Game-based language learning: It's not all fun and games

Game-based language
learning
It’s not all fun and games

Overview of the presentation
1. What is a game?
2. Defining GBLL
a. Concrete examples
3. Defining gamification
a. Concrete examples
4. Issues surrounding GBLL
5. Introducing my own example of GBLL
6. “It’s not all fun” examples
7. “Wow, that IS fun!” examples
8. Advice for teachers interested in GBLL

Game definition: Suits (1967, 2014)
To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only
means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where such
rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity.
● Rules (You must… / You must not…)
● Means (by the use of a golf club)
● Goal (score more than any other player)
● Voluntary act (for the fun of playing)
A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable
outcome (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004).

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/89165847@N00/19373442802/

Source: https://eslresources.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/board-game-allowed.pdf

Source: https://mmos.com/review/puzzle-and-dragons

Source: https://support.pubg.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002193033-PUBG-Mobile-questions-notices-and-more

Source: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/life-is-strange-now-on-android-1202878299/

Source: https://mmos.com/review/league-of-legends

Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/world-of-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-new-players

Source: https://geekandsundry.com/common-questions-from-larp-newbies-answered/

Some game types
● Playground games
● “ESL games”
● Social/mobile games
● Console games
● MMOs
● LARPs
● School
● Life? (r/outside)

What GBLL is
● Often mixed in with CALL (hence DGBLL)
● Research concerned with:
○ The potential of gameplay to promote language acquisition
○ Affective benefits of gameplay
○ Pedagogical implementation of games for language learning
○ Extramural, informal, connected, student-driven, autonomous learning.
○ What can be learnt from a game?
■ Skills
■ Domain knowledge (Ke, 2016)

What GBLL isn’t
● A unified approach to, or theory of SLA. GBLL is aligned with
○ An interactionist approach (mostly).
○ A social approach to SLA (sometimes).
○ The literacy turn (rarely).
● Necessarily digital
● The application of game mechanics to a classroom contexts
(This is gamification, which we will cover shortly).

What can we teach with games?
● Consider games “just another media” for a second...
● ...then, it becomes clear that games can be used in many different contexts:
○ ESP, with simulations (García-Carbonell et al. 2014, 2016)
○ EAP, from a multiliteracies or connected learning perspective (deHaan, forthcoming)
○ Online, formal learning (York, 2014)
○ CLT/TBLT (Sykes, 2014; Jauregi et al., 2011; York & deHaan, 2017, 2018; Hastings, 2014)
○ 21st Century skills (games require problem solving, collaboration, etc.)

Some concrete examples of GBLL

● COTS game used - The SIMs.
● EXP 1: Game + worksheets and support materials
mandatory
● EXP 2: Game + support materials (optional)
● Control: Game only
● But was the game actually needed?
● Are games efficient in teaching vocabulary and
grammar?
○ Is that all they are good for teaching?
Miller and Hegelheimer (2006)
Source: https://www.dailyedge.ie/the-sims-3887752-Mar2018/

● Created an online Japanese learning school using Minecraft
● TBLT-informed, weekly classes
● Community of language learners in a supportive affinity space
○ Regular activities
○ Forum
○ Video lessons
● Informal language learning episodes recorded
● Critiques
○ Language spoken was mostly English (see also Isbell, 2018)
○ Fashion learners
○ No kanji focus
York (2014)

kai_f: so what is "in front of" in Japanese?
GhastGuy123: mae
kai_f: front = mae, in front of -???
GhastGuy123: so mae ni is in front
kai_f: yes
kai_f: we will use the phrase"mae ni *** wo
oitekudasai"
kai_f: who knows this phrase?
GhastGuy123: not me
kai_f: k. I will write signs
GhastGuy123: I GOT IT
kai_f: lets see signs
GhastGuy123: ok
kai_f: please put *** = *** wo oite kudasai
Thasan: ok, got it
Prepositions with kai_f
GhastGuy123: ok
kai_f: so
kai_f: mannaka ni red wool wo oitekudasai...
GhastGuy123: Wait, im gonna take notes
kai_f: kk
kai_f: good
Thasan: I already writing XD

● Literacy focused
● Play → Discuss → Analyze → Participate → Report
● Social participation outside of the classroom context
● Reconsidering the role of the teacher and games as a teaching tool
● Critiques
○ Implementation issues with low level learners (proficiency presumed)
○ Implementation issues with large classes
○ Lack of understanding of multiliteracies in the field, thus a need to educate/inform others
deHaan (forthcoming) - ML with games

Scholz & Schulze (2017) - Extramural MMO play
● Learners played WoW after school
● Look for “near transfer” of skills in class, and second language development
(SLD)
○ I.e. can the game language be transferred to a non-game environment.
○ “Near” defined as “transfer to a similar context or topic.”
● Game considered language learning ecology
● Critiques:
○ No concrete tasks other than “talk about the game”
○ No support materials to help learners play the game.
○ No directions for playing
○ Only focused on lexical items learned from the game.
Source: https://aminoapps.com/c/wow/page/blog/undead-mage/

York and deHaan (2018) - Board games and TBLT
● (More details on this later!)
● Use of board games as part of a TBLT approach to SLA
● Critiques
○ Presented later..!
○ Lots.
○ Don’t worry, I rail on my own work the most.
Source: http://www.tuesdayknightgames.com

In praise of pessimism--the need for
negativity in educational technology
(Selwyn, 2011)

● Adding game-like elements to traditional education, like clickers, badges, etc
● Promoting out of class learning based on extrinsic motivation
● A way to drive behaviour in predetermined directions
“Within my own context of teaching in higher education, this is a very appealing
proposition; the ability to harness the power of games without the difficulty of trying
to implement games within my courses” (Todd, 2017).
What is “reward-based” gamification?

Uses of “reward-based” gamification
“If there is a situation where the subject has no way of developing intrinsic
motivation to perform the task, then the reward-based gamification can be valuable
in helping someone engage with the task. This use of incentives to motivate
someone to do something when they have no other reason to do so is a very
common use of rewards and for tasks that do not require creative thinking,
incentive programs can improve performance (Pink, 2011)”

Or as one of Mr. Fletcher’s third graders put it:
“I like it because you get rewarded for your
good behavior — like a dog does when it gets
a treat”(Singer, 2014)

“It's not a magic bullet, just something else
that should be in a teacher's toolbox.”(Bray, in
Ward, 2013)

Examples of gamification in
English language teaching

Fukudai Hero (Lombardi, 2015)
● Goal: To raise student motivation and engagement with class materials.
● Game Elements
○ Narrative
○ Choice
○ Surprise
○ Collaboration
○ Missions
○ Feedback
○ Points

● Mission #7: (The topic on the textbook being ‘culture and music’) Choose a
music genre that you want to talk about. Work with a partner. You and your
partner will interview each other on the topic. Record yourselves! The mission
is worth 50 points. Extra points if you actually sing while performing.
Mission examples:

Fukudai Hero comments
● There is no strong narrative.
FH takes place in the fictitious Kingdom of Fukudai [...], whose real-life equivalent is the university campus.
Students are trainee heroes, and they have to prove worth of becoming full Fukudai Heroes. The official
language of the kingdom is English (p.486)
● There is no goal other than doing English tasks for a grade:
FH is mission-based. Missions are tasks designed to get students to use spoken or written English in and
out of class. Their successful completion brings the wannabe heroes closer to their final goal.
My translation: this intervention rewards students for undertaking disjointed,
random “missions” that are aligned with textbook chapters.

Alfie Kohn on content (in Brandt, 1995)
"Has the child been given something to do worth learning?"
If you ask me what to do about a kid being "off task"—one of
our favorite buzzwords—my first response is going to be,
"What's the task?" If you're giving them garbage to do, yes,
you may have to bribe them to do it. If the kids have to
endlessly fill in the blanks on dittos, you're not going to get
rid of rewards or threats anytime soon.

● Isn’t school already gamified?
● Isn’t it just behaviourism?
● Remove the reward, remove the behaviour.
● 87% of applied gamification research does not mention or address theoretical
foundations. Just tips and tricks. (Seaborn and Fels, 2015)
● Please read Kohn’s “Punished by Rewards”
○ Content -- the quality of the tasks given
○ Collaboration -- allow learners to work with others (connect with peer-groups)
○ Choice -- choice of task to complete (possibly related to learners’ individual interests)
Critiques

What is “meaningful” gamification? (Nicholson, 2015)
● Reflection, Exposition, Choice, Information, Play, and Engagement (RECIPE)
● Exposition – creating stories for participants that are integrated with the real-
world setting and allowing them to create their own
● Information – using game design and game display concepts to allow
participants to learn more about the real-world context
○ Nest learning about the real world as part of a game world setting
● Engagement – encouraging participants to discover and learn from others
interested in the real-world setting

Issues with
GBLL
Source: Becker (2016, p.125)

Tech is hyped in contemporary society, which tends to be
techno-utopian (Selwyn, 2011)

Bigum & Kenway (2005) on tech and schooling
● Boosters
○ Utopians or idealists
● Doomsters
○ Doomsters are nostalgic for the period when these technologies did not exist or for the
practices and institutions that are being replaced by new technologies (p. 106)
● Anti-schoolers
○ Subset of Boosters who see tech being a way to eradicate the necessity of formal schooling
● Critics
○ While not totally opposed to the use of new communications media in education, they urge
caution and draw on socio-cultural analyses of technological change to support their views.
This rather diverse group tends to ask why and what. (p.103)

99% of kids play games!*
*Of course this is figure is incorrect. We know it’s really 100% /s

MMOs are used A LOT.
But nothing seems to filter down to classroom-
based implementation.

More issues
● The role of teachers is ignored
● Games are provided as content only.
○ Play the game, we’ll see what you learn (Rama et al, 2011; Zheng, Newgarden & Young, 2012;
Scholz & Schulze, 2017)
○ “Full lesson plans that address significant topic areas [...] to situate learning at the problem-
solving level remain relatively scarce” (Van Eck, 2015)
● Affective affordances are receiving too much focus
○ “The majority of DGBLL studies featured positive outcomes in regard to student learning, with
the most frequently reported ones being related to affective or psychological states, closely
followed by language acquisition” (Hung, et al. 2018)
● Definition of game is ill-defined
○ Virtual/social worlds, flashcard programs, and gamification studies are all lumped in

More issues
● Gamification is not GBLL
Elements such as “a problem to solve, competition, timing, and scoring can help to
make an activity more game-like, but they are also elements of tests, so they do not,
by themselves, lead to cooperative engagement [in educational gaming]’’ (Hubbard,
1991 in Cornillie, Thorne & Desmet, 2012)

More issues
● What kind of games to choose or to create
● How to find opportunities for language learning within gameplay
● How to integrate gameplay into the curriculum (Godwin-Jones, 2014)
● Game researchers are not gamers
● Games = frivolous, SLA is not considered “serious,” therefore scholars
struggle to promote GBLL as a theory-driven discipline (Thomas, 2012)
“Why are you asking about games? Games are only relevant when they have a learning principle behind
them, so the important question is, what are your learning principles? Games? **** games. I'm a foreigner in
Japan, that does not make me a game monkey to entertain you.” (Participant in Ohashi, 2017)

● Each player has a unique role
● Each role possesses different information
● Game play is concerned with finding a “traitor”
● Players take on new identities each game
● Represent a typical “information gap” task
● Feed on players thirst for knowledge:
○ Solving a mystery
○ Whodunit?
● Time limits create tension
Hidden Role games
One Night Ultimate
Werewolf

Cooperative board games
● Each player has a unique role
● Game success rests on successful cooperation
● Plan actions as a group
● Players can participate outside of their own turn
Pandemic

Theoretical framing: TBLT
Games
● Have clear goals
● Tasks relate to each other
● Games feature tutorials that help learners
learn how to do the “task” of gameplay
● Failure is inevitable and normal
● There is feedback on task performance
(think: GAME OVER)
● Language use is authentic
TBLT
● There should be clear goals
● There should be progression from one
task to the next
● Pre-task activities should prepare learners
for upcoming tasks
● Feedback is important (recasts, task
performance feedback)
● Language use should be authentic (there
should be a focus on goal completion, not
language use)

Task-based language teaching (TBLT)
Pre-task activities
Teacher led
● Introduce the task
● Show examples of
the task
● Brainstorm
vocabulary &
grammar
● Plan for task
performance
Task
Student centered
● Exchange
information
● Work collaboratively
● Achieve a concrete
goal
Post-task activities
Teacher led
● Focus on language
● Produce a report of
the task activity
● Evaluate
performance

● Read the rulebook
● Watch natives play on
YouTube
● Check rules
● Test play
● Brainstorm game
language
My model of GBLL
Pre-play activities Gameplay
● Play for fluency
● Use the L1 when
necessary
● Record the game audio
Post-play activities
● Transcribe game audio
● Analyze the audio for
errors and L1 usage
● Research and present
grammar/vocab
● Prepare to replay the
game

Play and
record (2)
Visual overview
Report
Play and
record (1)
Learn how
to play
Analyze the
recording
Analyze the
two recordings

Contribute content for the next generation of players!
● Record a gameplay video
● Record a “rules explanation” video
● Write a game review
● Write a grammar guide for the game
● Give a presentation about the game
Final Project
Learner Master Creator

Technology usage
Smartphones utilized throughout the framework
● Pre-play
○ Game research
○ “How to play” videos on YouTube
○ Short rule descriptions online
● Play
○ Record audio for self-transcription
● Post-play
○ YouTube videos again
○ Dictionary usage
○ Amazon reviews
○ Video-making projects

Needs analysis of tasks for Japanese
university students (Lambert, 2011)
1. Gathering info from EN sources
a. Learn rules to the game from the rulebook
and/or websites
2. Summarizing EN info into JP
a. Check rules using Japanese in oral
discussion
b. Present game rules
3. Creating and editing docs in EN
a. Final project review
b. Most worksheet activities
c. Transcription
Learning goals
4. Translating docs from EN --> JP
a. The opposite is done in pre-play tasks
5. Interpreting between EN and JP speakers
a. Not currently done with this model
6. Asking for advice
a. During cooperative gameplay
7. Emailing in EN
a. Not currently done with this model

● Choosing games for students to play is
not easy
○ Teacher knowledge of games is
paramount
● Games are hard.
○ Cognitive demands are too much for
some/most students
○ You can’t just give students a game and
expect it to be played in English
○ Students almost scoff at your for
expecting them to play a game in English.
Like, “What? There’s no way…!”
Things to consider when choosing to do GBLL
● Is “getting kids speaking” good enough?
○ Are you just killing time?
○ Are you reiterating the narrative of
“games = fun Friday afternoon activity?”
○ What is so special about “student speech
time?”
○ Is that ALL games are good for?

● Impoverished utterances
○ Students are smart (“president” 👉)
● Games are “fun” as a negative:
○ Not for studying, but for enjoyment,
therefore, students don’t see the necessity
to speak in English while playing.
○ Games are thought of frivolous exercises
by some students.
● Managing groups is difficult
○ Sending groups to other locations (for
recording)
○ Finding teachable moments for each
group in post-task activities
○ Keeping students on task (throughout)
● If you don’t require it, some students won’t
do it.
○ “I’m going to test your speaking ability next
week” -- good results.
○ Play this, record what you say because we
are going to analyse it -- bad results.
● + many more on the Japan Game Lab
http://www.japangamelab.org/
Things to consider when choosing to do GBLL

● Post-play YouTube watching with
contextual information.
○ Gameplay is captivating (flow?)
○ The “goldmine” like nature of native
speakers’ speech
○ Opening students up to cultural analysis
○ Authentic input
● Experimenting with language during
games is creative fun.
○ Ex. 1: The devil that can only lie -- “I have a
girlfriend.”
○ Ex. 2: Create an experience, not a win-lose
scenario!
● Rigorous academic work
○ “That’s the most I’ve used my brain at this
university” (from an electrical engineering
student)
● Teacher as important role model
○ Pointing out interesting phrases in
YouTube videos
○ Explaining cultural elements
● Seeing “the penny drop”
○ Learning rules in isolation → Test play →
understanding the complex interaction
between rules = priceless
“Wow, that IS fun” examples

● Learn about games as a teacher-
researcher before employing them in your
own context
○ Without basic “game literacy” [...] it is
difficult for teachers to select relevant
curricular aims and assignments that
relate meaningfully to particular game
goals, game practices and assessment
criteria. (Hanghøj & Hautopp, 2016).
○ Playing a game yourself is probably the
best way to determine if the game you are
considering is going to work in for you in
your classroom, but who has the time?
(Becker, 2016, p. 122) ❌❌❌
How to start GBLL in your own context
● Read the literature and align your work
with an approach to pedagogy.
● Go all in. Commit. (not just on a Friday
afternoon).
● Don’t just play, add pre-, post- and even
during-task activities.
● Make learning goals clear!
○ Start of semester presentation
○ Constant reminders of the framework
○ Transparent assessment rubrics
● Consider the role of the teacher
○ instructor, playmaker, guide, and evaluator
(Hanghøj, 2013).
● Iterate, iterate, iterate.

Thanks for listening
⚀ ⚁ ⚂ ⚃ ⚄ ⚅
James York
Tokyo Denki University | Japan Game Lab
🐦: @cheapshot
✉: jamesyorkjp@gmail.com

- Becker, K. (2016). Choosing and using digital games in the classroom: A practical guide. Springer.
- Bigum, C., & Kenway, J. (2005). New information technologies and the ambiguous future of schooling—some possible scenarios. In
Extending educational change (pp. 95-115). Springer, Dordrecht.
- Brandt, R. (1995). Punished by rewards. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 13-16.
- Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (2012). ReCALL special issue: Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities.
ReCALL, 24(03), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000134
- deHaan, J. (2019) Teaching language and literacy with games: What? How? Why? Manuscript submitted for publication.
- Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
- García-Carbonell, A., Andreu-Andrés, M. A., & Watts, F. (2014). Simulation and Gaming as the future’s language of language learning and
acquisition of professional competences. Back to the future of gaming, 214-228.
- García-Carbonell, A., MacDonald, P., Pérez-Sabater, C., & Montero-Fleta, B. (2016). Simulation and Gaming in Virtual Language Learning
Literacy. In Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society (pp. 95-105). Springer, Singapore.
- Hanghøj, T. (2013). Game-based teaching: Practices, roles, and pedagogies. In S. D. Freitas, M. Ott, M. Popescu, & I. Stanescu (Eds.), New
pedagogical approaches in game enhanced learning: Curriculum integration (pp. 81–101). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
- Hanghøj, T., & Hautopp, H. (2016). Teachers' pedagogical approaches to teaching with Minecraft. InT. Connolly & L. Boyle (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 265–272). Sonning Common, UK: Academic Conferences
and Publishing International.
- Hubbard, P. (1991) Evaluating computer games for language learning. Simulation & Gaming, 22(2): 220–223
- Huizinga, Johan (1955). Homo ludens; a study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
- Hung, H. T., Yang, J. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., & Wang, C. C. (2018). A scoping review of research on digital game-based language
learning. Computers and Education, 126(October 2017), 89–104. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.001
References

- 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.
- Isbell, D. R. (2018). Online informal language learning: Insights from a Korean learning community. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3),
82–102.
- Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and
design. BookBaby.
- Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64, 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11423-015-9418-1.
- Lombardi, I. (2015). Fukudai Hero: A Video Game-like English Class in a Japanese National University. EL.LE: Educazione Linguistica.
Language Education, 4(3), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.14277/2280-6792/ELLE-4-3-15-7
- Miller, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2006). The SIMs meet ESL Incorporating authentic computer simulation games into the language classroom.
Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 311–328. http://doi.org/10.1108/17415650680000070
- National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.
- Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 1–20).
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1
- Ohashi, L. (2017). The Role of Digital Games in English Language Education in Japan [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/34031156/_July_2017_The_Role_of_Digital_Games_in_English_Language_Education_in_Japan.
- 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. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000171
References

References
- Scholz, K., & Schulze, M. (2017). Digital-Gaming Trajectories and Second Language Development. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1),
100–120. http://doi.org/10125/44597
- Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
- Singer, N. (2014). ClassDojo: A Tale of Two Classrooms. Retrieved from https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/classdojo-a-tale-of-two-
classsrooms/
- Suits, B. (1967). What is a Game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 148–156.
- Suits, B. (2014). The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. Broadview Press.
- Sykes, J. M. (2018). Digital games and language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 219–224.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12325
- Todd, A. (2017). Why Gamification is Malarkey. The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 44(1–2), 2009–2015. Retrieved from
http://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/mwatch/article/view/1741/1350
- Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y. and Wind, A. P. (2011) Review of Research on Computer Games. In: Tobias, S. and. Fletcher, J. D. (eds.),
Computer Games and Instruction. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 127–222
- Thomas, M. (2012). Contextualizing digital game-based language learning: Transformational paradigm shift or business as usual?. In H.
Reinders (Ed). Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 11-31). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
- Toyama, Kentaro. Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. PublicAffairs, 2015.
- Van Eck, R. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless, after all these years. Educause Review, 50(6), 12-28.

References
- Ward, M. (2013). How to use games to teach physics. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21898927
- York, J. (2014). Minecraft and language learning. In C, Gallagher (Ed.), Minecraft in the Classroom: Ideas, inspiration, and student projects for
teachers. Peachpit Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
- York, J., & deHaan, J. (2018). A Constructivist Approach to Game-Based Language Learning: Student Perceptions in a Beginner-Level EFL
Context. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 8(1), 19-40.
- Zhang, Y., Song, H., Liu, X., Tang, D., Chen, Y., & Zhang, X. (2017). Language Learning Enhanced by Massive Multiple Online Role-Playing
Games (MMORPGs) and the Underlying Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(March), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00095
- Zheng, D., Newgarden, K., & Young, M. F. (2012). Multimodal analysis of language learning in World of Warcraft play: Languaging as Values-
realizing. ReCALL, 24(03), 339–360. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000183

Game-based language learning: It's not all fun and games

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Game-based language learning: It's not all fun and games

Similar to Game-based language learning: It's not all fun and games (20)

More from Tokyo Denki University

More from Tokyo Denki University (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Game-based language learning: It's not all fun and games

Editor's Notes