We're Just Playing The Influence of a Modified Tabletop Role Playing Game on ELA students' In Class Reading

Prévia do material em texto

Simulation & Gaming
 1 –20
© The Author(s) 2016 
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 
DOI: 10.1177/1046878116684570
journals.sagepub.com/home/S&G
Article
We’re Just Playing: The 
Influence of a Modified 
Tabletop Role-Playing Game 
on ELA Students’ In-Class 
Reading
Mike P. Cook1, Matthew Gremo2, and Ryan Morgan2
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to explored the use of a tabletop role-
playing game in middle school ELA classrooms to examine students’ 
(n=36) abilities to interact with and make meaning from a traditional classroom 
text (Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game”).
Background. Gaming continues to soar in popularity, both inside and outside of 
schools. As such, it is important to continue looking for pedagogically beneficial 
ways to incorporate gaming into classroom spaces, specifically English 
Language Arts and Literacy classrooms.
Aim. In this article, we describe the game used for this study was modified from 
the Pathfinder system and designed to pair with Connell’s short story. We also 
discuss our qualitative approach to data analysis, and the three themes that 
emerged. First, students made gaming decisions based on their knowledge of 
the story. Second, students experienced the narrative through the lens of their 
characters. And third, students engaged in meaningful collaboration throughout 
gameplay.
Conclusion. The findings support ongoing calls to look for pedagogically beneficial 
ways to incorporate gaming into ELA and Literacy classroom spaces.
1Auburn University, USA
2Millikin University, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mike P. Cook, Auburn University, Department of Curriculum & Teaching, 5040 Haley Center, Auburn, 
AL 36849, USA. 
Email: mpc0035@auburn.edu
684570 SAGXXX10.1177/1046878116684570Simulation & GamingCook et al.
research-article2016
2 Simulation & Gaming 
Keywords
English language arts, gaming in classrooms, literacy instruction, middle school, 
tabletop role-playing game
Introduction
Tabletop gaming through the execution of a role-playing system is far from a new con-
cept; role-playing and simulation have been used primarily in English as a Foreign 
Language and second language classes (Phillips, 1995; Quijano-Cruz, 2007; Zalka, 
2012). Its implementation within an English Language Arts (ELA) classroom with many 
student players, however, is not quite as ordinary. That said, it is important to examine 
the role(s) gaming can play within the literacy classroom. In this study, role-playing 
games are defined as traditional games that have been stripped of all of their fluff and 
niceties in order to exist as a system of bare-boned mechanics, which govern gameplay.
Serving as the basis for this study, we have argued previously that while operating 
within this system of overarching rules and mechanics, any story—in the case of this 
study, Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game”—can be told through interac-
tive narratives (Cook, Morgan, & Gremo, 2016). In the ELA classroom, this can most 
easily be envisioned as a teacher relating a story that is constantly evolving and taking 
shape based on the decisions and actions of her students. Thus, the purpose of this 
study was to explore the ways in which middle school students utilized gameplay to 
further their experiences reading, discussing, and interacting with a traditional class-
room text. The two questions of interest were: (1) How do students utilize their knowl-
edge of the story in order to play the game? And (2) What is the effect of playing the 
game on student collaboration?
The game used within this study was adapted by the researchers from the Pathfinder 
system to connect specifically to a wide variety of traditionally taught classroom texts. 
For this study, we created a template for the text of interest, Richard Connell’s short 
story “The Most Dangerous Game.” To ensure utility, prior to gameplay, the research 
team simplified the existing Pathfinder gaming system by paring the game down to 
only the necessary and essential mechanics (e.g., each character has a defined set of 
skills, players roll dice to make decisions, players operate in a pre-defined order, play-
ers work in small groups, game and pre-determined narrative are facilitated by 
Gamemaster, and so forth). For access to the complete gaming system used in this 
study, visit our website: http://tinyfurnace.weebly.com/games.html.
Literature Review
In recent years, a significant amount of research regarding gaming has emerged. In fact, 
scholars have discussed the utility of games and the act of gaming within a variety of 
contexts, including classrooms and learning. The existing literature suggests myriad ben-
efits of engaging in gameplay. Likewise, the data point to the need for teachers to consider 
the pedagogical implications of gaming in their curricula. As such, additional research 
into and examination of gaming in educational settings is necessary to better understand 
the effects of implementing gaming into English Language Arts classrooms.
Cook et al. 3
Gaming in Education
Multiple scholars have acknowledged the educational value of games (Apperley & 
Beavis, 2013; Apperley & Walsh, 2012). Through gaming in the classroom, students 
can begin making layered meaning from a combination of texts (e.g., traditional nar-
ratives and game formats) (Abrams & Russo, 2015; Apperley & Beavis, 2013). 
Godwin-Jones (2005) pointed out that research has found that collaborative, multi-
player games facilitate peer-to-peer learning and lead to a variety of benefits for play-
ers, including cognitive development, meaning making, and collaborative learning, 
among others. Furthering this point, Colby and Colby (2008) stated, “games are pro-
ductive in helping students apply, synthesize, and think critically about what they learn 
through active and social participation” (p. 301).
Harushimana (2008) found that engaging in gameplay benefited students’ thinking 
processes and written discourse. Similarly, research has suggested that gameplay can 
lead to problem-solving and complex, abstract, and critical thinking (Ebner & 
Holzinger, 2007; Kim, Park, & Baek, 2009; Roscoe, Brandon, Snow, & McNamara, 
2014; Vygotsky, 1978). Other scholars (see for example, Clarke & Treagust, 2010; 
Mochocki, 2013) have found that teachers hold overall positive attitudes toward games 
in literacy classes and beyond; however, as Hsu and Wang (2010) suggested, teachers 
often struggle with integrating games into existing curricula. As such, the need contin-
ues for research into the experiences of students during the implementation of gaming 
to foster learning.
Role-Playing Games
Role-playing games offer a variety of benefits to gamers, including collaboration, cre-
ativity, and complex thinking (Bowman, 2010). In fact, as Daniau (2016) stated, mul-
tiple scholars have discussed the utility of role-playing games in a variety of educational 
contexts. Bowman (2014) suggested that educational live action role-playing games 
(LARP) can be used to create opportunities for students to engage with classroom 
texts and content. Furthermore, Bowman posited that educational LARP games can 
extend traditional learning to foster collaboration, critical thinking and problem solv-
ing, and the exploration of identity and self-awareness. It is precisely because of their 
didactic nature, Balzer (2011) pointed out, that role-playing games allow gamers to, 
and in fact require that they must, become immersed in the world(s) they inhabit dur-
ing gaming. Creativity in role-playing games is impacted by improvisation, the rule 
system of the game itself, and error consequence; thus, the rules themselves, including 
the level of improvisation promoted, influence discussions and actions throughout 
gameplay (Bergstrom, 2012; Chung, 2013; Crookall, Oxford, & Saunders, 1987). 
Henriksen (2006) suggested that role-playing games must also utilize the process of 
reflection to promote creativity among students.As such, he argued that if RPGs are to 
serve as meaningful educational sponsors, educators must rethink traditional notions 
of RPG creation, design, and implementation. Likewise, Daniau (2016) stated that 
role-playing games may be used as transformative tools and can thus help students 
develop collaboration and team building skills.
4 Simulation & Gaming 
Role-playing games have been created and used in Brazil as teaching materials 
(Schmit, Martins, & Ferreira, 2009). Randi and de Carvalho (2013) discussed using 
RPGs to assist with knowledge acquisition and learning in science classrooms. 
Similarly, Soares, Gazzinelli, de Souza, and Araujo (2015) pointed out the capacity to 
promote critical and reflexive thinking in the study of nursing. While not as widely 
used in the U.S., role-playing games may also help encourage language development 
(Quijano-Cruz, 2007). And as Zalka (2012) posited, RPGs can be used to help a wider 
array of students make relevant connections to popular culture and to engage in inter-
active storytelling. The use of role-playing games as global simulations has also been 
discussed as an effective method for assisting an entire classroom of students to work 
together to create their own world(s) and collaborate to positively impact engagement 
and learning (Fischer, 2006).
Gaming and Literacy
Carroll (2016) argues for the need to expand the literacy curriculum to include gam-
ing. Gaming is itself a complex system whereby gamers negotiate interaction, mean-
ing, and worlds, suggesting potential connections to education and specifically to 
literacy instruction (Merkel & Sanford, 2011). Gameplay offers what Alexander 
(2009) termed “a fertile ground for nurturing rich examinations of literacy” (p. 53) 
among students. Gaming, by design, encompasses literate behaviors, such as active 
participation, collaboration, and so forth (Carroll, 2016; Chess & Booth, 2014).
Gamers’ identities and literacy practices are interconnected (Toscano, 2011). 
Furthermore, Apperley and Walsh (2012) found that games can be used to help stu-
dents make connections between traditional literacy practices and the literacy prac-
tices of gameplay. Throughout gameplay, students develop literacy skills by learning 
to identify problems; accessing, generating and evaluating information; and commu-
nicating results with peers (Alexander, 2009; Carroll, 2016; Hsu & Wang, 2010, p. 
408). Among the skills benefited by gaming are trans-literacies, collaborative writing, 
multicultural literacies, and critical literacies (Alexander, 2009; Partington, 2010).
Salen (2007) argued that the affordances of games, including flexible rules and 
iterative gameplay, can foster literacy development, especially 21st century literacies. 
Abrams and Russo (2015) suggested that embedded within gameplay are the “ways 
that combinations of practices, texts, and spaces work in concert to support meaning 
making” (p. 132). The combination includes digital and non-digital tools suggesting 
that engaging in gameplay allows students to make multidirectional movement both 
among and across types of texts, experiences, and so forth.
Games With Reading and Writing
Given the connection to the narrative, role-playing games can be viewed from the 
perspective of reading and writing; in fact, Hsu and Wang (2010) stated game playing 
“is equivalent to reading” and game designing “is equivalent to writing” (p. 402). 
Reading a game “requires the same amount of attention to details as reading other texts 
Cook et al. 5
to locate the cultural work being done” (Toscano, 2011, p. 25). Abrams and Russo 
(2015) found that gameplay fostered deeper understanding of traditional reading con-
cepts, such as literary elements, plot, etc. Games extend the concept of narrative and 
the role of reading beyond the texts traditionally associated with classrooms and lit-
eracy instruction (Harushimana, 2008).
Gaming also offers numerous potential benefits for students in composition class-
rooms. In fact, games have been discussed by multiple scholars (Colby & Colby, 2008; 
Dickey, 2011; Juul, 2005) as meaningful components of writing instruction. Sabatino 
(2014) proposed the inclusion of gaming within composition instruction because they 
share four major areas: audience, engagement, collaboration, and problem solving. 
Colby and Colby (2008) posited, “gameplay becomes an important part of the inven-
tion process, helping students creatively discover problems and rhetorical solutions 
within the gamespace” (p. 310). Furthermore, Elkins (2015) pointed out that gaming 
fosters writing activities, such as storytelling and creative writing among others.
The existing literature clearly points to a variety of educational benefits associated 
with gameplay in the classroom. These benefits include engagement, deeper thinking 
about texts, active participation in narrative creation, and writing/composing through 
and about their own narratives. O’Brien, Lawless, and Schrader (2010), however, sug-
gest the necessity for teachers and researchers to continue exploring the instructional 
affordances of gaming in the classroom.
Theoretical Framework
We used a dual theoretical framework to guide the design of the educational interven-
tion (i.e., the game and class instruction), as well as the study itself. First, we utilized 
Wells’s (1999) description of social constructivism in which knowledge is both 
socially situated and jointly created through collaborative endeavors. As such, the 
game was designed to encourage a collaborative learning experience by utilizing small 
groups and whole-class discussions. In addition, social constructivism allowed us to 
examine artifacts (i.e., student interactions and discussions in the gaming environ-
ment) as collaboratively created, whereby the students, teacher, and researchers 
worked together to extend traditional methods of learning. This afforded ongoing 
opportunities for students and the Gamemaster (a member of the research team) to 
work together by discussing ideas, opinions, advice, and connections to the story 
through the lens of the game.
The second component of our theoretical framework is Gee’s (2007) notion of 
game-based learning, which suggests that students, through games, can learn from 
mistakes, reflect on their impact, and try again in a low stakes environment. This was 
important to our intervention design, as we created opportunities for students to use 
gameplay to reflect on, to make meaning from, and to problematize their own experi-
ences with the text they read as part of class. As Gee (2007) described, learning is not 
always fostered through traditional text, as readers may not have lived in or experi-
enced the world(s) they encounter while reading. Gaming, then, takes students beyond 
simply learning vicariously through the actions of others to learning from and during 
6 Simulation & Gaming 
their own active engagement. Using Gee’s approach allowed us to design the instruc-
tional unit, which incorporated classroom instruction and tabletop role-playing game 
experiences, to engage students in relevant classroom gameplay, and to examine stu-
dents’ active, rather than passive, connections to and learning from literature.
Methods
We utilized a qualitative approach to this exploratory study. As such, we collected four 
points of data: field notes and memos, artifact analysis of student writing, student 
interviews, and teacher interviews. First, field notes were compiled during class by the 
research team, which consisted of three researchers involved with a local university. 
Second, students were asked to debrief by responding to two writing prompts. Third, 
all students were interviewed and were asked two questions. Fourth, the classroom 
teacher was interviewed at the conclusion of the study. This approach allowed us a 
more thorough and layered look at student experiences throughout their engagement 
with the tabletop role-playing game and subsequent writingassignment. The research 
question used to focus our inquiry was: In what ways, if at all, does engaging in table-
top role-playing games in the English classroom impact students’ abilities to interact 
with and make meaning from a traditional text?
Setting and Participants
We conducted this study with 36 students in two eighth-grade English Language Arts 
classes in a public middle school in the Midwest. This was a required course for all 
students and included a range of student demographics and ability levels. Eighty-five 
percent of students in the school come from low-income families. Eighteen students 
were male, and eighteen were female. Twenty-two were White. Fourteen were African 
American. Twenty-three students were classified as reading at an eighth-grade level. 
Thirteen students were classified as reading between a third- and sixth-grade level. 
The classroom teacher was in her third year teaching middle school ELA and had lim-
ited prior experience with roleplaying games (as a player or Gamemaster).
Classroom Instruction
As the goal of this project was to examine students’ experiences engaging in a tabletop 
role-playing game as part of literature instruction, all students received identical 
instruction from the teacher and participated in the collaborative (i.e., classroom-wide) 
gameplay. The instructional unit was implemented over the course of ten consecutive 
days for approximately 40 minutes per day. One class period was dedicated to instruct-
ing the game mechanics and rules to both classes. This included walkthroughs and 
modeling of both the Open World and Initiative stages of the game, a simplified ver-
sion of Pathfinder, with student volunteers taking on the roles of the four characters in 
the story. Students were provided examples of skill checks, knowledge checks, and 
movement, and engaged in a brief combat scenario in order to illustrate the complexi-
ties of the Initiative stage.
Cook et al. 7
Six days were used to teach the short story and provide students with instructional 
activities. All instruction was provided by the classroom teacher. She utilized a range 
of pedagogical methods, including small group and whole class discussions, graphic 
organizers, free-writes, journal entries, etc. Students read the story in three chunks (an 
average of four pages each). Chunk one was read together as a class, where the teacher 
modeled annotation techniques. For the second and third chunks of the story, students 
worked together in groups to read, discuss, and complete classroom activities. Students 
also had access to an audio book version (on their iPads, using ear buds) of the story 
to supplement their traditional reading.
All class periods (40 minutes per) began with a journal prompt, posted on Google 
Classroom, related to the story; students responded using iPads. This was followed 
daily by a class discussion to help fill in gaps in students understanding and to encour-
age students to learn from and with one another. The final three days were used for 
gameplay. In order to examine the impact of the game on extending student learning 
and engagement with reading, it was necessary to introduce gameplay after students 
had read the story. After engaging with the game, students were asked to respond to 
writing prompts and were subsequently interviewed.
Implementing Gameplay
Prior to implementing the game, the teacher put all students in one of four small groups 
to correspond with the four game characters (warrior, ranger, mage, healer). The tradi-
tional gaming format (one player per character) was modified to (1) include all stu-
dents and (2) foster interaction and teamwork. To accomplish this, students were 
surveyed and asked to rank-order the four characters based on their preferences. The 
teacher used these responses to place the students into four groups representing each 
character. Each group of 4-5 students sat together around a pod of desks (all team 
members were facing one another and had visual access to the game map displayed on 
the board) to facilitate discussion and collaboration. Throughout gameplay, students 
worked in these groups to control their characters. To do so, they discussed options 
and moves for their characters and reached consensus before making a move. They 
were also encouraged to discuss with other groups, as the four game characters are 
designed to work together to achieve a common goal (i.e., objectives). Students were 
also provided three gaming objectives to drive their decisions:
1. Rumors spread that numerous men have gone missing on the island. Learn as 
much as you can about the island and its inhabitants, namely a man by the 
name of General Zaroff.
2. Survive for three days and four nights on the island.
3. If you learn the cause for the rumors of men going missing, do everything in 
your power to stop their disappearances from continuing.
To ensure both classes received similar gaming experiences, a member of the research 
team served as Gamemaster and facilitated the game. Students were first provided the 
three gaming objectives, and the Gamemaster read the introductory narrative to begin 
8 Simulation & Gaming 
the game. Next, students were provided two minutes to strategize in groups before taking 
their initial turn. As each group had ample opportunity to discuss while the other three 
teams took their turns (and to maximize the time we had together), each group had thirty 
seconds to announce their intentions to the Gamemaster. Depending on the groups’ deci-
sions, the Gamemaster then instructed students which di to use and guided them through 
their turn. Depending on the number rolled, the Gamemaster consulted the game notes 
to determine the outcome (e.g., rolling an eight might not be high enough to allow a 
character to climb a tree, but a seventeen could allow them to complete the task with 
ease) and inform the group of the result of their decisions and/or attempts.
When necessary, the Gamemaster reminded groups of their objectives, and other 
groups were encouraged to contribute (e.g., provide considerations, suggestions, and 
guidance). Similarly, the Gamemaster could adjust the narrative and protocol to keep the 
groups and the game moving forward. Because many of the students were new to table-
top role-playing games like the one utilized for this study, the Gamemaster had guiding 
questions prepared to help each group think through their options and their rationales for 
their turns. At the end of each class period, the Gamemaster made note of where the class 
finished for the day (corresponding to the days in Connell’s short story) and began each 
subsequent class by reminding the students where they left off the previous day.
Reflective Debriefing and the Writing Prompts
A number of scholars (Crookall, 1992; Lennon, 2006; Peters & Vissers, 2004; among 
others) have emphasized the utility and importance of debriefing following educa-
tional gameplay, especially as it relates to students making connections, reflecting, and 
learning on their experiences. One important aspect of learning is reflection and, as 
such, we considered it vital to provide students opportunities to reflect on their experi-
ences, their collaboration, and their learning. Reflective debriefing afforded this pos-
sibility. Because the game utilized classroom conversations, we originally felt it 
important to allow students to debrief in similar fashion (e.g., whole-class debriefing). 
After considering how to best facilitate this and after considering Oertig’s (2010) sug-
gestion that whole-class debriefing limits the chances of hearing from all students (i.e., 
some students may be hesitant to voluntarily share their thoughts and experiences as 
part of a larger conversation), we decided to incorporate individual, written opportuni-
ties to debrief. Immediately following the conclusion of the game, students were pro-
vided two prompts (see below) in which to respond. For each, they were asked toprovide a 2-3 paragraph response; students were given twenty-five minutes to com-
plete the reflective debriefing activity. The purpose of the prompts was to allow stu-
dents an opportunity to reflect on their experiences and to make meaning from them. 
It was this metacognitive process that provided us a view into students’ perceptions of 
their learning and their experiences within the story world.
1. How did your previous knowledge of the story influence the decisions you 
made during the game? Be sure to include specific differences using textual 
evidence to support these decisions.
Cook et al. 9
2. How did your specific character contribute to or deter other groups from 
accomplishing the objectives? Do you feel that you or anyone else in your 
group acted outside of your character’s motivating forces to accomplish these 
objectives? Why did you and your group make these choices?
Students responded to both prompts using word processing software, which were col-
lected and provided anonymously (i.e., by participant number) to the research team. To 
afford students opportunities to elaborate on their responses and to consider the thoughts 
of their classmates, we also pulled from Lennon’s (2010) discussion of written debrief-
ing. Here, the teacher facilitated a verbal follow-up discussion. Following students 
responding to the two prompts, the teacher led a class discussion where she asked 
prompting and follow-up questions (e.g., Can you talk a bit more about that? Did any-
one else feel the same way?). The class discussion lasted approximately ten minutes.
Data Sources
Classroom observations: Field notes and memos. Throughout the research project, two 
members of the research team attended and observed each class session. As part of the 
classroom observations, the research team took detailed notes of student engagement, 
including small group interaction, questions asked, classroom dynamic, and so forth. 
Researcher notes provided yet another way to examine and triangulate student engage-
ment and learning by including field notes along with student artifacts and student/
teacher interviews. In addition to field notes from classroom observations, all three 
members of the research team wrote analytic memos immediately after each class ses-
sion. The purpose of memo writing was to summarize gameplay and student involve-
ment at the conclusion of each session.
Writing prompts. Immediately following conclusion of the game, students responded to 
two writing prompts designed to allow them to debrief, to reflect, and to make connec-
tions between their reading and gameplay: (1) What decisions did you and your party 
make that directly changed the story told in the original work? How was this experience 
different from the original text? (2) How did your previous knowledge of the story influ-
ence the decisions you made during the game (include textual examples)? This allowed 
the students an important opportunity to reflect and debrief on their gaming experiences, 
and it allowed us to analyze student-generated artifacts to assess their perceptions of 
learning and their self-reported experiences throughout the instructional unit.
Student interviews. At the conclusion of the study, we interviewed all students to elicit 
their perceptions of engaging with the tabletop role-playing game after reading “The 
Most Dangerous Game.” We used Charmaz’s (2006) approach to interviewing, as it 
fosters an “in-depth exploration of a particular topic or experience” and is “a useful 
method for interpretive inquiry” (p. 25). To collect meaningful data, we asked each 
student four open-ended questions (see below), with follow-ups to exhaust their 
semantic fields.
10 Simulation & Gaming 
1. Did you have experience with roleplaying games before learning this one? On 
a scale of 1-10, how difficult was it to learn? Please explain.
2. In what ways, if at all, did engaging with the game help you to better under-
stand the story?
3. In what ways, if at all, did playing the game better prepared to engage with 
writing exercises related to the story?
4. On a scale of 1-10, how difficult was it to collaborate with the other members 
of your group? Please explain.
Teacher interview. At the conclusion of the study, we interviewed the teacher to elicit 
her perceptions of student engagement, interaction, and learning. See below for a list 
of interview questions used. Combined with the student interviews, this provided a 
layered look at the data and the ways in which students interacted with the game.
1. In what ways do you feel playing the game contributed to students’ under-
standing of the story?
2. In what ways do you feel engaging in the game assisted students in thinking 
more deeply about the story?
3. How did playing the game allow students to interact with the characters and 
the plot of the story?
4. On a scale of 1-10, how difficult was it for you to learn the rules of this system? 
Please explain.
5. How comfortable were you with roleplaying systems before implementing this 
one in your classroom and how comfortable do you feel using this system in 
the future?
6. Do you feel that your students displayed a sense of community in working 
towards a shared goal?
Data Analysis
We utilized constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) to guide our data collec-
tion and analysis. This theory allowed us “flexible guidelines, not methodological 
rules” (p. 9), assisting us in creating meaning through an “interpretive portrayal” (p. 
10) of participants’ experiences throughout and immediately following gameplay. 
Additionally, constructivist grounded theory fosters the valuing of growth and learn-
ing as co-constructed through participant experiences. In other words, this allowed us 
to view the data as constructed collaboratively.
To analyze the data, we examined all data points within the context of the class-
room environment (Charmaz, 2006). Furthermore, we followed Glaser and Strauss’s 
(1967) constant comparative method and Charmaz’s (2000) suggestion for coding data 
in order to construct a theory representative of our analysis. We began by using 
ATLAS.ti software to individually code and link all data to the study purpose to estab-
lish an emerging framework for data analysis. Next, we conducted a secondary 
Cook et al. 11
analysis to refine codes and to allow for the emergence of common themes across all 
data points. To ensure inter-rater reliability and to work toward axial codes, the 
research team met and coded 20% of the data collaboratively (Cohen, 1968).
Findings
Three themes emerged from our analysis of the data: students in the current study (1) 
made decisions that were informed by the story, (2) experienced the narrative through 
the lens of their characters, and (3) engaged in collaboration, both within and across 
groups. Finally, as a result of the teacher interview, two sub-themes emerged: teacher 
comfort as Gamemaster and the protocol of the game. Each of these is discussed in 
detail below.
Decisions Informed by Story
One theme that emerged from the data analysis was that students used the story (e.g., 
the layout of the island, major plot points, information about Ivan and Zaroff) to drive 
the decisions they made while playing the game. This finding supports Charmaz’s 
(2006) notion that learning is constructed as a result of participant experiences and 
Gee’s (2007) suggestion that engaging in gaming experiences can serve as reflective 
learning experiences for students. Responding to a writing prompt, a student stated, 
“Well since we had to read the story before we even played the game, we knew what 
we had to do. For example, when in the story Ivan got trapped we knew we should set 
a few traps.” An understanding of the importance of defeating Ivan was echoed by a 
classmate who wrote, “In the story, Ivan died, so we knew we had to plot a way for him 
to die.” Another student shared, “In the story, Ivan falls into a trap, so I knew we 
needed toset a trap because we would have a very high chance of him falling into the 
trap.” When discussing successful game completion, one student’s response was tell-
ing: “My previous knowledge (of the story) helped me win against Ivan and Zaroff. It 
helped me learn the environment. It also helped me learn the layout of the land. I 
learned where Ivan, the dogs, and Zaroff would be.” From these examples, we can see 
that students used their knowledge of the plot to drive the decisions they made, espe-
cially those which mimicked the story, during gameplay.
It is also important to note that the classroom teacher felt as though students were 
constantly returning to the story as they played the game: “I was impressed by the 
students who started building traps, even though we didn’t necessarily tell them they 
could do that, because that is what Rainsford did in the story.” She went on to provide 
other examples from class. “Students also hid in trees, went to the shore to hide, went 
to the swamp/quicksand to hide, and went to the mountains to hide, all based on what 
Rainsford did in the story.” Beyond discussing connections to the setting and the island 
itself, the teacher commented that students “also knew to be suspicious of Ivan and 
Zaroff and either hide or prepare to defend themselves from them and then attack.” 
Student actions also influenced some of the other groups who may have not made 
initial connections to the story plot. In other words, even when they experienced 
12 Simulation & Gaming 
difficulty remembering the story, the decisions and comments from their peers served 
as reminders and reinforced learning.
Experiencing the Narrative Through the Lens of the Character
Going beyond simply using the story to drive the decisions they made as game char-
acters, student responses to the writing prompts and during interviews suggest they 
also were able to experience the narrative through the lens of their characters by taking 
on the roles, actions, and ways of thinking of the game characters. This included a 
variety of benefits, such as “I got to be the character, so I got it from their perspective,” 
and “I was in their shoes so I got to understand the stress.” Providing more detail about 
taking on the role of the character, one student responded, “It helped me understand 
how Rainsford might have struggled because I got to see his point of view on how to 
strategize and try to survive.” Another student expanded on this by stating, “I got to 
ask questions to General Zaroff that Rainsford didn’t ask.”
Students also experienced the game by taking on the characteristics of the four 
game characters. For example, a student in the Warrior group wrote, “In my group I 
feel like we acted like our character most of the time. We made traps because in the 
story they made traps. We also ended up doing damage to the characters when we 
ended up fighting.” Here, students displayed the ability to simultaneously think like 
the character Rainsford from the story and the game character their group represented. 
As such, they described the game as helping them to understand more about what was 
happening and what strategies they should use to progress. This finding parallels Gee’s 
(2007) description of game-based learning and suggests the benefits students experi-
enced from working together in collaborative groups to control the game characters 
(Charmaz, 2006; Wells, 1999).
Similar to the student responses, the teacher also felt that her students were able to 
take on specific roles of the characters as part of gameplay. When asked about this, she 
stated, “It definitely allowed them to picture themselves as Rainsford and relate to the 
characters more deeply. As the students read the story before the game, several of them 
made comments about what they would have done if they were Rainsford. I think it 
helped them to think more strategically about the consequences of those choices.” 
Taken together, this data suggest that while some students did begin making personal 
connections to Rainsford and the story during reading, engaging in gameplay helped 
many students to go beyond those personal connections to making active decisions for 
the characters in the story.
Collaboration
A benefit from this experience was student collaboration, a finding that applies to 
Charmaz’s (2006) discussion of co-constructed experiences, Wells’s (1999) concept of 
collaboratively created knowledge, and Gee’s (2007) model of game-based learning. 
Overall, students reported that playing the game was easy for them; this suggests that 
working together to control one character and play the game was not difficult, which 
Cook et al. 13
is evidenced further by student and teacher comments. We asked students how difficult 
it was to collaborate with other groups in the class as part of the game, and they 
reported an average of 4.5 on a scale of 1-10, which points out that collaboration 
across groups appears to be slightly more difficult for students, but was not overly 
complicated; in fact, the data suggest that students were able to work together effec-
tively to both achieve the game objectives and further their learning.
The students perceived a great deal of strong group work in multiple ways. One stu-
dent discussed collaboration as a whole by saying, “We were all into the game and cared 
about what the other groups had to say.” A peer noted, “We helped each other to get what 
we wanted done in the game.” Connecting more specifically to the game, a classmate 
shared how members of two groups worked together to achieve a victory: “We killed 
Zaroff pretty easily with the help of the Warrior and the Healer.” In a similar vein, a 
member of the Healer group shared, “Our character provided knowledge for other char-
acters. We provided wisdom. We stayed with the group wherever they went because we 
were the Healer. The support player.” Here, this student was thinking about his group as 
a whole and how to best play an individual role to achieve collaborative success.
While communication was most fluid within groups, students felt they worked well 
together across groups. Describing this, a student shared, “We helped out other groups 
by telling them some ideas they could do.” An example of this played out on day three 
of the game, where the Healer “helped lure Zaroff to a trap so the Ranger could hit him 
and the Warrior push him in the house.” In the field notes, one of the researchers 
shared that students began each class (unprompted by the teacher) by strategizing 
(e.g., “if you do x, we’ll do y”) and collaboratively planning.
Additionally, groups often stopped one another from making a mistake or from 
doing the same thing a previous group had done. When considering how to best deal 
with Zaroff, the class was able to briefly discuss and agree that if they snuck past Ivan, 
they would head for the house and take out Zaroff without him even knowing they 
were there. As a reward for this level of collaboration, the Gamemaster had Ivan let out 
a blood curdling scream, notifying the group that he had fallen into one of the traps 
they set the night before.
The classroom teacher found this collaboration to foster an improved sense of com-
munity. When asked about this, she shared, “This was the best part of the game…they 
came together and discussed how they had done a better job…and how they had 
worked together to shoot Zaroff.” Even when groups got off track, others were able to 
pull them back in. Students were able to collaborate and use those discussions to win 
the game (i.e., achieve the objectives).
Additional Notes From the Teacher
In conjunction with student engagement and learning, an additional theme emerged 
from the data analysis. Several times throughout the interview process, the teacher 
made references that went beyond the experience her students had and touched on (1) 
the role of the teacher during gameplay and (2) the game itself. These additional com-
ments from the teacherwere important to more completely understanding the 
14 Simulation & Gaming 
intervention and instructional implications. Furthermore, her notes pointed to the role 
of the teacher as collaborative participant in gameplay, supporting Charmaz’s (2006) 
constructivist grounded theory and Wells’s (1999) social constructivism. Moreover, 
the teacher’s comments paralleled Gee’s (2007) description of game-based learning by 
sharing her thoughts on the game itself and the ways in which students collaborated 
and learned throughout the process.
Teacher comfort as gamemaster. During the interview with the teacher, one point that 
continued to rise to the surface was the importance of the teacher feeling comfortable 
leading the game. When asked about her comfort level at the end of the study, the 
teacher rated it a five (out of ten) and said, “It seemed very difficult when I was read-
ing the resources online, but seeing the game run through made it much easier. I feel 
that having seen the game played, I would be able to run a game myself.” As a follow-
up, we asked what, if any, prior experience she had with role-playing games, and she 
shared only a practical familiarity. She did, however, suggest that she “would defi-
nitely need to practice before [she] could run a game that seamlessly.” The data here 
suggest that teachers interested in implementing a game such as the one used for this 
study may require a level of experience playing and watching roleplaying games being 
implemented in classrooms.
Structure of the game. Throughout our conversations, the teacher also shared with us her 
thoughts on the structure of the game. She noted the benefit of organizing the game 
around the plot of the story (i.e., surviving for three nights). In her interview, she told us 
that “the structure of the game fit the story perfectly by having them survive for four 
nights and three days on the island.” She went on to include, “Having the game structured 
in three days in the same way as the story helped them understand the sequence of events 
in the actual story.” In conjunction with the structure of the game, the teacher felt that her 
students really enjoyed the game. Given this response, the style and narrative structure of 
the game itself both connected with the story and engaged students in new ways.
Conclusion
As the popularity of gaming continues to increase in society and in schools, it is impor-
tant to continue to examine the potential benefits of gameplay in English Language 
Arts and literacy classrooms. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a 
modified tabletop role-playing game on the ways in which middle school students 
engage with and learn from a traditional classroom text (Richard Connell’s “The Most 
Dangerous Game”) in an ELA classroom. We utilized two research questions to guide 
our study: (1) How do students utilize their knowledge of the story in order to play the 
game? And (2) What is the effect of playing the game on student collaboration? To 
drive our design of the game and classroom instruction, we used a dual theoretical 
framework made of Wells’s (1999) discussion of social constructivism—where learn-
ing and knowledge are created collaboratively—and Gee’s (2007) game-based learn-
ing, which acknowledges that gameplay affords students opportunities to problem 
Cook et al. 15
solve and learn in the safe space of the game. Additionally, we drew from Charmaz’s 
(2006) notion of constructivist grounded theory to guide our data collection and analy-
sis. This allowed us to view the interactions between students, the teacher, and the 
researchers as co-constructed learning experiences.
Three findings emerged as a result of data analysis. First, students made gaming 
decisions that were informed by the story. In other words, the students demonstrated 
an ability to use information from the story (e.g., knowledge of plot points and setting) 
to drive the decisions they made during gameplay. Second, students experienced the 
narrative through the lens of their character. Throughout gameplay, they used the game 
as an opportunity to take on the roles, the actions, and the ways of thinking of charac-
ters. Third, students engaged in meaningful and helpful collaboration. Here, students 
were able to work together to control their characters and to make decisions during 
gameplay. Furthermore, they were also able to work successfully across groups to 
achieve the objectives of the game.
Two additional interesting and noteworthy themes emerged as part of our post-
game teacher interview. The teacher discussed the role of the teacher as Gamemaster 
during gameplay. If games such as the one used in this study are to become regular 
components of English Language Arts instruction, it is vital that the teacher feel com-
fortable serving as Gamemaster. Through the interview, the teacher also returned to 
her thoughts on the game itself. She believed the unit structure (i.e., classroom instruc-
tion on a text, followed by gameplay) was strong and well planned out and that the 
game itself paired well with the short story used during instruction.
These findings contribute to the existing literature and the field of education in 
several important ways. The results of our study further Bowman’s (2010) and 
Daniau’s (2016) discussions of RPGs as sponsors of collaboration. Likewise, our find-
ings parallel other scholars’ (see for example, Abrams & Russo, 2015; Harushimana, 
2008; Hsu & Wang, 2010) positions on gaming as beneficial to reading and writing. As 
O’Brien et al. (2010) noted, more information and research is needed to fully explore 
the utility of gameplay in the classroom. In response, our study adds additional knowl-
edge to the ongoing discussion of the pedagogical implications and potential benefits 
of gaming in classrooms, and specifically in ELA classrooms, where gaming and gam-
ing research remain less ubiquitous. Our study and the experiences of these students 
suggest potential benefits of (1) modifying tabletop role-playing games for classroom 
use, (2) putting students in small groups to facilitate whole-class gameplay, and (3) 
using gaming in ELA classrooms to influence students’ experiences studying litera-
ture. The findings herein provide a view into the ways in which the students in two 
individual classrooms worked together to construct learning experiences (Charmaz, 
2006) and knowledge (Wells, 1999), as well as how they used the gaming process to 
wrestle with and ultimately better understand class content (Gee, 2007). The students 
in our study appear to have gone beyond collaboration and learning, as they used the 
gaming experience to engage in vicarious (i.e., active rather than passive) learning. 
That said, additional research would help to more fully understand the effects of table-
top role-playing games on students’ understanding and engagement with literature and 
other classroom texts.
16 Simulation & Gaming 
Implications and Discussion
When we began this study, we were interested in the ways in which middle school 
ELA students utilize gameplay to foster active experiences and learning during the 
study of literature. Given the popularity of gaming, it is important to examine the 
breadth of pedagogical benefits within literacy instruction. Our findings indicate that 
students in this study were able to use gameplay to engage in active (rather than vicari-
ous) literacy practices to become participants in the literature being studied. Three 
benefits arose, including using knowledge of the story to drive decisions during game-
play, using gameplay to experience the narrative through the lens of their characters, 
and engaging in meaningful collaboration throughout gameplay.
However, issues arose. First, it is vital that the teacher has experience and feels com-
fortable serving as Gamemaster. Many students may have limited prior experience with 
games such as this, so teachers must be prepared to guide them throughoutthe process. 
It is, however, not necessary to be an expert on all aspects of the game. In fact, we sug-
gest that the best way to understand the intricacies of this system is to play the game.
Second, the level of collaboration required for students to effectively engage with 
the narrative is likely to require prior instruction on effective communication skills. The 
amount of instruction required will, of course, be dependent on the individual class-
room environment. While this study was conducted in a classroom with students who 
had been previously instructed on small group dynamics throughout their academic 
careers, at times competition and autonomy outweighed the importance of group 
efforts. Prior instruction on the proper means of communicating and working in small 
groups is likely to lead to more productive and effective decisions from students.
Third, as with any lesson instructed in the classroom, it is important to remember 
that students can be encouraged to participate with the game in the same manner that 
engagement could be inspired with any other lesson. Encouraging student input in 
small group discussion is perhaps the best means of accomplishing this task. The wait 
time provided for each individual group to decide on their character’s action allows 
brief windows in which the educator can monitor group dynamics and foster the neces-
sity for input from each student.
Fourth, this study was carried out in two classrooms with eighteen students in each. 
Students were grouped into teams of 4-5 and sat around individual “pods” of desks. 
This arrangement allowed for small group interaction to take precedent over whole-
class distractions and was ideal for facilitating the continuous shift between small-
group and whole-class interaction. While it will ultimately be the educator’s choice as 
to how the classroom is arranged during the execution of this system, it is recommended 
that classrooms be arranged in a fashion that encourages all student voices to be heard.
As a result of this study, we argue that potential benefits in both content understand-
ing and engagement exist from incorporating gameplay into ELA and literacy class-
rooms. That said, additional inquiry is necessary. First, future research should examine 
more varied pedagogical processes of tabletop role-playing games in the ELA class-
room. For example, while it was outside the scope and interest of this study, it would be 
illuminating to engage students in gameplay prior to reading the text. This may help 
Cook et al. 17
parse out the impacts of the game itself and the instructional unit as a whole. Second, it 
would be helpful to take a deeper look at students’ perceptions of learning and of the 
impact of participating in a game such as the one utilized within this study. Third, future 
research should utilize tabletop role-playing games in a longer study to investigate any 
long-term effects on student growth and learning. Lastly, we encourage researchers and 
teachers to provide dedicated time for students to reflect and engage in classroom con-
versations that allow them to debrief and make meaning from the experience of gam-
ing. We hope that teachers and researchers will continue to assess the instructional 
utility of gaming and to further the ways in which we foster literacy in students.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, 
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 
article.
References
Abrams, S. S., & Russo, M. P. (2015). Layering literacies and contemporary learning. Journal 
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 131-135. doi:10.1002/jaal.447
Alexander, J. (2009). Gaming, student literacies, and the composition classroom: Some pos-
sibilities for transformation. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 35-63. 
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40593514
Apperley, T., & Beavis, C. (2013). A model for critical games literacy. E-Learning and Digital 
Media, 10(1), 1-12. doi:10.2304/elea.2013.10.1.1
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
Balzer, M. (2011). Immersion as a prerequisite of the didactical potential of role-playing. 
International Journal of Role-Playing, 2, 32-43. Retrieved from http://www.ijrp.subcul-
tures.nl/wp-content/issue2/IJRPissue2-Article3.pdf
Bergstrom, K. (2012). Creativity rules: How rules impact player creativity in three tabletop role-
playing games. International Journal of Role-Playing, 3, 4-17. Retrieved from http://www.
ijrp.subcultures.nl/2p-content/issue3/IJRPissue2bergstrom.pdf
Bowman, S. L. (2010). The functions of role-playing games: How participants create commu-
nity, solve problems, and explore identity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Bowman, S. L. (2014). Educational live action role-playing games: A secondary literature 
review. In S. L. Bowman (Ed.), Wyrd Con companion book 2014 (pp. 112-131). Los 
Angeles, CA: Wyrd Con.
Carroll, J. (2016). Leveraging boys’ engagement with gaming for improving literacy. Literacy 
Learning: The Middle Years, 24(1), 53-64. Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/docu-
ments/item/1272
Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. 
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, 
CA: SAGE.
18 Simulation & Gaming 
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative anal-
ysis. London, England: SAGE.
Chess, S., & Booth, P. (2014). Lessons down a rabbit hole: Alternate reality gaming in the class-
room. New Media & Society, 16(6), 1002-1017. doi:10.1177/1461444813497554
Chung, T. (2013). Table-top role playing game and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 
56-71. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.06.002
Clarke, G., & Treagust, M. (2010). Gaming for reading. Aplis, 23(4), 161-165. Retrieved from 
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=565455760386616;res=IELNZC
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement 
or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213-220. doi:1037/h0026256
Colby, R. S., & Colby, R. (2008). A pedagogy of play: Integrating computer games into the 
writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 25, 300-312. doi:10.1016/j.comp-
com.2008.04.005
Cook, M. P., Morgan, R., & Gremo, M. (2016). Implementing tabletop gaming in the English 
classroom: Promoting literacy through interactive gameplay. Minnesota English Journal. 
Retrieved from https://minnesotaenglishjournalonline.org/2016/05/02/implementing-
tabletop-gaming-in-the-english-classroom-promoting-literacy-through-interactive-game 
play/#more-663
Crookall, D. (1992). Editorial: Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 141-142. 
doi:10.1177/1046878192232001
Crookall, D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simula-
tion: From representation to reality. Journal of SAGSET, 17(4), 147-171. Retrieved from 
http://www.unice.fr/sg/resources/articles/Article_Reconceptualization-simulation_200bw-
upright.pdf
Daniau, S. (2016). The transformative potential of role-playing games: From play skills to 
human skills. Simulation & Gaming, 47(4), 423-444. doi:10.1177/1046878116650765
Dickey, M. D. (2011). Murder on Grimm Isle: The impact of game narrative design in an edu-
cational game-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 
42(3), 456-469. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01032.x
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementations of user-centered game based 
learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 
49(3), 873-890. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026
Elkins, A. J. (2015). Lets play: Why schoollibrarians should embrace gaming in the library. 
Knowledge Quest, 43(5), 58-63. Retrieved from http://knowledgequest.aasl.org/dive-into-
summer-learning-with-the-mayjune-2015-issue/
Fischer, J. (2006). Global simulation projects in language teaching. In J. Fischer, M. T. 
Musacchio, & A. Standring (Eds.), Exploiting internet case studies and simulation tem-
plates for language teaching and learning: A handbook (pp. 12-17). Gottingen, Germany: 
European Commission.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, 
NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative 
research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2005). Messaging, gaming, peer-to-peer sharing: Language learning strate-
gies & tools for the millennial generation. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 17-22. 
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/emerging/
Cook et al. 19
Harushimana, I. (2008). Literacy through gaming: The influence of videogames on the writings 
of high school freshman males. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 9(2), 35-56. Retrieved 
from http://abc341.wikispaces.com/file/view/harushimana.pdf
Henriksen, T. D. (2006). Games and creativity learning. In F. Thorbiorn & T. Wrigstad (Eds.), 
Role, play, art: Collected experiences of role-playing (pp. 3-16). Stockholm, Sweden: 
Foreningen Knutpunkt.
Hsu, H. Y., & Wang, S. K. (2010). Using gaming literacies to cultivate new literacies. Simulation 
& Gaming, 41(3), 400-417. doi:10.1177/1046878109355361
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real. Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press.
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive 
strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.12.004
Lennon, J. L. (2006). Debriefings of Web-based malaria games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), 
350-356. doi:10.1177/1046878106291661
Lennon, J. L. (2010). Debriefing a health-related educational game: A case study. Simulation & 
Gaming, 41(3), 390-399. doi:10.1177/1046878109332810
Merkel, L., & Sanford, K. (2011). Complexities of gaming cultures: Adolescent gamers adapt-
ing and transforming learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(4), 397-407. doi:10.2304/
elea.2011.8.4.397
Mochocki, M. (2013). Edu-larp as revision of subject-matter knowledge. International Journal 
of Role-Playing, 4, 55-75. Retrieved from http://www.ijrp.subcultures.nl/wp-content/
issue4/IJRPissue4mochocki.pdf
O’Brien, D., Lawless, K. A., & Schrader, P. G. (2010). A taxonomy of educational games. In Y. 
Baek (Ed.), Gaming for classroom-based learning: Digital role playing as a motivator of 
study (pp. 1-23). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Oertig, M. (2010). Debriefing in Moodle: Written feedback on trust and knowl-
edge sharing in a social dilemma game. Simulation & Gaming, 41(3), 374-389. 
doi:10.1177/1046878103253719
Partington, A. (2010). Game literacy, gaming cultures and media education. English Teaching: 
Practice and Critique, 9(1), 73-86. Retrieved from https://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/
research/journal/index.php?id=1
Peters, A. M., & Vissers, G. A. N. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simula-
tion games. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 70-84.
Phillips, B. D. (1995). Methodology for using RPGs in English conversation classes. Games & 
Education, 2(2), 4.
Quijano-Cruz, J. (2007). Collaborative non-linear narrative: Tabletop role playing games in the 
ESL classroom. Game Journal, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.gamejournal.org/dec_07_
Collaborative_Non_Linear_Narrative.pdf
Randi, M. A. F., & de Carvalho, H. F. (2013). Learning through role-playing games: An 
approach for active learning and teaching. Revista Braileira de Educacao Medica, 37(1), 
80-88. doi:10.1590/S0100-55022013000100012
Roscoe, R. D., Brandon, R. D., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Game-based writing 
strategy practice with the writing pal. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring tech-
nology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 1-20). Hershey, PA: Information Science 
Reference.
20 Simulation & Gaming 
Sabatino, L. (2014). Improving writing literacies through digital gaming literacies: Facebook 
gaming in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 32, 41-53. 
doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2014.04.005
Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational 
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301-322. Available from http://www.aace.org
Schmit, W. L., Martins, J. B., & Ferreira, T. (2009). Role-playing games and education in 
Brazil: How we do it. In M. Holter, E. Fatland, & E. Tomte (Eds.), Larp, the universe and 
everything (pp. 75-96). Haraldvangen, Norway: Knutepunkt.
Soares, A. N., Gazzinelli, M. F., de Souza, V., & Araujo, L. H. L. (2015). The role playing 
game (RPG) as a pedagogical strategy in the training of the nurse: An experience report 
on the creation of a game. Text Context Nursing, 24(2), 600-608. doi:10.1590/0104-
0707201500107214
Toscano, A. A. (2011). Enacting culture in gaming: A video gamer’s literacy experience and 
practice. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1-29. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/
index.php/cieatasu/article/viewFile/640/159
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. 
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zalka, C. V. (2012). Adventures in the classroom creating role-playing games based on tra-
ditional stories for the high school curriculum (Master’s thesis). East Tennessee State 
University, Johnson City.
Author Biographies
Mike P. Cook is an Assistant Professor of English Education at Auburn University, where he 
teaches undergraduate and graduate courses within the English Education program. His research 
interests include graphic novels and gaming in the ELA classroom and across the curriculum. 
He also utilizes graphic texts and game-based pedagogies in his preparation of pre-service 
English Language Arts teachers. His scholarship has appeared in SIGNAL Journal, Sequential 
Art Narrative in Education, Literacy Research & Instruction, and the Journal of College 
Literacy and Learning, among others.
Contact: mpc0035@auburn.edu.
Matthew Gremo is an English Education student and intern teacher at Millikin University. His 
interest in English as a Second Language and the intersection between tabletop role-playing 
games and literacy instruction drives much of his work with secondary ELA students. Outside 
of traditional academics, it is his goal to discover new ways of integrating gaming and graphic 
literature into English Language Arts classrooms.
Contact: mgremo@millikin.edu.
Ryan Morgan is an English Education student and intern teacher at Millikin University, where 
she works in the Writing Center to assist student writers. Her areas of interest include student 
writing, middle grades education, and Special Education. The inclusion of Special Education 
students in ELA classrooms is the focus of her James Millikin Scholar Research and her overall 
instructional design.
Contact: rmorgan@millikin.edu.