Massively Multiplayer Online Videogames (MMOGs)
- This question looks long, but it’s a friendly one, I think!
On page 11 of Steven Thorne’s (2008) article, he opens section 2.2 with the following statement, “the use of Internet technologies to encourage dialogue between distributed individuals and partner classes proposes a compelling shift in L2 education, one that moves learners away from simulated classroom-based contexts and toward actual interaction with expert speakers of the language they are studying.”
- After reading about the naturally occurring interactions that MMOGs, like World of Warcraft or Lineage, elicit from the players, such as scaffolding and apprenticeship between players that are literally from all over the world, how do you think that engaging your language learners in game play within virtual worlds like these would affect the student’s language learning experience? More specifically, do you think playing in a virtual gaming world can be an immersive experience in terms of foreign language use? How so? Do you think the process of enculturating the players into the game and negotiating meaning through language can inform the players about the real cultural background of their co-players in some way? Or is intercultural competence left out completely?
- On page 19, Thorne (2008) states that “MOO use in L2 education is still frequent (e.g., Schneider & von der Emde, 2000), especially by practitioners of a variety of intercultural L2 education called tandem learning . . . However, social and role-playing MOOs, especially in comparison to their considerable popularity in the 1990s, have been largely replaced by massively multiplayer online videgames.” Before taking this class, had you (as teachers) ever heard of a MOO or an MMOG? Is it really true that MOO use in L2 education is really popular?
- Ravi Purushotma (2005) shares an example about changing the coding in her internet browser, so that her German vocabulary words (and an associated picture) flash on the browser in place of the advertisements. She refers to this as a virtual “flashcard”. Would you consider this virtual language immersion? Do you think this is an appropriate or inappropriate level of rote memorization? How do you feel about memorizing vocabulary in general? Do you think it’s necessary in a language classroom?
(Tornado is gone, I suppose!) I’ll start with the 1st question:
First of all, I do not agree with Thorne’s ways of interpreting internet-mediated intercultural SL education, who writes that “…proposes a compelling shift in L2 education” (p. 11). This is something I have always emphasized so far in this course; I do not think there is no compelling
evidence that internet (even computer) technolgoies do a better job than conventional classroom teaching per se. That is to say that once we are preoccupied with the notion that “technologies do it all,” the danger is that foreign language teachers who do not use technologies are considered “old-timers.” To a certain extent, this may be true but who is there to decide s/he is a good foreign language teacher? For this reason, I maintain my position as a foreign language education who considers all different kinds of “internet technologies” as supplentary’, not “a compelling shift in L2 education” (In this sentence, I see Thorne’s strong intention of presenting the magical features that the Internet technologies offer).
This leads to the 1st question (which I have yet to discuss on) that Gabrielle asks; “Do you think playing in a virtual gaming world can be an immersive experience in terms of foreign language use?” I would answer by saying “YES” but I would do so by saying that the real world (face-to-face communication) is inherently different.” This is where I always show qualms about veering our focus to online learning as a sole, successful, innovative learning tool (and I am repeating this over and over from the beginning of this semester).
We live in a society where social variables exist. Because of this, equalities exist. This concept is strongly ingrained in my theoretical framework. Nevertheless, I personally like the example Thorne provided in this article, which showed strong evidence of Kristin’s positive development of her “learner identity” (where she explained two types of intelligence in French). Our basic mode of human communication is not “online.” Online techonlogies can only supplementary provide learners with meaningful learning experience; however, the result of which is up to the learner in that s/he needs to strategically choose what tool is right for him/her).
Again, back to the 1st question, playing in a virtual gaming world can lead learners to a path to success, but I need to add one thing; “Who knows?” There is no guarantee that all the students will enjoy the idea of having to navigate online. Drawing on a social constructioninst view of language learning, real-life classrooms should function as a crucial part of language learning in terms of socialization and negotiation of learner identity/agency for an ultimate goal of democratic society.
I have just created my “Second Life” account. After spending good 2 hours in the “virtual world” where I can even “fly” (wow!) in the hope of getting the hang of it, I personally did not like it. So what happens to my learner identity? I don’t like it but my teacher makes us use it? (the worst scenario..) We are simply different in so many ways. We all have a different taste for learning. Therefore we will never reach the conclusion that “This works!” So why not just look at these newly invented computer and Internet mediated tools as “supplementary” but not “primary”? Or… can we?
Giving learners easy access to L2 communities and wealth of authentic information in L2 falls only a little short of magical to me…
We have seen CMC studies that report positive effects, no? Imperfect as most of them are, they are compelling in that they demand the attention of language educators.
↑ 3rd paragraph. I meant to write, “Because of this, UNequalities exist”, not “equalities”
>> We have seen CMC studies that report positive effects, no?
Yes, Thorne’s 2008 piece is exactly the piece that reports strong evidence that purports the learner’s (Kristin’s) motivation, making her a “good” language learner (thus propelling her motivation to learn further). I think that it’s more important that we look at a bigger picture rather than bits and pieces of innovative approaches, many of which ignore some of the core SLA theories while being obsessed only with positive sides of CALL/CMC (such as Loucky’s – ouch!). I think that my frustration comes from the fact that one pedagogical approach works in one learning environment but not in another. Hm…something is missing or not properly addressed…
This doesn’t really address what Akira is saying, but it is worth mentioning. I think that one of the problems is that games like the SIMS may recreate to some extend authentic activity, it’s still contrived experiences. I guess it’s a step between a textbook and real life. I mean, except for those kids who spend 20 hours a week playing everquest, the environments of these do not model what people really do. But then again, 40 hours a week sitting in the office might be a little too boring. I think they have a place. Their not perfect, for sure. But they do provide a much better transition to social interaction and use of language as a tool for expressing meaning, then does worksheets and drills. So, in that regard, yes they are helpful.
Also, as for MMOG and MOOs, I had only briefly heard of MOOs last semester. The more I learned about them, the more I realized I had played one once in highschool. I read somewhere that MOOs are more popular, and not just for language instruction, in Europe. MMOGs were pretty popular with my friends, but I was never really a gamer. I played SIMs a couple times, got on second life a couple times, say my friends playing WoW…but I’ve never really used them for language instruction. But I would venture to say, if you asked your students, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them played those games often. This leads to one of the biggest points of conflict in games, or any sort of technology…often there is a generation gap of sorts between teachers and students. The students use this stuff all the time in their extracurricular lives, and the teachers only know about it by reading articles in academic journals. Just like the when Homer Simpson tried to be cool by taking his kids to Lalapalooza, it often doesn’t come off as natural…even for us who are only a few years older than the incoming freshmen.
I agree with David in that SIMS is like a tool between hardwired classroom instruction with textbook and real-life interactions (naturalistic). Some people can spend a long number of hours on a computer while others not. I can spend hours on mixi (Japanese SNS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixi/) but I do not like chatting online. I think the key is to find the best learning strategy for each learner.. idealistically. Getting too much used to virtual interactions rather than face to face interactions can be problematic. We’ve seen socially inapt youngsters in recent years. They (we) take on a new identity in the virtual work and create someone else who is typically quite different from who s/he really is in real life. We can surely take advantage of a learner’s multiple identities (if s/he is more active online, then go for it!) but ignoring the social realities will certainly be one big drawback when implementing CALL.
Purushotma’s “flashcard effect” does not seem to me like an effective way.. or it’s just what is presented in the article. There’s only one word (German) shown. But the word does not show cases (male, female, neutral), how it will be used in a sentence..etc. I personally liked rote memorization (like good ol’ audiolingual method..), and that’s how I learned new languages. hm…this is probably a controversial topic…
I regret to arrive so late into this conversation. I agree with much of what David and Akira are saying — although I do not believe that worksheets are as antithetical to using language for meaning as David would suggest. I’m not convinced that gaming environments are conducive to language learning — especially not in terms of the meta-linguistic knowledge which would relate more directly to meaningful language production. I frankly don’t see Meme, further down the road, killing baby dragons in Russian, whether online or in his mother’s basement.
It seems to me that there is a fear of irrelevancy apparent in these articles that creates the following dissonance: 1) the (traditional) classroom will be useless if it doesn’t keep up with the extra-curricular practices of kids today, and 2) in order to keep up with the extra-curricular practices of kids today, the (traditional) classroom must be eliminated.
The talk of “integration” in Purushotma and relative to Thorne places undue emphasis on “happiness” of the second language learning experience, which in turn, favors the communicative/performative aspects of the L2. That is fine if, in higher education, we are convinced that we can do no better than foster a happily IM-ing, 2nd-Life indulgent, business class, that has “friends all over the world”, says “hello”, “goodbye” and “CUL8R” in a dozen languages, and is inherently hostile towards academia and its usefulness.
My take, however, is that, because MMOG environments and simulated environments are pre-created, pre-digested environments that “integrate” the user, they are inimical to both the aesthetic and critical stances that allow cultures to create content and interrelate. I am not sure, then, if my major criticism here is necessarily directed at say, WoW itself, or more toward the fact that its use as a learning environment is the logical conclusion of the communicative approach.
To answer the first question, “do you think playing in a virtual gaming world can be an immersive experience in terms of foreign language use?,” I would guess that the virtual gaming world would have some potential for the language learner to practice their TL to a certain extent. It can possibly give them opportunities to use the TL through authentic interactions in a more contextualized manner than in classroom settings, as Thorne was stating. One thing which may need to be aware of is that the learners are immersing into a “subculture” where the cultural behaviors and linguistic usage might not be applicable to all other contexts where the TL is spoken.
My Japanese students at GaTech are so much into online gaming. In fact, many of them are inspired to learn the Japanese language and culture through the games made in Japan, and many told me that their motivation to learn Japanese is to be able to play games in Japanese (Apparently the English translated versions are sold later than the Japanese non-translated versions). As David points out, there is definitely a generation and cultural gaps between the students and myself, as a teacher and supposedly an “authentic Japanese informant”, I really have very little idea what these games are…yet that is my students’ big interest about the language and culture. But, overall, I think it is great that the students have more diverse access to cultural and linguistic input today via online in comparison to my English learning situation in Japan decades ago where I watched some American shows like “Little House on the Prairie” on TV and they were the primary resources I used to have at home (Note that Akira perhaps had a lot better learning environment than myself because he is younger!). The learners’ having additional options to expose themselves in rich cultural and linguistic environment without physically going to places, that’s pretty encouraging for language learners, though of course, there is always something one needs to be aware of in using tools/technology (meaning, having tools will not necessarily guarantee the learning outcome).