👣 First steps (again and again)

… in game based language teaching (GBLT)

… in digital game based language learning (DGBLL),

… in games in second language teaching and learning (games in L2TL),

… in gameful L2TL,

… etc. etc. etc.

I have seen a LOT of vaporware GBLT MA theses and research papers. People are constantly “reinventing” or “rediscovering” using games in language acquisition. Always taking those same first steps.

“What steps,” you might ask.

There are so many papers that ask and answer these kinds of questions:

Do games contain useful language? (vocabulary, grammar, functional language)
What are the differences between game genres?
Do my students like games?
What are my students’ perceptions of games being used in the classroom
What are teachers’ perceptions of games being used in the classroom?

And these questions are “fine.” I definitely started 20+ years ago asking questions like that.

The next questions tend to be:

What would a lesson plan that uses game X look like?

An example is:

Where in the World of English is Carmen Sandiego? – Carla Meskill, 1990

and that’s from 1990.

1990!

Here’s another lesson plan MA from 2016 that I really do like .. it takes Reinhardt and Thorne’s bridging activities pedagogy and sketches out a lesson plan.

Bridging Activities Cycle: Design and Defense
Kim, J. (2016). Bridging activities cycle: Design and defense. Issues in EFL: Sookmyung Women’s University MA TESOL Journal, 12(2), 56-60.

And that’s from 2016. 25 years of sharing lesson plans. With no end in sight. I’ve set up google scholar alerts for that Meskill paper and keywords that keep the GBLT lesson plans popping into my inbox regularly.

With fewer instances of the lesson plans being taught and shared.

James recently shared another one in the ⁠Ludic Language Pedagogy⁠ Discord:

Digital Game-Based Language Learning for Vocabulary Development
Chowdhury, Dr. M., Dixon, Dr. L. Q., Kuo, Dr. L.-J., Donaldson, Dr. J. P., Eslami, Dr. Z., Viruru, Dr. R., & Luo, Dr. W. (2024). Digital Game-Based Language Learning for Vocabulary Development. Computers and Education Open, 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100160

As a quick rundown of this research:

13 students completed 8 50-minute game-building sessions
They used scratch to make games these topics: water cycle, the lifecycle of frogs, African elephants, and school uniforms
No details of the games made, at all.
Results/key findings
Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL) facilitates vocabulary development
DGBLL promotes intrinsic motivation
DGBLL allows for contextualized language learning
DGBLL encourages focused tinkering
Educators should design more generative learning environments

Yep, this is where the research on digital games in language learning is, still, in 2024.

It was possible to teach vocab.
It was fun.

vaporware

OK… so “the field” again and again…

thinks about / analyzes some games
collects some opinions/habits from students
sketches out some lesson plans

But then doesn’t seem to actually…

teach the lesson
research the lesson
share the results of the lesson

And the project becomes “vaporware” and the field remains “vaporware.”

And the thinking and sketching out seem to repeat again and again.

Are they going forwards or backwards? Who can tell?

It’s a hype cycle again and again

Without actually teaching the lesson, researching the lesson, sharing the results of the lesson …

It’s like the field never gets out of 1st gear, or even neutral.

and I KNOW that research is hard to do. and literature is hard to find. I’m one of those “weird people” that has read a large percentage of all the stuff out there on games and language teaching. in English, and in other languages using translation software. I’ve been trying to find a place where there’s a concerted effort to really make a difference for the field, for students, and to get games and teaching normalized and integrated.

I 100% agree with people who say:

schools are busy
directors are busy
teachers might not have a lot of freedom (James’ ⁠playground piece speaks to this)

But what I think that schools/directors/teachers SHOULD know about is a solid teaching framework. Whether it is

task based language teaching
Dogme
project based learning
soft communicative language teaching (output and fluency)
hard communicative language teaching (literacy skills)
literature teaching
creative writing
pedagogy of multiliteracies
test prep

What I struggle to understand with the teaching/practical end of things is:

Why don’t they start with the solid TEACHING foundation and slot a game into that?

In a PPP GBLT lesson, a teacher could:

present some vocabulary
practice some vocabulary
produce some vocabulary (using a communicative language game: 20 questions

👆 I think that something like that is BEAUTIFUL LLP / GBLT

normalized, integrated. strong pedagogical backbone.
THAT could be researched and shared (in LLP, in other journals)

I think that starting with the pedagogy and then selecting a game (maybe a conversation game, maybe a short digital game) is ONE strong way to move the field forward, based on the actual context teachers find themselves in (constrained by)

Final Fantasy XVI probably isn’t going to ever be used in a typical teaching context. too long, too technical, etc etc etc.

But teachers/directors CAN start with

learning outcomes / goals
strong pedagogy

… and then select games or LUDIC activities (story telling, creative activities, simple role plays to meet those goals. I recognize that I have a lot of freedom where I teach at the university… I really can do ALMOST whatever I want to.

But i’m still constrained by:

22 contact hours (and about 20 hours of homework) — that is still a solid cap on how much literacy/project/etc work I can do with students
40-50 students in my class
most students not having gaming laptops etc

and even if I don’t think about my university context, I teach high school students at times, and elementary students sometimes in projects or events, and it’s about the goals and simple frugal games in those cases.

Games like:

Cockroach Poker (a lying game about bugs)
Apples to Apples (connecting vocabulary and using comparative and superlative grammar to argue for your choices)

work wonderfully at lower levels that directly connect to specific learning outcomes that can be covered in an hour.

I recently did an interview that got into some “lessons learned” about using various digital games in a classroom environment.

And I think this paper explores digital game based teaching and learning:

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH THROUGH DIGITAL GAME PROJECTS
deHaan, J. (2011). Teaching and learning English through digital game projects. Digital Culture &
Education, 3:1, 46-55.

in a very specific “it depends” way.

15 weeks
goal of participation using media design (creating an online magazine)
literacy driven / project based learning driven

I haven’t been exploring digital games recently because:

tabletop games and classroom games are cheaper
I have 20 to 40 students in a class
a lot of non-digital games “do their thing” quicker than a digital game (like 20 questions for yes no grammar practice). though I know that “every day the same dream” and “we become what we behold” are super lean and clean experiences

BUT that is something I’m going to work on in the next 2 years …basically take my ⁠https://sites.google.com/site/gamelabshizuoka/gameterakoya PedML work and apply it to digital games in the classroom

James York, Fred Poole and I wrote an article for FLA that includes what we think a progressive Ludic Language Pedagogy research agenda that leapfrogs over the repeated “vaporware” theses and articles might address:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/flan.12585 (let me know if you need a copy)

We close by urging teachers and researchers to adopt a ludic attitude in pioneering and developing LLP. Video game bosses are not easily defeated, and pedagogy and ludic tools are not quickly integrated. We should start simply, play more, share more work in progress, share more stories of failure and success, and try and refine ideas in various contexts.

We expect the new inclusive field of LLP to report:

Extra‐gameplay language activities (e.g., reading and writing online)
Students not just learning vocabulary, but participating using language
Teachers’ customized ludic approaches
Involvement of all students, as failure and persistence are integral to ludic learning
Research with practical classroom applicability
Tempered tech‐hype
Use of simulations, roleplay, drama, debate, pretending, storytelling, and language play
Connections of academic silos. As Sykes and Reinhardt (2012) connected game studies and Hallidayan linguistics, LLP can connect disciplines, ideologies, cultures, and values. Let’s play with connected learning, digital humanities, learning sciences, social justice, sustainability, entrepreneurship, health, literacy, and studies of protest and disruption (Cook, 2000; Sicart, 2014)

We expect practical reports to playfully

Chronicle integrations of play and pedagogy
Explore pedagogies (i.e., materials, mediation, and methods)
Design and document teacher guidance
Detail teacher roles before, during, and after gameplay
Evaluate postgame debriefing
Connect games with society (i.e., social impact games, participatory transfer)
Amplify individuals and communities through narratives
Demonstrate support for students from diverse backgrounds
Highlight neglected contexts and languages
Provide models and mentorship to novice teachers.

We expect research to dive deep with

Ethnographies of various approaches in various contexts
Spotlights on or comparisons of the Ludic, the Language, the Pedagogy, the playful and the serious
Stimulated recalls of teachers dynamically scaffolding ludic language learning
Investigations of teachers’ imagining, integrating, and iterating their ludic pedagogy
Evaluations of ideologies and values in LLP classrooms
Showing students transferring language outside the game and the classroom
Baking praxis (theory, research, and practice) into LLP
Focusing on teachers’ actions rather than students’ perceptions
Scholars, journals, and institutions valuing play (i.e., failure and iteration)
Research‐practice partnerships that solve meaningful problems

Am I totally crazy (well, yes) or wrong about “the field” or how games are ever going to get normalized or integrated or actually researched in a way that raises all boats? 🤔

Please please please let me work with anyone who wants to jump over the first 10 years of think pieces and analyzing games and moving to teaching and sharing teaching with games

I’m happy to share literature from my “Belmont family hold” of literature, papers, notes, etc…

🚁Returning to Mother Base now

Jonathan (My frequency: 215.11.21)

We expect the new inclusive field of LLP to report:

We expect practical reports to playfully

We expect research to dive deep with

Links:

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply