concepts of digital games with L2 learning theories and pedagogical ..... digital game development companies were in 33 different countries, with 60% in.
Reinhardt, J. & Thorne, S. (2016). Metaphors for digital games and language
learning. In F. Farr & L. Murray, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 415-430). London: Routledge. Pre-‐publication draft: Do not cite without author permission Metaphors for digital games and language learning Abstract This chapter explores digital games and their relevance and usefulness to L2 learning and pedagogy for both researchers and educators. First, the chapter describes game genres and types and presents an overview of possible game experiences. It then discusses the familiar CALL metaphor of tool and tutor (e.g., Levy 1997), as well as the more recent metaphor of ecology, in application to digital gaming and illustrates each with reference to research and pedagogical implications. Then, it examines a potentially new CALL metaphor of “game as method” by first examining several parallels between game design and L2 activity design parameters; these include goal-‐orientation, interaction or interactivity, feedback, context, and motivation. Each of these parallels holds implications for developing and implementing “gameful” L2 instruction. The chapter concludes with a critical evaluation of the game as method metaphor by examining and interfacing the concepts of digital games with L2 learning theories and pedagogical methodologies, and proposes that “gamefulness” may be a better conceptualization for the metaphor.
1. GAME AS TUTOR, TOOL, ECOLOGY, AND METHOD Throughout much of the industrialised world, digital information and communication technologies, social media sites, and virtual and gaming environment are now widely integrated into educational, professional, and 1 | P a g e
recreational realms of everyday life activity. Online gaming, the topic of this chapter, was once considered a niche market colonised by unruly teens and young adults. This is no longer the case, evidence for which can be found in the fact that the video game industry is larger than both the film and music industries in terms of annual revenue. The Entertainment Software Association report for 2015 notes that the average gamer is now 35 years of age, with a near even split between women and men players (45% and 55% respectively) (Entertainment Software Association 2015). The growing interest in digital games has been accompanied by a rapid proliferation in the types and genres of games being developed and this has led to considerable attention to the use of games and game-‐informed pedagogy in general education and literacy contexts (Gee 2007b; Squire 2008a; Steinkuehler 2007) as well as among foreign and second language researchers and educators (Mawer and Stanley 2011; Reinders 2012; Sykes and Reinhardt 2013; Thorne 2012). Teachers of second and foreign (L2) languages have considered the potential of digital games for pedagogy since the first videogames were developed for personal computers. One of the earliest, and highly praised, computer-‐assisted language learning (CALL) multimedia (videodisc) programs, A la Rencontre de Philippe (Furstenberg and Malone 1993), used adventure and role play game mechanics to immerse players in a social drama context designed for meaningful language use and learning. In 1991, Hubbard noted the growing popularity of digital games and implored teachers to consider, before implementing them, whether a game was truly a game, and whether the quality of interaction with and around the game was linguistically rich enough to lead to desirable outcomes. Critics like Phillips (1987) had even discussed games as a paradigm for conceptualizing CALL applications, as he saw features in many CALL programs that cultivated intrinsic motivation, incorporated elements of competition, and had both constitutive and regulative rules. He ultimately rejected the paradigm, however, because he felt that games by definition had non-‐consequential outcomes, and were thus not truly authentic. Moreover, he argued that game-‐regulative language was limited in register and wider applicability. The CALL field instead embraced the metaphors of tutor and 2 | P a g e
tool (e.g. Levy 1997), and more recently ecology (e.g. Lam and Kramsch 2003), to conceptualise the use of technology for language learning. While their arguments are still cogent, neither Phillips nor Hubbard might have predicted the sophistication digital game design would reach in the next two decades, the affordances of the Internet for social interaction, or the worldwide growth of digital gaming as diverse arrays of social and cultural practices. The language used in, around, and about games has increased in quantity, quality, and diversity, as game playing has become a truly global, interactive, multiplayer, and often multilingual practice. As increasing numbers of L2 learners play digital games outside the classroom, and games are produced in an increasing variety of game genres and languages, it has become easier to imagine digital games as authentic, consequential, and widely applicable L2 learning resources. L2 learning and pedagogy scholars have begun investigating the potential of games for language learning in depth (e.g. Sykes, Black, and Thorne 2010; Sykes and Reinhardt 2013; Cornellie, Thorne, and Desmet 2012), and an increasing number of L2 educators have started their own explorations in practice. The mercurial growth in popularity of digital games has inspired a parallel, and highly controversial, discussion regarding the use of game mechanics to inform L2 materials, assessment, and curriculum development and implementation. Identified as “gamification” (New Media Consortium Horizon Report 2013) by the corporate training and marketing industries, the new metaphor has captured the imagination of L2 educators, who noting the fervor with which their students play digital games outside of class, wonder if they can tap into the educational and motivational features of digital games without actually bringing them into the classroom. The argument is that if the game design mechanics that teach and motivate players can be analyzed and transferred to traditional, “analogue” L2 learning activities, learners might be as engaged in them as they are in digital gaming. Teaching then becomes “game-‐informed”, “game-‐inspired”, or “gameful”— and game becomes a metaphor for method. Although savvy L2 educators have always had “gameful” 3 | P a g e
teaching practices as part of their pedagogical repertoire, such as goal-‐orientation, interactivity, usable feedback, and importance of situated and meaningful contexts for language use, the new term provides new understandings to the potential benefits of games and “gameful thinking” for language learning. We will critically address the issue of “gamification” in section 4, below. The purpose of this chapter is to explore digital games and their relevance and usefulness to L2 learning and pedagogy. As new technologies have emerged over the past few decades, the field of CALL has responded by developing frameworks that guide pedagogy (e.g. Higgins 1983; Levy 1997; Warschauer and Healey 1998; Kern and Warschauer 2000; Bax 2003; Lam and Kramsch 2003; Meskill 2005; Blyth 2008). However, digital games have proven particularly challenging in this regard, in part because for many educators, as well as the general public, online gaming has yet to be considered an appropriate context for learning in the traditional sense (Thorne and Fischer 2012). With this acknowledgment, this chapter offers several entry points to the topic of online gaming for both researchers and educators. First, the chapter describes game genres and types and presents an overview of possible game experiences. It then discusses the familiar CALL metaphor of tool and tutor (e.g., Levy 1997), as well as the more recent metaphor of ecology, in application to digital gaming and illustrates each with reference to research and pedagogical implications. Then, it examines a potentially new CALL metaphor of “game as method” by first examining several parallels between game design and L2 activity design parameters; these include goal-‐orientation, interaction/interactivity, feedback, context, and motivation. Games typically promote goal-‐orientation just as learning tasks do, they afford particular interactions through intentioned designs, they provide players with feedback that is scaffolded, measured, and well-‐timed, they embed learning activity in meaningful and relevant contexts, and they motivate players by engaging them in a balance of reward and challenge. Each of these parallels holds implications for developing and implementing “gameful” L2 instruction. The chapter concludes with a critical evaluation of the game as method metaphor by examining and interfacing the concepts of digital games with L2 4 | P a g e
learning theories and pedagogical methodologies. Because the definition of “game” includes several entailments that make it problematic, we propose that “gamefulness” may be a better conceptualisation for the proposed new metaphor. Throughout, there is an attempt to locate the notion of gamefulness in instructed L2 settings and to underscore the importance of pedagogically aligning game play with additional materials and activities. 2. GAME GENRES AND TYPES, PAST AND PRESENT Attempts to taxonomise digital games according to genre are challenged by hybrid games that have come to outnumber ‘pure’ exemplars, a development compounded by the ongoing diversification of hardware platforms, connectivity features, and player configurations. The earliest genres of video games, afforded by console, mainframe, and arcade technologies, included shooter and sports games, like Pong (Atari 1972), as well as adventure and role-‐play games inspired by science fiction and fantasy, like Colossal Cave Adventure (Crowther 1976). While consoles, PCs, and handheld devices have been game platforms from the beginning, hardware has evolved from mainframes and arcade machines to web browsers and mobile devices that rely on broadband access, which has afforded even more diversification of game type and genre. Consoles were originally restricted to single player and co-‐ present multiplayer (usually dual) play off of a cartridge, but with broadband availability, players can play with others at a distance and games can be downloaded from the Internet. Traditional game genres include action, adventure, role-‐play, strategy, and simulation, each of which may offer affordances for language use. Action game behaviours usually entail quick reaction time, physical dexterity, and eye-‐hand coordination, and traditionally involve shooting, driving, and parcours-‐like acrobatics. Adventure game features include following progressive storylines, finding clues, and solving puzzles, often enshrouded in narratives of mystery and discovery. Action and adventure features are often combined and realised as the 5 | P a g e
‘action-‐adventure’ genre. Role play games (RPGs) are typified by character customizability and completion of goal-‐oriented quests for rewards and experience points, and are sometimes split into ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ types—Western RPGs traditionally involve the development of a single avatar, while Eastern RPGs, the management of a team of avatars. Traditionally combined with the narrative features of adventure games, RPGs have also more recently been combined with sandbox, or non-‐linear open designs, where story narrative is less emphasised than character development. Strategy game behaviours include planning, exploration, and resource management, and combat that does not require physical dexterity. Strategy designs can use real-‐time mechanics in which the game or other players react immediately to a player’s actions, or turn-‐based mechanics, meaning the player completes a set of actions and then allows the game or other players to take their turns, which may involve forced wait time. Simulation behaviours are similar to strategy, but do not usually involve combat, and may instead focus on the management of a city, farm, business, or daily life tasks or situations. Because simulation games do not have endgame or win states, some do not consider them games (Juul 2005). Games in any of these genres may incorporate more or fewer affordances for language use, depending on how central language is in learning game rules, whether players are required to follow narratives in order to play, and on the extent to which player-‐to-‐player interaction is required for gameplay. Action game behaviours may not necessarily involve language use, though players may learn the language of strategy and tactics if playing with others. Still, action behaviours allow players to experientially engage in game activity, thus affording agency, and the real time dynamics inherent to action mechanics may drive language use, and language learning, through the repeated association of specific language forms with specific kinds of events and actions. Adventure behaviours, because they are built around narrative mechanics, most obviously afford language use, particularly comprehension, and clues and puzzles can be linguistic in nature, although they are not necessarily so. Role-‐play games, because they involve decision making and 6 | P a g e
developing a character, may afford identity play and completing quests usually demands language comprehension in the form of reading and understanding quest texts. Strategy and simulation games may involve language in comprehending game rules, which tend to be relatively complex and scaffolded for players, and turn-‐based or timed turn strategy behaviours may afford learners extra time for comprehension. As social networking technologies have become increasingly accessible, casual social games have emerged that allow players to play with their networked friends. While traditional games that appeal to so-‐called “hardcore” players remain tied to consoles or PCs, the massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) genre emerged when remote servers could host persistent game worlds accessible by players who did not know each other, which gave rise to new player affinity groups and in-‐game social formations (such as guilds and persistent online teams). In this way, improved broadband access and sophistication of technology continually leads to new affordances for hardware, software, and player configurations, and ultimately new reconfigurations and recombinations of game genres and features. For example, the new Xbox One (Microsoft 2013) and Playstation 4 (Sony 2013) consoles require persistent online connectivity and allow cloud-‐based game storage. In addition, as tablet computers allow for more screen space, mobile games are increasingly including massively multiplayer features. Hybridity also typifies the thematic content of games. As global gamer culture has become polylingual and transcultural, the gaming industry has internationalised. Game themes traditionally match genres, so that action games are often military or sports themed, while adventure games may draw on science fiction fantasy themes like those found in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, or the 16th century Chinese epic Journey to the West. While it can be argued that games reflect the cultures of their developers and players to an extent (Cornelliussen and Rettberg 2008), developers play each others’ games and draw on themes and narratives from mythologies and literatures all over the world. Developers with global marketing ambitions will often 7 | P a g e
create games set in generic-‐looking settings with no location identifiers, and then localise them to appeal to particular markets—for example, games localised for Germany are sometimes rid of gore and violence to appeal to consumers. A recent analysis of the Wikipedia article on Videogame developers (2011) shows that 357 digital game development companies were in 33 different countries, with 60% in English-‐speaking countries. Most major games are published in the dominant languages of the developed world—Mandarin, Cantonese, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Korean—and many games are formally and informally translated into other languages. Most games sold in North America are easily playable in French or Spanish, because of the Canadian and Latin American markets, and in Europe and Asia, many games are playable in the languages of the region because of market distribution. 3. FAMILIAR METAPHORS FOR GAME-‐MEDIATED L2 PEDAGOGY Since its inception in the late 1970s, the field of CALL has traditionally used functional metaphors as a means of conceptualizing the pedagogical orientation of computer technologies. Levy (1997) explained that the metaphors of computer-‐as-‐ tutor and computer-‐as-‐tool emerged out of conceptualisations of tutorial and non-‐ tutorial distinctions (Taylor 1990; Higgins 1983). Originally, tutorial CALL was meant to be used outside of the classroom, replacing or augmenting functions associated with a teacher. The metaphor had parallels in behaviourist theories of learning (Warschauer and Healey 1998; Kern and Warschauer 2000), which entailed mind-‐as-‐container and communication-‐as-‐conduit frames (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Sfard 1998). Accordingly, tutorial CALL focused on the ability of the computer to provide repetitive input and targeted feedback, especially for grammar and vocabulary learning. Non-‐tutorial CALL was simply an umbrella term for anything outside of grammatically oriented tutorial programs, such as uses of technology to communicate with others or a tool for expression or the creation and manipulation of information. 8 | P a g e
Stretching the tutor metaphor, Higgins (1983) made the interesting distinction between computer as magister, i.e. the drillmaster, and as pedagogue, i.e. the facilitator. His distinction reflected the newly emerging learning metaphors of cognitivism and constructivism, which emphasised the active role of the learner and aligned with communicative language teaching. The computer-‐as-‐tool metaphor then emerged from ‘non-‐tutorial CALL’, first with constructivism, and then as reflective of the sociocultural theory-‐informed mediating role of technology (Salaberry 1999; Kern 2006; Thorne 2008a; Thorne and Payne 2005), correlating respectively with the cognitive and socio-‐cognitive conceptualisations of L2 learning (Kern and Warschauer 2000; Blyth 2008). Lam and Kramsch (2003) note that conceptualisations for learning over the decades often reflected prevailing understandings of technology, so that focus on memory capacity in the 50s and 60s equated to behaviourism, processing power in the 70s and 80s to cognitive-‐ constructivism, and communication and networking power in the 90s and 00s to social and ecological views of learning. As Lam and Kramsch (2003) describe, new metaphors of technology as ecology or social simulacrum have arisen that parallel the rise in social networking applications and align with new conceptualisations of literacies (see also Thorne 2013). This more recent ecological view accommodates the breakdown of traditional boundaries between places and times for learning, the role of the learner/user as both consumer and producer of knowledge, and the distinctions between learning as work and learning as play. 3.1 Games as L2 learning tutors Digital games and game-‐mediated L2 learning environments can be understood with the traditional metaphors of tutor and tool, as well as with the new metaphor of ecology. As tutors, games can be seen as sources for linguistic input that are tirelessly capable of repetition when needed, meaningfully contextualised as part of event-‐driven scenarios, simulations, and goal-‐directed sequences, and controlled by 9 | P a g e
the player. Higgins’ (1983) pedagogue metaphor is particularly appropriate, since a well-‐designed game provides its player with a sense of agency, even though game rules limit a player’s activities. In other words, a game creator acts as ‘guide on the side’, as it were, by designing the game according to particular parameters, but the player makes choices and does the actual playing. Considering a digital game for tutorial purposes requires evaluation of the language use embedded in, and required of, the game. The thematic content of some commercially available games corresponds with familiar L2 learning units, especially certain simulation, strategy, adventure, and role play games, that create an engineered space which potentially “integrates the many benefits of online gaming to produce … educationally related outcomes in simulated … interactional contexts” (Sykes 2008: 10-‐11). For example, The Sims series offers players hundreds of contextualised vocabulary items related to household items and daily life, while city, farming, and restaurant management social network games provide playable and experiential contexts for their respective themes. Purushotma (2005) notes that a life simulation game like The Sims provides substantial exposure to thematic and topical vocabulary that correlates with early levels of L2 study. A related study by Miller and Hegelheimer (2006) illustrated that supplemental learning materials effectively reinforced game-‐ enhanced learning tasks with The Sims (see also Ranalli 2008). DeHaan (2005) found that an L2 Japanese learner was able to learn sports vocabulary in a baseball action game through contextual clues and repetition, although DeHaan also noted that the learner had trouble focusing on both rules and language because of time pressures while playing (see also deHaan, Reed, and Kuwada 2010). Although they are few in number, digital games created for L2 learning are purposefully designed to correspond with familiar curriculum units that teach vocabulary, grammar, and culture. For example, the game Zon (Zhao and Lai 2009) was developed as a quest-‐ based multiplayer game for learning L2 Chinese and begins with a simulation of the Beijing airport, mimicking the experience of a student going abroad and routine 10 | P a g e
encounters one would expect to confront upon first entering a Chinese speaking context. Teachers might find some games too narrow in language register for broad applicability; for example, many games focus on the registers of strategy, tactic, planning, and action. Still, even games with limited registers contextualise vocabulary comprehension for the very real purpose of gameplay, and so offer opportunities for contextualised language use. In this way, digital games might be understood as interactive texts, especially useful for reading development, and similar to uses of literature and film, such games are more effective as learning environments when supplemented with focused vocabulary, discussion, and writing activities in classroom contexts. 3.2 Games as L2 learning tools and environments Digital games can also be understood as tools for L2 learning that lead to the development of communicative competence and its interactional and discourse correlates. As a tool, the computer mediates the construction or development of understanding through interaction with information and other users. From this perspective, a game as an L2 learning tool would provide the player with a means to interact with L2 discourses, users, and communities. In a study of the 3D multiuser learning environment Quest Atlantis, Zheng et al (2009) examined expert-‐learner interaction and the English language development of two adolescent Mandarin Chinese speakers. Data from quest logs, interviews, and participant observation indicated that intercultural collaboration for quest completion resulted in the learning of various syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse practices. Zheng et al (2009) also described instances in which the learners co-‐constructed meaning at the discourse level and modified one another’s cultural perspectives through tasks centered on a shared goal. In addition, Zheng et al (2009) noted that since many of the tasks focused on the co-‐construction of cultural knowledge, the expert speaker and less experienced English user each took on the roles of learner and instructor. 11 | P a g e
As a result, both interlocutors gained an increased appreciation for cultural differences. Zheng et al. (2009) suggested that similar developmental trajectories could occur through goal-‐directed activity in commercial gaming environments not specifically built for educational purposes (e.g., Thorne 2008b). Researchers have examined L2 learning through games in contexts where players are using the L2 to interact with other players about the game. Much of this work has been descriptive and focused on L2 use as it relates to learning. For example, Piiranen-‐Marsh and Tainio (2009) examined how two Finnish players of Final Fantasy X learned English by anticipating, repeating, and sometimes mocking in-‐ game dialogue while playing together, in effect co-‐constructing collaborative learning episodes. Using a game as a tool for L2 learning requires consideration of the quality and quantity of interaction afforded by the game, e.g. whether it has a chat function, whether game activities require player-‐player interaction, and whether that interaction is linguistic in nature. Multiplayer games most obviously afford interaction, but not all multiplayer games afford or require interaction to the same degree. For example, many social network-‐based games push players to ‘neighbor’ each other, but ‘visiting’ one another may not involve language use at all. Of all game types, massively multiplayer online role-‐playing games (MMORPGs, discussed below in section 3.3) seem to offer the most potential (Lai, Ni, and Zhao 2012), as players in most MMORPG designs have to interact often and negotiate roles in order to play successfully. While many multiplayer games include highly specialised vocabulary that may be of limited use outside of gaming contexts, it is important to keep in mind that communicative engagement in a tool or use paradigm is primarily functional in nature and goal-‐directed interactional and interpersonal meaning is paramount. From this perspective, L2 learning tasks in game settings have the potential to encourage interaction between players through, and about, the game content. If the game design does not require interaction, supplemental classroom or 12 | P a g e
instructional tasks might be designed to promote or demand it (e.g., the work of Jeff Kuhn (2014) using the game Minecraft for University composition courses). 3.3 Games as L2 learning ecologies Technology-‐as-‐ecology might be considered a metaphor derivative of, and therefore subsumed under, technology-‐as-‐tool, since ecological systems are functionally defined. Indeed, metaphors should not be understood as exclusive of one another, but co-‐existing (Lam and Kramsch 2003)—one might well argue that players learning from in-‐game content are using the game as a tool as well as a tutor. When addressing pedagogical applications, however, it is useful to consider how gameplay is part of a larger ecology of game-‐related texts and practices, i.e. what have been termed paratexts (Apperly and Beavis 2011) or attendant discourses (Reinhardt and Sykes 2012; Thorne, Black, and Sykes 2009). Understanding games as ecologies for L2 learning requires recognition of how technology has fundamentally shifted the traditional temporal, spatial, and functional parameters of education. Gamers play games, and thus potentially learn, at any time, at any place, from anyone, in both productive and consumer roles, for entertainment as well as for more ‘serious’ purposes. From this perspective, game playing is an interconnected ecology of social-‐cultural texts and practices that have the potential to extend as well as transform traditional or ‘transmission’ notions of learning from teachers and textbooks. Research on games as L2 learning ecologies has included studies of the linguistic features of paratexts (e.g. Thorne, Fischer, and Lu 2012), communities of L2 gamers (e.g. Chik 2012), and mobile, place-‐based game design and implementation (e.g. Holden and Sykes 2011; Thorne 2013). Thorne et al. (2012) found that the texts and practices surrounding World of Warcraft, i.e. the in-‐game quests, online discussion boards, and online strategy guides, illustrated a great variety of linguistic registers, genres, and functions (see also Steinkuehler and Duncan 2008). Multiplayer games may provide interactional opportunities for language use, competition, and 13 | P a g e
collaboration. Rama, Black, van Es, and Warschauer (2012) showed that MMORPG gameplay can emphasise communicative competence and promote goal-‐oriented and collaborative interaction among novices and experts. In their study, an expert World of Warcraft player with beginning Spanish language skills was able to leverage his gaming expertise and learn Spanish more effectively than a more advanced Spanish learner with little gaming experience. Peterson (2012) examined the chat transcripts of a dozen EFL players of the MMORPG Wonderland and found evidence for the development of socio-‐pragmatic competence and the establishment of joint intersubjectivity, as well as increased confidence and willingness to communicate. Zheng, Newgarden, and Young (2012) showed that WoW players engage in a variety of communicative activities and that gameplay involves considerable affordance for values realizing through coaction. Holden and Sykes (2011) found that Spanish learners’ awareness of the language ecologies in local neighborhoods was transformed by playing a mobile game that had the learners solve a local mystery in Spanish. Because the game situated language use outside traditional educational boundaries, learners developed new perspectives on the purpose of learning Spanish, using mobile technology, and playing digital games. Related research has also shown that digital game spaces afford informal, autonomous learning. For example, Chik (2012) showed that gamers in Hong Kong engage in English and Japanese language learning practices informally and autonomously, on their own and with other gamers, in order to play the latest games before they are translated into Cantonese. Learning practices involve reading and listening to in-‐game dialogues and instructions, interacting with other players, and reading and writing in online discussion forums. Thorne (2008b) and Thorne and Fischer (2012) provided evidence of informal and polylingual language use in MMO contexts by surveying players and examining discussion board exchanges about the use of online games for language learning. While players report language learning opportunities through game play, they are also conscious that the casual and fluent language use in games does not equate to formal prestige varieties and academic genres. In a study of younger school aged children playing 14 | P a g e
recreational games at home, Sylven and Sundqvist (2012) showed that the language proficiency of English learners was positively correlated to their gaming experiences, presumably as those learners had exposure to English in games outside of school. As the above research recognises, games and gaming may not easily fit into traditional L2 educational structures, and treating games as mainly tutor or tool may not realise their full potential. This said, the ecological metaphor is congruent with the concept of digital multiliteracies (New London Group 1996; Knobel and Lankshear 2007; Thorne 2013), which claims that literacy development is multifarious, dynamic, and complex. From a multiliteracies view, learning happens both in school and out of school, while working and playing, from teachers and from interaction with peers alike. Game playing can thus afford the development of multiliteracies—most obviously, what has been called ‘game literacy’ (Gee 2007b; Squire 2008b), or the critical awareness that game systems, dynamics, and discourses are representative of reality (Bogost 2007), and that even non-‐playful human activity like learning and working can be game-‐like, heterarchical and counter-‐hegemonic (Thomas and Brown 2009). Game genres that would typically lend themselves to ecologically oriented “learning in the wild” activities (Thorne 2010) would be relatively complex games with significantly active player communities such as massively multiplayer online games. The goal of game-‐as-‐ecology activities would be to develop game-‐mediated literacies through critical analysis and participation in mediated discourses about and around games as cultural texts and social practices (e.g. Squire 2008b; Alexander 2009; Lacasa, Martinez, and Mendez 2010). To this end, and in additional to game play, players/students might design and describe avatars and gameworlds, write fan fiction based on game narratives or storylines, analyze game dynamics and mechanics, make guides to gameplay, participate in game strategy forums, write game critiques, and even design games themselves. From this perspective, gaming and games are ways to be in, and to understand, the world, and language is not 15 | P a g e
learned only from or through games, but as constitutive of the ecology of the broader discourses surrounding games. 4. A NEW METAPHOR FOR A FAMILIAR PRACTICE: GAME AS METHOD As discussed above, digital games can be conceptualised metaphorically as tutors, tools, and ecologies for computer-‐assisted L2 pedagogy, both in the adaptation of commercial games to enhance L2 learning and in the design and implementation of game-‐based L2 learning environments (Reinhardt and Sykes 2012; 2014; Sykes and Reinhardt 2013). In addition, the concept of a game itself can be taken as a metaphor for learning activity. Learners can play digital games and participate in game-‐related social practices, and reciprocally, game elements can be incorporated into a learning activity, assessment procedure, or curriculum, making the very lesson itself game-‐like. In this sense, the game informs, and even becomes, the pedagogical method, and the activity is “gamified”. The concept of gamification, or “the integration of game elements, mechanics, and frameworks into non-‐game scenarios” (New Media Consortium Horizon Report 2013: 20), has taken the corporate training and marketing industries by storm, as proponents in those industries might put it. Perhaps because of these corporate origins, well-‐known games studies scholars have denounced gamification (Bogost 2011; Schell 2010), and skeptics have become understandably wary of applying it to broader educational contexts. However, many proponents (e.g. Kapp 2012) argue that gamification should not be considered a slick and easy way to make learning fun. It is neither new, as the principles are familiar to experienced educators, nor simple, as it is more than just applying badges, points, levels and rewards, and gamification should certainly not be considered a facile panacea as technological innovations are often portrayed in education. Kapp defines gamification as “a careful and considered application of game thinking to solving problems and encouraging learning using all the elements of games that are appropriate” (ibid.:15-‐ 16). McGonigal (2011), for example, proposes the term “gameful” in contrast to 16 | P a g e
“playful”, as an adjective to describe the quality of having game-‐like elements, but not necessarily being a true game in the sense of focusing exclusively on ludic activity. Much of the debate surrounding gamification revolves around terminology and the problematic definition of “game”, which is sometimes as much in the disposition of the players as in the rules that define it. For current purposes, the terms “game-‐ informed” and “gameful” are preferred, as adjectives that modify, but do not unrecognizably alter, the core activity of computer-‐assisted language learning and teaching. To understand the potential value of game-‐informed L2 pedagogy, it is useful to compare how games are designed with how languages are often taught. These parallels, presented in brief here but discussed at length in Sykes and Reinhardt (2013), are centered on goal orientation, interactivity, feedback provision, context of playing and learning, and motivation. 4.1 Games promote goal-‐oriented behaviour One of the defining characteristics of a game is that it demands goal-‐oriented behaviour from its players. If a player does not know the object of a game, one could argue, he or she does not recognise it as a game, but could consider it open-‐ended play. Well-‐designed games afford goal orientation by providing challenges that are scaffolded and achievable, thus promoting measured risk planning and taking. Feedback (see below) is provided just when needed, at appropriate levels, and with meaningful, albeit often low-‐stakes, consequences. The goal-‐orientation systems constitutive of games thus relate a sense of agency and control to the player, even though mechanics put in place by the game’s designer set the parameters of possible action. Goals in games tend to focus on winning or reaching the next level and accumulating experience or other rewards that function as resources for continued play. Goals tend to vary by game genres, so that in action games, quick reaction time and 17 | P a g e
physical finesse often define the goals, while in strategy and simulation games, planning and tactics are required, although goals may be more open-‐ended. In adventure games, goals are progressive and more linear in nature, and in role-‐play games, players usually are given quests, or sets of linked activities to complete that lead to particular rewards. Players may have multiple, simultaneous goals while playing, which well-‐designed games help manage. In L2 teaching, goals are understood as a defining quality of a curriculum, unit, or learning task. In task-‐based teaching and learning activity design, the goal is expressed as learning objectives, which implicate specific activities and outcomes that meet them. Tasks should be contextualised, relevant, and learning-‐centered, and are ideally student-‐driven and thus motivating and effective (Van den Banden, Bygate, and Norris 2009). In practice, however, learning goals are often driven by curriculum dictates and high-‐stakes testing, with secondary consideration given to the importance of learner orientation to them. Learners are sometimes given little agency, or the choices they are given are limited or inconsequential. The result is that learners can lose motivation and develop little autonomy or capacity to self-‐ direct. If L2 pedagogy were informed by game design principles, the goals of L2 pedagogical tasks would be primarily driven by learners, even while they are guided by instructors and curricular demands. In game design, player agency is promoted by scaffolding the goal orientation process through provision of feedback regarding which goals are set, which can be set, and the progress a player is making towards reaching them. In game-‐informed L2 pedagogy, a learner would have constant and customizable access to his or her own goal progress. Learners would be aware of the purpose of a particular learning task and the expected outcomes, which they would have some agency in choosing. To a certain degree, learners would be able to customise task sequences and stakes, and consequences would be discernible and integrated (Salen and Zimmerman 2004), thus contributing to task authenticity and motivation. 18 | P a g e
4.2 Games provide interactivity on multiple levels Game design theorists Salen and Zimmerman (2004) argue that a good digital game is engaging and immersive because it is interactive in several different ways. It is cognitively interactive if it engages players cinematically through artful graphics, sounds, music, and narratives. A game provides strong functional interactivity if it provides a well-‐designed interface that is intuitive and comprehensive, at the same time that it is customizable and eventually invisible to the expert player. Unlike cinema and literature, a game is explicitly interactive, since it allows players to interact with elements in the game itself, and game outcomes are based on player choices. Finally, a well-‐designed game is highly interactive on a cultural level, meaning it has relation to cultural themes, texts, and social practices outside the game itself. Interaction is also posited to be beneficial, if not requisite, for language learning. Cognitively, processes of comprehension and development are thought to require interaction on intra-‐psychological and inter-‐psychological (Lantolf and Thorne 2006; Gass and Mackey 2012), or social, levels. Social interaction is understood as foundational to language pedagogy and is at the heart of communicative language teaching (Savignon 1972). Effective language pedagogy also incorporates cultural interaction, as the development of intercultural competence (Byram 1998) becomes a key objective of modern language curricula. The relationship between interaction and interactivity is a subtle point but one that is important in application to game-‐informed insights to L2 pedagogy. In games, interaction is an affordance, or a potential for action. In other words, designed interactivity affords interaction and interaction and play are inseparable. In L2 pedagogy, interaction is sometimes seen as a pre-‐condition for learning, rather than inseparable from the learning that emerges from interactive conditions. To afford gameful L2 interaction and thus learning, interactivity would be designed into 19 | P a g e
pedagogy on cognitive, functional, explicit, and cultural levels. Cognitively interactive learning environments would be immersive and rich in sensory input. Learning activities would be functionally interactive and intuitively carried out without excessive explanation of directions or procedures. Designed interactivity would regularly offer choices to learners and have outcomes that are consequential and integrated with the next activities. Finally, culturally interactive learning environments would bridge familiar and local cultures with new and global conceptualisations, i.e. they are transcultural in nature. Designed interactivity thus acts as an affordance for interaction and learning. 4.3 Games give feedback that is timely, individualised, and instructional Well-‐designed games are especially good at giving feedback at just the right time, in just the right amount, at just the right level, and in a way that encourages continued play. Feedback in game design can be a sound, a point, a message, a success, or a failure state that results from a player action. When feedback is timely, it is obvious, and the player knows what action likely caused it. When feedback is individualised, it takes into consideration what feedback has already been given, and adjusts the quality and quantity according to the player’s immediate need. In this way, feedback provided at the right time, of the right nature, and in the right amount is likely within the player’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978), and functions to scaffold the player’s development. In other words, it is instructional rather than punitive, and is formative rather than summative. Feedback in L2 instruction is frequently not immediate, and so learners are not always aware whether their performance is meeting goals. Although it is not always possible to provide timely feedback in L2 performance, gameful feedback provision would be as targeted as possible, so that learners would know when they were in fact being provided feedback, and for what aspects of their performance—e.g. fluency or accuracy. Game-‐informed feedback would also be gradated, so that overt and communicative mistakes were given more attention than less serious errors 20 | P a g e
(Brown 2007). Some tests might be more customizable, so that learners were given some choice as to how much items were worth. Following game mechanics that reward persistence and repeated attempts at difficult tasks, a gameful approach to design of language learning environments would enable learners the opportunity to revisit their mistakes and gain rewards for fixing them. 4.4 Games provide meaningful contexts for play and learning A game has been defined as a set of rules contextualised by narratives that structure a coherent fictional world (Juul 2005). Through representation, narratives provide the means to learn the rules and play the game, but because games from similar genres have similar rules, players can transfer rule knowledge between games of similar genres even if their themes differ. Kapp (2012: 27) observes that game representations are models of real systems and concepts, abstracted to clarify cause and effect relationships. Game context can be understood as the context represented by the game narratives around the rules (i.e. the context-‐in-‐the-‐game of abstractions), as well as the cultural and situational context of where, when, and by whom the game is played (i.e. the context-‐of-‐the-‐game). A game developer creates a “designed narrative” in a game, but a player creates a “personal narrative” as he or she plays it, experiencing the design in a unique, agentful way (Neitzel 2005). As a form of story telling, game narratives play a key role in cultural transmission and participation and these narrative schemata and framing help to situate cognition and learning. In most current approaches of L2 pedagogy, context is recognised as central to meaning and teachers strive to create meaningful contexts for L2 learning. Older L2 pedagogical approaches, e.g. grammar-‐translation and audio-‐lingualism, however, sometimes focus on form to the exclusion of meaning, and grammatical competence is seen to contrast with communicative competence (Hymes 1972). The most widely accepted theories of second language acquisition posit that language is both form and meaning and language learning happens by noticing form in conjunction with referential and functional-‐pragmatic value. 21 | P a g e
Language pedagogy informed by game design principles of situated goal-‐directed activity would recognise that just as a game rule has no function without designed narratives, language form has no meaning without narrative context. Just as a game is not a game until it is played, ‘language’ is a mere abstraction until it is put to meaningful use. As Volosinov has remarked, it is “solely through the utterance [communicative activity] that language makes contact with communication, is imbued with its vital power, and becomes a reality” (1973: 123; Thorne and Lantolf 2007). 4.5 Games motivate through engagement The final parallel to draw for game-‐informed L2 pedagogy is between conceptualisations of motivation in game design and learning theory. In game design theory, motivation is understood as emerging from the balance between challenge and reward or accomplishment. Game designers try to keep players engaged by providing challenges and rewards through goal and feedback systems targeted at, or just beyond, a player’s level. Czikszentmihalyi (2001) identified this state as “flow”, or the sense of complete engagement and control in uncertain situations. If an activity is too challenging, the player is frustrated, but if it’s too easy, the player is bored. Motivation in learning is often conceptualised as prerequisite and determinative of learning success. Intrinsic motivation is often considered to be more desirable than extrinsic motivation, as the latter depends on external factors. In language learning, integrative orientation is seen as more indicative of long-‐term success, while instrumental orientation is more immediate and practical. Dörnyei (2001) offers a more nuanced account of motivation, and suggests that activity is initially motivated by processes of choice and selection, then followed through by executive functioning, and constantly re-‐assessed throughout. 22 | P a g e
Game-‐informed insights from motivation research to L2 learning acknowledge that flow states potentially optimise L2 learning (Egbert 2003), and that motivation is a process, or outcome, as much as it is a pre-‐existing variable. Individualisation of learning activity would allow learners to find their own balance of challenge and reward. Recognizing that extrinsic and intrinsic factors are fluid and not necessarily pre-‐conditional, gameful activities would have learners reflect on, and revisit their motivations over time. Process models of motivation implicate providing choice and agency to students, and explicitly incorporating executive processes like planning, decision making, and critical evaluation into learning activities. 5. A GAMEFUL FUTURE In game-‐informed L2 pedagogy, instructors, activity designers, and learners alike are more attuned to “gameful thinking”, or the awareness of game-‐like elements such as competition, exploration, narrative, mimesis, collaboration, and representation that are part of everyday human life and interaction (Kapp 2012: 11). Game literacies add to gameful thinking the important element of application or competence, the ability to effectively understand and contribute to complex social-‐ semiotic practices. In this chapter, L2 pedagogical uses of digital games have been conceptualised with the traditional CALL metaphors of tutor and tool, as well as with the more recent metaphor of ecology. Games have traditionally been defined as representative, rule-‐ based systems that are played for non-‐serious purposes. While the non-‐serious quality of games allow them to function as realms of mimesis and simulation, and thus are potentially effective for learning, these functions are in good part dependent on player disposition, and if the player knows the end goal is punitive (a grade or mark), the game may cease to be a game in her mind. This is the “artificial unintelligence” that Phillips ascribed to games for CALL in 1987. A more nuanced interpretation of gamification for digitally-‐mediated L2 pedagogy might be “gamefulness as method”, where the ontological entailments of “game” are not 23 | P a g e
pivotal. As McGonigal notes (2011), the term gameful invokes creativity and collaboration while still retaining a serious quality, unlike ‘playful’. Creativity, curiosity, and collaboration are hallmark goals of L2 pedagogy, whether digitally mediated or not, and successful L2 instructors have long been practicing various versions of “gamefulness as method”. While gameful teaching is not entirely new, traditional and new metaphors may help us see the familiar in a new light, and thereby to reconceptualise pedagogical paradigms to more fully utilise and benefit from emerging technologies and social practices. 6. FURTHER READING Gee, J. (2007a). Good video games and good learning. New York: Peter Lang. This seminal volume describes the uses and benefits of online gaming environments from learning sciences and literacy development perspectives. Reinders, H. (ed.) (2012) Digital Games in Language Teaching and Learning, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. This edited volume includes chapters exploring language learning through game play. Reinhardt, J., and Sykes, J. M. (2014) Digital Game Activity in L2 Teaching and Learning. Language Learning and Technology,18(2). This special issue is comprised of articles examining digital gaming and issues of autonomy, willingness to communicate, writing, and micro-‐blogging. Sykes, J. and Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at Play: Digital Games in Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Pearson. 24 | P a g e
This volume presents a comprehensive approach to understanding online gaming from a second language acquisition perspective and includes extensive discussion supporting the use of games in instructed L2 contexts. Thorne, S. L., Cornillie, F., and Piet, D. (eds.) (2012). Digital Games for Language Learning: Challenges and Opportunities. ReCALL Journal, 24(3). This special issue of the ReCALL Journal is comprised of articles exploring various uses of commercial as well as L2 learning designed game environments for language education. References Alexander, J. (2009) ‘Gaming, student literacies, and the composition classroom: some possibilities for transformation’, College Composition and Communication, 61(1): 35-‐63. Apperley, T. and Beavis, C. (2011) ‘Literacy into action: digital games as action and text in the english and literacy classroom’, Pedagogies, 5(2): 130-‐143. Bax, S. (2003) ‘CALL-‐-‐past, present and future’, System, 31: 13-‐28. Blyth, C. (2008) ‘Research perspectives on online discourse and foreign language learning’, in S. Magnan (ed.) Mediating Discourse Online, Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins: 47–70. Bogost, I. (2007) Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, Cambridge: MIT Press. 25 | P a g e
Bogost, I. (2011) ‘Gamification is bullshit’, Atlantic Monthly, 8 August 2011, published online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-‐is-‐ bullshit/243338/ Brown, D. (2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 5th edn, New York: Pearson Longman. Byram, M. (1998). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, New York: Multilingual Matters. Chik, A. (2012) ‘Digital gameplay for autonomous language learning’, in H. Reinders (ed.) Digital Games in Language Learning, New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 95-‐114. Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. and Desmet, P. (2012) ‘Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities’, ReCALL 24(3): 243-‐256. Czikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New York: Harper. deHaan, J. (2005) ‘Acquisition of Japanese as a foreign language through a baseball video game’, Foreign Language Annals, 38(2): 282-‐286. deHaan, J., Reed, W. M. and Kuwada, K. (2010), ‘The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall’, Language Learning and Technology, 1 14(2): 74-‐94. Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation, London: Longman. Egbert, J. (2003) ‘A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom’, Modern Language Journal, 87(4): 499-‐518. 26 | P a g e
Entertainment Software Association (2015) Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry. Downloaded 17 June 2015 at http://www.theesa.com/wp-‐ content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-‐Essential-‐Facts-‐2015.pdf. Furstenberg, G., and Malone, S. (1993) A la rencontre de Philippe, New Haven: Yale University Press. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2012) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, New York: Routledge. Gee, J. (2007a). Good video games and good learning. New York: Peter Lang. Gee, J. (2007b) What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Higgins, J. (1983) ‘Computer Assisted Language Learning’, Language Teaching, 16: 102-‐114. Holden, C. and Sykes, J. (2011) ‘Leveraging mobile games for place-‐based language learning’, International Journal of Game-‐based Learning, 1(2): 1-‐18. Hubbard, P. (1991) ‘Evaluating Computer Games for Language Learning’, Simulation and Gaming, 1991(22): 220–223. Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Education: 269-‐293. Juul, J. (2005) Half-‐real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 27 | P a g e
Kapp, K. (2012) The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-‐based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education, San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Kern, R. and Warschauer, M. (2000) ‘Theory and practice of network-‐based language teaching’, in M. Warschauer and R. Kern (eds.) Network-‐based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press: 1-‐19. Kern, R. (2006) ‘Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages’, TESOL Quarterly, 40(1): 183-‐210. Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C. (eds) (2007) A New Literacies Sampler, New York: Peter Lang. Kuhn, J. (2014) ‘Journaling the Zombie Apocalypse: Minecraft in College Composion.’ Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpGRopPNWI4 Lacasa, P., Martínez, R. and Méndez, L. (2008) ‘Developing new literacies using commecial videogames as educational tools’, Linguistics and Education, 19 (2008): 85-‐106. Lai, C., Ni, R. and Zhao, Y. (2012) ‘Digital games and language learning’ in M. Thomas, H. Reinders, and M. Warschauer (eds.) Contemporary Computer-‐Assisted Language Learning, London: Bloomsbury: 183-‐200. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lam, W. S. E. and Kramsch, C. (2003) ‘The Ecology of an SLA Community in Computer-‐Mediated Environments’, in J. Leather and J. van Dam (eds) Ecology of Language Acquisition, Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers: 141–158.. 28 | P a g e
Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levy, M. (1997) Computer-‐Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mawer, K. and Stanley, G. (2011) Digital Play: Computer Games and Language Aims. Peaslake: Delta Publishing. McGonigal, J. (2011) Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They can Change the World, New York: Penguin. Meskill, C. (2005) ‘Metaphors that shape and guide CALL research’, in J. Egbert and G. M. Petrie (eds) CALL Research Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 25-‐ 40.. Miller, M. and Hegelheimer, V. (2006) ‘The SIMS meet ESL: incorporating authentic computer simulation games into the language classroom’, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 2006(4): 311-‐328. Neitzel, B. (2005) ‘Narrativity in computer games’ in J. Raessens and J. Goldstein (eds.) Handbook of Computer Game Studies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 227-‐249. New London Group (1996) ‘A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures’, Harvard Educational Review, 66: 60-‐92. New Media Consortium (2013) ‘NMC horizon report 2013: higher education edition’, published online at http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-‐horizon-‐report-‐HE.pdf.
29 | P a g e
Peterson, M. (2012) ‘Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG): a sociocultural discourse analysis’, ReCALL 24(3): 361-‐ 380. Phillips, M. (1987) ‘Potential paradigms and possible problems for CALL’, System, 15: 275-‐287. Piiranen-‐Marsh, A. and Tainio, L. (2009) ‘Other-‐repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a video game’, Modern Language Journal, 93(2): 153-‐169. Purushotma, R. (2005) ‘You're not studying, you're just...’, Language Learning and Technology, 9(1): 80-‐96. Rama, P., Black, R., van Es, E. and Warschauer, M. (2012) ‘Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft’, ReCALL, 24(3): 322-‐338. Ranalli, J. (2008) ‘Learning English with The Sims: exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning’, Computer Assisted Language Learning 21(5): 441–455. Reinders, H. (ed.) (2012) Digital Games in Language Teaching and Learning, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Reinhardt, J., and Sykes, J. (2012) ‘Conceptualizing digital game-‐mediated L2 learning and pedagogy: game-‐enhanced and game-‐based research and practice’, in H. Reinders (ed), Digital Games in Language Learning and Teaching, New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 32-‐49 Salaberry, R. (1999). ‘A commentary on Carol Chapelle’s “CALL in the year 2000: still in search of a paradigm”’, Language Learning and Technology, 3(1): 104–107. 30 | P a g e
Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Schell, J. (2010) ‘DICE 2010. Design outside the box’, published online at: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-‐2010-‐design-‐outside-‐the-‐box-‐ presentation Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational Researcher 27(2): 4-‐13. Squire, K. (2008a) ‘Open-‐ended video games: a model for developing learning for the interactive age’, in K. Salen (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, Cambridge: MIT Press: 167–198. Squire, K. (2008b) ‘Video-‐game Literacy: A Literacy of Expertise’, in Coiro, J., Lankshear, C., Knobel, M., and Leu, D. (eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 635–669. Steinkuehler, C. (2007). ‘Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices’, eLearning, 4: 297–318. Steinkuehler, C., and Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology 17, 530–529. Sykes, J. (2008) A Dynamic Approach to Social Interaction: Synthetic Immersive Environments and Spanish Pragmatics, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 31 | P a g e
Sykes, J. and Reinhardt, J. (2013) Language at Play: Digital Games in Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Pearson. Taylor, M. (1990) ‘Simulations and adventure games in CALL’, Simulation and Gaming 1990 (21): 461-‐466. Thomas Brown, J. S. (2009) ‘Why Virtual Worlds Can Matter. International Journal of Learning and Media 1(1): 37-‐49. Thorne, S. L. (2008a) ‘Mediating Technologies and Second Language Learning’, in J. Coiro, M. Knobel , C. Lankshear, and D. Leu, (eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 417-‐449. Thorne, S. L. (2008b) ‘Transcultural Communication in Open Internet Environments and Massively Multiplayer Online Games’, in S. Magnan (ed.), Mediating Discourse Online, Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 305-‐327. Thorne, S. L. (2010) ‘The ‘Intercultural Turn’ and Language Learning in the Crucible of New Media’, in F. Helm and S. Guth (eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 for Language and Intercultural Learning, Bern: Peter Lang: 139-‐164. Thorne, S. L. (2012) ‘Gaming writing: supervernaculars, stylization, and semiotic remediation’, in G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, and I. Elola (eds.), Technology Across Writing Contexts and Tasks. CALICO: San Marcos, Texas: 297–316. Thorne, S. L. (2013) ‘Digital Literacies’, in M. Hawkins (ed.), Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives, New York: Routledge: 192-‐218.
32 | P a g e
Thorne, S. L., Black, R., and Sykes, J. (2009) ‘Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Games’, Modern Language Journal, 93: 802-‐821. Thorne, S. L., and Fischer, I. (2012) ‘Online Gaming as Sociable Media’, ALSIC: Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d’Information et de Communication 15(1). URL: http://alsic.revues.org/2450; DOI: 10.4000/alsic.2450 Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I. and Lu, X. (2012) ‘The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world’, ReCALL 24(3): 279-‐301. Thorne, S. L., and Lantolf, J. (2007) ‘A Linguistics of Communicative Activity’, in S. Makoni and A. Pennycook (eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 170-‐195. Thorne, S. L., and Payne, S. (2005) ‘Evolutionary Trajectories, Internet-‐mediated Expression, and Language Education’, CALICO Journal 22(3): 371-‐397. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009) Task-‐based Language Teaching: A Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Volosinov, V.N. (1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998) ‘Computers and language learning: An overview’, Language Teaching, 31: 57-‐71. 33 | P a g e
Zhao, Y., and Lai, C. (2009) ‘MMORPGs and foreign language education’, in R. E. Ferdig (ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education, Hershey, PA: IGI Global: 402-‐421. Zheng, D, Newgarden, K., and Young, M. F. (2012) ‘Multimodal Analysis of Language Learning in World of Warcraft play: Languaging as Values-‐realizing, ReCALL 24(3): 339-‐360. Zheng, D., Young, M., Wagner, M. and Brewer, R. (2009) ‘Negotiation for Action: English Language Learning in Game-‐based Virtual Worlds’, Modern Language Journal, 93(4): 489-‐511.
34 | P a g e
Notes on Contributors: Jonathon Reinhardt, University of Arizona Jonathon Reinhardt is Associate Professor in the Department of English and Faculty in the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching program at the University of Arizona. He is Director of the Games for Literacies Project at CERCLL, the university’s National Foreign Language Resource Center. His research interests are in exploring the relationship between changes in socio-‐cultural, educational, and technological practice and the theory and practice of technology-‐enhanced second and foreign language pedagogy, focusing especially on emergent technologies like social media and digital gaming. Steven L. Thorne, Portland State University and University of Groningen Steven Thorne (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley) is Associate Professor of Second Language Acquisition in the Department of World Languages and Literatures at Portland State University (USA), with a secondary appointment in the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Groningen (The Netherlands). His research utilises cultural-‐historical, usage-‐based, distributed, and critical approaches to language development, often with a focus on human interactivity in technology-‐culture contexts. He is currently working on a variety of projects that examine mobile media and place-‐based learning, technology use within and outside of formal educational settings, Indigenous language maintenance and revitalisation, and interventions that situate language learning at the heart of university study. In 2014, he was selected to receive the Faculty Research Excellence Award for Assistant and Associate Professors at Portland State University. 35 | P a g e
36 | P a g e
