Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study focused on the digital design practices of Raul, a 15-year-old participant at a summer video game design camp for adolescents. As Raul developed his original game, You Will Perish, I wondered what his design process might reveal about (a) the practice of affectively and procedurally literate video game design and (b) the literacy pedagogies that can support such design. Guided by the concept of serendipity, I describe Raul's design practice as an open process characterized by bouts of failure, chance, and discovery, and I examine how such forces shaped the emergence of his game. Using transversal analysis, I trace Raul's design through an account of frustration and failure, perseverance and pride, showing how the challenges of the game's creator become those of the game's players. The study highlights the generative potential of serendipitous literacies wherever and whenever literacy happens.

Keywords

video games procedural literacies play-cued conversation serendipity affect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acosta

(2018). Using serendipity to advance knowledge building activities. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e0c9/66de0ace43657809bece62d53e8d68453879.pdf

Aguilera

(2021). Writing the rules: Youth game-making practices as digital writing. Theory Into Practice, 60(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1857125

Arnab

Clarke

Morini

(2019). Co-creativity through play and game design thinking. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(3), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.3.002

Arnold

(2012). The WWW cabinet of curiosities: A serendipitous research tool. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p238

Bacalja

(2018). What critical literacy has to offer the study of video games. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 41(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03652016

Ball

Huang

K. T.

Cotten

S. R.

Rikard

R. V.

(2020). Gaming the SySTEM: The relationship between video games and the digital and STEM divides. Games and Culture, 15(5), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.11778/1555412018812513

Ban

T. A.

(2006). The role of serendipity in drug discovery. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.3/tban

Bauer

Razfar

(2021). Editorial introduction: Considering the preponderance of “multi-” in literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(2), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211010282

Beavis

O’Mara

(2010). Computer games—Pushing at the boundaries of literacy. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03651822

10.

Bogost

(2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

11.

Boldt

(2020). Theorizing vitality in the literacy classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.307

12.

Brown

Wade

(2020). Serendipity, vulnerability, and imperfection: Harnessing live video for “authentic” teacher performances. Storytelling, Self, Society, 16(2), 200–224. https://doi.org/10.13110/storselfsoci.16.2.0200

13.

Buckingham

Burn

(2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 323–349. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/24376/.

14.

Burke

Kafai

Y. B.

(2012). The writers’ workshop for youth programmers: Digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 433–438). https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157264

15.

Burke

O'Byrne

W. I.

Kafai

Y. B.

(2016). Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.496

16.

Çakır

N. A.

Gass

Foster

Lee

F. J.

(2017). Development of a game-design workshop to promote young girls’ interest towards computing through identity exploration. Computers & Education, 108(2017), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.002

17.

Cammann

S. V. R.

(1967). Christopher the Armenian and the Three Princes of serendip. Comparative Literature Studies, 4(3), 229–258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40467695

18.

Caperton

H. I.

(2010). Toward a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and writing. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgcms.2010010101

19.

Charteris

Nye

., & Jones

(2020). Deleuzian ‘interference’ and emergent listening in intern teacher assemblages: Singing in the (ref)rain”. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(10), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1717663

20.

Charteris

Smardon

Foulkes

Bewley

(2017). Heterarchical coaching for continuing teacher professional learning and development: A transversal analysis of agency. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1265688

21.

Costa

Tyner

Henriques

Sousa

(2018). Game creation in youth media and information literacy education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 8(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018040101

22.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. HarperCollins.

23.

Daniels

(2019). Movement, meaning and affect and young children’s early literacy practices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 29(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2019.1701998

24.

Deleuze

Parnet

(1996). L’Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze. Editions Montparnasse.

25.

Dishon

Kafai

Y. B.

(2020). Making more of games: Cultivating perspective-taking through game design. Computers & Education, 148, 103810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103810

26.

Ehret

Hollett

Jocius

(2016). The matter of new media making: An intra-action analysis of adolescents making a digital book trailer. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(3), 346–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16665323

27.

Fine

Deegan

J. G.

(1996). Three principles of Serendip: Insight, chance, and discovery in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090405

28.

Freeman

(2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge.

29.

Gee

E. R.

Aguilera

(2021). Bridging the analog-digital divide: Critical literacies and procedural design in young people’s game-making practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 16(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2021.1914057

30.

Gee

J. P.

(2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.

31.

Geigner

(2022). Blaming video games for mass shootings is ridiculous; Stop it. Techdirt. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/18/blaming-video-games-for-mass-shootings-is-ridiculous-stop-it/

32.

Gregg

Seigworth

G. J.

(Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Duke University Press.

33.

Hauff

Houben

G. J.

(2012). Serendipitous browsing: Stumbling through Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the Searching4Fun workshop on` information retrieval (Vol. 836, pp. 21–24). CEUR-WS.org.

34.

Hava

Guyer

Cakir

(2020). Gifted students’ learning experiences in systematic game development process in after-school activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09750-z

35.

Hodges

E. J.

(1964). The three princes of Serendip. Atheneum.

36.

Hollett

Ehret

(2015). Bean’s World”: (Mine) Crafting affective atmospheres of gameplay, learning, and care in a children’s hospital. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1849–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535192

37.

Hollett

Ehret

(2017). Relational methodologies for mobile literacies: Intra-action, rhythm, and atmosphere. In Burnett

Merchant

Simpson

Walsh

(Eds.), The case of the iPad (pp. 227–244). Springer.

38.

Jacob

S. R.

Warschauer

(2018). Computational thinking and literacy. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 1(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2018.01.1.1

39.

Jagoda

(2018). On difficulty in video games: Mechanics, interpretation, affect. Critical Inquiry, 45(1), 199–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/699585

40.

Kafai

Y. B.

Burke

(2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022

41.

(2014). A case study on collective cognition and operation in team-based computer game design by middle-school children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.117/s10798-013-9248-6

42.

Leander

K. M.

Boldt

(2013). Rereading “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12468587

43.

Leander

K. M.

Ehret

(Eds.). (2019). Affect in literacy teaching and learning: Pedagogies, politics, and coming to know. Routledge.

44.

Lenters

(2016). Riding the lines and overwriting in the margins: Affect and multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(3), 280–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16658982

45.

Light

Burgess

Duguay

(2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438

46.

Malan

D. J.

Leitner

H. H.

(2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 39(1), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227388

47.

Malmelin

Virta

(2019). Seizing the serendipitous moments: Coincidental creative processes in media work. Journalism, 20(11), 1513–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917707121

48.

Manning

(2013). Always more than one: Individuation’s dance. Duke University Press.

49.

Manning

(2020). For a pragmatics of the useless. Duke University Press.

50.

Markey

P. M.

Ferguson

C. J.

Hopkins

L. I.

(2020). Video game play: Myths and benefits. American Journal of Play, 13(1), 87–106. https://www.museumofplay.org/app/uploads/2022/01/13-1-Article-5-Video-Game-Play.pdf

51.

Markey

P. M.

Ivory

J. D.

Slotter

E. B.

Oliver

M. B.

Maglalang

(2020). He does not look like video games made him do it: Racial stereotypes and school shootings. Psychology of Popular media, 9(4), 493. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000255

52.

Massumi

(1987). Notes on the translation and acknowledgements. In Deleuze

Guattari

(Eds.), A thousand plateaus (pp. i–xix). University of Minnesota Press.

53.

Medina

C. L.

(2021). Barruntos: Youth improvisational work as anticolonial literacy actionings in Puerto Rico. Research in the Teaching of English, 56(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte202131474

54.

Medina

C. L.

Perry

Wohlwend

(2022). Playful methods: Engaging the unexpected in literacy research. Taylor & Francis.

55.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). Social theory and social structure. Collier Macmillan.

56.

Merton

R. K.

Barber

(2004). The travels and adventures of Serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton University Press.

57.

Nash

B. L.

Brady

R. B.

(2022). Video games in the secondary English language arts classroom: A state-of-the-art review of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.454

58.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

59.

Owston

Wideman

Ronda

N. S.

Brown

(2009). Computer game development as a literacy activity. Computers & Education, 53(3), 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.015

60.

Papavlasopoulou

Giannakos

M. N.

Jaccheri

(2019). Exploring children's learning experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based research. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.008

61.

Papert

(1980). Mindstorms: Computers, children, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

62.

Pennington

Wohlwend

Davis

S. J.

Scott

J. A.

(2020). Performance, pottery and pliers: Rupturing play with bodies and things. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 19(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-11-2019-0142

63.

Pink

(2017). Technologies, possibilities, emergence and an ethics of responsibility: Refiguring techniques. In Gómez-Cruz

Sumartojo

Pink

(Eds.), Refiguring techniques in digital visual research (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Pivot.

64.

Robinson

(2022). Disequilibrium, disorder, discord at a video game design camp: Welling the chaos in qualitative inquiry. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.5143

65.

Robinson

Kutner

(2019). Spinoza and the affective turn: A return to the philosophical origins of affect. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418786312

66.

Robinson

Wright

W. T.

(2023). Actually existing vitality rights: Resisting neoliberal affects at a video game design camp. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 22(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-08-2022-0104

67.

Rosa

(2020). The uncontrollability of the world (J.C. Wagner, Trans.). Polity.

68.

Rowsell

Shillitoe

(2019). The craftivists: Pushing for affective, materially informed pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1544–1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12773

69.

Sanford

Madill

(2007). Understanding the power of new literacies through video game play and design. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L'éducation, 30(2), 432–455. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20466645 https://doi.org/10.2307/20466645

70.

Sauce

Liebherr

Judd

Klingberg

(2022). The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11341-2

71.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

72.

St. Pierre

E. A.

Jackson

A. Y.

(2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419863005

73.

Tanner

S.J.

Leander

K.M.

Carter-Stone

(2020). Ways with worlds: Bringing improvisational theater into play with reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.304

74.

Tobin

(2019). The origins of the video-cued multivocal ethnographic method. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 50(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12302

75.

Vee

(2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.21623/1.1.2.4

76.

Wing

J. M.

(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

77.

Zhang

Nagle

McKishnie

Lin

(2019). Scientific strengths and reported effectiveness: A systematic review of multiliteracies studies. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14(1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2018.1537188

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

You Will Perish : A Case Study of Serendipitous Literacies and Novice Video Game Design

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material