Volume 18 Number 2 June 2014 Special Issue on Game

Volume 18 Number 2
June 2014 Special Issue on Game-informed L2 Teaching and Learning
Articles
Columns
Guest Editors
Jonathon Reinhardt and Julie Sykes
Digital Gaming and Language Learning:
Autonomy and Community
Abstract | Article PDF
Alice Chik, City University of Hong Kong
pp. 85–100
Can I Say Something? The Effects of Digital
Gameplay on Willingness to Communicate
Abstract | Article PDF
Hayo Reinders, Unitec Institute of Technology
Sorada Wattana, Dhurakij Pundit University
pp. 101–123
Tribute to Mark Warschauer
Article PDF
Dorothy Chun
p. 1
Guest Editor Commentary
Article PDF
Jonathon Reinhardt and Julie Sykes
pp. 2–8
Emerging Technologies
Edited by Robert Godwin-Jones
L2 Writing Practice: Game Enjoyment as a Key to
Engagement
Abstract | Article PDF
Laura K. Allen, Arizona State University
Scott A. Crossley, Georgia State University
Erica L. Snow, Arizona State University
Danielle S. McNamara, Arizona State University
pp. 124–150
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and
Challenges
Article PDF
by Robert Godwin-Jones
pp. 9–19
Microblogging Activities: Language Play and Tool
Transformation
Abstract | Article PDF
David Hattem, Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey
pp. 151–174
Developing Autonomous Learning for Oral
Proficiency Using Digital Storytelling
Article PDF
by SoHee Kim
pp. 20–35
Announcements & Call for Papers
Action Research
Edited by Greg Kessler
Does Second Life Improve Mandarin Learning by
Overseas Chinese Students?
Article PDF
by Yu-Ju Lan
pp. 36–56
Announcements
News From Sponsoring Organizations
Article PDF
pp. 57–60
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor
Copyright © 2014 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
Call for Papers: Special Issue 20(2): LLT 20th
Reviews
Anniversary Special Issue of Special Issues
Edited by Paige Ware
Article PDF
p. 175
Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural
Perspectives
Meskill, C.
Article PDF
Reviewed by Emily Hellmich
pp. 61–64
Handbook Of Automated Essay Evaluation:
Current Applications And New Directions
Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J.
Article PDF
Reviewed by Li Zhang
pp. 65–69
Multilingual Corpora and Multilingual Corpus
Analysis
Schmidt, T. & Wörner, K.
Article PDF
Reviewed by Nina Vyatkina
pp. 70–74
Open English
Article PDF
Reviewed by Paula Winke
pp. 75–84
Contact: Editors or Managing Editor
Copyright © 2014 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
About Language Learning & Technology
Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal that began publication in July 1997. LLT
disseminates research to foreign and second language educators worldwide on issues related to
technology and language education.
•
Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai‘i National
Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for
Language Education and Research (CLEAR).
•
Language Learning & Technology is a fully refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in
the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of
the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and
language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies.
•
Back and current issues of Language Learning & Technology are indexed in the Current
Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences, ISI Alerting Services, Institute for Scientific
Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Linguistics Abstracts, PsycINFO, and
Social SciSearch databases.
•
Since 2007, Language Learning & Technology has ranked in the top 20 Linguistics journals and
in the top 20 Education journals in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports. The European
Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) classifies Language Learning & Technology as INT2
in the field of Pedagogical and Educational research, an international publication “with
significant visibility and influence in the various research domains in different countries.”
•
Language Learning & Technology is published three times per year: February, June, and October.
Copyright © 2014 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.
Sponsors, Board, and Editorial Staff
Volume 18, Number 2
SPONSORS
University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
ADVISORY AND EDITORIAL BOARDS
Advisory Board
Susan Gass
Michigan State University
Julio Rodríguez
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Editorial Board
Nike Arnold
Robert Blake
Thierry Chanier
Tracey Derwing
Lara Ducate
Robert Godwin-Jones
Regine Hampel
Debra Hardison
Claire Kennedy
Markus Kötter
Eva Lam
Jenifer Larson-Hall
Joshua Lawrence
Chin-Hsi Lin
Meei-Ling Liaw
Paul Kei Matsuda
Jill Pellettieri
Hayo Reinders
Jonathon Reinhardt
Shannon Sauro
Bryan Smith
Patrick Snellings
Susana Sotillo
Julie Sykes
Phillip A. Towndrow
Pavel Trofimovich
Nina Vyatkina
Portland State University
University of California, Davis
Université Blaise Pascal
University of Alberta
University of South Carolina
Virginia Commonwealth University
The Open University
Michigan State University
Griffith University, Brisbane
University of Siegen
Northwestern University
Kyushu University
University of California, Irvine
Michigan State University
National Taichung University
Arizona State University
Santa Clara University
Unitec, New Zealand
University of Arizona
Malmö University
Arizona State University
University of Amsterdam
Montclair State University
University of Oregon
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Concordia University
University of Kansas
Copyright © 2014 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229,
P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department
of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Editorial Board (continued)
Paige Ware
Cynthia White
Bonnie Youngs
Binbin Zheng
Southern Methodist University
Massey University
Carnegie Mellon University
Michigan State University
Editorial Staff
Editors
Dorothy Chun
University of California, Santa Barbara
Incoming Editor-in-Chief
Trude Heift
Simon Fraser University
Outgoing Editor-in-Chief
Mark Warschauer
University of California, Irvine
Scott Crossley
Georgia State University
Philip Hubbard
Stanford University
Rick Kern
University of California, Berkeley
Marie-Noëlle Lamy
The Open University
Lara Lomicka-Anderson
University of South Carolina
Glenn Stockwell
Waseda University
Managing Editor
Mónica Vidal
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Web Production Editor
Carol Wilson-Duffy
Michigan State University
Book & Multimedia Review Editor
Paige Ware
Southern Methodist University
Action Research Column Editor
Greg Kessler
Ohio University
Emerging Technologies Editor
Robert Godwin-Jones
Virginia Commonwealth University
Social Media Director
Yining Zhang
Michigan State University
Associate Editors
Copyright © 2014 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229,
P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department
of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/tribute.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
p. 1
TRIBUTE TO MARK WARSCHAUER
Dorothy Chun, University of California, Santa Barbara
Mark Warschauer had the prescience and inspiration in 1997 to found the first open access journal for
research in computer-assisted language learning. He served as Editor or Co-Editor of Language Learning
& Technology from 1997-2003 and again from 2011-2014. It has been my honor and privilege to have
been Co-Editor since 2000 and to have worked with such an accomplished and highly respected
visionary.
According to our records, in 1998 LLT had more than 1,000 readers worldwide. To date, there are 21,215
official subscribers, and the journal’s website had an average of 2,569 visit per day in 2013, with 937,913
visits during the year. Since 2003, LLT has been indexed in the exclusive Institute for Scientific
Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Alerting Services, Social SciSearch, and
Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences. The European Reference Index for the Humanities
(ERIH) classifies LLT as “INT2” in the field of Pedagogical and Educational research, that is, an
international publication “with significant visibility and influence in the various research domains in
different countries.” Since 2009 the journal has been ranked among the top 10% of all Linguistics and
Education journals.
Table 1. ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking.
Year
Impact Factor
5-Year IF
Linguistics
Education
2012
1.38
2.21
12 out of 160
19 out of 216
2011
1.74
2.47
7 out of 162
15 out of 206
2010
1.69
2.46
8 out of 141
15 out of 177
2009
1.53
3.57
3 out of 93
3 out of 139
What has always impressed me throughout all the years that I have known and worked with Mark are his
vast and broad knowledge, his extraordinary energy and insight, his ability to keep abreast of cutting edge
theory and practice in both education and technology, and his eagerness to take on new challenges.
Language Learning & Technology would not exist without Mark’s vision, and it would not enjoy its
current stature without his leadership. I am grateful to Mark both professionally and personally and wish
him the very best as he embarks on his next adventure, being at the helm as the inaugural editor of a new
journal, AERA Open.
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
1
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/commentary.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 2–8
SPECIAL ISSUE COMMENTARY
DIGITAL GAME AND PLAY ACTIVITY IN L2 TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Jonathon Reinhardt, University of Arizona
Julie M. Sykes, CASLS, University of Oregon
Games and play dynamics are proliferating in social, professional, and educational
domains. This special issue brings together a collection of articles examining game and
play activity in second language teaching and learning. Each addresses the topic from a
unique perspective and represents game and play as part of complex ecologies of practice.
The approaches include observation of out-of-school L2 gaming practices, adaptation of
commercial, off-the-shelf games in the classroom, application of a game-based L2
learning environment, and the study of ‘gameful’ learning through play in social networks.
Keywords: Digital Games, Language Play, Second Language Learning, Game-Based
Learning.
APA Citation:Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J.M. (2014). Special Issue Commentary: Digital
Game Activity in L2 Teaching and Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 2–8.
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/commentary.pdf
Copyright: © Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie M. Sykes
INTRODUCTION
Games and play dynamics are being increasingly applied in social, professional, and educational domains.
The globalization of the digital gaming industry, the diversification of games into new and culturally
hybrid genres, a global increase in access to broadband, and increasing numbers of non-traditional game
players have precipitated a notable expansion of digital game and play activity into new contexts and
applications. These developments warrant consideration by practitioners and researchers for the potentials
that digital games and play activity have for technology-enhanced L2TL.
This issue brings together a collection of articles examining digital game and play activity in L2TL. Each
article approaches the topic from a different angle and represents digital games and play as elements of
complex L2TL ecologies. Contexts range from the informal use of commercial, off-the-shelf games for
autonomous language learning to the playful ‘spinning off’ of L2 learning in a Twitter-enhanced
classroom. As such, this issue supports a broad interpretation of the notions of ‘game’ and ‘play’ and
presents a variety of applications of digital games and playfulness to the learning and teaching of
languages. Here, we briefly examine a framework for categorizing work in digital games and language
learning (Reinhardt & Sykes, 2012) and then highlight ways in which each of the contributors have
uniquely approached game and play dynamics. We conclude our commentary with a look towards the
future.
A FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN DIGITAL GAMES
While the study of digital games and play in L2TL has a longer history than most realize (e.g. Hubbard,
1991; Phillips, 1987), the amount of work in the area has grown considerably in the last five years, as
measured by new edited volumes (e.g. Reinders, 2012), special issues (e.g., Cornillie, Thorne, & Desmet,
2012; Thomas, 2011), and monographs (e.g. Peterson, 2013; Sykes & Reinhardt, 2012). In an effort to
categorize this work, we have developed a framework for understanding L2TL research and practice
involving digital games as game-enhanced, game-based, or game-informed (Reinhardt & Sykes, 2012;
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
2
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
Sykes & Reinhardt, 2012), roughly based on functional characteristics of the game under study. Each
dimension seeks to answer distinct questions about learning and teaching (see Table 1).
Table 1. A Framework for Examining Research and Practice in Digital Games.
Characteristics
Game-enhanced Use of vernacular, offthe-shelf games (i.e.,
games designed for
entertainment purposes)
L2 Learning Questions
L2 Teaching Questions
How does gamemediated L2 learning
occur ‘in the wild’?
How can vernacular games be
pedagogically-mediated for L2
learning and teaching?
Game-based
Use of educational or
learning-purposed games
(i.e., synthetic immersive
environments)
How do specific game
designs afford
particular L2 learner
behaviors?
How can game-based
environments be designed to
incorporate and/or
complement L2 pedagogical
uses?
Game-informed
Game and play principles
applied in digital and
non-digital contexts
outside the confines of
what one might typically
consider a game
How can insights from
the study of games and
play inform our
understanding of L2
learning?
How can insights from the
study of games and play
inform our understanding of
L2 teaching and the design of
all L2 learning environments?
Note. Adapted from Sykes & Reinhardt (2012, p. 33)
Game-enhanced research seeks to investigate how commercial games not purposed for learning (i.e.
‘vernacular’) can afford L2 learning and how those affordances might be realized in formal pedagogical
environments. Game-based perspectives investigate the application of digital games that are explicitly
designed for pedagogical purposes, and game-informed perspectives apply insights from the study of
games and play to teaching and learning outside of traditional game spaces, that is, the phenomenon of
‘gamification’ (Kapp, 2012) or ‘gamefulness’ (McGonigal, 2013). While notable work has been done in
each of these areas, there remain significant gaps in our understanding of game and play perspectives on
L2 learning and teaching. Collectively, the articles in this special issue illustrate a breadth and depth of
perspective, as well as parameters afforded by the framework.
Game-enhanced L2 learning and teaching
The use of commercial, off-the-shelf games for learning and teaching offer a number of potential benefits
(e.g. Gee, 2007). In terms of learning, this includes the benefits of authenticity and learning community
(e.g. Peterson, 2012), opportunity for intercultural learning (e.g. Thorne, 2008), access to diversity and
complexity of written and spoken discourse (e.g., Thorne, Fischer, & Lu, 2012), and affordances for the
socio-cognitive processes of learning and language socialization (e.g. Piiranen-Marsh & Tainio, 2009;
Zheng, Young, Wagner, & Brewer, 2009), especially of lexis (e.g. deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010;
Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2012). Game-enhanced research shares the belief that by investigating how
commercial digital games are used outside of class, and how they maybe adapted for learning purposes in
class, we might enhance our understanding of L2 learning and transform our practice of L2 teaching.
In this issue, Alice Chik’s article Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community,
contributes to this strand of research through in-depth case studies of how, when, and with whom
autonomous digital game-enhanced English and Japanese learning takes place outside of formal
classroom contexts ‘in the wild’ of Hong Kong. In the piece, she examines data including gameplay
session transcripts, stimulated recall interviews, focus group discussions, and online discussion forums to
Language Learning & Technology
3
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
explore the role of autonomy, community, and identity or role as related to second language learning.
Patterns from case studies of ten learners indicate notable insights across five dimensions – location,
formality, pedagogy, locus of control, and trajectory (Benson & Chik, 2011). The author reports on
complex individual and social factors that facilitate (or hinder) game-enhanced L2 learning. The findings
confirm previous work suggesting that game-enhanced learning outside of formal instructional contexts is
a rich, but under-researched, phenomenon worth our attention. Chik’s contribution adds to this work not
only through examination of in-game discourses, but also through the ecologically valid and principled
consideration of digital game-related socio-literacy practices outside of formal educational contexts.
While Chik’s previous research shows that some teachers are unaware of what their students are up to
when they are playing games, this study shows that some students are engaging in productive,
autonomous L2 learning activity.
In addition to the study of out-of-class, autonomous game-enhanced L2 learning, other researchers have
recognized the educational potential of vernacular games and have forged ahead to exploit them as
pedagogical resources. As cultural products, digital games are arguably authentic cultural texts (Squire,
2008; Reinhardt, 2013), and gaming is an authentic socio-literacy practice (Steinkuehler, 2007; Thorne,
Black, & Sykes, 2009). Bringing commercial digital games into the L2 classroom requires consideration
of curriculum fit, learner (and teacher) attitudes, and appropriateness of content. Furthermore, just as
novels, magazines, websites, and movies must be pedagogically mediated to maximize learning, so must
digital games.
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana add to game-enhanced pedagogy research by physically modifying a
popular MMORPG, Ragnarok Online, and integrating it into an EFL curriculum in Thailand. In The
effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate, the authors demonstrate ways in which
gameplay can have an impact on learners’ willingness to communicate or “readiness to enter into
discourse,” an important yet under-investigated learner affect. Two sets of questionnaires measuring
willingness to communicate were administered to thirty Thai learners of English. Results show that while
there was a reluctance to interact in the classroom and notable anxiety around speaking English, there was
a statistically verifiable stronger willingness to communicate in the modified game space.
Game-based learning and teaching
Reinders and Wattana’s study challenges the boundaries of our categories by re-purposing an existing
game into a tool that matches specific learning objectives, and we intentionally ordered that study second
to illustrate the relationship between game-enhanced and game-based research. While game-enhanced
research usually operates under the assumption that learner engagement and coherence of experience are
naturally afforded by game authenticity, and thus it might be risky to pedagogically mediate the game,
game-based research acknowledges that the design of a game is key to learning, and games are clearly
designed objects (see, for example, Sykes, 2013; Holden and Sykes, 2011).
In L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement, Laura Varner and her colleagues show
that assumptions about authenticity correlating to engagement are more complex than simple causation,
and in fact, engagement and motivation are part of an interrelated suite of correlated constructs in
research on games and learning. In their study, they explore how mini-games may be purposefully
designed to teach writing strategies, and how L1 and L2 English participants perceive engagement and
learning in them. Varner et al. collected daily self-reports of motivation, performance perceptions, and
engagement as well as performance indicators for high school aged native English users and ESL learners
as they interacted with a self-directed, partially game-based digital writing tutor called Writing Pal (WPal). Results illustrate the complex relationships between actual writing improvement, perception of
engagement, challenge, and boredom, and they indicate a strong correlation between enjoyment of gamebased learning and L2 learner engagement, suggesting the potential of designed game-based applications
as tools for targeted L2 skills development.
Language Learning & Technology
4
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
Game- (and play-) informed learning and teaching
While its exact definition is debated to no end, a ‘game’ is generally understood to be a goal-oriented,
rule-based, playful (and usually voluntary) activity (Caillois, 1961; McGonigal, 2013). Play is understood
in human development and anthropology research to be fundamental to human ontogenesis (Piaget, 1962;
Vygotsky, 1978), and language play has been studied as fundamental to language learning (Cook, 2000;
Lantolf, 1997). Interestingly, English distinguishes the word ‘game’ from ‘play,’ while other languages
do not. When considering how the study of game-mediated social and cognitive activity might inform the
design and practice of L2TL, it might seem logical to study the ludic, or rule-structured quality of
gameplay, separately from the paedic, or playful quality of gameplay. However, in many senses they are
inseparable, as implied by the very term ‘gameplay.’ On the other hand, having two words may help us
see how we might think of ‘gamefulness’ (McGonigal, 2013) as a quality that can bring the
transformative potential of play into the already goal-oriented and rule-based classroom. In this sense,
‘gameful,’ ‘gamified,’ or in our terms ‘game-informed’ environments acknowledge and integrate
gameplay as a means of learning in contexts where it makes sense to do so. As with any game-mediated
application, it is critical to remind ourselves that the mere implementation of game-informed practice
does not, in and of itself ensure a positive outcome.
In our taxonomy, the purpose of game-informed research is to investigate how the activities of digital
gaming and play in learning can inform L2TL that may not be embedded in traditional game structures. In
other words, by studying these activities, we might better understand and design L2 learning
environments, including tasks and assessments, to be more game-informed, even if they are not
recognized as games. While there has been a solid and growing strand of research on language play in
technology-enhanced environments (Belz & Reinhardt, 2004; Broner & Tarone, 2001; Liang, 2012;
Warner, 2004), theoretically grounded descriptive work is still scant, especially with emerging
technologies.
In the final article of this issue, Microblogging activities: Tool transformation and language play, author
David Hattem contributes to the study of technology-mediated gamefulness by demonstrating how social
networking tools in L2 educational contexts may be ‘spun off’ or repurposed by users through language
play. Grounding his study in Bakhtinian and other socially-informed frameworks, he examines how three
students found agency by subverting the formal goals of grammar-focused Twitter-based classroom
activities, using the tool for their own purposes at the same time meeting curricular objectives. In other
words, through collaboration, structure, and playfulness, the students gamified their grammar activity and,
in doing so, built a learning community, resulting in ‘expansive learning.’ The study illustrates how a
delicate balance between learner agency and curricular objective may be struck through gameplay.
CONCLUSION
The selections in this special issue represent the complexity and diversity of approach to the study of
digital games and play in L2TL and aims to highlight key areas for further exploration in game-enhanced,
game-based, and game-informed research and practice. As boundaries between the digital and physical
world continue to blur, it is difficult to predict the ways in which technological behaviors and tools will
transform one another. A transformation currently underway, and notably absent from this issue, is the
way in which place and space are mediated by the presence (or absence) of mobile devices. With the
almost ubiquitous existence of smart phones, we are seeing a remarkable shift in the ways in which
people interact with the places they encounter (Squire, 2009). Moving language learning outside of the
classroom and remediating learners’ experience with the local communities in which they interact is a
logical, yet still relatively underexplored area (see Holden and Sykes, 2001; Sykes and Holden, 2012; and
Thorne, 2013). Place-based digital games, among other types and genres, hold a great deal of promise as
we move forward into a new frontier of persistent connection and geo-located information.
Language Learning & Technology
5
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
As access to a diversity of digital games expands to new populations, it is important to develop a keen
understanding of how in-class and ‘in the wild’ gameplay, with both commercial and educational games,
may impact socialization, collaboration, and language use. This understanding can inform pedagogies that
enhance formal L2 learning experiences with authentic digital games, as well as inform the purposed and
targeted design of game-based spaces specifically for L2TL. Finally, as we begin to experience
gamefulness and play across everyday places (e.g., collecting points at a local coffee shop) and social
activities (e.g., city scavenger hunts in teams), we must develop a critical awareness of the role of games
and play in everyday and academic life. Our hope is that a pro-active, empirical approach to these
phenomena not only deepens our theoretical understanding of L2TL, but also transforms practice and
ultimately informs development. Otherwise, we may find ourselves doing only reactionary research in
response to market forces which, due to the growing size of the global game industry, set the agenda for us.
ABOUT THE GUEST EDITORS
Jonathon Reinhardt (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is Assistant Professor of English
Language/Linguistics and affiliate with the PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching program
at the University of Arizona. His research interests lie in the relationship between technology and the
epistemologies of CALL theory and practice, and focus on technology-enhanced second and foreign
language pedagogy and learning, especially with emergent technologies like social media and digital
gaming.
E-mail: [email protected]
Julie M. Sykes (PhD, University of Minnesota) is the Director of the Center for Applied Second
Language Studies (CASLS) at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on the use of emerging
technological tools for the learning and teaching of interlanguage pragmatics. Her experience includes the
design, implementation, and assessment of online immersive spaces and place-based, augmented reality
mobile games to engage learners in a variety of non-institutional contexts.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Belz, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated
German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 324–362.
Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2011). Towards a more naturalistic CALL: Video gaming and language learning.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 1–13.
Broner, M. & Tarone, E. (2001) Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 363–79.
Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (eds.) (2012). Digital games for language learning: Challenges
and opportunities. ReCALL Journal, 24(3).
deHaan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on
second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 74–94. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/dehaanreedkuwada.pdf
Language Learning & Technology
6
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hitosugi, C. I., Schmidt, M., & Hayashi, K. (2014). Digital game-based learning in the L2 classroom: The
impact of the UN’s off-the-shelf videogame, Food Force, on learner affect and vocabulary retention.
CALICO Journal, 31(1), 19–39.
Holden, C. & 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, June
1991: 220–223.
Kapp, K. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for
Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Lantolf, J. P. (1997). Language play and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In W. Glass & A. T. PerezLeroux, eds., Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish. Volume 2: Production,
Processing and Comprehension (pp. 3–24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Liang, M. (2012). Foreign lucidity in online role-playing games. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
25(2), 455-473.
McGonigal, J. (2013). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world.
New York, NY: Penguin.
Peterson, M. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in Second Life. ReCALL, 24(1), 20–39.
Peterson, M. (2013). Computer games and language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Phillips, M. (1987). Potential paradigms and possible problems for CALL. System, 15(3), 275–287.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
Piiranen-Marsh, A., & 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. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/purushotma/default.html
Reinders, H. (ed.) (2012). Digital games in language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students’ willingness to communicate. In H.
Reinders, ed., Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 156–187). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Reinhardt, J. (2013). Digital game-mediated foreign language teaching and learning: Myths, realities and
opportunities. In M. Derivry-Plard, P. Faure, & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Apprendre les langues à
l’université au 21ème siècle, 161–178. Paris, France: Riveneuve.
Reinhardt, J., & 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 (pp. 32–49). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: A
language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 326–344.
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video game literacy: A literacy of expertise. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear,
D. Leu (Eds). Handbook of research on new literacies, 635–670. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Language Learning & Technology
7
Jonathon Reinhardt & Julie Sykes
Special Issue Commentary: Games and Play
Squire, K. D. (2009). Mobile media learning: Multiplicities of place. Horizon, 17(1), 70–80.
Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices.
eLearning, 4, 297–318.
Sundqvist, P., & Kerstin Sylvén, L. (2012). World of VocCraft: Computer games and Swedish learners’
L2 English vocabulary. In H. Reinders, ed., Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 189–
208). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sykes, J. (2013). Multiuser virtual environments: Learner apologies in Spanish. In N. Taguchi & J. Sykes,
Eds. Technology in Interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins Language Learning and Teaching Series.
Sykes, J., & Holden, C. (2011). Communities: Exploring digital games and social networking. In L.
Ducate and N. Arnold, eds., Present and Future Promises of CALL: From Theory and Research to New
Directions in Language Teaching, CALICO Monograph 2011 (pp. 311–336).
Sykes, J. & Reinhardt, J. (2012). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language
teaching and learning. Series on Theory and Practice in Second Language Classroom Instruction, J.
Liskin-Gasparro & M. Lacorte, series eds. New York, NY: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Thomas, M. (ed.) (2011). Digital games and second languages in Asia. Digital Culture and Education,
3(1).
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open Internet environments and massively
multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan, ed., Mediating discourse online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity, and innovation under conditions of
superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 1–27.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in
Internet communities and online games. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online
game world. ReCALL Journal, 24(3), 279–301.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Warner, C. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Language
and Technology, 8(2), 69–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner/default.html
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.
Language Learning & Technology
8
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/emerging.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 9–19
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
GAMES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Robert Godwin-Jones, Virginia Commonwealth University
There has been a substantial increase in recent years in the interest in using digital games
for language learning. This coincides with the explosive growth in multiplayer online
gaming and with the proliferation of mobile games for smart phones. It also reflects the
growing recognition among educators of the importance of extramural, informal learning
and the interest in finding ways to connect learning to students’ real lives. Given the
important role that gaming currently plays in the everyday lives of adolescents and young
adults in developed countries, this spike in interest is not surprising. However, there are a
number of practical and pedagogical obstacles in the way of incorporating gaming into
instructed language learning. Among those issues are: what kind of games to choose or to
create; how to find the opportunities for language learning within gameplay; and how to
integrate gameplay and its associated activities into the curriculum. In order to address
these issues, we need research-generated data, which is crucial not only for learning how
to make gaming more effective in classroom practice, but also in informing future game
development. Collecting, analyzing, and sharing data collected from digital games is a
major challenge, but some recent technical developments may present new opportunities.
This column will not provide answers to the complex set of issues raised in the integration
of gaming into language learning, but will identify and discuss some recent developments
and point to possible future directions.
APA Citation: Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language learning: Opportunities and
challenges. Language Learning & Technology 18(2), 9–19 Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/emerging.pdf
Copyright: © Robert Godwin-Jones
GAMES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Game Use in Second Language Instruction
It’s as meaningless to make general comments about the benefits of gaming in language learning, as to
say that technology is beneficial–it’s all in the implementation. In the case of games, there is so much
variety in approach and scope, that gameplay affordances must be tied closely to the type of game and its
use. There’s a world of difference between a simple drill and practice vocabulary game, completed in five
minutes, and an immersive 3D multiplayer environment, which can continue and develop over long
stretches of time. Likewise, there is an immense divide between engaging in an educational game as a
class assignment and in devoting hours of free time to multiplayer gameplay, making it an essential
component of one’s everyday life and personal identity. The fact that digital gaming plays a central role in
the lives of a good many young people today provides a rich opportunity to connect with populations who
may have limited interest in formal education. If language learning can be tied to popular forms of
gaming in a way that does not inhibit its enjoyment, that’s a winning situation both for students and
educators.
The environments in which digital games are played can vary substantially. Researchers in India
developed a set of simple games for rural children learning English, based on traditional village games,
and played on loaned-out cell phones (Kumar et al., 2010). In the course of the project, a number of the
phones had to be replaced as they were damaged by fluctuating household electrical current; others
suffered swollen batteries from the intense summer heat. Some families had no power at all and had to
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
9
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
negotiate with village neighbors to get the phones charged. At the opposite end of the gaming spectrum is
a project that virtually immersed users in the world of a French novel, Flaubert’s Madame Bovary
(Cavazza, Lugrin, Pizzi & Charles, 2007). It featured a CAVE-based (computer assisted virtual
environment) virtual world which included full body tracking and a stereoscopic display (through a
special set of shutter glasses). The four-screen display was generated from a central server which was fed
graphic information from eight high-powered client computers, two for each screen. The gulf illustrated
here between low-end, portable gaming and high-end computing environments specifically designed for
gaming is immense. However, with the advent of ever more powerful mobile devices, along with
wearable devices such as Google Glass, the potential exists for creating advanced, immersive games that
do not require a room full of computers. In fact, some of the most exciting developments in educational
gaming today take advantage of both the power of current mobile devices and their portability to create
learning opportunities that move out of the classroom and combine virtual and real worlds into a uniquely
compelling learning experience. On the other hand, there are some interesting recent projects using a
stationary game console, namely the Microsoft xBox Kinect, which allows users to interact with a game
through gestures and voice commands. SpatialEase, for example, uses Kinect for a program inspired by
the Total Physical Response method. The Lost Manuscript is an entire course in beginning Chinese built
around a Kinect-based interface (Chang, Sheldon, Si & Hand, 2012).
Given the vast differences in scope and purpose, the most one can say in general about the utility of
games is that in optimal environmental contexts, with appropriately selected and trained groups of users,
playing a well-designed game, a number of positive and effective language learning experiences are
possible. Peterson’s (2010) meta-analysis of games and second language learning points to a number of
these. Games can offer an immersive environment in which extensive use is made of the target language.
To progress in a game, players must often make active use of that language, interacting verbally with
game objects or other players. This means that they are using language in real and meaningful ways to
accomplish a task. It also means they use the target language in socially appropriate ways; in the game
context pragmatic appropriateness is more important than grammatical accuracy. In the process, gamers
are exposed to cultural and linguistic knowledge that they are unlikely to have encountered in a textbook
or in the classroom. Typically, gamers will encounter a variety of situations calling for different kinds of
language use, including requests for help, giving explanations, coordinating planned activities, reporting
an action, or asking for alternative solutions (Zheng, Newgarden & Young, 2012). Such language use
arises organically from the game and can involve interaction with players from a variety of backgrounds,
with game and linguistic knowledge ranging from novice to expert. Players receive a constant stream of
feedback in response to game events, player interactions, and speech input. Responses to that feedback
engage the player in repeating, revising, and/or reformulating statements. Gameplay typically involves
repeated actions in different contexts with increasing levels of difficulty and complexity, providing
reinforcement of earlier introduced vocabulary and language structures. These activities are taking place
in a safe and inviting environment which provides enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment, as progress
through the game is recognized and rewarded (growth in game inventory, moving to a higher level, etc.).
These are by no means automatic or universal benefits—they depend on a large number of variables,
including not only the nature and use of the game itself but also the presence or absence of game-related
activities, whether they be generated by an instructor or take place at the initiative of the gamer. Gamers
typically will not only engage in gameplay, but are likely to consult websites about the game, such as
those which give hints or help, provide background information, or offer informal chat about the game. If
used as a class assignment, an instructor might create “wrap-around” activities for a game (Sykes, 2013).
Those might include oral reports on game experiences, class discussions around gameplay, game
journaling, quizzes or exercises based on game vocabulary, or skits based on characters or play action.
Sykes & Reinhardt’s (2013) recent monograph provides examples of such related in-class activities.
Gaming can introduce a welcome element of fun and creativity into the language classroom, not always
Language Learning & Technology
10
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
sufficiently valued in our emphasis on utilitarian and transactional language use (Pomerantz & Bell,
2007). Language learners should have the same license as native speakers to experiment and play with
language, increasingly recognized as an important learning and motivating factor (Kramsch, 2009).
Because of the strong motivational factors involved, game playing can be a powerful agent for learner
autonomy, a potential resource for long-term language maintenance, and an entry-point for gaining
interest in learning new languages. The degree of engagement players have in gameplay and its related
activities is often stronger and more personal than it is for school-related activities. Players create together
what has been called an “affinity space” (Gee, 2003) in which the shared interest breaks down
interpersonal and inter-cultural barriers, creating an open and tolerant collaborative environment. The
give and take among players co-creates a shared space in which language too is co-constructed. This kind
of dynamic is optimal for learning, as described in the editorial accompanying ReCALL’s special issue on
gaming: “Games are evoking a shift away from models of learning based on information delivery toward
theories of human development rooted in experiential problem solving and complex and spatially
distributed forms of collaboration” (Cornillie, Thorne & Desmet, 2012, p. 245). In this sense, gaming is
part of a learning constellation which includes other informal online activities such as participation in
social networks, posting to online forums, or adding commentary to posted media or texts (see Sykes,
Oskoz & Thorne, 2008).
Commercial Games: Game-Informed Learning
Language learning through gameplay can happen in a wide variety of ways, from a planned learning
activity in an instructional environment to an incidental by-product of a gamer’s interactions with the
game and its associated online activities. Equally varied is the providence of games and their intent. As
digital gaming has increased in popularity, we’ve witnessed an ever-greater variety in types of games (see
this recent compendium). Most games are commercial products, designed for entertainment, not
education. This doesn’t mean they don’t have educational value, including general benefits such as
enhancement of digital literacy, increasing socialization, and/or building self-confidence (Arnseth, 2006;
Steinkueler, 2007). However, curricular integration of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) games may be
challenging. Vocabulary use, syntactic structures, and a range of other linguistic characteristics of the
language used cannot be determined in advance. In contrast, “serious games” created specifically for
educational use can be tailored to specific learning and curricular needs. Unfortunately, such games are
inevitably compared to commercial games familiar to students that were created, at great expense, with
large teams of graphic experts, online designers, and experienced programmers. Often, educational games
lack the sophisticated look and feel of COTS games, while the pedagogical intent is all too evident,
sometimes interrupting the all-important “game flow” (Bellotti, Kapralos, Lee, Moreno-Ger, & Berta,
2013). If the game is perceived solely as an assignment, a good part of the benefits are lost—especially
the affective factors.
Not all successful COTS games lend themselves to use in language learning. I have not seen mention of
projects using a first-person shooter game such as Doom, or any of the many versions of racing
adventures such as Grand Theft Auto. Adventurous language teachers might well find interesting angles
to exploit even in these kinds of games. One important consideration in evaluating a COTS game is the
use of the target language. While the most widely sold games are available in multiple languages, it is not
universally the case. Among the more popular types of COTS games that have been used in language
learning are those which construct a virtual world in which the user interacts by taking on a role in the
game, usually through the use of an avatar. The simulated world created can be quite similar to the real
world or deviate substantially in time (middle ages, far future), space (another planet), and/or might take
place in a complete fantasy world. These game environments can be open-ended, with game interest
centered around creating and growing a user-designed environment, or they can be or task-based, with the
goal being to complete a series of challenges or quests. One of the more popular virtual worlds has been
Second Life, in existence now for over a decade. It is an open-ended simulation of the real world in which
Language Learning & Technology
11
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
users can create and customize particular virtual spaces. Over the years Second Life has been customized
by learners and teachers with areas dedicated to language practice (Cooke-Plagwitz, 2008). However,
creating such virtual spaces can be time-consuming and expensive. Second Life also is not as open or
expansive an environment as is offered by many online gaming platforms. In fact, typical uses of Second
Life in education involve institutionally controlled spaces, which lack the authenticity and motivating
factors of multiplayer online games (Calongne & Hiles, 2007).
Virtual worlds where users have to accomplish specific goals have been seen as particularly amenable to
use in language learning. Of particular interest in recent years has been Blizzard’s World of Warcraft
(WoW), with a number of studies examining its potential in language learning (Nardi, Ly & Harris, 2007;
Rama, Black, Van Es, & Warschauer, 2012, Thorne, 2008; Thorne & Fisher, 2012; Thorne, Fisher & Lu,
2012; Zheng, Neugarden, & Young, 2012). With over 12 million users, WoW is the most popular
massively multiplayer online game (MMO) on the market today and is available in multiple languages.
As is the case in the typical MMO, players advance through the game scenario and gain game playing
skills by completing quests, collecting or making items, and buying and selling goods or services. In the
process, they must communicate and negotiate with non-playing characters (NPC) as well as with other
game players. The studies cited above have shown substantial potential in WoW and other MMO games
for language socialization and for acquisition of skills related to just-in-time linguistic tools and services.
This is particularly the case if player-learners are committed enough to gameplay to participate in
auxiliary activities surrounding the game, such as game-related forums or fanfiction (i.e., extending the
game story). Much of the data and studies on MMO come from game journals, questionnaires, and player
interviews. Of particular usefulness are unsolicited reports on language learning experiences in MMO
games, such as those generated by a player inquiry in a forum (Thorne & Fisher, 2012). Although there
has been considerable work done on MMO games and language learning, there are few empirical studies
showing gains in second language proficiency (Cornillie, Thorne & Desmet, 2012). Particularly helpful
would be studies that seek to identify what particular user behaviors, game elements, and game resources
seem to be the most promising for language learning. Tracking this information poses both
methodological and technical difficulties, as the constellation of online activities and resources
surrounding such games as WoW is so large that simply keeping track of what’s available is problematic.
Another difficulty is that COTS games represent inaccessible black boxes with little likelihood of
researchers gaining the ability to add tracking tools. There are tools available such as Elephant, to save
chat logs and record other game information, but they do not provide a full picture of gameplay or of
game-related sites used. Some researchers have used video recording of game players or eye-tracking
methods (Collentine, 2011), but analysis of such data can be so labor-intensive and time-consuming as to
be impractical.
One recent study of WoW included the results of a questionnaire to players that indicated that the most
popular aspect of playing the game was its social dimension (Thorne & Fischer, 2012). In fact, gamers
interact with one another not only during play, but frequently before and after as well. We are starting to
see some welcome studies on the implications of such activities for language learning (Thorne & Fischer,
2012; Ryu, 2013). Ryu’s study indicates that the majority of language learning gain among the MMO
gamers he studied came from “beyond game” activities. In the process, users are exposed to a wide array
of forms of online communication. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Thorne, Black, and Sykes (2009),
this kind of knowledge is not always valued in traditional language learning: “Digital vernaculars remain
largely unaddressed within instructed L2 curricula or, worse, are trivialized or vilified as stigmatized
varieties” (p. 815). The dismissive attitude towards such forms of communication is likely related to the
negative social views of online gaming, widely seen as an isolating, unproductive, and dangerously
addictive activity.
Educational Games: Game-Based Learning
In order to gather more information about game players’ activities, one option is to modify or extend a
Language Learning & Technology
12
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
commercial game, assuming that it is legally and technically possible. Researchers have reported on
projects that have done just that, modifying for educational purposes the MMO games Ragnarok
(Reinders & Wattana, 2011) and Divine Divinity (Vandercruysse, Vandewaetere, Cornillie, & Clarebout,
2013). This is not a trivial undertaking, as those studies demonstrate. It might involve adding additional
tools to the game, such as voice chat, or creating an entirely new quest scenario. Extensive professional
help could be required in the process, such as working with voice recordings and sound effects, creating
3D animations, or lip-syncing. An option that is more likely to be feasible with the limited financial and
technical resources available to educational developers is to use a game-authoring template or tool.
Developing or adapting a game specifically for educational purposes of course has advantages beyond the
ability to capture user data. It allows game developers to focus on particular linguistic goals as well as to
control the level of language incorporated into the game. This makes it much easier to incorporate
gameplay into a course or curriculum, since the linguistic environment is fixed and predictable. Of course,
the challenge remains in making the “serious game” of compelling enough interest that real user
engagement takes place. The hope is that players will go beyond seeing gameplay as a course assignment
and will gain enough interest to explore and experiment. Self-generated and self-directed discovery can
further the kind of intrinsic motivation that commits users to learning more.
A widely discussed example of a game designed for language learning is Croquelandia, created
specifically with the goal of enhancing learners’ ability to perform requests and apologies in Spanish. The
game was created with the Croquet open source development kit, now part of the Open Cobalt project.
The game features an immersive environment simulating a study abroad experience. Students are
assigned tasks within the game for which they need to interact in Spanish with objects, NCPs, and group
members. Advancing towards the game goals requires that the students choose pragmatically correct
utterances. While the project did not show significant concrete improvement in use of the targeted speech
acts in Spanish, it did show an increase in students’ awareness of meta-linguistic considerations and of the
importance of pragmatic appropriateness (Sykes, Oskoz & Thorne, 2008). In fact, the enhanced
awareness of linguistic features tied to cultural norms and practices is an outcome that seems more likely
to be achievable through gaming than more narrowly focused language goals. This is in keeping with
findings resulting from students engaging in other forms of internet-mediated, cross-cultural
communication. It’s not likely that either gaming or participation in online chats/forums will result in
users increasing knowledge of grammatical rules, but such activities are likely to result in a gain in
sociolinguistic skills (choosing the right registers, when to code-switch, etc.), which get scant attention in
language classrooms.
Given appropriate resources, language learning games or simulations that target particular linguistic or
cultural topics can be successful, particularly if they are used in the context in which learners are highly
motivated by external factors. A case in point is the highly touted Tactical Language and Culture Training
System from Alelo, designed for use by US military personnel. The system makes rich use of advanced
technologies including natural language processing, speech recognition, and artificial intelligence agents,
to provide simulated encounters with native speakers in the target culture. A rich set of ancillary and
support materials are included. A study of Tactical Iraqi showed overall substantial gains in language
proficiency (Surface, Dierdorff & Watson, 2007). This is not surprising given the strong motivation on
the part of the soldiers whose lives may well depend on being able to communicate effectively with native
speakers. One discussion of the program, cited as evidence of its success, is that in one group of U.S.
Marines who used the program, there were no casualties during their deployment in Iraq (Johnson, 2010).
Most language learning game environments do not involve life or death scenarios so can hardly compete
in terms of motivational factors. However, situations such as having to learn a language well enough to
secure a job in a new culture or having to cope with being a refugee in a foreign land may well elicit
nearly as strong a language learning need.
More typical of language game development in education is the Tower of Babel project, which contrasts
Language Learning & Technology
13
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
sharply with Tactical Iraqi in technical sophistication and in target audience. This was a product of an
EU-sponsored project to motivate students to learn languages. The game uses an alternative reality
environment (ARG) to project a future world in which some languages are threatened with extinction and
can only be saved “if students collaborate with each other and with ARG characters to bring people from
different parts of Europe together by learning more about each other’s histories, traditions and daily lives
of the people” (Connolly, Stansfield & Hainey 2011, pp. 1394-5). Secondary school students from several
European countries collaborated to complete quests that involved solving puzzles, taking quizzes,
translating texts, and sharing content. Students communicated in the target language they were learning.
Given time and financial constraints, the project team elected not to build a game interface from scratch,
but instead chose to use the Moodle learning management system and to develop a custom theme, as well
as to create other Moodle system extensions. Screenshots of the game (p. 1396) demonstrate a valiant
effort to imprint a game skin onto Moodle, with mixed success. While student attitudes towards the game
were generally positive, the authors conceded that some aspects of the game did not meet students’
expectations and that future development would likely move to the implementation of mini-games.
One of the features of the Tower of Babel game is ease of use, requiring users only to know how to
navigate a website. A number of other language learning game projects have used this approach as well.
The browser-based game NineRift, for example, was used in a project precisely because it was easy to
install and to use (Peterson, 2012). Studies have shown that novice gamers in some MMO games do not
show the same learning benefits as more experienced gamers (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2012). Certainly, one
of the clear findings of game studies is that user training is mandated if there are likely to be novice users,
particularly if the game offers some level of complexity (Peterson, 2011). In fact, depending on the game,
more instructor intervention could be necessary, such as, for example, assisting students in getting started
in an MMO, or helping to find appropriate groups within the game (Rama, Black, van Es & Warschauer,
2012). Learning to navigate successfully through online games and associated web resources can be an
empowering experience for students and contribute to their digital literacy. On the other hand, we should
recognize that gaming is not everyone’s cup of tea and should make allowances for individual
preferences. That recognition should also include being cognizant of differences in gender preferences in
game types (Boyle & Conolly, 2008). In any case, gameplay should not be introduced in a language
classroom without an awareness of the practical, pedagogical, and personal issues involved—careful
planning is called for.
One additional advantage of self-developed educational tools is the ability for students to go beyond just
playing a game to becoming involved in the game creation process. This could happen at a variety of
levels, from students’ collaborating on developing story ideas to having students collect or edit game
resources such as photos, audio clips, or video passages. Contributing to game creation or design can
involve students in deep thinking about approaches to language learning. The kind of peer-level
perspective students supply can also be valuable in shaping the game design, so that the end product looks
like something that may engage student interest. Additionally, students may well have valuable technical
skills to contribute. The creation of Chrono-Ops at Portland State University was largely student-driven.
The game has an ecological theme: players are tasked with inventing sustainability projects to save the
planet. Directions are given in one of three different languages. As part of the game, process users write
texts, record audio, and shoot video, all of which can become assets for future players.
Authoring Tools and Mobile Gaming
The hot trend in gaming today is mobile. With the wide use of smart phones, there is a huge installed base
for game playing. Mobile devices also have features that are not usually present in personal computers
nor in game consoles, such as GPS, accelerometers, compasses, and cameras. A number of easy-to-use
game authoring tools developed for mobile games are available, including GameSalad and
AdventureMaker. For more advanced game design, tools such as Unity mobile or the Unreal Development
Kit can be used. A mobile game authoring environment that has been successfully used in developing
Language Learning & Technology
14
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
games for language learning is ARIS, short for Augmented Reality and Interactive Storytelling, an open
source platform from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. ARIS has been used to develop Mentira,
Chrono-Ops, and Visitas de la colonia. The basics of developing a game in ARIS are surprisingly easy
and can be learned in a few hours. The tool allows for creation of games with quite interesting features,
that combine a virtual environment with real-world locations. QR (Quick Response) codes, for example,
can be posted in designated areas, which when scanned with a camera provide information on that
location or further game directions. Game players have access within the app to recording audio and
video, and there is even an image matching functionality, which compares photos taken with those in the
game, triggering possible game events. The authoring process itself is of course the easy part - much more
difficult is devising a compelling story, finding or creating appropriate media, and deciding on user
interactions. Games created with ARIS can be simple, or quite complex. Mentira is an example of the
latter, consisting of 70 pages of dialogue and text, 150 graphics, and 4 videos. The game combines virtual
experiences with real-world visits to locations in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The object of the game is to
solve a murder mystery and involves students gaining information from site visits and from conversations
with NPCs in the game. As is the case with all ARIS games, Mentira can be downloaded from the project
site.
This kind of place-based augmented reality game is in line with the current interest in applied linguistics
in emphasizing local language experiences and in connecting academic learning to real-world
experiences. Mentira illustrates another advantage of self-created games, easy integration into the
curriculum. In this case, the game was an integral part of a fourth-semester Spanish class, with the hope
that interest in the game experience might be a contributing motivating factor for students to continue
their study of Spanish. Contributing, too, to that strategy was demonstrating to the students the real world,
practical value of speaking Spanish, by sending them out into a local Spanish-speaking community. This
moves the concept of place from its normally somewhat abstract form in the foreign language classroom
to something real and meaningful. I agree with the creators of Mentira, that ”place is not a mere
particularity, an application for academic knowledge, but has a profound influence on what and how we
learn, and is itself generative”(Holden & Sykes, 2011, p. 4). In fact we know that attaching learning
activities to concrete places helps long-term retention.
Games developed with ARIS run exclusively on Apple iOS devices, which may be a concern depending
on the intended target audience. For use on Android devices an authoring system that has seen
considerable use in Europe is e-Adventure, developed at Complutense University in Madrid. Games
created with the e-Adventure can also be used in web browsers (through a Java applet). Since it is
designed for both desktop and mobile devices, mobile games created with e-Adventure do not take as full
advantage of the features of a mobile device as those made with ARIS. As is necessarily the case with
template-based game authoring tools, the look and feel of the game is configurable only up to a certain
extent. Here, for example, only two major 3D scenarios are available, an open outdoor environment and a
closed room. Within these constraints customizations are possible. Using an authoring tool is likely the
only choice for most language educators interested in creating games. Even with the head start templates
or authoring tools supply, game development is still a time-consuming process. For any game project
beyond something very simple, a collaborative team will be needed.
Outlook
One of the key advantages to using a self-developed game is the ability to track data in order to be able to
ascertain how the game is being played, so as to correlate game activity with individual learner outcomes
and attitudes. Authoring tools designed for educational use incorporate mechanisms for collecting data
and for doing some kinds of assessments. They may also include means for that data to be shared with
other applications, as appropriate. Most games do not have any kind of reporting out functionality, but
that is possible from within self-developed game environments. A widely used protocol currently in use
in education to share data among trusted applications is the Learning Tools Interoperability standard
Language Learning & Technology
15
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
(LTI) from IMS International. It allows, for example, third-party tools to interact with learning
management systems (LMS) such as Moodle or Blackboard. Adding an LTI component to a game allows
for user data to be sent to parts of LMS, including the online grade book. Information sent could include,
for example, overall time spent, game levels reached, tools or services used, or even transcripts of student
text input. Several games developers such as Filament and Funbrain have made their games LTI
compatible.
There is currently considerable interest in the educational community worldwide in being able to save
evidence of students’ informal learning alongside formal institutional reports. Mechanisms and standards
are being developed and deployed to make that feasible, with the goal of collecting individual learner data
in an online portfolio that represents both formal and extramural learning experiences. The Council of
Europe’s Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters aims to enable that process. The information
collected could very well include gameplay, particularly for educational game experiences. One of the
ways that this could be done is through a successor to the SCORM specification called the Experience
API or simply xAPI. This defines a standard way of recording discrete user learning experiences, whether
coming from formal educational endeavors, on-the-job training, MOOC courses, intelligent tutoring
programs, or virtual game environments. The structure is deceptively simple, based on the idea of triples
(as in the RDF specification – resource description framework), namely actor (subject), action (verb), and
result (object). This allows the flexibility for data from a great variety of activities to be represented. The
data is saved to a Learning Record Store (LRS), unique to every individual. This recording system can be
used on individuals or for groups of learners (data sent to multiple LRSs) and can be sent from mobile
devices, or adapted for use in game consoles. Significantly, for game tracking, data can be sent from a
one-time event, or recorded over a period of time. The company Knowledge Guru has integrated xAPI
into their games; they feature a game creation wizard for building simple online games. The e-Adventure
game authoring tool is being modified currently to use xAPI (Martínez-Ortíz at al., 2013).
The xAPI specification is similar in intent and structure to a joint project from Google, Microsoft, and
Facebook called ActivityStreams. It also resembles in functionality the Gleaner framework (Game
Learning Analytics for Education), currently being used in the game prototype ”Lost in space”. Another
standard that may be of interest is the Caliper Learning Analytics Framework from IMS international.
It’s impossible to tell at this point which, if any, of these initiatives will prove viable, as all are recent
developments. Having a standard way to format and record user milestones would be helpful across a
broad range of applications, services, and learning opportunities. Gaming, when used in education today,
is most often an isolated activity not fully integrated into the course structure and likely not credited in the
same way as other course activities. Having standard data collection methods and specifications would
also be a boon to game researchers, as it would enable wider data collection as well as data sharing.
Studies of gaming in the service of language learning often suffer from particularism—with results so tied
to individual game experiences in a particular context that they provide little or no guidance—or from
overgeneralization in the form of general findings linked to socialization, literacy gains, or growth in
learner autonomy. Being able to compare results across a large number of studies of the same game (with
information detailing context of use) could be helpful in resolving the current difficult questions of
learning benefits from gaming: what kinds of games, what elements of games, what use of games.
REFERENCES
Arnseth, H. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn: A critical account of the models of
communication informing educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies 6(1). Retrieved
from http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/arnseth
Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious
Language Learning & Technology
16
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
games: An overview. Advances in human-computer interaction, 1–12. Retrieved from
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahci/2013/136864/
Boyle, E., & Conolly, T. (2008). Games for learning: Does gender make a difference? In T. Conolly & M.
Stansfield (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 69–76).
Reading, UK: Academic Publishing.
Cavazza, M., Lugrin, J., Pizzi, D. & Charles, F. (2007). Madame Bovary on the Holodeck: Immersive
interactive storytelling. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Multimedia (pp. 651–660).
New York, NY: ACM.
Chang, B., Sheldon, L., Si, M., & Hand, A (2012). Foreign language learning in immersive virtual
environments, In Proceedings of the IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging, (pp. 2–9). Burlingame, CA: SPIE
Digital Library.
Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Language Learning
& Technology, 15(3), 50-67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/collentine.pdf
Calongne, C. & Hiles, J. (2007). Blended Realities: A virtual tour of education in Second Life. 12th
Annual TCC Worldwide Online Conference (pp. 70-90). Retrieved from
http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2007/calongne.pdf
Connolly, T., Stansfield, M. & Hainey, T. (2011). An alternate reality game for language learning:
ARGuing for multilingual motivation. Computers & Education 57(1), 1389–1415.
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008). New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO
Journal 25(3), 547-557.
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012). Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’
perceptions of corrective feedback in an immersive game for English pragmatics. ReCALL, 24(3), 257–
278.
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (2012). Editorial: Digital games for language learning: from
hype to insight? ReCALL, 24(3), 243–256.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Holden, C. & Sykes, J. (2011). Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International
Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 1(2), 122.
Johnson, W. (2010). Serious use of a serious game for language learning. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education 20, 175–195.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kumar A., Tewari, A., Shroff G., Chittamuru, D., Kam, M. & Canny, J. (2010). An exploratory study of
unsupervised mobile learning in rural India. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 743–752). New York, NY: ACM.
Martínez-Ortíz, I., del Blanco, A., Torrente, J., Serrano, A., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B.,
Marchiori, E. (2013). Addressing serious games interoperability: The e-adventure journey. JADLET
Journal of Advanced Distributed Learning Technology, (1), 60–76.
Nardi, B., Ly, S. & Harris, J. (2007). Learning conversations in World of Warcraft. 40th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from
http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/1601/Nardi-HICSS.pdf?sequence=1
Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A
Language Learning & Technology
17
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 72–93.
Peterson, M. (2011). Digital gaming and second language development: Japanese learners interactions in
a MMORPG. Digital Culture & Education, 3(1), 56–73.
Peterson, M. (2012). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role-playing game
(MMORPG): A sociocultural discourse analysis. ReCALL 24(3), 361–380.
Pomerantz, A. & Bell, N. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent
language users. Applied Linguistics 28(4), 556–578.
Rama, P., Black, R., van Es, E. & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in
World of Warcraft. ReCALL 24(3), 322–338.
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students’ willingness to communicate. In H.
Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 156–188). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J. M. (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 (pp. 32–49). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryu, D. (2013). Play to learn, learn to play: Language learning through gaming vulture. ReCALL 25(2),
286–301.
Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices.
eLearning, 4(3), 297–318.
Sundqvist, P. & L. K. Sylvén (2012). World of VocCraft: Computer games and Swedish learners' L2
vocabulary. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (237–267).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Surface, E. A., Dierdorff, E. C., & Watson, A. (2007). Special operations language training software
measurement of effectiveness study: Tactical Iraqi study final report. Tampa, FL: Special Operations
Forces Language Office.
Sykes, J. (2013), “’Just’ playing games? A look at the use of digital games for language learning”, The
Language Educator, October, 2013, 32–35.
Sykes, J., Oskoz, A. & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile
resources for language education. CALICO Journal 25(3), 528-546.
Sykes, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language
teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively
multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Thorne, S., Black, R. & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet
interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93(0), 802–821.
Thorne, S. & Fischer, I. (2012). Online gaming as sociable media. ALSIC: Apprentissage des Langues et
Systèmes d’Information et de Communication, 15(1): 1–25. Retrieved from http://alsic.revues.org/2450
Thorne, S., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online
game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.
Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., Cornillie, F. & Clarebout, G. (2013). Competition and students’
Language Learning & Technology
18
Robert Godwin-Jones
Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and Challenges
perceptions in a game-based language learning environment. Education Tech Research, 61, 927–950.
Zheng, D., Newgarden, K. & Young, M. Multimodal analysis of language learning in World of Warcraft
play: Languaging as values-realizing. ReCALL 24(3), 339–360.
OTHER MEDIA
Chrono-Ops. (2012). Portland State University.
Croquelandia. (2007). University of Minnesota.
Divine Divinity. (2002). Larian Studios.
Mentira. (2009). University of New Mexico.
Ragnarok. (2002). Gravity Co.
Second Life. (2003). Linden Research, Inc.
Tactical Iraqi. (2006). Alelo.
Tower of Babel. (2009). ARG Education.
Visitas de la Colonia. (2012). University of New Mexico.
World of Warcraft. (2004). Blizzard Entertainment.
Language Learning & Technology
19
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action1.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 20–35
DEVELOPING AUTONOMOUS LEARNING FOR ORAL PROFICIENCY
USING DIGITAL STORYTELLING
SoHee Kim, Korea University
Since online educational technology can support a ubiquitous language learning
environment, there are many ways to develop English learners’ autonomy through selfaccess learning. This study investigates whether English as a second language (ESL)
learners can improve their oral proficiency through independent study by using online
self-study resources, online recording program and speech-text-program (STP), and
feedback in an autonomous learning environment. This experimental study is designed to
provide opportunities for recording stories on weekly topics outside the classroom for five
ESL learners who were in the advanced and high intermediated level at City College of
San Francisco. In order to assess participants’ autonomy for oral proficiency improvement,
this research employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Four assessments
were used to check participants’ developing speaking improvement in storytelling about
silent movie clips onto VoiceThread and three questionnaires to assess their attitudes
toward this autonomous learning. Results revealed that using self-study resources enables
learners to develop speaking skills and build considerable self-confidence. Participants
also indicated that learning through storytelling can be learner-centered to increase
autonomy in oral proficiency. Furthermore, this research shows that the instructor’s
feedback and role are also important during the development of learners’ learning
autonomy based on their engagement.
Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Learner Autonomy, Language
Teaching Methodology, Multimedia
APA Citation: Kim, S. H. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency
using digital storytelling. Language Learning & Technology 18(2), 20–35. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action1.pdf
Received: October 5, 2013; Accepted: February 18, 2014; Published: June 1, 2014
Copyright: © SoHee Kim
INTRODUCTION
Online educational technology, which introduces unprecedented options for English teaching and
learning, provides opportunities for self-access learning as an adjunct to conventional classes by enabling
learners to use resources for learning on their own. Providing opportunities for self-study helps to increase
ownership of responsibility for learning English by encouraging learners to organize self-access learning
resources and search for appropriate materials to develop their own progress. Self-access or learnercentered learning refers to the change in focus in the classroom from the teacher to the learners. This shift
makes it so students ultimately direct their learning through self-access facilities for autonomous learning
(Sheerin, 1989). This is based on a constructivist theory of learning whereby learners construct their own
understanding using their previous knowledge and current learning experiences (Kember, 1997). There
are many ways to facilitate self-access language learning using technology (Castellano, Mynard, &
Rubesch, 2011). In particular, having easy access to recording tools can support the unlimited
communicative practice that assists language learners in building knowledge for communicative
competence. These tools are also able to support an alternative assessment method so as to provide an
autonomous learning environment in which learners can practice speaking and check performance data to
monitor their learning progress. Thus, using online communication technology allows for a higher degree
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
20
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
of learner independence in the teaching and learning of a second language (Stacke, 2007) since learners
can maximize opportunities to practice. Moreover, second language learners need opportunities to
produce target language output, notice errors in their own output, and correct their linguistic output
(Chapelle, 1998). Through self-evaluation, English learners can reflect on and critically evaluate their
own learning processes and performance; it encourages autonomy, increases motivation, promotes
positive attitudes toward learning, and implies a new perspective regarding teachers’ and learners’ roles
(Gonzalez & Louis, 2007, Hansen, 1998; O’Malley & Valdez Piere, 1996; Sinclair, 2000). Considering
that the instructor can assess the learners’ oral performance and their completion of tasks within a specific
time period by analyzing collected data (Gonzalez & Louis, 2007; Jones, 2007), the instructor’s feedback
facilitates learners’ progress towards attaining their own goals.
This research explores how ESL learners’ oral proficiency changed through online recording tools and
receiving periodic feedback from their instructor outside the classroom over a 14-week period. There are
five ESL participants engaged in once-a-week recording, practicing, and listening to their recordings of
individualized storytelling. They used an online recording program, Vocaroo, and a Text-to-Speech (TTS)
program, vozMe, for the recordings; in order to receive feedback, they emailed the recordings to their
instructor each week during the entire research period. To examine participants’ attitudes toward selfcentered learning using self-study resources for their oral proficiency development, three questionnaires
were conducted via online programs. Participants were prompted to recount stories after viewing four
Charlie Chaplin silent movie clips, uploaded onto VoiceThread, an interactive and multimedia online
slide show program used to conduct assessments of their improvement in oral proficiency.
This research aims to identify how their own independent learning, assessments, and feedback can help
foster learners’ autonomy. It also attempts to address how ESL learners can develop their self-assessment
skills and how the teacher’s role can shift to facilitator or guide when self-study resources are used in
autonomous learning.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Developing Autonomy Through Self-Assessment Using Self-Study Resources
Significant development of software and hardware has greatly expanded the range of speech technologies
available to students to improve their speaking abilities (Godwin-Jones, 2009). The technology can serve
as a reporting medium for self-assessment through regular entries in self-evaluation of oral performance
via recording tools (Healey, 2007). Learners’ self-evaluation of their own linguistic competence can
increase active involvement in learning and become self-critical because self-monitoring strategies allow
learners to identify their own difficulties (Dam, 2000; Wenden, 1999). Thus, recording programs may
build learners’ linguistic competence through their self-assessment. Through self-monitoring the use of
voice e-mail can enhance learners’ pronunciation, grammar, and verbal expression for oral proficiency
development as well as foster significant improvement in speaking relative to articulation and accuracy
(Volle, 2005). VoiceThread can promote collaborative development of knowledge by giving learners the
opportunity to share their voices (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011) with their peers and the instructor, making it
so learners are able to monitor and assess not only their own learning progress but also their peers’
performance. Video recording tools can also provide a valuable source of information for learners to
notice and analyze characteristics of their own speech (Lynch, 2007) to reflect on their learning progress
because the learners can evaluate the full spectrum of their communicative performance (Oscarson, 1989).
Autonomy depends on learners’ ability to self-direct for practice, critical reflection, and independent
action (Andrade, 2012; Little, 1991). From this perspective, awareness through self-assessment of
learners’ speaking performance and understanding their learning progress with self-study resources can
develop metacognitive skills to achieve their own learning goals, and ultimately this recursive process can
enhance learners’ autonomy. However, learners may need guidelines to find appropriate resources to
Language Learning & Technology
21
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
achieve their learning goals (Murray, 2005). In this research, participants used self-study resources
provided by the instructor, Vocaroo and vozMe, and then tried to pursue their own goals.
In light of the role of self-assessment, using recording programs can be positively affecting specific
learning objectives for oral performance. However, researchers still need to define the optimal use of
autonomous learning for language learners’ speaking skills when using self-study resources.
Digital Storytelling for Oral Proficiency Development and Assessment
Learners’ autonomy can be measured by their metacognitive awareness, ability to use resources
appropriately, and assessing self-reflection of their development (Sinclair, 1999; Reinders & Lázaro,
2007). In order to measure participants’ autonomy for oral proficiency development, this research used
digital storytelling with four silent movie clips uploaded onto VoiceThread to assess their independent
study ability with self-assessment.
Digital storytelling has been widely used to help learners communicate their own stories effectively since
it can be a learner-centered activity when the topic is related to their daily life and personal subject matter.
It can also have an impact on improving learners’ speaking in the narration process (Nelson, 2006),
linguistic structure, vocabulary, sound patterns, and prosody of the foreign language (Verdugo &
Belmonte, 2007). Learners can thus develop linguistic competence while describing context-rich visual
situations after repeating self-directed learning. In addition, using a silent movie clip helps to build the
metacognitive knowledge involved in communication. Kasper and Singer (2001) claimed that since silent
films do not offer preauthorized dialogue, learners are not only allowed, but also authorized to create their
own conversational texts, using English creatively to develop their own performance. Therefore,
storytelling with a silent movie clip can be a good communicative competence task to measure English
learners’ oral proficiency in terms of functional and pragmatic knowledge from recorded files while the
participants describe captured events and surrounding context (Kim & Choi, 2013; Kim, 2014).
Along with the many studies that have examined the usefulness of digital storytelling in oral production,
this research focuses on investigating how a learner can step forward in developing a new technique for
assessing autonomy in oral proficiency using storytelling.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on a literature review and the underlying assumption that using self-study resources can greatly
benefit the development of English learners’ oral proficiency, the hypothesis of this study is that
participants’ oral proficiency can improve when using self-study resources and storytelling in an
autonomous learning environment. This research was guided by the following questions:
1) Does independent learning using Vocaroo, vozMe, and VoiceThread help to improve ESL
learners’ oral proficiency?
2) Does using digital storytelling encourage ESL learners’ motivation and self-assessment of their
speaking?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The five participants (Table 1) attended a video ESL class at City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Four
of them were immigrants who had moved to the US within the previous three to 12 months, and one was
an international student who had been in the United States for a year and a half.
Although they were high-level students and had studied English for at least five years in their native
countries, they felt that they needed more speaking practice to improve their oral proficiency. All
Language Learning & Technology
22
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
participants had a computer with a microphone to record their stories at home as well as a positive attitude
toward learning English using self-study resources. Four participants used a computer every day, and one
student used a computer two or three times a week.
Table 1. Participants Profiles.
Participants
Nationality
Age
Months living
in US
Years studying
English
ESL
Level*
Tran
Vietnamese
20
6
5
8
Li
Chinese
32
36
12
8
Luc
Vietnamese
22
8
9
8
Yu
Chinese
26
18
7
7
Hwang
Taiwanese
27
12
10
8
*Note. ESL level 8 (advanced level) and ESL level 7 (high-intermediate level) at CCSF
Procedures
This study used a learner-centered task—storytelling—to elicit participants’ oral production and increase
their engagement with self-motivation to speak personally when given a specific topic through selfassessment opportunities. Nine different weekly topics were assigned pertaining to daily personal life or
preferences as a guideline to encourage practice and recording using the Vocaroo and vozMe programs.
Since this research was designed for ESL learners to engage in activities outside the classroom, the
participants recorded, practiced, or listened to their performance on their own time, accessing Vocaroo,
vozMe, and their VoiceThread accounts (Figure 1). In order to determine how much time they spent on
these tasks as an indicator of progress, all participants listed the time for their recording, practice, and
listening when using two self-study resources, Vocaroo (http://www.vocaroo.com) and vozMe
(http://vozMe.com/), on a Google Spreadsheet each week (Appendix A). Their documented record of time
spent on independent study shows how much effort through time the participants spent on their own
learning autonomously.
The participants voluntarily emailed their recorded links once or twice a week using Vocaroo to the
instructor to receive feedback. Through these exchanges, the instructor was able to assess participants’
learning progress, and participants were able to keep track of their learning history during the research
period. The instructor did not require that they submit their individual work, but instead encouraged them
to engage in self-study and mediated the process of using self-study resources via email exchanged.
Figure 1. Online self-study resources, Vocaroo, vozMe, and VoiceThread with a silent movie clip.
In order to assess participants’ oral proficiency improvement, this research used storytelling task about
Language Learning & Technology
23
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
silent movie clips in weeks 1, 5, 10 and 14. The instructor uploaded the four movie clips onto her
VoiceThread account (http://www.voicethread.com) and then invited all participants to watch them three
days before they were asked to create stories.
All content in the four silent movie clips (Appendix B) from Charlie Chaplin’s movies (“Coffee
Drinking,” “Hotel Evergreen,” “The Kid,” and “City Lights”) was culturally non-controversial. Receiving
these movie clips via emails, the participants accessed their VoiceThread accounts and then recorded their
own stories about each movie clip. Each participant’s recording was shared with all participants as well as
the instructor; this meant that whenever participants recorded their stories onto VoiceThread, everyone
received e-mails of those recordings. During this process, participants were able to monitor not only their
own but also their peers’ performance. Before recording their stories, the participants practiced speaking
using Vocaroo and vozMe, but they did not receive feedback for this assessment.
Although the focus of this study was to examine ESL learners’ autonomous learning, it is important to
note that they were guided by their instructor on how to monitor their own speech and how to tell stories
effectively at the weekly meeting during the research period. The written feedback was given holistically,
but the students also received feedback in each of four categories: discourse, pronunciation, vocabulary,
and sentence complexity. The instructor also provided learning materials such as sentence combining
worksheets and vocabulary learning Web sites in order to prompt them to find appropriate answers when
needed.
The participants’ attitudes toward oral proficiency development for this learning method were also
investigated using three questionnaires (Appendix C) conducted during weeks 1, 8, and 14. The
participants were asked to speak when responding to the first and the second questionnaires, which were
uploaded onto the instructor’s VoiceThread account. The first questionnaire documented the participants’
language profile, computer skills, feelings about using a computer to study English speaking, and selfconfidence in their speaking. In the second questionnaire, participants expressed which speaking skills
they wanted to improve as well as how their speaking confidence had changed using the self-study
resources–VoiceThread, Vocaroo, and vozMe. The final online survey asked participants to respond to
questions about motivation and self-assessment when using storytelling with silent movie clips, whether
or not the instructor’s role and feedback were helpful in their learning progress, if they thought using
Vocaroo and vozMe could produce positive effects when they were assessed on VoiceThread, and finally
which aspects of speaking they thought improved during this project.
Data Analysis
The recorded stories were assessed holistically and analytically. The holistic rubric (Appendix D) was
adapted from Brown’s (2001) oral proficiency scoring categories, divided into five stages: (1) beginning
speaking, (2) developing speaking, (3) competence speaking, (4) accomplished speaking, and (5)
advanced speaking. To analyze their improvement in each element of speaking skills, the recorded files
were also analyzed in five categories (Appendix E) adapted from a scoring key created by Choi (2005),
based on the communicative language ability (CLA) model offered in Bachman and Palmer (1996). The
five categories are: pronunciation, discourse, vocabulary, grammar, and sentence complexity. Each
category has scores from 1 to 5.
Two trained raters assessed the recorded data (Appendix F) using the rubrics. The inter-rater reliability of
two raters was Cohen’s Kappa .88 and the reliability among the four assessments presents a high level of
consistency, Cronbach’s Alpha 0.83.
RESULTS
Oral Proficiency Improvement Using Self-Study Resources
Data analysis of the four assessments revealed significant improvement in all participants’ overall
Language Learning & Technology
24
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
proficiency in terms of vocabulary, sentence complexity, and pronunciation, but there was no significant
improvement in discourse and grammar (Table 2).
Table 2. Oral Proficiency Improvement for All Participants.
95% Confidence Interval
SD
Lower
Upper
t
Significant
Overall speaking
.447
.200
-.645
-6.000
.004
Pronunciation
.707
-1.878
-.122
-3.162
.034
Discourse
.837
-1.839
.239
-2.138
.099
Vocabulary
.447
-1.755
-.645
-6.000
.004
Sentence complexity
.548
-2.080
-.720
-5.715
.005
Note. Grammar cannot be computed because SE is 0, Significant at the 0.05 level
Underlying these results was recording stories using online recording and a TTS program can improve
ESL learners’ oral proficiency. In addition, storytelling seems to support the use of rich vocabulary words
to describe the given topics or contextualized situations appropriately and develops sentence complexity
through their own speech monitoring and feedback. However, most participants had organized story lines
to offer enough information about what they have seen from the movie clips for each assessment since
they had practiced how to create organized stories on each weekly recording. Considering that no
feedback on grammar was given on the holistic rubric, participants’ grammar scores may have been
affected by feedback. This finding suggests that instructor feedback is important in improving their
speaking skills, even in autonomous learning. In addition, participants’ overall oral proficiency was
gradually enhanced during the four assessments: their speaking significantly improved when comparing
the first and fourth assessment over 13 weeks (Table 3). This result may also confirm that using self-study
resources can develop ESL learners’ speaking.
Table 3. Paired t-Test for Oral Proficiency Improvement on each Assessment.
95% Confidence Interval
Test # / Pair differences
Mean
SD
Lower
Upper
t
Significant
1. 1st vs. 2nd
2.80
.548
-1.080
.280
-1.633
.178
2. 2nd vs. 3rd
3.20
.447
-.755
.355
-1.000
.374
3. 3rd vs. 4th
3.40
.548
-1.280
.080
-2.499
.070
4. 1st vs. 4th
4.00
.447
-1.755
-.645
-6.000
.004
Note. Grammar cannot be computed because SE is 0, Significant at the 0.05 level
Participants also had positive attitudes toward using Vocaroo and VozMe to make progress in their
speaking. Tran, who had practiced and recorded using these programs, had the most improvement in
speaking during the 14 weeks. In his first assessment he lacked confidence and repeated the same
vocabulary, used simple sentences without many embedded clauses, and mispronounced words making
his speaking unclear. However, his speaking improved significantly in sentence complexity, vocabulary,
grammar, discourse, and pronunciation. Although Li’s overall speaking also advanced in sentence
complexity, grammar, vocabulary, and discourse, he showed no progress in his pronunciation in terms of
word stress and intonation. He often used Vocaroo to record his speaking, but he only used vozMe four
Language Learning & Technology
25
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
times since he felt it was not helpful. In the case of Luc, his overall speaking improved, but grammar and
discourse scores remained the same. Yu’s overall oral proficiency also developed slightly. Hwang, despite
using the computer less than the others and logging in the least amount of times, showed growth in her
speaking. Interestingly, all participants began to speak more confidently by using various expressions and
making longer sentences after using self-study resources and felt using these could produce a positive
learning effect for increasing their self-confidence as highlighted in their answers to the questionnaire.
In the three questionnaires, Tran and Li responded that they could increase their working vocabulary by
recording stories. Yu thought recording programs helped her pronunciation. Luc replied that he used more
complex sentences and that this learning technique could help vocabulary and pronunciation through selfassessment. Hwang reported that she felt recording programs were good pronunciation practice tools.
These results, reported on the second questionnaire, almost align with the speaking skills that they sought
to develop through this learning: Tran, Li, and Luc hoped to improve their vocabulary ability, Hwang
aimed to use more complex sentences, and Yu wanted to develop her pronunciation.
Participants were also satisfied with this self-learning method because they could check and assess their
speaking after listening to their own recordings. Li responded that using self-study resources motivated
him to practice because it helped build confidence due to the self-reflective learning process. Yu
answered that this autonomous learning was very flexible and convenient since she could record her
speaking many times as well as monitor it, thus helping to improve her speaking. However, Li and Luc
had negative attitudes about using the vozMe program since they thought that it could not produce clear
and natural sounds like a real person, which made them have difficulty mimicking pronunciation. Luc and
Tran also suggested that this learning could have produced more positive effects if they could have had a
conversation with a real person such as a native speaker while using this self-learning method. For
example, in the case of one participant, Hwang, whose husband’s first language is English, thought this
learning method gave her a good opportunity to strengthen her oral proficiency. Luc also preferred
speaking with a native speaker because he was able to improve his listening skills as well as he receiving
immediate feedback. Tran responded that this learning style is good but felt more comfortable when
having a conversation with a person. Hwang and Yu did not express any negative feelings about this type
of learning.
Digital Storytelling for Motivation and Self-Assessment
This research used storytelling to encourage ESL learners’ involvement in recording their speaking. Since
storytelling can serve to create natural discourse as a narrative task when language learners produce their
own ideas or events, as a learning method, it enables good self-assessment as well as building selfconfidence. Most participants responded that creating stories encourages self-reflection and increases
their motivation to practice speaking about their preferences or daily lives. Through storytelling,
participants felt that they were able to enhance their speaking ability because it required improving
summarizing as it related to the narration process, learning more vocabulary, making longer sentences,
and improving pronunciation. During this process, they were also able to build self-confidence as reported
in their questionnaires.
Regarding the use of multimedia materials, the participants also mentioned that the silent movie clips
were helpful as a prompt to practice their speaking. Participants reported in the questionnaire that using
silent movie clips for storytelling encouraged them to create their own stories and to clarify their chosen
words as they described the movie clip. Although these assessments were used to check participants’ oral
proficiency, they responded that it was a learner-centered learning since participants recorded stories and
monitored their progress using self-study resources for their own purposes during the four assessments
periods. In the same vein, they also felt that these assessments were not only an extension of their ongoing
independent study but also provided opportunities for receiving feedback from the instructor in order to
achieve their mutually agreed upon learning goals for oral proficiency development. Moreover, they
Language Learning & Technology
26
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
reported that using VoiceThread for storytelling supported collaborative work in that they could monitor
their peers’ performance as well as self-monitor their speaking progress on their own accounts during the
four assessments.
DISCUSSION
This empirical study took into account how ESL learners were able to develop personal speechmonitoring skills and learn speech-improvement strategies by using self-study resources with storytelling
and feedback in an autonomous environment. Among the study results, one important finding asserts that
self-assessment, motivation, and feedback play significant roles when using self-study resources to
develop their oral proficiency. Self-assessment allows learners to monitor their level of success of specific
tasks through a reflective process. In line with this, Tholin (2007) argued that self-assessment is a natural
element of self-directed learning and learners need to be conscious to make choices that contribute to
developing their language abilities. Through this self-monitoring process, learners can gradually speak
more fluently after reflecting on their errors, and then can apply this kind of self-reflection to their classes
or in their real lives. Using VoiceThread to record one’s own story also allows for self-evaluation, which
encourages students’ autonomy through active engagement. This study also shows that a TTS program,
vozMe, may help ESL learners’ oral production in terms of vocabulary, sentence complexity, and
pronunciation.
Kolb’s cyclical reflective model (Figure 2) explains participants’ self-reflection process to increase their
oral proficiency development.
Figure 2. Kolb’s cyclical reflective model
In the first concrete experience stage, participants were motivated to increase their speaking practice and
recording with weekly topics using self-study resources, Vocaroo and vozMe, through the instructor’s
encouragement and guidance in developing speaking skills. In the second reflective observation stage,
they monitored and corrected their performance through the instructor’s feedback and repeated practice,
recording, and listening. In the third abstract conceptualisation stage, participants were excited about
practicing and monitoring themselves to improve their speaking with feedback and learning resources
through their self-assessment. In the final stage of testing in new situations, participants tried out what
they had learned through an assessment for storytelling with a silent movie clip. During this process,
participants were able to build metacognitive skills to achieve their learning goals. In this stage, the
participants also could evaluate their own speaking as well as that of their peers. Throughout one
reflective cycle, which includes four stages, participants’ oral proficiency has the potential to gradually
develop by repeating this learning process while going through each of the four assessments.
Language Learning & Technology
27
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
CONCLUSION
This research set out to discover whether autonomous learning to support an infinite learning opportunity
without time and space constraints can help to improve English oral proficiency by using online selfstudy programs for high-intermediate and advanced ESL learners. Although this is an ESL context in
which the participants may have had many speaking opportunities other than simply practicing their
speaking using self-study resources, I found that all participants developed their oral proficiency and
gained self-confidence through self-assessment by recording their stories. This indicates that using a
combination of communication tools—namely, Vocaroo, vozMe, and VoiceThread—gives ESL learners
a positive learning experience which promotes self-confidence and autonomously develops their language
skills. Since recording their speaking on the Web-based programs Vocaroo and VoiceThread is primarily
a self-learning and self-reflective process, the instructor’s feedback, role, and materials were also
essential. In this study the instructor not only facilitated participants’ engagement via emails, as an emoderator who helps learners monitor their own progress, but also supported their weaknesses by
providing feedback to develop their speaking skills. Thus, it shows the instructor’s role and feedback
were also important on autonomous learning.
Notwithstanding these new and interesting findings, the scope of this research does not include several
important issues. Although participants’ speaking developed during the fourteen weeks, the results may
not be excluded from other possible factors enhancing participants’ oral proficiency since participants
have attended other ESL programs and have lived in an English-speaking context. Thus, these extraneous
factors may influence each participant’s individual improvement in oral proficiency. In addition, this
research did not examine the participants’ progress in self-evaluation, which was very difficult to measure
because their learning practice took place outside the classroom rather than in a controlled classroom
environment. Future studies might use similar procedures in a classroom setting with a much larger group
of students, where specific teaching objectives for improving oral proficiency could be included. The
instructor could also provide an activity, such as drawing a “mind map,” through which learners may
illustrate their self-assessment of their speaking progress to examine the development of their autonomy.
Using this model for self-recording learning procedure can be applied to various teaching contexts such as
collaborations. Furthermore, a longitudinal study could be conducted to draw conclusions about how to
foster successful learning through self-assessment.
Language Learning & Technology
28
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
APPENDIX A. List of Practice, Recording, and Listening Using Self-study Resources
Week
Topic*/Assessment
Questionnaire
Name
P
R
L
Li
P
R
L
Yu
1
First assessment &
First questionnaire
1
1
2
Chinese New Year
1
1
3
Valentine Day
1
2
4
My favorite book
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
Second assessment
1
1
1
6
Today is
1
1
7
My favorite
appliance
1
1
8
Second
questionnaire
9
My favorite movie
or TV show
10
Third assessment
11
My hobby is
1
1
12
My favorite music
1
1
13
My favorite place in
the world
1
1
1
2
14
Fourth assessment &
Third Questionnaire
1
1
1
2
1
R
L
Hwang
1
2
P
R
L
Tran
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
R
L
Luc
1
1
1
P
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*Note. P stands for using vozMe for practice; R stands for using Vocaroo for recording; L stands for listening to their speaking
APPENDIX B. Four Charlie Chaplin Silent Movie Clips
Test #
Silent movie clip
1
Coffee drinking funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mYtNMDFyXQ
2
Breakfast at hotel evergreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFZVxFTeSN4
3
The kid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNseEVlaCl4
4
City lights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_vqnySNhQ0
Language Learning & Technology
29
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
APPENDIX C. Three Questionnaires
First Questionnaire
1. How long have you studied English in your native country and in the USA?
2. Which ESL classes have you taken at CCSF?
3. What is your main purpose for learning English?
4. How often do you use a computer? Do you have a computer and a microphone in your home?
5. How do you feel about learning English using a computer?
6. What was your first feeling when talking with a native speaker in the United States?
Second Questionnaire
1. How often do you practice your speaking using Vocaroo or vozMe programs?
2. How you do you feel about speaking practice using Vocaroo, vozMe, and VoiceThread?
3. Which parts of your speaking skills do you want to improve most?
4. When you compare your answers in your first questionnaire, do you feel more confident in your
speaking after using online programs?
5. What is your current feeling about talking with native speakers in the United States?
Third Questionnaire
1.
How do you feel about using storytelling for your speaking?
2.
How do you feel about using silent movie clips to create your storytelling?
3.
Which parts of your speaking skills do you think you have improved through this project?
4.
Do you think using Vocaroo leads to positive learning experiences when you record your
storytelling on VoiceThread?
1
2
3
4
It is not very helpful.
5.
It is very helpful.
Do you think using vozMe leads to positive learning experiences when you record your storytelling
on VoiceThread?
1
2
3
4
It is not very helpful.
6.
5
It is very helpful.
Do you think the teacher’s role and feedback are more important than your own involvement?
1
It is not very important.
7.
5
2
3
4
5
It is very important.
How do you feel about this method of learning? Do you think this learning method involving selfrecording for self-assessment can help improve your oral proficiency?
Language Learning & Technology
30
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
APPENDIX D. Holistic Rubric
Score
Level
Criteria
5
Advanced
speaking
Speech is well organized in a story; information is plausible and precise and is
presented logically and with appropriate transitions.
Vocabulary is fully including idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural
references.
Good fluency and accurate pronunciation of individual sounds
Most sentences have embedded more than 12 words.
4
Accomplished
speaking
Speech is generally organized in a story; information is somewhat plausible
and precise and is presented logically.
Vocabulary is varied including idiomatic expressions and has high degree
precision.
Occasional non-native pronunciation errors, but the speaker is always
intelligible.
Each sentence has embedded clauses or phrases and contains at least 12 words.
3
Competent
speaking
Speech is somewhat organized story; information maybe imprecise or
implausible.
Vocabulary in general is varied, including some use of idiomatic expressions.
Some problems with speech rate and intonation but these do not cause serious
problems with intelligibility.
Each sentence has embedded clauses or phrases and contains at least 8 words.
2
Developing
speaking
Speech may be insufficient and is poorly organized with basic ideas;
information maybe imprecise or implausible.
Numerous vocabulary words are repeated rather than using a variety of words.
Numerous phonemic errors and foreign stress that cause the speaker to be
occasionally unintelligible.
A few sentences have embedded clauses or phrases and contain at least 5
words.
1
Beginning
speaking
Limited ability to respond to the story; information is irrelevant or inaccurate
Very few vocabulary words are used; single words are used rather than
complete thoughts.
Very significant phonemic errors and foreign stress that causes the speaker to
be unintelligible
Each sentence has no embedded clauses or phrases and contains less than 5
words.
Language Learning & Technology
31
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
APPENDIX E. Analytic Rubric
Category
Score
Description
Pronunciation
1
Very significant phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns so the
speaker is unintelligible.
2
Frequent phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns so speaker is a
fairly intelligible.
3
Some consistent phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns, but
the speaker is intelligible.
4
Occasional pronunciation errors, but the speaker is always intelligible.
5
Few nonnative pronunciation errors with nonnative accent
1
Limited ability to respond to the story; information may be irrelevant or
inaccurate.
2
Speech may be insufficient and is poorly organized with basic ideas; information
is imprecise or inaccurate.
3
Speech is somewhat insufficient and is poorly organized; information maybe
imprecise or inaccurate.
4
Speech is generally organized in a story; information is plausible and precise and
is presented logically.
5
Speech is well organized in a story; information is plausible and precise and is
presented logically and with appropriate transitions.
1
Very few vocabulary words are used; single words are used rather than complete
thoughts.
2
Numerous vocabulary words are repeated rather than using a variety of words.
3
Vocabulary in general is varied, including some use of idiomatic expressions.
4
Vocabulary is varied, including idiomatic expressions.
5
Vocabulary is fully including idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural
references.
1
Virtually no grammatical or syntactical control except in simple stock phrases.
2
Some control of basic grammatical construction but with major and/or repeated
errors that interfere with intelligibility.
3
Generally good control in all construction with grammatical errors that do not
interfere with overall intelligibility.
4
Sporadic minor grammatical errors that could be made inadvertently by native
speakers.
5
Few grammatical errors that could be made inadvertently by native speakers.
1
Each sentence has no embedded clauses or phrases and contains less than 5 words.
2
A few sentences have embedded clauses or phrases and contain at least 5 words.
3
Each sentence has embedded clauses or phrases and contains at least 8 words.
4
Each sentence has embedded clauses or phrases and contains at least 12 words.
5
Most sentences have embedded more than 12 words.
Discourse
Vocabulary
Grammar
Sentence
complexity
Language Learning & Technology
32
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
SoHee Kim
APPENDIX F. Speaking Scores
N
1
2
3
4
Name
Overall
Pronunciation
Discourse
Vocabulary
Grammar
Sentence
complexity
R1
R2
R1
R2
R1
R2
R1
R2
R1
R2
R1
R2
Tran
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Li
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
Luc
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
Hwang
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Yu
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Tran
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Li
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Luc
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
Hwang
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
Yu
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
Tran
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
Li
4
4
3
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
Luc
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
Hwang
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
Yu
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
Tran
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
Li
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
Luc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
Hwang
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Yu
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Note. R1 and R2 stand for Rater 1(instructor) and Rater 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the participants of this study. I am also grateful to the editors and anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this article.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
SoHee Kim is currently a PhD student in the Department of English Language Education at Korea
University and a lecturer of academic English at Gachon University. Her research interests include
computer assisted language learning, the effects of media and technology on language education, and
digital literacy in learning and teaching English.
E-mail: [email protected]
Language Learning & Technology
33
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
REFERENCES
Andrade, M. S. (2012). Self-regulated learning activities: Supporting success in online courses. In J. S.
Moore & A. D. Benson (Eds.), International perspectives of distance learning in higher education
(pp.111–132). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/33745
Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all
students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-access center.
Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12–27. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/actionresearch.pdf
Choi, I.C. (2005). Measurability of oral fluency through ASR-based COPI. Multimedia-Assisted
Language Learning, 8(2), 240–261.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.
Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22–34. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/
Dam, L. (2000). Evaluating autonomous learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamp (Eds.), Learner
autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp.48–59). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging technologies speech tools and technologies. Language Learning &
Technology, 13(3), 4–11. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/emerging.pdf
Gonzalez, D., & Louis, R. (2007). The use of Web 2.0 tools to promote learner autonomy. Retrieved from
http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/MEdHOME2/Technology/WebToos.2.0.autonomy.pdf
Hansen, J. (1998). When learners evaluate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Reinders, H., & Lázaro, N. (2007). Current approaches to assessment in self-access language learning.
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume11/ej43/ej43a2/
Healey, D. (2007). Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In J. Egbert, & E. HansonSmith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp.377–388). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Jones, L. (2007). The student centered classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, L., & Singer, R. (2001). Unspoken content: Silent film in the ESL classroom. Teaching English in
the Two-Year College, 29(1), 16–31.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. Kilb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience
as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, S. H., & Choi, I. C. (2013, September). Developing a communicative task for Korean English
language learners using two different types of visual modes on computer-based tests. Paper presented at
e-Learning Korea conference, Seoul, South Korea. Retrieved from
http://www.elearningkorea.org/kor/conference/speaker.asp#
Kim, S. H. (2014). The effects of using storytelling with a Charlie Chaplin silent movie clip on oral
proficiency development. STEM Journal, 15(1), 1-20.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Language Learning & Technology
34
SoHee Kim
Developing Autonomous Learning Using Digital Storytelling
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61(4), 311–
320.
Nelson, M. (2006). Mode, meaning, and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing. Language Learning &
Technology, 10(2), 56–76. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num2/pdf/nelson.pdf
Murray, D. E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
25, 188–201.
O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez Piere, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners:
Practical approaches for teachers. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language
Testing, 6(1), 1–13. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553228900600103
Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: The next phase? In B. Sinclair & I. McGrath & T. Lam (Eds.),
Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp.15–22). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Stacke, E. (2007). Spotlight on blended language learning: A frontier beyond learner autonomy and
computer assisted language learning. In Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association 2007
Japan conference: Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across the disciplines. Chiba, Japan:
Kanda University of International Studies.
Sheerin, S. (1989). Self-access. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, B. (1999). More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In C. Kennedy (Ed.),
Innovation and best practice in British ELT (pp. 96–107). Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.
Tholin, J. (2007). Learner autonomy, self-directed learning and assessment: Lessons from Swedish
experience. Retrieved from
http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/3572/1/Tholin%20190508%20learner%20autonomy.pdf
Verdugo, D., & Belmonte, I. (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening comprehension with
Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 87–101. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/ramirez/default.html
Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning:
Beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435–41. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346251X(99)00043-3
OTHER MEDIA
http://www.vocaroo.com
http://www.voicethread.com
http://www.vozMe.com
Language Learning & Technology
35
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action2.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 36–56
DOES SECOND LIFE IMPROVE MANDARIN LEARNING BY
OVERSEAS CHINESE STUDENTS?
Yu-Ju Lan, National Taiwan Normal University
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of Second Life (SL) for
improving the oral output of overseas Chinese students learning Mandarin Chinese
(hereafter referred to as Mandarin). More than 1000 overseas Chinese students attend a
university in northern Taiwan every year to learn Mandarin as a heritage language after
graduating from high school in their own countries. These students strive to learn
academically, but rarely actively speak Mandarin either inside or outside the classroom.
This two-stage study evaluated the use of SL in improving their oral output. The focus of
stage 1 was to confirm the potential of SL for promoting the oral output of overseas
Chinese students in Mandarin language classes. Twenty overseas Chinese students
learning Mandarin participated in this stage. In stage 2, 24 overseas Chinese students were
taught 3 learning units in Mandarin in SL. Analysis of the results showed that learning
Mandarin in an SL environment significantly increased the in-class oral output of those
students. They also made significant improvements in oral performance and learning
attitudes toward Mandarin.
Keywords: Virtual environment, Chinese as a Second Language, Mandarin, Task-Based
Learning.
APA Citation: Lan, Y. J. (2014). Does second life improve mandarin learning by
overseas Chinese students? Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 36–56. Retrieved
from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/action2.pdf
Received: September 12, 2013; Accepted: November 26, 2013; Published: June 1, 2014
Copyright: © Yu-Ju Lan
INTRODUCTION
Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) has recently been emerging as a popular research topic and is of
increasing interest in the educational market because of China’s increasing economic influence and
military capabilities (National Taiwan Normal University, 2010). There has also been a global change in
attitudes toward learning Mandarin Chinese (hereafter referred to as Mandarin) (Lan, Kan, Hsiao, Yang,
& Chang, 2013; Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009; TIME Asia, 2006). Mandarin is the official and most commonly
spoken language in Taiwan (Wikipedia, 2014), which has become a popular country for learners of
Mandarin as a second language (L2) from all over the world, and especially for overseas Chinese students
Mandarin is the official and most commonly spoken language in Taiwan (Wikipedia, 2014), which has
become a popular country for learners of Mandarin as a second language (L2) from all over the world,
and especially for overseas Chinese who are people of Chinese birth or descent who live outside
the People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan). More than 100,000 overseas Chinese
students have traveled from more than 100 countries throughout the world to enroll in Taiwanese
universities to learn Mandarin since 1956 (Jiang, 2007).
The university where the author teaches (National Taiwan Normal University, NTNU) is an especially
well-known institution that draws almost 2000 overseas Chinese students from many countries to learn
Mandarin every year. Some of these students, from elementary to high-school age, join short-term (e.g.,
6-week) courses, though the majority enroll in longer-term courses. After graduating from high school in
their home country, they come to Taiwan to complete a 1-year Mandarin course provided by the college
of International Studies and Education for Overseas Chinese at National Taiwan Normal University
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
36
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
(NTNU) to prepare themselves for entering a university in Taiwan.
My involvement in helping overseas Chinese students with academic learning has led to the identification
of some of the challenges faced by these students. The greatest concern is their oral communication
abilities. Most of the students tend to associate with other students from the same country of origin, and
outside the classrooms speak their common first language rather than Mandarin. Regarding in-class
behavior, these students maintain a passive attitude toward oral interactions. Speech within the classroom
appears to come mostly from the teachers rather than from the overseas Chinese students. A lack of oral
communication skills is likely to influence the academic achievements of these students on entering
Taiwanese universities and their adaptation to life in Taiwan because they may not be understood by their
teachers or peers (Hsu, 2007; Su, 2006).
These problems were approached in the present study using a two-stage design. The aim of the study was
to enhance the Mandarin learning of overseas Chinese students by applying Second Life (SL), a multiuser
virtual environment to Mandarin teaching. SL was chosen because of its potential for increasing the social
interactions of foreign language (FL)/L2 learners (Deutschmann, Panichi, & Molka-Danielsen, 2009; Lan
et al., 2013). The experiences obtained and lessons learned from the study will serve as a valuable
reference base for improving language education for overseas Chinese students, and will add to the
knowledge pool of research on teaching and learning FL/L2 in virtual worlds.
Mandarin Language Education for Overseas Chinese Students in Taiwan
The overseas Chinese students in Taiwan come from many countries via various entrance pathways. In
those countries where Mandarin learning opportunities are provided, such as Malaysia, students use their
Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) scores when applying to Taiwanese universities. The UEC is a
standardized test specifically and only for independent high school students organized by The United
Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia and the Examinations Bureau of The United
Chinese School Teacher’s Association of Malaysia. The UEC is available in two levels: Junior Middle
and Senior Middle, which are further divided into Vocational and Regular. Junior Middle is for students
who have completed the three years’ junior education, while Senior Middle is for students who have
completed the three years’ education in science, art, or commerce. Test takers are awarded with the UEC
(Wikipedia, 2011). Students from Japan and the Republic of Korea take the same entrance examinations
as Taiwanese students, since the countries have schools that offer the same curricula Taiwan. In other
countries where there are no Taiwanese schools, such as Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines,
students can complete the Overseas Composite Attainment Test which is an entrance examination for
students in the areas mentioned above (University Entrance Committee for Overseas Chinese Student,
2014). How students are selected to different universities in Taiwan depend on their test scores. The test
is based on local high school teaching materials while taking the real situations into consideration.
Students from yet other countries, such as the USA, Canada, and the European countries, use their highschool grades to apply to Taiwanese universities since none of the aforementioned opportunities are
available to them (Su, 2008).
In addition to these various entrance pathways, there is another opportunity for overseas Chinese students
without a Mandarin qualification to enter Taiwanese universities: they may enroll in a 1-year immersive
course provided by NTNU to learn Mandarin in addition to other materials that are taught in Taiwanese
high schools. Upon completion of this course, the students can then apply to Taiwanese universities
(Chen, 2009; Su, 2008). Those students who complete the 1-year immersive course were the target
population for the present study. In addition to Mandarin, the students take other classes, such as
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and social studies, all of which are taught in Mandarin. For the
Mandarin language classes, students usually learn to read modern Mandarin articles in the first
semester and then learn to read classical Mandarin, such as “倫語 (Confucian Analects)” in the
following semester.
Language Learning & Technology
37
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
The learning workload is very heavy, not only because all subjects are taught in Mandarin, but also due to
its high degree of difficulty. Since their academic achievement in this intensive course will determine
their college education in Taiwan after its completion, the students strive to succeed in their academic
learning, but rarely speak Mandarin actively neither inside nor outside the classroom setting, and usually
maintain a passive attitude toward oral interactions in class (Hsu, 2007; Su, 2006). This is an examoriented course, and thus although the students' academic achievement has met the requirements to enter
the universities in Taiwan, there is still room for improvement in their Mandarin oral communication
skills. (Su, 2006; Sung, 2005; Yao, 2011). The lack of communication skills among these students will
influence their academic learning and interpersonal interactions after entering university (Wu, 2005).
Given the increasing number of overseas Chinese students learning Mandarin as a heritage language
(Curdt-Christiansen, 2006; He, 2006; He & Xiao, 2008), the above-mentioned problems encountered by
overseas Chinese students in Taiwan are worthy of more attention from researchers and educators of
Mandarin teaching and learning. In response to there being few studies that have focused on the identified
gap between the practical research and the reality of Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students,
some inventive teaching approaches to enhance oral communication skills and intentions of engaging in
oral communication should be proposed and investigated.
Second Life for Mandarin Teaching and Learning
Immersive virtual environments, such as SL, possess a unique and distinctive feature that fosters the
realization of language educational purposes, something that is not easily achieved in an asynchronous
web-based learning environment or even in a face-to-face learning situation. Hedberg and Alexander
(1994), show that three-dimensional virtual environments provide learners with an interface in which
users are able to directly control the objects in the context of the virtual world. The superior learning
experience of SL increases “immersion and active learner participation,” (Hedberg & Alexander, 1994)
and “social interaction” (Ellis, 1996), all the while being “authentic” (Lan et al., 2013), all of which are
factors that are essential for successful language learning. Since 2006, this ability of SL to establish a
community and assist the breaking down of barriers to communication, and to provide an immersive
environment in which FL or L2 learners can become actively, collaboratively, and socially involved in
authentic language learning activities has been drawing special attention from many FL/L2 researchers
and educators (Chen, 2010; Cooke-Plagwitz, 2008; Godwin-Jones, 2011; Grant, 2010; Henderson,
Huang, Grant, & Henderson, 2012; Hundsberger, 2009; Lan et al., 2013; Peterson, 2008; Stevens, 2006;
Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009).
Regarding studies of Mandarin teaching and learning in SL, Chen (2010) suggested that the instructor
needs to develop pedagogically sound tasks to motivate learners to want to learn. Henderson et al. (2012)
found that SL improved the self-efficacy beliefs of CFL students with respect to engaging in tasks. In
addition to the affective dimension, Lan and her colleagues (2013) found that CFL beginners behaved
more actively and engaged in more inter-peer interactions—consequently improving their Mandarin
performance—when they were involved in executing language tasks in SL.
In spite of the increasing interest in the potency and importance of SL in Mandarin teaching and learning,
few studies have investigated the potential contribution of SL to the oral output and communication
performances of overseas Chinese students. The effects of SL on Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese
students were confirmed by answering the following questions:
1. How and to what extent does SL influence the in-class oral output of overseas Chinese students?
2. What are the effects of SL on the Mandarin language performances and learning attitudes of
overseas Chinese students?
Language Learning & Technology
38
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
MOVING FROM THE CONVENTIONAL TO THE VIRTUAL CLASSROOM
As noted above, most overseas Chinese students enrolling in Taiwanese universities act passively in oral
interactions in Mandarin language classes. Based on the positive evidence for CFL teaching in SL
(Henderson et al., 2012; Lan et al., 2013), a two-stage action study was conducted to confirm the effects
of SL on Mandarin learning by overseas Chinese students. Stage 1 focused on whether SL could
effectively increase students' in-class oral output through comparing the results of students’ oral output in
two different learning environments- the conventional classroom versus SL. Once these potential effects
have been confirmed, stage 2 focuses on the extent to which SL enhances the overseas Chinese students’
performances and learning attitudes toward Mandarin by investigating their improvement in both Chinese
oral communication performances and learning attitudes toward Chinese learning after they performed the
Mandarin learning tasks in SL. The methods and results of each stage are described briefly below.
Stage 1: Confirming the Effects of SL on the In-Class Oral Output of Overseas Chinese Students
Participants
The participants in stage 1 were 20 overseas students of Chinese (mean age, 20.1 years; 10 males and 10
females), comprising 12 from Indonesia, 2 from Japan, and 6 from Vietnam. These students voluntarily
enrolled in the study and were assigned to one of two groups via a random number generator: control (odd
numbers) or experimental (even numbers). Each group was comprised of 10 overseas students of Chinese:
six from Indonesia, one from Japan, and three from Vietnam. Table 1 lists the detailed demographics data
of the participant in Stage 1.
Table 1. Stage 1 Participants’ Demographics.
Experimental group (n=10)
Control group (n=10)
Age
19.1
20.8
Gender
F= 3; M= 7
F=4; M=6
Indonesia
6
6
Japan
1
1
Vietnam
3
3
Nationality
Research design
The experimental design adopted for stage 1 involved the students in the control group learning Mandarin
in a conventional classroom, while those in the experimental group learned in SL. Both groups were
taught by the same instructor, learned identical material, and performed the same activities; the only
difference between them was their learning environment. All of the teaching processes in both groups
were recorded and analyzed to allow comparison of the differences in classroom talk during the lessons.
Besides, the participating teacher was asked to write down her reflection on her teaching after
each class.
Instruments
In-Class Interaction Analysis Scheme
The scheme used to analyze in-class interactions was a revised form of Moskowitz’s FLint System
(Moskowitz, 1971), as shown in Appendix A. In the revised scheme, as in the original, there are two
categories of classroom talking: teacher and student. New dialog types, however, were added to the
original subcategories to incorporate the actual conversation transcripts obtained from the recorded videos.
Language Learning & Technology
39
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Teaching Plans and Environments
Two teaching units were designed for stage 1, both of which involved task-based learning. The first
focused on teaching overseas Chinese students how to order meals at a restaurant, while the aim of the
second was to encourage students to choose a movie that all of the group members would like to go see
together. Both teaching units were taught following an identical procedure, (described in the Procedure
section). In addition, the teaching environments included conventional classroom and SL scenes: in the
former, practical teaching aids were used to help students understand the authentic contexts in which the
conversations were happening, while in the latter, virtual scenes were created to help students to immerse
themselves in an authentic context. Figure 1 shows the two classrooms used in stage 1.
Figure 1. Two classrooms used in stage 1: conventional (left) and virtual (right).
Procedure
Before the treatment (i.e., teaching phase), the experimental group received training on operating SL for
two hours, such as avatar moving (including walking, running, and flying), moving objects, and wearing
and removing objects. After completion of the training, the two groups worked on two units of materials
for two weeks: one unit per week for one hour each. To avoid disturbing the students’ regular classes, the
pilot Mandarin language classes were arranged during students’ availablility.
Each learning unit included two parts: basic skill training and task execution. For the basic skill training,
new Mandarin words and sentence patterns were introduced to the students, who were then assigned
missions to execute as individuals or as a group. During the task execution, the teacher played the role of
a learning supporter to provide students with real-time assistance. For example, in unit one the students
first learned the dishes and food items served in a restaurant, including appetizer, main dish, and dessert.
They then worked in groups, first in small groups of three or four to discuss what combinations their
restaurant should serve. They then role-played as customers and restaurant owners, in turn, to practice
ordering meals and providing services at a restaurant.
During the treatment, all of the teaching processes and classroom talking were recorded and analyzed.
The learning processes in SL were recorded via a free screen-recording software program (Fraps). In
contrast, the learning processes in the conventional classroom were recorded via two digital video
cameras. All of the recorded videos were then transcribed and analyzed by two decoders who focused
both on the teacher and on the student speech in class, following the in-class interaction analysis scheme
(Appendix A).
Results
The Spearman coefficient of concordance was computed from the decoded results obtained from the two
decoders. The Pearson correlation was .948 (significant at the <.001 level). Table 2 lists the decoding
results plus the results from the chi-square analysis of the two teaching environments in the two teaching
Language Learning & Technology
40
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
units. The level of statistical significance was set at p<.05.
Table 2. Results of Video Decoding & Chi-Square Analyses of Two Environments in Two Teaching Units.
Teaching unit (U)
and environment
U1
U2
Classroom talking
Teacher talking (%)
Student talking (%)
TI
TD
SSp
Conventional
classroom
12.5
47.32 0
23.66
Second Life
10.26
Conventional
classroom
Second Life
U1&2 Conventional
classroom
Second Life
TC
SO
SSi
SCWO SCNW SN
O
Chisquare
8.04
1.79
3.57
30.4***
35.38 1.03
12.31 37.95
1.54
1.54
0
0
19.25
38.82 6.21
21.43
4.97
1.24
5.90
1.00
1.24
11.93
41.56 4.94
24.69 15.23
1.23
.41
0
0
16.48
42.31 3.66
22.34
6.23
1.47
4.95
11.19
38.81 3.20
19.18 25.34
1.37
.91
.45
.73
0
2.68
1.83
15.2
18.7**
0
Notes *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001; TI= teacher talking (indirect influence); TD=teacher talking (direct influence); TC=teacher
talking (command); SSp=student talking (specific response); SO=student talking (open-ended response); SSi=student talking
(silence); SCWO=student talking (confusion, work-oriented); SCNWO= student talking (confusion, non-work-oriented);
SN=student talking (nonverbal)
As listed in Table 1, the percentage of students talking was much higher in SL than in the conventional
classroom. Furthermore, much more open-ended student talking was observed in SL than that in
conventional classroom. The chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference between the two
environments: unit 1, χ=30.4, df=8, p=.000; unit 2, χ=15.2, df=8, p=.055; units 1 plus 2, χ=18.7, df=8,
p=.016.
The results obtained from the video analysis described above are in line with the teacher’s reflection of
her teaching, as follows:
Using more teaching resources, such as ‘text chat,’ and more linguistic input (e.g., teaching
adjectives ‘interesting’) in SL would foster greater engagement by more students than using
solely PPT in the conventional classroom.
The dialog taking place in SL is more effective and successful than the dialog in the conventional
classroom, because students are immediately engaged in the real-life-like setting.
In contrast to these positive results, there were also some challenges in teaching Mandarin in SL. The
greatest problem is that some of the functions provided in SL make it easy to disturb the teaching process.
For example, it was found that students liked to fly around when doing some of the activities, such as the
content introduction and group discussions. They also liked to keep running from one group to another,
which sometimes introduced difficulties for the teacher during group discussions in SL; for example, one
teacher said: “…Sometimes I was unable to group students in SL, so I decided to have each individual
student work on their own…” This kind of task-structure-related problem was also observed by Chen
(2010). In addition, some students were not efficiently engaged in the learning activities at the beginning
Language Learning & Technology
41
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
of the process, because they were not sufficiently familiar with the SL functions, as noted by the teacher:
…sometimes in SL, students were unfamiliar with the functions for buying and selling items
when doing activities, so that they needed more time to catch up with the teaching activities…
Fortunately, these challenges did not hinder the overseas Chinese students from contributing to in-class
oral conversations. Moreover, the above-mentioned challenges could be conquered through better task
design and SL skill pre-training (Lan et al., 2013).
The potential of SL for promoting in-class oral output by overseas Chinese students was confirmed by the
findings of this stage. However, in order to determine the real effects of SL on teaching Mandarin to
overseas Chinese students, more attention needs to be paid to both the task design and to guidance, as
well as to SL function training in order to avoid the identified challenges to the teaching process in SL.
Stage 2: Confirming the Effects of SL on the Performance of and Learning Attitudes Toward
Mandarin of Overseas Chinese Students
The aim of stage 2 was to confirm the effects of SL on the performance of and learning attitudes toward
Mandarin of overseas Chinese students in regular Mandarin language classes. The CUE model proposed
by Lan and her colleagues (2013) was adopted in order to prevent the problems identified in the taskexecution process, a well-structured task design based on the cognition (“C,” focusing on basic skill
introduction), usage (“U,” focusing on individual task execution), and expansion (“E,” aimed at using
Mandarin to execute cooperative task process). I anticipated that the performance and the learning
attitudes of the students would significantly benefit by embedding Mandarin language classes in SL, but
without the problems identified in stage 1.
Participants
One class of 24 overseas students of Chinese (2 from South Africa, 2 from Vietnam, and 20 from
Indonesia; mean age 19.5 years) in NTNU participated in stage 2. Of these, only four had previous
experience learning CFL before they arrive in Taiwan. The students were expected to acquire sufficient
Mandarin language abilities, both written and oral, during the first year at university to prepare them for
entrance to their target universities in Taiwan.
Research design
Both the performance of and learning attitudes toward Mandarin before and after the teaching process
were assessed, as described in Instruments, using a quantitative approach. The collected data were
analyzed via dependent-sample t-test to evaluate the improvements made by the students in both
parameters due to the use of SL.
Instruments
Mandarin language learning-attitudes questionnaire
The questionnaire was revised according to studies by Dörnyei (1990, 1998), Schmidt (1996), and Wei
(2007), and included three dimensions: affective (18 items), pragmatic (7 items), and educational contextrelated (8 items) as shown in Appendix B. The responses to all of the items were on a 4-point Likert scale,
from strongly agree (4) to strongly disagree (1). Furthermore, the affective dimension contained four subdimensions: pleasure experience (e.g., “I find great pleasure in learning Mandarin”), self-satisfaction
(e.g., “learning Mandarin broadens my view”), goal-related (e.g., “I plan to continue studying Mandarin
for as long as possible”), and self-concept-related (e.g., “my communication ability in Mandarin is
good”). The pragmatic dimension measured the perceptions of learners’ gains in extrinsic benefits, such
as taking an L2 for living better (e.g., “learning Mandarin is helpful for my future career”). The
educational context-related dimension measured the attitudes of learners toward the learning atmosphere,
Language Learning & Technology
42
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
learning environment, and learning activities (e.g., “the language tasks of Mandarin lessons in SL are
interesting and helpful”). In addition to the 4-point Likert scale, one open-ended question was included at
the end of the questionnaire to allow students to express any ideas that were not covered by the
aforementioned items.
Mandarin language oral performance online test
The aim of this test was to determine the communication abilities of the foreign students of Chinese,
including two categories, each including 10 items: Mandarin words and grammar. All of the items were
first confirmed by three content experts and then uploaded to an online test system developed by the
author. In order to avoid the interference of unknown Mandarin characters, the test items included audio–
picture pairs for listening comprehension and picture-recording for the oral component. Figure 2 shows an
example of the test items used in stage 2.
Figure 2. An example of the test items used in stage 2.
Teaching plans and environments
Three teaching units, described in detail below, were taught in stage 2, which were designed based on the
CUE model proposed by Lan et al. (2013). The themes of the used units were asking directions (unit 1),
arranging the room (unit 2), and visiting friends (unit 3). In addition, corresponding SL scenes were
created to provide overseas Chinese students with authentic contexts. Taking unit 3 as an example, a gift
store was created in SL (Figure 3) where the students could go to choose gifts for their friends.
Language Learning & Technology
43
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Figure 3. A gift store in SL where students can buy gifts for friends.
Procedures
The duration of stage 2 was nine weeks, and 1 hour per week. Both the Mandarin performance test and
Mandarin learning-attitude questionnaire were administered in the first week as a pretest. The students
received training on the operation of SL during the second week. Some additional opportunities for SL
practice were also provided before the Mandarin language classes started in the third week. Students
practiced controlling their avatars and interacting with SL objects during their free time. After they
acquired the operational skills needed for the class, the three units were taught from the third week, each
for 2 weeks. Furthermore, all of the classes were arranged during the students’ regular timetables. In the
final week, both the Mandarin performance test and Mandarin learning-attitude questionnaire were readministered as a posttest.
The teaching procedure of each unit followed the CUE model. For each unit, the “C” (cognition) and “U”
(usage) parts were executed in the first week, while “E” (expansion) was executed in the second week.
The procedure in unit 3, which involved visiting friends, is described in detail below as an example.
First, for “C,” students were taught the words and sentence patterns for describing object positioning,
such as “書本在桌子上面 (the books are on the table)”, the quantities of objects, such as “我有五顆蘋果
(I have five apples),” and a perfect tense sentence, such as “我去過法國 I have been to France).” Next,
for “U,” students entered a room with food, soft drinks, and souvenirs. They were asked to guess in which
room the host had eaten and where he had been before, based on what they saw in the room (see Figure 4).
Language Learning & Technology
44
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Figure 4. The room used for “U” (usage) in unit 3.
Finally, for “E,” the students were grouped into small groups of four or five, and a gift-picking mission
was assigned to each group. They were provided with some note cards with cues to complete the mission.
Each group was asked to determine what gift and how much/many of them should be bought, and which
friend they should visit. After all of the groups had reached a consensus, they went to the supermarket
(see Figure 3) to buy the gifts, then went to visit the friend. Finally, the teacher rewarded the groups who
successfully completed the assignment with a motorcycle as a prize (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Motorcycles were given as a prize to students who successfully completed the assigned mission.
Language Learning & Technology
45
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Results
Gains in the Mandarin oral performance test
The scores of both the Mandarin oral performance test and Mandarin learning-attitude questionnaire were
collected and analyzed in Stage 2. The Mandarin oral performance test was administered online to all the
participants before and after completion of the Mandarin language teaching course. Table 3 lists the
means and standard deviations for the online Mandarin oral performance test plus the results of the t-test
analysis. Five students were absent from the posttest because they were either unwell or had returned to
their home country during the semester; therefore, the scores of 19 students were analyzed.
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations (SDs) for Mandarin Oral Performance Test and t-test Analyses
(n=19).
Test
Mean
SD
t
Pretest
29.68
14.32
-6.412*
Posttest
48.11
11.68
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
The overseas Chinese students made significant improvements after using SL as the learning environment
for Mandarin (t=-6.412, df=18, p=.000<.05). Furthermore, the standard deviation was smaller at posttest
than at pretest, which suggests that learning in SL reduces the inter-peer gaps in the Mandarin oral
performances of overseas Chinese students.
Improvements in Mandarin language-learning attitudes
In addition to Mandarin oral performances, the attitudes of overseas Chinese students toward Mandarin
learning were a focus of stage 2. Table 4 lists the scores on the 4-point questionnaire response scales
obtained before and after the teaching activities. The same five students who were absent for the
performance posttest were also absent for this posttest; therefore, the scores of the same 19 students were
analyzed.
Table 4. Results for the Mandarin Learning-Attitude Questionnaire (n=19).
Dimension
Pretest
Posttest
t
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Pleasure experience
3.11
.38
3.13
.39
–.244
Self-satisfaction
3.18
.51
3.25
.46
–.552
Goal-related
3.04
.45
3.35
.41
–3.356*
Self-concept-related
2.87
.40
2.92
.28
–.506
Subtotal
3.04
.36
3.16
.28
–1.738
Pragmatic
3.24
.44
3.40
.39
–1.343
Educational context-related
2.86
.28
3.59
.46
–6.391*
Total
2.60
.26
3.21
.28
–10.514*
Affective
Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Language Learning & Technology
46
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
The data in Table 3 indicate significant improvements in the total questionnaire scores of the overseas
Chinese students (t=-10.514, df=18, p=.000). Regarding dimension-based comparisons, the affective
dimension did not differ significantly between the pre- and posttest, but the goal-related subdimension
was significantly improved at the posttest, which means that learning Mandarin in SL significantly
increased the interest of the overseas Chinese students. The pragmatic dimension, however, did not differ
significantly between the two tests. The score of the educational context-related dimension was
significantly improved at posttest, which indicates that the students regarded the learning environment
and activities in SL highly.
Despite the positive results, the low scores (pretest: 2.87, posttest: 2.92) in the self-concept-related
(affective) subdimension were of concern to the author although the posttest score improved. This might
have been due to the short learning period, amounting to only six hours, for learning the three units.
Regarding the students’ responses to the open-ended question, no written responses were provided in the
pretest, but some comments were collected at the posttest. These comments fell into three categories: (1)
comments regarding SL as a Mandarin language learning environment, (2) the desire for more similar
opportunities to learn Mandarin, and (3) complaints about the network connection quality. For the first
category, all of the students’ comments showed approval of the learning activities and the authentic
contexts in SL. Some examples are as follows:
“I love to learn Mandarin in this way.”
“To execute Mandarin learning missions in SL is very interesting and helpful. I can make
improvement in my Mandarin language abilities.”
“The basic one makes it easier to learn the themes such as clothes, house, etc.”
“I think SL helped me to think in Mandarin and try to learn about its pronunciation. It also helps me
to practice and think with others. It’s interesting.”
“Learning in SL is more interesting than in the conventional classroom. That’s because only the
teacher talked in the conventional classroom rather than the students.”
As to the students’ desire to learn, they expressed a hope for more Mandarin language classes running in
SL, such as: “The time is too short. I want more.” Some students not only expressed their desire for more
SL classes, but also complained about the Internet connection sometimes being of poor quality. Some
examples are as follows:
“SL is great, but the computers should be upgraded.”
“It’s actually fun to learn through this new environment, but due to the Internet speed we can barely
feel the effect sometimes.”
“Sometimes I could not successfully login to SL, which may be caused by the network connection.
However, learning in SL is truly fun.”
In summary, learning Mandarin in SL significantly improved the oral performances of and learning
attitudes toward Mandarin of the international students of Chinese. It also inspired them to engage more
in the language-learning activities and to orally interact with others.
LIMITATION AND CONCLUSIONS
According to the suggestions of Krashen (1981), Long (1996), and van Lier (1996), FL/L2 learners will
only become fluent if they have opportunities to engage themselves in authentic linguistic social
practices. In order to promote the oral outputs and interpersonal conversation skills of overseas Chinese
students, SL was adopted for Mandarin language classes. The results obtained from stage 1 indicated that
Language Learning & Technology
47
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
overseas Chinese students behaved more actively in interpersonal interactions and talked more frequently
in SL than in the conventional classroom. The strong desire to perform orally might be attributable to the
ownership and personalized avatars provided in SL, as proposed by Peterson (2008), who stated that the
use of personalized avatars supports users with a strong sense of immersion within virtual worlds and
consequently enhances involvement, enjoyment, and interest in interactions.
The authentic environments in SL also provided overseas Chinese students with an essential context for
enhancing the L2 comprehension process. Hadley (2001) suggests that language learning activities that
provide relevant context should be helpful for activating the knowledge that students have of the world
and the familiarity of the discourse structure. The activities executed in stage 2 were accompanied by
authentic contexts for helping overseas Chinese students to comprehend when, where, and why the
conversations happened. The significant improvement in Mandarin oral performance made by the
students not only confirmed Hadley’s argument, but it is also consistent with the research on applying SL
in CFL teaching conducted by Lan et al. (2013). The results obtained from stage 2 also confirm the effects
of SL in promoting the learning attitudes of foreign Chinese students toward the Mandarin language, and
were in line with the English as a foreign language (EFL) research conducted by Wang and his colleagues
(Wang, Song, Xia, & Yan, 2009), who found that students had positive attitudes toward SL as a learning
platform for EFL learning and wanted to use it for EFL learning more often in the future.
The behaviors of the foreign Chinese students during the task-completion process revealed that the
reorganized task structure based on the CUE model benefited them both when performing the individual
and group tasks. Their attention was focused on the learning tasks and they produced useful output after
completion. The findings confirm the importance of task structure for language learning suggested by
many researchers, such as Chen (2010) and Jauregi and her colleagues (Jauregi, Canto, de Graaff,
Koenraad, & Moonen, 2011).
In contrast to these positive results, the index of students’ self-conception in Mandarin learning attitude
remained lower than 3 on the 4-point scale at the posttest (score range: 2.4–3.4, average: 2.92). This result
is not consistent with those of Henderson et al. (2012), who found that collaborative language lessons
using SL results in a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy beliefs among students across a
range of specific and general language skills. These discrepant results may be attributable to the very
short learning period in the present study (only one hour per week for six weeks), and suggest that more
effort is required to improve the self-efficacy beliefs of overseas Chinese students in concert with their
proven performance improvements.
In addition to Mandarin learning-related issues, the problems caused by the Internet connection that
hampered the teaching process were also an important concern of this study. A similar problem has also
been encountered by other researchers using SL in language learning, (e.g. Chen, 2010 and Wang et al.,
2009. Thus, it is clear that technological problems represent an important challenge for language
educators and researchers attempting to help FL/L2 learners gain benefits from the use of virtual worlds.
To deal with the problem, both learners’ computer performance and bandwidth should be taken into
account. Regarding the computer performance, computers equipped with independent Graphic Card have
the potential to make SL run more smoothly. On the other hand, according to Linden Lab
(http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Lag), bandwidth generally needs a connection speed at least 500 kilobits
per second (kbps) to adequately run SL, i.e. to execute basic operations of SL and, in fact, needs higher
bandwidth to reduce Internet latency. However, based on the experiences learned from a later study
conducted by the author, it is suggested that the researchers/instructors could simplify the structure of the
architectures in SL, or have the learners check if their avatars put too many complex objects on them in
order to reduce the Internet latency. In addition to the practical suggestions given above, another point
worthy of greater attention and efforts from researchers is how to create a virtual context that possesses
similar features to SL, as described above. Because of the small sample size, a short period for the
experimental procedure, and the non-upgraded computer equipment used in this study, the research
Language Learning & Technology
48
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
results could become a general reference to the related research only after further investigation and
evaluation.
In conclusion, SL was successfully applied to a Mandarin language course, yielding improvements in the
oral output, performance, and learning attitudes toward Mandarin among overseas Chinese students.
Future studies should attempt to confirm the effects of SL in promoting overseas Chinese students’ selfconception and efficacy beliefs in the target language by expanding the experimental period and enrolling
more participants.
APPENDIX A. In-Class Interaction Analysis Scheme (Revised From Moskowitz’s Flint System)
Category
Code
Description
Indirect
influence
1
Deal with feelings: In a nonthreatening way, accepting, discussing, referring to, or
communicating understanding of past, present, or future feelings of students.
2
Praises or encourages: Praising, complimenting, and telling students why what they
have said or done is valued. Encouraging students to continue, trying to give them
confidence. Confirming answers are correct.
2a
Jokes: International joking, kidding, making puns, and attempting to be humorous,
providing that the joking is not at anyone’s expense. Unintentional humor is not
included in this category.
3
Uses ideas of students: Clarifying, using, interpreting, and summarizing the ideas of
students. The idea must be rephrased by the teacher but still recognized as being a
student contribution.
4
Asks questions: Asking questions to which an answer is anticipated.
5
Gives information: Giving information, facts, own opinion or ideas, lecturing, or
asking rhetorical questions.
5a
Directs pattern drills: Giving statements that students are expected to repeat exactly,
to make substitutions in, or to change from one form into another.
6
Repeats a student’s response verbatim: Repeating the exact words used by students.
6a
Corrects without rejection: Telling students who have made a mistake the correct
response without using words or intonations that communicate criticism.
6b
Criticizes a student’s response: Telling the student his response is not correct or
acceptable and communicating by words or intonation criticism, displeasure,
annoyance, or rejection.
7
Gives directions: Giving directions, requests, or commands that students are
expected to follow.
7a
Criticizes student behavior: Rejecting the behavior of students, trying to change
unacceptable behavior, communicating anger, displeasure, annoyance, and
dissatisfaction with what the students are doing.
8
Specific response (individual): Responding to the teacher by an individual student
within a specific and limited range of available or previously shaped answers.
Reading aloud.
8a
Specific response (combined): Combined response by all or part of the class.
8b
Student repeats what the teacher demonstrates (individual): Student repeating what
the teacher demonstrates or says.
8c
Students repeat what the teacher demonstrates (combined): Combined repetition of
Direct
influence
Student
response
Language Learning & Technology
49
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
what the teacher demonstrates or says by all or part of the class.
9
Open-ended response: Responding to the teacher with the student’s own ideas,
opinions, reactions, and feelings. Providing one from among many possible answers
that have been previously shaped but from which students must now make a
selection. Initiating the participation.
9a
Student-initiated questions: Asking open-ended questions based on what the teacher
has said.
9b
Student-initiated response: Responding to or giving comments to other students’
responses.
9c
Peer talking: work-oriented, clear interpeer talking.
9d
Work-oriented response: More than one person at a time clearly responding to the
teacher’s open-ended questions.
Silence
10
Pauses in the interaction. Periods of quiet during which there is no verbal
interaction.
Confusion
11
Confusion (work-oriented): More than one person at a time talking, so the
interaction cannot be recorded. Students call out excitedly, eager to participate or
respond, and concerned with task at hand.
11a
Confusion (non-work-oriented): More than one person at a time talking, so the
interaction cannot be recorded. Students talking out-of-order, not behaving as the
teacher wishes, and not concerned with the task at hand.
12
Laughter: Laughing and giggling by the class, individuals, and/or the teacher.
n
Nonverbal: Nonverbal gestures or facial expressions by the teacher or the student
that communicate without the use of words. This category is always combined with
one of the categories of teacher or pupil behaviors.
m
Use of students’ native language by the teacher or students. This category is always
combined with one of the other categories described above.
Nonverbal
Mother
tongue
APPENDIX B. Mandarin Language-Attitudes Questionnaire
Dear Student,
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your feedback is important to us in helping
understand learners’ Chinese learning experience and how they feel while using Second Life to learn
Chinese. The survey takes about 5-10 minutes of your time. All survey results will be used only for
academic research purposes. Your answers will not affect how the teacher grades your progress.
Thank you again for your help.
你對中文學習的看法 Your Opinion of Chinese Learning
題目 Question
非常同意
Extremely
Agree
我可以從學中文的過程中得到樂趣。
I find great pleasure in learning Chinese.
Language Learning & Technology
4□
同意
Agree
3□
不同意
Disagree
2□
非常不同意
Extremely
disagree
1□
50
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
當遇到和課程中學習內容相似的情況時,我有信心
能和說中文的朋友用中文溝通。
I have confidence to communicate with a Chinese
friend in Chinese on topics similar to those covered in
this class.
4□
3□
2□
1□
說中文能讓我從事更好、更有趣的工作。
If I can speak Chinese, I can find more interesting and
better jobs.
4□
3□
2□
1□
中文課裡的任務活動很有趣,對我的中文能力也有
幫助。
The language tasks in our Chinese lessons are
interesting and helpful!
4□
3□
2□
1□
學習中文可以擴展我的視野。
Learning Chinese broadens my horizons.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我常常思考如何把中文學得更好。
I often think about how I can learn Chinese better.
4□
3□
2□
1□
中文讓我成為更有競爭力的求職者。
Chinese will makes me more competitive in the job
market.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我喜歡學中文。
I enjoy learning Chinese.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我覺得中文課裡的任務活動對於提高我的中文水準
很有用。
I found the task-based lessons we have done were
useful to improve my Chinese.
4□
3□
2□
1□
如果我在中文課表現得很好,是因為我很努力。
If I do well in this course, it will be because I work
hard.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我會盡全力學習中文。
I can honestly say that I really put my best effort into
trying to learn Chinese.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我必須參加 TOCFL 或 HSK 之類的中文考試。
I have to take TOCFL, HSK, or other Chinese
qualifying examinations.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我對中華文化、歷史及文學有興趣。
I am interested in Chinese culture, history and/or
literature.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我和老師在中文課裡的互動很重要。
My interaction with the teacher in Chinese class is
important to me.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我的中文溝通技巧不錯。
4□
3□
2□
1□
Language Learning & Technology
51
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
My communication ability in Chinese is good.
我希望到臺灣或中國等說中文的國家旅行。
I would like to travel to a Chinese-speaking country,
such as Taiwan or China.
4□
3□
2□
1□
如果我被要求在中文課發言會覺得不舒服。
I feel uncomfortable if I am asked to speak in my
Chinese class.
4□
3□
2□
1□
在這個課程結束後,我會繼續學習中文,因為它對
我很重要。
After I finish this class, I will keep learning Chinese,
because studying Chinese is important to me.
4□
3□
2□
1□
能在符合真實語境的環境裡頭學習語言是有趣的。
It is fun to learn language in an authentic context &
environment.
4□
3□
2□
1□
學中文幫助我了解說中文的人和他們的生活方式。
Learning Chinese helps me understand Chinese-speaking
people and their way of life.
4□
3□
2□
1□
如果我會說中文,我就有更多因公參訪的機會。
If I can speak Chinese, I can travel more for official
purposes.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我認為學習中文能讓我得到更好的教育機會。
I think learning Chinese will enable me to get a better
education opportunity.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我覺得我的中文還不錯。
I think my Chinese is quite good.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我會盡可能地持續學習中文。
I plan to continue studying Chinese for as long as
possible.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我在中文課的出席率很高。
My attendance in Chinese class is good.
4□
3□
2□
1□
如果我在中文課堂上表現不好,是因為課程太難了
。
If I don’t do well in this class, it will be because the
class is too difficult.
4□
3□
2□
1□
我希望能和中文母語者用中文進行工作上的溝通。
I want to use Chinese to work and communicate with
Chinese speakers.
4□
3□
2□
1□
在匿名的學習環境裡,我不會擔心是否說錯中文。
In an anonymous environment, I am not afraid of
making mistakes while speaking Chinese.
4□
3□
2□
1□
Language Learning & Technology
52
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
學習中文讓我覺得有成功感。
Learning Chinese makes me feel successful.
4□
3□
2□
1□
學習中文對我未來的事業有幫助。
Learning Chinese is helpful for my future career.
4□
3□
2□
1□
課堂中使用的詞彙很合適,既不會太多也不會太少
,不會太難也不會太簡單。
The vocabulary used in my Chinese class is
appropriate. (neither too much nor too little; neither too
difficult nor too easy)
4□
3□
2□
1□
符合真實語境的學習環境能幫助我把學到的語言技
巧和知識用到真實世界中。
Learning in a realistic context helps me transfer
language skills and/or knowledge to the real-world
contexts.
4□
3□
2□
1□
在電腦教室中進行的中文任務課程有趣且對我有幫
助。
The language tasks of Chinese lessons in the computer
lab are interesting and helpful!
4□
3□
2□
1□
其他意見 Other Opinions and Comments
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C., for financially
supporting this research under Grant No. NSC 101-2511-S-003-031-MY3. She is also thankful that this
research is partially supported by the “Aim for the Top University Project” of National Taiwan Normal
University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C., the “International
Research-Intensive Center of Excellence Program” of NTNU and the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under Grant No. NSC 103-2911-I-003-301.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Yu-Ju Lan is currently an Associate Professor of Department of Applied Chinese Language and Culture
at National Taiwan Normal University. Her research interests include technology enhanced foreign
language learning, online synchronous teacher training, language learning in virtual worlds, and mobile
learning.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Chen, D. (2010). Enhancing the learning of Chinese with Second Life. Journal of Technology and
Chinese Learning Teaching, 1(1), 14–30.
Language Learning & Technology
53
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Chen, L. Y. (2009). A diverse learning place for Asia-Pacific students: A case study of college of
international studies and education for overseas Chinese of National Taiwan Normal University.
Proceedings of 2009 Asia-Pacific International Conference on Language and Culture Education, 57-76.
Pingtung County, Taiwan: National Pingtung University of Education Press. Retrieved from
140.127.82.166/bitstream/987654321/2056/1/9.pdf
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008). New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO
Journal, 25(3), 547–557.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2006). Teaching and learning Chinese: Heritage language classroom discourse
in Montreal. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(2), 189–207.
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009). Designing oral participation in Second
Life- a comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2), 206–226.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning, 40(1),
45–78.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117–
135.
Ellis, S. (1996). Presence of mind: a reaction to Thomas Sheridan’s ‘Further musings on the
psychophysics of presence’. Presence, 5(2), 247–259.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies- Autonomous language learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 15(3), 4–11. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/emerging.pdf
Grant, S. (2010). About Monash Chinese Island. Retrieved from
http://www.virtualhanyu.com/?page_id=87
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as heritage language.
Heritage Language Journal, 4(1), 1–28.
He, A. W., & Xiao, Y. (2008). Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/MG02TOC.pdf
Hedberg, J. & Alexander, S. (1994). Virtual reality in education: Defining researchable issues.
Educational Media International, 31(4), 214–220.
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S, & Henderson, L. (2012). The impact of Chinese language lessons in
a virtual world on university students' self-efficacy beliefs. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28 (Special issue, 3), 400–419. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/henderson.html
Hsu, C. Y. (2007). A qualitative study of overseas Chinese university students’ process of successful
adaptation (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22095NTNU5051014%22.&searchmode=basic
Hundsberger, S. (2009). Foreign Language learning in Second Life and the implications for resource
provision in academic libraries. Retrieved from http://arcadiaproject.lib.cam.ac.uk/docs/second_life.pdf
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T., & Moonen, M. (2011). Verbal interaction in Second
Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 77–
101.
Jiang, X. M. (2007). The current situation and reflection of TCFL. Paper presented at 2007 Multicultural
Language Learning & Technology
54
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
and Ethnic Harmony International Conference, Taiwan, Taipei, November 23-24, 2007. Retrieved from
http://r9.ntue.edu.tw/activity/multiculture_conference/file/2/3.pdf
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Lan, Y. J., Kan, Y. H., Hsiao, I, Y. T. , Yang, S.J.H., & Chang, K. E. (2013). Designing interaction tasks
in Second Life for CFL learners: A preliminary exploration. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 29(2), 184–202.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & K. B. Tej (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Moskowitz, G. (1971). Interaction analysis: A new modern language for supervisors. Foreign Language
Annals, 5(2), 211–221.
National Taiwan Normal University (2010). The aim for the top university project-Center of learning
technology for Chinese (CLTC). Retrieved from http://140.122.100.145/topntnu/cltc/e/1.html
Peterson M. (2008). Virtual worlds in language education. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(3), 29–36.
Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2009). Foreign language teaching in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/projects/pdfs/foreign-language-national-survey-executive-summary.pdf
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassagby (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external
connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 9–56).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Stevens, V. (2006). Second life in education and language learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3). Retrieved from
http://tesl-ej.org/ej39/int.pdf
Su,Y. L. (2006). The orientation and school achievement of overseas Chinese students studying in
Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: National Institute of Educational Resources and Research.
Su, Y. L. (2008). The study of expatriate education policy in the main countries. Taipei, Taiwan:
Overseas Community Affairs Council Republic of China (Taiwan).
Sung, J. Y. (2005). From "learner" to "educator": A study on the training of TCSOL for Overseas Chinese
university students. Retrieved from
http://online.sfsu.edu/hdomizio/LinLaoshi/899/101_%B1q%BE%C7%B2%DF%AA%CC%A8%EC%B1
%D0%BE%C7%AA%CC.pdf
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in
Internet interest communities and online game. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–823.
Time Asia (2006). Get ahead, learn mandarin: China’s economic rise means the world has a new second
language—and it isn't English. Retrieved from http://clta-gny.org/article/GetAhead.htm
University Entrance Committee for Overseas Chinese Student (2014). 2014 Handbook of studying in
Taiwan for overseas students (Northern Thailand). Retrieved from
http://www.overseas.ncnu.edu.tw/index/news/qa/qa
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity.
London, UK: Longman.
Wang, C., Song, H., Xia, F., & Yan, Q. (2009). Integrating Second Life into an EFL program: Students’
perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 1–16.
Language Learning & Technology
55
Yu-Ju Lan
Mandarin Learning by Overseas Chinese Students
Wei, M. (2007). The interrelatedness of affective factors in EFL learning: An examination of motivational
patterns in relation to anxiety in China. TESL-EJ, 11(1). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/a2.html
Wikipedia (16 September, 2011). Unified examination certificate. Retrieved from
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8B%AC%E4%B8%AD%E7%BB%9F%E4%B8%80%E8%80%83%
E8%AF%95
Wikipedia (9 March, 2014). Taiwanese Mandarin. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_Mandarin
Wu, Y. L. (2005). The study of overseas Chinese students’ campus experiences and academic
achievements (Master’s thesis). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.
Yao, Y. S. (2011). The study of overseas Chinese students’ educational experience and adapting to
school. Retrieved from http://ctld.nccu.edu.tw/ctld/?p=8950
Language Learning & Technology
56
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/news.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 57–60
NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Sponsors
University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource
Center (NFLRC)
The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials
development projects and conducts workshops and conferences for language professionals among its
many activities.
4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DOCUMENTATION
& CONSERVATION (ICLDC)
February 26-March 1, 2015 • Honolulu, HI
The Department of Linguistics and the National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of
Hawaiʻi at Mānoa are pleased to host the 4th ICLDC. The conference program will feature two keynote
talks, an integrated series of Master Class workshops, and four Special Sessions on Pedagogy in
Language Conservation. An optional Hilo Field Study (on the Big Island of Hawaiʻi) to visit Hawaiian
language revitalization programs in action will immediately follow the conference (March 2-3).
The theme of the 4th ICLDC, “Enriching Theory, Practice, and Application,” highlights the need to
strengthen the links between language documentation (practice), deep understanding of grammatical
structure (theory), and methods for teaching endangered languages (application). At this conference, we
intend to focus on language documentation as the investigation of grammar and linguistic structure, on
the one hand, and the development of that investigation into sound pedagogy for endangered languages,
on the other.
We aim to build on the strong momentum created by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ICLDCs to discuss research
and revitalization approaches yielding rich records that can benefit both the field of language
documentation and speech communities. We hope you will join us.
Call for Proposals deadlines are May 31, 2014 (Special Sessions on Pedagogy in Language Conservation)
and August 31, 2014 (general papers, posters, and electronic posters). See the conference website for
more information: http://icldc4.icldc-hawaii.org
STAY IN TOUCH WITH SOCIAL MEDIA
Did you know that the NFLRC has its own Facebook page with over 1,900 fans? It’s one of the best ways
to hear about the latest news, publications, conferences, workshops, and resources we offer. Just click on
the “Like” button to become a fan. For those who prefer getting up-to-the-minute “tweets,” you can
follow us on our Twitter page. Finally, NFLRC has its own YouTube channel with a growing collection
of free language learning and teaching videos for your perusal. Subscribe today!
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
57
54
News from Our Sponsoring Organizations
NEW NFLRC PUBLICATIONS
The National Foreign Language Resource Center released three new titles in June:
Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard
Schmidt
by Joara Martin Bergsleithner, Sylvia Nagem Frota, &
Jim Kei Yoshioka, (Eds.)
(2013)
374pp
Download/view the table of contents.
This volume is a collection of selected refereed papers presented at the Association of Teachers of
Japanese Annual Spring Conference held at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in March of 2011. It not
only covers several important topics on teaching and learning spoken and written Japanese and culture in
and beyond classroom settings, but also includes research investigating certain linguistic items from new
perspectives.
Practical Assessment Tools for College Japanese
by Kimi Kondo-Brown, James Dean Brown, & Waka Tominaga (Eds.)
(2013)
162pp
Download/view table of contents
Practical Assessment Tools for College Japanese collects 21 peer-reviewed assessment modules that were
developed by teachers of Japanese who participated in the Assessments for Japanese Language
Instruction Summer Institute at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa in summer 2012. Each module presents a
practical assessment idea that can be adopted or adapted for the reader’s own formative or summative
assessment of their Japanese language learners. For ease of use, each module is organized in
approximately the same way including background information, aims, levels, assessment times,
resources, procedures, caveats and options, references, and other appended information.
Check out our many other publications.
Language Learning & Technology
58
News from Our Sponsoring Organizations
Save the trees! Check out our other two online journals:
Language Documentation & Conservation is a
refereed, open-access journal sponsored by NFLRC
and published by University of Hawai‘i Press.
LD&C publishes papers on all topics related to
language documentation and conservation, as well
as book reviews, hardware and software reviews,
and notes from the field.
Language Learning & Technology
Reading in a Foreign Language is a refereed
international journal of issues in foreign language
reading and literacy, published twice yearly on the
World Wide Web and sponsored by NFLRC and
the University of Hawai‘i College of Languages,
Linguistics, and Literature.
59
News from Our Sponsoring Organizations
Michigan State University Center for Language Education
and Research (CLEAR)
CLEAR’s mission is to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States.
Projects focus on materials development, professional development training, and foreign language research.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CLEAR is pleased to announce its professinoal development offerings for July 2014. The topics are:
•
July 14-16
The Basics of Creating Assessments: From Principles to Practice
•
July 17-19
Rich Internet Applications for Language Learning: Introductory Techniques
•
July 21-23
Speaking Activities for Oral Proficiency Development
•
July 24-26
Using Authentic Materials in all Levels of Foreign Language Classes
Online registration is open on our Web site.
BETA TESTERS NEEDED
In the coming months, we plan to launch a newly designed RIA home page with improved user interface
and documentation. If you are interested in helping us beta test the new environment and provide
feedback, we would love to hear from you. Please email [email protected] and let us know if you’re willing
to be a technology guinea pig!
CONFERENCES
CLEAR exhibits at local and national conferences year-round. We enjoyed seeing many of you at the
Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (CSCTFL) in St. Louis in March, and
look forward to connecting with others at the annual conference of the Computer-Assisted Language
Instruction Consortium (CALICO) in Athens, Ohio this month.
NEWSLETTER
CLEAR News is a free bi-yearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials.
Download PDFs of back issues and subscribe at http://clear.msu.edu/clear/newsletter/
Language Learning & Technology
60
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/review1.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 61–64
REVIEW OF ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING: SOCIOCULTURAL
PERSPECTIVES
Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural
Perspectives
Carla Meskill (Ed.)
2013
ISBN: 9781441159458
US $140.00
256 pp.
Bloomsbury Academic
London
Review by Emily A. Hellmich, University of California, Berkeley
Meskill's 2013 edited volume, Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural Perspectives, brings together
research that explores a sociocultural orientation to teaching, learning, and living language in online
spaces. Meskill situates the volume as bringing a sociocultural conceptual lens to an area that she suggests
has primarily held a social constructivist orientation to online interaction; in doing so, she provides a
welcome and refreshing perspective that includes a more socially-oriented alternative to understanding
and researching language learning in these spaces.
The book is offered as a resource for both beginning and established practitioners and researchers. First,
the volume provides a straight-forward overview of sociocultural orientations to learning, and their
relevance to language learning in particular, that is ideal for anyone interested in becoming familiar with
this theoretical framing and its affordances. Second, practitioners of any age and experience level can
benefit from many of the chapters that provide models for the integration of different technologies,
practices, and participatory structures into online or digital educational endeavors (e.g., Chapters 2, 3, &
4); several of the chapters that focus on teachers are likely to spark important reflection on the part of
instructors (e.g., Chapters 2, 7, & 10). Many of the chapters also offer valuable methodological models
for conducting research into online language learning and teaching from a sociocultural angle (e.g.,
Chapters 1, 5, & 11); these chapters would be of particular use to graduate students, young professionals,
and established scholars who are framing their work from a sociocultural perspective.
The volume is divided into four parts preceded by an introductory chapter. Meskill uses this introductory
chapter to review the conceptual underpinnings of the sociocultural perspective that informs the edited
volume. Within a sociocultural perspective, learners are understood to be agentive and inextricable from
the contexts in which they interact with others; in other words, it is no longer tenable to see learners as
passive recipients of instructor knowledge, nor to separate learners from learning contexts. In addition,
this learning is seen as rooted in the assistance of more experienced and capable others, occurring first on
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
61
Emily A. Hellmich
Review of Online Teaching and Learning
a social plane before its appropriation by the individual via language. Learning from a sociocultural
perspective is not confined to the classroom but is seen as a fundamental and innate human disposition
that expands learning spaces to all spaces in which individuals interact. Lastly, the learning process and
the identity development that accompanies it are both seen as dynamic processes.
These underlying assumptions are clearly reflected in the eleven chapters that comprise the four sections
of the book. Part 1, Diversity/Identity Online, explores what a sociocultural perspective can afford the
diversity of teachers and learners who are brought together in online spaces. In Chapter 1, Sadykova
examines how one graduate student, Cathy, navigated her native Chinese educational discourse systems
with American educational discourse contexts in online and face-to-face American courses. This study
reveals not only the complicated processes of encountering and navigating new discourses, but also the
new ways of thinking, being, and behaving in online environments that engage learners in opportunities
for growth.
In Chapter 2, Samburskiy shifts the analytical attention to teachers and uses Critical Discourse Analysis
to look at how they construct their identities in relation to their students in an online telecollaboration. He
identifies presentational strategies used by five instructors based on their introductory overtures posted to
their students at the beginning of the course, as well as the student responses engendered by such
overtures. This analysis leads to suggested guidelines for practitioners in their own self-presentation so as
to promote equitable online learning cultures.
Part 2 moves from issues of identity and diversity to issues of practice with chapters that examine how we
can come to understand the transformational impact of online environments on pedagogical practice.
Varli begins the second section of the book with an exploration of practices and perceptions of ESL/EFL
teachers in the virtual world Second Life (SL). Varli’s work reveals that teacher practices in SL are in line
with sociocultural components of language teaching, such as assisted activity (Vygotsky, 1978),
participation in a community of practice (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000), collaborative dialogue (Swain,
2000), and engagement with authentic tasks (Felix, 2002). He advocates for professional training in the
potential of virtual worlds for both language learning and language learners.
Lund continues the discussion of practice in Chapter 4 through a detailed look at collaboration via wiki
technologies in two Norwegian high schools. Lund distills his work into four primary lessons for
integrating collaboration via online technologies into classrooms that are useful to both practitioners and
researchers: 1) the need to match tasks with available cultural tools; 2) the need to align individual and
collaborative contributions; 3) the need to create tasks that combine learning goals with learners’
backgrounds; and 4) the need to conceptualize teacher and learner roles as overlapping rather than
discrete entities. He concludes that we cannot forget the importance of teachers and intentional
pedagogical design when considering technological tools.
This thread of teacher training is picked up in the final piece in this section by Kozlova and Zundel who
investigate the factors that influence five foreign language teachers’ uses of multimodal tools in online
language learning platforms. Of note, Kozlova and Zundel found that the use of multimodal features
online largely reflected instructors' underlying theoretical perspectives on learning and teaching language.
For example, one instructor who saw language learning as a collaborative effort used pictures and written
textual hints to support student discussion of German dormitories; rather than providing immediate
correction or answers, the instructor utilized different modalities to support the students in their collective
exploration of the topic. Like Lund, Kozlova and Zundel advocate for special attention to be paid to
training teachers to use and reflect on online tools.
Moving beyond shifts in practice, Part 3 examines this shift in relation to participation by interrogating
how online learning spaces are shaping student-teacher and student-student interactions. In chapter 6,
Uzuner Smith and Mehta explore the pivotal role of meaningful dialogue to sociocultural perspectives in
fully online courses. The authors not only found evidence of educationally valuable talk in the threaded
Language Learning & Technology
62
Emily A. Hellmich
Review of Online Teaching and Learning
discussions analyzed, but they also calculated that in all three modules, over 80% of the coded talk was
educationally valuable. While practitioners would benefit from the model they provide for purposes of
integrating and cultivating quality talk into online discussions, the study also provides support for the
importance of quality dialogue in meaningful learning.
Shifting from a focus on students, Dooly investigates what it means for pre-service foreign language
teachers to interact in an international telecollaboration. By tracking and analyzing one trainee teacher's
online activity over the course of the program, Dooly documents how interactions with peers lead the
teacher to develop what had been, at the beginning, vague and superficial understandings of central topics
into what later became co-constructed and deeply-rooted conceptualizations of the collaboration project.
Dooly suggests that this analysis foregrounds the need to reconceptualize how we think about community,
communities of practice, and the integration of technology into teacher training programs in a globalized,
interconnected era.
Anthony looks at how humor, what she views as an advantageous component of face-to-face language
instruction and participation, is represented in oral synchronous online environments. Using data archived
from online interactions among secondary and post-secondary Russian classes, as well as interviews with
Russian educators and their students, Anthony found that humor played an important role in relieving
stress, presenting cultural information, engaging students, establishing and maintaining social
connections, and holding student attention. She did not, however, find sufficient evidence to suggest that
humor played a role in memory aid (mnemonic role) or in focusing student attention on form (linguistic
role). Anthony's work suggest that many of the benefits of humor can be found in online spaces, but her
work also stands as a call for more research into this area.
In the last chapter in this section, Vickers compares the different affordances and participatory structures
inherent in face-to-face and asynchronous email-based writing tutorials for English language learners.
Vickers found that in the drafting process, the online asynchronous exchange allowed for more
streamlined and focused discussions of the topic at hand, whereas the face-to-face tutorial was less
focused. Conversely, the email tutorial did not allow for any monitoring of student understanding during
the editing phase, which was a valuable affordance of the constant interaction inherent in face-to-face
encounters. Vickers' nuanced study points to the importance of understanding the advantages and
disadvantages of participatory shifts that are possible via online and digital technologies.
In the final section of the volume, Part 4: Informal Online Learning, two authors explore the language
learning that can take place outside the classroom through platforms such as social networks. In Chapter
10, Gonzalez explores the potential of L2 socialization in the social network site of Livemocha and
focuses specifically on rapport management. Through conversation analysis, Gonzalez tracks the online
interactions of one student, Vincent, who was particularly successful at building and maintaining
relationships in Livemocha, and she found that he relied on laughter, humor, emoticons, and small talk to
develop and maintain rapport. Gonzalez outlines some possible ways for classroom teachers to use
Livemocha to target pragmatics, but leaves the question open as to whether other types of informal online
learning should be harnessed for classroom use.
Lamy concludes the section and the book by suggesting that this last question—of how and whether to
harness online informal learning opportunities in the traditional classroom—may not be the right one to
ask. In a mixed-methods study of beginner Chinese language learners in the Open University, Lamy
examines the use of social networking features—re-use, openness, network effects, and link display—in
four spaces; two of these spaces are within the Open University: one centered around a general "café-like"
environment, and one focused on discussions of culture. The other two spaces are on Facebook: one
public group and one private group. Her analysis suggests that institutional attempts to integrate social
network features are highly influenced by their framing and by the institutional culture. Lamy suggests
that a more productive question to guide future research may be how students' past learning sets the stage
Language Learning & Technology
63
Emily A. Hellmich
Review of Online Teaching and Learning
for their use of the different features present in social networking sites, whether such sites are used in
informal or formal settings.
While the volume would have benefited from transitional introductions to each section as a way to tie the
book together and to make salient for readers the links to overarching themes and questions, it does an
overall good job of revealing interesting insights into understanding language learning and research in
online spaces, and it identifies new and fruitful questions and areas of research. Rather than being the
definitive volume on sociocultural orientations to online language learning and teaching, this volume
provides an important and necessary foray into the application of such an orientation to online spaces that
will likely inspire additional work and practice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Emily A. Hellmich is a third-year doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, in the
Language, Literacy, and Culture program. Her work focuses on how technology is instantiated into
second and foreign language classrooms and what impact this integration has on student and teacher
perceptions of language and language use.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Felix, U. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCall, (14)1,
2–15.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of
selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–178). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Language Learning & Technology
64
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/review2.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 65–69
REVIEW OF HANDBOOK OF AUTOMATED ESSAY EVALUATION:
CURRENT APPLICATIONS AND NEW DIRECTIONS
Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation: Current
Applications and New Directions
Mark D. Shermis & Jill Burstein (Eds.)
2013
ISBN: 978-1-84872-995-7 (hard cover)
ISBN: 978-0-415-81096-8 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-203-12276-1 (e-book)
US $295 (hard cover)
US $115 (paperback)
US $109.85 (e-book)
362 pp.
Routledge
New York
Review by Li Zhang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Since Ellis Page (1966) published his landmark article, “The Imminence of Grading Essays by
Computer,” the issue of using computers to grade writing and provide feedback has been a great concern
for researchers in language testing and writing instruction. Research has been done for the creation and
development of systems for automated essay evaluation (AEE), or automated essay scoring (AES), what
has been called the process of evaluation and scoring written prose via computer programs (Shermis &
Burstein, 2003). The Handbook of automated essay evaluation edited by Mark D. Shermis and Jill
Burstein collects the most recent articles about research on AEE and provides comprehensive
perspectives for addressing the following issues: AEE and writing instruction, applications of different
AEE engines, validity and reliability of AEE, and discussions of aspects reflecting writing constructs in
AEE. This handbook, therefore, is beneficial for both researchers and writing instructors who are
interested in investigating how AEE can be better applied in essay assessment and writing instruction.
In the introductory chapter, Shermis, Burstein and Bursky firstly state the major concerns about AEE,
namely that computers cannot evaluate essays as well as humans can. Thus they suggest a
multidisciplinary approach that involves cognitive psychology and psychometric evaluations. After
reviewing the early history of the application of AEE, they generalize the technology that facilities the use
of AEE, such as word processing, the Internet and natural language processing (NLP), and briefly
describe the evolution of commercial AEE. Finally, the authors present guidelines for how the following
chapters are organized.
The next two chapters deal with AEE and the teaching of writing. Following a literature review of
research on teaching and assessing writing, Elliot and Klobucar, in Chapter 2, examine models of writing
constructs and report case studies conducted over a three-year period at a science and technology
university. Based on previous research as well as on their own work, they conclude the chapter by
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
65
Li Zhang
Review of Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation
pointing to directions for future developments in writing assessment.
Chapter 3 treats AEE and writing instruction for non-native speakers. Weigle starts with a review of the
context for assessing non-native writing and following the examination of the construct of writing
intended for learners of different writing proficiencies, she briefly discusses the two major functions of
AEE—scoring and feedback—and gives suggestions on how to implement AEE effectively in different
contexts, such as giving teachers training and support, helping students interpret feedback, and presenting
the tools carefully. She states firmly in the conclusion that failures in the implementation of educational
technology do not result from problems of technology but rather from resistance from teachers and thus
urges teachers to be part of the “steamroller” (p. 51) for the use of AEE.
Chapters 4 through 9 offer a number of articles addressing features and functions of various AEE
systems. Burstein, Tetreault and Madnani, in Chapter 4, examine how the application of e-rater fits into
problem spaces in curriculum and assessment development. They begin with an introduction of features
of e-rater and their relevance to writing construct. Then, they explain how NLP methods are employed to
identify construct-relevant linguistic properties in text, which include the statistical and rule-based
methods. Next, they describe the kinds of e-rater features that use an NLP approach. They finally
highlight the importance of relating e-rater development to language requirements specified in the
Common Core State Standard Initiative in the United States.
Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA) is introduced by Foltz, Streeter, Lochbaum and Landauer in Chapter 5.
They describe the applications of IEA as an automatic way of assessing the content on the basis of Latent
Semantic Analysis. The authors explain how IEA’s scoring features are combined to score writing, and
they evaluate the performance of the IEA model by comparing how IEA’s predicted scores match human
scoring. They suggest the computation of IEA’s reliability by measuring correlation, kappa, weighted
kappa, and exact and adjacent agreement, and demonstrate through examples how IEA performs in
evaluating the overall quality of an essay, the individual traits of writing, and the content features in short
responses. They conclude that IEA provides a means to incorporate accurate scoring.
In Chapter 6, Schultz introduces the theoretical and conceptual bases for IntelliMetric modeling by
examining its text features and key principles. He describes the specific process that IntelliMetric
undergoes for scoring essays and displays an example of the application in scoring Chinese essays. He
concludes that IntelliMetric is accurate in scoring but that the quality of the training set is of utmost
importance.
In Chapter 7, Rich, Schneider and D’Brot start with a description of challenges related to a large-scale
AEE implementation in West Virginia. They describe how American schools in West Virginia apply AEE
technology in summative and formative assessment contexts and explain the engine on which both
assessments are based. They continue by analyzing the model of assessment that the West Virginia
Education Standard Test is built upon and report three studies on the effect of AEE, in all of which
Writing RoadmapTM is employed to examine students’ writing performance, with inference that AEE
technology could have a positive impact on student writing. They close the chapter by focusing on teacher
professional development and future AEE application.
Chapter 8 presents a software tool that enables non-expert learners to use technology to assess texts
related to their domains and tasks. Mayfield and Rose begin with an orientation to machine learning and
continue with an explanation of models resulting from it. Then they introduce the work-flow of
LightSIDE and illustrate how it can be generalized to different tasks in order to help non-expert users
achieve a balance between representation complexity and generality. Finally, they report on three studies
that focus on essay assessment and the application of machine learning and conclude by discussing the
advantages of using machine learning technology, the most important of which is that it enables
LightSIDE to adjust to new problems so that the users are not restricted by the basic representations
Language Learning & Technology
66
Li Zhang
Review of Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation
available on the interface.
Brew and Leacock investigate the use of automated short answer scoring in Chapter 9. They introduce the
c-rater engine by explaining how the items are developed, how the model is built, and how the scores are
generated. This is followed by a description and explanation of the methods for measuring and assessing
the effectiveness of automated scoring. They list some problems of using automated scoring for short
answers and suggest solutions to the problems. In the conclusion, they show evidence that automated
scoring can benefit short answers, but rather than just giving a single score, it is essential that the
programs offer useful and informative feedback.
The next five chapters are concerned with warrants and justifications of AEE. In chapter 10, Williamson
provides a framework for validity argumentation of AES. He introduces the validity theory and Toulmin’s
reasoning as basis for evaluating the strength of validity argument. He then elaborates the elements for
argument to explain how Toulmin’s model can be applied to human scoring of essays, which in turn
provides a contrast for the use of this model for AES. He then considers the similarities and distinctions
of human scoring and AES in construct, consistency, and interrelatedness. The chapter closes with
implications of the use of AES and directions for improving its technology.
Chapter 11 is concerned with the development of a plan to support the use of AES. Attali starts with the
analysis of the validity of features extracted from texts to measure the quality of an essay. Then he turns
to the issue of how to combine features to determine the essay score. After that, he discusses the
reliability of machine scores by examining the precision of machine scoring across prompts and the
coefficients between human and machine scoring. He concludes with suggestions for combining human
and machine scores and for how to measure the effects of using AES on student writing.
Chapter 12 is an overview of the methods used in scaling and norming for AES. Koskey and Shermis
compare holistic and analytic rubrics and explain the scales for rating the quality of writing samples and
then review the methods for forming scales in AEE, including the common standard-setting methods and
differential item functioning methods. Throughout this chapter, they raise concerns for validity issues and
recommend future efforts to make meaningful scores, both in general and in AES in particular.
In Chapter 13, Bridgeman starts with a summary of the procedures for monitoring and evaluating the
quality of human scoring. He explores factors that lead to problematic human scoring and ways to
minimize their impact. He also discusses the gold standard for the development and evaluation of
machine scoring engines by focusing on how much AEE can imitate human scoring. He concludes that
the relationship between human scoring and AES remains a key consideration in the future.
In Chapter 14, Lottridge, Schulz and Mitzel firstly review the literature of problems of human scoring for
the purpose of presenting AES as an approach for monitoring human scoring. They then introduce an
automated scoring engine named CRASE and report three studies on the identification of human rater
bias, the establishment of a criterion for identifying it, and the prevention of the bias through the use of
CHASE. They conclude that AES is a significant method for the monitoring of human rater performance.
Chapters 15 to 18 include a number of articles that deal with the analysis of relevant aspects that reflect
writing constructs. Chapter 15 is concerned with grammatical error detection in AES and Gamon,
Chodorow, Leacock and Tetreault explain the meaning of grammatical error by comparing error
categories. Then, they contrast the grammar-based and statistically-based techniques in grammatical error
detection. They also give an overview of evaluation issues that include metrics, data, and methods. They
finally discuss the practice of four different AES engines (CRASETM, CTB’s AEE, PEG, and e-rater and
Criterions systems) and analyze how grammatical feedback affects student writing.
Chapter 16 begins with a discussion of factors that determine the coherence quality of texts. Burstein,
Tetreault, Chodorow, Blanchard and Andreyev investigate how to characterize discourse coherence and
how linguistic features can be modeled to build an essay evaluating system. In concluding, they
Language Learning & Technology
67
Li Zhang
Review of Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation
emphasize the importance of including discourse coherence quality ratings in automated scoring and
offering explicit feedback about discourse coherence quality in essay evaluation systems.
Another perspective for essay evaluation, sentiment analysis for evaluating argumentation, is addressed in
Chapter 17. Burstein, Beigman-Klebranov, Madnani and Faulkner give an overview of related literature
on lexicon building. After describing the process of how to create a family of subjectivity lexicons, the
authors develop and evaluate an automated sentiment analysis system for identifying the polarity of
opinions and the intensity of polarity in students’ essays. Their conclusion projects that the system will
not only help identify sentiment and polarity in summarization tasks, but will also be applied to different
essay modes such as product and movie reviews, and political and newspaper essays.
While most AES frameworks are modeled on the basis of human scoring, in Chapter 18 Deane explores a
different approach by introducing a general cognitive framework. He gives an overview of a cognitively
based assessment framework and suggests several of its implications for AES, primarily in relation to the
selection of features in AES applications and the creation of a criterion involving multiple sources of
information. He concludes that the cognitive framework provides a possibility to cover a more
comprehensive portion of the writing construct and a new method to support assessment and instruction
through the use of AES engines.
Chapter 19 is about a study of the comparison of nine AEE engines. Shermis and Hamner evaluate the
performance of these engines on the basis of a set of standard measures: distributional differences,
agreement, and agreement delta. Their results show that the overall performance of AEE meets or exceeds
that of human raters, but that there is some difference in the performance of each scoring engine. The
authors conclude by advocating for a link between public competitors and commercial vendors to provide
the best product for essay assessment.
In the final chapter, Hakuta discusses the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) and its
linguistic challenges and opportunities. The author describes details of CCSSI and points out how it
influences major shifts of English Language Arts, Math, and Science in the Standards. The macro-level
shifts inherent in CCSSI are shown in Understanding Language Initiative, which emphasizes text-based
evidence for argumentation in English Language Arts, the language of reasoning for understanding
mathematical practices, and the collaboration of content-area teachers to help students with complex
subject-matter texts in science and technology. He concludes that CCSSI has generated new opportunities
for scientists and language educators to collaborate, which is a running theme throughout the volume.
The Handbook of automated essay evaluation gives a comprehensive illustration of major concerns in the
field of AEE. It introduces the theories on the basis of which AEE models are established, demonstrates
the practice of AEE applications by both first and second language learners, explains the features and
functions of various AEE systems, examines the writing constructs that underlie AEE systems, analyzes
the reliability and validity of AEE engines, and predicts the direction for future development of AEE.
What is commendable in this book is that the editors help readers understand the issues better by coreferencing chapters for further exploration. Such an endeavor enables readers to have an overall grasp of
the knowledge by relating across many different perspectives. One limitation of the book is that there is
no clear division of thematic parts within the collection of articles. Classification into sections could help
readers get a clearer picture of the overarching organization of the book. I, therefore, suggest in a future
edition of the handbook that chapters be categorized into six parts: introduction, AEE and the teaching of
writing, AEE systems, AEE reliability and validity, aspects about writing constructs in AEE, and overall
issues of AEE. Despite this limitation, it is undeniable that the book will be of great benefit to those
interested in the topic and will serve as a powerful driving force in the development of AEE in the future.
Language Learning & Technology
68
Li Zhang
Review of Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Li Zhang is an associate professor in the School of Foreign Languages in Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China. Her research interests include computer-aided language learning, writing in CALL
environments, and writing and communication for academic purposes.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Page, E. B. (1966). The imminence of grading essays by computer. Phi Delta Kappan, 48, 238–243.
Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Introduction. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated
essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. xiii–xvi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waige, S. C. (2013). English as a second language writing and automated essay evaluation. In M. D.
Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new
directions (pp. 36–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
Language Learning & Technology
69
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/review3.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 70–74
REVIEW OF MULTILINGUAL CORPORA AND MULTILINGUAL CORPUS
ANALYSIS
Multilingual Corpora and Multilingual Corpus Analysis
Thomas Schmidt and Kai Wörner (Eds.)
2012
ISBN: 978-9-027-21934-3
US $113.00
407 pp.
John Benjamins
Amsterdam
Review by Nina Vyatkina, University of Kansas
Multilingual Corpora and Multilingual Corpus Analysis is an edited volume that appeared in the
Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism series published by John Benjamins. The series focuses on
linguistic aspects of multilingualism and primarily publishes studies conducted at the Research Center on
Multilingualism at the University of Hamburg, Germany, but also includes outside contributions. This
407-page-long volume edited by Schmidt and Wörner is not an exception in that it comprises 13 studies
conducted at the Center and nine studies from external projects. The book is mainly targeted at corpus
linguists interested in multilingualism and at learner corpus researchers, which explains the fairly
technical language of most studies. However, the volume may also attract attention of multilingualism
scholars who are not corpus experts but are looking for empirical data and tools for their research.
Furthermore, although several studies report on projects conducted with first language (L1) and/or second
language (L2) German corpora, the book also covers a range of other language backgrounds, which
expands its target readership.
The book starts with a brief editors’ introduction, which is followed by 22 chapters in five sections on 1)
learner and attrition corpora; 2) language contact corpora; 3) interpreting corpora; 4) comparable and
parallel corpora; and 5) corpus tools. The volume concludes with a general index and also, importantly, a
corpora index as well as a language index. Regrettably, the corpora index does not provide internet links
for accessing the corpora or relevant proprietary information making it necessary for the reader to search
the respective chapters in order to find this information.
The introduction begins with an editors’ definition of multilingual corpora that is broader than the one
commonly accepted, which mainly refers to parallel corpora with translations of the same texts into
different languages. In fact, Schmidt and Wörner’s volume includes only one chapter on parallel corpora.
The editors expand the definition of a multilingual corpus by referring to “any systematic collection of
empirical language data which enables linguists to carry out analyses about multilingual individuals,
multilingual societies or multilingual communication” (p. xi). Next, the editors state that their main focus
is on methodological issues of corpus design and analysis. Accordingly, the bulk of the volume is devoted
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
70
Nina Vyatkina
Review of Multilingual Corpora
to descriptions of available multilingual corpora, presentations of their architecture, and discussions of
issues related to corpus design, whereas examples of empirical corpus-based studies are sparse. The
editors continue their introduction with a listing of the studies included in each of the five sections. They
conclude with a statement that the classification of multilingual corpora reflected in section titles is their
own and that the 22 studies comprising the volume could have been arranged differently if other facets of
the topic “corpora and multilingualism” were brought to the foreground.
Section 1 is the largest with nine studies and is most directly relevant for language learning research given
that it focuses on corpora that comprise L2 data collected from various learner groups in diverse contexts.
Studies in sections 2, 3, and 4 may seem more peripheral to language learning research. However, some
language learning scholars and language teachers may find the corpora described in these sections useful
as a source of linguistic data collected from a variety of multilingual populations. Finally, section 5
describes corpus tools that can be used by scholars who would like to collect or analyze corpora.
Section 1. Learner and Attrition Corpora
The first four studies in this section focus on learner corpora containing data from adult learners in
instructed acquisition settings. All these corpora include L2 (or L3) German data, but some of them also
contain other L2 data or comparison L1 data. Gut’s opening chapter presents the LeaP (Learning Prosody
in a Foreign Language) corpus of spoken learner German and learner English. The LeaP corpus is unique
in that it includes spoken samples produced by both native and non-native speakers of two languages in
four different speaking styles (free speech, story retelling, and reading-out-loud a story and a list of
nonsense words) and is annotated for multiple phonetic, phonological, and prosodic features. More
specifically, all speech is graphically represented in a waveform and a spectrogram as well as transcribed
orthographically and phonetically. Furthermore, each speech segment is aligned with multiple layers of
annotation for: syllable boundaries; consonants, vowels, and pauses; and high and low pitch intervals.
Finally, all orthographic words are annotated for parts of speech and lemmas. Gut also shares some
research findings enabled by this corpus, namely phonetic correlates of L2 fluency and factors influencing
fluency. Hedeland and Schmidt report on methodological issues connected with the creation and
annotation of another spoken L2 German corpus (Hamburg Map Task Corpus, or HAMATAC) in the
second chapter. In particular, they focus on inter-annotator reliability in manual interpretive annotation
and create a detailed taxonomy of annotator disagreements. This meticulous analysis shows the
importance of reliable annotations for corpus reusability. Ott, Ziai, and Meurers, in the following chapter,
also focus on the annotation procedure and inter-annotator agreement as applied to a learner German
corpus, but this time to a written Corpus of Reading Comprehension Exercises in German (CREG). The
unique features of CREG are that it contains L2 data at various levels of proficiency, rich task and prompt
metadata, and annotations of student responses for comprehension errors based on a compositional
semantics taxonomy. The researchers propose ways of improving inter-annotator agreement and call for
collecting more task-based corpora that would be valuable for second language acquisition researchers.
The next fourth chapter, authored by Zinsmeister and Breckle, focuses on the ALeSKo corpus
(Annotiertes Lernersprachenkorpus, or Annotated Learner Language Corpus) that comprises L3 German
argumentative essays written by advanced learners (with L1 Chinese and L2 English) as well as a
comparison subcorpus of L1 German essays. The authors first present the annotation layers of ALeSKo: it
is automatically annotated for word classes and lemmatized as well as manually annotated for some
discourse phenomena such as local coherence. Next, they report on the results of a comparative study
showing that essays written by these fairly proficient learners are still lexically simpler and contain
shallower syntactic embedding than native speaker essays.
The next three chapters describe corpora comprised of L2 data produced by young learners. Ulloa, Lleó,
and Sánchez describe a collection of L2 Spanish language contact corpora, including spoken data
recorded from bilingual children living either in Germany or in Spain, L2 Spanish German children, and
monolingual Spanish children. In the next sixth chapter, Lleó adds to this collection by describing two
Language Learning & Technology
71
Nina Vyatkina
Review of Multilingual Corpora
more corpora: one collected from German and Spanish monolingual children and another produced by
German-Spanish bilingual children. These corpora are especially valuable because they are longitudinal,
spanning data collection periods from two to six years, and are transcribed and annotated for phonetic
features, with some annotated for morphosyntactic features as well. Herkenrath and Rehbein address a
bilingual Turkish-German and a monolingual Turkish corpus of spoken child language in chapter seven.
These three chapters do not report any results of empirical studies, although Herkenrath and Rehbein
attempt to present “a methodology for empirical multilingual data analysis” (p. 123). However, due to
unconventional terminology use (e.g., “Pragmatic Corpus Analysis”), the value of their chapter for L2
researchers is limited beyond some illustrative snapshots from the corpus.
The final two chapters in Section 1 focus on attrition corpora, defined in Schmidt and Wörner’s
introduction as “corpora documenting adult speakers’ use […] of a first language after a prolonged
exposure to a dominant second language” (p. xii). Czachór describes the design of a corpus of Polish data
from three groups of L1 Polish speakers: two groups living in Germany, those who had had and those
who had never had formal schooling in Poland, and the third being a group of Polish monolinguals living
in Poland. The corpus contains a variety of data (spontaneous and elicited speech production,
grammaticality judgment, assessment and self-assessment of proficiency, and ethnographic metadata) and
is balanced on group size and the amount of data collected per participant. The spoken data is stored as
both audio files and transcriptions. Finally, Kupisch, Barton, Bianchi, and Stangen provide an overview
of a corpus of audio-recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews elicited from balanced GermanFrench and German-Italian bilinguals as well as from adult L2 learners. No empirical studies are
presented in either chapter on attrition corpora, but interested researchers will find detailed specifications
of corpora as well as access information. Notably, all language corpora described in this section are freely
available for research with the data owner’s consent.
Section 2. Language Contact Corpora
This section focuses on corpora “documenting varieties of languages whose present or historical situation
is characterized by language contact” (Schmidt & Wörner, p. xii). It begins with Gabriel’s description of a
corpus of spoken Argentinian Spanish and a report on some empirical results showing transfer effects
from Italian on the speakers’ prosody. Next, Kühl presents a corpus containing spoken and written data in
Faroese, Danish, and Faroese Danish collected from multilingual speakers of the Faroese Islands. Kühl
also reports on a case study showing that language contact effects differ depending on the medium and
register (informal spoken versus formal written). In the third chapter, Benet, Cortés, and Lleó describe a
corpus of spoken Catalan annotated for auditory and acoustic phonetic features. This corpus contains data
from three different age groups (3-5, 19-23, and 32-40 years old) and from two different areas of
Barcelona, one characterized by a high degree of contact with Spanish and the other one by a low degree
of such contact. The authors also present some research findings showing that the language contact effects
were strongest in younger subjects who lived all their life in one district. The fourth chapter by Putz
focuses on German dialects of the South Tyrol spoken in the context of contact with Italian, standard
German, and Ladin. The production data is comprised of recorded and transcribed medical interactions
between dialect-speaking patients and standard-German-speaking physicians, and is manually annotated
for instances of misunderstanding occurring due to linguistic factors. The section concludes with Höder’s
chapter that discusses applications of a syntactically parsed diachronic corpus of Old Swedish to the field
of historical linguistics.
Section 3. Interpreting Corpora
This section comprises three chapters describing corpora of recordings and transcriptions of simultaneous
or consecutive interpreting. Angermeyer, Meyer, and Schmidt report on the results of a project that
involved publishing and sharing community-interpreting corpora in two different settings (doctor-patient
communications and court proceedings) and multiple combinations of languages (including English,
Language Learning & Technology
72
Nina Vyatkina
Review of Multilingual Corpora
German, Haitian Creole, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish). The authors do
not report on any empirical studies but describe challenges connected with integrating, archiving, and
annotating heterogeneous data and propose methods for dealing with these challenges. They conclude
with an appeal for sharing community- interpreting data from different projects via a common platform in
order to foster interdisciplinary exchange between researchers. House, Meyer, and Schmidt present a
smaller specialized corpus of speeches by a Brazilian expert on the topic of genetically modified seeds
and their translations into German from Portuguese by different professional interpreters. The corpus
contains audio recordings, transcriptions, and annotations for some prosodic phenomena and is freely
available. Finally, Bührig, Kliche, Meyer, and Pawlack present a brief description of a corpus of ad-hocinterpreting in German hospitals. The corpus includes recordings and transcriptions of GermanPortuguese and German-Turkish speech samples. The authors also suggest a practical application of the
described corpus for training in bilingual workplace communication.
Section 4. Comparable and Parallel Corpora
As the editors explain in their introduction, they include under this subheading corpora that contain texts
produced in similar settings but with different languages or language varieties as well as parallel corpora
in which original texts are aligned with their translations into other languages. This section begins with
the contribution by Fandrych, Meißner, and Slavcheva, who describe a corpus of spoken (monologic and
dialogic) L1 academic German, English and Polish, as well as L2 German, currently under construction.
This corpus (titled GeWiss) is balanced by genre (academic presentations and oral examinations),
sociolinguistic context (native language, second language, and foreign language), and speaker status
(academics and students). As the authors point out, this is the first corpus of spoken academic German
that can be used for contrastive investigations both with its own sub-corpora and with other academic
language corpora such as MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) or BASE (British
Academic Spoken English). The C4 corpus described in the second chapter by Dittmann, Ďurčo, Geyken,
Roth, and Zimmer does not contain L2 data but is a freely and publicly available reference corpus that
documents four standard varieties of written German (used in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and South
Tyrol in Italy). It is diachronic as it comprises language samples collected over the course of the 20th
century, balanced by decade and text type (journalism, literary texts, scientific literature, and other nonfiction). Furthermore, the corpus is annotated for word classes and is syntactically parsed as well as
equipped with integrated search and visualization tools. All these features make the C4 corpus a valuable
resource for lexicographic, sociolinguistic, and other linguistic studies as well as German language
teaching. Finally, Čulo and Hansen-Schirra describe a parallel corpus that consists of English and German
texts from eight different registers with their respective German and English translations. The corpus is
annotated for parts of speech, morphological structure, phrase structure, and syntactic dependencies,
which makes it suitable for a multitude of linguistic analyses. This chapter is primarily devoted to a
technical description of a specific method of syntactic parsing and is oriented toward syntacticians and
computational linguists.
Section 5. Corpus tools
The two chapters in this final section do not focus on specific corpora but rather “deal with software tools
which can support linguists in compiling and managing multilingual corpora in general” (Schmidt &
Wörner, p. xiii). In the first chapter, Rose describes the PhonBank tool that has been developed within the
framework of the CHILDES project. This free and open-source tool can facilitate corpus building, oral
data transcription and annotation, and phonological analyses of multilingual corpora. In his concluding
chapter, Wörner describes the EXMARaLDA corpus building and management tool, specifically focusing
on managing metadata (i.e., all data other than primary language data such as information about data
sources, data annotations, etc.). This tool is freely and publicly available and allows researchers to add
new metadata types to their databases. Notably, most of this volume’s authors have used EXMARaLDA
for designing their corpora.
Language Learning & Technology
73
Nina Vyatkina
Review of Multilingual Corpora
To summarize, Multilingual corpora and multilingual corpus analysis is primarily a manual for
researchers who wish to design multilingual corpora. It provides detailed descriptions of many corpora
that have been collected or are currently being collected in this area. Researchers can choose a model
from the many described in this book to suit their specific purposes. However, the book can also serve as
a reference book for language learning researchers who wish to use corpora for their data and corpus tools
for their analysis. All of the completed corpora described in the book are publicly available on the internet
with open access (some of them with the data owner’s permission), representing an invaluable resource
for researchers. Although many corpora presented here deal with different varieties of German as a first
or second language, many other language backgrounds are represented as well. Importantly, all spoken
corpora described in the volume (and it predominantly focuses on spoken corpora) include transcriptions
and linguistic annotations along with recorded audio data, which makes the spoken data readily available
for analysis by external researchers without the need to perform these highly time-consuming activities.
Last but not least, corpora described in this book can be used in language teaching as sources of authentic
examples or for various language analysis activities that can be designed with corpus tools (see, e.g.,
Bennett, 2010; McCarthy, 2004; O’Keeffe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007; Vyatkina, 2013).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nina Vyatkina is an Associate Professor of German Applied Linguistics and coordinator of the German
language proficiency sequence at the University of Kansas. Her research interests include longitudinal
learner language development, learner corpus analysis, language corpora in language teaching, and
interlanguage pragmatics. She is a winner of the 2009 Paul Pimsleur Award for Research in Foreign
Language Education (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages / The Modern Language
Journal).
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for
teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McCarthy, M. (2004). Using a corpus in language teaching. CALPER Professional Development
Document (CPDD-0410). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced
Language Proficiency Education and Research. Retrieved from
http://calper.la.psu.edu/publication.php?page=pdd1
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and
language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vyatkina, N. (2013). Discovery learning and teaching with electronic corpora in an advanced German
grammar course. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 46(1), 44–61.
Language Learning & Technology
74
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/review4.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 75–84
REVIEW OF OPEN ENGLISH
Program reviewed
Open English
Levels
Six
Price
1,000 USD for an initial 12-month subscription, 80 USD per month thereafter;
for company or site subscriptions, contact Open English
Windows Users:
1. Windows Vista, 7, or 8
2. Internet Explorer 9, Chrome or Firefox 4+ are recommended for the
best experience
3. Adobe Flash 10.3+
Mac Users:
1. OSX 10.4+, Linux
2. Chrome, Firefox 4+, Opera 9.6, or Safari 6+ are recommended for the
best experience
3. Adobe Flash 10.3+
Microphone and headphone
High-speed Internet connection
Open English
http://www.openenglish.com
Open English LLC
2901 Florida Avenue - Suite 840
Coconut Grove, FL, 33133
(1) FAQ
(2) Contact information
(3) Tour video
(4) Teaching support 24 hours, 7 days/week
English
Computer system
requirements
Publisher
Support offered
Target language
Review by Paula Winke, Michigan State University
INTRODUCTION
One of the best things about learning a language online is that you can learn no matter where you are.
And this is especially important for busy, fully-employed people who might travel a lot and who are
beyond that time in their lives when on-campus classes, study abroad, or face-to-face meetings with tutors
or language partners are possible and viable options. Open English, a Venezuelan/US-based company
founded in 2007 (see http://www.openenglish.com/corporate/about/) appears to know that there is real
demand for quality, online English instruction. They sell subscriptions (1,000 USD for an initial 12
months, 80 USD per month thereafter) to their online English-language learning system that caters to a
burgeoning market of individuals who want to improve their English skills in 10 to 60 minutes a day,
whether those minutes are at 5AM in Quito or 11PM in Barcelona.
Open English was designed specifically for native speakers of Spanish and Portuguese. According to
James Daley (the Vice President of Open English Product, and to whom I spoke via Skype on December
4, 2013), there are over 110,000 people learning English through its system, with 98% of the learners in
Latin America. Open English is looking to expand its market and is making necessary adjustments to do
so. For example, 2014 will see a rollout of tablet- and phone-based, mobile access, with Android and
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
75
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
Macintosh versions included. Higher levels of English language instruction are being created for the
system. There are three options for the learning platform’s base-language (for navigation purposes):
English, Spanish, or Portuguese. A user establishes this on his or her personal profile page, but Open
English may be adding to those three options soon.
As of April 2014, Open English has six levels of English-language instruction. Subscribers have access to
all of these, but only if their English is strong enough to move through all six. By default, all users start at
Level 1, but can jump to a higher level by taking an online placement test. Otherwise, to move up a level,
a learner must first complete 10 units of lessons, each comprised of about 6 lessons, which in turn, have
about 9 activities each. The idea is that a learner will complete one lesson per week, going through as
many activities a day as desired. After learners complete the work of one unit, they must pass the unit
assessment to proceed to the next level. If users pass, they are prompted to produce a writing sample
(based on an individual prompt that elicits language learned during the unit). Learners can submit this to a
live teacher, who reads the essay and provides human-generated feedback.
Because I teach online classes at Michigan State University, I was excited to review Open English. They
use an online classroom delivery platform (Blackboard Collaborate) that is similar to what I use to teach
live classes online (I use Adobe Connect for eLearning). Open English has 80 software and web
developers (who are computer science and programming experts), 600 English-language teachers who
teach the Open English content in live, on-demand, online classes, and approximately 600 English
teachers who provide writing feedback and answer questions via text. Thus, I knew Open English would
be an eye-opener. I wanted to see just what a large, successful and growing company does for the masses
in terms of online English-language instruction.
Here are some of the nuts and bolts: Learners sign up for an initial 12-month subscription for 1,000 USD,
and after that, learners can transfer to an 80-USD monthly subscription. Mr. Daley reported that about
95% of the learner base currently pays for individual subscriptions (that is, the subscriptions are in the
learners’ individual names and the fees are paid by the individuals), while about 5% of the learners are
subscribed under a company name, suggesting that some companies may be essentially contracting Open
English to improve the English-language skills of their workforce. According to Mr. Daley, revisions to
the entire online program in 2013 included a new curriculum that is based on the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) or CEFR. The program currently has
six levels of English-language instruction, which correspond, according to Mr. Daley, to the lower levels
of the CEFR.
When learners first log on, they are directed to a profile page, where they have the option to upload a
personal picture, indicate their native language (Spanish or Portuguese are the only options during the
writing of this review), select the base interface language (English, Spanish, or Portuguese), and provide
some other demographics (see Figure 1).
Language Learning & Technology
76
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
Figure 1. The top of the Open English profile page.
After entering the demographics, learners are prompted to choose their main areas of interests so that the
program can present lessons accordingly. At the bottom of the page, four “learner tools” are provided.
These appear at the bottom of every page in Open English. In the short video below (Figure 2), I show the
interest area selections and also the tools: a dictionary, a writing tool, a grammar guide, and a translator.
Figure 2. Video demonstration of the Open English profile page. Click on the image to see the demo at:
https://mediaspace.msu.edu/media/Figure2_OpenEnglishProfilePage_Winke/1_lsj04b82
Language Learning & Technology
77
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
The Main Components of Open English
There are three main pages (accessed by tabs) in Open English: Home, Progress, and Learn. The main
page students will use is the Home page: It is the portal to the weekly lessons. The Progress page presents
summary information for the student. The Learn page also has learning content, like the Home page, but
offers optional learning opportunities. I describe these three in more detail below.
Home Page
The Home page is the main lesson-navigation page for the learner. It shows the learner’s Weekly Study
Plan, which is presented through boxed interactive graphics, with each graphic representing one activity
in the lesson. (See Figure 3.) The simplicity and sleek organization of the week’s activities on the Home
page is impressive. This page is clear, shows exactly what the learner should do during the week’s
lessons, and allows the learner to choose the order in which to complete the activities. Every Weekly
Study Plan is laid out and presented in the same fashion, regardless of the topic, unit, or level, giving
learners great satisfaction in knowing what to expect.
Figure 3. Weekly Study Plan for a Level 6 English-language learner.
The first, upper-right-hand activity is always a window to entering a live class. Live classes start on the
hour, every hour, 24/7, except for on Christmas and New Year’s Day. The counter at the top of this
window is the countdown to when the next class starts. If you click to participate in the live class, you are
directed to a Blackboard Collaborate site, where the teacher and up to three classmates join in. The lesson
plan can be linked to ahead of time. It is always a PowerPoint saved as a PDF, and the teacher uses it to
direct the lesson. There are two other activity types in the Weekly Study Plan: One is entitled “Lesson,”
the other “Practice.” In Figure 3, a Level 6 Weekly Study Plan, there are four Lessons and four Practice
activities.
Language Learning & Technology
78
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
Lessons
Each Lesson contains an audio dialog (almost always between a man and a woman) read aloud by voice
actors; the audio files are created for Open English and are not authentic. This may or may not be a
limitation, depending upon one’s view on whether lower-level language-learning materials should be
from authentic sources. Various vocabulary building drills and comprehension questions go along with
each dialog. These drills and questions are interspersed among segments of the dialog and come in
various forms: multiple-choice, true/false, drag-and-drop, cloze, short (single word) answer, and wordscramble activities (in which the learner assembles a sentence from scrambled up words and phrases).
When a learner completes every drill within a Lesson, they are directed back to the Home page, and the
completed Lesson is shaded in blue to mark its completion. During Lessons, learners can request an
automatic “Hint” (i.e., ask for and receive the answers to a drill), take notes, chat via text with other
learners who are in the same drill, and text questions to a live teacher. The Lessons are what one would
expect in a massive, online learning environment. They present material that is highly structured. The
dialogs are inauthentic, but linguistically at the designated level of the language learners. The discretepoint testing works well in an online environment, and the drill system appeared to me to be almost 100%
bug free (everything worked well on my office computer). But how much learning actually takes place
due to the exercises is an empirical question. One reproach I have is that all dialogs currently are audio
recordings with an image (picture) of the imagined speakers. Work in speech processing has shown that
language learners process and learn speech better when it is accompanied by visuals (Sueyoshi &
Hardison, 2005; Wagner, 2010). For example, gestures and lip movements help listeners to parse words
and sentences and to interpret meaning. Seeing how people stand, look at each other, and interact helps
learners better comprehend the speech act. In the future, if it is feasible technologically and economically,
it would be better, I think, to have actual videos of the voice actors so that learners can see their lip
movements (which may help with parsing and pronunciation) and so that gestures and other visuals can
become part of the natural tools used for interpreting speech.
Practice
In each Practice activity, a short, captioned video is shown. Learners watch the full video and then use
voice-recording software to record their reading aloud of the caption segments in connection to the video
segments. Learners can compare their own pronunciation with the voices in the video, and have the option
to record and compare as many times as they like. In this sense, “Practice” can be viewed as a videobased listening exercise, but comprehension is not checked; rather, pronunciation, rhythm, and reading
out loud are practiced and self-assessed. After recording, the program spits out a score (as shown in
Figure 4; “Nice +13;” click on the figure image to see a demo). As far as I can tell, the score is based on
basic voice-recognition software: the better the recognition, the higher the score.
Figure 4. The voice-recording software in each “Practice” activity in the Weekly Lesson Plan. Click on
Language Learning & Technology
79
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
the image to see a demo at:
https://mediaspace.msu.edu/media/Figure4_PracticeVoiceRecordingDemo/1_ln4cvbvz
The videos themselves are highly entertaining, of a good quality, and authentic. For example, at both
Levels 1 and 6, I watched commercials, movie trailers, science reports, news segments, business tips,
travel suggestions, and even music videos. I don’t think learners could ever get bored with the videos,
which sample many varieties of English, but they may find the post-watching, “SPEAK” activity to be
repetitive, especially if they are doing this four to five times per week. The task to read out loud over and
over again reminded me of Crazy English, an English-language teaching method from China in which
learners practice (and learn) through the repetitive reading out loud (and very loud at that) of text. The
idea here is somewhat the same: that through practice, speech patterns will become automatized,
routinized, and learned. But compared to Crazy English, in Open English the reading is done more
quietly, online, in connection to video, and with recording equipment so the learner can listen and selfanalyze his or her speech. In both Crazy English and Open English, this is “output practice” in the most
stripped-down sense of the term; it is an audio-lingual approach. What is missing here is interaction (Gass
& Mackey, 2007), although that can be found in other places in this online learning program.
Progress
The Progress page maps for the learner where he or she is in the curriculum and also provides space for
the learner to take additional notes. It has links to a log of all feedback provided to the learner from any of
the online teachers. Within Lessons, if the learner takes notes, those notes are also logged here.
Learn
The Learn tab has three subtabs: (a) Live Classes, (b) Units and Lessons (which redirects to the Weekly
Study Plan Lessons), and (c) Practice. Under Live Classes, a list of all live online lessons that are being
offered in the next 24 hours and over the next seven days are presented. From this page, learners can enter
live classes, as they can from their Weekly Study Plan. Every day, two online classes are offered, one
called the “Classic” lesson, and one called the “Casual” lesson. According to Elaine Wheatley, Vice
President of Live Instruction at Open English (personal email communication, April 11, 2014), the
Classic lessons focus more on vocabulary and grammar building, while the Casual lessons focus on
conversation practice. I took one of the Classic lessons on the topic of tea and coffee, and it appeared to
me to target a lower level of English (perhaps, by my estimation, this class was at the A1 or A2 level).
The Casual classes appeared to me to target an upper level of English (perhaps at the B1 or B2 level). But
Ms. Wheatley explained in her e-mail that “each format is offered in various levels to accommodate
students based on the level in which they have placed.” Open English is planning to add a third level or
type of classes, and placeholder (or thumbnail) spaces already demarcate where those will reside on the
page.
What is nice about this page is that learners can go here to participate in classes that may be particularly
challenging for them. Because the topics and class PowerPoints are provided, learners can decide for
themselves if they want to or are ready to take an online class, and if they want, they can be a lurker in a
class—that is, attend but not participate. Ms. Wheatley explained in her April 11 e-mail that when
students enter a class, they enter with students at the same level of English proficiency and are matched to
a teacher who speaks their shared L1 (if the L1 is Spanish or Portuguese). I believe students in a given
class are approximately at the same level of proficiency, but I also think the proficiency range is good:
one can be positively challenged when in a class with slightly higher-level speakers, or one could sit back
and focus on a certain skill, such as pronunciation, if the others in the class are slightly below one’s
proficiency level. The other feature of note under Learn is the Practice tab. Here, new news stories are
presented daily. Mr. Daley explained to me that Open English materials designers, who often double as
instructors, find current news stories or texts (personal communication, December 4, 2013). They then
modify them, reducing the difficulty level of the language, to match the abilities of the varying levels of
Language Learning & Technology
80
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
the language learners. With the tech staff, they gloss vocabulary in the text and append to each text a
number of comprehension questions (multiple-choice or true/false). Students see the level of text and
questions that match their proficiency level. To give an idea of the type of news stories that are presented,
on March 20, 2014, the Level 6 headlines were these: “New World Cup Anthem,” “People through Paint
for Holi,” and “Lifestyle: Tribal Fusion Dance.” While a variety of current events are presented,
disturbing or stressful topics in the news are not. The materials designers appear to only select news that
is light and entertaining, for better or worse. (See Figure 5)
Figure 5. A news segment from the Practice section under the Learn tab.
Language Learning & Technology
81
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
Open English’s Live, Online Classes
As explained above, learners can join any live, online class, and these classes start on the hour, every
hour. I joined a Level 1 class on learning how to talk about tea and coffee. I was pleasantly surprised at
how good the teacher was. She was a native speaker of English, but was also extremely fluent in Spanish.
She greeted me and the other three students, asked us about ourselves, and told us a bit about herself. She
then started the lesson, going through the content outlined on the PowerPoint slides (available for learners
to download ahead of time). She wrote notes on the PowerPoint slides in reference to our comments,
questions, and errors. She also had pop-up pictures and pronunciation tips to help us with what must be
commonly-produced errors by speakers of Spanish and Portuguese. (See Figure 6, in which I blocked out
the identifiers of the teacher and the other students.) The teacher elicited speech from the learners, often
asking us to read out loud parts of the directions and sentences on the slides and corrected our
pronunciation. She had us practice dialogs with her and amongst ourselves, and were allowed to diverge
from scripts and speak freely. She asked us questions about what we liked to serve guests and whether we
preferred tea or coffee and why. We could ask any questions directly or type them into the chat box. To
my surprise, the teacher turned to Spanish to explain difficult concepts or to ask questions of students
who appeared to be true novices in English. Whether this practice is widely shared amongst teachers in
Open English is a question I had, but in correspondence with Ms. Elaine Wheatley, the Vice President of
Live Instruction for Open English (personal email communication, April 11, 2014), I found out the
following:
[In the live classes,] students are paired with a teacher who has proven language skills in the
students’ native language… so that they [the teachers] can help explain complex directions in the
native language if needed. Our teachers focus on English-only in the classroom, however, if they
see that a student needs further direction, they are able to explain in the students’ native language.
We currently have teachers designated for Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking students.
It has been debated in the SLA literature as to whether a classroom in which there is a shared first
language (L1) should strictly and blindly remain in the target language at all times (Campa & Nassaji,
2009). The argument is that using the shared L1 can help reduce the learners’ cognitive load when
teachers are explaining complex grammar in class (Scott & De La Fuente, 2008). The teacher of the
online class I was in certainly used Spanish to help clarify grammar and to convey the pronunciation tips
she was providing. She said, for example, the following in Spanish to describe how one pronounces an
English “r” (as in “drink”). At the same time she put on the web a graphic (seen in Figure 6) of a hand
curved back, which represented the curved-back tongue:
I want you to look at this, aquí está. Yeah. This is your tongue. Su lengua. Okay? Eso es su
lengua. Okay, [name]? Su lengua está- es plana, plana, plana la lengua cuando dice eh o ah.
Okay? Eh o aah. Eh. Lengua plana. Okay ahorita los dos. Todos digan eh, aah. Para decir la r,
curvamos la puntita de la lengua para adentro. No tocamos los dientes. Eer. Aar. [Name] please
repeat eh, aah; eer, aar.
To translate loosely, the teacher was instructing the students to “Curve your tongue back when you say
r!” Conveying that comprehensibly in English to low-level English speakers would prove to be incredibly
difficult if not impossible, especially in an online environment; we did not have a live video feed of this
teacher. The challenge will be with Open English’s expansion. If more speakers of Chinese, for example,
begin to take their classes, the explanations in Spanish will have to fall by the wayside.
Language Learning & Technology
82
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
Figure 6. A screen-shot of a live, online, Open English class at Level 1.
CONCLUSION
Open English is a good, affordable way for Spanish and Portuguese speakers to learn or maintain their
English-language skills. The platform for learning is robust, stable, and founded on good principles in
online foreign language teaching and learning. The teachers are excellent, and the content of the lessons
are well crafted and expertly delivered. My two main quibbles are these: first, scripted audio files are
overused. To make the conversations a bit more authentic, it would better to have videos of speakers.
Likewise, it would be good to have video feeds of the teachers in the online classes. Listening is, after all,
almost never in a visual void, unless one is listening to the radio or talking on the telephone. The
scaffolding support offered by visuals could be better represented in Open English. Second, after a unit
lesson, learners can optionally submit a writing sample, and they do get feedback on that writing sample
from a live teacher. But receiving feedback and not using it (to revise) may be no better than not getting
any feedback at all (Hartshorn, Evans, Merrill, Sudweeks, Strong-Krause, & Anderson, 2010; Sachs &
Polio, 2007). Perhaps in subsequent versions of Open English, the learners will be able to revise and
resubmit their writing for another round of feedback. Such an option may necessitate an increased
subscriber fee because human labor is likely one of the major costs of running the program. But, it might
be worth it in the long run.
In sum, I highly recommend Open English for speakers of Spanish and Portuguese who want to learn
English online. It is a cost-effective and well-designed program. Open English may also be a good option
for businesses that want to offer English-language classes (i.e., workplace English classes) to their
employees, especially when the workers are native speakers of Spanish. In Open English, such learners
will benefit from support through the program’s Spanish-language interface and through the teachers’
Spanish-language scaffolding in class. But for speakers of other native languages (i.e., Chinese, German,
Russian), I would proceed with caution, as the current teachers and the interface are still slanted toward
instructing native speakers of Spanish and Portuguese. But with time, I think we will see Open English
open up even more.
Language Learning & Technology
83
Paula Winke
Review of Open English
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Paula Winke is an Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Languages at Michigan State
University, where she is also the director of the online Masters of Arts in Foreign Language Teaching
Program. She teaches language teaching methods and language assessment in both face-to-face and online
formats. She is the 2012 recipient of the TESOL International Award for Distinguished Research. Her
research centers on foreign and second language assessment, but she also investigates task-based
language teaching methods and foreign and second language materials design.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Campa, J. C. d. l., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms.
Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742–759. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01052.x
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J.
(2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–
109. doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.213781
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision
task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. doi: 10.10170S0272263107070039
Scott, V. M., & De La Fuente, M. J. (2008). What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during
consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100–113. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening
comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661–699. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00320.x
Wagner, E. (2010). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test-taker performance.
Language Testing, 27(2), 493–513. doi: 10.1177/0265532209355668
Language Learning & Technology
84
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/chik.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 85–100
DIGITAL GAMING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING:
AUTONOMY AND COMMUNITY
Alice Chik, City University of Hong Kong
The relationship between digital game play and second language (L2) learning is a
particularly tricky issue in East Asia. Though there is an emerging presence of Chinese
online games, many more young people are playing the English- or Japanese-language
versions of the most popular commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) video games. In other
words, most Chinese gamers are playing L2 digital games in their leisure time. Informed
by research on out-of-class L2 learning, this paper discusses findings from an exploratory
study investigating L2 gaming and learning practices in young people’s everyday lives.
Drawing on rich data from gaming sessions, stimulated recall, focus group discussion,
individual interviews and online discussion forums, this paper argues that gamers exercise
autonomy by managing their gameplay both as leisure and learning practices in different
dimensions (location, formality, locus of control, pedagogy and trajectory). At the same
time, gameplay-as-learning practices are supported by wider communities of digital
gamers who take on roles as language teachers and advisers. The paper suggests that
activities in these dimensions mediated learning autonomously and from community, and
discusses the research and pedagogical implications for L2 gaming and learning.
Keywords: Learner Autonomy, Second Language Acquisition, Computer-Assisted
Language Learning
APA Citation: Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and
community. Language Learning & Technology 18(2), 85–100. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/chik.pdf
Received: March 4, 2013; Accepted: February 17, 2014; Published: June, 1, 2014
Copyright: © Alice Chik
INTRODUCTION
Many of the most popular commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games played in China, Hong Kong and
Taiwan are developed and published by Japanese and American game developers. COTS games are
“designed purely for fun and entertainment rather than for learning” (Whitton, 2010, p. 199). These
games are first released in Japanese or English language versions, and bilingual Chinese versions are
often released at a much later date, if at all. In these regions, English is taught as a compulsory subject in
schools, while Japanese is popular as a language for informal learning, but not widely taught in schools.
Chinese-speaking East Asia, then, presents an interesting context to study digital gaming and second
language (L2) learning because gamers frequently use an L2 to play digital games outside the classroom.
While gamers are playing L2 games, many are also using L2 gameplay for L2 learning. Some are playing
and learning autonomously, while some are seeking support from communities (Chik, 2012). This paper
seeks to understand the ways gamers practice autonomy within community by managing their gameplay
both as leisure and as learning practices in different dimensions (location, formality, locus of control,
formality, and trajectory).
LITERATURE REVIEW
L2 Learning Through Digital Gaming
Interest in learning through digital games has intensified in recent years, and researchers and teachers
have been keen to harness the pedagogical benefits in classroom contexts. Recent research highlights the
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
85
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
diverse L2 learning affordances and opportunities available in COTS and massively multiplayer online
role-playing games (MMORPGs) (Cornillie, Thorne, & Desmet, 2012; Reinders, 2012). In exploring the
pedagogical potentials and benefits of gaming in education, Reinhardt and Sykes (2012) distinguish
‘game-enhanced’ or ‘game-based’ learning and pedagogy from educational or COTS games for learning
or pedagogy. Their framework provides four perspectives on research into the relationships between L2
gaming, learning, and teaching: game-enhanced, game-based, L2 learning focus, and L2 pedagogy focus.
Among these four perspectives, there is a need for more research on game-enhanced L2 learning that
occurs “in the wild” (p. 33), which means playing COTS games to achieve L2 learning in natural settings.
Reinhardt and Sykes argue that studies in this area have focused on exploring the broad learning
potentials of L2 gaming, which could inform pedagogies. Sykes and Reinhardt (2013) further examine
possible contributions of digital gaming in light of five key areas in L2 learning (goals, interaction,
feedback, context, and motivation). By mapping L2 learning theories onto gameplay designs and
principles, the authors provide a potential blueprint for the implementation of game-mediated L2 learning
activities in classroom contexts.
However, digital gaming is not sanctioned in schools in East Asia, where it is frequently viewed as
addictive and non-educational (see for example, Gentile, Choo, Liau, Sim, Li, Fung, & Khoo, 2011). L2
digital gaming, therefore, takes place mainly in “entirely out-of-school non-institutional realms of freely
chosen digital engagement” (Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009, p. 802). There have been several studies
investigating gamers’ L2 learning in out-of-class contexts, which cover a range of autonomous and
communal learning practices. Sylvén and Sundqvist (2012) surveyed the extramural English activities
enjoyed by 86 Swedish youths (aged 11–12) and found that playing digital games was more popular than
watching TV or listening to music. Analysis of self-reported activity diaries identified three groups of
gamers: non, moderate, and frequent. The frequent gamers achieved the highest score in a vocabulary test,
followed by the moderate and then the non-gamers. Sylvén and Sundqvist suggest that there is a positive
correlation between L2 gaming and incidental and informal L2 learning, and the reading of in-game texts
could be a key learning facilitator. Studies of Hong Kong Chinese gamers found that they self-directed L2
learning through out-of-school L2 gaming primarily for pleasure (Benson & Chik, 2011; Chik, 2011;
2012). These gamers viewed gameplay enhancement as the primary driving force behind L2 learning and
utilized online communities for support. In the process, many L2 gamers developed autonomy in out-ofclass L2 learning through L2 gaming, and in return, some also contributed game walkthroughs, or strategy
guides, to gaming communities.
Thorne (2008) used the World of Warcraft (WoW) in-game chat between an American and a Ukrainian
university students during collaborative gameplay to illustrate L2 learning episodes that occurred
naturally during gaming. Thorne argued that in task-based role-playing games, L2 use is often required
for social action in gameplay in multilingual online game worlds. The analysis showed the two gamers
came to a linguistic middle ground first by affirming their passion for WoW, and then by taking turns
being learners and teachers for language exchanges in Russian and English. Thorne’s study illustrates
natural and autonomous learning moments of native speakers of two different languages teaching each
other in the multilingual WoW gameworld. Rama, Black, Van Es, and Warschauer (2012) argue that
immersive worlds like WoW provide and support safe learning and languaging spaces, facilitate
interactions that stress communicative competence, and provide goal-directed action between expert and
beginner players. Their qualitative study used the language learning and gaming experiences of two L2
Spanish gamers to show that the affordances available in WoW give L2 players the opportunities and
spaces to use L2 for authentic cooperative actions. The experience of one player, Emilio, shows that
gaming expertise could compensate for lack of L2 ability in cooperative gameplay. While Emilio was
lending his gaming expertise, he gained language support from the gaming community. Thus, Rama et al.
cautioned teachers to take into account learners’ gaming experience and to provide training for mechanics
of the game when planning to integrate MMORPGs into the L2 curriculum. Yet, Rama et al. have
Language Learning & Technology
86
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
concerns over the relatively unstructured L2 learning progress and the L2 forms presented in such
authentic interactions, which could be overcome by using dictionary or translation add-ons. Turning to
console-based gameplay, Piirainen-Marsh and Tainio (2009) show L2 gaming could be utilized as
learning resources in naturalistic settings and the game avatars could become the L2 ‘teachers’. Although
the two Finnish teens mainly conversed with each other in Finnish while playing Final Fantasy X, they
repeated after or used the English phrases spoken by game avatars. The authors used Conversation
Analysis to analyze gameplay sessions and found patterns of other-repetition. The two players used four
types of other-repetition, which included repeating in the next turn, repeating previously heard phrases,
re-contextualizing familiar phrases and expanding on utterances. Piirainen-Marsh and Tainio’s study
highlights the importance of learning around gaming as well as how L2 players turned game texts into
ludic learning resources through other repetition.
In addition to online gaming interaction, current research on digital gaming identified in-game text
consumption and game-related text production as providing affordances for L2 learning. Affordances for
L2 learning may also vary according to learners’ proficiency levels. A corpus analysis of the in-game
texts from WoW, shows “a high degree of lexical sophistication, lexical diversity, and syntactic
complexity” (Thorne et al., 2012: 290). Gee (2012) argues that “games associate words with images,
actions, goals and dialogue, not just with definitions or other words” (p. xiv), so that learners understand
them in context, rather than as abstract symbols. Good games engage players not only in playing the
game, but also in reading and writing about them on interest-driven websites. Game-related texts, such as
walkthroughs, video tutorials, fan fiction and fan art, have been described as “paratexts” (Apperley &
Walsh, 2012; Consalvo, 2007), or “attendant discourse” (Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013). These game-related
texts are not just practical texts for instructions and strategy training, they are also imaginative and
creative outputs developed by gamers and circulated in online gaming communities. These texts are often
highly sophisticated, with rich lexical items and syntactic structures, and of multiple genres (Thorne et al.,
2012). Through reading and producing these paratexts, gamers gain literacy experience that is likely to be
important for future academic and career development (Gee & Hayes, 2011).
Autonomy and Community in Out-of-Class Learning
Despite increasing interest in out-of-class L2 gaming research, research has yet to show how gamers
actively organize their L2 gaming and learning practices over time. This organization is related to learner
autonomy, which, in its simplest definition, is “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec,
1981, p. 3). Little (1991) argues that, “[t]he capacity for autonomy will be displayed both in the way the
learner learns and in the way he or she transfers what has been learned to wider contexts” (p. 4). This
wider application suggests that learner autonomy is not limited to the classroom. Macaro (2008) theorizes
that when learners can fulfil their communicative goals through a specific variety of English (e.g. codeswitching), they are more likely to take explicit and specific action to control their learning. Adopting a
sociocultural perspective, Ushioda (2007) suggests that the keys to developing autonomy are motivation
and “a social environment that supports learners’ sense of autonomy and intrinsic motivation to purse
optimal challenges through the zone of proximal development” (p. 15). In a study on Japanese university
students, Murray and Fujishima (2013) concur that the community and the affordances available within
the physical learning spaces provided the necessary environment for learners to act and interact to
cultivate autonomy. The authors defined a learning community as “consist[ing] of individuals who come
together to accomplish a specific end or goal” (p. 70). When applied to digital gaming and L2 learning,
the concept of autonomy and community is important in two aspects. First, gamers frequently make
independent decisions on gaming choices; and second, using game-external websites and other communal
resources is integral to the overall gaming experiences (Thorne et al., 2012). When digital gaming is a
community-based activity, the autonomous learning involved will inevitably be community-based as well.
One challenge in exploring learning in out-of-class settings is the web of connected, unconnected and
interconnected activities that learners usually engage in, and the aforementioned studies contributed in the
Language Learning & Technology
87
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Alice Chik
area of ethnographical recording of activities which theorize a particular construct to evaluate the engaged
activities. So far, the only framework that has attempted to theorize out-of-class L2 learning was proposed
by Benson (2011). His framework analyzes the “settings” for out-of-class L2 learning and the “modes of
practice” they support. Setting is conceptualized as the space, relationships and arrangement for learning
while a mode of practice is “a set of routine pedagogical processes that deploy features of a particular
setting and may be characteristic of it” (p. 14). To understand the setting and the modes of practice will
depend on the clarification of the following four dimensions:
1. Location
The place in which a learning activity takes place, which can refer to both physical
and virtual environments
2. Formality
Concerned with whether or not a learning activity is part of an institutional
programme possibly leading to qualifications. Informal learning usually involves
pursuit of interests outside institutionalized learning environments (Livingstone, 2006)
3. Pedagogy
The degree to which instruction, structured progression of material, explicit
explanation, and assessment are involved; and
4. Locus of
control
Hinges on whether a learning activity is self- or other-directed, or how the decisions
about learning and teaching are distributed.
This framework is derived from the analysis of terms used frequently, and sometimes interchangeably, in
research on language learning autonomy: out-of-class/school (location), informal learning (formality),
non-instructed (pedagogy), and self-directed (locus of control). Benson and Chik (2011) applied the
framework to evaluate L2 gaming, and argued that L2 gaming can be viewed as “naturalistic computerassisted language learning”: “computer-based activities that are carried out on the student’s initiative,
outside school, and mainly for the purpose of pursuing some interest through a foreign language, rather
than for the direct purpose of learning the language” (p.5). Their findings suggest that Benson’s (2011)
model can provide an entry point to a better understanding of the relationship between L2 gaming and L2
learning.
The growing body of research on L2 gaming suggests that digital gaming is not necessarily an individual
activity: it is also a community- or team-based activity that involves gaming partners, either in physical
proximity or in virtual gameworlds. Furthermore, gamers are actively participating in online communities
to consume or produce game-related paratexts. By applying Benson’s framework in consideration of the
exercise of autonomy in community on gamers’ self-organization and management of their own L2
learning practices, this paper seeks to add to research on game-enhanced learning and offer implications
for future studies.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Data Collection
This study set out to understand how gamers practice autonomous learning within communities by
mapping the findings from a 12-month exploratory study on L2 gaming in East Asian contexts to
Benson’s (2011) framework for investigating out-of-class L2 learning. Yin (2009) defines a case study as
“an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life
context” (p. 18) and observes that the case study method help researchers to “retain the holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (p. 4). Multiple case studies are justified when “the single
case is of interest because it belongs to a particular collection of cases”, which share a “common
characteristic or condition” (Stake, 2006, p. 4). This study used a multiple case study approach to examine
how Chinese-speaking gamers managed their digital gameplay for L2 learning, and to explore their
everyday practices of digital gaming and L2 learning. Each case study consisted of an in-depth multi-
Language Learning & Technology
88
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Alice Chik
method investigation of a young person’s out-of-class digital gaming and L2 learning practices. This
approach puts the focus on how gaming activities are situated in participants’ lives, their perspectives on
these activities, and the meanings that they attach to them.
In 2009, a participation call was sent to all Year 1 Chinese-speaking undergraduates in an Englishmedium Hong Kong university. Subsequently, 153 students responded by submitting background surveys
on gaming practices and 500-word autobiographical language learning histories (LLHs) (Oxford, 1996)
describing their L2 learning in out-of-class contexts. Among the respondents, about 50 undergraduates
who explicitly mentioned using digital games for L2 learning were interviewed in depth. Following the
interviews, 10 gamers from seven academic disciplines (M = 6, F = 4) were selected to participate in the
one-year project (Table 1). These participants were selected primarily because they were able to articulate
the ways they organized their gaming practices, both for entertainment and learning and because gaming
was still part of their regular routines. The 10 participants came from China, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.
All spoke either Cantonese or Mandarin as their first language, and learned English as an L2. Among the
gamers, eight regularly played English-language games and two preferred Japanese-language games. The
participants wrote extended LLHs on the roles of digital gaming in their L2 learning, joined a focus group
discussion, blogged, recorded live gaming sessions, and participated in stimulated recall sessions.
In addition, the 10 participants took on the role of participant-researchers to interview five gamer friends
to explore wider gaming practices in context. They then compiled a list of game-external Chineselanguage websites and forums1 that they or their gamer friends used for game information and gameplay
strategies (2004–2012). These websites and forums were hosted in Mainland China, Hong Kong and
Taiwan, and their users frequently contributed in Chinese (which include Cantonese, Simplified and
Traditional Chinese characters, Chinese code-mixed with Cantonese, English, or Taiwanese Hokkien2).
Though the servers are located in different regions, they appear to serve wider virtual communities of
Chinese gamers. The archived collections of discussion threads on these websites served as ‘funds of
knowledge’ (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) in the context of digital gaming. From these online
discussion forums, threads and texts relevant to L2 learning were selected for further analysis.
Table 1. Background Information for the 10 Gamer-Participants
Gamer*
Discipline/
Major
Gaming preferences
Gaming consoles**
Tracy
English
English online role-playing games
PC and PS2
Jana
English
Japanese games
NDS
Mabel
English
English role-playing games
NDS, PS3, PSP
Michael
English
English real-time strategy
PC
Sam
Surveying
English sports games
PC
Edmond
Electronic
Engineering
English sports and real-time strategy games
PC
Carrie
Computer
Science
Japanese action-adventure and role-playing
games
PC and arcade centres
Kenneth
Psychology
English action-adventure games
NDS
Raymond
Business
English first-person shooter games
PC
Tom
Creative
Media
English first-person shooter and action-adventure
games
PC
Notes: *Names are pseudonyms chosen by participants. **Gaming consoles: Personal Computer (PC), PlayStation®2 (PS2),
PlayStation®3 (PS3), PlayStation®Portable (PSP), and Nintendo DS (NDS)
Language Learning & Technology
89
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Data Analysis Procedures
The data collected from the project included language learning histories, interviews, blog entries,
recorded gameplay sessions, stimulated recall sessions, and threads from gaming forums. First, the
spoken and written data collected were analysed using open coding (drawn from Grounded Theory, e.g.
Charmaz, 2006; Saldaña, 2009) to generate themes identifying commonalities and differences in gaming
practices among the participants. These themes included ‘taught by siblings’, ‘searching for L1
walkthroughs’, ‘reading/memorizing translated jargon lists’, and ‘gaming on overseas servers’. Second,
online discussion threads extracted by participants were discussed with the researcher, and were then
grouped under themes generated from the previous stage of analysis. The themes and related excerpts
were then mapped onto Benson’s (2011) four dimensions of out-of-class learning to provide a picture of
the contributions of L2 gaming to L2 learning. In the process, an additional dimension, ‘trajectory’, was
identified to reflect gaming practice management over time and how learning is situated in a person’s past
and future career. Trajectory uses the concept of a ‘career’ to refer to a perceived development and longtime engagement in digital gaming. It is assumed and understood that gamers seldom view playing games
as a one-off activity. Instead, gamers tend to play games over a span of several or more years of their
lives. Gamers play different games and have different gaming practices that fit into their personal or
social worlds at different stages in life (Götzenbrucker & Köhl, 2009; Quandt, Grueninger, & Wimmer,
2009). Gaming may then be comparable to a career, “any social strand of any person’s course through
life” (Goffman, 1968, p. 119). At both stages of analysis, it became clear that both the project participants
and online discussants constantly referred to how they organized their gaming on their own, and at the
same time, depended on online communities for resources and support. Thus, a trajectory dimension
reflects how gamers self-organized and managed their game-enhanced L2 learning practices in
consideration of the exercise of autonomy within community.
FINDINGS
Location: Creating learning environments
Gaming location can be both physical and virtual. Physical locations for L2 gaming include private
households, game arcades, Internet cafés, university campuses, and fast food chains. The choice of
gaming location depended on the video game console – handheld (e.g. NDS and PSP), home video game
(e.g. Wii, PS3, Xbox), personal computer (PC) or smart phone – and the game. Different locations
provide affordances for different types of interactions. When gamers play offline and on their own, L2
learning is limited to interaction with in-game texts. But playing offline with friends observing on the side
can provide additional interaction, and observers may learn more vocabulary and language than the
players (deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010). In public spaces, gamers connect to overseas game servers via
WiFi, which provide additional L2 interaction possibilities. Edmond and Tom, both living in student hall,
claimed that organized gaming sessions on Saturday nights were packed with both local and international
students to battle each other or overseas guilds (focus group interview). At these gatherings, gamers
would show up with their laptops, and games were usually instantly installed. When both local and
international students were present, English became the de facto gaming language.
Virtual L2 immersive environments, locations for learning, were created by simply changing the gaming
language. Kenneth decided to play the Ace Attorney series, in order to be exposed to legal English. He
graduated from a Chinese-medium secondary school, and was disappointed to enter university as a
Psychology major when he wanted to study Law. To enrich his legal vocabulary, Kenneth made the effort
to create an immersive personal environment filled with English-language crime and court games, and TV
series. When he took Criminal Psychology, he was surprised to find that he did not have to spend as much
time “memorizing professional and technical terminologies because I already knew them from my DS
games and TV shows” (stimulated recall session).
Language Learning & Technology
90
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Some gamers opted for a proactive route to create L2 immersive gaming locations. In an extended
interview, Jing, a Beijing gamer, shared his experience of producing amateur Chinese, or Sinicized,
versions of games. When a game was released in Japanese or English, the Chinese edition, if there even
was one, would only be released at a much later date; so, many Chinese gamers resorted to developing
and using free amateur Sinicized versions. In high school, Jing joined a team of about ten gamertranslators by responding to calls on a Bulletin Board System (BBS). His task was to translate a section of
the in-game dialogues of Final Fantasy XII from English to Chinese within three days. The translation
was submitted to chief editors for proofreading. Jing found it liberating to become a game-text translator,
because “when I was invited back for the next project, I knew then my English comprehension was good
enough” (interview). Though Jing was passionate about his translating activity, Sinicized versions were
snubbed by other gamers: “I don’t know whether the people who made the add-ons had very bad English,
or they simply used electronic dictionary to do the translation, the subtitles were usually ridiculous”
(Carrie, focus group interview). And this opinion was generally shared among Hong Kong discussion
forum users: ‘only idiots use stupid Sinicized version’ (2011-04-07, 00:50, Hong Kong forum).
The excerpts here highlight the ways gamers use L2 gaming to create personal L2 learning locations by a)
gaming and interacting with other gamers in English in physical locations (e.g. the student hall); b)
playing English-language games; and c) engaging in paratext production (e.g. translating in-game texts).
The autonomous decision to create L2 learning locations is also supported by offline (e.g. other students
in the hall) and online (e.g. other gamer-translator) communities.
Formality: From Incidental to Intentional Learning
When games are played out-of-class, L2 learning is generally informal. Hulstijn (2008) argues that
explicit intention of learning and use of learning strategies are the defining features of intentional
learning. In other words, everyday practices in informal contexts can be transformed into intentional
learning activities. In the data, however, some gamer-participants suggested that pleasure in gaming was
the primary motive for L2 learning, thus rendering L2 learning as incidental, or just vocabulary ‘picked
up’ along gaming. In a focus group, Raymond offered, “I usually skip looking up new words and continue
playing the game, you can’t keep stopping to use the dictionary…that’s just insane”. Yet within the
informality of L2 gaming, gamers can bring in intentionality by opting for educational games or inserting
learning activities to COTS games. Both Sam and Michael ‘jotted down words quickly and then looked
them up later’ because new vocabulary could be essential knowledge for future game advancement. Realtime strategy gamers might find L2 learning while gaming impractical at times, but this was markedly
different for Jana and Mabel, who primarily used NDS for their gameplay. Both Jana and Mabel used
educational gameware for L2 learning: Jana was an elementary Japanese learner, and Mabel was taking
French in university. Jana was not taking any formal courses, so she used both educational games (e.g.
My Japanese Coach) and COTS games (e.g. Keroro Daisakusen and Cooking Mama) to learn. Mabel
wanted to supplement her French class with ‘fun materials’, but found it impossible to follow the French
in COTS games so she only used educational games (e.g. My French Coach and Mind Your Language:
Learn French). When she found discrepancies in pronunciation, she did not have the courage to ask her
French teacher because ‘it seems a bit silly to trust the game’ (stimulated recall interview).
When educational English learning games were compared and contrasted (2011-06-11, 22:34, Taiwanese
forum), 21 forum contributors provided different suggestions and discussed the merits of English of the
Dead, a Nintendo DS game. The game was released exclusively in Japan as a Japanese-to-English
translation game. After three hours of discussion, all participants agreed that this game was more suitable
for learning Japanese than for learning English as English was already taught in school. But not every
gamer enjoyed educational gamewares, some suggested using COTS games instead:
Do you know that there are many English phrases in role-playing games? All the dialogues in
Dragon Age are in English, and you say you can’t learn English? English lessons in school are so
Language Learning & Technology
91
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
boring. Gaming is an additional way to learn English. What’s wrong with that? (2010-08-03,
17:56, Hong Kong Forum)
The gaming career of Edmond, a Mainland Chinese student in Hong Kong, showed a shift from gamingfocused to learning-focused activity. Edmond was an outspoken young man, but he felt that his accent and
lack of conversation strategies put him at a disadvantage. When he was in China, Edmond was already an
avid gamer, and the habit didn’t change when he came to Hong Kong. He wanted to learn sports jargon in
English in order to befriend and play with international students in his hall of residence. In the previous
summer, Edmond took up his friend Jack’s advice to use sports games to learn basketball jargon and
commentary because there was no class teaching “such kind of English”. In a stimulated recall session on
his NBA 2K11 gameplay video, Edmond explained how he used sports games to enhance his “basketball
knowledge in English”. Edmond approached gametexts as he would with L2 learning materials: he did
everything his school teachers had taught him to do when learning new vocabulary and phrases. In the
hour-long video, Edmond discussed jargon explanations and definitions with Jack, his gaming partner,
paused the game, jotted down phrases, and repeated after the game commentators, “He’s going to get his
first two points tonight”. All these actions suggest a degree of intentionality, a key aspect of autonomy, in
formally using L2 gaming for L2 learning.
These examples suggest that though many L2 gamers prioritized gaming pleasure over L2 learning, some
gamers appropriated L2 gaming for learning by turning incidental learning into intentional learning.
Gamers proactively used COTS and educational gamewares to supplement their formal learning, or as the
main resources for learning. In cases with educational gamewares, the learning was more autonomous;
but communal advices were readily available for COTS games.
Pedagogy: Turn Playing into Teaching and Learning
The dimension of pedagogy concerns the structure and progression of instruction, and who gives the
instruction. In terms of instruction, gamers first mentioned their ‘teachers’ and then how they discovered
digital games as learning materials for themselves. Gamer-participants did not all learn to play games on
their own. Most started out playing with their older siblings or relatives, and then school friends:
My English learning started in 1992 when my brother introduced the world-famous Warcraft to
me…It provoked my desire to know more about orcs and medieval weaponry (Michael, LLH).
My first Japanese game was Mario Bros on my brother’s Gameboy Advance. He was the one
teaching me the meaning of those Japanese words. Together we went through many adventures
^.^ (Mabel, LLH).
Gamers frequently drew on their immediate social circle of family and friends for learning support, but
sooner or later, most gamers would seek help from online communities through discussion forums and
blogs. The findings suggest that gamers generally do not prefer educational games, but many were aware
of the pedagogical potentials of in-game texts such as game dialogues and visual cues. When a discussant
asked about using role-playing games (RPGs) for English learning (2008-04-27, 11:01, Chinese forum),
nineteen RPG games were listed half an hour later with evaluations of their language learning potentials
(e.g. ‘Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven: you can read a lot of gangster language, slang, it is quite
authentic’). When a new discussant said ‘these RPG games required good English, and I can’t play them’,
a shorter list of alternatives was posted quickly to encourage the new discussant. A request was also made
for using PSP games to learn English (2012-1-7, 19:40, Taiwanese forum), and a list of game titles was
posted immediately. In addition, another discussant suggested ‘using your PSP to watch American
dramas, playing English version games…and it is also fun to read the PSP English instruction manual, act
now!’ (2012-1-19, 18:49, Taiwanese forum). Experienced gamers were usually quite enthusiastic and
Language Learning & Technology
92
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
willing to advise novices on how to use various games for L2 learning. Furthermore, many gamers were
aware of using game consoles as learning tools for storing media learning materials.
In addition to language advising, some gamers also provided translated paratexts. The in-game dialogues
and texts in sports simulation games (such as Football Manager and NBA) are usually only available in
English (without Chinese subtitles), but unofficial Chinese translation of jargon and strategies are
regularly posted on forums and blogs. An amateur-translated English-to-Chinese list of football jargon
and gaming strategies for Football Manager 2010 was first posted on a Taiwanese gaming blog, which
was later reposted on different Chinese and Hong Kong forums and blogs. At the end of the list, the
Taiwanese blogger wrote,
I am going to say this even if you think I am nagging. I spent a lot of time and energy translating,
and I am not absolutely happy with the translation. When you have a look at the English, then you
will understand the Chinese meaning. No single translation can bring out the complete meaning
of an English term because Chinese is different from English. My advice is to play the English
edition and learn some English from the game (2009-11-17, 20:08, Taiwanese blog).
One translation that elicited a long discussion was the term ‘roaming’. The blogger originally put forward
‘walking aimlessly’ (漫走) as a possibility, and asked for confirmation. Others suggested ‘walking
around’ (走動) and ‘wandering’ (漫遊). After rounds of discussion and negotiation, everyone agreed that
‘wandering’ was a better fit. To conclude the discussion, the blogger said:
I play the English edition…But I translated all the terms to encourage players not to use the
Sinicized edition. I hope everyone will play the English edition, not the Sinicized edition (201004-06, 19:15, Taiwanese blog).
Research on L2 gaming has already shown L2 learning can arise from textual or social interaction within
the gaming environments, but instructional and advisory roles taken up by gamers have been less
frequently mentioned, if at all. Most participants first learned to play games by following oral instructions
given by members of their immediate social circles (e.g. older siblings and friends). Then they went
online to seek out written instructions available from communities with similar gaming interests (e.g.
sports games, strategy games). In gaming communities, instructions and advice included both gaming
strategies and suggestions for using L2 games for learning. In turns, these paratexts were hosted and
archived on game-external websites and forums as resources for younger or novice gamers. In other
words, gamers created community pedagogical resources, and acted as language advisers, teachers and
translators for each other. Though various resources were available, it could be argued that there was no
structured instruction for learning as gamers were moving from game to game. To a certain extent, this is
one limitation of using L2 gaming for L2 learning.
Locus of Control: Making Learning Decisions
Locus of control relates to whether learning is self- or other-directed. In L2 gaming, this implies the
learning of L2 in pursuit of an interest through L2 games. Some gamers chose L2 gaming simply because
it was an investment in themselves, as noted in the Taiwanese forum entry:
To be honest, if I had to wait for the official release of the Chinese version, I might as well learn
English by myself. It is possible to learn English faster than to learn Japanese. It is also an
investment in myself (2011-10-04, 17:48, Taiwanese forum).
This was a response to a thread on comparing the release dates of bilingual game versions of Heavy Rain
(English) and Dynasty Warriors (Japanese), and all discussants agreed that it would be faster to learn
Language Learning & Technology
93
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
better English than to wait for the Chinese release. However, self-directed L2 gaming is not equivalent to
an absolute control of content learning, as the content of the L2 games will put a limit on the kind of L2
learned. Gamers understand the limitations, as Raymond pointed out during the focus group discussion
that his preference for football games meant that he had a better vocabulary of football than of any other
sports or on many other leisure topics. Raymond was not the only one. A lot of gamers were proud of
their specialist vocabulary knowledge, for example, “street slang learned from GTA’ or ‘pilot’s
vocabulary learned from Flight Simulator”. Though these gamers all acknowledged that these vocabulary
items were highly specialized and were not used frequently in daily life, their confidence was nonetheless
enhanced (Rama et al., 2012).
When gamers took the initiative to learn, advice from other gamers might not be accepted. A gamer
wanted to find English-versions of bishōjo games for learning. In bishōjo games, players interact with
virtual young women or make virtual girlfriends, and some games contain pornographic elements. This
request sparked a strong debate on the moral issues surrounding bishōjo games, and many discussants
suggested other RPGs as alternatives. Forty minutes after the first entry, the initiator defended himself by
saying,
please do not recommend other games because everyone is different, and I do not like playing
RPGs or other video games. I am most comfortable with learning foreign languages through
bishōjo games. I just want to ask if there are any bishōjo games in English (2010-11-27, 10:40,
Taiwanese forum).
While others were still skeptical of using bishōjo games for L2 learning, one discussant supported him for
“personalizing game use for his own learning purpose” (2010-11-27, 11:15, Taiwanese forum).
These excerpts suggest that some L2 gamers were forced to accept gaming in L2 because it was the only
option for consumers, then L2 learning appeared to be other- rather than self-directed. The excerpts also
highlight how personal gaming preferences can channel L2 learning to specific directions, such as the
acquisition of a specialist vocabulary. In this way, we can see gamers exercising their learner autonomy in
pursuit of personal learning goals and interests. Finally, the bishōjo-request excerpt illuminates that the
gaming community may provide L2 learning advice, but it is up to individual gamers whether they take
the advice or not. Rather than the locus of control, which implies a central and unified locality of control,
the different ways that gamers balance autonomous decision and communal advices should be viewed as
a distribution of control.
Trajectory: Managing Gaming and Learning over Time
One common theme that emerged from the findings was the ways gamers discussed the different games
they played at different times over the years: a pattern identifiable as a “trajectory”, which is not included
in Benson’s (2011) framework. Trajectory concerns the management of out-of-school gaming practices
over time, which is not only restricted to the amount of time or energy or money one spends on digital
gaming. Trajectory is also about managing one’s practice from one game to another. While the concept of
trajectory is not part of Benson’s framework, it is added here to account for noticeable patterns in the
data, especially when considering practices of autonomy within community.
First, trajectory can refer to progression within a game series. As supported by opinion expressed online,
gamers are usually faithful followers of certain game series. In 2010, Michael and Edmond were excited
about Monster Hunter Portable 3, because both were seasoned Monster Hunter series players. As a fan of
the Final Fantasy series, Mabel was willing to wait indefinitely for the international release of the Final
Fantasy XIII English version, even though the Japanese version had already been released in December,
2009. Progression within a game series can be a mere technical advancement, but migration from one
genre to another can be linguistically challenging. Gamers often make the effort to help other gamers
Language Learning & Technology
94
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
navigate around plot-driven and dialogue-heavy games by producing game-external paratexts. These texts
include, but are not limited to, English-to-written Chinese3 translation of the in-game dialogues, game
cheats, and walkthroughs (both print and video in Mandarin or Cantonese with some degree of codemixing in English), and bilingual jargon lists. These paratexts are freely available on discussion forums
and YouTube. When L.A. Noire (2011) was released, discussion forums were flooded with help requests.
Within days, amateur-translated bilingual in-game texts and game cheats in Chinese were published and
circulated on Hong Kong and Taiwanese forums. Some discussants complained about the English-only
in-game texts, and started a comparison of the language demand in L.A. Noire and Heavy Rain (2010).
Several responses recommended starting with Heavy Rain first: “When you understand the English in
Heavy Rain, you will find it easier to play L.A. Noire” (2011-06-15, 00:24, Hong Kong forum).
Second, gaming language can prompt learning trajectory. As a child, Carrie inherited most of her games
from her older brother and cousins, who all played Japanese games. In the beginning Her brother and
cousins helped her with the Japanese instructions and some of the in-game texts. Soon her brother and
cousins outgrew the games (especially the Castlevania series that Carrie liked), and she was stuck with a
gaming language that she did not know. As a teenager, she took Japanese classes in her spare time in
order to advance her gaming pleasure. Tracy, on the other hand, ventured into the English interface of a
Korean online gaming world (MapleStory) because of the “cute graphics” (interview), and she teamed up
with Korean gamers in collaborative play. Subsequent online and offline Korean friendship prompted her
to start learning Korean. Michael claimed that gamers have to be good in English before they could get
into real-time strategy games:
Many providers began to desert their game rooms several years after the ICQ and online game
room era, so I switched to offline strategy and management games. Achieving victory in these
games usually requires a huge amount of reading and an extensive understanding of new
vocabulary (Michael, LLH)
At a time when Chinese cheats and walkthroughs for strategy games were almost non-existent, Michael
had to improve his English in order to advance gameplay. By turning his attention to the in-game
language, he found unexpected pleasure that he did not find when reading literary texts in school. This
appreciation for literary language was shared by online discussants when one discussant posted examples
of poetic language used in Dragon Age, others responded by posting poetic examples from various
games.
The examples here demonstrate that gamers created certain trajectories in their gaming practice
management. A trajectory can be created by a) following all the game editions in a game series (e.g. GTA,
Final Fantasy); b) choosing a preferred gaming language (e.g. Japanese or English); c) changing from
one game genre to another; and d) moving from one game to another in the same game genre (e.g. from
Heavy Rain to L.A. Noire in action-adventure games). To a certain extent, when gamers were younger,
they were less able to take charge of managing their gaming practices because most games were shared
among family members. As the participants grew older and became more experienced, they had greater
autonomy in choosing the types of games they wanted to play. Consequently, they all stated that they
used advices from online communities to help organize and manage their gaming careers. In turn, a
trajectory can also impact a gamer’s L2 learning and use, especially when the gamer has a sense of
viewing L2 gaming as a long term activity from childhood to young adulthood. This indicates that many
gamers learn to organize their L2 gaming practices as they become more mature and experienced, and
many of them do this through communal support.
DISCUSSION
The present study set out to examine the ways gamers practice autonomy within community by managing
Language Learning & Technology
95
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
their gameplay both as leisure and as learning practices. Firstly, this study found that among the four
dimensions in Benson’s framework (location, formality, pedagogy, and locus of control), location and
formality are more self-explanatory in illuminating how gamers practice autonomous L2 learning through
gaming. In addition to defining physical locations, this study explored the ways L2 gamers created
immersive environments conducive to learning. Gamers also suggested intentionality (formality) as the
key to turning informal L2 gaming into L2 learning experiences (Hulstijin, 2008). This suggests that L2
learning is not completely incidental, especially when gamers apply learning strategies learned from
school to L2 gaming. In line with findings by Piirainen-Marsh and Tainio (2009), L2 gamers learned an
L2 from gaming through textual and social interaction in community; however, it was not quite clear what
could be learned beyond L2 vocabulary. This may help explain how Swedish gamers would perform
better than non-gamers in a vocabulary test (Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). The other two dimensions—
pedagogy and locus of control—highlight certain limitations of L2 learning through gaming. The lack of
structured materials or instructions (pedagogy) appears to restrain progress in L2 learning. Findings on
locus of control suggest the distribution of control among individual, community and artefacts. To some
degree, the exercise of control could be limited by the age of the gamer or the available language interface
of a game. If the language interface of a COTS game is only available in a L2, all consequent learning
could be incidental rather than intentional. On the other hand, if a gamer chose to play an L2 game and
applied learning strategies, L2 learning would be intentional. The choice of game genres caters to
individual preferences and gears L2 learning in certain directions, and this personal preference is an
underexplored area in gaming study. The four dimensions provided a broad framework to explore L2
gaming as potential L2 learning experiences. In addition, the ways gamers learn to game in L2 also
suggest that they are transferring learning strategies learned at schools to wider contexts, which indicates
a development of autonomy (Little, 1991). This autonomous development is then supported by
communities, both offline friendship gaming groups and online gaming communities, which provide both
gaming paratexts and learning advice.
Secondly, this study identified a new dimension, trajectory, to expand Benson’s (2011) framework in
light of the practice of autonomy within gamer communities. Put in context, the original framework was
theorized as a template to explore how individual learners achieve learning or to explore how learning
could be understood in contexts beyond the language classrooms. In addition to managing gaming
practices, Gee and Hayes (2011) found that gamers also transferred literacy and life skills learned from
gaming to their formal learning, and this process took place over adolescence and young adulthood.
Findings from the present study also indicate that L2 gaming is a long-term leisure activity, and gamers
were shown to have actively managed their gaming practices by using both personal experience and
community resources. Borrowing Goffman’s (1968) concept of ‘career’ as “any social strand of any
person’s course through life” (p. 119), the addition of trajectory extends Benson’s (2011) framework to
include a temporal component in understanding L2 learning through gaming as a persistent and managed
career.
Thirdly, by situating L2 gaming in the East Asian social and economic contexts, support and affordances
within the online communities might have contributed greatly to L2 learning. Studies have shown gameexternal paratexts to be complex and rich texts which could be conducive to L2 learning (Apperley &
Walsh, 2012; Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013; Thorne et al., 2012). This study confirms that the consumption
and production of paratexts was common within the online Chinese gaming communities. In addition,
gamers actively seek and give L2 learning advice on online discussion forums and blogs, thus creating
“funds of knowledge” (Moll et al., 1992) for other gamers. Gamers are not just learners; at times, some
take on instructional roles by teaching a partner to play a game, providing gameplay advice on discussion
forums, or translating in-game texts, and these are just a few of the roles mentioned. It is possible to argue
that the available affordances for gamers to act and interact online provides a potential social communal
space for them to develop autonomy in L2 learning (Murray & Fujishima, 2013). These online social
Language Learning & Technology
96
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
environments may be the necessary sites for L2 gamers to learn autonomously within supportive
communities (Ushioda, 2007).
CONCLUSION
This exploratory study examined how gamers practice autonomy within community by managing their
gameplay both as leisure and learning practices in five dimensions: location, formality, pedagogy, locus
of control and trajectory. The study also identified autonomy as one of the keys to facilitate L2 learning
through L2 gaming. Autonomy can be exercised differently in different dimensions, and findings indicate
the affordances are not only limited to in-game interactions with game texts and with other gamers. The
extended online gaming communities provide support in both L1 and L2 through paratexts and language
learning advices. However, given that the present study is a small-scale exploratory study, there are
certain limitations: the gamer-participants were university students and were gamers who have achieved a
high level of L2 proficiency, so their practices may reflect a certain bias towards L2 learning. Also, these
gamers grew up in late 1990s, a period when Chinese games were almost non-existent, whereas there are
more Chinese-language online games available now. The online discussants cited in this study are selfselected groups of gamers who are keen on L2 gaming, and sharing their L2 gaming and learning
experience; there are other groups that advocate and support gaming in L1.
Notwithstanding the limitations, findings from the present study may have some important research and
pedagogical implications. First, for some gamers, organizing L2 gaming practices is a learning process,
thus further research on exploring the organization of L2 gaming practices over time and space will be
informative. When language use is an integral part of gaming, the trajectory of L2 gaming practices can
well reflect the gamer’s L2 learning trajectory. A better understanding of the trajectory can inform the gap
between L2 learning in school and in out-of-class contexts. Second, this study suggests that game-related
paratexts in both L1 and L2 form the funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) for many L2 gamers. At
present, we are beginning to understand the complexity and creativity of game-related paratexts (Thorne
et al., 2012), but we have yet to know more about the connection between the consumption and
production of L1 and L2 paratexts. It will be especially fruitful to better understand the fluidity of the
consumption of these, and how similarly or differently gamers use these paratexts. Finally, when COTS
games are assumed to be only entertaining, many gamers have found ways to transform them into
learning resources. These gamers utilize different learning strategies and sort out language advices. A
major implication is that teachers and researchers should provide structures and guidance for young L2
learners on how to use L2 games to learn autonomously. In this way, students can be made aware that
they have the ability to turn their preferred leisure activities into learning practices, and learn how to seek
help from online communities. As we know more about these processes, we will gain more in-depth
understandings of autonomy and communities in L2 gaming.
NOTES
1. The discussion forums and blogs included Hong Kong Discussion Forums (Hong Kong), UWants
(Hong Kong), HKGolden (Hong Kong), Gamer (Taiwan), mobile01 (Taiwan), wahas (Taiwan),
Netshow (China), A9VG (China), and Sina (China).
2. In this chapter, Taiwanese Hokkien refers the Chinese dialect used commonly in Taiwan, also known
as Taiwanese.
3. In this chapter, written Chinese refers to the written form of Chinese, either in Traditional or Simplified
Chinese characters. The written Chinese used by forum discussants is usually informal, incorporating
regional dialect and slang, and occasional English terms and slang.
Language Learning & Technology
97
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful suggestions and comments and to the special issue
editors, Dr. Jonathon Reinhardt and Dr. Julie Sykes, for their constructive suggestions and support. The
work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the City University of Hong Kong
(Project No. 9610124).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alice Chik is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the City University of Hong Kong. Her
research interests include narrative inquiry and popular culture in second language education. She is the
co-editor of Popular Culture, Pedagogy and Teacher Education: International Perspectives (Routledge,
2014) and Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age (Routledge,
2015).
REFERENCES
Apperley, T., & Walsh, C. (2012). What digital games and literacy have in common: A heuristic for
understanding pupils’ gaming literacy. Literacy, 46(3), 115–122.
Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field. In
P. Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 7–17). London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2011). Towards a more naturalistic CALL: Video gaming and language learning.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 1–13.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chik, A. (2011). Learner autonomy development through digital gameplay. Journal of Digital Culture &
Education, 3(1), 30–45.
Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language
teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95–
114). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in video games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (2012). Digital games for language learning: From hype to
insight? ReCALL, 24(3), 243–256.
deHaan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on
second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 74–94. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/dehaanreedkuwada.pdf
Gee, J. P. (2012). Foreword. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp.
xii–xiv). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. London, UK: Routledge.
Gentile, D. A., Choo, H., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011). Pathological video game
use among youths: A two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(2), 319–329.
Language Learning & Technology
98
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates.
London, UK: Penguin.
Götzenbrucker, G., & Köhl, M. (2009). Ten years later. Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture,
3(2). Retrieved from http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/viewArticle/74
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2008) Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Livingstone, D. W. (2006). Informal learning: Conceptual distinctions and preliminary findings. In Z.
Bekerman, N. C. Burbules, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education
reader (pp. 203–227). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Macaro, E. (2008). The sifting dimensions of language learner autonomy. In T. E. Lamb & H. Reinders
(Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp. 43–62). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Murray, G., & Fujishima, N. (2013). Social language learning spaces: Affordances in a community of
learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly), 36(1), 141–157.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). When emotion meets metacognition in language learning histories. International
Journal of Educational Research, 23, 581–594.
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of
playing a video-game. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 153–169.
Quandt, T., Grueninger, H., & Wimmer, J. (2009). The gray haired gaming generation: Findings from an
explorative interview study on older computer gamers. Games and Culture, 4(1), 27–46.
Rama, P.S., Black, R. W., Van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language
learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24(3), 322–338.
Reinders, H. (2012). (Ed.). Digital games in language learning and teaching. London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J.M. (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 (pp. 32–49). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency
among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302–321.
Sykes, J. M., & Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language
teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively
multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan (Ed.) Mediating discourse online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Language Learning & Technology
99
Alice Chik
Autonomy and Community in Digital Gaming
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. L. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in
Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93 Issue Supplement
s1, 802–821.
Thorne, S.L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online
game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.
Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (Ed.), Learner
autonomy 8: Teacher and learner perspectives (pp. 5–24). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher
education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
OTHER MEDIA
Ace Attorney (Capcom, 2001)
Castlevania (Konami, 1986)
Cooking Mama (Office Create, 2006)
Dragon Age (BioWare, 2009)
Dynasty Warriors (Omega Force, 1997)
English of the Dead (Now Production, 2008)
Final Fantasy X (Square, 2001)
Final Fantasy XII (Square Enix, 2010)
Flight Simulator (Sublogic, 1988)
Football Manager 2010 (Sports Interactive, 2009)
GTA (Rockstar North, 1997)
Heavy Rain (Quantic Dream, 2010)
MapleStory (Wizet, 2003)
My French Coach (Sensory Sweep Studios, 2007)
My Japanese Coach (Ubisoft, 2008)
Keroro Daisakusen (Bandai Namco Games, 2008)
L.A. Noire (Rockstar Games, 2011)
Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven (Illusion Softworks, 2002)
sMario Bros (Nintendo, 1983)
Mind Your Language (Spiral House, 2009)
Monster Hunter Portable 3 (Capcom, 2010)
NBA2K11 (Visual Concept, 1999)
World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004)
Language Learning & Technology
100
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june 2014/reinderswattana.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 101–123
CAN I SAY SOMETHING? THE EFFECTS OF DIGITAL GAME PLAY
ON WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE
Hayo Reinders, Unitec Institute of Technology
Sorada Wattana, Dhurakij Pundit University
This paper reports on a study into the effects of digital game play on learners’ Willingness
to Communicate (WTC), or individuals’ “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular
time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, &
Noels, 1998, p. 547). Thirty Thai learners of English as a foreign language enrolled in a
University language course completed six 90–minute lessons playing Ragnarok Online, a
popular online role–playing game. The game had been installed on a private server and
was thus only available to participants in the study. We modified the game to include
special instructions, or quests (missions that players are assigned to accomplish in order to
get items and progress throughout the game), designed to encourage collaboration and
communication. To gauge participants’ WTC, a series of questionnaires was designed,
adapted from MacIntyre et al’s (2001) WTC scale and previous studies on language and
communication anxiety (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; McCroskey & Richmond,
1982) and perceived competence (Compton, 2004; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). These
asked respondents about their (own perceptions of their) willingness to use English, as
well as their confidence, anxiety, and perceived communicative competence in
communicating in English. The questionnaires were administered at the start of the course,
and again after six gaming sessions. Results on the first set of questionnaires showed that
students had low confidence, high anxiety, low perceived competence, and low WTC. The
second set of results showed a marked and significant improvement, with participants
feeling more confident, less anxious, more competent, and more willing to communicate.
We argue that the careful construction of tasks that draw on the affordances of games can
have a positive effect on the language learning process.
Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Language Play, Second Language
Acquisition
APA Citation: Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of
digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology,
18(2), 101–123. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/reinderswattana.pdf
Received: March 5, 2013; Accepted: February 19, 2014; Published: June 1, 2014
Copyright: © Hayo Reinders & Sorada Wattana
INTRODUCTION
Producing the target language is an important contributing factor to eventual success in language
acquisition (Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Many language professionals around the world,
however, have experienced the challenges of encouraging learners to produce the target language, to feel
at ease and not to worry about making mistakes. Many have also experienced the genuine anxiety that
students feel about performing in front of others, and many classrooms do not, as a result, offer students
much in the way of communicative practice as would be desirable. Digital games offer engaging
environments that have recently started to be explored for their educational potential (Gee, 2007;
Reinders, 2012). In particular, many games encourage, and even require a significant amount of
interaction between players. Complex forms of sharing and collaboration are examples. The potential for
such environments to encourage language learners to use the target language while enjoying the
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094–3501
101
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
experience of sharing and collaborating is only now starting to be investigated. In this study, we looked at
the effects of digital game play on the willingness of L2 learners in Thailand to communicate in English.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Willingness to Communicate
Second language (L2) learners may feel more or less willing to communicate for a variety of reasons. In
particular anxiety and self-perceived communicative competence have been examined as important
affective factors for a number of years and have been shown to play a significant role in generating or
reducing individuals’ tendency to communicate in the L2 (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; Clément, Baker, &
MacIntyre, 2003; MacIntyre et al., 2001; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994;
Yashima, 2002). Anxiety associated with learning and using the L2 has been shown to contribute to low
levels of WTC (Chu, 2008; MacIntyre, Babin, & Clément, 1999; McCroskey, 1991). In other words,
learners who experience high levels of anxiety about L2 communication are likely to choose to remain
silent and are less willing to participate in it.
Individuals’ perceptions of competence might be more important than individuals’ actual competence in
deciding whether or not to communicate; therefore, perceived communicative competence is believed to
directly determine his/her WTC level (Baker & MacIntyre, 2000). That is, learners who perceive
themselves as competent in communicating are likely to be more confident when interacting with others
using the L2, and thus more willing to initiate or engage in L2 communication (MacIntyre, 1994). A
positive correlation between self-perceived communicative competence and L2 WTC has been found in
empirical studies (e.g., Lu & Hsu, 2008; Peng, 2007), indicating that learners are more willing to
communicate in the L2 when they perceive themselves competent to do so. Many studies have
investigated the relationship between L2 WTC and communication anxiety and perceived communicative
competence. In general, the combination of a low level of anxiety about L2 communication and a
sufficient level of perceived communicative competence (defined as self-confidence) have been found to
be strong predictors of WTC in the L2 (Clément et al., 2003; Compton, 2004; Hashimoto, 2002;
MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Peng &
Woodrow, 2010; Yashima, 2002). These consistent findings indicate that learners who experience a lower
level of communication anxiety and who have a higher perception of their communicative competence,
tend to be more willing to enter into L2 communication.
L2 pedagogy has emphasized authentic use of the L2 as an essential part of language learning and
teaching, with the aim of developing L2 students’ communicative competence. Many students, however,
do not naturally engage in much target language production, neither inside nor particularly outside the
classroom. As the final step before L2 production, willingness to communicate (WTC) is an important
concept in describing, explaining, and predicting L2 communication (MacIntyre et al., 1998) and has been
found to influence the frequency and amount of L2 communication (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996;
Yashima, 2002), which can, in turn, facilitate successful second language acquisition (SLA). Accordingly,
the development of WTC has been proposed as an important goal in language teaching (MacIntyre et al.,
1998), in order for students to develop their L2 beyond the language classroom (Clément et al., 2003;
MacIntyre et al., 2001; MacIntyre et al., 1998). WTC studies have shown that language learners with high
WTC are more likely to use the L2 in authentic communication (Kang, 2005), have more potential to
practice in the L2(MacIntyre et al., 2001), acquire higher levels of language fluency (Derwing, Munro, &
Thomson, 2008), generally achieve greater language proficiency (MacIntyre et al., 2001; MacIntyre et al.,
1998; Yashima, 2002), and, as a result, show more improvement in their communication skills (Yashima,
Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). Clearly, a language program that helps to engender WTC among its
students can be considered successful.
Consequently, research has pointed to strategies and specific classroom environments conductive to the
Language Learning & Technology
102
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
fostering of WTC. Aubrey (2010, 2011), for example, found several important factors teachers should
consider and can manipulate to improve students’ WTC and encourage meaningful interaction during
class. These included: cultivating group cohesiveness, lowering students’ anxiety, making the lesson topic
interesting and relevant to students, facilitating student acceptance of the communicative approach, and
instilling positive attitudes towards the international community, including “interest in international
affairs, willingness to go overseas to stay or work, readiness to interact with intercultural partners, and,
one hopes, openness or a non–ethnocentric attitude toward different cultures” (Yashima, 2002, p. 57) in
students. In addition to these, Cao and Philip (2006), in a study in New Zealand, further identified
familiarity with interlocutors, topical familiarity, and self–confidence as important contextual factors
contributing to or reducing students’ WTC and classroom participation.
Technology, and in particular Computer–Mediated Communication (CMC) has also been shown to play a
potential role in developing WTC. Compton (2004), for example, revealed that chatting helped students to
feel confident and consequently, willing to participate orally in class discussions. However, its impact on
WTC varied from learner to learner and was dependent on a number of factors, particularly the topics of
discussion and the attitudes of their partners. Jarrell and Freiermuth (2005) found that the majority of their
students preferred chat to face-to-face interaction and that they were generally motivated to communicate
in English using Internet chat. They concluded that chat was a potentially motivating tool because it
appeared “to increase students’ WTC” (p. 70). In a related study, Freiermuth and Jarrell, (2006) further
explored the use of chat as a means to resolve tasks and investigated the effect it had on students’ WTC.
Data from the post-test questionnaire and discourse produced by students showed that the majority of
students who participated in their study produced a greater amount of language output, experienced more
intrinsic motivation to communicate in English and less anxiety about communication, and, importantly,
were more willing to communicate as a result of using chat in class. Similar results were reported in a
more recent study by Kissau, McCullough, and Pyke (2010). Six post-secondary students in the study
completed an online course in French. A questionnaire showed they did not perceive themselves to be less
anxious or more confident in their abilities to communicate in French than at the beginning of the course.
However, when looking at the students’ language output the researchers found a steady increase during
the course. In addition, interview data gave convincing evidence that students felt the online environment
had helped to reduce their L2 anxiety, increase their perceived competence, and encourage their
continuous active participation. These results were irrespective of students’ proficiency levels; both nonnative and heritage learners had the same experiences.
Despite the considerable attention for the role of CMC in increasing the amount of L2 interaction and
levels of L2 WTC, less effort has been expended on investigating other forms of online interaction,
particularly network-based games, on students’ WTC. Digital games “have design features that are
particularly relevant to language learning” (Gee, 2012, p. xiii) and increasingly play a role in supporting
language learning and acquisition (e.g., deHaan, 2005a; Fujii, 2010; Ranalli, 2008). Our study takes this
perspective further by looking at the potential of gameplay for WTC in English.
Game-Based Learning (GBL)
Based on the GBL literature (e.g. Gee, 2007; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004; Prensky, 2001; Whitton,
2010), the rationale for the use of digital games in class activities is commonly influenced by the
assumption that games are motivating to students while also incorporating good learning principles. Many
experimental studies have shown that students’ motivation increased when games were used in an elearning context. For example, Anyaegbu, Ting, and Li (2012) investigated how a serious game called
‘Mingoville’ could motivate, engage, and arouse the interest of young Chinese learners of English. The
qualitative findings indicated that the majority of their students were motivated to learn English with
Mingoville because the game was fun for them and made them feel relaxed and avoided making them
lose face. Other encouraging aspects were the positive collaboration that came out of the game as well as
the rewards students received while playing. There were some students who reported that the experience
Language Learning & Technology
103
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
was demotivating because they either found playing the game boring, or generally didn’t like games. This
supports Whitton’s (2007, 2011) view that employing games for motivational purposes alone is not
sufficient justification for their use because they might not be motivational for all students, particularly
students in Higher Education. Therefore, digital games should be employed to provide other benefits so
that students will consider games as effective tools to help them learn and acquire another language.
In addition to motivational benefits, researchers have observed that network–based digital games such as
massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) offer other benefits. Peterson (2010,
2011) showed that the highly learner-centred nature of the interaction provided by network-based games,
the anonymity and the reduced inhibition provided by personal avatars, and the reduction of paralinguistic
cues in real-time chat are characteristics that may reduce anxiety and improve self-confidence. Findings
reported by deHaan (2005b), Peterson (2010, 2011), Voulgari (2011), Zheng, et al. (2009), Zhao and Lai
(2009) showed that students felt more relaxed and confident in using the target language when involved in
MMORPGs, two major variables promoting levels of WTC.
Moreover, past studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of participation in MMORPGs on the
quality of L2 use, as the contexts provided appear to offer extensive opportunities for target language use
and social support (e.g. MacIntyre et al., 2001). A pilot study by Rankin, Gold, and Gooch (2006)
investigated interaction between four ESL students in the MMORPG “EverQuest II” in an attempt to
determine if participation in the game could foster students’ English language proficieny and knowledge
of new vocaubalry. In this study, students participated in eight gaming sessions held over a period of four
weeks. The findings demonstrated that students increased target language vocabulary output by 40% as a
result of interaction with non-playing characters and produced a remarkable 100% increase in target
language chat messages during social interaction between players. The social interaction among players in
EverQuest II was further examined by Rankin, Morrison, McNeal, Gooch, and Shute (2009). The authors
took a closer look at the in-game dialogues between eight native and 18 non-native speakers and language
socialization in MMORPGs. The findings revealed that ESL students significantly increased their target
language output by interacting with their native speaker interlocutors. The findings also suggested that
EverQuest II, and possibly MMORPGs in general, encouraged L2 interaction as the players must be
active learners and engage with other learners within the environment. Furthermore, the findings
demonstrated that the majority of the students displayed higher levels of engagement, motivation, and
comfort as they participated in gameplay. Major WTC studies emphasize that greater relaxation as well as
increased frequency and greater amount of L2 output reflect higher levels of WTC. The findings from
previous studies therefore seem to point to the possible contribution that MMORPGs can make in
increasing students’ WTC.
In a case study of online gaming and open Internet environments as informal settings for L2 use and
development, Thorne (2008) explored multilingual interaction between an English speaker living in the
United States and a Russian speaker living in Ukraine within the MMORPG “World of Warcraft.”
Participants’ feedback was very positive, with claims that participation in the game had enhanced their
enjoyment and motivation for language learning. In addition, the analysis of the chat logs indicated that
conversation in the game offered participants authentic interaction in the L2 and opportunities for
providing expert knowledge in terms of language use and language-specific explicit corrections, requests
for assistance, and collaboratively constructing repair sequences. Roy (2007) also investigated the
potential in World of Warcraft by playing the game in Spanish. Although the author reported that he did
not have much interaction with native speakers, he found that real-time chatting during gameplay exposed
him to natural target language (TL) production, and that the interaction in which he engaged was a
meaningful way to become comfortable with using the language.
From the literature review above, it is clear that digital games play a potential role in encouraging
language learners to become willing to communicate. However, most of the literature is exploratory,
limited in scope and with small sample sizes, focusing on anecdotal and descriptive evidence and
Language Learning & Technology
104
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
exploring the characteristics of games rather than their effects on language learning, and provides
subjective views on the potential of games for language learning only. What is still unclear is if gameplay
indeed leads to higher levels of WTC. In particular, few studies have adequately investigated the level of
L2 WTC which the gaming environment can foster. This was the primary focus of our study.
METHODOLOGY
Research Question
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of participating in an online game on learners’
willingness to communicate in English. Our research question is:
How does playing an online game affect Thai EFL learners’ willingness to communicate in the target
language?
Operating WTC
Willingness to communicate in the second language is defined as an individual’s “readiness to enter into
discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p.
547). Building on this, in our study we operationally defined WTC as “an individual’s intention to initiate
or participate in communication in English, the target language at a particular moment and situation” (p.
547). Intention can be understood and determined through a) perceptions of willingness to use English for
communication and b) feelings about communicating in English, in terms of state communicative selfconfidence. State communicative self-confidence is a combination of low levels of state anxiety,
especially anxiety about communication in English, and sufficient levels of state self-perceived
communicative competence in English. The term “state” here refers to momentary feelings in a particular
situation. Anxiety about communication corresponds to the level of fear or anxiety associated with real or
anticipated communication (McCroskey, 1977). Self-perceived communicative competence is the belief
that an individual has an adequate ability to communicate successfully (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990).
Willingness to engage in L2 communication and self-confidence are the focus of this study because they
a) are hypothesized to be enhanced by a non-threatening environment like computer games, b) have
received substantial attention from researchers conducting empirical studies with this construct, and c)
have been consistently found to be vital for prediction of individuals’ willingness to communicate in the
L2 and in turn for contribution to successful L2 interaction and, ultimately, L2 acquisition.
Instruments
Two sets of questionnaires (see Appendices A and B) were developed by the researchers based on 1) our
operational definition of the construct of WTC and 2) on the review of the literature identifying the
variables believed to contribute to individuals’ WTC. The first questionnaire was administered prior to
the first computer game session, enabling us to gauge learners’ general WTC in English for
communicating in the classroom. The second questionnaire was administered after the last computer
game session (i.e. the 6th session) in which participants were asked more specific questions relating to
their WTC in English in a computer game setting. A comparison between participants’ WTC during class
time and their WTC in the game environment was made to allow us to examine any differences and thus
determine whether gameplay played a significant role in Thai EFL learners’ WTC. Although the
questions in the two sets of questionnaires were slightly different, in order to reflect their focus on either
the classroom or the game environment, the questionnaires were kept as similar as possible to measure the
WTC construct (i.e., how willing participants were when communicating in English).
They covered 1) WTC in English and 2) state communicative self-confidence, with the latter covering a)
state anxiety and b) state self-perceived communicative competence. The questionnaires used self-report
scales. Table 1 shows the number of items, and reports Cronbach’s alphas (α) as evidence of the internal
reliability of each measure. Although Cronbach’s alphas indicated in most scales were not particularly
Language Learning & Technology
105
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
high, the number of items on the questionnaire was fairly low, and internal reliability was therefore
considered to be satisfactory.
Table 1. Questionnaires
Measures
Willingness to communicate in English
State communicative self-confidence
Anxiety
Self-perceived communicative competence
Number
of Items
5
10
5
5
Internal Reliability
Set 1
Set 2
.76
.70
.89
.83
.77
.83
.69
.72
The first section of the questionnaires was composed of five items concerning students’ perceptions of
their willingness to use English to communicate during class time (α = .76) and computer game activities
(α = .70). Example items were: how willing are you to… “Talk to your classmates about a class
assignment” and “Talk to other game players about a quest assignment” The items were mainly selected
and adapted from MacIntyre et al (2001)’s WTC scale to include communication tasks common to the
EFL class and gaming environments. Responses to items on a 5-point Likert scale were anchored with “1
= Very unwilling” and “5 = Very willing”. It should be noted that the middle value labeled “Neutral” was
included to elicit honest responses from some participants who might not have had experience in or strong
feelings about particular communication tasks. High scores were interpreted as high levels of WTC.
The second section of the questionnaires included 10 items asking participants to report their state
communicative self-confidence in a classroom setting (α = .89) and in a computer game environment (α =
.83). The items were selected and modified from previous studies examining language and
communication anxiety (e.g. Horwitz et al., 1986; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982), and perceived
competence (e.g. Compton, 2004; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Students were asked to indicate on another
5-point the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements indicative of state anxiety and
state self-perceived communicative competence levels.
Responses for items with negative meanings were reversed before summing for the total and the average
scores of all the ten items representing participants’ level of state communicative self-confidence, which
in turn revealed the overall impact of participation in each setting on participants’ WTC in English.
“Low” scores indicated “low” levels of state communicative self-confidence, while “high” scores
signified “high” levels of state communicative self-confidence. In addition, “high” scores for state anxiety
items reflected “low” levels of state anxiety, and vice-versa. On the contrary, “high” scores for state
perceived communicative competence items suggested “high” levels of state perceived communicative
competence, and vice-versa. “Low” levels of state anxiety combined with “high” levels of state selfperceived communicative competence led to “high” levels of state communicative self-confidence, and, in
turn, indicated participants’ “high” levels of WTC.
Participants
A convenience sampling method was used to select prospective participants. The study was conducted
with 30 Thai EFL learners at a university in Thailand. We were fortunate to have all students in the class
agree to participate, so were able to conduct the study during normal class hours.
Students were given an explanation of the study and were informed that their participation was voluntary
and in no way affected their course grades. They were given a consent form to sign and were also
informed that the results would be anonymised. Participants had different English language proficiency
levels, ranging from elementary to advanced, as shown by their standardised test scores on the
University’s Test of English Proficiency. Specifically, the study involved 13 elementary students, 8 lower
Language Learning & Technology
106
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
intermediate students, 7 upper intermediate students, and 2 advanced students. The reason for this range
of proficiency levels was that this particular course (English for IT) was only offered once per academic
year.
In terms of language background, participants were fairly homogeneous; all of them were native Thai
speakers and none had experience living in an English-speaking country. The majority had studied
English since they started elementary school and had learned English for an average of 14 years. Their
use of and exposure to the target language, especially speaking, was, however, limited and took place
exclusively in the English classroom. Eighty percent of the participants (N = 24) reported that they had no
other contact at all with English apart from formal classes, while 20% (N = 6) indicated that they
occasionally watched movies in English. Participants were also similar with regard to game-related habits
and experiences and familiarity with computer games and synchronous communication tools. All of the
participants had previous experience playing computer games, particularly MMORPGs, meaning we
could help them to focus on their language learning experience, rather than having to focus on (supporting
them in) using the game. All the participants were also found to be sufficiently proficient in synchronous
communication and typing skills to be able to readily engage in interaction during game play.
Nonetheless, training and technical support were provided to the participants. It is therefore reasonable to
expect minimal novelty and training effects (see Table 2 for a summary).
Table 2. Participant’s Game-Related Habits and Experiences
Years of game playing
Time spent each week
playing games
Mean
Mean
Number of participants
having experience in
playing each type of
game
30 MMORPG*
9 Simulation
18 Strategy
13 First-person shooter
16 Sport
10 Music game
10 Puzzle
10 Action
9 Role-playing
5 Platform
MMORPG, Strategy, Sport, Role-playing, Puzzle (in order of preference)
Top-5 game genre
preference
7.30 years
22.87 hours
Range
Range
1–12
3–100
Note: *16 Ragnarok Online, played in their native language.
The Course
The study was carried out in a 15-week course of English for IT. The course was offered to third year
undergraduates from the school of IT and was designed and taught by one of the researchers. The focus of
the course was all-round skills development in the information technology field, guided by the textbook
“Oxford English for Information Technology”. The classes met for two sessions of 90 minutes per week
and were taught entirely in English.
The intervention, the playing of the commercial game “Ragnarok Online”(Global Playground Gravity,
2010), was implemented during 20% of the class hours. Like other MMORPGs such as World of
Warcraft and Everquest, Ragnarok Online is played by a large number of players in a complex
environment allowing a significant amount of player interaction. The real-time simulated environment in
Ragnarok provides opportunities for collaboration and social interaction, allowing players to interact with
Language Learning & Technology
107
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
each other, combat computer-controlled creatures, and accomplish quests to progress in the game.
Face-to-face sessions were conducted in a classroom while intervention sessions met in a CALL lab. The
game was integrated as part of a lesson review session after students finished a unit. The course covered
six units hence six review sessions, lasting one and half hours each. There were two pedagogical
objectives to the game sessions: firstly, the activities were intended to give students opportunities to
review the course material through plearn. The term “plearn” is one of the most important concepts in
Thai education, emphasising that learning should be an enjoyable activity and students should gain
knowledge through play. It is both a contraction of “play and learn” and also the Thai word for “enjoy”
(Samudavanija, 1999). As part of playing a number of quests in Ragnarok, specified below, students had
opportunities to learn and practise the vocabulary and language skills they studied in class in a fun way.
By lowering the affective barrier, the intention was to encourage students to relax and learn in a more
natural way (Aoki, 1999). The second objective of the sessions was to encourage more participation. Thai
students are notoriously reticent and generally avoid interaction in English classes (Kamprasertwong,
2010). By encouraging students to work together in a non-threatening environment, the aim was to
encourage them to become more actively involved in the learning process.
With permission from the game’s local distributor, we were able to host the game on a private server in
the CALL lab, thereby giving us control over who could access the game. We also obtained permission to
modify the game in order to ensure its appropriateness to the L2 learning context, as well as its alignment
with the course’s learning activities and objectives. Although the original game contains a variety of
authentic scenarios and tasks (similar in terms of their means to those that players may need to achieve in
real life, such as negotiation and sharing – if not in their purpose, such as quests and battles!), its content
was considered less than ideal as a CALL environment in the sense that the opportunities for target
language exposure and “language learning potential” (Chapelle, 2001) were limited. This was due to the
original game being created for Thai native speakers as a form of entertainment, not education. The
international version available from Ragnarok’s servers was considered, but it was not possible to obtain
permission to use it for our study. Also, the international version may not be suitable in terms of the
language level used, which could be too advanced, as well as some cultural contexts with which
participants might not have been familiar. Another important reason for modifying the Thai version of the
game was that we considered the original in-game quests to be too long for the study participants to
complete during class time. The modification in this study, as a result, meant creating new quest events
relevant to the participants’ course, for application of language skills at the appropriate level. Despite
these modifications we feel the gaming aspect of Ragnarok was left untouched; we simply optimised the
environment for language learning.
Based on the “endogenous game” framework in which the learning content needs to be intrinsically
linked with the game itself (Habgood, Ainsworth, & Benford, 2005), the previously learnt material was
integrated into the narrative of Ragnarok, in order to provide students with learning opportunities while
engaged in the process of playing. In particular, the six new quests (i.e. the missions that players are
assigned to accomplish within the game) covered scenarios and player experiences, which were related to
the courses’ learning content and objectives. Table 3 shows an example of how the learning objectives
were mapped to activities in the game.
Table 3. Example of a Mapping of Learning Objectives to Game Activities (Quests)
Unit 1
Computer Users
Objectives for this unit
1.1 Talk about how they and people from different professions use computers.
1.2 Exchange information about the use of computers in their free time.
Language Learning & Technology
108
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
1.3
Can I Say Something?
1.4
Understand the difference between the Past Simple and the Present Perfect and
use these tenses fluently and correctly.
Read and comprehend an article in IT and computing contexts.
1.5
Understand basic guidelines of how to write a good paragraph.
1.6
Write a paragraph describing the use of computers in their study and free time.
Quest
Event:
Finding how David uses his new computer
Description:
In this quest, students needed to help the starting NPC* named Austin find out
how his student uses computers in his study and free time. Students had to
interact with several NPCs to complete particular tasks, i.e. talking about
computer use (1.1, 1.2), reading paragraphs in IT (1.4), and engaged in nonviolent combat with monsters to earn required items.
During communication in the game, students had opportunities to use and
practice the language they had learned in class, such as using appropriate
tenses to talk about what they had done in the game (1.3).
Note: *NPC stands for Non-player character
When participants played the game and worked through the language learning elements included in the
modified quests, they therefore had opportunities to develop their comprehension of what they read and
heard when completing the tasks. Participants were also allowed to practise and demonstrate
understanding of the language skills previously learnt, and, importantly, use the L2 to communicate for
real purposes in a socially meaningful context. Some evidence of how the participants used the L2 during
game play can be obtained from an earlier pilot study (Reinders & Wattana, 2011). In summary, playing
games was found to encourage a significant increase in the quantity of L2 interaction which also
contained a variety of discourse functions associated with social, collaborative interaction (e.g., greetings,
requests, and questions) and covered a range of linguistic features (e.g., use of a variety of verb forms).
We intend to investigate this further in the future. In this study, we report on participants’ self-reported
willingness to use the L2.
The modified quest events still followed the original game which has an emphasis on interaction between
players through either text or voice chatting, and between players and NPCs through controlled dialogues
in which participants had to either type their reply or choose what to say in response to what NPCs had
said. In addition, it should be noted that the tasks in the modified quests gradually increased in difficulty
as the game progressed and constantly gave participants instantaneous feedback. This practice was likely
to encourage more interaction among participants before they selected a choice of message to interact with
an NPC or before they typed a reply to interact with each NPC (see Figure 1).
Before each of the six sessions a 15-minute briefing session was given. Participants were informed of the
computer game session objectives, how to play the game, as well as the contents of the quest. Next, they
were given time to discuss with other students any relevant grammar and vocabulary points that they
might need to complete the quest. They were reminded that their interaction in the game was not being
graded and were simply encouraged, but not forced, to use the target language for communication in the
game when they felt that they were ready and willing to do so. Participants were given an opportunity to
ask any questions.
Language Learning & Technology
109
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
Figure 1. A screenshot of Quest1: Finding out how David uses his new computer.
Participants used Skype and the recording program “Pamela for Skype” to communicate during the game.
In the first three computer game sessions, participants used group text chat. Although pairing students
might have led to more communication, group chat was used to promote natural and real communication
in the game in which players were free to talk to anybody; in addition, if inexperienced, unconfident
participants were paired together, they might have been unable to complete the quests. In the final three
computer game session, participants were required to communicate to each other using their voice. In this
case, they were randomly paired and asked to call each other. Since participants had played the game for
three sessions, we assumed they felt experienced and confident enough to be able to complete the quests
together in pairs. The pairs remained the same throughout the last three computer game sessions with the
voice-based chatting tool.
While participants were playing the game, the researchers did not participate in any of the game tasks in
order to allow participants to develop mutual support through collaboration and give them complete
control over their progress in the game. However, the teacher-researcher remained present in the lab to
assist with technical problems (but not with language-related problems), and to observe the research
environment. After each game session, participants saved their chat history from the recording software.
Finally, a collaborative debriefing took place during which students shared their experience playing the
game.
RESULTS
Questionnaire 1: Perceptions of WTC in English in the Classroom
The first section of the first set of WTC questionnaires asked participants to rate their perceptions of their
Language Learning & Technology
110
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
WTC on a scale of 1 to 5 (“very unwilling” to “very willing”) in a range of communication tasks they
normally engage in during class time. The overall mean of 2.33 with a standard deviation of .55 indicated
that participants perceived that they were somewhat unwilling to engage in communication situations in
the classroom using the target language. As indicated in Table 4, participants generally showed a low
level of WTC in English as they were somewhat unwilling to talk to their classmates about a class
assignment (M = 2.33, SD = .88), to communicate their ideas, feelings and opinions (M = 1.63, SD =
.76), and to read task description/instructions before they started (M = 1.96, SD = .81). Additionally, when
participants were confused about a task they should have completed and when their classmates said
something in English, they reported neutrality towards their willingness to ask for clarification (M = 2.86,
SD = .819) and to listen to what their classmates said (M = 2.86, SD = .78).
Table 4. Participants’ Perceptions of WTC in English in the Classroom*
Communication tasks
Ask for clarification when you are confused about a task you
must complete.
Listen to what your classmates say in English.
Talk to your classmates about a class assignment.
Read task description/instructions before you start completing.
Communicate ideas, feelings and opinions.
Overall Mean
Mean
2.86
SD
.82
Interpretation
Neutral
2.86
2.33
1.96
1.63
2.33
.78
.88
.81
.76
.55
Neutral
Somewhat unwilling
Somewhat unwilling
Somewhat unwilling
Somewhat unwilling
*Note: the order in the table above is listed in order from highest to lowest, not in the order in which the items appeared in the
questionnaire
Questionnaire 1: Levels of State Communicative Self-Confidence in the Classroom
The second section of the questionnaire dealt with participants’ feelings about communication in terms of
state communicative self-confidence felt when using English in a classroom setting. The question items
measured participants’ state anxiety levels and state self-perceived communicative competence degrees to
indicate their state communicative self-confidence and, in turn, their WTC in the target language.
Overall, participants showed low levels of state communicative self-confidence, as indicated by low
averaged scores of the ten items (M = 2.18, SD = .35) (see Table 5), which in turn suggested that they
generally were not very willing to use English to communicate in a classroom context. According to
Table 5, low averaged scores for state anxiety items (M = 2.29, SD = .41) signified that participants
suffered from anxiety when it came to communicating in English during class time. Particularly, they
were worried about making mistakes (M = 2.33, SD = 1.18) and felt nervous about using English while
participating in class activities (M = 2.00, SD = .83). Participants also felt uncomfortable sharing their
ideas/feelings/opinions in English with their classmates (M = 2.49, SD = .73), which corresponds with the
perception that that they were somewhat unwilling to do so (M = 1.63, SD = .76, see Table 4). In addition
to communication, participants were also worried about their comprehension; specifically, the results
showed that participants were worried that they would not understand what their classmates said in
English (M = 1.80, SD = .81). Finally, when asked about their feelings about communication in class, they
remained neutral (M = 2.83, SD = .79) about using English in this formal [classroom] environment being
relaxing.
Participants’ reported suffering from high levels of state anxiety regarding communication in English was
found to influence the way they perceived their communicative competence. That is, anxious individuals
were likely to perceive their competence to be low. The results in Table 5 showed low averaged scores for
state self-perceived communicative competence items (M = 2.06, SD = .29), which suggested
Language Learning & Technology
111
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
participants’ low levels of state self-perceived communicative competence when engaged in
communication in English in the classroom. Participants generally perceived that communicating in
English was difficult (M = 1.83, SD = .75) by thinking that they could not say what they want to say in
English (M = 1.96, SD = .72) and that they did not know the vocabulary required for each task completion
(M = 1.80, SD = .81). They also perceived themselves to have English at such a low level as to negatively
affect their interlocutors’ comprehension (M = 2.30, SD = .84). Further, participants did not really believe
that class activities helped develop their fluency (M = 2.43, SD = .73).
Table 5. Participants’ Levels of State Communicative Self-Confidence in the Classroom
Statements
State anxiety items
In general, I find communicating in English in
classroom situations relaxing.
I feel comfortable sharing my ideas/feelings/opinions
with my classmates.
I am not worried about making mistakes.
I feel nervous about using English while participating
in class activities.*
I am worried that I will not understand what my
classmates say in English.*
Total mean of state anxiety items
State perceived communicative competence items
I think participating in class activities help me develop
my fluency (i.e. with little hesitation and pauses).
I think my classmates cannot understand me because of
my poor English.*
I can say what I want to say in English.
I find it difficult to communicate in English.*
I know the words required for each task completion.
Total mean of state perceived communicative competence
items
Overall Mean
Mean
SD
Interpretation
2.83
.79
2.49
.73
Neutral /
No opinion
Disagree
2.33
2.00
1.18
.83
Disagree
Agree
1.80
.81
Agree
2.29
.41
Disagree
2.43
.73
Disagree
2.30
.84
Agree
1.96
1.83
1.80
2.06
.72
.75
.81
.29
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
2.18
.35
Disagree
*Note: Responses for these items were reversed.
Questionnaire 2: Perceptions of WTC in English in the Computer Game
The first section of the second set of WTC questionnaires, administered after the six gaming sessions,
examined participants’ perceptions of their willingness to interact in English while engaged in
communication tasks common to a gaming environment, Ragnarok, presented in Table 6. Taken as a
whole, participants’ perceptions towards WTC were positive as they perceived that they were somewhat
willing to use the target language for both talking and comprehending in the game (M = 3.84, SD = .286).
Particularly, when participants were confused about a task and when other game players were talking,
they perceived that they somewhat willing to ask for clarification (M = 4.06, SD = .78) and listen to their
friends (M = 4.06, SD = .69). They also thought that they were somewhat willing to talk to other game
players about a quest assignment (M = 3.86, SD = .68). However, they remained neutral to willingly
express ideas, feelings and opinions in the game (M = 3.36, SD = .76).
Language Learning & Technology
112
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Table 6. Participants’ Perceptions of WTC in English in the Computer Game Ragnarok
Communication tasks
Ask for clarification when you are confused about a task you must
complete.
Listen to what other game players say in English.
Read quest description/instructions before you start completing.
Talk to other game players about a quest assignment.
Communicate ideas, feelings and opinions.
Overall Mean
Mean
4.06
SD
.78
Interpretation
Somewhat willing
4.06
3.86
3.86
3.36
3.84
.69
.73
.68
.76
.286
Somewhat willing
Somewhat willing
Somewhat willing
Neutral
Somewhat willing
Questionnaire 2: Levels of State Communicative Self-Confidence in the Computer Game
The second section of the second questionnaire measured participants’ overall state communicative selfconfidence while communicating in English in the game on a 5-point Likert scale, with response anchors
ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The levels of state anxiety about using
English and state self-perceived communicative competence participants experienced during the game
activities were used to indicate their state communicative self-confidence which, in turn, reflected their
levels of WTC. Generally, participants had positive feelings about using English during game play since
low levels of state anxiety and high levels of state perceived communicative competence were reported,
as shown in Table 7. It was clear that participants were not anxious when communicating during
gameplay (M = 4.19, SD = .33). Most importantly, participants reported that they were not nervous about
using English (M = 4.57, SD = .50) and found communicating during gameplay relaxing (M = 4.50, SD =
.51). They also claimed that they were anxious neither about communicating nor about comprehension in
the game. In other words, they were not afraid of making mistakes (M = 3.83, SD = .75), felt relaxed
about sharing their ideas/feelings/opinions with their friends in the game (M = 3.97, SD = .72), and were
not nervous about understanding what was said in English during gameplay (M = 4.07, SD = .58).
Results from the second part of the questionnaire reveal that participants were quite confident in their
abilities to communicate in the game (M = 3.77, SD = .39). They believed that participating in the game
activities helped them develop their fluency (M = 4.27, SD = .45). They also expressed positive views
about their ability and lack of difficulty communicating in English successfully in the game (M = 4.10,
SD =.71), perceived themselves to have the ability to say what they wanted to say (M = 3.50, SD = .57)
and regarded their English as not too poor for their friends to understand (M = 3.53, SD = .68). These
results, therefore, suggested that participants were willing to communicate in English in a computer game
environment.
Table 7. Participants’ Levels of State Communicative Self-Confidence in the Computer Game
Statements
State anxiety items
I feel nervous about using English while participating in
computer game activities.*
In general, I find communicating in English in computer
game situations relaxing.
I am worried that I will not understand what other players
say in English.*
I am not worried about making mistakes.
Total mean of state anxiety items
State perceived communicative competence items
I find it difficult to communicate in English.*
Language Learning & Technology
Mean
SD
Interpretation
4.57
.50
Strongly disagree
4.50
.51
Strongly agree
4.07
.58
Disagree
3.97
4.19
.72
.33
Agree
Agree
113
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
I find it difficult to communicate in English.*
I can say what I want to say in English.
I know the words required for each task completion.
I think other players cannot understand me because of my
poor English.*
I think participating in computer game activities help me
develop my fluency (i.e. with little hesitation and pauses).
Total mean of state perceived communicative competence items
Overall Mean
4.27
4.10
3.53
3.50
.45
.71
.68
.57
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
3.43
.77
3.77
3.98
.39
.40
Neutral / No
opinion
Agree
Agree
*Note: Responses for these items were reversed.
To conclude, our results indicate that computer games may have had an effect on participants’ levels of
state communicative self-confidence. To investigate whether this was indeed the case we conducted a
statistical analysis.
Statistical Analysis
A paired-samples t-test (with an alpha level of .05) was performed to determine the difference between
learners’ WTC in English in the classroom from their WTC in English playing the computer game.
Cohen’s d (1988) was subsequently calculated using means and standard deviations to indicate effect size.
Statistical analysis results are shown in Tables 8-11. Firstly, as shown in Table 8, the mean scores of
participants’ perceptions of WTC in English during class time (M = 11.67, SD = 2.9) were significantly
different from the mean scores of participants’ perceptions of WTC during computer game activities (M =
19.23, SD = 2.49). The difference was found to be statistically significant (t(29) = 21.54, p < 0.001),
showing a statistical effect for difference between participants’ perceptions of WTC in English in the two
settings, with a very large effect (d = 2.79).
Table 8. T-Test for Perceptions of WTC during Class Time and Computer Game Activities (N = 30)
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Pair
WTC in game
WTC in class
Mean
19.23
11.67
SD
2.49
2.90
Lower
6.85
Upper
8.29
t
21.54
df
29
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
Effect size
d = 2.79
Secondly, the results in Table 9 show that participants had statistically significantly lower levels of state
anxiety when it came to communicating in English during gameplay than they did during class time
(t(29)= 21.20, p < 0.001), again with a very large effect size (d = 3.33).
Table 9. T-Test for Levels of State Anxiety during Class Time and Computer Game Activities (N = 30)
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Pair
SA in game
SA in class
Mean
20.93
11.47
SD
2.08
3.43
Lower
8.55
Upper
10.38
t
21.20
df
29
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
Effect size
d = 3.33
Thirdly, as shown in Table 10, levels of state perceived communicative competence participants felt
during computer game activities (M = 18.83, SD = 2.23) differed from those felt during class time (M =
10.33, SD = 2.78) and again, this was statistically significant (t(29)= 24.40, p < 0.001 with a very large
effect size (d=3.37).
Language Learning & Technology
114
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Table 10. T-Test for Levels of State Perceived Communicative Competence during Class Time and
Computer Game Activities (N = 30)
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Pair
SPCC in game
SPCC in class
Mean
18.83
10.33
SD
2.23
2.78
Lower
7.79
Upper
9.21
t
24.40
df
29
Sig. (2-tailed) Effect size
.000
d = 3.37
Finally, participants reported significantly higher levels of state communicative self-confidence while
engaged in computer game activities than during class time (t(29)= 25.89, p < 0.001), with a very large
effect size (d) of 3.54, as shown in Table 11.
Table 11. T-Test for Levels of State Communicative Self-Confidence during Class Time and Computer
Game Activities (N = 30)
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Pair
SCSC in game
SCSC in class
Mean
39.77
21.80
SD
3.95
5.99
Lower
16.55
Upper
19.38
t
25.89
df
29
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
Effect size
d = 3.54
DISCUSSION
The results above allow us to draw a number of preliminary conclusions. Firstly, the descriptive results
from the first questionnaire showed that the participants in this study generally reluctant to interact in the
target language in class; they were either unwilling or somewhat willing to, amongst others, talk to
classmates about assignments, to ask for clarification or to listen to others. The results from the second
part of the questionnaire showed that participants experienced considerable anxiety and were, amongst
others, worried about making mistakes, and felt uncomfortable about sharing their feelings and opinions.
Similarly, participants reported low state self-perceived communicative competence, thinking of
themselves as having poor English and, importantly, not believing that class activities helped develop
their fluency. Together, these results show that the students had low WTC in English in the classroom.
These results contrast with those for participants’ WTC during game play. Students reported being more
willing to interact in English during game play, feeling more confident to talk to other students, or ask for
help. They also felt considerably less anxious and were not as nervous about making mistakes. In terms of
their state self-perceived communicative competence, participants felt quite confident in their English
ability and felt that game play helped them develop their L2 fluency. Together, these results show that the
students had high WTC in a game environment.
Statistical analyses showed the differences in participants’ responses to be significant and with large
effect sizes, meaning participants were more willing to interact in English, were less anxious and felt
better about (their ability to use) English in a game environment than in class. It is important, however, to
acknowledge that the two questionnaires, although asking similar questions, were necessarily slightly
different too, as the first asked about WTC in the classroom and the second about WTC during game play.
Nonetheless, we feel that the results allow us to tentatively draw the conclusion that the participants in
this study had a greater WTC in a game environment than in classroom one. This is an important result,
especially as the participants were not simply told to go and enjoy themselves. They were given specific
instructions and tasks to complete. Their responses therefore do not simply indicate a preference for
playing games over taking classes, as they were responding to similar questions about communicating in
English in two different environments.
This has a number of implications. Firstly, if WTC is a facilitating factor in second language acquisition
Language Learning & Technology
115
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
(MacIntyre et al., 1998), then it is important to create an environment conducive to encouraging this. It
appears that for the participants in this study the environment offered by the computer game did this to a
significantly greater degree than the classroom environment. Our study mirrors some of the findings from
Aubrey (2010, 2011), regarding the factors contributing to WTC. Digital games clearly make learners feel
less anxious and encourage collaboration and group cohesiveness. Further research is required to establish
whether these findings generalise to other contexts, but our study does appear to corroborate findings
from previous research by Compton (2004) and Jarrell and Freiermuth (2005) showing the benefits of
using technology, and in particular text chat (one of the means of communication within the game), for
increasing WTC. Of course, game play did not occur in a pedagogical vacuum, and it is important to point
out other aspects of the intervention (such as the fact that the activities were not assessed) are likely to
have played a role. Nonetheless, our instruments specifically probed the effects of the game on the
students, and these results are clear.
More specific implications require briefly highlighting here. Firstly, on the initial questionnaire,
participants indicated fairly low agreement with the statement that English classes help develop fluency.
This may be a reflection particularly of English teaching in Thailand, which may be of a more traditional
nature (such as teacher dominated talk, rote learning, and grammar translation in which students are
mainly tested on grammar structures) and less focused on the development of communicative skills than
in other countries. When asked about games, however, the participants said they thought it did help to
develop fluency. In contexts where English (and other languages) are taught as a foreign language, and
where students have limited access to opportunities for target language production, games can possibly
play a role. Particularly, this may be the case in situations where the teachers themselves are non-native
speakers and less confident or fluent in L2 interaction.
In addition to the issue of the development of fluency, game play also made learners feel more confident
in their ability to use English. This is interesting as in the short period (nine hours over six weeks) of time
students would have been unlikely to improve their productive skills very much. Clearly, aspects of the
game environment make learners feel they are achieving better. One likely explanation for this is the fact
that the game offered continuous feedback and allowed students to complete actions through language,
and in this way gave students a sense of success. Interacting with other students and exchanging
information helped them, for example, to get information on where to go or which character to find.
Obtaining this information then helped them to complete those actions, immediately showing them the
value of their communication, and giving them an immediate sense of achievement. Experiencing the
transformative power of language in this way can provide significant motivational benefits (van Lier,
1996).
Finally, participants were reluctant in particular to share personal information in the classroom. Most
were unwilling to exchange opinions and feelings. This was not the case in the game environment. Much
research has shown the value of personally engaging in the learning process (e.g. Ushioda, 1996) and its
potential on language acquisition. If games encourage learners to engage more, this may help them in
their learning. One important reason for these findings may well be the anonymity the games afford;
although all the students in this study knew each other and were probably easily able to tell which avatar
represented which student, still a degree of projection may have made students feel more comfortable to
communicate, and in particular, to make mistakes. This is in line with previous findings from studies by
deHaan (2005b) and Peterson (2010, 2011), who showed that games, particularly MMORPGs, helped to
reduce anxiety levels and encourage opportunities for taking risks in using the target language.
All this begs the broader question about whether game play should be encouraged as part of the L2
learning process, or even integrated into the curriculum, and/or whether features of game play should be
used to change classroom teaching. Although our study did not directly attempt to address these questions
we do feel that it contributes to the body of research that shows the potential of game play to facilitate
important elements of the L2 acquisition process and as such, deserves more attention as a field of study.
Language Learning & Technology
116
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
One 1 limitation of our study is that it did not investigate L2 acquisition, thus not allowing us to make
claims about the benefits of game play on learning. Although it is likely that greater willingness to
communicate will lead to more interaction, this is something we have yet to investigate (although we did
find a positive effect in an earlier pilot study (Reinders & Wattana, 2012)). Although our current data
allows us to do so, this would still not allow us to draw conclusions on whether or not that interaction led
to improved fluency or accuracy, as we did not measure these. Our aim with this study was more
specifically to compare gaming and classroom environments and their effect on students’ willingness to
engage in target language communication. We hope future studies will continue from ours and investigate
the effects of acquisition as well.
Another possible limitation of our study was the fact that the participants had very different levels of
proficiency. It is possible that students at different stages of development feel differently, either about
communicating in class, in a game, or both. However, we feel that using an intact class increased the
ecological validity of our study. The participants were part of an existing group and thus represent an
actual and ‘real’ community of learners that teachers (in Thailand) would be likely to face. If, as a group,
these learners feel more comfortable communicating in a game than in a class, that is potentially useful
information for their teachers. Nonetheless, future studies could employ a more strictly empirical design
and control for factors such as proficiency level.
Further, there may well be a novelty factor at play here. Although we tried to minimise this by conducting
our study with Engineering students, all of whom are fluent computer users as well as regular game
players, the fact that something unusual happened during their course may in itself have added a degree of
excitement and may have coloured their responses. At the same time, if students feel excited about game
play and if that leads to greater WTC in English, then we feel this does not significantly take away from
the findings.
Digital game-based learning is a relatively new field, with a great deal of potential. We believe future
studies will add a great deal to our further understanding of their effect on communication and
acquisition. We hope our study has made a small contribution to this exciting developing field.
APPENDIX A. Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire Set 1
This questionnaire contains 2 sections for measuring your willingness to communicate in the target
language (English) particularly inside the language classroom. It should take about 10-15 minutes to
complete. Please answer truthfully to guarantee the success of this study. Your answers will be treated
confidentially and only the researchers will have access to the information you provide. Although we ask
for your name, we do so only because we want to associate your answers to this questionnaire with your
other data. Remember, you are telling the researchers about your communication in a classroom context.
There are no right or wrong answers.
Name: _________(Please give the character’s name that you use when playing Ragnarok Online©)
Gender ( ) Male ( ) Female
Section 1: Willingness to Communicate
Instructions: Below you will read a number of different communication tasks in which you might
engage in the language classroom. We would like you to tell us how willing you would be to do each of
these in English. By ‘willing’ we mean ‘showing strong intention’ so please put an “X” in the box that
describes the level of your willingness, using the following scales.
1
2
3
4
5
Very unwilling Somewhat unwilling
Neutral
Somewhat willing
Very willing
Language Learning & Technology
117
Can I Say Something?
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Communication Tasks
1 Talk to your classmates about a class assignment.
2 Communicate ideas, feelings and opinions.
3 Ask for clarification when you are confused about a task you must
complete.
4 Read task description/instructions before you start completing.
5 Listen to what your classmates say in English.
1
2
3
4
5
Section 2: State Communicative Self–confidence
Instructions: We are interested in your anxiety about communication and self-perceived communicative
competence when communicating in English in the classroom. Put an “X” in the box that represents the
degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement, using the following scales:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral/No opinion
Agree
Strongly agree
Communication Tasks
1
2
3
4
5
I am not worried about making mistakes.
1
I find it difficult to communicate in English.
2
I am worried that I will not understand what my classmates say
3
in English.
I feel nervous about using English while participating in class
4
activities.
I can say what I want to say in English.
5
I think my classmates cannot understand me because of my poor
6
English.
I feel comfortable sharing my ideas/feelings/opinions with my
7
classmates.
I know the words required for each task completion.
8
In general, I find communicating in English in classroom
9
situations relaxing.
10 I think participating in class activities help me develop my
fluency (i.e. with little hesitation and pauses).
THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
APPENDIX B. Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire Set 2
This questionnaire contains 2 sections for measuring your willingness to communicate in the target
language (English) particularly during gameplay. It should take about 10 minutes to complete. Please
answer truthfully to guarantee the success of this study. Your answers will be treated confidentially and
only the researchers will have access to the information you provide. Although we ask for your name, we
do so only because we want to associate your answers to this questionnaire with your other data.
Remember, you are telling the researchers about your communication in a gaming environment. There
are no right or wrong answers.
Name: _________(Please give the character’s name that you use when playing Ragnarok Online©)
Gender ( ) Male ( ) Female
Section 1: Willingness to Communicate
Instructions: Below you will read a number of different communication tasks in which you might
engage in a computer game setting. We would like you to tell us how willing you would be to do each
of these in English. By ‘willing’ we mean ‘showing strong intention’ so please put an “X” in the box that
describes the level of your willingness, using the following scales.
1
2
3
4
5
Language Learning & Technology
118
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
Very unwilling
Somewhat unwilling
Neutral
Somewhat willing Very willing
Communication Tasks
1
2
3
4
5
1 Talk to other game players about a quest assignment.
2 Communicate ideas, feelings and opinions.
3 Ask for clarification when you are confused about a task you must
complete.
4 Read quest description/instructions before you start completing.
5 Listen to what other game players say in English.
Section 2: State Communicative Self-confidence
Instructions: We are interested in your anxiety about communication and self-perceived communicative
competence that you feel when communicating in English in a computer game setting. Put an “X” in
the box that represents the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement, using the
following scales:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral/ No opinion
Agree
Strongly agree
Statements
1
2
3
4
5
I am not worried about making mistakes.
1
I find it difficult to communicate in English.
2
I am worried that I will not understand what other players say in
3
English.
I feel nervous about using English while participating in
4
computer game activities.
I can say what I want to say in English.
5
6
7
8
9
10
I think other players cannot understand me because of my poor
English.
I feel comfortable sharing my ideas/feelings/opinions with other
players.
I know the words required for each task completion.
In general, I find communicating in English in computer game
situations relaxing.
I think participating in computer game activities help me develop
my fluency (i.e. with little hesitation and pauses).
THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
NOTE
1. Our research has shown that the learners in our study were significantly more willing to communicate
in a game environment than in the classroom. There are two significant aspects to this finding; firstly,
students do not have positive feelings about communicating in class, which goes some way to
explaining low participation rates in English classes, in particular in Thailand. Secondly, students do
have significantly more positive feelings about communicating in a game environment. This implies
that there may be a role for the use of digital games in the English language curriculum, at least with
learners of similar backgrounds as in this study. The challenge is to do so in a manner that benefits the
L2 acquisition process; simply making learners enjoy themselves is not sufficient. The use of games
needs to be integrated into the broader curriculum, in such a way that it supports the achievement of
the objectives set within that context. (One of the reviewers made the suggestion of investigating the
possibility of gamification of the learning environment, i.e. using game-like elements in regular
classes. We think this is an excellent suggestion for future research).
Language Learning & Technology
119
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Hayo Reinders is Director of the doctoral program in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages) at Anaheim University in the United States and Head of Education at Unitec in New Zealand.
He is also Editor-in-Chief of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Hayo’s interests are in
technology in education, learner autonomy, and out-of-class learning and he is a speaker on these subjects
for the Royal Society of New Zealand. His most recent books are on teacher autonomy, teaching
methodologies, and second language acquisition and he edits a book series on ‘New Language Learning
and Teaching Environments’ for Palgrave Macmillan.
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Sorada Wattana is a lecturer at Dhurakij Pundit University in Bangkok, Thailand. She is keen to
implement emerging technologies in her teaching practice and wants to continue contributing to a variety
of research projects in computer-assisted language learning.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Anyaegbu, R,, Ting, W., & Li, Y. (2012). Serious game motivation in an EFL classroom in Chinese
primary school. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 154–164.
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold
(Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 142–154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Aubrey, S. (2010). Influences on Japanese students’ willingness to communicate across three different
sized EFL classes (Master’s thesis). Asian EFL Journal. www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/ThesisAubrey.pdf
Aubrey, S. (2011). Facilitating interaction in East Asian EFL classrooms: Increasing students' willingness
to communicate. Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 237–245.
Baker, S., & MacIntyre, P. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second
language orientations. Language Learning, 50(2), 311–341.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of
behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching,
testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chu, H. (2008). Shyness and EFL learning in Taiwan: A study of shy and non-shy college students’ use of
strategies, foreign language anxiety, motivation, and willingness to communicate. (Unpublished PhD
dissertation), University of Texas at Austin.
Clément, R., Baker, S, & MacIntyre, P. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The
effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190–209.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Compton, L. (2004). Using text chat to improve willingness to communicate. In J.-B. Son (Ed.),
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, contexts, and practices (pp. 123–144). New York,
NY: iUniverse.
Language Learning & Technology
120
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
deHaan, J. (2005a). Acquisition of Japanese as a foreign language through a baseball video game.
Foreign Language Annuals, 38(2), 278–282.
deHaan, J. (2005b). Learning language through video games: A theoretical framework, an evaluation of
game genres and questions for futhre research. In S. P. Schaffer & M. L. Price (Eds.), Interactive
convergence: Critical issues in multimedia (pp. 229–239). Oxford, UK: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Derwing, T., Munro, M. , & Thomson, R. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners' fluency and
comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingesss to communicate: Can online chat help? International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189–212.
Fujii, Y. (2010). Acquisition of English as a foreign language with an adventure puzzle video game.
(Unpublished graduation thesis), University of Shizuoka, Japan.
Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gee, J. (2012). Foreword. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Habgood, M., Ainsworth, S.. & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games.
Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483–498.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The
Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29–70.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70(2), 125–132.
Jarrell, D., & Freiermuth, M. (2005). The motivational power of Internet chat. RELC Journal, 36(1), 59–
72.
Kamprasertwong, M. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English speech as a second language: A
study of Thai, Chinese, and Dutch samples. (Unpublished MA dissertation), University of Groningen, The
Netherlands.
Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language.
System, 33(2), 277–292.
Kissau, S., McCullough, H., & Pyke, J. (2010). Leveling the playing field: The effects of online second
language instruction on student willingness to communicate in French. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 277–297.
Lu, Y., & Hsu, C. (2008). Willingness to communicate in intercultural interactions between Chinese and
Americans. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37(2), 75–88.
MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis.
Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 135–142.
MacIntyre, P., Babin, P., & Clément, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents &
consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(215–229).
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support,
and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
23(3), 369–388.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn: willingness to
communicate and intensive program. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589–607.
Language Learning & Technology
121
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
MacIntyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26.
MacIntyre, P., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language
Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in
the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305.
McCroskey, J. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research.
Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78–96.
McCroskey, J. (1991). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, introversion, and selfreported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisions. Communication Research
Reports, 8(1), 55–64.
McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and
operational distinction. Central States Speech Journal, 33(4), 458–468.
McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives.
Southern Communication Journal, 56(1), 72–77.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of
the literature. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Peng, J. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL classroom: A cultural perspective. In J.
Liu (Ed.), English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives and standards (pp. 250–
269). Bodmin, UK: Continuum.
Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL
classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834–876.
Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A
meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 72–93.
Peterson, M. (2011). Digital gaming and second language development: Japanese learners interactions in
a MMORPG. Digital Culture & Education, 3(1), 56–73.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploring authentic computer simulation games for
L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 441–445.
Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D role-playing game as language learning tools. Paper
presented at the EuroGraphics 2006, Vienna, Austria.
Rankin, Y., Morrison, D., McNeal, M., Gooch, B., & Shute, M. (2009). Time will tell: in-game social
interactions that facilitate second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games, Orlando, Florida.
Reinders, H. (Ed.). (2012). Digital Games in Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2011). Learn English or die: The effects of digital games on interaction and
willingness to communicate in a foreign language. Digital Culture and Education, 3(1), 4–28.
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students' willingness to communicate. In H.
Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 156–188). Basingstoke, UK:
Language Learning & Technology
122
Hayo Reinders and Sorada Wattana
Can I Say Something?
Palgrave Macmillan.
Roy, D. (2007). Warcraft teaches Spanish. Retrieved from
http://www.crossgamer.com/warcraft_teaches_spanish_1
Samudavanija, C. (1999). Plearn Puea Roo (Enjoyment for learnng). Bangkok, Thailand: Vajiravudh
College.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Thorne, S. (2008). Transcultural communication in open Internet environments and massively multiplayer
online games. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
van Lier, L.(1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity.
London, UK: Longman.
Voulgari, I. (2011). Collaborative learning in massively multiplayer online games: A review of social,
cognitive, and motivational perspectives. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning
and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 370–394).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Whitton, N. (2007). Motivation and computer game based learning. ICT: Providing choices for learners
and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 1063–1067.
Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in Higher
Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Whitton, N. (2011). Theories of motivation for adults learning with games. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook
of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary
approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 352–369). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The
Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152.
Zhao, Y., & Lai, C. (2009). MMORPGs and foreign language education. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook
of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 1, pp. 402–421). New York, NY:
Information Science Reference.
Zheng, D., Young, M., Brewer, R., & Wagner, M. (2009). Attitude and self-efficacy change: English
language learning in virtual worlds. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 205–231.
OTHER MEDIA
EverQuest II. (2004). Sony Online Entertainment.
Global Playground Gravity. (2010). http://www.gravity.co.kr/eng/games/ragnarok.asp
World of Warcraft. (2004). Blizzard Enterntainment.
Language Learning & Technology
123
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/allenetal.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 124–150
L2 WRITING PRACTICE: GAME ENJOYMENT AS A KEY TO
ENGAGEMENT
Laura K. Allen, Arizona State University
Scott A. Crossley, Georgia State University
Erica L. Snow, Arizona State University
Danielle S. McNamara, Arizona State University
The Writing Pal (W-Pal) is an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) designed to provide
students with explicit writing strategy instruction and practice. W-Pal includes a suite of
educational games developed to increase writing engagement and provide opportunities to
practice writing strategies. In this study, first (L1) (n = 26) and second (L2) language (n =
16) students interacted with W-Pal over eight sessions. We collected students’ daily selfreports of engagement, motivation, and perceptions of performance, as well as their
reported game attitudes (difficulty, helpfulness for learning, and enjoyment). Results
indicated that, for all students, interactions with W-Pal led to increases in writing
performance and more positive attitudes towards the system (engagement, motivation, and
perceived performance). For L1 students, game difficulty was a significant predictor of
boredom; however, for the L2 students, game enjoyment predicted both their motivation
and perceived writing improvement. Notably, the L2 students’ game ratings accounted for
more variance in these daily reports than did the ratings of L1 students. This study
suggests that L1 and L2 students experience similar benefits offered by game-based
strategy practice in an ITS. Further, the link between game attitudes and overall daily
perceptions of training may be stronger for L2 students than L1 students.
Keywords: Strategy Instruction, Second Language Writing, Writing Instruction,
Motivation, Game-Based Practice.
APA Citation: Allen, L. K., Crossley, S. A., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S., (2014). L2
writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning &
Technology, 18(2), 124–150. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/varneretal.pdf
Received: March 1, 2013; Accepted: February 19, 2014; Published: June 1, 2014
Copyright: © Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow & Danielle S. McNamara
INTRODUCTION
Within the context of a native language, writing is a complex and demanding process that requires
individuals to coordinate a number of cognitive skills and knowledge sources, such as goal setting,
discourse awareness, memory management strategies, and social-cultural knowledge (Flower & Hayes,
1980; Hayes, 1996; Torrance & Galbraith, 2006). The writing process is further complicated for students
who are learning a second language (L2), because text production in a second language introduces
demands associated with lower-level language skills, such as grammar and vocabulary knowledge
(Myles, 2002; Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, & van Gelderen, 2009). Accordingly, L2 writing is a more
difficult task and often results in a less effective product than writing in one’s native language (Roca de
Larios, Murphy, & Marin, 2002; Silva, 1993).
A primary concern amongst L2 instructors is the lack of preparation and focus given to developing L2
students’ writing skills (Matsuda, 1999; 2003; Reichelt, 2001; Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997). Although the
field of L2 writing has experienced significant growth in recent years (Matsuda, 2003), much less
information is understood about the unique nature of the L2 writing process compared to writing in the
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
124
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
first language (L1). Many educators have, therefore, been left with less guidance on how to provide
effective and engaging writing instruction to their L2 students. In contrast, a wealth of research has been
conducted on L1 composition processes, resulting in a number of beneficial pedagogical techniques for
teaching writing (Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1984; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Chief among these
techniques is writing strategy training. Writing strategies can help reduce the complex demands of the
writing process, particularly for struggling students (Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1984; Rogers &
Graham, 2008). However, the appropriate methods for training these strategies, as well as their
effectiveness for L2 students are relatively unknown. An important caveat is that a number of empirical
investigations have examined the effectiveness of L2-specific writing strategies on the writing
performance of L2 students. What remains less clear, however, is how more traditional, writing-specific
strategies (that are typically applied in high school classrooms) differentially affect the writing process
and performance of L1 and L2 students.
Additionally, educational games have been proposed as another method for providing effective and
engaging instruction (for a review, see Clark, Nelson, Sengupta, & D’Angelo, 2009; Jackson &
McNamara, 2013) by leveraging students’ intrinsic enjoyment of gaming (Barab, Thomas, Dodge,
Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005; Gee, 2003, 2007). Educational games may be particularly beneficial for L2
writing strategy training, as games have been shown to offset the boredom and disengagement often
associated with extended (i.e., over weeks or months) training sessions (Jackson & McNamara, 2013;
McNamara, Jackson, & Graesser, 2010). In this paper, we address two gaps in the L2 composition
literature; namely, the effectiveness of writing strategy instruction and educational games for L2 writers.
Specifically, we examine the efficacy of a game-based writing strategy tutoring system, the Writing Pal
(W-Pal; McNamara et al., 2012; Roscoe & McNamara, 2013; Roscoe, Varner, Weston, Crossley, &
McNamara, in press), to support the learning, engagement, and motivation of L2 students. We first
discuss relevant research in the L1 and L2 writing domains, as well as provide a description of the W-Pal
system and games. We then examine students’ attitudes towards game-based strategy practice in W-Pal
and how those attitudes relate to their overall engagement and motivation during training.
L2 Writing Research and Instruction
The ability to effectively produce written text plays a predominant role in the success of individuals in
school and in the workplace (Geiser & Studley, 2001; Light, 2001; Powell, 2009). Unfortunately, national
assessments of writing proficiency suggest that students in the United States struggle to reach proficiency
levels throughout their high school years (NAEP, 2007; NAEP, 2011). Second language (L2) students are
at a particular disadvantage in this area. According to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) report, 8th grade L2 students scored a total of 42 points (out of 300) below average on
the national writing assessment. This difference grew to 54 points among L2 students in the 12th grade.
Thus, despite the importance of developing writing proficiency, many L2 students in the US exit high
school lacking these necessary skills.
In many ways, the writing process for an L2 student is similar to that of a native speaker. Both L1 and L2
students must set goals for their writing, establish a clear purpose, translate their ideas into words, and
participate in a variety of other cognitive activities. In addition, L1 and L2 students must maintain
motivation and an overall awareness of the social and cultural purpose for the writing task (Graham,
2006; Hayes, 1996; Prior, 2006). Flower and Hayes (1980), for instance, claimed that writers must
maintain knowledge of their task environment (e.g., topic, audience, etc.) and knowledge of their own
goals (e.g., knowledge of topic, writing plans, etc.), while simultaneously engaging in a complex writing
process that involves stages of planning, translating, and reviewing. This process can be difficult for a
number of reasons (Graham, 2006). For example, in addition to the cognitive demands brought about by
maintaining task and author goals in memory, students must efficiently regulate their cognitive processes
and attend to the countless demands associated with the different writing stages (e.g., accessing
information from long-term memory, organizing ideas, etc.).
Language Learning & Technology
125
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Despite the similar cognitive activities employed during the L1 and L2 writing processes, a number of
marked differences can be identified between the two groups (Myles, 2002; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Silva, 1993). First, L2 writing is a more cognitively demanding task, which requires individuals to
consciously attend to more factors than in the first language. For many L1 writers, lower-level writing
processes, such as lexical access and syntactic construction, have become automatized (DeKeyser, 2007).
The writing process is therefore less constrained by working memory and cognitive control limitations
(Baddeley, 1986; McCutchen, 2000; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977) hence L1 students can place a stronger
emphasis on higher-level writing processes (e.g., the development of coherence; Ransdell and Levy,
1996). However, writing in an L2 requires students to attend to both lower- and higher-level writing
features (Schoonen et al., 2009). By placing an emphasis on lower-level writing processes, L2 students
may spend less time on higher-level ones (Weigle, 2005) and produce lower-quality texts (Schoonen et
al., 2009). Further, because L2 students’ reading processes are less automatic than for L1 students, phases
of the writing process such as planning and revising may require more time and effort (Kormos, 2012).
Another primary distinction between writing in an L1 and L2 is the influence of language proficiency
level. Because students often lack fluency and familiarity in their L2 (Paltridge, 2004), their writing
processes are subject to more constraints (e.g., translating and transcribing into their non-native
language), which may negatively impact their writing performance (Myles, 2002; O’Malley & Chamot,
1990). In a thorough review of the L2 writing research literature available at the time, Silva (1993)
investigated the documented differences between both the processes and products of L1 and L2 writers.
Several of the studies suggested that the L2 writing process was different from the L1, with L2 writers
spending more time transcribing, and significantly less time planning and organizing their ideas.
Additionally, the selected studies reported by Silva reported that the written products of L2 students
contained fewer cohesive devices, subordination, and noun modifiers, but more t-units (i.e., the main
clauses plus additional embedded and subordinating clauses in a sentence) and longer clauses than those
of L1 students.
This added complexity of the L2 writing process often results in a less effective overall product as
compared to L1 writing (Roca de Larios, Murphy, & Marin, 2002; Silva, 1993). Paltridge (2004), for
instance, found that L2 writers struggle to establish a clear purpose and organization in their written
essays. Additionally, L2 writing has been characterized by a lack of awareness and ability to adapt to
different audiences (Casanave, 2004; Johns, 1997; Paltridge, 2004). Finally, L2 writing has been shown to
contain less lexical diversity and sophistication than L1 writing (Crossley & McNamara, 2009; Linnarud,
1986; Silva, 1993).
Overall, the literature suggests that educators need to place a stronger emphasis on writing instruction for
L2 students. For instance, Silva (1993) concluded that L2 writing instruction would benefit from more
classroom time devoted to “strategic, rhetorical, and linguistic concerns” (p. 670). This instruction would
involve explicit strategy instruction, as well as a focus on the various stages of the writing process such as
planning, drafting, and revising. Thus, rather than simply spending more time writing in the classroom,
L2 writers need to be given instruction that targets the most efficient methods and strategies for writing.
Additionally, students needed to be provided training in a motivating environment in order to avoid
fatigue and disengagement during practice.
Strategy Instruction
Considerable research has been conducted to support the notion of strategy instruction as a powerful
pedagogical technique in the L1 writing classroom (Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1984; Rogers &
Graham, 2008). However, the effectiveness of these methods in the L2 classroom appears to have been
under researched. In a meta-analysis of over 120 published studies, Graham and Perin (2007) summarized
the results from writing interventions conducted on students in grades 4–12. They separated the
interventions into 11 distinct categories: strategy instruction, summarization, peer assistance, setting
Language Learning & Technology
126
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
product goals, word processing, sentence combining, inquiry, prewriting activities, process writing
approach, study of models, and grammar instruction. They found that all of the interventions, with the
exception of explicit grammar instruction, were beneficial to students (i.e., they reported moderate to
large effect sizes). In particular, strategy instruction was the most effective form of pedagogy (large mean
weighted effect size = 0.82), and was especially successful for struggling writers (large mean weighted
effect size = 1.02).
A year later, Rogers and Graham (2008) extended this investigation in a separate meta-analysis of studies
involving single-subject designs. They reported nine writing interventions that were beneficial to student
writers. Again, the most effective writing treatment was strategy instruction for planning and drafting
texts. Notably, all of these investigations utilized the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)
model developed by Harris and Graham (1996) to teach the writing strategies. In addition to improving
writing performance immediately following training, strategy instruction maintained treatment effects
over a period of three weeks or longer and transferred to writing genres for which students had received
no instruction.
Despite its apparent benefits for struggling writers, research on the effect of explicit writing-specific
strategy instruction for L2 students is fairly scant. As mentioned previously, L2-specific writing strategies
have been empirically investigated in L2 classrooms; however, it is unclear how more general, writingspecific strategies apply to L2 students. Additionally, although the effects of strategy instruction for L2
writing have been addressed in the literature (Negari, 2011; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), most of these
strategies are subsumed under the general category of “language learning strategies” and have little
relation to the actual writing process. For instance, L2 students are frequently taught to “analyze” and
“translate” their ideas; however, they are much less frequently provided with training on strategies
specific to the writing process (e.g., strategies for freewriting or developing flowcharts). A number of L2
writing researchers have suggested that L1 writing strategies can be transferred to the L2 in some
situations (Arndt, 1987; Berman, 1994; Matsumoto, 1995; Woodall, 2002). However, it is currently
unclear how, and if, the instruction of writing-specific strategies should differ for L1 and L2 students.
Therefore, further research is needed to investigate the effects of writing strategy interventions, such as
those detailed by Graham and Perin (2007), on samples of L2 writers.
Educational Games and Student Engagement
One concern regarding strategy instruction is that it requires extensive training and practice, which
requires a lot of time and can negatively affect students’ motivation and engagement towards learning
tasks (Bell & McNamara, 2007; Jackson & McNamara, 2013; McNamara, Jackson, & Graesser, 2010).
To offset these concerns, educational games have been introduced as a method for increasing students’
motivation, engagement, and persistence throughout training (Barab, Gresalfi, & Arici, 2009; Corbett &
Anderson, 2001; Gee, 2005; Malone & Lepper, 1987; Shaffer, 2007). Educational games can increase
students’ motivation towards a particular task by leveraging the enjoyable and engaging properties of
games (Orbach, 1979; Shank & Neeman, 2001). Additionally, game-based elements, such as narrative or
competition, can be integrated into learning environments to increase students’ enjoyment of and
engagement in a task (McNamara et al., 2010).
Educational games require students to apply target skills or knowledge to successfully explore an
environment and complete given tasks (Gredler, 2004). Thus, in addition to completing tasks for the
purpose of learning new material, students can be offered additional motivation to engage in learning
activities throughout educational gameplay. In other words, while training in a game-based system,
students may practice a given skill or strategy for the purpose of learning the material and improving their
understanding of a topic, or they may engage in practice to compete with other students or earn rewards
(e.g., trophies, points, etc.).
In general, educational games have been linked to increased learning and motivation (e.g., Ricci, Salas, &
Language Learning & Technology
127
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Rowe, Shores, Mott, & Lester, 2011) in a variety of contexts. Across a wide range
of populations that vary in gender, age, and numerous other characteristics, meta-analyses have reported
that educational games lead to increases in cognition, skills, and positive affect (Vogel et al., 2006;
Wilson et al., 2009). Educational games are designed to offer more engaging learning environments than
do traditional, classroom instruction; therefore, it has been suggested that they can lead to more persistent
and successful learning (Barab et al., 2007, 2012; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Steinkuehler, 2006).
In addition, if students are engaged, they tend to not grow bored with the learning task, to not lose
attention, nor to fail to learn the presented material (e.g., Craig et al., 2004). Further, these learners are
more likely to reengage in beneficial learning processes if they have become disinterested (Boekaerts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; D’Mello & Graesser, 2006; D’Mello, Taylor, & Graesser, 2007).
The Writing Pal
Previous research suggests that deliberate practice is necessary for students to acquire and internalize
newly learned strategies (Kellogg, 2008) and that the combination of deliberate practice with writing and
revising can improve students’ overall performance (Johnstone, Ashbaugh, & Warfield, 2002).
Accordingly, for strategy instruction to be effective, L2 students should be provided with opportunities to
practice writing strategies for extended periods of time. A number of computerized tools have been
developed to provide students with practice opportunities and feedback on their written essays (Grimes &
Warschauer, 2010; Shermis & Burstein, 2003), such as e-rater (Attali & Burstein, 2006) and IntelliMetric
(Rudner, Garcia, & Welch, 2006). However, the development of these systems tends to focus on reliable
and accurate scoring systems, rather than on providing feedback and instruction grounded in effective
writing pedagogy (Roscoe et al., in press). As such, explicit instruction and deliberate practice related to
effective writing strategies is relatively uncommon among such educational technologies.
The Writing Pal (W-Pal) is an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) designed to provide students with explicit
writing strategy instruction, as well as opportunities to engage in deliberate practice with such strategies
(McNamara et al., 2012; Roscoe et al., in press). Within W-Pal, students are provided with strategy
instruction and strategy practice within the context of eight modules, which contain instructional videos
and educational mini-games. The mini-games are intended to offer students’ deliberate strategy practice
in an effective and engaging environment. Additionally, W-Pal contains an essay practice module, where
students can practice applying the writing strategies in the context of a complete essay.
Knowing that deliberate practice with writing and revising can improve students’ overall performance
(Johnstone et al., 2002), W-Pal contains an Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) system that allows
students to write essays and receive feedback on the quality of their writing. In this system, students
compose timed, persuasive essays in response to a number of built-in SAT1-style essay prompts. Essay
scores are provided to students using a natural language processing algorithm that assigns scores (1-6)
ranging from “Poor” to “Great” (McNamara, Crossley, & Roscoe, 2013). In addition to receiving a
holistic score, students are provided with formative feedback that addresses specific writing strategies that
can improve the quality of their essays. For instance, if a student’s essay lacked paragraph structure and
organization, the system might provide feedback suggesting that the student construct an outline before
writing essays; additionally, the student would be provided with tips on how to most effectively outline an
essay. Students can select to receive up to 10 pieces of formative feedback (minimum of one piece of
feedback) on two different topics from the system. After students review their assigned feedback, they are
given the opportunity to complete a revision of their essay and resubmit it for a new score.
In addition to essay writing practice, W-Pal offers students the opportunity to receive explicit instruction
and strategy-focused practice. Each of the eight strategy modules in W-Pal is based on a specific
component of the writing process (e.g., planning, introduction building, and revising). Animated
pedagogical agents provide explanations, examples, and demonstrations of each writing strategy within
short instructional videos. After watching the videos, students are given the opportunity to practice the
Language Learning & Technology
128
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
newly acquired strategies in the context of educational mini-games, which allow students to practice each
strategy in isolation, as opposed to engaging in a complete writing task. This isolated instruction and
practice allows students to individually master specific writing strategies without becoming overwhelmed
by the complex demands of the writing process. Within the Planning module, for example, students watch
four short videos that provide an introduction to strategies that can increase the organization and “flow”
of their essays. Some of the targeted strategies include the use of graphic organizers, such as flowcharts or
outlines to increase the cohesion of their essays. After students view the videos, they are transitioned to
educational mini-games that provide practice on the specific strategies covered in the lessons such as
constructing essay outlines or identifying arguments and evidence.
As discussed earlier, a common concern regarding extended practice environments is that students may
disengage or develop negative opinions toward the practice task. Indeed, student disengagement is a welldocumented problem, especially within the context of learning technologies (McNamara, Jackson, &
Graesser, 2010). Educational games and game-based features (e.g., narratives and incentives) have been
proposed as a method for increasing engagement by leveraging the inherent enjoyment of games
(Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Malone & Lepper, 1987; Quick, Atkinson, & Lin, 2012; Young et al., 2012).
Therefore, a predominant goal of the W-Pal system is to establish and maintain students’ motivation and
engagement through the use of game-based practice. Housed within the W-Pal system is a suite of 16
educational games (see Table 1), which include a brief narrative and include either generative or
identification tasks intended to engage students in strategy practice (see Appendix A for a more detailed
description of the W-Pal games)
Table 1. W-Pal Modules and Corresponding Mini-Games.
Module
Practice Games
Freewriting
Freewrite Flash
Planning
Mastermind Outline
Planning Passage
Introduction Building
Essay Launcher
Dungeon Escape
Fix It
Body Building
RoBoCo
Fix It
Conclusion Building
Lockdown
Dungeon Escape
Fix It
Paraphrasing
Adventurer’s Loot
Map Conquest
Cohesion Building
CON-Artist
Undefined & Mined
Revising
Speech Writer
Planning Passage is an example of a mini-game included within the Planning module. In this game,
students are asked to identify certain planning strategies within the narrative of a road-trip adventure (see
Figure 1). The various planning strategies include: outlining, identifying evidence, and organizing
Language Learning & Technology
129
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
arguments. Throughout this game, students visit lakes, parks, and monuments. At each stop, students are
prompted to answer a question about the planning strategies (i.e., identify the correct evidence for a
particular argument). Correct answers earn trip pictures (corresponding to score increases) and incorrect
answers can cause the car to lose fuel (corresponding to score decreases). In this task, students are only
presented with one question at a time. This allows them to consider the question and focus on the key
elements of the planning strategy. Correct answers early on in the “road trip” are rewarded heavily, as
students are able to visit more places on their trip. Overall, the Planning Passage mini-game allows
students to implement the planning strategies they were taught in the lesson videos.
Figure 1. Screenshot of Planning Passage.
Another mini-game offered within the W-Pal system is Map Conquest. Map Conquest is a generative
practice game in which students are asked to use strategies to paraphrase given sentences (see Figure 2).
The strategies covered in Map Conquest include: condensing, word variety, and sentence structure. In this
game, students attempt to take control of a map, which contains their own flags as well as flags from a
computer opponent. To earn additional flags, students are prompted to use strategies to paraphrase given
sentences. Once students submit their answers, an algorithm assigns a score (0–3) based on the quality of
their paraphrasing. This score reflects the number of “moves” a student can make on the board. Students’
use their “moves” to place their flags on the map; thus, more moves typically correspond to gaining more
control of the map than their computer opponent. The final score in Map Conquest is based on overall
task performance and the number of flags students control on the map. Similar to the Planning Passage
game, Map Conquest rewards students for the quality of their work. This ensures that students exert
thoughtful effort in the generation of their paraphrases.
Language Learning & Technology
130
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Figure 2. Screenshot of Map Conquest.
Overall, the W-Pal system leverages educational games to support students’ strategy acquisition and
practice. The W-Pal games are intended to offset the disengagement and negative emotions commonly
associated with redundant practice tasks such as those common in developing writing proficiency (i.e.,
deliberate practice). Therefore, these games play a unique role in the learning process by providing
students a chance to practice strategies within an engaging and novel environment. Because these games
afford students the opportunity to repeatedly practice isolated writing strategies, they may be appropriate
for L2 students who need additional practice and feedback.
Research Questions
The purpose of the current study is to investigate the efficacy of a game-based writing strategy tutoring
system (W-Pal) to improve the writing performance, engagement, and motivation of L2 students. In
particular, we aim to investigate how L2 students’ experiences with the Writing Pal system were similar
to or different from those of L1 students. Our primary research questions are outlined below.
1) Do L1 and L2 students experience learning gains from interacting with W-Pal and, if so, how do
these learning gains compare across extended strategy training with the W-Pal system?
2) Do L2 students experience similar engagement and motivation in W-Pal as do L1 students?
3) How do L1 and L2 students’ attitudes towards the W-Pal games relate to their daily reports of
engagement, motivation, and perceived learning gains?
Language Learning & Technology
131
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
METHOD
Participants
The participants in this study were part of a larger experiment (n = 88), which compared the Writing Pal
tutoring system to an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system condition (Crossley, Roscoe, &
McNamara, 2013). In this study, we focus on the students who were in the Writing Pal tutoring system
condition (n =42), which included writing strategy practice within the mini-games. All participants were
recruited from local high schools in the metropolitan Phoenix area using Internet advertisements, flyers
posted in the community and classrooms, and through word-of-mouth communication. The high school
students were, on average, 16 years of age, with a mean reported grade level of 10.4. Of the 42 students,
57.1% were female (n = 24) and 42.9% were male (n = 18); 45.2% were Hispanic (n = 19), 33.3% were
Caucasian (n = 14), 11.9% were Asian (n = 5), 4.8% were African-American (n = 2), and 4.8% reported
“other.” (n = 2). All participants were monetarily compensated for their participation in this study.
L2 Participants
Of the 42 students in the W-Pal condition, 38.1% reported that they were L2 speakers of English, while
61.9% reported that they were L1 speakers. The majority of these L2 students (81.3%) had been studying
English for over 7 years, whereas the remaining students (6.3%) reported that they had been studying
English for 3 years. Spanish was the native language of 75.1% of the L2 students, with two students
missing responses to this question and the remaining two students speaking either Mandarin/Cantonese (n
= 1) or Gujarati (n = 1). Students self-reported that they typically used English in multiple formats,
including emails (62.5%), letters (62.5%), notes (81.3%), essays (87.5%), research papers (81.3%),
reports (81.3%), creative writing (62.5%), and other formats (31.3%).
Study Procedure
The participants were required to complete all sessions of the 10-session study that lasted between two
and four weeks. The study was conducted during the summer holiday; therefore, it was unlikely that the
students were receiving alternative forms of writing instruction or training during the time of the study.
On the first day of the study (session 1), all of the students completed a pretest (approximately 1 hour in
duration), which contained measures of their prior knowledge of writing strategies, attitudes (motivation,
expected enjoyment and eagerness to participate) and literacy skills. During the following eight sessions,
the students completed training sessions with the complete W-Pal system (approximately 1.5–2 hours in
duration). The last day (session 10) consisted of a posttest, which comprised similar measures to the
pretest (approximately 1 hour in duration). All students were required to complete the same materials
throughout the pretest, training sessions, and posttest.
Pretest.
The pretest lasted approximately 1 hour in duration and included a number of individual difference
measures: Demographics survey, writing proficiency (25-minute SAT-style essay), reading
comprehension ability (assessed through the Gates-MacGinitie (4th ed.) reading skill test (form S) level
10/12; MacGinitie & MacGinitie, 1989), vocabulary knowledge (assessed through the Gates MacGinitie
Vocabulary Test), a writing attitudes and perceptions survey, and writing strategy knowledge survey. The
measures that are relevant to this study are described in the Measures section.
Training
At the beginning of each training session, students completed a 12-item survey that related to their
attitudes and expectations for the training session. During each training session (sessions 2-9), students
first wrote a timed (25-minute) essay on an SAT-style prompt. Upon completion of this essay, students
received automated feedback from the W-Pal AWE system and were given 10 minutes to revise their
essay based on this feedback. Following this essay revision, the students completed one W-Pal module,
Language Learning & Technology
132
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
which contained lesson videos and game-based practice for a specific component of the writing process
(e.g., planning, introduction building, and revising). All students were first required to watch all of the
videos for a given module. After completion of the videos, the games were unlocked and students were
asked to play each game twice. After each game play, students completed a short survey on their overall
perceptions of the game. Although students varied in the amount of time they took to complete the essays,
revisions, surveys, and game-based practice tasks, each of the students’ training sessions lasted
approximately 1.5–2 hours.
Posttest
During their last session, all of the participants completed a posttest, which lasted approximately 1 hour.
This test consisted of a daily survey as well as assessments that were similar to the pretest, including:
writing proficiency (25-minute SAT-style essay), a writing attitudes and perceptions survey, and a writing
strategy knowledge survey.
Measures
Self-report and performance measures were collected from students at pretest, before and during each
training session, and finally at posttest. These measures assessed students’ writing ability in addition to
their attitudes, perceptions, and motivation toward various aspects of the training sessions. They are
discussed in greater detail below.
Writing Ability
At pretest and posttest, each student wrote a timed (25-minute), SAT-style essay. The SAT-style essay
was chosen because it is a common form of writing assessment that is given to both L1 and L2 high
school students in the United States. The prompts and instructions were counterbalanced at pretest and
posttest for all participants (see Appendix B). Using a 6-point rating scale developed for the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (see Appendix C) to holistically assess the quality of the essays, each essay was scored
independently by two expert raters. This rubric was chosen to reflect the actual assessment criteria that
would be used for high-stakes tests, such as the SAT. Raters were first trained to use the rubric with a
small sample of similar essays. A Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess inter-rater reliability.
When the raters reached a correlation of r = .70, the ratings were considered reliable and the raters scored
a larger subsection of the corpus. The final inter-rater reliability for the raters for the essays was r > .60.
While this was lower than the .70 reached in training, adjacent agreement between raters was 100% (i.e.,
in all cases the raters assigned scores to the essays that were within 1 point of each other). Average scores
between the raters were calculated for each essay to provide a holistic score.
Daily Surveys
The daily surveys administered before each training session assessed students’ experiences from their
previous session and their motivation to participate in the upcoming session. The measures related to the
previous session asked students to report on their overall impressions of the system, as well as their
enjoyment, boredom, frustration, perceptions of learning and improvement, as well as if they had any
problems with W-Pal. Additionally, the daily survey asked students to self-report their attitudes and
expectations concerning the upcoming training session, including their mood, motivation to participate in
the training session, their intention to perform well, and their desire to outperform their peers (see
Appendix D for the 12 daily survey questions).
Game Attitude Surveys
Following the completion of each game play, the students were presented with surveys about their
attitudes towards and enjoyment of the W-Pal games (see Appendix E). Each question was on a 4-point
Likert scale that ranged from negative to positive. The surveys asked students to report their enjoyment of
the games (1 = not enjoyable at all and 4 = very enjoyable), as well as their perceptions of how helpful
Language Learning & Technology
133
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
each game was for strategy practice (1 = not helpful at all and 4 = very helpful) and how difficult each
game was to play (1 = difficult and 4 = easy). Finally, students were asked to report on the mechanics of
each game, including the quality of the graphics, instructions, and controls.
Statistical Analyses
To examine differences between L1 and L2 students’ writing performance and attitudes toward the W-Pal
system, we conducted ANOVA, correlation, and regression analyses using pretest and posttest essay
scores, daily survey responses, and game survey responses. Differences in L1 and L2 students’
performance and attitudes (i.e., engagement, motivation, and perceived learning) were assessed with
mixed-design ANOVAs. For each of these analyses, there was a between-subjects factor of language and
a within-subjects factor of session (for daily surveys) or test (for pretest and posttest essay scores).
Additionally, one-way (language) between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted on the game survey
responses to assess whether L1 and L2 students rated the games similarly or differently. Finally,
correlation and stepwise regression analyses were conducted to assess the relation between the posttest
daily survey responses (to the posttest session, or session 9) and the students’ reported perceptions of the
W-Pal games. Due to system logging issues, posttest surveys were not recorded for 4 students (2 L1 and 2
L2 students).
RESULTS
The current study investigated the effect of W-Pal writing strategy training on L1 and L2 students’
writing performance, engagement, and perceived learning gains. Our analyses investigate whether
changes in these dependent variables across time are similar or different for L1 and L2 writers.
Additionally, we examine whether students’ self-reported perceptions of helpfulness, difficulty, and
enjoyment of the W-Pal games are related to learning gains and self-reported engagement within the
system.
Writing Performance
We examined students’ holistic essay scores both prior to and after receiving writing strategy training in
W-Pal. The means, standard deviations, and ranges for L1 and L2 students’ pretest and posttest essays are
reported in Table 2. An ANOVA including participants’ reported language (L1, L2) and test (pretest,
posttest) yielded a significant main effect of test, F (1, 40) = 102.87, p < .05, confirming that both L1 and
L2 students’ writing improved from W-Pal training. However, there was no significant main effect of
language and no interaction between test and language (Fs<1). Based on these results, we can assume that
this particular sample of L2 students had a relatively high level of writing proficiency in English. These
results also suggest that all participants, regardless of their native language, improved in terms of their
holistic essay scores between pretest and posttest.
Table 2. Pretest and Posttest Holistic Essay Scores as Functions of Test and Language.
Variable
M*
SD
First Language (L1) Students
Pretest Holistic Score
Posttest Holistic Score
Second Language (L1) Students
2.67
3.13
.53
.48
2.97
3.22
.62
.80
Pretest Holistic Score
Posttest Holistic Score
*Note: Range = 2-4.
Language Learning & Technology
134
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Self-Reported Motivation, Engagement, and Perceived Learning
Our next series of analyses examined L1 and L2 students’ perceptions of their writing performance and
experiences engaging with W-Pal (see Table 3). Using the daily survey questions related to perceived
learning (perceived learning of the material and perceived writing improvement), engagement (enjoyment
of session and boredom), and motivation (eagerness to participate and motivation to perform well), we
examined differences between these two groups. Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the
assumption of sphericity had been violated for each variable (p < .05 for all X2 values); therefore, degrees
of freedom were corrected using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity.
Table 3. Daily Survey Responses as Functions of Session (S) and Language (L1 and L2).
Perceived
Learning
Perceived
Improvement
Enjoyment
of Session
Boredom
Eagerness to
Participate
Motivation to
Perform Well
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
S1
4.14
1.15
3.29
1.23
4.05
1.20
2.81
1.03
4.10
1.14
5.38
.67
S2
4.38
.97
4.19
1.21
4.14
1.20
2.71
1.01
4.29
1.15
5.29
.85
S3
4.62
.81
4.10
1.00
4.29
1.06
2.43
.93
4.29
1.15
5.10
.89
S4
4.52
1.17
3.95
1.2
4.19
1.37
2.52
.93
4.14
1.24
5.00
1.27
S5
4.43
1.02
4.33
1.16
4.10
1.14
2.43
1.08
4.14
1.28
4.90
1.18
S6
4.38
1.16
4.29
1.06
4.05
1.20
2.48
1.08
4.19
1.21
4.95
.92
S7
4.52
.93
4.38
.74
4.29
.96
2.29
1.01
4.24
1.18
4.81
1.08
S8
4.38
.92
4.43
.81
4.14
1.11
2.33
.97
4.05
1.20
4.86
1.20
S9
4.71
.85
4.57
.93
4.52
1.03
2.24
.89
4.81
.81
5.10
.89
S1
3.86
1.70
3.00
1.47
4.07
1.59
2.57
1.02
4.43
1.02
5.36
1.01
S2
4.57
1.22
3.71
1.14
4.29
1.44
2.50
.94
4.50
1.23
4.93
1.33
S3
4.86
.66
4.50
.86
4.64
.84
2.57
.94
4.43
1.16
4.86
1.23
S4
4.50
1.29
4.21
1.25
4.50
1.00
2.36
.93
4.57
.94
5.00
1.24
S5
4.57
.94
4.43
1.02
4.50
1.09
2.36
1.01
4.43
1.34
4.57
1.51
S6
4.36
1.01
4.36
1.15
4.57
1.02
2.21
.98
4.64
1.01
4.93
1.21
S7
4.79
.98
4.50
1.02
4.71
1.14
2.57
1.51
4.79
.98
5.00
1.18
S8
4.79
1.05
4.79
1.12
4.79
.98
2.57
1.02
4.64
.93
4.93
1.00
S9
4.64
1.01
4.64
.93
4.64
1.01
2.50
1.12
5.00
1.04
5.21
.98
Variable
SD
L1 Students
L2 Students
Note: All daily survey responses were rated on a 1-to-6 scale from negative to positive.
The results revealed that there was a significant effect of training session for the following daily survey
measures: perceived learning of the material, F (8, 5.35) = 3.50, p = .004, perceived writing improvement,
F (8, 4.83) = 14.61, p < .001, eagerness to participate, F (8, 5.05) = 2.72, p = .021, and motivation to
perform well, F (8, 4.04) = 3.75, p = .006. These four daily survey measures are displayed in Figure 3 as a
function of session, indicating that perceived learning, engagement, and motivation increase across the
Language Learning & Technology
135
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
nine training sessions. However, there were no significant effects of variables related to engagement:
enjoyment of session, F (8, 3.71) = 1.83, p = .133, or boredom, F (8, 4.23) = 1.33, p = .262, nor were
there significant interactions between training session and language on the daily survey responses. These
results suggest that all participants, regardless of their native language, experienced increases in their
perceptions of learning and motivation across the training sessions. Therefore, it appears that the second
language students in this study experienced similar attitudinal benefits from game-based practice as did
L1 students.
Figure 3. Daily survey measures as a function of training session.
Attitudes towards W-Pal Games
In addition to the daily surveys, students’ responses on the game surveys were analyzed. In particular, we
examined whether L1 and L2 students reported similar levels of enjoyment, difficulty, and helpfulness for
the W-Pal games. Students’ responses were averaged across all of the games to provide a mean game
enjoyment, difficulty, and helpfulness response for each student. The descriptive statistics for game
responses are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Game Survey Responses as Functions of Language.
Game Survey Response
M
SD
First Language (L1) Students
Game Enjoyment
3.06
.53
1.63–4.00
Game Difficulty
2.90
.62
1.75–4.00
Game Helpfulness
3.18
.49
1.88–4.00
Game Enjoyment
3.15
.41
2.56–3.94
Game Difficulty
3.03
.51
2.19–3.94
Game Helpfulness
3.10
.60
1.90–3.94
Range
Second Language (L1) Students
Language Learning & Technology
136
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
The descriptive statistics for the mean game responses suggest that, on average, students enjoyed the
games, and felt they were helpful and easy to play (i.e., mean self-reported game ratings were above 2.5
on a 4-point scale). ANOVAs including language as a between-subjects factor for each mean game score
(i.e., enjoyment, difficulty, and helpfulness) indicated that there were no significant differences in L1 and
L2 students’ perceptions of the games (all Fs < 1). Therefore, it appears that L1 and L2 students had
similar, positive attitudes towards the game-based practice environments within the W-Pal system.
Game Attitudes and System Engagement
We investigated the relation between students’ attitudes towards the W-Pal games and their engagement
and motivation when interacting with the system. These analyses were intended to provide a more finegrained investigation into the specific effects of the games on students’ attitudes during training. Table 5
presents the correlations between the daily survey responses for the posttest day (session 9) and the mean
game survey responses for both L1 and L2 students. The session 9 daily survey responses were reported
on the day of the posttest; therefore, it was assumed that they were most indicative of students’ final
system perceptions after training.
Table 5. Correlations between Mean Game Survey Responses and Session 9 Survey Responses for both
L1 and L2 Students.
Session 9 Survey Questions
Enjoyment
Difficulty
Helpfulness
Perceived learning of the material
.54**
.29
.62**
Perceived writing improvement
.61**
.40*
.55**
Enjoyment of session
.59**
.43**
.45**
-.60**
-.50**
-.58**
Eagerness to participate
.56**
.43*
.43*
Motivation to perform well
.37*
.15
.30
Boredom
The correlation analyses indicate that L1 and L2 students’ reports of game enjoyment, difficulty, and
helpfulness were significantly related to their overall enjoyment, motivation, and perceived learning gains
within the W-Pal system. Students’ perception of learning gains and writing improvement were positively
related to their ratings of game helpfulness and enjoyment. However, students’ perceptions of game
difficulty had little to no relation to their perceived learning gains. In addition, students’ enjoyment of the
W-Pal system (i.e., the enjoyment and boredom questions on the daily survey) was significantly related to
their mean game survey responses. In particular, students’ self-reported enjoyment during the training
sessions was positively related to their perceptions of both the helpfulness and enjoyment of the games.
Boredom, on the other hand, was negatively related to reports of the games’ helpfulness, enjoyment, and
ease. Thus, the more enjoyable, helpful, and easy students perceived the games, the less likely they were
to report feeling bored during the sessions. Finally, students’ self-reported eagerness to participate on the
last day of training (looking forward to participating) was significantly related to their perceived
helpfulness, difficulty, and enjoyment of games. Thus, the more students felt the games were beneficial,
difficult, and enjoyable, the more motivated they were to participate in the training session.
To further examine these relations, we conducted three separate stepwise regression analyses on students’
reports of engagement, motivation, and perceived learning (on session 9) from their mean game survey
responses. For the dependent variables, we chose the daily survey measures from each category
(engagement, motivation, and perceived learning) that were most highly correlated with the game
responses. Our dependent variables were: perceived writing improvement, boredom, and eagerness to
participate. The regression for the perceived writing improvement variable yielded a significant model,
Language Learning & Technology
137
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
F (1, 36) = 20.83, p <.001 R2 = .37 with one predictor: game enjoyment [β = .60, t (1, 36)= 4.56, p
<.001]. These results suggest that students were more likely to perceive they had learned the W-Pal
material when they rated the games as more enjoyable. Additionally, the regression on boredom yielded a
significant model, F (1, 36) = 20.30, p < .001 R2 = .36 with one predictor: game enjoyment [β = -.60, t (1,
36)= -4.51, p < .001]. Students were less likely to experience boredom during strategy training and
practice if they perceived the W-Pal games to be enjoyable overall. Finally, the regression for eagerness
to participate yielded a third significant model, F (1,36) = 16.65, p < .001; R2 = .32 with one predictor:
game enjoyment [β = .56, t (1, 36)= 4.08, p < .001]. Similar to the boredom analysis, the results of this
regression suggest that students’ enjoyment during training is significantly related to their enjoyment of
the W-Pal games.
These results provide confirmatory evidence for the correlation analyses and suggest that students'
engagement, motivation, and perceived learning gains during the W-Pal training sessions were strongly
tied to their perceptions of the games. In particular, students' reported enjoyment of the W-Pal practice
games was the strongest predictor of students’ perceived writing improvement, boredom, and eagerness to
participate on the final day of training.
A driving research question for this study regarded the degree to which the usefulness of the Writing Pal
system differed as a function of primary language. In particular, we were interested in examining whether
the game-based practice elements of W-Pal had differential effects on L1 and L2 students’ engagement
and perceptions towards the training sessions. Hence, in the following regression analyses, we examined
these relations separately for these two groups.
L1 Regression Analyses
Three stepwise regression analyses were conducted including only L1 students. This analysis served as a
baseline with which to compare the results of the L2 regression analysis. The regression for the perceived
writing improvement response yielded a significant model, F (1, 22) = 8.96, p =.007; R2 = .29 with one
predictor: perceived enjoyment [β = .54, t (1, 22)= 2.99, p =.007]. These results suggest that L1 students
were more likely to perceive they had learned the W-Pal material when they rated the games as more
enjoyable. Additionally, the regression on boredom yielded a significant model, F (1, 22) = 19.84, p <
.001; R2 = .47, with one significant predictor: game difficulty [β = -.69, t (1, 22) = -4.45, p < .001]. L1
students reported more boredom during W-Pal when they had also perceived the games to be easier, and
less boredom when the games were more difficult. Finally, the regression for eagerness to participate
yielded a third significant model, F (1, 22) = 7.47, p =. 012; R2 = .25 with one predictor: game enjoyment
[β = .50, t (1, 22)= 2.73, p = .012. Similar to the results for the writing improvement and boredom
analyses, the findings of this regression suggest that L1 students’ enjoyment during training is
significantly related to their ratings enjoyment of the W-Pal games. Overall, the results of these regression
analyses indicate that, for L1 students, the perceived enjoyment of the W-Pal games was strongly related
to students’ overall engagement during the W-Pal training sessions.
L2 Regression Analyses
Similar stepwise regression analyses (three analyses) were conducted including only L2 students. All
three of the regression analyses yielded significant models: perceived writing improvement, boredom, and
eagerness to participate. The perceived writing improvement regression analysis, F (1, 12) = 21.36, p =
.001; R2 = .64, had one significant predictor: game enjoyment [β = .80, t (1, 12)= 4.62, p = .001]. The
boredom response yielded a significant model, F (1, 12) = 8.06, p = .015; R2 = .40, with one significant
predictor: perceived helpfulness [β = -.63, t (1, 12) = -2.84, p = .015]. Finally, the eagerness to participate
response yielded a significant model, F (1, 12) = 14.04, p = .003; R2 = .54, with one significant predictor:
game enjoyment [β = .73, t (1, 12) = 3.75, p = .003]. The results of these regression analyses indicate that,
for L2 students, game enjoyment was a significant predictor of both perceived writing improvement and
motivation to participate in the training session. In particular, this variable alone accounted for
Language Learning & Technology
138
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
approximately three-quarters of the variance in L2 students’ perceived learning of the system, and over
half of the variance in their eagerness to participate in the session. Additionally, for L2 students, the
perceived helpfulness of the W-Pal games was a significant predictor of their boredom during the daily
training sessions (i.e., students were less bored when the games were perceived to be helpful for learning).
Therefore, it appears that game enjoyment and perceived helpfulness played strong roles in L2 students’
overall engagement, boredom, and perceived learning from the W-Pal system.
DISCUSSION
Compared to L1 writers, L2 writers more frequently struggle to produce high quality writing, primarily
because of the added difficulties associated with weaker language skills (NAEP, 2007; NAEP, 2011). One
method that has been proposed to improve the writing skills of L1 writers is explicit writing strategy
instruction. Such training has proven successful among native language writers (Graham & Perin, 2007;
Hillocks, 1984; Rogers & Graham, 2008); however, the efficacy of such writing strategy interventions for
L2 students has not been widely studied. In this study, both L1 and L2 writers interacted with a gamebased writing strategy tutoring system designed to provide instruction and practice in an engaging
environment. Using these interactions, we investigated whether the L2 students benefited from this gamebased training intervention similarly or differently to the L1 students.
We examined changes in students’ writing performance (i.e., pretest and posttest holistic essay scores)
and system attitudes (i.e., daily reports of engagement, motivation, and perceived learning gains) across
training sessions. Additionally, we analyzed the relation between these reported system perceptions and
students’ ratings of the strategy practice games in the W-Pal system. The results of the current study
indicate that L2 students can indeed benefit from explicit writing strategy instruction within a game-based
learning environment. Additionally, their enjoyment of strategy practice games is strongly linked to their
overall engagement, motivation, and perceived performance towards strategy training sessions. Our
results, therefore, support our predictions that writing strategy interventions that have been developed and
tested for L1 students can be beneficial for L2 writers. Additionally, they suggest that game-based
practice environments can be used as an engaging alternative to repetitive strategy training sessions, such
as practice drills.
One substantial contribution of this study is the comparison of L1 and L2 students’ development of
writing performance (holistic essay scores) and system perceptions (daily reports of engagement,
motivation, and perceived learning gains) across extended exposure to explicit writing strategy
instruction. Although researchers have investigated the effects of writing-specific strategy interventions
for L1 students, far fewer studies have focused on the benefits of such instruction for L2 students. A
second contribution of this study is the examination of L2 students’ perceptions of game-based strategy
practice. Specifically, we investigated how students’ reported perceptions of the games were related to,
and predictive of, their overall reported engagement, motivation, and perceived learning after training.
These analyses provided a glimpse into the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 writers during
interactions with a game-based tutoring system. Additionally, they allow us to confirm a strong link
between second language students’ perceptions of strategy practice games and their overall perceptions of
the Writing Pal training sessions.
L2 Writing Strategy Training
The results of this study provide an extensive analysis of the development of L2 students’ writing
performance and system perceptions across writing strategy-training sessions. Students in this study
repeatedly interacted with W-Pal during which they received explicit strategy instruction, game-based
strategy practice, and holistic essay writing practice (McNamara et al., 2012; Roscoe et al., in press). A
series of instructional videos provided students with explanations, examples, and demonstrations on how
to effectively apply writing strategies to their own essays. In addition, strategy practice games allowed
Language Learning & Technology
139
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
students to practice applying the strategies within isolated tasks, minimizing the potential to grow
overwhelmed with the complex demands of the writing process. Finally, W-Pal offered students the
opportunity to combine the strategies they had learned in a holistic essay-writing module.
Because the writing process is a complex cognitive task, L2 students may benefit from supplementary
instruction and practice in engaging environments in a similar manner to L1 writers. Writing Pal provides
such an environment, where these students can receive instruction and repeated, deliberate practice in an
engaging and adaptive environment. The current study investigated whether L2 students would benefit
from exposure to this system, in terms of writing performance or attitudinal measures. Our analyses
revealed that L1 and L2 students exhibited similar positive developmental patterns across training session.
Regardless of their native language, students improved in terms of writing performance as well as selfreported levels of engagement, motivation, and perceived writing improvement.
Student engagement plays a vital role in the efficacy of extended practice training sessions (McNamara et
al., 2010). When practice tasks become repetitive and redundant, students can disengage from training.
This may be particularly troubling for L2 students, who may need more practice than L1 students. Our
results suggest that game-based strategy practice may offset potential negative training effects. In
particular, repeated strategy training interspersed with game-based strategy practice in W-Pal not only
maintained students’ levels of engagement and motivation, it also led to overall increases in writing
performance and affect (i.e., motivation, engagement, and perceived performance) for both L1 and L2
students. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that the addition of game-based features to repeated
practice tasks has the potential to increase L2 students’ engagement and motivation.
An obvious limitation of the current analyses is the equivalence of the pretest essay scores for L1 and L2
students. Although the L2 students in this study benefitted from the writing strategy training and gamebased practice, it is unknown whether less proficient L2 students would experience similar benefits.
Nonetheless, the results of this study provide confirmation that writing strategy training can benefit more
advanced L2 writers in a similar manner as L1 writers. In addition to writing proficiency increases, the
results of this study suggest that the L2 students experienced similar affective benefits from game-based
practice as L1 students. Thus, we can conclude that, at least for highly proficient L2 students, game-based
strategy training can lead to increases in writing performance, as well as motivation and engagement
towards practice.
Game-based Writing Strategy Practice
Beyond our analysis of students’ performance and attitudinal changes, we further investigated the degree
to which students’ perceptions of the practice games were related to their posttest reports of engagement,
motivation, and perceived learning. Although students’ daily perceptions of the W-Pal system increased
throughout training, it was unclear whether these positive attitudinal ratings could be attributed to the WPal games. Hence, we further examined the game ratings that were associated with students’ daily survey
responses in order to determine the degree to which students’ attitudes towards the games affected
students’ perceptions of strategy training.
The correlation and regression analyses confirmed that there was, indeed, a relation between attitudes
towards the games and students’ perceptions of their performance. Further, these relations were different
for L1 and L2 students. Averaging across first and second language, students tended to rate their training
perceptions more highly if they also found the games to be enjoyable, easy to play, and helpful for
learning. However, L1 and L2 students’ game ratings were predictive of different measures of motivation
and engagement. Namely, game enjoyment and difficulty were predictive of L1 students’ daily selfreports of perceived learning, motivation, and engagement during W-Pal training, whereas for L2
students, game enjoyment and perceived game helpfulness were both predictive of daily self-reports.
Importantly, the L2 students’ attitudes towards game-based practice also accounted for more variance in
their engagement, motivation, and perceived performance than did the ratings of L1 students. Overall, the
Language Learning & Technology
140
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
results of these analyses suggest that L1 and L2 students may experience similar benefits from
educational games. However, these results further suggest that the link between game enjoyment and
overall engagement and perceived performance may be stronger for L2 students than L1 students.
A potential explanation for the stronger game enjoyment-engagement connection amongst L2 students
may be a result of the isolated strategy practice offered by the W-Pal games. The game-based practice
allows students to practice individual components of the writing process, such as outlining or revising,
without having to produce an entire essay. This process reduces many of the demands associated with the
writing process. Thus, students may be less overwhelmed and more likely to remain engaged in the task.
This result may be particularly strong for L2 students because the L2 writing process is typically more
resource demanding, as students must attend to lower- and higher-level aspects of their writing (e.g.,
DeKeyser, 2007; Schoonen et al., 2009). An obvious limitation of this study is the relatively low number
of L1 and L2 participants. Based on this small sample of students, it is worth noting that more attention
should be paid to the results that were significant at the p <. 001 levels. Indeed, future studies should
attempt to replicate these findings with a larger sample of students. Nonetheless, the results of this study
provide a starting point as well as important insights into the potential efficacy of strategy training for L2
students.
The current study did not afford the opportunity to analyze how the various W-Pal games may have
differentially impacted students’ engagement, motivation, and perceptions of performance. Future studies,
however, should attempt to identify the specific features of educational games that contribute most
strongly to increases in motivation and engagement. Further, research should investigate whether these
features differentially impact L1 and L2 students who interact with these games. For example, it may be
that there are differential effects of generative and identification tasks on L1 and L2 students. Because the
L2 writing process can be overwhelming, students may grow more disengaged during game-based
practice that requires them to produce larger quantities of text. Results from such studies could provide
critical information for researchers and designers that could inform the adaptation of game-based systems
for L2 students.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that L2 students can improve their writing performance through a combination of
explicit writing strategy instruction, game-based practice, and holistic essay writing practice. Despite the
apparent benefits of repetitive strategy practice, students can easily grow disengaged with extended
learning tasks. The current study suggests that L2 students’ engagement towards learning tasks is strongly
related to their enjoyment of the practice environment. Therefore, L2 students’ inherent interest in games
can be leveraged to improve their engagement and motivation towards strategy training.
The results of this study revealed a connection between game enjoyment and overall perceptions of the
training system; however, it did not provide specific information about the game features that were most
strongly related to the L2 students’ engagement and perceived learning gains. Future work should
investigate the impact of different features of the games, such as narrative or personalization, to determine
what game characteristics are more beneficial to the writing process. In addition, because L2 students’
engagement and motivation was strongly predicted by their game enjoyment, future research should be
conducted to examine which types of games are most enjoyable and beneficial for L2 students.
Potential limitations of this study lie in the relatively high English proficiency level of the L2 students and
the relatively low number of participants. Indeed, these factors deserve further attention in future studies.
Nonetheless, the results of this study provide a starting point as well as important insights into the
potential efficacy of strategy training for L2 students. A more complete understanding of the questions
explored in this study will hopefully emerge from future studies that investigate the effects of language
skills on the effectiveness of strategy training and game-based practice.
Language Learning & Technology
141
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
APPENDIX A. Description of the Writing Pal Games.
Game
Description
Freewrite Flash
Freewrite on a given prompt to fill the Idea Meter and earn Idea Flash Cards
Mastermind Outline
Create an outline from argument and evidence statements that are provided in
order to repair the Mastermind Mainframe
Planning Passage
Select appropriate arguments and evidence to advance to new travel destinations
and earn souvenirs
Dungeon Escape
Label attention-grabbing techniques by selecting appropriate doors to avoid the
castle guards and the rising floodwaters.
Essay Launcher
Select thesis statements and attention-grabbers for given introduction paragraphs
in order to rescue spaceships
Fix It
Fix a broken circuit board by evaluating paragraphs for their missing elements,
such as evidence or thesis statements
RoBoCo
Write topic and evidence sentences for a given thesis statement to earn the
necessary parts to build a robot
Lockdown
Write conclusion paragraphs for a given essay outline in order to stop computer
hackers
Adventurer’s Loot
Identify the correct use of paraphrasing strategies to explore various locations
and obtain treasure
Map Conquest
Identify paraphrasing strategies to earn flags that can be used to conquer the
game board
Undefined & Mined
Identify undefined referents in texts to disarm mines
CON-Artist
Solve clues by selecting transition words that link sentences. These clues then
allow students to catch a thief
Speech Writer
Identify the main problems in a friend’s speech and then help your friend edit the
speech to improve it
APPENDIX B. Pretest and Posttest Essay Prompts.
Essay Title
Prompt
Images and
Impressions
All around us appearances are mistaken for reality. Clever advertisements create
favorable impressions but say little or nothing about the products they promote. In
stores, colorful packages are often better than their contents. In the media, how
certain entertainers, politicians, and other public figures appear is sometimes
considered more important than their abilities. All too often, what we think we see
becomes far more important than what really is.
Do images and impressions have a positive or negative effect on people?
Competition and
Cooperation
While some people promote competition as the only way to achieve success, others
emphasize the power of cooperation. Intense rivalry at work or play or engaging in
competition involving ideas or skills may indeed drive people either to avoid failure
or to achieve important victories. In a complex world, however, cooperation is much
more likely to produce significant, lasting accomplishments.
Do people achieve more success by cooperation or by competition?
Language Learning & Technology
142
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
APPENDIX C. Holistic Rating Form
After reading each essay, assign a holistic score based on the rubric below. For the following evaluations you
will need to use a grading scale between 1 (minimum) and 6 (maximum). The distance between each grade
(e.g., 1–2, 3–4, 4–5) should be considered equal.
Score
Criteria
6
An essay in this category demonstrates clear and consistent mastery, although it may have a few
minor errors. A typical essay effectively and insightfully develops a point of view on the issue and
demonstrates outstanding critical thinking, using clearly appropriate examples, reasons, and other
evidence to support its position is well organized and clearly focused, demonstrating clear coherence
and smooth progression of ideas exhibits skillful use of language, using a varied, accurate, and apt
vocabulary demonstrates meaningful variety in sentence structure is free of most errors in grammar,
usage, and mechanics.
5
An essay in this category demonstrates reasonably consistent mastery, although it will have
occasional errors or lapses in quality. A typical essay effectively develops a point of view on the
issue and demonstrates strong critical thinking, generally using appropriate examples, reasons, and
other evidence to support its position is well organized and focused, demonstrating coherence and
progression of ideas exhibits facility in the use of language, using appropriate vocabulary
demonstrates variety in sentence structure is generally free of most errors in grammar, usage, and
mechanics.
4
An essay in this category demonstrates adequate mastery, although it will have lapses in quality. A
typical essay develops a point of view on the issue and demonstrates competent critical thinking,
using adequate examples, reasons, and other evidence to support its position is generally organized
and focused, demonstrating some coherence and progression of ideas exhibits adequate but
inconsistent facility in the use of language, using generally appropriate vocabulary demonstrates
some variety in sentence structure has some errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.
3
An essay in this category demonstrates developing mastery, and is marked by ONE OR MORE of
the following weaknesses: develops a point of view on the issue, demonstrating some critical
thinking, but may do so inconsistently or use inadequate examples, reasons, or other evidence to
support its position is limited in its organization or focus, or may demonstrate some lapses in
coherence or progression of ideas displays developing facility in the use of language, but sometimes
uses weak vocabulary or inappropriate word choice lacks variety or demonstrates problems in
sentence structure contains an accumulation of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.
2
An essay in this category demonstrates little mastery, and is flawed by ONE OR MORE of the
following weaknesses: develops a point of view on the issue that is vague or seriously limited, and
demonstrates weak critical thinking, providing inappropriate or insufficient examples, reasons, or
other evidence to support its position is poorly organized and/or focused, or demonstrates serious
problems with coherence or progression of ideas displays very little facility in the use of language,
using very limited vocabulary or incorrect word choice demonstrates frequent problems in sentence
structure contains errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics so serious that meaning is somewhat
obscured.
1
An essay in this category demonstrates very little or no mastery, and is severely flawed by ONE OR
MORE of the following weaknesses: develops no viable point of view on the issue, or provides little
or no evidence to support its position is disorganized or unfocused, resulting in a disjointed or
incoherent essay displays fundamental errors in vocabulary demonstrates severe flaws in sentence
structure contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that persistently interfere with
meaning.
Holistic score based on attached rubric (1-6): ___
Language Learning & Technology
143
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
APPENDIX D. Daily Surveys.
Please answer the following questions about your MOST RECENT Writing Pal session.
1: My Most recent session in W-Pal was…
Very Bad Bad
Poor
Fair
Good Very Good
1
2
3
4
5
6
2: I felt like I learned the material during my MOST RECENT SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
3: I feel like my writing skills improved during my MOST RECENT SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
4: I enjoyed my MOST RECENT SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
5: I was bored during my MOST RECENT session
Never Rarely Sometimes
Often
Most of the Time All the Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
6: I was frustrated during my MOST RECENT session
Never Rarely Sometimes
Often
Most of the Time All the Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7: I had problems with the program during my MOST RECENT session
Never Rarely Sometimes
Often
Most of the Time All the Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
Please answer the following questions about how you feel about TODAY'S Writing Pal session.
8: My mood right now is...
Very negative
Very Positive
1
2
3
4
5
6
9: I am looking forward to participating in TODAY'S SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
10: I am motivated to participate in TODAY'S SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
11: I plan to do my best during TODAY'S SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
12: I plan to do better than anyone else during TODAY'S SESSION
Not At All
Very Much
1
2
3
4
5
6
APPENDIX E. Daily Game Surveys.
1: Was this challenge helpful for practicing or learning a writing strategy?
Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful
Only a Little Helpful
Not Helpful at All
1
2
3
4
2: Was this challenge enjoyable to play?
Very Enjoyable
Somewhat Enjoyable Only a Little Enjoyable Not Enjoyable at All
1
2
3
4
Language Learning & Technology
144
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
3: Was this challenge easy or difficult to play?
Very Easy
Somewhat Easy
Somewhat Difficult
1
2
3
4: Were the instructions for this challenge understandable?
Easy
Somewhat Easy
Somewhat Hard
1
2
3
5: Were the graphics for this challenge appealing?
Very Appealing
Appealing
Somewhat Unappealing
1
2
3
6: Did the game controls for this challenge make sense?
Completely
Mostly
Somewhat
1
2
3
Difficult
4
Hard
4
Unappealing
4
Made no Sense
4
NOTES
1. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is a standardized assessment used for most college admissions
decisions in the United States
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported in part by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R305A080589 and IES
R305G20018-02). Ideas expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the IES. The authors would like to also thank the anonymous reviewers and the editorial staff
at Language Learning & Technology.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Laura K. Allen is a PhD student in Cognitive Science and the Learning Sciences Institute at Arizona State
University. Her research examines the cognitive processes and abilities underlying reading and writing
proficiency. She is also interested in the impact of these factors in second language learning.
E-mail: [email protected]
Scott A. Crossley is an Assistant Professor at Georgia State University. His interests include
computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, and second language acquisition. He has published articles
in second language lexical acquisition, second language reading, multi-dimensional analysis, cognitive
science, and text linguistics.
E-mail: [email protected]
Erica L. Snow is a PhD student in Cognitive Science and the Learning Sciences Institute at Arizona State
University. Her current research explores the interplay of students' learning outcomes, learning behaviors,
and individual differences within intelligent tutoring systems and educational games.
E-mail: [email protected]
Danielle S. McNamara is a Professor at the Arizona State University. Her work involves the theoretical
study of cognitive processes as well as the application of cognitive principles to educational practice. Her
current research ranges a variety of topics including text comprehension, writing strategies, tutoring
technologies, and developing natural language algorithms.
E-mail: [email protected]
Language Learning & Technology
145
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
REFERENCES
Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT
Journal, 41, 257–267.
Attali, Y. & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology,
Learning, and Assessment, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Arici, A. (2009). Transformational play: Why educators should care
about games. Educational Leadership, 67, 76–80.
Barab, S. A., Pettyjohn, P., Gresalfi, M., Volk, C., & Solomou, M. (2012). Game-based curriculum and
transformational play: Designing to meaningfully position person, content, and context. Computers &
Education, 58, 518–533.
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest
Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 86–107.
Barab, S. A., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., Kouper, I., & Herring, S.
(2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91,
750–782.
Bell, C., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Integrating iSTART into a high school curriculum. Proceedings of
the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 809–814). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science
Society.
Berman, R. (1994). Learners’ transfer of writing skills. TESL Canadian Journal, 12, 29–46.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research
and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D’Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital
games and simulations: Genres examples, and evidence. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Corbett, A. T. & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact of
learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI-2001 Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252).
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial
effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–
730.
Craig, S. D., D’Mello, S. K., Gholson, B., Witherspoon, A., Sullins, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2004).
Emotions during learning: The first steps toward an affect sensitive intelligent tutoring system. In J. Nall,
& R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn 2004: World Conference on E-learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education (pp. 284–288). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and
L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119–136.
Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Using automatic scoring models to detect
changes in student writing in an intelligent tutoring system. In C. Boonthum-Denecke & G. M.
Youngblood (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society
(FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 208–213). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
Language Learning & Technology
146
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2006). Affect detection from human-computer dialogue with an intelligent
tutoring system. In J. Gratch, M. Young, R. Aylett, D. Ballin, & P. Oliver (Eds.), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science: Intelligent Virtual Agents: 6th International Conference (pp. 54–67).
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
D'Mello, S. K., Taylor, R., & Graesser, A. C. (2007). Monitoring affective trajectories during complex
learning. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society (pp. 203–208). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E.
Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation Gaming, 33, 441–467.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning. Melbourne, Australia:
Common Ground Press.
Gee, J.P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and
literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gesier, S., & Studley, R. (2001). UC and SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and
SAT II at the University of California. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 571–581). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grimes, D. & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated
writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8, 4–43.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and
self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy &
L. S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications
(pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment
studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.
Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent
tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0032580
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Language Learning & Technology
147
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextualwriting experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 305–315.
Kellogg, R. (2008). Training writing skills: a cognitive development perspective. Journal of Writing
Research, 1, 1–26.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
21, 390–403.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speaking their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’ written English.
Malmo, Sweden: Liber Forlag Malmo.
Malone, T. & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations of learning.
In R. Snow and M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Cognition and affective
process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matsumoto, K. (1995). Research paper writing strategies of professional Japanese EFL writers. TESL
Canadian Journal, 13, 17–27.
Matsuda, P. (1999). Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor. College
Composition and Communication, 50, 699–721.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical
perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge processing and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.
MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates MacGinitie reading tests. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. D. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent
writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 499–515.
McNamara, D. S., Jackson, G. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Intelligent tutoring and games (ITaG). In Y.
K. Baek (Ed.), Gaming for classroom-based learning: Digital role-playing as a motivator of study (pp.
44–65). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
McNamara, D., Raine, R., Roscoe, R., Crossley, S., Jackson, G., Dai, J., Cai, Z., Renner, A., Brandon, R.,
Weston, J., Dempsey, K., Carney, D., Sullivan, S., Kim, L., Rus, V., Floyd, R., McCarthy, P., & Graesser,
A. (2012). The Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing
strategies. In P. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and
content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 298–311). Hershey, PA.: IGI Global.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing processes and error analysis in
student texts. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 6(2), A–1.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007.
Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011.
Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011/writing_2011_report/
Negari, G. M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners’ writing skill. International
Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 299–307.
Language Learning & Technology
148
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Orbach, E. (1979). Simulation games and motivation for learning: A theoretical framework. Simulation
and Games, 10, 3–40.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37, 87–105.
Powell, P. (2009). Retention and writing instruction: Implications for access and pedagogy. College
Composition and Communication, 60, 664–682.
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–68). New York, NY: Guilford.
Quick, J., Atkinson, R., & Lin, L., (2012). Empirical taxonomies of gameplay enjoyment: Personality and
video game preference. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2, 11–31.
Ransdell, S. & Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M.
Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and
applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reichelt, M. (2001). A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches.
Modern Language Journal, 85, 578–598.
Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge
acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295–307.
Roca de Larios, J. R., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2002). A critical examinations of L2 writing process
research. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–48).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention
research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Writing Pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor
in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1037/a0032340
Roscoe, R. D., Varner, L. K., Weston, J. L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The Writing
Pal intelligent tutoring system: Usability testing and development. Computers and Composition.
Rowe, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement
in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,
21, 115–133.
Rudner, L., Garcia, V., & Welch, C. (2006). An evaluation of the IntelliMetric essay scoring system.
Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(4), 3–21.
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Shank, R., & Neaman, A. (2001). Motivation and failure in educational systems design. In K. Forbus & P.
Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education. Cambridge, MA: AAAI / MIT.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II.
Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the
foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M.
Manchon (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101).
Language Learning & Technology
149
Laura K. Allen, Scott A. Crossley, Erica L. Snow and Danielle S. McNamara
Game Enjoyment as a Key to Engagement
Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Shermis, M. & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 27,
657–677.
Silva, T., Leki, L., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies.
Written Communication, 14, 398–428.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Why game (culture) studies now? Games and Culture, 1, 1–6.
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham,
and J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–89). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer
gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 34, 229–243.
Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second language writing expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second
language learning and teaching (pp. 128–149). Basingstoke, Hampshire/New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, S., Estock, J. L., Orvis, K. L., & Conkey,
C. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals.
Simulation and Gaming, 40, 217–266.
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–18.
Young, M., Slota, S., Cutter, A., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simenoi, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko,
M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of
Educational Research, 82, 61–89.
Language Learning & Technology
150
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/hattem.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
pp. 151–174
MICROBLOGGING ACTIVITIES: LANGUAGE PLAY AND TOOL
TRANSFORMATION
David Hattem, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
The following is a qualitative case study presenting three vignettes exploring the use of
language play while microblogging during an academically sanctioned task. Ten students
and one teacher used Twitter in an intensive, English as a second language advanced
grammar course to practice writing sentences with complex grammatical constructions
from the academic genre. In turn, the students received occasional corrective feedback
from the instructor. Drawing on qualitative data consisting of a corpus of time- and datestamped tweets, retrospective interviews and discourse analysis of the students’ tweets, the
author presents three “micro-vignettes” demonstrating how three students responded to
contradictions within the original task by qualitatively transforming its context. As a
result, they created new learning opportunities, ‘spinning-off’ (Wertsch, 1998) the
microblogging tool, due to the tool’s features, the students’ previous cultures-of-use,
(Thorne, 2003) and their pre-existing social networks (Stefanone & Gay, 2008). The
students used Twitter as an instant messaging chat room, moving from the sentence to the
utterance (Bakhtin, 1953/1986), embedding target grammar constructions in various forms
of ludic language play (Cook, 2000). By dynamically reframing (Goffman, 1974) their
own learning activities students took ownership of the task and went through a process of
expansive learning (Engëstrom, 2007).
Keywords: Language Play, Computer-mediated communication, Computer-assisted
language learning, Collaborative learning
APA Citation: Hattem, D. (2014). Microblogging activities: Language play and tool
transformation. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 151–174. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/hattem.pdf
Received: March 3, 2013; Accepted: February 19, 2013; Published: June 1, 2014
Copyright: © David Hattem
MICROBLOGGING
Microblogging was developed in 2006 with the launch of Twitter from the short message services used to
generate and send text messages. One of its co-founders, Evan Williams, founder of Blogger, imagined a
broadcast system in which users could share short messages. Twitter’s popularity rose dramatically
following the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in 2007. Growing from a small start-up with little
more than ten thousand users by the end of its first year, (Shah, 2010) who mostly shared links and
information about their daily activities, (Java, Finin, Song, & Tseng, 2007) as of 2012 Twitter had more
than a half billion users, (Semiocast, 2012) who send out an almost equal amount of messages per day
(Martinez, 2012; Tsukayama, 2013). Twitter is currently one of the ten most visited websites in the world
(Fitzgerald, 2012) and is used by parents, teenagers, politicians, entertainers, corporations, athletes,
spiritual leaders, and students—sometimes to great folly, as a number of politicians and athletes have
demonstrated; other times to dramatically transform society, as in the case of the Arab Spring (Eltantawy
& Wiest, 2011; Grossman, 2009).
Although microblogging is a relatively new form of computer-mediated communication, it has an
historical analog. Humphreys (2010) finds a strong parallel between microblogging and diaries of the late
18th and early 19th centuries. He suggests that technological advances allowing the production of ‘small
leather-bound journals,’ contributed to a quantitative and qualitative shift in diary writing: the length and
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
151
David Hattem
Microblogging
the content of the entries became briefer and more quotidian. In a digital reincarnation, advances in SMS
and web technology, contributed to a qualitative and quantitative shift in the blog genre, again, the length
and content of the entries became briefer and more quotidian.
On Twitter, users post short messages, known as tweets. Each tweet, which is time and date-stamped, can
contain up to 140 characters and may include links, photos, audio, and video. Users connect by following
each other. Once you are following a user, their messages appear on your home page in reverse
chronological order. Users interact with tweets through a variety of features (Figure 1): by replying to
messages using the @ symbol as a form of addressivity, by favoriting a tweet (similar to the Like function
on Facebook) or by retweeting it so that all of your followers can also see it. In order to aggregate the
abundance of messages into topics, users attach hashtags to their tweets, which are words denoting topics,
preceded by the # symbol, e.g., #languagelearning. Twitter is also a de facto corpus; users can perform
simple Boolean searches by limiting searches to keywords, phrases or topics using Twitter’s search box
(Appendix A).
Figure 1. Interactional Features of Twitter
Twitter and Language Learning
In spite of its widespread popularity, research on microblogging and language learning remains scant. A
few studies on microblogging have focused on how Twitter can be leveraged for collaborative learning
and community building (Lomicka & Lord, 2011; Newgarden, 2009) as well as to train students in
communicative competencies (Borau, Ullrich, Feng & Shen, 2009). Other studies have focused on
whether Twitter can be a useful forum for generating input, output, and interaction with students,
instructors and native speakers (Antenos-Conforti, 2009; Castro, 2009; Hattem, 2012; Ullrich, Borau;
Stepanyan, 2010). In one relevant and early microblogging study, Perifanou (2009) used Edmodo as a
microblogging application in an Italian foreign language class, designing four communicative activities,
including dialogue and subtitle writing. She found that a large majority of the students described the
activities as ‘fun’ and would prefer that microblogging activities be the central focus of the curriculum,
not a secondary one. Perifanou concludes that micro-gaming language activities had a positive effect on
students’ participation, collaboration and achievement of learning outcomes.
Language Play
In the last fifteen years, the study of language play has begun to attract the attention of second language
researchers (Lantolf, 1997; Belz & Reinhardt, 2004). Early research led to discussions on whether
language play was used primarily for language development through private rehearsal of unmastered
forms (Lantolf, 1997) or for pure enjoyment through various ludic forms (Cook, 1997; 2000). This led
Broner and Tarone (2001) to study the occurrence of play in private speech vs. ludic play in a fifth-grade
Spanish class. The authors developed a 5-point criteria scale for distinguishing between the two, finding
evidence of both types being used. The authors concluded that both might play a distinct role in the
acquisition process. Whereas language play as rehearsal allows learners opportunities to compare their
current interlanguage systems with new forms, ludic language play increases noticeability due to the
affective charge of the language, helps learners develop voices in multiple registers, and may help
Language Learning & Technology
152
David Hattem
Microblogging
stabilize the interlanguage system (Broner & Tarone, 2001). Since Lantolf’s (1997) call for more research
into language play, more focus has been placed on language play with adults learning a foreign language,
primarily on how language play may contribute to the development of sociolinguistic competence (Bell,
2005; Forman, 2011), multi-competence (Pomerantz & Bell, 2007) and the use of unsanctioned language
play to reorganize tasks to create learning opportunities (Bushnell, 2008; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007). These
studies helped lay the groundwork for future research on language play and adults in foreign language
classrooms. Since this article is primarily concerned with forms of ludic language play outlined by Guy
Cook (2000), a short explication of Cook’s theory follows.
Ludic Language Play
In his article “Language Play, Language Learning,” a prelude to his book of the same title, Cook (1997)
argues that play is associated with “enjoyment,” “relaxation,” and “intelligence.” Language play is,
“behavior not primarily motivated by human need to manipulate the environment and to form and
maintain social relationships—though it may indirectly serve these purposes.” Cook (2000) later
developed a tri-partite construct for identifying features of language play on the formal, semantic and
pragmatic level, emphasizing the causal role between the three features, “The patterning of form, though
apparently random, leads to the creation of alternative realities, and this in turn performs essential
functions in human life,” (p.122). We can focus the lens on any particular feature of language play, yet
these features are inextricably linked in a causal chain.
One type of language play on the linguistic level includes repetition of forms (Cook, 2000). Grammatical
parallelism, for example, involves the repeated use of structures in tandem with lexical substitution. The
repeated patterning of forms places the language learner in a relaxed environment, allowing them greater
processing time to notice abstract categories and common collocations (Cook, 2000). Cook highlights the
many examples of grammatical parallelism in children’s stories, as seen in the back and forth between
Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf in the children’s classic (Perrault, 1697/2002). In one
interesting comparison, Cook notes that the structural substitution drills popularized by the audiolingual
method of the 1950s bear a striking resemblance to the lexical substitutions in parallel grammatical
structures found in many nursery rhymes (Cook, 2000).
Another type of language play is on the semantic level and includes the creation of alternative realities
and the inversion of existing realities. Fictional worlds created through language also abound in the world
of both children and adults. As Cook notes, children grow out of their games of make-believe, only to
grow into fiction (Cook, 2000). Examples of carnival language include the use of grotesque realism, such
as references to lower bodily functions, slang words, jokes, and grotesque references. Indeed, if we want
to have a complete picture of language play with imaginary worlds we might include any sentence or
utterance that employs a hypothetical proposition. On a formal level, certain linguistic forms, for
example, the subordinating conjunctions of condition, such as if, only if, and even if can be used to speak
of hypothetical situations which do not exist in reality (Cook, 2000). In his study of Rabelais, Bakhtin
(1965/1984) describes how participants in Medieval and Renaissance festivals used ludic language to
invert the social order and equalize power relations between the populace and the church. Iddings and
McCafferty (2007) examined the use of language play in a children’s classroom, finding unsanctioned use
of carnival language during off-task behavior helped create additional learning opportunities not present
in the original task, allowing the students to recoup their role as a student when they had grown
disinterested.
As an illustration of pragmatic language play, Cook (2000) draws an analogy between competitive
language games and various games played with a ball. On the one hand, Cook argues that simple, noncompetitive ball games, such as a game of catch, can be used to establish solidarity between the
participants. On the other hand, more competitive ball games may be played to establish superiority.
Similarly, some language games—in which conversational turns are similar to the passing of a ball—can
Language Learning & Technology
153
David Hattem
Microblogging
also be used to establish solidarity or superiority between its participants (Cook, 2000). One example of
can be found in verbal duels, such as The Dozens, a language game originating with African-Americans
that consists of competitive, ritualized boasting (Labov, 1974). Another example is freestyling, a form of
rapping in which participants take turns improvising lyrics, sometimes instantaneously to topics which are
given to them by the audience. These word games show dexterous and creative language use but also
serve the pragmatic function of building solidarity and competition.
Warner (2004) helps broaden the perspective of language play for pragmatic purposes drawing on the
work of the social interactionist models of Cook (2000), Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1974). Warner
synthesized their approaches and introduced a category for analyzing pragmatic language play called,
“play with the frame” which focuses primarily on “the level of understanding,” and the transforming of
established frameworks, known as keying (Goffman, 1974), which Goffman describes as the use of
frameworks as a pattern for another activity that is understood by the participants as distinct from the
original frame. This notion of frame and key bears a resemblance to the distinction between task and
activity seen in research on task-based learning and student agency, in which students have been found to
transform classroom tasks at their own behest into new activities to target their own self-prescribed
learning goals (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Iddings & McCafferty, 2007; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001).
Bakhtinian Discourse
In his critique of Sauserrian linguistics, Speech genres and other late essays, Bakhtin (1953/1986) makes
a distinction between a “sentence”, which is a unit of language, and an “utterance,” which is a unit of
speech communication. Sentences are monologic—they are not bound to any other sentence that has
come before or will come after it. They are isolated, decontextualized, unexpressive and unresponsive.
They are not directed towards any interlocutor. Utterances, on the other hand, are dialogic. They exist
between people—they unite sentences into a speech communion that exhibits a change of speaking
subjects, where preceding and proceeding utterances are co-dependent, directed, responsive—forming a
continuous dialogue. The analysis of real language use is performed by focusing the lens on utterances
(Bakhtin, 1953/1986).
According to Bakhtin, (1935/1981, 1953/1986) utterances and the words that fill them can be said to
belong to no one, to another, and to oneself simultaneously. Belonging to no one, words are neutral,
empty, a framework for construction. Yet, we learn words from the way others use them. Their words
come to us with a certain flavor for generic usage, impressed with ideological overtones and established
norms that define the function, style and phraseology, thus becoming the “authoritative discourse” of a
genre and era. However, exposed to generic language, individuals still shape their own understanding and
usage of words through their own accumulated and unique speech experiences whereby utterances take on
individual expressiveness through a process of ‘creative assimilation,’ of others words, language learning
itself, in which people shape and reshape utterances to make them their own (Bakhtin, 1935/1981). In The
Discourse of the Novel, Bakhtin (1935/1981) notes a type of discourse known as double-voiced discourse,
where the speech of a character represents not only the ideological intentions of the character in the novel,
but also of the author, who uses the character to advance dual intentions, “…two voices, two meanings,
two expressions,” and can be seen in forms of “…comic, ironic and parodic discourse...” (p.324). Bakhtin
marks double-voiced discourse as a special kind of utterance in which the author and character hold a
conversation with each other.
Cultures-of-Use and the Spin-Off Function
Thorne (2003) has coined the term “cultures-of-use” to help understand how mediating cultural tools are
malleable and become imbibed with cultural resonances that accumulate over short and long-term
repeated individual and collective usage, shaping how the tool is used in the present and the future.
Humans are not shaped by their tools; on the contrary, humans shape and reshape tools through directed
activity. Applying a cultures-of-use analysis to the use of internet communication tools between French
Language Learning & Technology
154
David Hattem
Microblogging
and American students in sanctioned educational contexts, Thorne (2003) found in one case study that a
shift in the mediating tool from email to chat resulted in a quantitative and qualitative shift in
communication patterns of two students, providing them with additional, and at times, more effective and
authentic opportunities for language learning and interrelationship building. Thorne (2003) argues that in
this tool shift the two students crossed a threshold in which they positioned, “themselves as insiders with
a vested interest in the educational, social, and communicative activities at hand,” (p. 48) allowing them
to construct zones of proximal development not previously afforded in the classroom. He concludes the
availability of tools and the cultural ‘sedimentation’ they carry play a large role in the formation of
communication and resulting interpersonal relationships.
As cultural tools are used and reused in varying cultural contexts and resonances build, the opportunity
exists for a novel and complex transformation in the intended use of the tool to take place, known as the
spin-off (Wertsch, 1998) or ratchet function (Tomasello, 1999). The evolution of Twitter to date presents
itself an illustrative example of a spin-off. When Twitter was first introduced it was seen more as a
monologic, broadcast tool. However, users had a need for more dialogic forms of communication, so they
articulated ways to respond to each other’s tweets with addressivity symbols, using the @ symbol
followed by a particular username (Williams, 2009). This advent, although, was not unique to Twitter,
and had been previously articulated in other computer-mediated communication (CMC) settings, replete
with their own cultures-of-use, such as internet relay chat. In using Twitter again and again, and carrying
to each use their historical experiences with Twitter and comparable communication tools, the users
repositioned not only Twitter’s purpose but also its foundational communicative practices. They
articulated new ways of using the tool that significantly and dramatically changed it in ways that even its
inventors had not imagined, notes Twitter co-founder, Evan Williams, who credits Twitter’s users for
shaping how Twitter is currently and will be used in the future (Williams, 2009).
Language Play & CMC Environments
Despite the plentiful opportunities for ludic engagement in CMC environments (Herring, 1999; Nardi,
Whittaker & Bradner, 2000) a lack of research exploring language play, adults and CMC environments
persists, particularly with social media. In some of the first studies Warner (2004) explored types of
language play in a Mud, object-oriented (MOO) environment, concluding that although there was no
conclusive evidence of language learning through play, its ubiquitous use in the CMC setting demanded
attention. In another study, Belz and Reinhardt (2004) looked at the use of language play by an advanced
German student involved in a tele-collaboration project. The authors found that the language play the
student used served a variety of functions, including consolidating grammar, building personal
relationships and presenting a positive face in the CMC community.
Although these studies have set the table for future research, they were conducted on what may be
considered first-generation, or Web 1.0 technologies, such as email, chat and MOO. As far back as a
decade ago, Goodwin-Jones (2003) suggested that as new internet 2.0 technologies begin to make their
way into the classroom, researchers should explore how they may create new opportunities for language
play. To date, however, sparse research on these new technologies and their connection to language play
exists. Two noteworthy studies involve new technologies: memes and Second Life. Gawne and Vaughan
(2011) explored how contributing to a popular internet meme craze, known as LOLspeak, in which
people take on the role of personified cats that use non-standard grammar to communicate ludic
messages, helped second language students develop their understanding of identity and grammar, such as:
morphology, clause structure, orthography, lexemes, and syntax. Moreover, Liang (2012) used Second
Life, an online virtual world in her class. She found that competitive, virtual role-playing helped to
recreate languages and tasks by facilitating various forms of language play.
Language Learning & Technology
155
David Hattem
Microblogging
The Study
Setting
Twitter was used in a high advanced grammar class—where high advanced is the sixth of nine levels in
an eighteen month intensive, academic English program hosted at a state university located in the
northeastern United States. The class met for one hour and twenty minutes twice a week for seven weeks,
for a total of twenty-one contact hours during the course. Eleven students plus the instructor made up the
participants of the course. The instructor brought in a laptop, speakers, and projector in order for the class
to have access to the internet during demonstrations and instructional activities.
Outcomes and Student Learning Objectives
The learning objectives for the entire course, High Advanced Grammar, were taken from the program
course curriculum. Among the outcomes were: 1) to express surprise, contrast, cause/effect, and
hypothetical conditions by writing complex sentences using a variety of subordinating conjunctions and
2) to use verb + preposition combinations with accurate collocation and meaning. There were five
objectives for the course: 1) to learn to express surprise using although, even though and though; 2) to
demonstrate contrast using while and whereas; 3) to show cause and effect using because, since, so…that;
4) to be able to describe purpose using infinitives and so that; and 5) to use frequent verb+preposition
combinations, such as guilty of, apologize for, and married to.
Task
Students were given the option of using Twitter during our class. In considering the various ways one can
interact with and view tweets, I imagined Twitter would be a useful forum for comprehensible input
(Krashen, 1982), comprehensible output (Swain, 1995), and meaningful interaction (Long, 1996).
Students would be able to test hypotheses by writing tweets, they would have those hypotheses confirmed
or challenged through corrective feedback with me, and they would get model sentences from the other
students and me to serve as comprehensible input. To provide the student with feedback, I imagined I
could use the favorite and retweet features to let individual students and the whole class know that
accurate grammar was used in a tweet. The reply and direct message features could be used to engage the
student in various forms of corrective feedback.
I introduced the optional assignment of using Twitter for getting extra practice on the first day of class. I
gave a short talk on what Twitter was and an in-class demonstration of how to use it. I also provided the
students with a handout (Appendix B) of how to use the various features of the Twitter application and
step-by-step instructions for signing up for a Twitter account. The instructions for the task were to 1)
write 70 sentences during the seven-week session, or 10 sentences per week, 2) use the grammar
structures presented in class in the class in their tweets, and 3) use contexts created in class or their own
life experiences to fill the content of the tweet. I then encouraged the students to check their Twitter
accounts daily to read the feedback I would be providing them through the direct message, “private
interaction”, and the reply feature, “public interaction”.
Participants
Based on the content of their tweets and their use of Twitter, six months after the completion of the
course, three participants were selected to participate in a study about their use of Twitter (Table 1). In
each case, the student has given written consent for their tweets and other information herein to be used in
this article. The names of the participants have been changed.
Language Learning & Technology
156
David Hattem
Microblogging
Gülden
Figure 2. Humorous tweet by Gülden
Gülden, who had never used Twitter prior to this study, was 32 years old and the oldest of the three
students. She, fluent in Turkish, was born and raised in Germany in a middle-class family with one
German and one Turkish parent. She lived in the US by herself with her young daughter and throughout
the course developed a close relationship with another classmate in this study, Florence. They were also
friends with another Turkish woman in the class and all sat near each other in class and spent time with
each other outside of class as well.
Florence
Figure 3. Florence reaching a goal
Florence was a high school graduate from Turkey who was 19 at the time of the study. She came from a
middle class background. She had the internet in her house in Turkey and usually spent between 30
minutes to one hour using the internet per day. She also had experience with digital communication tools,
such as texting and chatting, using these to communicate with people in her social group before coming to
the US. Since she had arrived in America, she had lost contact with her social circle in Turkey, “…bcuz in
this country no one has time actually after coming to usa I also stop calling my friends who live in Turkey
now.” Prior to this study, Florence had never used Twitter.
Michael
Figure 4. Michael announcing he was getting ready to tweet some Yo Mama jokes1
Michael, aged 24, was from the Philippines and had a strong foundation in English, testing immediately
into the advanced level. He received his Bachelors of Science in Nursing from the Philippines. He had
had access to the internet in his house since 2000. He also had experience with various digital
communication tools, such as texting, instant messaging (IM), blogging and emailing. His preferred
method of communication was IM. At times throughout the session, Michael seemed to cross the line
with the female students through insensitive comments made both in and out of the classroom about some
of the female students involved in the study. Despite his penchant for inappropriate jokes, he remained
friendly with the females, one of whom he met occasionally with on Twitter to practice. Prior to this
study, Michael claimed that he had made a Twitter account, but never used it and mostly communicated
Language Learning & Technology
157
Microblogging
David Hattem
with friends through instant messaging.
Table 1. Participant Demographics
Name
Gender
Age
Nationality
Native
Experience with digital
Languages communication tools
Experience with
Twitter prior to study
Gülden
F
32
Turkish
Turkish &
German
E-mail, chat, text
messaging
None
Florence
F
20
Turkish
Turkish
E-mail, chat, text
messaging
None
Michael
M
24
Philippine
Tagalog
Email, chat, text
messaging, blog, social
media
Opened account, but
never used
Data Collection
Qualitative data was triangulated and consists of discourse analysis of CMC conversations, analysis of the
use of language play, as well as interviews with three students. Content from the tweets is analyzed using
various methods of discourse analysis. To identify conversations between students, I analyzed tweets and
coded them for characteristics of CMC coherence (Herring, 1999). According to Herring, coherence in
CMC conversations differs from coherence in face-to-face conversation. Coherence in CMC is marked by
considerable lag time, disrupted turn adjacency and violations of sequential coherence. Thus, in order to
identify connections between tweets, they are analyzed for such cohesive features as addressivity using
the @symbol (Honeycutt & Herring, 2009), as well as for topic continuation, evident through the use of
similar grammar structures, lexemes, or semantic ideas. Once coherence among tweets was identified, I
analyzed and coded the semantic content for instances of language play using Cook’s (2000) tri-partite
construct for distinguishing between formal, semantic, and pragmatic language play as well as for other
salient characteristics which may suggest language play, such as smiley face emoticons  or
abbreviations for laughter, such as lol, lolololol, and LOL. Chat interviews with the 3 students involved in
the study serve as additional source of qualitative data. These interviews took place through instant
messaging services on Gmail and Skype six months after the class had ended and were used to ascertain
student attitudes, motivations and lived recollections of their participation in the task (Appendix C).
Research Questions
Despite more of a focus on language play and adults in CMC environments, there is still a gap in the
literature focusing on Web 2.0 internet technologies, in particular involving the use of language play on
social media tools. Given the abundance of users of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and the
sheer amount of language that is produced on a daily basis on these networks, exploration is warranted.
As I examined the data set, I had two questions driving my inquiry:
1. Did the students’ tweets exhibit any characteristics of ludic language play? If so, which kinds of
ludic language play were used?
2. If language play was used, what may have been contributing factors?
RESULTS
Vignette 1. From Sentence to Utterance: Repetition and Verbal Dueling
“Whereas Michael today is very offensive, their girls are very defensive.”
Language Learning & Technology
158
David Hattem
Microblogging
In the following vignette Gülden, Florence, Michael, and another student, Yucel, a young Turkish woman
who was friends with Gülden and Florence and was also in the grammar class, had come to the computer
lab after class to use Twitter, where I also happened to be assisting other students. In one of the earlier
classes that day, Michael had made a playfully-intended, yet derogatory comment toward Gülden,
Florence, and Yucel, which they referenced during the grammar class. Now in the computer lab, Gülden
and Florence used Twitter and subordinating conjunctions of contrast (while/whereas) and surprise (even
though/although) to sound out Michael for his behavior through reprimands and insults. Although it
appears to be serious, their reprimands and insults are done somewhat in jest and tongue-in-cheek, as
before they had begun to reprimand Michael on Twitter, I had observed them speaking casually with him
in the computer lab.
In turns 1 through 6, Gülden, Yucel and Michael play with language form, perhaps influenced by each
other, paralleling each other’s form using subordinating conjunctions of contrast, whereas and while. In
turn 1, Gülden is expressing her pleasure with writing on Twitter, while in turns 3 and 4, she comments
on what was happening in real-time in the lab, mainly, Michael was showing Florence some disgusting
pictures. In turn 5, Michael begins a chain of playful substitution patterns writing a sentence containing
whereas. In turn 6, Gulden may be picking up on Michael’s use of the word whereas to compare German
and English pronunciation. In turn 7, she makes a veiled reference to Michael’s impropriety earlier in the
day when she engages Florence in direct conversation, “@florence, hey, while hate words are forbidden
in the lab, you can use peace or even love words.” In turn 8, Michael displays a playful substitution
pattern with the subordinating conjunctions whereas. In turn 9, Gülden makes a direct reference to
Michael’s behavior, showing her displeasure with it, and contrasting it with the behavior of the women:
“Whereas Michael is today very offensive, the girls are more defensive.” Florence also now begins to
reprimand Michael (turn 10), indirectly chastising him, using the same conjunction as Gülden: “whereas
some people are nice, some people are bad.” Michael then seemingly tries to defend himself (turn 11),
justifying his behavior by arguing that there is a direct correlation between hating and loving, as he
directly responds to Florence: “@Florence The more you hate, the more you love.” While his sentence
does not contain a target word, it displays a rhythmically and grammatically parallel structure. In turn 12,
Florence continues to antagonize Michael indirectly, expressing her displeasure: “Whereas I don’t want to
speak to some people, I want to talk some of them,” before she directly responds to Michael’s previous
utterance in excitable disagreement (turn 13): “@Michael don’t believe it!!!!!!!!!!!!” In turn 14, “Whereas
some people are tall, others are short,” Michael continues his chain of playful substitution patterns, now
moving whereas to the initial part of the sentence. In turn 15, Gülden perhaps makes another dig at
Michael, who had expressed an earlier interest in studying philosophy, which is what I studied as an
undergraduate student, by stating that Michael wants to become something she inaccurately believes that I
have already become. In turns 16-19, the conversation digresses and Yucel and Florence appropriate the
semantic and structural content of each other’s tweets to discuss real world intentions (Table 2).
In the preceding exchange, these students demonstrated a dynamic transformation of the original task I
had proposed to reframe the activity to suit their own goals. Whereas I had thought the students would
work individually, asynchronously, writing informational sentences with prescribed grammar structures
with me as their audience and their goal as practice, the students met up in the computer lab, worked
synchronously and collaboratively not only to practice but also to accomplish a more meaningful
objective. On the one hand, they are using the forms while and whereas as prescribed in the syllabus to
practice writing with structures we were studying in the class. Their playful repetition, substitution and
rhythmic patterns suggest linguistic play as described by Cook (2000). On the other hand, it seems the
purpose of Gülden and Florence’s tweets is not simply to practice but is also an attempt to ridicule and
admonish Michael for his behavior earlier that day by engaging him in a quasi-verbal duel. Gülden frames
parts of her discourse almost as if it were a game pitting Michael vs. the women: Whereas Michael today
is very offensive, the girls are more defensive. Her teamwork with Florence to insult Michael may be seen
Language Learning & Technology
159
Microblogging
David Hattem
as an attempt to establish gender solidarity, while also trying to gain superiority over Michael by letting
him know his behavior is unacceptable. At the same time, as like with other verbal duels in which
violence or insults remain largely symbolic and not taken to heart (Cook, 2000), these students appear to
be engaging in this duel in a tongue-in cheek fashion as I did observe them walking into the lab together
joking around before they sat down to Twitter just a few minutes before these verbal duels.
The reframing of the activity was made possible in part through the ‘spinning off’ (Wertsch, 1998) of the
microblogging tool, which allowed the students to use it in a novel way that I had not imagined. Rather
than broadcasting unrelated, disjointed sentences, Gülden, Florence and Michael collaborated in real-time
on Twitter, using CMC conversational elements, such as addressivity and topic continuation (Herring
1999, Honeycutt & Herring, 2009). The students thus moved from the sentence to the utterance (Bakhtin,
1935/1981, 1953/1986) in which a large portion of their tweets established a formal, semantic and
pragmatic continuum. Their proximity to each other in the computer lab, their simultaneous tweeting, and
their restricted network of followers helped them turn Twitter into a quasi-instant messaging chat room
and the task into something interesting, fun and intrinsically meaningful. In fact, in the interviews, Gülden
comments on how the first time she realized the enjoyment of using Twitter was when the students met in
the lab and used it together. This initial experience of collaborating in the lab would lead the students to
collaborate from their homes as seen in the following two vignettes.
Table 2. From Sentence to Utterance
Turn
Student
Tweet
Time
1
Gülden
While professor and Florence are discussing about time, I have a lot of
fun.
1:48 pm
2
Yucel
Even though I am so tired, I am still studying in computer lab.
1:52 pm
3
Gülden
Florence feels disgusting while Michael are showing her pictures about
dog who were eaten
1:55 pm
4
Gülden
Whereas Yucel looks to the picture voluntarily, Michael has to force
Florence alias Takiturkar to look at the pictures.
1:56 pm
5
Michael
Some people are tall, whereas others are short.
2:00 pm
6
Gülden
Whereas English language pronunciation is soft, the german
pronunciation is more hard.
2:01 pm
7
Gülden
@Florence hey, while hate words are forbidden in the lab, you can use
peace or even love words.
2:04 pm
8
Michael
Some people are short, whereas others are tall
2:05 pm
9
Gülden
Whereas Michael today is very offensive, the girls are more defensive
2:05 pm
10
Florence
Whereas some people are nice, others are so bad.
2:05 pm
11
Michael
@Florence The more you hate, the more you love
2:05 pm
12
Florence
Whereas I don’t want to speak some people, i want to talk some of them
2:06 pm
13
Florence
@Michael don’t believe it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2:07 pm
14
Michael
Whereas some people are tall, other are short.
2:07 pm
15
Gülden
Michael wants to become a philosopher, whereas our professor already
has become one
2:08 pm
16
Yucel
I would like to go home, while Florence wants to stay here
2:08 pm
Language Learning & Technology
160
Microblogging
David Hattem
17
Florence
whereas i asked Yucel to go home, she send me this sentence
2:08 pm
18
Yucel
Whereas Florence is hungry, I am full
2:12 pm
19
Florence
Yucel is full, while I am hungry
2:15 pm
Note. Target subordinators from the syllabus are in bold.
Vignette 2. Word Games: Free-styling, Sounding Off and Solidarity
“I am proud of to be addicted to twitter anyway, because I associate it with our class and through
twitter I am prepared for the next class.”
Figure 5. Initiating a word game.
In this vignette, Michael and Gülden are on Twitter. They are in their homes and come online at different
times. Once they realize that they are both on Twitter, they begin chatting with each other using Twitter
as an instant messaging tool like they had done in the lab in the previous vignette. Once again, the
students seem to have dual objects at hand as they engage in an impromptu improvisational word game in
which one student gives a verb/preposition combination and the other student must create a sentence
using the combination.
Gülden first appears on Twitter at 8:10 pm hoping to find someone “in” Twitter, “Is anybody in there????
Come on….” She begins to share YouTube videos containing Arab humor. At 8:12, Michael responds to
her with a playful take on the word hello, “Halo!” Gülden continues sharing videos seemingly unaware
that Michael is now online. “I’m here,” he tweets. The two then trade humorous YouTube videos.
Michael then attempts to engage Gülden in an improvisational game involving preposition combinations
(in bold), they were studying in class: “Give a preposition then we’ll make a sentence.” Gülden replies,
“Be done with.” Michael begins on his own, however, “Thou shall not be absent from any gathering in
PALS.” Gülden writes two tweets of her own containing prepositions, before Michael finally responds to
her initial prompt, “Our class will be done with lots of knowledge gained.” Gülden is excited by
Michael’s response and gives him some positive feedback, “Yeaaaaah!” The two continue trading tweets.
Then Michael makes a joke about Gülden’s use of Twitter, addressing her by her Twitter handle:
@thelaw, “Its not easy to be addicted to tweeter like thelaw.” She finds this funny, responding,
“hahahaha!” before justifying her addiction in her next tweet by using a variety of combinations to
express how Twitter helps her, “I am proud of to be addicted to twitter anyway, because I associate it
with our class and through twitter I am prepared for the next class,” (Figure 6) Gülden then once again
takes the opportunity to sound off on Michael for another instance of inappropriate behavior in class
earlier that day, “Michael seemed today in Marnie's class to be bored with the topic, but anyway he
succeeded in making jokes about Brandy, Marnie and me.” Michael apologizes blaming his behavior on
the early start of school, while also using preposition combinations, “I apologize for my bad behavior.”
“Its just because I arrive in school too early I get nuts.” In her next two tweets, Gülden tries to console
Michael, while still admonishing him, explicitly marking her sentences as jokes. “Mike doesn’t have to
feel guilty of what he had done today with us in Marnie’s class. However, in real there is no excuse for
his behavior.” “hey I am just kidding and trying to use the prepositions, so please dont be upset with
Language Learning & Technology
161
David Hattem
Microblogging
me.” Michael seemingly did not take offense as the two continued to chat for a few more tweets about
topic sentences for an essay before Mike takes leave and says good night in two separate tweets, “Can I
be excuse for my sleepiness? “Good night! peeps! my bed is seducing me.. and I can't resist it! maybe I'll
just give in..”
Figure 6. Addicted to Twitter
In their impromptu word game, Michael and Gülden once again reframe the activity reimagining the
rules, objectives, tools, and division of labor I had set forth in the task guidelines. Michael attempts to
transform the original solitary informational task I had constructed into a game in which he and Gülden
must improvise a sentence based off of the other’s prompt. As with verbal dueling, improvisational word
games like this may be an exercise in solidarity building or an attempt to establish intellectual superiority
by coming up with the most ingenious sentence (Cook, 2000). Michael’s suggestion to, “Give a
preposition and make a sentence,” may have come from his interest in hip-hop culture, which was
apparent in the language and content he used and shared in his tweets as well as his enthusiasm for Yo
Mama jokes, which we had studied in class as an example of the so…that subordinating conjunction of
cause/effect. This invented game they were playing may be viewed as a type of ‘freestyling,’ a style of
singing common in hip-hop music, where rappers come up with rhymes extemporaneously and try to
continue as long as they can without stopping while rapping about different topics. At times, rappers
engage in “battles,” a type of verbal duel in front of audiences to determine who the most skilled
freestyler is. The more dexterous ones will take prompts from the audience about topics to rhyme about
without breaking their flow, while also engaging in insulting and discrediting their competitors.
Gülden responds to Michael’s request and gives him verb/preposition phrase: be done with, which he
successfully uses to create an accurate sentence. In the beginning, Gülden is seemingly playing the game
with Michael, even encouraging him and finding humor in his responses, evidenced by her use of
hahahahahaha. However, after Michael takes a humorous jab at Gülden’s Twitter usage, she once again
takes the opportunity to sound off on Michael for another instance of inappropriate behavior. Thus, once
inside the reframed activity Michael has set-up in order to practice and have fun through an
improvisational word game, Gülden uses the frame to express her real feelings towards her classmate.
Despite her claims that she is just kidding and trying to use the prepositions, given the previous vignette,
there does seem to be an element of truth to her displeasure with Michael’s actions. He at least believes
so, evident by his apology and attempts to save face and reestablish solidarity with his classmate. All the
Language Learning & Technology
162
David Hattem
Microblogging
while the two stay within at least one parameter of the original frame I created for the task: use grammar
structures from the syllabus.
Moving from the computer lab, where they tweeted in real-time in the presence of each other, the three
students began to meet and communicate with each other from their own houses, conceptualizing Twitter
as a virtual meeting space for synchronous communication in the vein of an instant messenger or internet
relay chat room. That they conceived of Twitter as a place is evident in their arranging times to meet as
well as in their various tweets describing Twitter as a place, such as when Gülden signed in and
impatiently asked: Anybody in there???? Come on.... 8:10 PM Dec 14th from web. The exchange in this
vignette took place around 8:00. Gülden mentions in her interview how it had been difficult living in
America the short time she had been here, raising her daughter alone with no real social life due to family
and school obligations. Gülden and Florence also both describe how moving to America contributed to
them losing contact with their primary social circles back in Turkey, leaving their only friends in America
the ones they had met through going to school. That these students felt a lack of a social circle and began
meeting on Twitter to chat, suggests Twitter had become a place not only to practice their English, but
also to establish, build, and maintain relationships with their classmates
Vignette 3. Hypothetical Carnage: Carnival, Alternative Realities and Double-Voiced Discourse
“If I put my picture here, you will see my beautiful face. I don’t wanna bad eyes on my face.
LOL.”
In the following vignette, Gülden, Florence, and Michael are each at their homes using Twitter in the
evening at the same time. Over a span of 10 minutes from 8:53 pm to 9:03 pm, the students have a
conversation on Twitter, blending such forms of language play as: speaking to hypothetical situations,
using a foreign phrase, referencing fictional worlds, repeating structures, double-voiced discourse and
parody. The students draw out two distinct conversational threads. The first one involves good natured
teasing and references to foreign ideas and words. Michael initiates the teasing by prodding Florence to
put her picture on Twitter, which she did not want to do and which had been a running joke both online
and in class throughout the seven-week session. Florence and Gülden are clearly amused with the banter
as they use abbreviations and emoticons to back channel their enjoyment. In the second thread in Table 2,
the students used the function of the 1st conditional2 to create an imaginary world in which they discuss
the possibility of Florence being murdered by Michael, Gülden and myself.
In turns 1 through 3, the students make it known to each other that they are on Twitter, yet still
accomplish this task by using a target grammar structure. In turn 5, Michael teases Florence about not
having her picture on her Twitter account, a running joke throughout the session, “If Florence can only
put a picture on her profile, it’ll be great!” In turn 7, Florence justifies not putting a picture on Twitter by
hypothesizing that if she had a picture of her ‘beautiful’ face on Twitter, it could lead to ‘bad eyes’ and
envy. “If I put my picture here, you will see my beautiful face. I don’t wanna bad eyes on my face. LOL.”
In turn 11, however, Gülden tries to convince Florence with a witty hypothesis that if Florence does put
her picture on Twitter, “…we can all say mashallah to her, which keeps her safe from bad eyes ;-).
The second topic revolved around murder as the students joke about killing each other. The students had
been working on collaborative essays with each responsible for an individual part of the essay. The topic
of murder is brought up by Florence in turn 4, who appears to be attempting to use a joke as a leavetaking strategy when she writes, “If I go will you kill me?” Michael appropriates the topic from Florence
in turn 8, noting that if there is utility in killing Florence, then he has no problem committing the act, “If
killing you would do me any better then I will.” Gülden appropriates the semantic and structural content
of Florence and Michael’s previous tweets in turn 9 by joking that she’ll turn a blind eye toward this
Language Learning & Technology
163
Microblogging
David Hattem
murder, “If Michael will kill you, I don’t know anything about it.” In turn 10, Florence, still on the topic
of death wonders whether I will murder her if she doesn’t complete her homework, “If I don’t correct my
individual essay, Dave can kill me or not?” Michael then leaves the conversation, which continues with
Florence and Gülden. In turn 12, Gülden maintains her blind eye towards murder, “If Dave will kill you, I
won’t know it too.” In turn 13, Florence tries to persuade Gülden not to kill her by asking Gülden what
she would do without her, “IF I die, what are you going to do without me, So don’t kill me.” In turn 14,
Gülden now tries to support Florence, assuring that killing her is not permitted, “If Florence won’t correct
her individual essay, Dave is not allowed to kill her, even Michael.” In turn 15, although, Gülden
speculates that I might “murder” something else, Florence’s grade, if the essay is not completed, “But if
Florence won’t correct her individual essay, Dave can kill her grade.” In turns 16 & 17, Florence is
expressing her happiness about surviving her physical death, but realizes she is not safe from the death of
her grade: “ok I am not going to die tomorrow it is great… but I see I will die anyway.” Finally, in turn
18, Gülden unites the two topics of envy and murder by threatening to kill Florence should she not put her
picture on Twitter (Table 3).
In this vignette, the students rely heavily on addressivity, carnival language, parody and double-voiced
discourse (Bakthin, 1981, 1984, 1986) to establish and continue their conversation. Each successive tweet
seems to be the fuel for the next as students practice grammar structures picking up on each other’s
linguistic and semantic content in their pseudo world of carnage. Their references to fictional words in
which the students and teacher may consider murder for such actions as leaving a conversation or not
completing an assignment dramatically invert the accepted social order, yet provide the students with
semantic content that may be intrinsically interesting and motivating due to its humorous nature. Their
use of parody, in which they use the content of each other’s tweets to maintain and advance their
conversation, makes the whole episode possible and heightens the sense of humor. It can also be argued
that the students not only have become the authors, but also the characters of their tweets. In doublevoiced discourse the author’s words serve two intentions, to further and advance the ideology of the
character as well as the author (Bakhtin, 1935/1981). As the author of their tweets, they seem to stay
within the confines of the authoritative academic discourse by restricting the linguistic content of their
tweets to the subordinating conjunction if and the pragmatic purpose to practice. However, the semantic
content repositions the students as characters of their tweets, which advances a different, if not hidden
ideology; the students’ parodying of the power relations between the teacher and students might be seen
as a form rebellion against the task that allows the students to gain greater control over their learning and
reframe the activity in a way that is more enjoyable.
Table 3. Hypothetical Carnage
Turn
Student
Tweet
Time
1
Gülden
If Michael can start tweeting too, then Florence would know that he is
also here
8:53 pm
2
Michael
If Florence is here, it’ll be great!
8:55 pm
3
Florence
If I am not here, how can I write something. LOL :D
8:56 pm
4
Florence
If I go will you kill me?
8:57 pm
5
Michael
If Florence can only put a picture on her profile, it’ll be great!
8:57 pm
6
Gülden
If you send me your paragraphs, I could check my text because I need it
for the introduction.
8:57 pm
7
Florence
If I put my picture here, you will see my beautiful face. I don’t wanna bad
eyes on my face. LOL
8:58 pm
Language Learning & Technology
164
Microblogging
David Hattem
8
Michael
If killing you would do me any better then I will…
8:59 pm
9
Gülden
If Michael will kill you, I don’t know anything about it.
8:59 pm
10
Florence
If I don’t correct my individual essay, can the professor kill me or not?
9:00 pm
9:00 pm
11
Gülden
If Florence is afraid of bad eyes, we can all say mashallah to her which
keeps her safe from bad eyes ;-)
12
Gülden
If the professor will kill you, I won’t know it too.
9:01 pm
13
Florence
IF I die, what are you going to do without me, So don’t kill me.
9:01 pm
14
Gülden
If Florence won’t correct her individual essay, the professor is not
allowed to kill her, even Michael.
9:01 pm
15
Gülden
But if Florence won’t correct her individual essay, the professor can kill
her grade.
9:02 pm
16
Florence
Ok I am not going to die tomorrow it is great
9:02 pm
17
Florence
but I see I will die anyway.
9:03 pm
18
Gülden
If you don’t put a picture in here, then I could kill you tomorrow ;-)
9:03 pm
DISCUSSION
During their use of Twitter during the seven-week session Gülden, Michael and Florence did in fact use a
variety of types of language play, including repetition, joking, insulting, improvisational word games,
foreign words and references, imaginary worlds and carnival language. While communicating
collaboratively, the students seemed to show a preference for using language play, continuing to embed it
in frames that used academic grammatical constructions, resulting in awkward, if not humorous and
memorable tweets. That they were enjoying themselves and finding humor in the interactions in the
vignettes is corroborated by the abbreviations and emoticons signaling humor which appear in the tweets
as well as the students’ own admission in the interviews that their real-time communication on Twitter
helped make the task fun.
The use of language play may have been influenced by a few factors. Dialogic, synchronous digital
communication tools, such as internet relay rooms and chatting, have been demonstrated to foster online
communities with relaxed interactional norms which students can exploit for creative, risk-taking and
playful language (Herring, 1999, 2009; Nardi, Whittaker & Bradner, 2000; Thorne, 2000). Furthermore,
using Twitter as a bounded community in educational, language learning settings contributes to the
building of classroom community (Antenos-Conforti, 2009; Lomicka & Lord, 2011; Newgarden, 2009).
The camaraderie and support of the micro-community may have further helped to establish a space which
opened up opportunities for language play and risk-taking.
One may ask why these students in particular formed an online community and not any of the other
students. Stefanone and Gay (2008) posit that students who have established in-class social networks
based on choice homophily––such as age, gender, and ethnicity––tend to reproduce these social networks
in computer-mediated communication forums. This is clearly evident in the case of Gülden and Florence
both females with Turkish cultural heritages, who were roughly around the same age and had similar
experiences with digital communication tools, particularly instant messaging applications. Although
Michael did not share the same gender and ethnicity as Gülden and Florence, he was a part of their social
network in class—he sat next to them in all of their classes and usually worked with them in groups. He
only seemed to be outcast from the group when his attempts at humor were not met kindly by his
classmates. This social network at times led the students to visit the computer lab together with each other
Language Learning & Technology
165
David Hattem
Microblogging
after class time, where they practiced on Twitter. These visits to the computer lab allowed them to
initially discover that they could communicate in real-time on Twitter.
The students could not have formed an online community had they not ‘spun-off’ Twitter from a
microblog to a quasi-instant messenger. These students brought to their experience with Twitter
sustained, cultures-of-use (Thorne, 2003) with a variety of digital communication tools in non-academic
speech communities. Yet, according to the interviews, they all preferred chatting and texting above
others, which was how they communicated with their friends back home. Confronted with a largely
asynchronous, digital communication tool given to them to learn authoritatively-sanctioned ways for
using academic English grammar, while struggling with being taken out of their established social
networks with their friends back home, the students may have responded to this contradiction by spinning
it off, drawing on their repertoire of communication methods with chatting and texting, noticing similar
affordances in Twitter’s interactional capabilities, despite synchronous communication not being the
intended nor dominant method of communication within the Twitter speech community or the space I
originally constructed for the class. Spinning off the tool, the students moved from the sentence to the
utterance (Bakhtin, 1953/1986) resulting in a quantitative and qualitative change in language use. The
students displayed conversational, interactional language marked by characteristics of synchronous CMC
communication (Honeycutt & Herring, 2009; Thorne, 2000). Their tweets contained parody and doublevoiced discourse (Bakhtin, 1935/1981) becoming the vehicle for multiple intentions, including the
appropriation of sanctioned academic grammar, as well as informal language commonly used in
synchronous digital communication and the building and developing of interpersonal relationships
established in the micro community. This study suggests similar findings to Thorne (2003) who described
how CMC tool shifts in language learning tasks in academic settings opened up possibilities for
transformative change, creating additional learning opportunities.
In the interviews, Gülden, Florence and Michael all mention how their real-time collaboration on Twitter,
as seen in this previous vignette, was beneficial to their learning experience. Gülden points to being able
to compare sentences with each other to see if they were using the forms accurately. She also remarks that
how I initially set up the task for the students to work individually clashed with her cultural experiences in
Germany, where she was used to working with groups. Florence provides insight into how collaborating
on Twitter gave the students the opportunity to practice their informal language use, which wouldn’t have
been possible if they had only worked individually practicing the sanctioned academic structures outlined
in the course syllabus. This “street language,” as she terms it fit in better with the nature of the tool as
they were using it and helped her develop and broaden her style and generic repertoire, as Florence rightly
remarks it is not too common to use academic language while chatting. Michael states that while not too
practical, they were able to leverage Twitter as a conversational tool in order to help them get ideas for
the content of their tweets and receive instantaneous feedback, “…sometimes what happens is, we get
ideas from the first person's post. In my opinion, I think it's better to work with them, cause you can get
corrected in some instances you make mistakes.” When I asked Michael about the positive or negative
aspects of using Twitter, he commented that one positive to using Twitter for the class was that he found
another way to use Twitter, one that was not intended “as it's main purpose”. (sic).
CONCLUSION
Student agency is not an individual state of being, rather direct actions taken by the student. It is doing
rather than being, initiating rather than reacting, meaningful rather than void (van Lier, 2008; Lantolf &
Thorne, 2006). Although constrained by their material environment, agents––individually or
collaboratively– choose their own motivations, tools, partners, rules, divisions of labor and direct their
activity accordingly. In educational settings, students form their own motivations that direct their activity
and result in learning. Even in the middle of a single activity, students may reshape the context, and thus
the activity, by redefining the object according to their own goals and outcomes (Coughlan & Duff, 1994;
Language Learning & Technology
166
David Hattem
Microblogging
Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). Students therefore show agency in creating their own learning contexts (van
Lier, 2008). Gülden, Michael and Florence did not solely place themselves in the task designed for them,
but co-constructed their own activities to better direct their own educational and social goals. Thus, the
students engaged in a process of “expansive learning,” in which they ‘resolve[d] the pressing internal
contradictions by [co-]constructing and implementing a qualitatively new way of functioning…’
horizontally distributing the learning process amongst themselves in ‘situationally constructed social
spaces,’ (Engeström, 2007), which, according to the students, positively impacted and changed the
learning outcomes and objectives set forth in the class syllabus, as well as the interpersonal relationship
dynamics between the students.
This study suffers from a few limitations, such as a small sample-size, the time between the retrospective
interviews and the closing of the task as well as a lack of inter-rater reliability for coding the data in the
corpus. However, the findings still serve to make us consider Cook’s (2000) suggestion that teachers and
researchers need to expand their conceptualization of what constitutes authentic language use and make
spaces in classrooms for language play to attain learning outcomes and objectives remains highly
relevant, especially in the current era of innovation and expansion in digital communication and the
additional and surprising opportunities they afford for sanctioned and unsanctioned language learning. It
is advisable to perform further research in how language play can be integrated into tasks involving
synchronous digital communication tools, while remaining flexible and open to task design and
implementation, as transformative uses affecting language use and learning outcomes may be latent in the
tools, student networks and cultures-of-use, and may remain unapparent to curriculum designers and
teachers at the outset of or even during the task.
NOTES
1. Yo Mama jokes are often crude jokes told about people’s mothers. The jokes usually insult the
intelligence or appearance of one’s mother and depending on the context may be taken light-heartedly
or more seriously.
2. The First Conditional expresses a hypothetical future situation and uses the subordinator if in the
subordinate clause and the modal auxiliary will in the main clause.
APPENDIX A. Tweet Clouds
Gülden’s tweet cloud displaying most used words
Language Learning & Technology
167
Microblogging
David Hattem
Michael’s tweet cloud displaying most used words
APPENDIX B. Task Handout
Task-Based Activity
1:
Microblogging
Rationale
Output, or production of language, contributes significantly to language acquisition by allowing the student to test
ideas they have about language, by noticing a gap in their language output, and by giving them the opportunity to
use meta-language to reflect on their production (Swain, 1995). In addition, becoming a member of an English
language community also can aid acquisition, both cultural and linguistic, by allowing the student to participate in
a community first on the periphery, then as an outright member Finally, micro-blogging helps to build classroom
community (Newgarden, 2009).
Background
Microblogging is a social media platform which has become quite popular in the United States. It consists of
writing short messages, or updates, of 140 characters or less, and then posting them to a public timeline, which can
be viewed by anyone. A person builds their network by following people. As you follow people and they follow
you, your messages appear on their home page, and vice-versa. This is the core of the microblogging network.
Similar to Facebook and other social-networking sites, users can post short messages, photos, videos and audio to
their profile, and even engage in conversations; however, microblogging differs from social-networking in that
one’s network of friends may be based on similar interests, rather than on prior friendship or acquaintances.
The most popular microblogging service to date is TWITTER. Twitter is used by more than 6,000,000 people in
the United States, including famous actors and celebrities, well-known businesses and news outlets, even President
Obama. Being the most-well known service, Twitter will be the microblogging platform used for this class. To
further acquaint yourself with microblogging and Twitter, view these two short videos: http://tinyurl.com/384n2f
http://tinyurl.com/d33ul4
With Twitter you can:
Language Learning & Technology
168
Microblogging
David Hattem
•
•
•
•
•
•
Update your status: 140 characters including spaces
Send direct messages: private messages to your friends
Favorite someone’s tweets
Retweet: display a friend’s tweet so all of your other friends can see it
Reply to someone: use the @username to reply to someone’s tweet.
Search the public timeline: use the search box to enter words you want to search on Twitter.
Objective
To develop grammatical competence especially accuracy and complexity in sentence writing and conciseness
through micro-blogging.
Summary
During the course of the sessions, it is your option to use Twitter. I suggest you write a total of 75 tweets. This
averages out to approximately ten sentences per week. However, I encourage you to take advantage of this
opportunity to have your English reviewed and write as many sentences as possible. I will give you suggestions
during each week about which grammar constructions should be in your updates; the content of the updates should
revolve around your life and interests.
As you begin to Tweet, I will do one of two things. First, I might REPLY to a tweet you have written and
MENTION your name. If I do this, the tweet is non-normative and should be corrected. Second, I might
FAVORITE and RETWEET your sentence. This means that the sentence is normative.
Assessment and Grading Criteria
This assignment is optional and does not count towards your grade, but should you choose to do it, you should aim
to write 10 sentences per week throughout the session. I will provide you with feedback for all the sentences you
write.
Twitter’s Layout
Home Page
On your home page is where you write your sentences. You write them in the box that says WHAT’S
HAPPENING? Also on your home page, you can check any mentions by clicking on the @username link. Those
are the two tabs useful to you for this task
Language Learning & Technology
169
David Hattem
Microblogging
Profile Page
Your profile page shows all of the tweets you have made. It also shows you any tweets that you have favorited as
well as any people you are following.
Message Page
On Twitter, you are allowed to send users private messages, messages that only you and the user can see. You can
do this on your message page. Simply create a new message and choose which user you would like to send it to.
Follow Page
On the following page, you choose who you want to follow. Enter their twitter name or email in the user box.
When the user appears, click on the FOLLOW button. This user’s updates will now appear on your page.
APPENDIX C. Interview Questions
1.
Had you ever used a chat tool, instant messaging service or microblog before attending this course?
2.
What is your preferred method of communication among your friends?
3.
How competent are you using a computer and the internet?
Language Learning & Technology
170
David Hattem
Microblogging
4.
Compare your interactions with your social circle in your home country from the last few months
living in your country to your interactions with the social circle during your time in the class.
5.
What are your thoughts about the microblogging experience we had in class?
6.
What is your memory of the instructions for using Twitter in the class?
7.
Do you remember using Twitter to chat?
8.
If so, what do you remember about the experience?
9.
Whose decision was it to use Twitter as a chat tool?
10
If so, what do you remember about the experience?
11.
What were your goals while you were using Twitter as a chat tool?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my brother, Michael Hattem, for taking time out of his incredibly busy schedule to
discuss and read drafts of this article. His insight and support were invaluable.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I have 8 years of experience teaching English as a Second Language in northern New Jersey. I attained
my M.A. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Massachusetts-Boston in 2011, where I
concentrated on ESL and EFL pedagogy. My interests included computer-assisted language learning,
additional language acquisition, sociocultural theory, cognitive approaches, critical pedagogy and corpus
linguistics.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Antenos-Conforti, E. (2009). Microblogging on Twitter: Social networking in intermediate Italian classes.
In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), The Next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in
foreign language learning, (pp. 59–90.)
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel. (M. Holiquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). In M. Holiquist (ed.).
The Dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 259–402). Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press. (Original work published in 1935)
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press. (Original work published in 1965)
Bakhtin. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. (V. Mcgee, Trans.). In C. Emerson and M. Holiquist
(Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original
work published in 1953)
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution,
and epistemology. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Retrieved from
http://www.edtechpost.ca/readings/Gregory%20Bateson%20-%20Ecology%20of%20Mind.pdf
Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A Case study of humour in NS-NNS
Language Learning & Technology
171
David Hattem
Microblogging
interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218.
Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated
German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 14(3), 324–362.
Borau, K., Feng, J., Shen, R. & Ullrich, C. (2009). Microblogging for language learning: Using twitter to
train communicative and cultural competence. Lecture Notes and Computer Science, 5686. doi:
10.1007/978-3-642-03426-8_10
Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 363–379.
Bushnell, C. (2008). ‘Lego my keego!: An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese foreign
language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 49–69.
Castro, M. (2009). The use of microblogging in language education. Proceedings of the third international
wireless ready symposium. 8–11. Retrieved from http://opinion.nucba.ac.jp/~thomas/castro2009.pdf
Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51(3), 224–231.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Coughlin, P. & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity
theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language
research. (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eltantawy, N. & Wiest, J. B., (2011). Social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource
mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1207–1234.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys towards
coconfiguration. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.
Fitzgerald, B. (2012, August 8). The 17 most-visited websites in the world. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/most-visited-websites
Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 541–
565.
Gawne, L., & Vaughan, J. (2011). I can has language play: The Construction of language and identity in
LOLspeak. Presented at the Australian Linguistics Society annual conference. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/1152393/I_can_haz_speech_play_The_construction_of_language_and_identity
_in_LOLspeak
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Goodwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning
and Technology, 7(2), 12–16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/emerging.pdf
Grossman, L. (2009, June). Iran Protests: Twitter, the Medium of the Movement. Time. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html.
Hattem, D. (2012). The Practice of microblogging. The Journal of Second Language Teaching and
Research. 1(2), 38–70. Retrieved from http://pops.uclan.ac.uk/index.php/jsltr/article/view/47
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Sciences (CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x
Language Learning & Technology
172
David Hattem
Microblogging
Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter.
Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42).Los Alamitos,
CA: IEEE Press. Retrieved from http://www.ledbetter.de/pdf/beyondmicroblogging.PDF
Humphreys, L. (2010, April). Historicizing Microblogging. Paper presented at the CHI Workshop on
Micro-Blogging 2010. April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved from:
http://cs.unc.edu/~julia/accepted-papers/Humphreys_HistoricizingTwitter.pdf
Iddings, A. & McCafferty, S. (2007). Carnival in a mainstream classroom: A Bakhtinian analysis of
second language learner’s off-task behaviors. Modern Language Journal. 91(1), 33–44.
Java, A., Finin, T., Song, X., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage
and communities, Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and
social network analysis, pp. 56–65, August 12, 2007, San Jose, CA doi: 10.1145/1348549.1348556
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf
Labov. W. (1974). The art of sounding and signifying. In W. Gage (ed.), Language and its Social Setting
(pp. 84–116). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Lantolf, J. P. (1997). The Function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In W. R. Glass & A.
T. Prez-Leroux (eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (3–24). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Lantolf, J. P. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second
language learners as people. In M. Breen (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New
directions in research (pp.141–158). London, UK: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Liang, M. (2012). Foreign lucidity in online role-playing games. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
25(2), 455–473.
Lomicka, L. & Lord, G. (2011). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners.
System, 40(1), 48–63.
Long, Michael (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp.413–468.) San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Martinez, J. (2012, October 28). Twitter CEO Dick Costolo reveals staggering number of tweets per day.
Complex Tech, Retrieved from http://www.complex.com/tech/2012/10/twitter-ceo-dick-costolo-revealsstaggering-number-of tweets-per-day
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in
action. Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (pp. 79–88).
Philadelphia, PA: ACM. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.31.7157&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Newgarden, K. (2009, September). Twitter. TESL-EJ, 13(2). Retrieved from http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/past-issues/volume13/ej50/ej50m2/
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction
of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Language Learning & Technology
173
David Hattem
Microblogging
Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: Fun and informal microblogging activities for
language learning. Communication in Computer and Information Science, 49(1), 1–14. DOI 10.1007/9783-642-04757-2_1
Perrault, C. (2002). Little Red Riding Hood. In M. Hallett & B. Karasek (eds.), Folk and fairy tales
3rd Edition. (pp. 6–8), Toronto, Canada: Broadview.
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent
language users. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 556–578.
Semiocast. (2012, July 30). Twitter reaches half a billion accounts more than 140 million in the U.S.
Retrieved from
http://semiocast.com/publications/2012_07_30_Twitter_reaches_half_a_billion_accounts_140m_in_the_
US
Shah, D. (2010, August 26). [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6505/The-March-of-Twitter-Analysis-of-How-and-WhereTwitter-Spread.aspx
Stefanone, M. & Gay, G. (2008). Structural reproduction of social networks in computer-mediated
communication forums. Behavior& Information Technology, 27(2), 97–106.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Thorne, S. (2000). Beyond bounded activity systems: Heterogeneous cultures in instructional uses of
persistent conversation. In S. Herring & T. Erickson (eds.), The Proceedings of the thirty-third Hawaii
International Conference on Systems Science (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: IEEE.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Tsukayama, H. (2013, March 21). Twitter turns 7: Users send over 400 million tweets per day. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-0321/business/37889387_1_tweets-jack-dorsey-twitter
Ullrich, C., Borau, K. & Stepanyan, K. (2010). "Who students interact with? A social network analysis
perspective on the use of Twitter in language learning", In Proceedings of EC-TEL 2010. pp. 432–437.
Springer-Verlag.
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (eds.), Sociocultural theory and
the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). London, UK: Equinox.
Warner, C. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning
and Technology, 8(2), 69–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner/default.html
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Williams, E. (2009, February). Evan Williams: The voices of Twitter users or listening to Twitter users
[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/evan_williams_on_listening_to_twitter_users.html
Language Learning & Technology
174
Language Learning & Technology
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/call.pdf
June 2014, Volume 18, Number 2
p. 175
CALL for Papers: Special Issue 20(2): LLT 20th Anniversary Special
Issue of Special Issues
Special issue editors: Phil Hubbard, Greg Kessler, and Paige Ware
In 2016 Language Learning & Technology will be celebrating its 20th year of publication. In
honor of that event, we are planning an anniversary “special issue of special issues,” revisiting
the most popular special issue themes from the past two decades. We triangulated data from a public poll in April, a
poll of the editorial board, and the log of downloads from 2013 to arrive at the following themes:
•
•
•
•
The Role of Computer Technology in Second Language Acquisition Research (January 2000 & May 2000)
Computer-Assisted Language Testing (May 2001)
Learner Autonomy and New Learning Environments (October 2011)
Technology and the Four Skills (combined theme)
o Technology and Oral Language Development (September 2005)
o Technology and Listening Comprehension (February 2007)
o Technology and Learning to Read (October 2007)
o Technology and Learning to Write (June 2008)
The issue, currently scheduled for June 2016, will include two types of contributions for each of the four themes: a
review article by an invited expert and a research article selected through the normal peer review process for a total of
eight articles. Please see the call for contributions below. In each case we have included links to the original call for
proposals as a starting point.
The Role of Computer Technology in Second Language Acquisition Research. Read the original call from 1998
here. This is a broad area that encompasses both the use of technology to improve our understanding of second language
acquisition processes and the impact of technology as a mediator in those processes.
Computer-Assisted Language Testing. Read the original call from 1999 here. We are looking for papers based on
contemporary implementations of the topics listed in that call as well as new ones such as automated scoring of spoken
or written language assessments.
Learner Autonomy and New Learning Environments. Read the original call from 2010 here. As this is a more recent
collection, all those topics remain relevant for the purposes of the anniversary issue. We are open to considering other
ones as well.
Technology and the Four Skills. This was originally a set of different calls for proposals from 2003-2006 for special
issues on each of the four skills: oral communication, listening, reading, and writing. Each of these was a well-supported
theme during our polls, and rather than select one over the other three, we decided to include all of them. Specifically we
are seeking research papers that focus on technology and language learning synthesizing two or more of these skills (e.g.,
listening and speaking, reading and writing, speaking and listening, or other combinations).
Please consult the LLT Website for general guidelines on submission (http://llt.msu.edu/contrib.html) and research
(http://llt.msu.edu/resguide.html).
Send a title and 250-word abstract by October 1, 2014 to [email protected]. Be sure to specify clearly which of the four
themes you are proposing your paper for. We will invite a maximum of five papers for each theme, and these will go
through the standard blind peer review process. Note that only the paper that the editors judge the best for each theme
will be included in the anniversary issue. Others meeting LLT publication standards will be published in subsequent
issues.
Publication timeline:
•
•
•
•
October 1, 2014:
October 15, 2014:
March 1, 2015:
June 2, 2016:
Copyright © 2014, ISSN 1094-3501
Submission deadline for abstracts
Invitation to authors to submit a manuscript
Submission deadline for manuscripts
Publication of special issue
175