meaning invisible and interwoven into daily life (Anderson & Rainie, 2014 ). Currently, there is a disconnect between the ways students use the Internet at home versus school (Project Tomorrow, 2011 ). This can create road-blocks, leaving Internet- savvy students frustrated and

discouraged with both the quality of access and the inability of schools to use technology in meaningful ways. New literacies can be a means to overcome these roadblocks.

Although the majority of students worldwide use the Internet for online gaming (OECD, 2011 ), teach-ers often characterize gaming as disreputable and vio-lent, seeing little to no potential for use in school contexts (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005 ). GBL can shorten this disconnect by bridging the types of activities students favor at home (gaming) with the required, standards- based curriculum—as one student put simply, “A fun way to learn, but it does not feel like learning.”

References Abrams , S.S. , & Walsh , S. ( 2014 ). Gamified vocabulary: Online

resources and enriched language learning . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 58 ( 1 ), 49 – 58 . doi: 10.1002/jaal.315

Anderson , J. , & Rainie , L. ( 2014 , March 11). Digital life in 2025 . Washington, DC : Pew Research Center . Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/11/digital-life-in-2025

Anderson , L.W. ( 2009 ). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom ’ s taxonomy of educational objec-tives . New York, NY : Longman .

Apperley , T. , & Walsh , C. ( 2012 ). What digital games and literacy have in common: A heuristic for understanding pupils’ gaming literacy . Literacy , 46 ( 3 ), 115 – 122 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741- 4369.2012.00668.x

Bunchball . ( 2010 ). Gamification 101: An introduction to the use of game dynamics to influence behavior [White paper]. Retrieved from www.bunchball.com/gamification101

Chang , K.-E. , Wu , L.-J. , Weng , S.-E. , & Sung , Y.-T. ( 2012 ). Embedding game- based problem- solving phase into problem- posing system for mathematics learning . Computers & Education , 58 ( 2 ), 775 – 786 . doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.002

FIGURE 5 Student Survey General Responses About Gamification and iPad Use

80 85 90 95 100

I like GameLab be�er thanpaper-pencil ac�vi�es

I like earning badges

My quality of work is be�erwhen using GBL

Technology makes learningeasier

I look forward to GBL withiPads

Strongly Agree/Agree

Strongly Agree/Agree

Note . GBL = game- based learning.

10

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

XX

(X)

X 2

015

FEATURE ARTICLE

Chun-Hung , L. , Liu , E.Z.-F. , Yu-Liang , C. , Pey-Yan , L. , Maiga , C. , Cheng-Hong , W. , & Shyan-Ming , Y. ( 2013 ). Game- based remedial instruction in mastery learning for upper- primary school students . Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 16 ( 2 ), 271 – 281 .

Creswell , J.W. ( 2011 ). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Creswell , J.W. ( 2014 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Dalton , B. ( 2013 ). Multimodal composition and the Common Core State Standards . The Reading Teacher , 66 ( 4 ), 333 – 339 .

Dewey , J. ( 1910 ). How we think . Boston, MA : D.C. Health . Fredricks , J.A. , Blumenfeld , P.C. , & Paris , A.H. ( 2004 ). School

engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence . Review of Educational Research , 74 , 59 – 109 .

Gee , J.P. ( 2001 ). Reading as situated practice: A new literacy stud-ies perspective . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 43 ( 5 ), 412 – 423 .

Gee , J.P. ( 2003 ). What video games have to teach us about learn-ing and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan .

Gee , J.P. ( 2004 ). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling . New York, NY : Routledge .

Gee , J.P. ( 2007 ). What video games have to teach us about learn-ing and literacy (Rev ed.). New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan .

Gee , J.P. ( 2013 ). Games for learning. Educational Horizons , 91 ( 4 ), 16 – 20 .

Glover , I. ( 2013 ). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners . In J. Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 1999 – 2008 ). Chesapeake, VA : AACE .

Griffiths , A. , Sharkey , J. , & Furlong , M. ( 2009 ). Student engage-ment and positive school adaptation . In R. Gilman , E. Huebner , & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychol-ogy in schools (pp. 197 – 212 ). New York, NY : Routledge .

Jacobs , G.E. ( 2014 ). Reimagining multiliteracies: A response to Leander and Boldt . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 ( 4 ), 270 – 273 .

Jewitt , C. , & Kress , G. (Eds.) ( 2003 ). Multimodal literacy . New York, NY : Peter Lang .

Kingsley , T.L. , & Tancock , S.M. ( 2014 ). Internet inquiry: Fundamental competencies for online comprehension . The Reading Teacher , 67 ( 5 ), 389 – 399 . doi: 10.1002/trtr.1223

Krajcik , J.S. , & Sutherland , L.M. ( 2010 ). Supporting students in developing literacy in science . Science , 328 ( 5977 ), 456 – 459 . doi: 10.1126/science.1182593

Kress , G.R. ( 2003 ). Literacy in the new media age . London, UK : Routledge . doi: 10.4324/9780203164754

Kuteeva , M. ( 2011 ). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship . English for Specific Purposes , 30 ( 1 ), 44 – 57 . doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007

Lankshear , C. , & Knobel , M. ( 2006 ). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning ( 2nd ed. ). New York, NY : Open University Press .

Lee , J.J. , & Hammer , J. ( 2011 ). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly , 15 ( 2 ), 1 – 5 .

Lenhart , A. , Kahne , J. , Middaugh , E. , Macgill , A.R. , Evans , C. , & Vitak , J. ( 2008 ). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gam-ing experiences are diverse and include significant social inter-action and civic engagement . Washington, DC : Pew Internet & American Life Project .

Leu , D.J. , Forzani , E. , Rhoads , C. , Maykel , C. , Kennedy , C. , & Timbrell , N. ( 2015 ). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap . Reading Research Quarterly , 50 ( 1 ), 37 – 59 . doi: 10.1002/rrq.85

Leu , D.J. , Jr. , Kinzer , C.K. , Coiro , J. , & Cammack , D. ( 2004 ). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies . In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and pro-cesses of reading ( 5th ed. , pp. 1570 – 1613 ). Newark, DE : International Reading Association .

Leu , D.J. , Kinzer , C.K. , Coiro , J. , Castek , J. , & Henry , L.A. ( 2013 ). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment . In D.E. Alvermann , N.J. Unrau , & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and pro-cesses of reading ( 6th ed. , pp. 1150 – 1181 ). Newark, DE : International Reading Association . doi: 10.1598/0710.42

Lewis , C. , & Fabos , B. ( 2005 ). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities . Reading Research Quarterly , 40 ( 4 ), 470 – 501 . doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5

Mayer , R.E. ( 2008 ). Multimedia literacy . In J. Coiro , M. Knobel , C. Lankshear , & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 359 – 376 ). New York, NY : Erlbaum .

Take ActionS T E P S F O R I M M E D I A T E I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

1 . Identify which gaming mechanics (badges, rewards, quests, achievements) might relate to the unit, module, or lesson you wish to gamify. Structure the gaming elements to appropriately represent the content.

2 . Explore apps, games, and available online tools that can be integrated into quests. Categorize these resources according to P21 ’ s Learning and Innovation skills.

3 . Consider opportunities to move students from consumers to producers of information. Work to develop social spaces using Web 2.0 technolo-gies, such as blogs or wikis, to promote 21st-century student outcomes. Allow or create spaces for students to share their compositions with others outside of the classroom.

4 . Examine concepts within your curriculum that lend themselves to multimodal composition for student groups. Have students share under-standings of concepts within multiple modalities to support acquisition of new literacies skills. For example, have students create a podcast, movie trailer, or digital story to put a different spin on a curricular concept, incorporating images, sound effects, and audio narration when appropriate.

11

Gam

ific

atio

n Q

uein

g to

Int

egra

te C

onte

nt K

now

led

ge,

Lite

racy

, an

d 21

st-C

entu

ry L

earn

ing

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . ( 2010 ). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects . Washington DC : Authors .

New London Group . ( 2000 ). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures . In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social fu-tures (pp. 9 – 37 ). London, UK : Routledge .

OECD . ( 2011 ). PISA 2009 results: Vol. 6. Students on line: Digital technologies and performance . Paris, France : Author .

Partnership for 21st Century Skills . ( 2009a ). Framework for 21st century learning . Washington, DC : Author . Retrieved from www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Partnership for 21st Century Skills . ( 2009b ). P21 framework definitions . Washington, DC : Author . Retrieved from www.p21.org / s torage / document s / P21_ Framework _Definitions.pdf

Patton , M.Q. ( 2002 ). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Project Tomorrow . ( 2011 ). The new 3 E ’ s of education: Enabled, engaged, empowered: How today ’ s students are leveraging emerging technologies for learning . Irvine, CA : Author . Retrieved from www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU10_3EofEducation%28Students%29.pdf

Shaffer , D.W. , Squire , K.R. , Halverson , R. , & Gee , J.P. ( 2005 ). Video games and the future of learning . Phi Delta Kappan , 87 ( 2 ), 104 – 111 .

Simões , J. , Redondo , R.D. , & Vilas , A.F. ( 2013 ). A social gamifi-cation framework for a K–6 learning platform . Computers in Human Behavior , 29 ( 2 ), 345 – 353 . doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007

Sweeny , S.M. ( 2010 ). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using new literacies to support writing

instruction . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 54 ( 2 ), 121 – 130 . doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.2.4

Vassileva , J. ( 2008 ). Toward social learning environments . IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 1 ( 4 ), 199 – 214 . doi: 10.1109/TLT.2009.4

Venkatesh , V. , Brown , S.A. , & Bala , H. ( 2013 ). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems . Management Information Systems Quarterly , 37 ( 1 ), 21 – 54 .

Virvou , M. , Katsionis , G. , & Manos , K. ( 2005 ). Combining software games with education: Evaluation of its educational effective-ness . Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 8 ( 2 ), 54 – 65 .

Wiggins , G.P. , & McTighe , J. ( 2005 ). Understanding by design ( 2nd ed. ). Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .

More to ExploreC O N N E C T E D C O N T E N T - B A S E D R E S O U R C E S

✓ Utilize free resources for creating badges , such as Mozilla Open Badges (openbadges.org) or Edmodo ( https://www.edmodo.com ). Both platforms allow badges to be issued, collected, and shared.

✓ Learn how to gamify your classroom using Moodle at www.moodlerooms.com/resources/blog/best-practices-gamify-your-class-moodle .

✓ Know your game mechanics . Twenty-four are discussed on this webpage to help you better understand gamification: badgeville.com/wiki/Game_Mechanics.

✓ Learn more about games in education in an interview with Jane McGonigal : ed.ted.com/on/uk36wtoI.