skip to main content
10.5555/1854360.1854389dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiclsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reading in the context of online games

Published:29 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research suggests that text is an important component of videogame culture (Gee, 2003; Leander, & Lovvorn, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2007), but we have few empirical assessments of what kinds of texts are involved or youth's reading performance on them. This paper presents a series of four studies conducted to examine: What texts are a regular part of videogame play? What is their nature, function, and quality? And what is the nature of adolescent reading performance within such contexts? Our results show that informational texts, comprised of 20% academic language and with an 11.8 average reading level, are the most prevalent text type used for gameplay. Reading performance on such texts is no different than on school-related texts when topic and difficulty were controlled. However, when struggling readers when allowed to choose the topic, they performed at "independent" level (94--97% accuracy) even on texts that were 7--8 grade levels above their head.

References

  1. Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and Online Fan Fiction. New York: Peter Lang.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, R. W. & Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research (pp. 271--286). New York: Guilford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, T., & Nichols, B. (2004). Reading At Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America (Research Division Report No. 46). Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Clay, M. M. (1993/2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Commeyras, M. (2009). Drax's Reading in Neverwinter Nights: with a tutor as henchman, eLearning, 6(1), 43--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekwall, E. E., & Shanker, J. L. (1993). Ekwall/Shanker reading inventory (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fry, E. (1968), A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11(7), 265--71Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311--335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, Y., Watson, D. & Burke, C. (2005). Reading Miscue Inventory: From Evaluation to Instruction. Second Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Guzzetti, B. J. (2006). Cybergirls: Negotiating social identities on cybersites. eLearning, 3(2), 158--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size & use: Lexical richness in L2 written productions. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Leander, K., & Lovvorn, J. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts and identities in the school-related and computer gaming-related literacies of one youth. Curriculum & Instruction, 24(3), 291--340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory - 4th edition. Reading, WA: Allyn and Bacon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470--501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8) 639--646.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 16(2), 173--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Pearson, P. & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 13(1), 38--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3) 297--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies (pp. 611--634). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinkuehler, C. & Duncan, S. (2009). Informal scientific reasoning in online virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education & Technology. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-008-9120-8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinkuehler, C. & Johnson, B. Z. (2009). Computational literacy in online games: The social life of a mod. The International Journal of Gaming and Computer Mediated Simulations, 1(1), 53--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Taylor, B., Graves, M. & van den Broek, P. (2000). Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. New York: Teachers College Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Weaver, C. A., III, & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230--244). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodcock, B. S. (2009). An analysis of MMOG subscription growth 23.0. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from http://www.mmogchart.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image DL Hosted proceedings
    ICLS '10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - Volume 1
    June 2010
    1190 pages

    Publisher

    International Society of the Learning Sciences

    Publication History

    • Published: 29 June 2010

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate307of307submissions,100%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader