My original intention for this research project was to follow a number of players as they played the game Minecraft, and assess the game as an arena for language learning. My interest in this idea came predominantly from a paper by Rama (2012), who completed a similar study using the MMORPG “World of Warcraft.” However, as I began to undertake my research, I found that there was a massive difference between the two games, so much so that it was impossible to measure the affordances of Minecraft in the same way that Rama and his team did. Without going into too much detail, the issues are highlighted below:
There is no form of input from the game itself (written/spoken)
There is a dire lack of native speakers.
There are no in game goals.
What have I achieved? I’d say a lot. In terms of research though, I’m not sure. Some concrete examples of things I have created:
Beginners Japanese syllabus
Language learning activities.
Speaking practice activities during classes
Explorative, real-world tasks
Let’s Play: This is the most holistic, student-led activity so far in terms of the lack of scaffolding and teacher-student relationship between participants.
Role plays (need more though)
Games aimed at practicing certain language elements.
guess who (same as the board game)
animal guessing (2 player description game)
build mission (for learning prepositions)
Spot the difference (two player game)
Things to improve (curriculum related)
More activities / arenas for practicing language skills
Things to improve (Minecraft related)
It would be very beneficial to the server to have more JP players.
More events to get the community to pull together, and for increasing the opportunity to practice speaking.
Dissatisfactions and research goal re-evaluation
Over the course of this year I have been working on setting up a course for learning Japanese in a virtual world. The course is a constant work in progress and is still unfinished in terms of a specific end goal. Of recent though, based on prompts from students on the course, specifically questions such as “How long is this course?” “When will the course end?” etc. I have decided to set a concrete goal, which is to teach people enough for them to be able to pass the Level 5 (lowest level) of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test. This course will begin in January.
Regarding the tasks, activities, and course content, I have semi-unconsciously created a course that isolates grammar and vocabulary into discrete grammar-focused activities as exemplified by the PPP methodology. Lessons are located in one of 10 identical “JP buildings” which are skyscraper-esque buildings with a lesson provided on each floor. As an example: one lesson may be centred around how to conjugate adjectives into their negative form. This lesson may appear on the fourth floor of the JP3 building. Outside and surrounding each of these buildings are activities, mostly dyadic in design, that are carried out during the lesson or for homework. Keeping with the negative adjectives focused lesson, the activity coupled with this lesson is a room filled with numerous objects (items that appear natively in Minecraft). In pairs, students have to guess which object their partner is thinking of by using adjectives:
As a researcher, it has taken me a while to admit, but the system outlined above is not what I intended to do in regards to “language learning in a virtual world.” I think there is a lot more potential than what I have currently achieved. Essentially, I feel like I have merely replicated a typical real-life language-learning context that could be achieved in a standard, real-world classroom rather than exploit the full potential of the virtual world. I have succeeded in creating a PPP-influenced course where the curriculum is based on separated, incremental linguistic skills. In other words, I feel that I have failed to create holistic, task-based, real-world, virtual-world specific activities and learning environment. Maybe I am being too harsh on myself here, but I feel that such thinking is essential for delivering research that can expand the current body of literature.
Improved research design and goals
Of recent then, I have been reading much more on TBLT in virtual worlds, and key papers being:
Jauregi, K. et al., 2011. Verbal interaction in Second Life: towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), pp.77–101.
O'Dowd, R. & Waire, P., 2009. Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), pp.173–188.
In the Jauregi (2011) paper the authors provide a very detailed pedagogy for choosing appropriate tasks for virtual-worlds, particularly with the goal of increasing the opportunity for intercultural communication or cultural competence. They also compare the linguistic output of students when completing 2 different types of task. The first type is a task that could potentially be completed without using the virtual world. That is to say, video conferencing or even text-based chat would suffice to complete the task. The second type of task is more pertinent to the virtual world, relying on certain elements of the world that do not appear in real-life. This means that the second types of tasks could not be completed via video-conferencing or with text chat.
Their results suggested that there was more output from students when completing the first task type. The implications of this are thus:
Their “virtual-world specific” tasks were not designed rigorously enough
The output of students using virtual worlds as a language learning environment inherently less for a certain reason. Such as:
Non-linguistic cues are more salient / used in virtual worlds
The environment itself provides affordances to be used as a mediating tool. In other words, students do not need to rely on spoken discourse only (SCT-related)
Students’ output is hindered as they have to deal with the cognitive demands of the virtual world as well as attention to linguistic forms etc.
Presuming that Reason 1 above is valid, this means that their pedagogy has room for improvement and they indeed state such within the paper:
Task design principles have to be further specified for 3D virtual world settings, focusing on enhancing rich oral interaction to be necessary for task completion, while exploiting at the same time the exploratory, functional, and gaming possibilities of Second Life as much as possible.
It is my plan, then, to improve upon their pedagogy of task-based learning in virtual worlds. I plan to do this with relation to relevant literature. Typically, TBLT, sociocultural theory, and CALL.
In terms of data, I feel like it may be appropriate to abandon the original plan of conducting the ethnographic study. It may be more advantageous (and feasible) to go down the route of analysing students output over a few different tasks. Additionally, keeping insights and feedback from students regarding their perception of such tasks would be useful in improving tasks in the future.
Sample Task and with considerations
The initial set up for this class is:
No (explicit, predetermined) language focus
No (explicit, predetermined) goals
Intermediate / advanced students
Improvements and structure:
Instructor designs a task, based on the following criteria:
Expectations (what you think students will do)
Specific goals of the task
Instructor posts details of the task on the public web forum
including some grammar/vocabulary points
maybe a place for a pre-class discussion
maybe a place to discuss the different roles.
Students prepare for the task.
Task is carried out by students, but teachers provide “just in time” help and support.
Students write up a journal
Chat logs / recordings are uploaded and may be analysed for mistakes etc.
— reading other peoples journals?
— If I provide a few closze-gaps of the dialogue for homework?
— if i select a few grammar points that I think came up a lot and set some questions based on that for homework?
Task Design considerations
The task exposes the learners to rich target language input
Does the task provide input that is authentic/unmodified, relevant/challenging, and multimodal?
Yes, input is provided from other players, is totally authentic.
Does the task enhance interactional modification or negotiation of meaning?
Yes, to a certain extent, although there are no pre-defined goals, goals emerge based on immediate needs in the game. The defining of these goals is a task itself, then communication is required to complete them.
Does the task elicit the use of authentic resources both before and during performance?
Yes. A planning setting before players carry out the task is needed.
Does the task elicit the use of both predefined resources and resources provided by the interlocutors themselves?
No, there are no predefined resources.
Need to add a few reading resources.
Possibly get students to re-listen to the previous weeks activity and look for certain mistakes / grammar / vocab
The task elicits meaningful target language use
Do the learners use the language pragmatically and communicatively?
Do the learners use the language to engage in activities involving real-world processes of L use?
Do the learners have the choice how to use the language, that is, no linguistic forms are prescribed in advance?
Does the task involve some kind of gap (information, reasoning, culture)?
regarding where someone may be at a given point
regarding what each person wants to do
regarding the best way to achieve the task goals
Does the task have the right balance between language-demanding and content-demanding processing?
Not sure what this one means.
Does the task promote learning by doing (processing and interaction)?
Does the task promote collaborative learning?
complementary roles, information, perspectives
yes, players have to work together to achieve the task goals.
two-way information exchange
convergent, goal-specific communication
Not unless explicitly stated. Students should give each other their own roles within the pair/group’s activity.
individual accountability
The task requires the learners to focus on form
Does the task create a ‘’semantic space’’ in order to elicit processing specific L2 forms?
yes, once a “day” at night. Inline planning and FonF
Does the task promote the detection and use of relevant chunks?
not until post-task possibly.
Add some close-gap / vocab quissing after the completion of the task for homework
Does the task elicit feedback on form by the native speaker on language of the learner?
Does the task provide opportunities to focus on form when learner need arises (negotiation, elaboration, recasts, etc.)?
Yes, at night. Native questions to the learners also helps.
The task has a clearly defined communicative outcome
Does the task have a clearly defined purpose that is relevant for all interlocutors?
Not so clearly defined. The purpose of the activity is negotiated among the participants. This avoids some of the “task-as-workplan” and “task-in-action” discrepancies?
Does the task have a clearly defined communicative end product?
Does the task provide instructions that meet the needs of all interlocutors?
Does the task aim at subjective, personal information exchange, related to objective, factual resources?
Not sure. There may be a concrete goal such as creating a particular structure, collecting a certain resource, etc. and then individuals may provide information in regards to how to complete that task subjectively.
Is the task both open (not fixed, prescribed) and determined (goal-oriented)? The task enhances strategic awareness on language learning and use
Does the task elicit planning, feedback, and reflection
The task takes the communicative competence level of all interlocutors into account
Is the task aligned to the proficiency level of oral interaction and intercultural awareness with respect to the following:
Are clear stages in task sequencing provided?
The task makes effective use of the challenges and affordances of virtual worlds
Is the virtual context sufficiently relevant and attractive for the task goal?
Is the virtual context sufficiently prototypical, without being a caricature?
Is the virtual context used in a socially, cognitively, affectively, creatively, and spatially effective and challenging way, e.g. by
learning by collaborating
learning by being (development of avatar character)
learning by building/constructing
learning by championing (focusing on strengths and successes) learning by expressing
Does the virtual context provide a safe environment (e.g. no other listeners/interlocutors are present)?
Is the number of interlocutors relevant for the communicative goals, topic, and procedure?
Is sufficient familiarisation provided with environment and technical aspects of virtual communication?
Does the task trigger oral communication, that is, is intensive oral communication needed for successful task completion?
Rama, P.S. et al., 2012. Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24(03), pp.322–338.
