This article conceptualizes a framework for understanding the discourse and literacy practices generated by players of the video game, Fortnite. As a teacher educator interested in studying how multiliteracies cultivated in social settings can be leveraged toward academic success, my two objectives for this theoretical article are to examine how Fortnite players operate within their digital community and to explore what relationships may be established between the game’s social literacy contexts and formal literacy learning. In light of Fortnite’s connections to reading comprehension, discourse systems, and social learning environments, recommendations are made for future research, including considerations of school-based implementation.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practice. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvaničR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London, England: Routledge.
4.
BurnsE. A.HowardJ. K.KimmelS. C. (2016). Development of communities of practice in school library education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57, 101-111.
GeeJ. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. The Journal of Education, 171, 5-17.
15.
GeeJ. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
GeeJ. P. (2005). An introduction of discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
GeeJ. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
GeeJ. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (4th ed.). London, England: Falmer Press.
19.
GeeJ. P. (2017). Affinity spaces and 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 57(2), 27-31.
20.
GeeJ. P.HayesE. (2012). Nurturing affinity spaces and game-based learning. In SteinkuehlerC.SquireK.BarabS. (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 129-155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HiebertE.RaphaelT. (1996). Psychological perspectives on literacy and extensions to educational practice. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 550-602). New York, NY: MacMillan.
HowellE.KaminskiR.Hunt-BarronS. (2016). Creating in a participatory culture: Perceptions of digital tools among teachers. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 5(1), Article 9.
26.
JewittC.KressG. R. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
27.
KaufholdK. (2017). Tracing interacting literacy practices in master’s dissertation writing. London Review of Education, 15, 73-84.
28.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134-144.
29.
KistW. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple data. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
KressG. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.
MarlattR. (2018). Get in the game: Promoting justice through digitized literature study. Multicultural Perspectives, 20(4), 222-228.
36.
MarlattR. (2018). “I didn’t say, ‘Macbeth,’ it was my Google Doc!”: A secondary English case study of redefining learning in the 21st Century. E-learning and Digital Media, 16(1), 46-62.
37.
MarlattR. (2018). Literary analysis using Minecraft: An Asian American youth crafts her literacy identity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(1), 55-66.
38.
MarlattR. (2018). This is what we do: Emphasizing discipline-specific literacy practices in teacher education. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 14(2), 1-24.
39.
McAlisterM. (2016). Emerging communities of practice. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 9, 125-132.
40.
MillsK. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the New Literacy Studies. Review of Educational Research, 80, 246-271.
41.
MirraN.HonoroffB.ElgendyS.PietrzakG. (2016). Reading and writing with a public purpose. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 12(1), 1-22.
42.
OuelletteG. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554-566.
RobitzskiD. (2018, August9). Fortnite didn’t do anything new. That’s why it will shape the future of gaming. Futurism, Future Society. Retrieved from https://futurism.com/fortnite-future-gaming/
49.
RousculpE. E.MaringG. H. (1992). Portfolios for a community of learners. Journal of Reading, 35, 378-385.
SpencerB. H.GuillaumeA. M. (2006). Integrating curriculum through the learning cycle: Content-based reading and vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60, 206-219.
TurnerJ. D.KimY. (2005). Learning about building literacy communities in multicultural and multilingual classrooms from effective elementary teachers. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10, 21-42.
57.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
