Ready for some new vocabulary? Semiotic domain, internal and external grammar, and procedural rhetoric. All these have lead me to imagine a game-based assessment for an English classroom.
James Paul Gee (2003) explains that semiotic domains are “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g., oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings” (Gee, 2003, p. 18).
My professional context mainly involves the semiotic domain of English Language Arts (ELA). To communicate, this domain uses oral and written language, symbols such as punctuation and editing marks, and images such as paragraph outlines or pictures in books and articles. The domain is found not only within schools of all levels
but anywhere speaking and writing is involved.
Gee teaches that semiotic domains have internal and external grammars. The internal grammar is the set of principles and patterns that govern the content of a domain. For example, ELA internal grammar would include such principles as correct spelling and punctuation, complete sentences, subject-verb agreement, organized writing, appropriate speaking tone, etc.
External grammar, on the other hand, deals with principles and patterns that govern “proper” social interactions and identities for members associated with the domain. This would mean that educated English speakers use proper grammar and spelling, edit writing respectfully, respond thoughtfully to ideas, come prepared to literary discussions, reread, ask questions of the text, draft and revise writing, etc.
Inspired by this week’s discussion in CEP 813, I’m thinking of using a game to assess 7th grade-students’ understanding of both the internal and external grammars of ELA. I have never used a game to assess before, so I am going to start small with a simple learning goal: CSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.7.2.B: Spell correctly. This assessment would fit within the wider instruction of my weekly vocabulary/language usage lessons. I could use it as a pre-assessment and formative assessment as we learn and practice the correct way to spell oft-confused words. Students would have a summative assessment later on, as well.
Correct spelling is part of the content of this domain (internal grammar), but it is also expected of members of the educated English-speaking community (external grammar). There can be certain consequences for not using proper spelling. For example, if you make spelling errors in real life, you may get poor marks or embarrass yourself in front of a potential employer.
For my game-based assessment, I will use Twine–a customizable, interactive story-telling game. Since this is to be used in an ELA class, where we read many short stories, I am going to borrow a short story from Langston Hughes called “Thank You, Ma’am” (1958) as the context of my game, wherein will appear the spelling words that we will have worked on in class previously.
Now, when it comes to spelling, a writer is usually arranging the letters on his/her own. But one constraint presented within Twine is that the entire word will already be there, or in other words, the choice sets are much more limited than in the case of freewriting. So, the procedural rhetoric--the claims about how the world works (Bogost, 2007)–of the game I create will assume that the students have to choose between two or three different spelling options. This reminds me of the way spellcheck and autocorrect works on our digital devices. Even when our options are limited, we still have to be knowledgeable enough to choose which spelling option is the correct one in the context of our writing.
Spell check and autocorrect often do not catch homophones, among other things, and so I have chosen to focus on a few homophones found within the short story to test my students’ knowledge of which spelling is correct. It will mimic the situation of them transposing a story and having to choose from a list of spell-check-presented options. (Example list of such words found here). Another facet of procedural rhetoric will show up in the fact that the game rewards correct answers with more of the story, whereas incorrect answers require a second try. Thus, it rewards spelling knowledge and reinforces my semiotic domain’s external grammar of always using proper spelling.
When I consider how this game fits with my Assessment Design Checklist, it does correspond with a clear learning objective (Q1). Students will record their answers on a worksheet step by step so I can see their thought process as they go through the game, and so they can self-assess. They will turn in their notes so I can use the data to guide my future spelling instruction (Q2). As far as feedback goes, students will feedback from the text itself about any mistakes they make (Q3). Then they would have a chance to correct their mistakes within the game and on their worksheet (Q4). As a class, we will debrief together after playing the game to talk about their experience, performance and the teaching/assessing effectiveness of the game (Q5).
Check out my prototype of the game!
References
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hughes, Langston. (1958). “Thank you, ma’am.” Retrieved from https://civics.sites.unc.edu/files/2012/05/ThankYouMam.pdf
phoenixfilmandvideo. (2008 January 7). Thank you, ma’am [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHyhYa9CQcQ
Still a Teacher 