Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: Comparing the Experiences of Adult Foreign Language Learners with Off-the-Shelf and Specialized Games for Learning German

22 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(2), 22-35, April-June 2013

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Learning to Play, Playing to Learn:

Comparing the Experiences of Adult Foreign Language Learners with Off-the-Shelf and Specialized

Games for Learning GermanFrederik De Grove, Department of Communication Sciences (iMinds-MICT), Ghent

University, Ghent, Belgium

Jan Van Looy, Department of Communication Sciences (iMinds-MICT), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Peter Mechant, Department of Communication Sciences (iMinds-MICT), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Keywords: Attitude, Commercial Games, Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Foreign Language Learning, Game-Based Learning, Game Experience, Learning, Serious Games

ABSTRACTLearning opportunities offered by digital games have become an important research topic in recent years. Language learning is one of the areas in which games could prosper but the question then is whether these should be specialized language-learning games or commercial off-the-shelf games for entertainment. The goal of this paper is to compare the experiences evoked by playing a commercial and two language-learning games in adult foreign language learners (N=62). While results of the experimental design suggest that a commercial game results in better playing and learning experiences, these findings are partly neutralized by the attitude of the participants towards learning through digital games and by being a frequent player of games or not. This raises questions as to how digital games should be designed to appeal to a public of learners that is not familiar with digital game-based learning or with gaming in general.

DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2013040102


International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(2), 22-35, April-June 2013 23

INTRODUCTION

Using digital games for educational instruc-tion has rapidly gained importance in theory and practice over the past decade. A recurring question in this research field and in the field of computer assisted language learning (CALL) focuses on what kind of games to use: existing commercial games or special-purpose educa-tional ones (see e.g., De Grove, Bourgonjon, & Van Looy, 2012; Squire, 2004; Van Eck, 2006). The former generally boast significantly larger budgets permitting to invest more in the quality of the playing experience whereas the latter are more directly aimed at attaining predefined learning outcomes (Michael & Chen, 2006). Despite the debate on this topic, insights gained from a user-centric perspective are largely ab-sent (Looi, See, Iris, & Aria, 2011). Moreover, when a user-centric perspective is employed, it accounts for learning styles and players person-alities yet it often fails to consider significant differences between players’ proficiency (for user-profiling in game, see: Kickmeier & Albert, 2010; Bateman & Boon, 2006). Therefore, the aim of this study is to measure and compare how adult foreign language learners experience playing two foreign language learning games and one non-educational commercial game in a foreign language. The article starts with a brief overview of existing literature on game and learning experiences, attitude and the impact of external stimuli. Next, the article reports on the empirical exploration of the playing and learning experiences evoked by playing the three games.

LITERATURE

Game Experience We notice a significant inter-est in the concept of game experience in the study of digital games. These studies display a broad spectrum of research objectives ranging from constructing a scale to measure game experi-ences (IJsselsteijn, de Kort, Poels, Jurgelionis, & Bellotti, 2007) to defining and uncovering different dimensions and determinants of enjoy-

ment (Klimmt, 2003; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Other scholars have investigated how different aspects related to playing games might affect the game experience. For instance, the relation between game experience and the social context (De Kort & IJsselsteijn, 2008; Gajadhar, de Kort, & IJsselsteijn, 2008a, Mäyrä, 2007), the effect of performance on enjoyment (Klimmt, Blake, Hefner, Vorderer, & Roth, 2009; Trepte & Reinecke, 2011) or the relation between identification and game experience (Hefner, Klimmt, & Vorderer, 2007; Klimmt, Hefner, & Vorderer, 2009). Despite the complex nature of experiences most of the aforementioned studies converge on game experience as that which evokes or inhibits enjoyment when playing games. A regularly used concept for explaining what makes an activity enjoyable is ‘flow’. Flow refers to an intrinsically motivating experience stemming from an activity in which one is fully absorbed (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Such an activity is characterized by a balance between challenge and skill, the merging of action and awareness, clear goals and feedback, concen-tration on the task at hand, control, a loss of self-consciousness and the transformation of time. As noted by Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) these elements strikingly fit the activity of playing digital games. Thus, it is not surprising that flow or flow-related elements have been used regularly to analyze game experience. While flow elements are recurring concepts in experience research, academic inquiry on the topic is not limited to these experiences. Klimmt et al. (2007) explored the effect of control and effectance on enjoyment and found effectance to be an important underlying factor in evoking game enjoyment. Combining flow theory with the technology acceptance model, Holsapple and Wu (2006) explored the antecedents and effects of flow in online gaming. Nacke and Lindley (2008) measured how adjusting the difficulty of a level in Half-life 2 (Valve Cor-poration, 2004) influenced several experience dimensions and found that challenge and tension differed significantly between sessions. Using the same Game Experience Questionnaire



(2010) explored how the game experience of a serious game differed during subsequent design stages and found significant differences for challenge and competence.

To our knowledge, however, no research exists on the differences in game experience between commercial and special-purpose educational games when both are used for educational purposes. This finding leads us to the first research question:

RQ1: To what extent do game experiences in terms of enjoyment differ between com-mercial and special-purpose educational games when both are used in an educational language learning context?

With ‘commercial game’ we refer to off-the-shelf (entertainment) games of which the primary aim is not learning but entertainment (Zyda, 2005, Michael & Chen, 2006). For an elaboration on the difference between commer-cial or entertainment game and serious games we refer to Susi and colleagues (Susi, Johan-nesson, & Backlund, 2007). Taking into account the literature, it is difficult to predict whether and when a commercial game will evoke better game experiences in a learning environment compared to a special-purpose educational game. Learners might feel more attracted to an educational game due to the adapted content and related (learning) expectations as opposed to a commercial game with (probably) a more attractive story and appealing audiovisual cues but without obvious learning goals.

Learning Experience Educational games are often defined as games of which the primary goal is not enjoyment but education (Susi, Jo-hannesson, & Backlund, 2007). This is interest-ing for two reasons. First, as discussed in the previous paragraph, enjoyment is seen as a core experience of playing digital games and, sec-ond, academic literature on digital game-based learning in general and on flow in particular conceptualizes learning as an effect of enjoy-ment or flow (Hoffman & Novak, 2009; Kiili, 2005). As such, enjoyment is conceptualized as the motivational basis for digital game-based

learning (see e.g., Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Michael & Chen, 2006; Squire, 2005). Digital games are intrinsically motivating be-cause they are enjoyable. It is this trait that is used as a lever to facilitate learning (Chuang, 2007). Authors such as Gee (2003) and Prensky (2003) argue that combining the motivational nature of digital games with educational content makes learning more effective, with implicit learning underlying these assumptions. With educational games in general and foreign lan-guage learning games in particular, it is also useful to consider the idea of explicit learning as a certain amount of conscious attention is needed for successfully taking in and learning a foreign language (Doughty & Long, 2003). Moreover, learning is a multidimensional con-struct with cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956; Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Cognitive learning cov-ers absorbing, reproducing knowledge and developing skills and intellectual capabilities (Rovai, 2002). The affective domain addresses attitudes, motivations, opinions, emotions and values (Kraiger et al., 1993; Rovai, Wighting, Baker, & Grooms, 2009). Skill-based learning covers learning through physical activities to effectively perform specific tasks. In this study we use the concept of perceived learning to measure to what extent participants feel they have learned about the subject matter, in this case a foreign language. Employing this con-struct serves a double purpose. As heightened perceived performance capabilities impact motivational outcomes, this construct incor-porates an affective outcome (Kraiger et al., 1993). Yet, by asking to assess their cognitive learning progress, it also serves as a proxy for cognitive learning gains (Pace, 1990). Despite this proximity, however, it should be noted that there is not a one on one relation between what one perceives to have learned and actual learning gains.

With respect to language learning and digital games, DeHaan (2010) found vocabulary recall to be impeded by the extraneous cogni-tive load evoked by the interactivity of a music game. Hence, when comparing educational



games with commercial digital games, it is not clear how learning experiences will dif-fer. More concretely, it is unclear whether the investment in the quality of playing experience of commercial games designed for entertain-ment purposes will lead to better or worse learning experiences compared to digital games designed with specified learning outcomes in mind. The former possibly being more enjoy-able yet cognitively more demanding and the latter being less enjoyable but offering explicit learning opportunities. Therefore, we formulate the second research question as:

RQ2: To what extent are learning experiences in terms of perceived learning between com-mercial and special-purpose educational games different when both are used with educational purposes in mind?

Digital Games and Attitude Research on the attitudinal aspect of gaming often focuses on the attitude towards the medium as a learning method. Several authors have investigated be-liefs and attitudes of teachers (Razak, Connolly, & Hainey, 2012; De Grove, et al., 2012; Squire, 2003), parents (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, De Wever, & Schellens, 2011), experts (Tan, Neill, & Johnston-Wilder, 2012) and students (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, & Schellens, 2010) on using digital games for education. These studies focus on the link between attitudes and behavioral intention. We build further on this reasoning by exploring how and whether attitudes towards digital game-based learning are connected to learning experiences:

RQ3: To what extent does attitude play a role in learning experiences between commercial and special-purpose educational?

With fun and learning being considered as an oxymoron by some authors (Michael & Chen, 2006), it is important to take differences in attitude towards game-based learning into account. Research in the domain of training evaluation frequently investigates the impact

of the training method on learning. In this respect, the four-level model of Kirkpatrick (1998) is frequently used to assess learning outcomes. The first level is conceived as the attitude towards the training program and is considered a necessary condition for learning. However studies examining the effect of attitude towards learning method have returned mixed results showing direct, indirect or non-existent effects (Alliger & Janak, 1989). Despite these mixed results, we expect the attitude towards digital game-based learning to influence learn-ing experiences. Priming

Little research on digital game-based learning has explored the effect of an exter-nal stimulus on learners during gameplay. Priming is a technique that is widely used to explore the nature of underlying cognitive and linguistic representations (Mayr & Buchner, 2007; Whishaw & Kolb, 1995). The relation between the preceding stimulus (the prime) and the subject’s response enables research-ers to make inferences about the nature of the subject’s representations. According to media priming literature, exposure to media violence can prime subsequent aggressive behavior, cognitions or perceptions (see e.g. Roskos-Ewoldsen, Klinger, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007). Other researchers demonstrated the influence of language priming (Akkermans, Harzing, & Witteloostuijn, 2010; Keatley, Spinks, & De Gelder, 1994). In game research, Nelson and Strachan (2009) found a priming effect for two different digital games types and concluded that playing an action digital game results in faster reaction times and lower accuracy, while playing a puzzle game results in slower reaction times and higher accuracy.

Playing digital games is an intrinsically motivating activity (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Yet, on the other hand, educational settings use external stimuli (such as grades). It is therefore not clear whether and to what extent priming functions as an external stimulus when playing an intrinsically motivating digital game. We articulate this research question as:



RQ4: To what extent does priming relate to game and learning experience?

METHOD

Design The study consists of a 3x2 mixed model experimental design (N=62) whereby each participant plays three games (within-subjects factor). Half have been primed with the message that they will have to take a language proficiency test afterwards (between-subjects factor). The games are each played for twenty minutes in random order and before the testing session each participant takes a language test. All participants are adults who are learning German. Game- and learning-related variables are measured by administering a short question-naire after playing each game. Subjects Partici-pants were recruited through schools offering adult language learning courses for German and among first-year university students with German as a major. To minimize pre-existing attitudes towards digital games, the experiment was framed as a research project on foreign language learning software without mentioning that (serious) games were the actual topic of study. An incentive of 20 euro was foreseen for each participant. Interested learners were asked to fill out their contact details and were invited by e-mail to come to the iMinds Game Lab. In total 62 participants took part of which 42 were female. There were no significant differences between the priming conditions on account of gender (Chi2=0.03; df=1; p=.86). The mean age was 21.45 (SD=4.82) years. Games

Ausflug am Wochenende nach München (Neville, Shelton, & McInnis, 2007) (hereaf-ter referred to as “Ausflug”) is an interactive text-based game produced by the Utah State University. It is specifically developed to learn German and was released in 2007. Learners play the role of Karin Moller, a student making a train trip to Munich. Before she can depart by train, however, she must first park her bicycle, buy a train ticket, get something to eat and drink, find a book to read, locate the correct train

platform and so on. The game does not offer graphics or sounds. The game requires input of the player in the form of typed text. The player can only interact with the game through the keyboard, no point-and-click interaction is supported. The game (and its source code) can be downloaded for free at http://cle.usu.edu/CLE_IF_AUSFLUG.html.

Who is Oscar Lake? (Jersey COW Soft-ware, 1995) (hereafter referred to as “Who is”) is a point-and-click graphical language learning game released in 1995. It was developed with the aim of improving second language acquisition and is available in several languages such as French, Spanish, German, English and Italian. In the game, the player is plunged into a foreign city where you must solve a puzzling mystery wherein a diamond has gone missing from a New York museum, believed stolen by Oscar Lake, an international jewel thief. The player is framed with a mock passport in Oscar’s name and needs to prove his/her innocence. The game makes use of sound (spoken language) and graphics.

Geheimakte Tunguska (Deep Silver Koch Media, 2006) (hereafter referred to as “Geheimakte”) is a commercial, off-the-shelf point-and-click adventure game developed by Animation Arts and released in Germany in 2006. It provides graphics and sound (spoken language) that are of high quality (considering the time period it was released). The game uses adventure gaming conventions to bring a ficti-tious plot that is set against the background of a real historical event (a huge explosion in June 1908 in the Tunguska region of Siberia). While open for discussion, gameplay, graphics and sound can be considered to be more engaging than that offered by Who is or Ausflug. What is important about those different games is that the commercial game has been designed with enjoyment as its primary goal. One could argue that this leads to an audiovisual and gameplay environment that is probably more appealing than the non-commercial games. What is more, the commercial game has been developed for



the German market. It has no learning goals implemented in its design. In contrast, the two non-commercial games are in designed with the primary aim to make players learn German. As such, it can be expected that more effort has been directed towards learning goals.

MEASURES

Game Experience Game experience dimensions were measured with the core game experience questionnaire (GEQ) developed during the FUGA project (Poels, De Kort, & IJsselsteijn, n.d.). As each participant needed to fill out this questionnaire three times, each construct was

measured using only two items rated on 5-point Likert scales (totally agree to totally disagree). The selection of these items was based on pre-vious research using the GEQ (De Grove, Van Looy, & Courtois, 2010). Experience dimen-sions included in the study were positive affect, negative affect, immersion, challenge, skill and frustration (see Table 1). All reliability measures resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha between .63 and .88 except for Challenge which yielded a reli-ability coefficient of .51.

Perceived Learning To account for per-ceived learning effects, two ad hoc measures were used: active and passive learning. Both constructs were measured using 6 items rated

Table 1. Items used in questionnaire

Measure Item

Positive Affect The story of the game interested me I felt content

Negative Affect I felt bored It was boring

Challenge I felt challenged I had to put a lot of effort in it

Skill I felt skillful I felt competent

Frustration I felt frustrated I felt irritated

Immersion I was totally absorbed I forgot everything around me

AttitudeI don’t think that digital games are suited to learn a foreign language. Learning a foreign language through digital games is pleasant Learning a foreign language by means of a game should happen more often

Active learning

My writing skills have improved by playing this game I learned how to form sentences in German I have learned nothing about speaking German I have learned how to pronounce certain German words My German speech skills have improved My German writing skills have improved

Passive learning

My reading skills have NOT improved I will better understand German texts now My vocabulary has extended My reading skills have improved I will better understand German words and sentences The reading of German texts will be easier now



on 5-point Likert scales (totally agree to totally disagree). Reliability testing yielded Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .69 to .90 which indicates acceptable reliability. Active learning asks whether respondents have the impression to have learned something on account of speak-ing or writing German. Passive learning refers to a perceived improvement in understanding and reading a language (see Table 1). Attitude toward Learning Games An ad hoc measure was created to probe the participant’s attitude towards learning a foreign language through digital games (Cronbach’s α = .72) (see Table 1). The scale consists of three items on a 5-point Likert scale (totally agree to totally disagree).

Previous Experience Since the study is conducted with people that are not necessarily players of digital games, previous experience is measured as a control variable. Respondents were asked how frequently they played digital games. Those indicating to play less than once a month are considered as non-players (N=48). Others are considered as players (N=11). A Chi2 test showed that there were no significant differ-ences in distribution of players and non-players for the between-subjects condition (Chi2 =1.83; df=1; p=.230).

German Proficiency

Before playing the games, each respondent filled out a German proficiency test consisting of 40 multiple choice questions (Mscore=29.8; SD=5.93). This test was provided by a profes-

sional language training institute in Flanders. An independent t-test showed that there were no differences between the priming conditions on account of test score (F=.28; t=-.014; p=.989).

RESULTS

Game Experiences

A repeated measures mixed model (General Linear Model) was used to explore the effect of game type and priming on each experience dimension. Significant differences between digital games were found for negative affect (F(2,59)=11.30; p<.001; Partial η2=.16), im-mersion (F(2,59)=13.16; p<.001; Partial η2=.18) and challenge (F(2,59)=6.01; p<.005; Partial η2=.09). No significant differences were found for skill (F(2,59)=.87; p=.42; Partial η2=.01), positive affect (F(2,59)=.75; p=.47; Partial η2=.01) and frustration (F(2,59)=.13; p=.88; Partial η2=.002). Moreover, no significant ef-fect of priming was found for any experience dimension. Pairwise comparisons show that the difference for negative affect lies between both educational games on the one hand and the commercial game on the other. For immer-sion, all three games differ significantly from each other and for challenge, only Who is and Geheimakte differ significantly. Table 2 shows the mean scores of each game on the different experience dimensions.

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation for each game on game experience dimensions (letters in superscript indicate pairwise comparisons results)

Skill Challenge (***)

Negative Affect (***) Positive Affect Immersion

(***) Frustration

Ausflug 2.72 (.12)a 3.26 (.12)ab 2,85 (.13)a 3.01 (.12)a 2,38 (.10)a 2,48 (.12)a

Who is 2.54 (.11)a 3.00 (.12)a 2,76 (.11)a 3.06 (.11)a 2,69 (.11)b 2,55 (.11)a

Geheimakte 2.58 (.10)a 3.45 (.09)b 2.19 (.09)b 3.18 (.10)a 3,06 (.12)c 2,54 (.12)a



Next, we added being experienced with digital games or not to the model as a covariate. Significant differences remain between the three games for Negative Affect (F(2,59)=7.7; p<.01; Partial η2=.12), Immer-sion (F(2,59)=36.4; p<.01; Partial η2=.10) and Challenge (F(2,59)=3.16; p<.05; Partial η2=.05). What is more, the effect of type of game on challenge also differs between being a player or not (F(2,59)=3.64; p<.05; Partial η2=.06). More specifically, the effect of being a player on challenge is stronger for Ausflug than for Geheimakte while it is not significant for Who is (Figure 1). Hence, non-players felt less challenged when playing Ausflug and Geheimakte than players. Moreover, while there are no significant differences for skill or positive affect between games, these dimen-

sions differ between players and non-players (Fskill(1,60)=14.25; p<0.001; Partial η2=.20; Fpositive affect (1,60)=6.24; p<.05; Partial η2=.10).

Learning Experiences

Results for learning experiences show significant differences for active (F(2,59)=15.50; p<.001; Partial η2=.21) and passive (F(2,59)=7.98; p=.001; Partial η2=.12) learning. No signifi-cant effects were found for priming. Pairwise comparisons show that, for passive learning, differences lie between the language learning games and the commercial game while for active learning, these differences lie between Ausflug on the one hand and Geheimakte and Who is on the other. Table 3 shows the mean score for each game on both learning dimension.

Figure 1. Interaction effect of player status on challenge and type of game

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation for each game on learning dimensions (letters in super-script indicate pairwise comparisons results)

Active Learning (***)

Passive Learning (***)

Ausflug 2.58 (.083)a 3,04 (.10) a

Who is 2.97 (.092) b 3.05 (.10) a

Geheimakte 3.15 (.085) b 3.42 (.09)b



When adding attitude towards learning games to the model as a control variable, it yields a significant effect for active learn-ing (F(1,51)=21.21; p<.001; Partial η2=.29). However, the effect of type of game disap-pears (F(2,102)=2.57; p=.081; Partial η2=.05). Whereas the effect of attitude on passive learning is also significant, (F(1,51)=19.43; p<.001; Partial η2=.28), it does not account for all variation between games (F(2,102)=5.31; p<.05; Partial η2=.09). Finally, when adding the effect of German proficiency to the model, no significant effects are found for active (F(1,50)=.70; p=.41; Partial η2=.014) or passive learning (F(1,50)=.70; p=40; Partial η2=.014).

DISCUSSION

In regard to research question 1, which looked at the extent to which game experiences dif-fer between commercial and special-purpose educational games, we see that the commercial game scored higher on experience dimensions (such as immersion and challenge) and lower on negative affect. The text-based game, however, scores equally high on challenge as the com-mercial one, suggesting that a rich audiovisual environment is not a necessary condition to challenge a player. When looking at the effect sizes, the influence of the type of game is small to moderate for immersion (16%), negative affect (18%) and challenge (9%). An important factor to take into account is the influence exercised by being a player or not. This factor is important for most gameplay experiences over and above the type of game that is played. For adult learners, the question might not be what kind of games to use but whether it is useful to target educational games towards a non-player audience. While no data are available on the distribution of players in the population of language learners, it is not unreasonable to assume that not all people play digital games. Therefore, a central question is what a digital game should look like to appeal to players and non-players alike. With challenge and skill being important dimensions of the game experience (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005),

the need for adaptive gaming environments in terms of gameplay can be an important issue. More specifically, when designing digital games for learning it should be taken into account that not all potential users of educational games are experienced game players. A design that is sensitive towards differences in skillfulness of players as a ‘gamer’ hence seems a necessity.

Concerning our second research question, the commercial game seems to evoke slightly better game experiences and a better passive learning experience. These differences, how-ever, are rather small. A possible explanation is that learning experiences evoked by a commer-cial game are of a different nature (no explicit learning outcomes) than those evoked by an educational game (explicit learning outcomes). When explicit learning outcomes are present, people will couple their learning expectations and thus learning experiences to these outcomes. When no learning outcomes are present, people have no real expectations towards learning, yet this does not exclude learning experiences altogether. Those experiences, however, have a more incidental nature. As such, although mean scores on learning experiences differ little, their antecedents might be different. Indeed, we do not know what makes people perceive they have learned something. The sources of these answers might be different altogether. The available data, however, do not allow us to confirm this assumption. Future studies might look into reasons why people feel they have learned something and on what those feelings are based.

Research question 3 shows some surpris-ing results. Whilst the commercial game has been developed with no educational intentions in mind, it scores highest for passive learning and equally high for active learning as Who is. Moreover, it is remarkable to see how the atti-tude towards learning through games influences these learning experiences. When accounting for attitude, the differences for active learning disappear indicating that neither game- nor content-related characteristics accounted for them. Likewise, there is a substantial effect of



attitude for passive learning. These findings can be explained in two different ways. A first expla-nation presupposes that people with a positive attitude towards learning through digital games will have higher learning gains when playing digital games. Consequently, one should be careful regarding the target groups for which to use games for learning. A second explanation presupposes that people with a positive attitude towards learning through digital games tend to be more optimistic when it comes to learning gains. This could result in higher perceived learning scores whilst no real differences are present. Either way, this approach shows the importance of taking into account the attitude towards the learning method when investigating learning experiences.

Finally, as to our fourth research question, priming had no effect on either game or learning experiences. A possible explanation for this is that the context in which participants played the games influenced the possible effect of the stimulus. As real-life consequences were absent if participants failed the language test afterwards, the power of this external motivator may have been insufficient or even non-existent. Related to this weak motivator is the possibility that participants became so deeply engaged in their activity that they forgot about the test. Debriefing interviews seem to confirm this train of thought. With the available data, however, it is not possible to explore to what extent this forgetfulness is to be attributed to intrinsic or external stimuli.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this study is that there is a significant influence of non-game-related characteristics on game and learning experience. Despite the variation in the game type used during this experiment, a substantial part of the variation of these experiences is explained by the attitude towards learning with games and by being a regular player or not. Considering that the mean age is 21 years this cannot be attributed to the fact that participants were

not so-called digital natives (see e.g. Prensky, 2001). As the learning topics that can be inte-grated into digital games are varied, so is the public of learners. While some authors have enthusiastically embraced the idea of digital-based learning, especially for the digital natives (Prensky, 2003, 2005) the empirical findings of this study call for some restraint. It appears that a substantial part of learners regard the idea of language learning through digital games negatively which affects their potential playing and learning experiences. These findings feed into other comments that call into question the dichotomy between digital natives and digital immigrants (see e.g. Bayne & Ross, 2007). Indeed, there seems to be considerable variation within the category of digital natives when it comes to playing digital games. Not all young people have developed what could be called digital gaming literacy. What is more, not all young people are attracted to this particular form of learning or play. This puts the argument that digital games are highly motivating tools into perspective. It would be more correct to state that digital games might be intrinsically motivating on the condition that they are used by people accepting them as tools for learning. Hence, in order to advance digital game-based learning, the challenge is twofold. First, it is important to identify what kind of people are best off with learning through digital games. Second, it is reasonable to assume that attitudes towards games or digital game-based learning are not final. Especially if one takes into account the fact that digital game-based learning is not yet established in most learning environments. Hence, using digital games as learning tools might not only contribute to direct learning experiences, but could also have an effect on the affective appraisal of learning through games.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study was experimental in design. None of the participants was familiar with the games that were used. As most games have a learning



curve, it is possible that experiences would have been different when participants were allowed to play longer. In a similar vein, studying how game and learning experiences change over a longer period of time in a naturalistic setting could provide valuable information. More-over, the mean scores of the game experience dimensions suggest that none of the games were experienced as highly enjoyable. Using other games could provide different results. Moreover, learning experiences could have been evoked through different mechanisms: whether implicit or explicit. Future research should consider taking these different sources of learning into account. With a certain extent of explicit learning being favored for foreign language learning, it might also be useful to explore which effects are found when using other learning content and other learners.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work reported in this article was conducted in the context of the LLINGO project. The LLINGO is a project co-funded by iMinds (Interdisciplinary institute for Technology) a research institute founded by the Flemish Government. The language proficiency test used in the study was provided by the Business Language and Communication Centre (BLCC).

REFERENCES

Akkermans, D., Harzing, A. W., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. (2010). Cultural accommodation and language priming: Competitive versus cooperative behavior in a prisoner’s dilemma game. Mir: Management International Review, 50(5), 559–584. doi:10.1007/s11575-010-0053-0.

Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpat-rick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x.

Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st century game design. MA: Charles River Media Hingham.

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The ‘digital native’and ‘digital immigrant’: A dangerous opposition. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education, Brighton, UK.

Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., de Wever, B., & Schellens, T. (2011). Parental acceptance of digital game-based learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1434–1444. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.012.

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schel-lens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022.

Chuang, T. Y. (2007). Effect of computer-based video games on children: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1–10.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

De Grove, F., Bourgonjon, J., & Van Looy, J. (2012). Digital games in the classroom? A contextual ap-proach to teachers’ adoption intention of digital games in formal education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2023–2033. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.021.

De Grove, F., Van Looy, J., & Courtois, C. (2010). Towards a serious game experience model: Valida-tion, extension and adaptation of the GEQ for use in an educational context. In L. Calvi, K. Nuijten, & H. Bouwknegt (Eds.), Playability and player experience (Vol. 10, pp. 47–61). Breda University of Applied Sciences.

De Grove, F., Van Looy, J., Courtois, C., & De Marez, L. (2010). ‘I play, therefore I learn?’ Measuring the evolution of perceived learning and game experience in the design flow of a serious game. In Proceedings of the Meaningful Play Conference, Michigan.

De Haan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74–94.

De Kort, Y., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2008). People, places, and play: Player experience in a socio-spatial context. Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 1–11. doi:10.1145/1371216.1371221.



Deep Silver Koch Media. (2006). Geheimakte Tun-guska. Austria: Höfen.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishers. doi:10.1002/9780470756492.

Gajadhar, B., de Kort, Y., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2008a). Influence of social setting on player experience of digital games. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in En-tertainment, 1(1), 1–4. doi:10.1145/950566.950595.

Hefner, D., Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2007). Iden-tification with the player character as determinant of video game enjoyment. Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2007, 4740, 39-48.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.003.

Holsapple, C., & Wu, J. (2006). Antecedents and effects of flow experience in online gaming: An Empirical study. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems.

IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A., & Bellotti, F. (2007). Characterising and measuring user experiences in digital games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Com-puter Entertainment Technology, Salzburg, Austria. Jersey COW Software.

Keatley, C. W., Spinks, J. A., & De Gelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 70–84. doi:10.3758/BF03202763 PMID:8035687.

Kickmeier‐Rust, M., & Albert, D. (2010). Mi-cro‐adaptivity: Protecting immersion in didacti-cally adaptive digital educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 95–105. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00332.x.

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: To-wards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training pro-grams: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler.

Klimmt, C. (2003). Dimensions and determinants of the enjoyment of playing digital games: A three-level model. In Proceedings of the Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference.

Klimmt, C., Blake, C., Hefner, D., Vorderer, P., & Roth, C. (2009). Player performance, satisfaction, and video game enjoyment. Entertainment Comput-ing, 1-12.

Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Frey, A. (2007). Effectance and control as determinants of video game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 845–848. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9942 PMID:18085976.

Klimmt, C., Hefner, D., & Vorderer, P. (2009). The video game experience as “true” identification: A theory of enjoyable alterations of players’ self-perception. Communication Theory, 19(4), 351. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01347.x.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Applica-tion of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311.

Looi, Q., See, S., Iris, N., & Aria, S. (2011). Adopting a user-centric approach to evaluate HCI in online games. In Proceedingsof the International Confer-ence on Computer Engineering and Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Mayr, S., & Buchner, A. (2007). Negative priming as a memory phenomenon: A review of 20 years of negative priming research. Zeitschrift für Psy-chologie. The Journal of Psychology, 215(1), 35. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.1.35.

Mäyrä, F. (2007). The contextual game experi-ence: On the socio-cultural contexts for meaning in digital play. In Proceedings of the Situated Play, Tokyo, Japan.

Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.

Nacke, L., & Lindley, C. (2008). Flow and immer-sion in first-person shooters: Measuring the player’s gameplay experience. In Proceedings of the Future-Play, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.



Nelson, R. A., & Strachan, I. (2009). Action and puzzle video games prime different speed/accuracy tradeoffs. Perception, 38(11), 1678. doi:10.1068/p6324 PMID:20120265.

Neville, D., Shelton, B., & McInnis, B. (2007). Ausflug am Wochenende nach München. Utah State University.

Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in college in the 1980’s. Los Angeles, CA: The Center for the Study of Evalu-ation, Graduate School of Education, University of California.

Poels, K., De Kort, Y., & IJsselsteijn, W. (n.d.). Mea-suring the human experience of media enjoyment. FUGA Project Deliverable. Technical University. Eindhoven.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digi-tal immigrants Part 1. Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816.

Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. [CIE]. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 21–21. doi:10.1145/950566.950596.

Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 97–122).

Razak, A. A., Connolly, T., & Hainey, T. (2012). Teachers’ views on the approach of digital games-based learning within the curriculum for excellence. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(1), 33–51. doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2012010103.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Klinger, M. R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2007). Media priming: A meta-analysis. Mass media effects research. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53-80).

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchro-nous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6.

Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to mea-sure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Educa-tion, 12(1), 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002.

Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. Inter-national Journal of Intelligence Games & Simulation, 2(1), 49–62.

Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University.

Squire, K. (2005). Game-based learning: Present and future state of the field. Masie Center e-Learning Consortium.

Susi, T., Johannesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games–An overview. Skövde: University of Skövde (Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001).

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. [CIE]. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 3. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253.

Tan, W. H., Neill, S., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2012). How do professionals’ attitudes differ between what game-based learning could ideally achieve and what is usually achieved. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(1), 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2012010101.

Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2011). The pleasures of success: Game-related efficacy experiences as a mediator between player performance and game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 555–557. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0358 PMID:21342012.

Valce corportion (2004). Half life 2. Kirkland, Washington, U.S.

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educational Review, 41(2), 16–30.

Whishaw, I. Q., & Kolb, B. (1995). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology. Worth Publishers.

Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual re-ality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25–32. doi:10.1109/MC.2005.297.



Frederik De Grove is a PhD candidate at the communication sciences department of Ghent University (Research group for Media and ICT). He has been involved in several national and international research projects concerning digital game-based learning. He has published in journals such as Computers & Education and Computers in Human Behavior. His current PhD research focuses on the use of digital games as domestic entertainment products.

Jan Van Looy is assistant professor at the research group for Media and ICT (iMinds-MICT) at Ghent University, Belgium, where his team conducts multidisciplinary research into digital games and immersive media. Topics include digital game usage and experience, serious game effectiveness, serious games for raising awareness of societal issues, for language learning, for mathematics education, for increasing traffic safety and for improving energy efficiency, gender and gaming, stereoscopic and omnidirectional video.

Peter Mechant has a PhD in Communication Sciences and works at the research group for Media and ICT (www.mict.be) at Ghent University (www.ugent.be) and iMinds (www.iminds.be). He has been involved in regional, national and European research projects focusing on Web 2.0 and online communities, participation and ‘smart cities’. Peter published in journals such as Observatorio, International Journal of Web-based Communities, International Journal of Elec-tronic Governance and Contemporary Social Science and coauthored papers in journals such as New Media and Society, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication and, Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking.

Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: Comparing the Experiences of Adult Foreign Language Learners with Off-the-Shelf and Specialized Games for Learning German

Documents