Pietilä P., P. Lintunen & H.-M. Järvinen (toim.) 2006. Kielenoppija tänään – Language Learners of Today. AFinLAn vuosikirja 2006. Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistyksen julkaisuja no. 64. Jyväskylä. s. 199–220.
––––
LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH NETWORKED COMPUTER GAMES –THE CASE OF AN EFFICIENT NOVICE
1Maarit Saarenkunnas University of Oulu
The article considers the actions that a ten-year-old schoolboy, Sakari, takes in and around networked computer games. The paper asks what resources he draws on in solving language and technology related problems. Despite the fact that Sakari has received formal instruction in the English language only for a year and a half, he is able to use English in the games environment resourcefully and creatively. The study draws on Mediated Discouse Analysis (cf. Scollon 1998; Scollon & Scollon 2004) and takes into account a multimodal perspective on language and communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen 2001). The data consist of observation diaries, videoed sessions on the computer, related documents and images, and interviews.
Keywords: everyday learning, collaboration, action, computer games
1 The study is part of a research project called “Mediated Action and Interaction in Language Learning and Work” (MAILL). For further information, see http://
www.ekl.oulu.fi/MAILL/.
1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This article discusses informal everyday language learning with a particular focus on computer gaming. The question it asks is what kind of learning resources playing a networked computer-game offers from the perspective of language learning? To answer this question the case of Sakari, a ten-year-old Finnish schoolboy, computer-gamer and a language learner, will be analysed through varied data and multiple modes (visual, spoken and written).
Drawing on mediated discourse analysis (see Scollon 1998, 2001;
Scollon & Scollon 2003; Norris & Jones 2005), especially from an ethnographic perspective, the article will first discuss how technology and the English language became part of Sakari’s life, i.e. his historical body. Secondly, it will comment on the kind of resources that Sakari utilizes in gaming situations.
Computer games are a disputed issue. On the one hand, they are seen as threatening: they pose a threat to the physical and mental health of a whole generation. On the other hand, they are seen as capable of teaching children some of the basic skills the information society requires. (see Kangas & Kuure 2003; Kasvi 2001, Ermi, Heliö & Mäyrä 2004). Gee (2003) points out that computer games offer learning experiences and support growth of literacy. He notes that the pedagogical power of games lies partly in the fact that gamers are willing to put a considerable amount of time and effort in solving the problems games pose. Furthermore, it is also evident that computer-games provide a rich resource for learning foreign languages. When children enter formal foreign language education at the age of nine in Finland, many of them are already capable of acting in a foreign language environment, particularly if the context is familiar. New media and computer-games are partly responsible for this development. At least in the case of the English language, learning has increasingly moved from official (e.g. school) to various informal sites of learning that involve the Internet, TV and computer games, for example.
2 LANGUAGE LEARNING IN EVERYDAY CONTEXTS
Relatively few researchers have been interested in everyday learning as most studies situate themselves in the context of formal schooling.
A look at everyday learning, in particular in connection with the English language, however, is essential. For example, Taavitsainen and Pahta (2003) have shown that the role and presence of the English language is increasing in the everyday lives of Finns. For the current article the sociocultural perspective (Lantolf 2000;
Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004; Block 2003) as well as the so called social-ecological perspective (Kramsch 2002; Van Lier 2002) provide a relevant framework of language learning. These perspectives have, among other things, turned their attention to the concepts of identity (Lemke 2002; Kramsch 2000; Pavlenko &
Blackledge 2004) as well as mediated and social semiotic activity (see Scollon 2002). Researchers have been able to show that language learning and communication indeed involve a wider and a more complex set of actions than applied linguistics traditionally has covered. There is also a growing body of research in computer- supported language learning (e.g. Belz & Thorne 2005; Beatty 2003;
Warschauer & Kern 2000) and computer-supported collaborative learning in general (e.g. Koschmann, Hall & Miyake 2002; Wasson, Hoppe & Ludvigsen 2003). However, studies in computer-supported learning rarely consider everyday learning environments, despite the fact that the computer and the Internet provide a rich informal resource for a growing body of language learners.
Even if everyday learning has not been among the most popular areas of research within applied linguistics, it has, however, been discussed by several writers. Our earlier research (Kuure et al. 2002, 2003; Saarenkunnas 2004; Saarenkunnas et al. 2003, 2004) showed that from the point of view of an individual student, learning takes place across a variety of contexts and in multimodal settings, in interaction, across overlapping networks and communities. Gutier-
rez et al. (1999), among others, demonstrated that learners bring resources to the classroom from life outside school. Basing his arguments on Vygotskyan (cf. Wertsch 1985; Vygotsky 1978) perspectives, Van Lier (1998) noted that teaching and learning take place constantly in our interactions with others. These instances he calls everyday life learning opportunities. Within the field of conversation analysis and ethnomethodology some attention has been paid to informal sites of learning. Gardner & Wagner (2004), for example, focussed on sites of untutored acquisition outside the classroom context. Learning in everyday life, for example at work, has received attention (cf. Engeström 2001), especially within activity theory. Sawchuk (2003) explored informal learning and how it is accomplished in peer group activity between adults.
Through an analysis of a learning situation where two peers try to solve a computer problem he shows that the discourse in informal learning situations has common features with both formal classroom interaction and everyday conversations. He suggests that learning need not be reproductive of the social order and does not necessarily have to involve interaction between novices and experts. Sawchuk suggests that novices can among themselves construct a zone for proximal development in order to increase individual and collective knowledgeability.
Current interest in situated learning theory has further emphasized the importance of everyday learning. In their seminal work, “Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation”, Lave
& Wenger (1991) studied learning in various communities (i.e.
weight watchers, midwives). Their analysis emphasized that learning is a process of socialisation in communities of practice.
3 RESEARCH APPROACH AND DATA
The study is qualitative in nature and draws on mediated discourse analysis, which as a research programme utilises the tools provided
by discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and ethnography (cf. Scollon 1998, 2001; Scollon & Scollon 2003; Norris & Jones 2005). The major difference between discourse analysis and MDA is that the former takes discourse as its unit of analysis whereas the latter focuses on action. MDA sees language as an essential mediational means, however, emphasizing that all semiotic objects should be taken into account when studying social actions that are undertaken by people in real-time moments (cf. Scollon 2001). In this respect MDA links to the theory of multimodality (Kress &
Van Leeuwen 2001; Kress 2003; Scollon & Levine 2004).
This article is part of a series of longitudinal case studies within the MAILL-project, which draw upon MDA. The data for this study consist of one videotaped playing session at the computer, observation diary of Sakari’s everyday actions with technology and language, screenshots from a game called Runescape, and documents retrieved from Sakari’s computer. The video recording displays Sakari and Hannu, two ten-year-old boys, playing a multiplayer role-playing game called Runescape. The boys talk while they play. Occasionally they address other people in the room.
The session lasts one and a half hours. Additional data were collected with Sakari to check the researcher’s interpretations in the analysis phase. These data were used to verify the researcher’s interpretations. Thus, the research approach is participatory, and conducted ‘with’ the informants instead of ‘on’ the informants (Cameron, Frazer, Harvey, Rampton & Richardson 1993).
The game Sakari and his network play is Runescape (see figure 1). Runescape is a multiplayer online game, which is structured around characters that the players themselves create. The characters wander through villages and wilderness, performing tasks and fighting, which raises their skill levels. The higher the skill-level, the more opportunities the player gets to beat other players, as well as beasts and characters in the game. The main actions in the game involve walking an avatar through the environment, looking for other participants to compete with, performing different kinds of
tasks and finding resources to pick up. The environment is rich, it is full of details (visual and textual), which are partly produced by other participants conducting different activities. Some participants cook food, others fight, others pick potatoes or hunt for game. When participating the activities, the player has to monitor his own success in the game through a character sheet, which displays his skill level.
In addition, the environment contains a chat, which displays the discussions that are going on in the environment. In the chat area, the game also gives the player feedback about the success of the tasks he is trying to complete.
FIGURE 1. The Runescape Game.
4 LANGUAGE AND COMPUTERS AS MEDIATIONAL MEANS IN SAKARI’S LIFE
Drawing on the observation data, section four describes how computer technology became part of Sakari’s everyday life, his historical body. It will also discuss the role of the English language as a mediational means for Sakari. Scollon & Scollon (2004: 12) define mediational means in the following manner: “Whether a person throws a ball with hand and arm or performs a simulated
Public and private chats PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CHATS
THE MAP OF RUNESCAPE
CHARACTER SHEET A VIEW TO THE GAME
TOOL BAR
action by means of a joystick, or even writes about that action in the letters of the English alphabet, any action is accomplished with semiotic tools or resources. We prefer the very general terms mediational means, resources, or semiotic resources”. Furthermore, Scollon and Scollon (2004: 13) following Nishida (1958) point out that different people have different histories of experiences and therefore play the same role differently. As a result, it is important to understand “how the action-practice and the mediational means [--] came into the historical body of each of the participants”
(Scollon & Scollon 2004: 13). Figure 2 visualizes how the computer and the English language connect with Sakari’s life.
FIGURE 2. Computers and the English language in Sakari’s life.
The computer is strongly present in Sakari’s family as it is, among other things, a tool for his parents’ work. When Sakari was about three years old, his mother started to play simple Moomin games with him. The first attempts to use the Internet were closely connected to other media, such as TV programmes (e.g. Veturila, the pages of “Pikku kakkonen”, a daily childrens’ programme) and toys (e.g. Lego). In general, the media in Sakari’s life are intertwined in many ways. When Sakari’s restricted time for computer gaming
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Studying English at school starts Video and television
(multilingual)
Walkthroughs…
Moomin games at the computer
Gameboy
The role of tv and video diminishes
Internet - Veturila Internet – Lego-pages
Internet – Habbo-hotel
Internet – Creating web-
pages Internet – Runescape
Play Station – Sims Internet –
Searches
Television – Pokemon, Beyblade…
Moomin games at the computer
Gameboy
The role of tv and video diminishes
Internet - Veturila Internet – Lego-pages
Internet – Habbo-hotel
Internet – Creating web-
pages Internet – Runescape
Play Station – Sims Internet –
Searches
Television – Pokemon, Beyblade…
Electronic dictionaries
AGE
ends, their themes and characters sometimes continue in role-play.
Pokemon, for example, has been present in Sakari’s life through TV, computer-games, trading cards, toys, drawing and role-play.
When Sakari was seven he got his first portable game console, The Gameboy, which for a year dominated Sakari’s playing activities. The difference to the PC games was big in several respects, one of the most important being a shift from a mainly Finnish-speaking environment (e.g. the Moomin games) to a mainly English-speaking environment (e.g. Super Mario). Despite the fact that Sakari comes from a monolingual Finnish speaking family, he succeeded in playing the games, which had quite lengthy stretches of English instructions built in them.
Sakari’s contact with the English language has been constant from early childhood. When Sakari was about two years old watching videos was part of his daily activities. At a very young age, he did not seem to make a difference between Finnish and English films. For example, he watched the film Lion King over and over in English, not paying much attention to the language.
The visual elements, extralinguistic signs, music and other sound effects seemed to be strong enough resources for him to make meaning to the films. Furthermore, it is possible that he was able to use the English language also as a resource for meaning making.
Since he watched the videos over and over again, at an age where language abilities develop forcefully, he must have also learned language with the aid of strong visual clues provided by the films.
Looking from this perspective, Sakari has for quite a while had English as a resource for making meaning, as a mediational means.
English has been part of Sakari’s life in other respects as well.
Sakari’s parents speak English almost daily as they use English as a code-language, when they do not want the children to understand.
However, Sakari has often revealed that he understands at least what their talk is generally about. The family also has some English speaking friends, who sometimes, but not very often, visit the family.
When the electronic games gained more space, the role of videos and TV-programmes decreased in Sakari’s life. TV took a new role as he got the PlayStation game console as a Christmas present when he was nine. Sakari plays PlayStation games every now and then, mostly with a group of friends. With the emergence of the PlayStation, the language of the games that Sakari plays shifted to Finnish for a while. This playing activity was also connected to other mediational means. Sakari and his friends constantly phoned other friends, who phoned other friends in order to get codes with which to speed up the game. A network of Sakari’s friends, and their friends searched for these codes in the Internet.
When the family bought a new, more powerful computer, internet-based multiplayer games took an important role in Sakari’s life. Sakari started to play Runescape, a game in a multilingual environment. The interface itself uses English. However, the participants come from different countries with different language backgrounds. In addition to English, they use their varying first languages. While playing in this environment Sakari meets constantly with language problems, which he usually solves with the aid of his network of friends. When Sakari’s mother for the first time offered to install an electronic dictionary, Sakari refused the offer. He said that he does not have time for that and that he can always ask others when he needs help. However, Sakari sometimes uses the dictionary as a resource.
At the age of ten, Sakari thus concentrates on computer games, and, especially, on networked multiplayer environments. In addition, Sakari and his friends have made a couple of attempts to construct web-pages. Sometimes he uses the computer as a tool for communication (e.g. MSN messenger). Sakari has an email account, but he says that he uses it for receiving, but not sending email.
5 SAKARI’S RESOURCES
Chapter five will have a look at Sakari’s actions and resources with respect to solving language challenges in the gaming sessions. First, Sakari’s network is described because it draws a clear picture of the collaborative nature of computer gaming. Second, examples of collaboration while negotiating meanings of terms are analysed.
Third, the visual resources provided by the game will be discussed.
Fourth, the section comments some longer texts that Sakari uses as tools. The last item to be discussed gives evidence of active language production.
Collaboration is an important resource in trying to solve language-related problems in computer games. Sakari has a wide network of people who participate in playing the Runescape game.
Sakari’s network is displayed in figure 3. The left hand side presents Sakari’s online contacts, some of which are in close contact with Sakari offline as well. The distance to the dotted line marks the level of involvement to the network. The most important contacts are underlined.
FIGURE 3. Sakari’s networks in online and offline worlds.
Mother
(Father) Fin Robin
Cheergold Death
Themadman30
Lauri
Juha-Pekka Hannu
Alvari
Eki6 Jukka
Lapsi12 Pikkukala
Fenderi Kari Bad Jani Jani
Ripsu009 Sooda1
Cousin
ONLINE Perus Maukka
OFFLINE
Mother
(Father) Fin Robin
Cheergold Death
Themadman30
Lauri
Juha-Pekka Hannu
Alvari
Eki6 Jukka
Lapsi12 Pikkukala
Fenderi Kari Bad Jani Jani
Ripsu009 Sooda1
Cousin
ONLINE Perus Maukka
OFFLINE
Sakari has daily connections with Juha-Pekka (called Lapsi12 in the game) and Hannu (Pikkukala in the game), both on- and offline.
Lauri, Alvari, Jukka, Kari and Jani are also part of the community of practice in both environments. This network plays and talks about the game together in different combinations. Sakari has also foreign contacts (e.g. Death, Themadman, Cheergold, Fin Robin), which he meets only in the online game. Sakari and the online contacts collaborate, for example, by exchanging different artefacts collected from the game environment. In addition, they talk in the chat. The exchanges are usually brief, but efficient, such as: ‘total lvl?’ (“what is your total level”), ‘42’. Occasionally Sakari collaborates with his mother, who has created a user account (Perus Maukka) in the game in order to be able to help Sakari more efficiently, for example, when Sakari needs help with user account management.
The observation data shows that Sakari does not usually play the game alone. Discussions with friends at the computer are an integral part of the scene. Next section will discuss the collaborative resource the network offers in more detail from the perspective of language learning, negotiating word meanings and acquiring new vocabulary knowledge.
5.1 NEGOTIATION OF NEW VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
The easiest task for the researcher in this study is to show evidence of vocabulary acquisition with reference to the game. Vocabulary acquisition has been researched widely (e.g. Carter 1987; Carter &
McCarthy 1988) in the field of second language learning. In the eighties Nation and Coady (1988) suggested that learning vocabulary through context must be the major way of increasing vocabulary knowledge. Nation and Coady (1988) state that to learn new words students should be encouraged to read substantial amounts and to develop a skill of guessing from the context. As will be shown in the analysis below, computer-gaming offers a
chance to extensive reading. The visual images support guessing from the context efficiently.
Sakari and his friends meet constantly with language challenges when playing the game. These challenges are met with through several approaches. An electronic dictionary is a resource, which Sakari uses occasionally as it is available in his computer. It is also evident that the visual cues the game provides help in constructing meanings to new terms (see section 5.2 for a concrete example).
Among the most important tools, however, is collaboration. The following example, from a discussion between the researcher (M) and Sakari (S) provides an example of such a meaning negotiation.
Example 1.
1 M: sulla on 22/22 ruoanteko levelit eikö ((your cooking levels are 22/22 aren’t they))
2 S: nii () elikkä mä pystyn tekeen fat snaileja ((yes () thus I can make fat snails))
3 M: mitä pystyt tekkee () ((what can you make)) 4 S: fat snaileja ()
5 M: fat snail () 6 S: nii ((yes))
7 M: fat snail () niiku sää se voit syyä etanoita koko aika niinkö (fat snail () like you can eat ‘snails’ all the time is that right)) 8 S: hyi ((yuk))
9 M: gourmet () gourmet huippu ((gourmet () gourmet climax))
In turn 2, Sakari connects the meaning of the term ’fat snail’ with the more abstract notion of cooking skill. Being able to ‘make fat snails’ is just an example of a high cooking level, which results in better success in the game. As such, the meaning of the term ‘fat snail’ for Sakari is attached to the context of this particular game.
The term expands to cover other contexts as well in turn seven of this sequence. M remarks ‘niinku sä se voit syyä etanoita koko aika niinkö’ (“like you can eat snails all the time is that right”), the meaning of which Sakari clearly takes in as he closes the discussion by ‘hyi’ (yuk).
The players also display an ability to connect the game-specific terms to other contexts. In example 2, L (an adult, visiting briefly the room), S (Sakari), M (the researcher, tape recording the game) and H (Hannu, another ten-year-old game player) negotiate the meaning of rune. L initiates the discussion by asking in turn 1 ‘mitä on runet’. The other participants M, S and H participate in constructing meanings for the terms.
Example 2.
1 L: mitä on runet ((what are runes))
2 S: tää on Runescape eli run escape että juokse ja pakene ((this is Runescape in other words run escape which means run and escape))
3 L: mitä ne on ne muinaisnorjassa ne ((what are those in Norse those)) 4 S: riimuja ((runes))
5 M: ei ne niitä oo kun näitä taikaesineitä ((not those but charms instead))
6 H: taikaesineitä ((charms))
In turns 2 and 4, Sakari connects the term Runescape to two different things. First of all, he separates the term into the two constituent parts, “run and escape”, displaying an understanding of both, “että juokse ja pakene”. Secondly, in turn 2, he continues L’s turn, which creates a possibility to interpret the term in a particular historical connection: that of Norsemen’s runes. The third interpretation, which is relevant in the game context, is provided by M and verified by H: a magic charm.
5.2 VISUAL RESOURCES
Being highly visual, the game itself gives hints to the players on the possible meanings of the terminology used in it. In example 3 H (Hannu), S (Sakari) and M (Maarit) produce in collaboration several explanations of wildu, which comes from the English word wilderness.
Example 3.
1 H: ((—)) nii mää vien sen wilduu ja murhaan se siellä () ((I’ll take it to wildu and kill it there))
2 S: wildussa voi toiset tyypit voi tappaa toisiaa() ((guys can kill each other in wildu))
3 M: [se ((it))
4 H: [se on semmone () koko tämän pelin varmaa vaarallisin paikka ((it is like () the most dangerous place in the game I guess)) 5 M: mikä se [wil () ((what the wil())
6 S: [ni onki ((so it is))
7 M: wildu on () niinku y= ((wildu is () like)) 8 S: =wilderness ()
9 M: wilderness () niinku metsä tai () erämaa ((wilderness () like forest or () backwoods))
10 S: erämaa () ((backwoods))
11 H: no määpä näytän minkälaine paikka se on= ((well I’ll show what kind of a place it is))
12 S: =tai autiomaa ((or a desert))
In the game itself, wilderness is a place where you are likely to get killed, if your level is not high enough to compete with other players and game generated characters, as Hannu’s comment in turn 1 points out. Sakari and M construct together four slightly different interpretations of the term: ‘wilderness’, ‘metsä’, ‘erämaa’ and
‘autiomaa’. These are all plausible versions of wildu or wilderness in this game.
When enquired in an interview what wildu looks like, Sakari first said that it is nothing more than a forest with lots of dead black trees in it. When he was asked to show what wildu is like, he provided several different landscapes2,which all are part of wildu.
Wilderness, according to the images Sakari showed, can be a desert, a mountain area inhabited by giants, a barren and deserted coastline or a kind of an animal graveyard, with bones scattered on the dry surface.
2 Due to limitations of space and copyright issues, the screen shots are not shown here.
In conclusion, playing the Runescape game offers a rich resource for language learning at least on the level of acquiring vocabulary. Gee (2003) describes similar learning processes in his study of native English speaking gamers. However, in addition to negotiating new vocabulary, playing computer games challenge the participants to negotiate the meaning of longer stretches of text as well.
5.3 TEXT IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTER GAMES
Playing computer games involves extensive reading of ordinary text documents in addition to the text in the game. One example of such a text is the so called walkthroughs, tools which give the players advice on how to proceed in the game. These documents are usually written by other players and published in the internet.
Some are available in Finnish, but for a number of games Finnish versions are nonexistent. Sakari had placed two walkthroughs on the desktop of his computer. One of them is in Finnish, another in English. Example 4 provides a sample of the English text.
Example 4.
=======================================================================
1. Walkthrough
=======================================================================
STAR PIECE 1
1. Walk north-east through the castle to the chandelier room. Defeat Kinklink above Bowser to return to Mario’s house.
2. Jump off the hook and exit the house. Talk to Toad and try to exit Mario’s pad to be given a tutorial. Exit Mario’s pad and return to Bowser’s Keep.
3. The sword will not allow Mario to enter the castle. Return to the house at Mario’s pad and talk to Toad. Exit the house.
4. Try to exit Mario’s Pad to be given another tutorial from Toad. Exit Mario’s Pad and enter Mushroom Way.
Considering his age and short history in formal English learning, it would be reasonable to assume that the text extract above would be beyond Sakari’s capacity to some extent, despite the fact that the text consists mainly of high-frequency words. Compared to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987), the text extract includes fourteen high-frequency words, seven less frequent words (marked by italics) and four game-specific words (marked by boldface), such as names of places and characters. However, only seven of the words on the list are found in a vocabulary list of a study book meant for children of Sakari’s age. The sentence structure provides some challenge as the language is not simplified.
When Sakari was asked if he understood the text he replied
“of course” and provided a translation of the first two points in the list. Furthermore, Sakari said that when he does not understand, Juha-Pekka helps. Juha-Pekka, a member of Sakari’s network, is eleven now. What is interesting in this “novice-expert relationship”
though, is that Juha-Pekka has studied French as his first foreign language. He is now on the fifth grade and has received formal instruction in the English language for half-a-year. In spite of the short studying career, in the games environment he is capable of solving different kinds of problems, using English as a tool and mediational means. From Sakari’s perspective Juha-Pekka is an expert in the language.
5.4 PRODUCING LANGUAGE
So far we have seen that Sakari and his friends are able to at least make meaning to text created by others in collaboration and with the help of visual resources. In other words, they seem to be able to solve problems posed by a text in connection with computer games.
But do they produce text? The researcher’s preliminary assumption was that they do not have sufficient skills to communicate in English. Sakari said in an interview that he had English friends in the environment. When asked, how he knows that these people come
from England and not from other parts of the world, as English is a lingua franca which might be used by other nationalities as well, Sakari replied that “I asked them where are you live and they said England”.
The videotaped gaming sessions provide evidence of active language production, as examples 5 and 6 demonstrate.
Example 5.
1 H: need money puuttuu rahhaa sit se pyytää sun antamaan rahhaa ((need money not enough money then she asks you to give money))
2 M: kuka sano sulle niin ((who said so))
3 H: joku bad love girl – paha rakkaus tyttö ((somebody called bad love girl))
4 S: sano sille lol jos näät ((say lol if you see her))
Hannu spots a character (called “bad love girl”), who is asking for money in the game. He comments this aloud in turn one. In the last turn, Sakari advises Hannu to reply “lol” to the character. From Sakari’s perspective ‘lol’ accomplishes a specific communicative function. When asked in an online interview what he means by
‘lol’, Sakari gave the following explanations.
Example 6.
1 M: mitä lol tarkottaa? ((what does lol mean?))
2 S: se tarkotaa niinkun et toinen on ihan pölja ((it means that the other is stupid))
3 S: tai si et toisel on surkeet levelit ((or that her/his levels are lousy))
The game-specific meaning of the abbreviation ’lol’ (laughing out loud) for Sakari is ‘et toinen on ihan pöljä’ (“the other is stupid”) and that ‘toisel on surkeet leveli’ (“levels are lousy”). Thus, on the basis of the observation and interview data we can conclude that English, even if not faultless and characterized by the use of abbreviations, is in active use by the young players. Chat exchanges such as “total lvl?”, “42” are clearly conversations, which
accomplish a communicative function. Even if these exchanges do not display sophisticated linguistic skills, they are a clear proof of interaction skills. What is more important, such successful activity in a foreign language environment is likely to support the growth of a positive language learner identity.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This article is part of a series of longitudinal case studies in the MAILL-project. These case studies are first steps towards identifying the focal social actions in everyday language learning.
The current article discussed the phenomenon with a particular focus on computer gaming. The question it addressed was, what kind of learning resources playing a networked computer-game offers from the perspective of language learning? To answer this question the case of Sakari, now a ten-year-old Finnish schoolboy, computer- gamer and a language learner, was analysed through diverse data and multiple modes (visual, spoken and written). Drawing on mediated discourse analysis (see Scollon 1998, 2001; Scollon &
Scollon 2003; Norris & Jones 2005), especially from an ethno- graphic perspective, the article discussed how technology and the English language became part of Sakari’s life, i.e. his historical body. In addition, the article examined what kind of resources Sa- kari draws upon in actual gaming situations. First, the analysis of Sakari’s networks around the game showed that computer gaming involves frequent collaboration. Second, the study gave evidence of the negotiation of new vocabulary knowledge at the computer.
Third, the visual resources provided by the game, and recognised by Sakari, were discussed. Fourth, it was shown that in addition to the short textual exchanges the actions around computer games involve reading longer and more complicated stretches of text. The article also gave evidence of active language production in relation to computer gaming.
It is evident that networked games and the actions they require provide a versatile language learning resource. As the study showed, in games the linguistic elements are strongly supported by visual cues, which is an important and utilised meaning resource for the language learner. Furthermore, the case of Sakari suggests that collaboration (the resources provided by the network) is another important resource for solving language problems in everyday contexts. The examples above show that Sakari is able to use the English language in the games environment resourcefully and creatively. The actions that he takes in the game require both comprehension as well as active production of the language. Clearly such learners as Sakari pose a challenge to foreign language education. The question to ask is, how formal education should take into account the everyday learning resources these learners so skilfully utilise as we also know, as Ermi, Mäyrä & Heliö (2004) among others have shown, that the digital divide between children and older generations is considerable?
REFERENCES
Beatty, K. 2003. Teaching and Researching Computer-Assisted Language Learning. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Belz, J. A. & S. L. Thorne (eds.) 2005. Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Cameron, D., E. Frazer, P. Harvey, B. Rampton & K. Richardson 1993.
Ethics, advocacy and empowerment: issues of method in researching language. Language & Communication 13, 31–94.
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary. Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Carter, R. & M. McCarthy (eds.) 1998. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14:
1, 133–156.
Ermi, L., F. Mäyrä & S. Heliö 2004. Pelien voima ja pelaamisen hallinta.
Lapset ja nuoret pelikulttuurien toimijoina. Hypermedialaboratorion verkkojulkaisuja – Hypermedia Laboratory Net Series 6.
Tampere: Tampereen yliopiston hypermedialaboratorio.
Gardner, R. & J. Wagner (eds.) 2004. Second Language Conversations.
London: Continuum.
Gee, P. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Gutierrez, K.D., P. Baquedano-López & C. Tejeda 1999. Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space.
Mind, Culture, and Activity 6: 4, 286–303.
Kangas, S. & T. Kuure (eds.) 2003. Teknologisoituva nuoruus.
Nuorisotutkimusverkosto/Nuorisotutkimusseura, julkaisuja 33.
Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Kasvi J.J. 2001. Lasten tietokonepelit. In M. Kangassalo & J. Suoranta (eds.) Lasten tietoyhteiskunta. Vammala: Tampere UP, 106–123.
Kinginger, C. 2000. Classroom talk: form, meaning, and activity theory. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (eds.) Meaning and Form: Multiple
Perspectives. Annual Volume of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 99–123.
Koschmann, T., R. Hall & N. Miyake (eds.) 2002. CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. (ed.). 2002. Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. London, Continuum.
Kramsch, C. 2000. Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning.
In J. P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford UP, 133–153.
Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen 2001. Multimodality. London: Arnold.
Kuure, L., M. Saarenkunnas & P. Taalas 2002. Negotiating a new culture of doing learning? A study of interaction in a web learning
environment with special focus on teacher approaches. Applied Language Studies – Apples 2: 1, 25–41.
Kuure, L., M. Saarenkunnas, P. Taalas & K. Vakkila 2003. Media creativity in multimodal environments – approaching literacy and language learning as situated practice. Paper presented at EUROCALL 2003, 3–6 September, 2003, Limerick, Ireland.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Lave, J. & E. Wenger 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Lemke, J. 2002. Language development and identity: multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives.
London: Continuum.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 1987. London: Longman.
Nation, P. & J. Coady 1988. Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.
McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
Nishida, K. 1985. Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness.
Tokyo: Maruzen.
Norris, S. & R. H. Jones 2005. Discourse in Action. Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Pavlenko, A. & A. Blackledge (eds.) 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Saarenkunnas, M. 2004. Multidimensional Participation in Polycontextual Computer-Supported Language Leaning. Doctoral dissertation.
University of Oulu. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Scientiae Rerum Socialium E 74.
Saarenkunnas, M. & L. Kuure 2004. Tools in solving language related problems. Bringing workplace practices into the language classroom.
In Mäkinen, K., P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Future Perspectives in Foreign Language Education. Oulun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan tutkimuksia 101, 152–166.
Saarenkunnas, M., L. Kuure & P. Taalas 2003. The polycontextual nature of computer-supported learning. Theoretical and methodological perspectives. ReCALL 15: 2, 202–216.
Sawchuk, P. 2003. Informal learning as a speech-exchange system:
implications for knowledge production, power and social transformation. Discourse and Society 14: 3, 291–307.
Scollon, R. 1998. Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction. A Study of News Discourse. London: Longman.
Scollon, R. 2001a. Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 139–183.
Scollon, R. 2001b. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London:
Routledge.
Scollon, R. 2002. Cross-cultural learning and other catastrophes. In C.
Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:
Ecological Perspectives. London, Continuum.
Scollon, R. & P. LeVine (eds.) 2004. Discourse and Technology.
Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP.
Scollon, R. & S. W. Scollon 2003. Discourses in Place. Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. & S. W. Scollon 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.
Taavitsainen, I. & P. Pahta 2003. English in Finland: globalisation, language awareness and questions of identity. English Today 19: 4, 3–15.
Van Lier, L. 2002. An ecological semiotic perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Perspectives. London, Continuum, 140–164.
Van Lier, L. 1998. The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness 7: 2 & 3, 128–145.
Vygotski, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Warschauer, M. & R. Kern (eds.) 2000. Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: Cambridge UP, 41–58.
Wasson, B., U. Hoppe & S. Ludvigsen (eds.) 2003. Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wertsch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
