The Gamer Response and Decision Framework

Abstract

Aim. This article presents the Gamer Response and Decision Framework as a tool for understanding how people interpret, make decisions, and learn during their video gaming experiences.

Background. The Gamer Response and Decision Framework combines Rosenblatt’s Reader Response Theory with a variety of other concepts and frameworks related to new literacies, multimodality, learning theory, psychology, and video gaming. This Framework illustrates that every individual has unique experiences, knowledge, skills, agency, self-efficacy, and goals, and these components influence how people interpret and make decisions during video gameplay, which affects how the game unfolds as a unique experience for each gamer. Together these ideas illustrate that no two gamers have the same experience when playing a video game. Understanding video gameplay experiences is important as it represents a dynamic process in which gamers interpret a wide variety of multimodal symbols, experiment and learn in these digital environments, and solve complex problems in order to progress in the game.

Conclusion. The Gamer Response and Decision Framework can be used to understand, investigate, and analyze video gameplay experiences and has significant implications for our understanding the thought, decision-making, and learning processes that gamers experience. In the future, researchers in a variety of fields including education, game studies, and game design can use this framework to analyze how people interact with video games.

Keywords

engagement and learning game analysis gamer response and decision framework Gibson’s Theory of Affordances learning literacy practice multimodality new literacies video games

Video games are an enormous part of modern life (Entertainment Software Association, 2015; McGonigal, 2011; Prensky, 2005; Squire, 2008, 2011). According to a recent industry report, approximately half of Americans play video games, half of the households in the U.S. own a video game console, and over 40% of Americans play games for at least three hours a week (Entertainment Software Association, 2015, p. 2). While video gamers are often thought to be boys and young men, the average age of gamers is 35, and 44% of game players are female (Entertainment Software Association, 2015).

While video games are commonplace and a variety of perspectives exist related to how people engage with video games (e.g., Gee, 2007, 2015; Juul, 2011; Wolf & Perron, 2003), our understanding of these issues is still developing. A framework that illustrates important elements and processes of video gameplay experiences that can be applied across a variety game genres to illustrate complex thought, learning, and decision-making processes would be a valuable addition to the literature in a variety of fields, including new literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Squire, 2008), multimodality (Jewitt, 2011; Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Lemke, 2011), game studies (Juul, 2011), and game design (Fullerton, 2008; Rogers, 2014). This article proposes the Gamer Response and Decision (GRAD) Framework as a tool for understanding the intricate meaning-making and engagement processes that gamers experience while playing video games.

Understanding video gameplay experiences is important for many reasons, which vary by field of study. While scholars in game studies and game design (among other fields) are interested in video gameplay experiences, this article focuses on the fields of learning and new literacies. Scholars in these fields are interested in human engagement with video games, which represent important digitally-mediated social processes through which people interpret and communicate a variety of multimodal symbols (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Gee, 2007; Lemke, 2011). These processes reveal human patterns of thought, symbol interpretation, and action in a particular context (e.g., video gameplay).

Furthermore, it is important to note that playing video games can be a learning experience. When people play video games, they interpret multimodal symbols, experiment with the controls and digital environments, and then learn from their experiences to guide future action (Gee, 2015). Thus, through understanding video gameplay, we can further our understanding of how people learn. As educators are interested in promoting engagement and learning with their students, they can consider video games as a tool to accomplish these goals (Prensky, 2005; Squire, 2011).

The Gamer Response and Decision Framework was created as a tool for illuminating video gameplay experiences. This framework draws from Rosenblatt’s (1995) Reader Response Theory as well as concepts from new literacies (Coiro et al., 2008; Squire, 2008), game studies (Juul, 2011), and psychology (Bandura, 1977, 2006; Ford & Nichols, 1987; Gibson, 1979) to create a useful framework for developing a deep understanding video gameplay experiences and the complex interpretation, decision-making, and learning processes that gamers experience during gameplay.

Literature Review

Reader Response Theory

Reader Response Theory stems from the seminal work of Louise Rosenblatt (1938), Literature as Exploration. Rosenblatt’s work influenced how scholars interpret reading processes in terms of reader engagement, interaction, and meaning making. Ultimately, Reader Response Theory illustrates the uniqueness of each individual reader as an integral part in any reading experience. That is, every individual has unique sets of knowledge and experiences that influence how he or she interacts with and makes meaning of any particular text (Rosenblatt, 1995). Clearly stated, the reader is a fundamental actor in creating meaning while reading and engaging with texts.

While Reader Response Theory has traditionally focused on written texts, it can be extended to a variety of non-traditional texts such as multimodal texts that incorporate a variety of written, auditory, and visual information, which appear frequently through the internet, television, and other media (Jewitt, 2011; Kress, 2003; Lemke, 2011; Sanders, 2012). In this sense, a text is “something . . . considered as an object to be examined, explicated, or deconstructed” (Text, n.d.). Through this perspective, digital and non-digital games can also be considered a text (or textual environment). Given the prominence of games, particularly video (or digital) games, in modern culture and their significant potential for promoting valuable educational and social gains (Gee, 2007; McGonigal, 2011; Prensky, 2005; Squire, 2003, 2011), it is a worthy goal to continue to develop our understanding of how people interact with and make meaning of digital games.

Adopting Reader Response Theory to the context of video games can provide valuable insights to how people interpret and are actively engaged during their gaming experiences. Alberti (2008) described video gamers as both readers and writers in that they both interpret the game and affect subsequent events. Just as a person’s background knowledge and experiences influence the way they interpret and engage with a written text, they also influence how one interprets and engages with video games. Whether the gamer is drawing from unique experiences in real life, from books they’ve read, or video games they’ve played, each person—each gamer—has a distinct background that influences how he or she interprets and makes decisions in the game.

New Literacies and Multimodality

Coiro et al. (2008) illustrated that conceptions of literacy are constantly evolving and emerging technologies create new literacy practices. New technologies create new ways for people to communicate (producing and interpreting) multimodal symbols (Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001). These new literacies are important as they impact individuals and society as well as the way we communicate and learn (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Video games are one such medium and require unique forms of new literacies for navigating, interacting with, and making meaning of gameplay experiences (Gee, 2003, 2007, 2015). Engagement with video games requires a constant transaction between the game and the gamer in which the player perceives and interacts with a game that is constantly communicating a wealth of multimodal information (Lemke, 2011).

Video games can promote engagement and learning (Mallon & Lynch, 2014; Phillips, Horstman, Vye, & Bransford, 2014), and thus, particularly given their popularity, video games influence how many people interact and learn in the modern world. This article recognizes video games as a new literacy practice in which gamers engage with a unique form of interactive multimodal media. The transmission of and interaction with multimodal information is truly vital to video gameplay. Video games transmit a variety of multimodal information to the gamers, which is the source of how gamers understand the game and informs their gameplay decisions. Furthermore, conceiving of video games as a new literacy practice is a valuable perspective as it can help scholars investigate and understand a significant and meaningful cultural activity for people all around the world.

Perceptions, Affordances, and Effective Abilities

In both the real-world and game-world, people are exposed to and perceive a wealth of sensory information. Making sense of all this information and successfully functioning in the world requires individuals to focus their attention and perceptions on particularly important elements of what may otherwise be an overwhelming whole (Tadin, 2015). Just as in the real-world, during video gameplay, gamers perceive a great deal of information, including visual images, auditory sounds, and tactile experiences, while simultaneously focusing their attention on salient elements (e.g., the affordances of the environment and information that may help them accomplish their goals).

According to Gibson’s (1979) Theory of Affordances, in order to focus one’s attention, individuals identify affordances. Affordances are things in the environment that can be used by an individual for some purpose. People make decisions based on matching affordances with personal effective abilities and goals (Gee, 2015).

Gamers examine video games in terms of affordances that can be paired with their personal effective abilities to help them reach their goals (Gee, 2015). Players interpret game-worlds as offering various affordances in terms of how they can traverse the world (e.g., walking, climbing, driving, flying, etc.), what items can be acquired (e.g., weapons, power-ups, super powers, vehicles, etc.), and how certain items can be used (e.g., attacking enemies, healing oneself, transportation, etc.), all in coordination with their effective abilities and various goals for video gameplay. The concepts of affordances and effective abilities illustrate how people perceive the real-world and game-worlds in terms of opportunities for action based on abilities and goals.

Existing Approaches for Video Game and Gameplay Experience Analysis

While a number of models already exist for analyzing video games and gameplay, some using a literary perspective (Bourgonjon, Rutten, Soetaert, & Valcke, 2011; Pérez-Latorre, 2015) while others focus on immersion (Bouvier, Lavoué, & Sehaba, 2014; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005). The Gamer Response and Decision Framework takes a significantly different approach than any of these models. Specfically, it recognizes that a gamer’s decisions are a vital component to gameplay experiences. Furthermore, it emphasizes how video gameplay is a multimodal experience comprised of a dynamic and responsive set of interactions between the gamer and the game mediated by the player’s decisions, which are influenced the gamer’s perceptions of affordances, effective abilities, and goals. This unique framework illuminates gameplay experiences in a novel way by highlighting important elements and processes of gameplay and recognizing the gamer’s decisions as an essential component and process of video gameplay. Furthermore, during gameplay, gamers interpret multimodal symbols to search for affordances that can be matched with their effective abilities to help them achieve goals (e.g., beating a level or mission).

The Gamer Response and Decision Framework: A Tool for Understanding Gaming Experiences

The Gamer Response and Decision Framework (Figure 1) integrates a variety of existing concepts related to gaming, decision-making, and learning. I began thinking about this framework when I recognized the potential value of Rosenblatt’s (1995) Reader Response Theory in video games. A subsequent revelation emerged with the recognition of the immense important of gamers’ decisions during video gameplay. After reflecting on personal experience and reviewing the literature for important ideas related to reading and learning as well as video games and gameplay experiences, additional components emerged as valuable concepts to integrate into this framework.

Figure 1.

The gamer response and decision framework

The GRAD Framework identifies the gamer, his or her decisions, and the game as critical and dynamic features of video gameplay, all of which occur in a larger environmental context. Exploring these features and their subcategories illuminates gamers’ interpretation, decision-making, and learning processes during gameplay, which results in a unique experience for every gamer. The GRAD Framework serves as a unique tool for interpreting gamer-game interactions and gameplay experience.

Decisions

The decisions that gamers make during gameplay, which are affected by the gamer’s experiences, knowledge, skills, agency, self-efficacy, and goals, influence how the game unfolds and the meaning the gamer makes from their experiences. Player decisions and choices are a critical part of video gaming (Fullerton, 2008; Gee, 2015; Pérez-Latorre, 2015; Squire, 2008). Gamers are constantly making decisions during gameplay, to which the game responds and conveys a unique set of multimodal symbols that help the gamer learn from and interpret the impact of their decisions. The decisions gamers make are influenced by the gamer profile, the game, and the player’s experiences and perceptions of the game, particularly those related to affordances and effective abilities (Gee, 2015; Gibson, 1977, 1979).

Gamers decide how they want to approach the game. Gamers value things such as high scores, item acquisition, style and elegance of play, aesthetics, challenges, story and dramatic elements, customization, social interaction, and many other variables (Gee, 2007). Each player decides how he or she wants to approach and experience the game based on such concepts, and these decisions are a critical component of modern video gameplay. One player may want to admire the astonishing detail of a 3D world, while others prefer to blaze through a level in an attempt to beat it in a certain time. Another player may want to build a well-rounded avatar, capable of a broad variety of skills and powers, while others may attempt to max out certain stats that align with their preferred playstyle.

In video games, the gamer must make decisions and take actions, to which the video game responds through conveying a unique set of multimodal symbols that impact the gamer’s experiences, interpretations, and learning, which influence future decisions and game progression. This process is at the heart of video gaming and the Gamer Response and Decision Framework. This is a cyclical process in which the gamer makes decisions during video gameplay, learns from those decisions, and then plans accordingly.

Gamer Profile

Gamers (like people in general) all have unique backgrounds that shape the way they interpret and interact with the world. These backgrounds are composed of a myriad of experiences, knowledge, skills, and goals, as well as agency and self-efficacy for performing particular tasks in particular settings. These elements: experiences, knowledge, skills, goals, agency, and self-efficacy unite in the form of a gamer profile. These elements form affordances and constraints that influence how individuals interpret and function in both the real world and in game worlds. In this section, each element is examined more closely.

Experiences

Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory illustrates that people grow up in different environments, witnessing and partaking in different situations and contexts, which affects each individual’s development and learning. Individuals have different experiences in their homes, schools, and communities as well as different identities that influence their life experiences.

Additionally, many people have experiences related to gaming. They understand that interpreting and interacting with a game in certain ways can help them beat a level, acquire a new item, or explore a hidden area, and these activities are influenced by gamer’s experiences and how they learn to perform certain actions to progress in the game. For example, some gamer’s experiences have increased their abilities to identify and utilize affordances in the game world, which impacts their decisions about which paths to take, weapons to use, and playstyle to utilize. All of these experiences, from home and school experiences to intersecting identities to gaming background, are part of that person, part of the way he or she interprets and interacts with both the real world and the game world.

Knowledge

Sociocultural theory illustrates that individuals’ experiences lead them to create knowledge and unique ways of knowing and understanding the world (Vygotsky, 1978). The knowledge individuals have helps them learn and interpret situations (including identifying affordances and pairing affordances with one’s effective abilities), formulate goals, and act based on those goals.

Gamers also have distinct forms of game world knowledge that overlaps and intersects with their real-world knowledge. In the real-world, people possess knowledge of their world that influences their interpretation of opportunities and constraints in their lives as well as the decisions they make. Similarly, gamers’ knowledge of game systems and game rules are used to interpret the game world and to formulate and approach goals, such as options for progression, which can vary greatly. For example, gamers develop knowledge about attack strategies in video gameplay. They learn through experimenting with different weapons and attack options on a variety of enemies of varying strengths and weaknesses. This acquired knowledge influences future decision-making (e.g., weapon selection as well as attack and defense strategies).

Skills

Everyone has unique sets of skills and abilities, which they use in various combinations to help them interact with and learn about the world. A person’s ability to effect change (agency), and his or her interpretation of those abilities (self-efficacy), change over time, some skills increasing and others deteriorating.

These skills affect the opportunities and decisions of individuals, as different effective abilities influence affordances in the environment. Gamers use and develop their skills to achieve goals within games, such as beating a level (or game), acquiring a special item, or completing a difficult but optional task (Gee, 2015; Juul, 2011). For example, a gamer’s skills (and his or her perception of those skills) influences decisions ranging from choosing a difficulty setting to risking death or defeat (which may carry significant consequences) just to clear out an optional room or dungeon to gain extra rewards. Gamers’ skills derive from their individual knowledge and experiences and influence their agency and self-efficacy related to a particular task.

Agency and self-efficacy

People possess agency in their lives, as they have the ability to act in ways that impact their lives and the world within which they live (Bandura, 2006). Furthermore, one’s self-efficacy (i.e., one’s perceptions of his or her abilities to effect change) impacts their goals and actions (Bandura, 1977). If one feels highly capable of overcoming a challenge (i.e., has strong self-efficacy), he or she has is more likely to attempt and achieve that goal.

Bandura (2006) suggested that “people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting” (p. 164). They perceive their environments, consider their own abilities, and then act based on their goals. Furthermore, agency and self-efficacy are important aspects of video gameplay experiences, as they are related to the player’s experience, performance, and enjoyment (Thue, Bulitko, Spetch, & Romanuik, 2011; Trepte & Reinecke, 2011). For example, a person’s self-efficacy may influence whether or not they decide to engage on online competitive multiplayer matches. Gamers with a high-self efficacy may be more likely to engage in competitive play as they believe they have a chance for success, while gamers with low self-efficacy may avoid online gameplay due to fear of failure.

Similarly, gamers in single-player games may have the option to enter a dungeon, but if they feel unprepared (i.e., have low self-efficacy) to achieve success in this dungeon, perhaps because they lack a valuable weapon, this influences their choice (i.e., exertion of agency) to not enter this dungeon. Conversely, a player with high confidence (i.e., self-efficacy) of beating the dungeon will make a choice (i.e., exert agency) to enter the dungeon in hopes of victory.

Goals

People form a variety of goals in their lives that help them interpret and function in the world (Bandura, 2006; Ford & Nichols, 1987). In both the real-world and game-worlds, goal setting is influenced by one’s experiences, knowledge, skills, agency, and self-efficacy. A goal in school may be attaining a certain grade on an exam or learning about a topic, while goals in games are obviously different. For example, a goal in a game may be finding all of the hidden objects in a game or sneaking through a level in a stealth game without being detected. These goals directly influence gamers’ gameplay decisions and cause them to act in certain ways (e.g., carefully combing through levels to identify hidden objects or vigilantly looking for dark and secure areas to ensure their stealth is maintained).

Game Features and Design

Video games have a number of important features, such as multimodal sensory display and feedback; game rules, system, and mechanics; story and dramatic elements; opportunities for personalization; and opportunities for social engagement, which can be combined and interpreted as a game profile. These features combine in various ways and are interpreted and acted upon by gamers. Examining these features in more depth will illuminate how they serve as important elements in video games that shape the gameplay experience.

Multimodal sensory display and feedback

Video games convey a variety of multimodal information to gamers during gameplay (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith, & Tosca, 2008; Gee, 2015; Lemke, 2011). The transmission of multimodal information is central to video gameplay as it conveys vital information to the gamer about important components of the game, such as the game rules, mechanics, and system as well as the game’s story and dramatic elements. Additionally, multimodal information reveals opportunities for personalization and social engagement. Ultimately, gamers undergo a complex iterative process of interpreting multimodal symbols, making decisions, and learning from their actions to play and progress in the game, which is a complex process. During the course of many modern video games, players regularly encounter a variety of multimodal symbols and experiences (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Multimodality in Video Gameplay.

Types of Multimodal Symbols	Examples from Video Gameplay
Dynamic visuals and images	Constantly shifting visuals one experiences when exploring a 3D digital world
Still images	Maps, pictures, and items available during active gameplay and the pause screen
Audio representations	Sound effects and music
Oral language	Dialogue between characters, narration of events, and verbal language from other human players playing online
Written language	Notes and journals found during gameplay, commands and suggestions from the game to the player, and written text messages from other human players playing online
Abstract symbols	Health, item, and ammunition meters and dynamic maps on the heads-up display (HUD)
Tactile experiences	Vibrating controllers that indicate one is taking damage or driving off the road; additionally, physical interaction with the controller carries meaning about the location of buttons and amount of force necessary to push a button to accomplish an objective

Gamers experience this multimodal information in a dynamic game environment in which multiple forms of information are experienced in various combinations (different multimodal ensembles) at different points in time (Lemke, 2011). The production and interpretation of multimodal information is complex and represents a significant feature of modern communication (Jewitt, 2011; Kalantzis, Cope, & Cloonan, 2010; Kress, 2003). Video games convey a rich variety of information that players use for interpretation, decision-making, and learning processes during video gameplay.

Game rules, mechanics, and system

Games often have different rules, mechanics, and systems (Fullerton, 2008; Juul, 2011; Pérez-Latorre, 2015). Game rules determine what is possible and what is not possible. For example, some games allow your avatar to jump, glide, or fly, while others do not. Game mechanics are the patterns of action that players must use to progress through the game (Pérez-Latorre, 2015), such as the specific means of how people traverse environments and engage in combat during gameplay. The game system, as used here, is how the rules and mechanics combine to create a unique game experience.

Story and dramatic elements

Video games often contain story and dramatic elements that convey information such as characters, setting, and plot (Egenfeldt-Nielsen et al., 2008; Fullerton, 2008; Squire, 2008). The story and dramatic elements serve as the background and context for the game-world, influencing the gamer’s perceptions of what the world is, who and what exists in the world, and the purposes and goals of various characters and objects within the game. Additionally, gamers interpret these story and dramatic elements with their own personal histories in mind, often relating the story to their own conceptions of good and evil, justice and injustice, and duty and defiance.

Opportunities for personalization

Video games provide a variety of opportunities to personalize the game experience through gamer decisions and input (Domsch, 2013; Fullerton, 2008; Gee, 2015; Squire, 2008). No two players play a game by doing the exact same things, in the exact same order, in the exact same amount of time. Players do different things (i.e., they make different decisions), and the game responds accordingly. Gamers go different places, travel at different paces, have different goals, acquire different items, and use different playstyles, all of which affect how the game unfolds.

Video games are a form of responsive media (Gee, 2015). In a cyclical process, the gamer’s decisions impact how the game unfolds, which influence future gamer actions. This dynamic gamer-game interaction leads every player’s game experience to be unique. These opportunities for personalization empower gamers (Gee, 2007). The gamer’s decisions affect the outcome of the game and the things they experience along the way. This sense of empowerment is a primary reason why James Gee (2007) argues that “video games are good for [the] soul” (pp. 10-11).

Opportunities for social engagement

Players can engage in social interactions with other players in a variety of ways during gameplay (Egenfeldt-Nielsen et al., 2008; Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014; Sellers, 2009). According to a recent industry report, 56% of the most frequent video gamers play with other people including friends and family, and 54% of frequent gamers play online multiplayer games at least once a week (Entertainment Software Association, 2015). Gamers cooperate, compete, and neutrally coexist in digital worlds. Gamers may cooperate towards a common goal of beating a level or quest without competing against an opposing team, or they can act cooperatively while competing against another team. Additionally, a single player can compete against another single player or against multiple other players. Furthermore, gamers often simply coexist in digital worlds together, merely going about their own business. Whether acting cooperatively, competitively, or neutrally, players can often communicate vocally and via written text. Social components (person-to-person interactions) are not present during every game experience (i.e., people can play games on their own), but people do engage socially through games, it is an important part of the modern gameplay experiences.

Environmental Context

Gamers, games, and gameplay all exist in a larger environmental context, similarly to how humans more generally exist in nested ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Egenfeldt-Nielsen et al., 2008; Gee, 2007). Different individuals, homes, and communities interpret and interact with gaming in different ways. Such attitudes and behaviors can vary greatly from one individual, home, or community to another.

More broadly, gamers interpret and interact with games differently based their perceptions of larger social and political ideas, such as those related to truth, justice, and/or duty. For example, people who play war-themed video games will likely perceive the theme differently depending on that individual’s and community’s culture and experiences with war. The environmental context of the GRAD Framework illustrates the complex interwoven nature of gaming for individuals in their unique ecological environments.

Applications of the Gamer Response and Decision Framework in Education

The GRAD Framework can be used by people in a variety of fields to help them understand video gameplay experiences. These investigations will vary greatly across fields ranging from education to game studies to game design. However, it is not in the scope of this article to explore all of these fields, and thus, this section will focus primarily on the applications of the GRAD Framework in education, which has recently been influenced by notions of new literacies, multimodality, and technologically-mediated communication (Kalantzis, Cope, & Cloonan, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; New London Group, 1996), as well as video games (Gee, 2007; Squire, 2011; Steinkuehler, 2007).

The GRAD Framework in Scholarly Endeavors

Scholars interested in literacy and learning recognize the profound importance of multimodal communication and digital technologies in the modern world (Coiro et al., 2008; Kress, 2003; New London Group, 1996). More specifically, a variety of scholars from the fields of new literacies, multimodality, and learning have showed great interest in video games as an important contemporary medium that incorporates a variety of meaning-making processes and has great potential for promoting learning (Gee, 2007; Prensky, 2005; Squire, 2008, 2011). Furthermore, Lemke (2011) argues that video games are a “new and important medium . . . [that] represent without doubt the frontier of multimedia” (p. 145).

Given such interest in video games, the GRAD Framework can support scholars in these fields interpret gameplay experiences and their accompanying interpretation, decision-making, and learning processes. For example, scholars in new literacies are often interested in how people produce and interpret symbols through the use of technology (Coiro et al., 2008). The GRAD Framework could be used by scholars to investigate video gameplay as a new literacy practice in which unique meaning-making, decision, encoding, and decoding processes occur in the context of digital communication and interaction.

New literacies scholars may use the GRAD Framework in a variety of ways. First, given their interests in both stories and multimodality, new literacies scholars may use the framework to help them either conceptually or in an empirical study to recognize multimodal elements and communication (e.g., visual representations of characters, places, and symbols such as meters and maps; written elements that help further the narrative, such as a prologue or in-game journal entries, and verbal dialogue, such as narration or conversations between characters). Given the importance of gamer decisions along with the multimodal richness of video gameplay, new literacies scholars may investigate how the player’s decisions influence the stories and dramatic elements presented during gameplay, which obviously influence the gamer’s experience. For example, scholars may investigate how different players experience The Walking Dead by Telltale Games, during which gamers decide which dialogue is used by their avatar, a choice that influences how they are spoken to and treated by other characters in the game. Additionally, this game is ripe with moral conflict and ambiguity, and scholars could certainly unpack these issues through focusing on multimodal elements, dramatic features, and gamer decisions during gameplay. Thus, investigating video gameplay as a new literacy practice, a dynamic process of interactive multimodal storytelling between the gamer and the game, holds great potential for new literacies scholars.

In another approach, similar to the work of Steinkuehler (2007), new literacies scholars may identify salient components and processes of video gameplay, such as how the individual’s profile and environmental context influence his or her perceptions and production of communicative symbols during online social engagement. For example, researchers might 1) interview a group of gamers to learn more of their background, whether related to personality, educational background, or another factor, 2) observe their online in-game communication via chat dialogue and verbal conversations, and 3) analyze, compare, and contrast these data sets to develop an understanding of the ways individuals and groups communicate during online gameplay, another new literacy practice.

Furthermore, for scholars interested in how people learn, they may use this model to investigate how gamers’ perceptions of in-game affordances influence their decisions and learning. For example, experienced gamers may find it easier to identify and utilize in-game affordances, such as what objects can be used to help achieve goals, than less-experienced gamers, and scholars may investigate how players identify and utilize affordances throughout the course of gameplay, as it can reveal how video games function as experiential learning systems.

The GRAD Framework in the Classroom

Given the massive popularity of video games and student fondness for games, teachers can engage students through a variety of activities using GRAD Framework to promote learning. Teachers could have students analyze video games to determine how the multimodal symbols convey meanings about the game’s story, characters, and setting and relate such features to broader society. For example, students could analyze Infamous: Second Son, a superhero-like game in which the main characters can choose good or evil actions that impact how the game unfolds. This game contains deep characters, a well-rounded story, and themes such as discrimination, one’s right to privacy, and forceful overthrow of tyranny, all of which are features and themes that could be (and regularly are) investigated and analyzed in classrooms.

Additionally, students could use this framework to help them design a game conceptually, such as determining desirable game mechanics as well as opportunities for personalization and social engagement for their own personally designed game. As gamers learn from video games during gameplay, teachers could facilitate exercises that help students develop metacognitive skills through thinking about how they are interpreting, making decisions, and learning during video gameplay. Ultimately, given that many students have a high level of interest in video games and these games are an enormous part of modern culture, teachers can use the GRAD Framework in a variety of ways to promote student motivation, engagement, and learning.

The GRAD Framework Outside of Education

The GRAD Framework can help scholars in game studies investigate the gameplay experiences of gamers, which is a valuable affordance for those interested in how games and gamers function. Additionally, game studies scholars may want to investigate how a game’s structure, story, and multimodal sensory outputs influence the gamer’s interpretations and decisions.

In the field of game design, applying the GRAD Framework may help game designers consider how specific features or minor changes in the game profile can influence the gamer’s experience and decisions. Alternatively, game designers may want to conceptualize how people of different backgrounds may respond to different story elements or opportunities for personalization, which may influence game planning and design.

Limitations

While the GRAD Framework illuminates important elements and processes of video gameplay experiences, it is not without its limitations. One significant limitation is that many of the elements and processes highlighted in the GRAD Framework are difficult to measure. For example, measuring one’s experiences or level of self-efficacy is a challenging task. Additionally, given the wide variety of concepts addressed in GRAD, it will likely take a significant amount of time to investigate each of its components: the gamer, their decisions, and the game. However, while some researchers may focus on the entire framework, others may decide to focus on a narrower set of concepts highlighted in the framework. Finally, while this framework incorporates a variety of concepts from different bodies of research literature, additional concepts, which are not included here, may offer valuable perspectives for investigating video gameplay experiences. These additional concepts may or may not align neatly with the GRAD Framework, but obviously scholars need to continue to work from and augment existing ideas as well as examine phenomena from a variety of perspectives. Thus, absent elements and processes may later be used in conjunction with this framework, or alternative perspectives may be utilized depending on the researchers and their questions.

Conclusion

This article establishes the Gamer Response and Decision Framework as a way for researchers and educators to recognize and analyze important elements and processes of video gameplay experiences. This is an important goal given researchers in a variety of fields, including new literacies, multimodality, and the learning sciences as well as game studies and game design, are interested in how people interpret, interact, and learn during video gameplay. It is not in the scope of this article to explore every component of the model for an individual or group of individuals for a particular game in a particular context. Rather, the aim of this article was to present the GRAD Framework and stimulate thought among readers related to how this model can further the research community’s understanding of video gameplay experiences through identifying important features, interactions, and relationships among gamers, games, and gameplay. Future research that explores these concepts in more detail and in more contextually rich settings would further promote clarity and understanding of how gameplay experiences are similar and different for individuals in varying contexts.

This framework makes a unique contribution to the literature by highlighting and exploring a variety of important elements related to gameplay experiences and illustrates that each gamer experiences a video game uniquely through bringing his or her background to bear, identifying affordances to be matched with effective abilities, making decisions, and constantly interpreting and interacting in this dynamic multimodal process. The GRAD Framework can help illuminate the complexities of modern video gaming and illustrates the impressiveness of gamers in their ability to constantly perceive, decide, and make video games their own.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I appreciate the guidance and feedback of Donald Bear, Larysa Nadolny, and Isaac Gottesman, who all contributed ideas that influenced my thinking and writing. I’d also like to the two anonymous reviewers as well as Timothy C. Clapper for guidance. Finally, I’d like to thank Elisa Cárdenas, who has been very supportive of me in the creation of the GRAD Framework and article; she has graciously listened and provided feedback on countless occasions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Sam von Gillern is a PhD candidate in Literacy Education at Iowa State University. He has experience teaching students ranging from preschool children to college students. He is interested in new literacies, game-based learning, and multimodal texts. He believes that games and multimodal activities provide unique opportunities to promote motivation, engage, and learning for all students.

Contact: svongillern@gmail.com

References

Alberti

(2008). The game of reading and writing: How video games reframe our understanding of literacy. Computers and Composition, 25, 258-269. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.04.004

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4

Bandura

(2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

Bourgonjon

Rutten

Soetaert

Valcke

(2011). From counter-strike to counter-statement: Using Burke’s pentad as a tool for analysing video games. Digital Creativity, 22, 91-102. doi:10.1080/14626268.2011.578577

Bouvier

Lavoué

Sehaba

(2014). Defining engagement and characterizing engaged-behaviors in digital gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 491-507. doi:10.1177/1046878114553571

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

(2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Domsch

(2013). Storyplaying: Agency and narrative in video games. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/east-2013-0008

Egenfeldt-Nielsen

Smith

J. H.

Tosca

S. P.

(2008). Understanding video games: The essential introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Entertainment Software Association. (2015). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.

11.

Ermi

Mayra

(2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In DeCastell

Jenson

(Eds.) Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 conference: Changing Views–Worlds in Play (pp. 15-27). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University.

12.

Ford

M. E.

Nichols

C. W.

(1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible applications. In Ford

M. E.

Ford

D. H.

(Eds.), Humans as self-constructive living systems (pp. 289-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Fullerton

(2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

14.

Gee

J. P.

(2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1145/950566.950595

15.

Gee

J. P.

(2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

16.

Gee

J. P.

(2015). Unified discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Gibson

J. J.

(1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw

Bransford

(Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 62-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Gibson

J. J.

(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

19.

Granic

Lobel

Engels

R. C.

(2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69, 66-78. doi:10.1037/a0034857

20.

Jewitt

(2011). An introduction to multimodality. In Jewitt

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 14-27). London, England: Routledge.

21.

Juul

(2011). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22.

Kalantzis

Cope

Cloonan

(2010). A multiliteracies perspective on the new literacies. In Baker

E. A.

(Ed.), New literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 61-87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Kress

(2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.

24.

Kress

Van Leeuwen

(2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Edward Arnold. doi:10.2307/1512155

25.

Lankshear

Knobel

(2011). New literacies (3rd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

26.

Lemke

(2011). Multimodality, identity, and time. In Jewitt

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 140-150). London, England: Routledge.

27.

Mallon

Lynch

(2014). Stimulating psychological attachments in narrative games engaging players with game characters. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 508-527. doi:10.1177/1046878114553572

28.

McGonigal

(2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Random House.

29.

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

30.

Pérez-Latorre

. (2015). The social discourse of video games analysis model and case study: GTA IV. Games and Culture, 10(5), 1-23. doi:10.1177/1555412014565639

31.

Phillips

R. S.

Horstman

Vye

Bransford

(2014). Engagement and games for learning: Expanding definitions and methodologies. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 548-568. doi:10.1177/1046878114553576

32.

Prensky

(2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In Raessens

Goldstein

(Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 97-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

33.

Rogers

(2014). Level Up! The guide to great video game design. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.

34.

Rosenblatt

(1938). Literature as exploration. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.

35.

Rosenblatt

(1995). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In Ruddell

R. B.

Ruddell

M. R.

Singer

(Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1057-1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

36.

Sanders

(2012 October). Rosenblatt’s presence in new literacies research. Talking Points, 24(1), 2-6.

37.

Sellers

(2009). Designing the experience of interactive play. In Vorderer

Bryant

(Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 10-24). New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Squire

(2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 2(1), 49-62.

39.

Squire

(2008). Video-game literacy: A literacy of expertise. In Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 635-670). New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Squire

(2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

41.

Steinkuehler

(2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4, 297-318.

42.

Tadin

(2015). Suppressive mechanisms in visual motion processing: From perception to intelligence. Vision Research, 115, 58-70. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2015.08.005

43.

Text. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/text

44.

Thue

Bulitko

Spetch

Romanuik

(2011). A computational model of perceived agency in video games. In Bulitko

Riedl

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE) (pp. 91-96). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press.

45.

Trepte

Reinecke

(2011). The pleasures of success: Game-related efficacy experiences as a mediator between player performance and game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 555-557. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0358

46.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

47.

Wolf

M. J.

Perron

(2003). The video game theory reader. New York, NY: Routledge.