Defining Game-Mediated Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: A Review

Introduction

The use of games has been recognized as a potential way to facilitate learning and develop literacies in the past two decades (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2008). Second and foreign language (L2) scholars have also argued for the affordances of game-mediated practices in providing a playful and effective environment for L2 learning and teaching (Cornillie et al., 2012; Reinders, 2012; Reinhardt, 2019; Sykes & Reinhardt, 2012). A variety of terms have been used to describe learning or teaching practices involving the use of games, such as game-based, game-enhanced, game-informed, gameful, playful, and so on. In this article, game-mediated L2 (GML2) is used as an overarching term that encompasses the use of an intact entertainment or educational game, the incorporation of certain game elements into existing learning environments, or the design of learning tasks that are inspired by game and play principles. The effectiveness of GML2 practices has been investigated in prior research studies with a focus on writing performance and engagement (e.g., Allen et al., 2014), listening skills (e.g., Hwang et al., 2017), fluency development (e.g., Grimshaw & Cardoso, 2018), grammar (e.g., Lin et al., 2020), and vocabulary acquisition (e.g., deHaan et al., 2010; Sundqvist, 2019). Other GML2 studies have examined learners’ learning achievement and patterns (Hwang & Wang, 2016), learner autonomy (e.g., Chik, 2014), learner interaction (e.g., Sychorenko et al., 2019), learning motivations (e.g., Connolly et al., 2011; Jensen, 2019), learning anxiety (e.g., Hsu, 2017), willingness to communicate (e.g., Reinders & Wattana, 2014), and discourse around game or game-like activities (e.g., Hattem, 2014). Clearly, the field of GML2 comprises quite different applications of games or game elements. Understanding the differences among these applications is critical because each type of application may involve a set of distinctive instructional practices leading to different learning processes and outcomes (Reinhardt & Sykes, 2012). However, there is not a widely accepted way to conceptualize and categorize these GML2 practices, including how researchers define games and their salient elements for language learning. Although it has been historically difficult for scholars to agree upon a shared definition of games and play, building a common language that offers coherence to this growing body of scholarship is very much in need.

Several literature reviews in the field of GML2 have examined the effectiveness of game-mediated practices in providing meaningful learning contexts (Chiu et al., 2012), helping learners acquire knowledge (Kao, 2014), especially L2 vocabulary (Tsai & Tsai, 2018; Yudintseva, 2015), and enhancing students’ psychological state and behavioral performances (Acquah & Katz, 2020). Other GML2 reviews (Hung et al., 2016; Hung et al., 2018; Poole & Clarke-Midura, 2020) explored the characteristics of research studies (such as types of participants or research methods) and summarized findings on the effectiveness of digital games for language learning, particularly with English as the target language (Xu et al., 2020). However, how researchers define and differentiate between different types of GML2 remains unexamined. Therefore, our current review seeks to address the following research question: How did the authors of these publications define GML2 practices? The broader aim of this review is to identify potential strengths and limitations in how scholars are conceptualizing the role of games in L2 teaching and learning, as well as point to directions for further conceptual and empirical work.