Game-Based Learning in ESL Education

Investigating the Learning Opportunities of Commercial and Educational

Board Games
Word count: 23,340

Lisa De Spiegeleir
Student number: 01409571

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Stef Slembrouck

A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
‘Educatieve Master of Science in de talen: taal- en letterkunde’

Academic year: 2020 – 2021

De Spiegeleir 1
 PREAMBLE COVID-19

This master’s dissertation was written during the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and
2021. For this reason my research project was partially influenced by certain measures preventing the
spread of the coronavirus. More importantly, not many secondary schools in Flanders wanted (or were
allowed) to participate in my experiment since non-essential personnel was not allowed to visit
schools. Initially I had planned to conduct my experiment with multiple classes in various Flemish
schools. Around the time I would carry out the experiments (roughly October 2020 – January 2021),
the corona measures became more strict for all secondary schools in Flanders (especially in second
and third grade). As a result, schools decided to use their limited amount of physical lessons for
necessary learning activities only. Moreover, the schools I had contacted before were very reluctant to
allow people to visit the school when they did not work or study there. This caused a delay for some
months as I was waiting for the COVID-19 situation to improve. Eventually I could only manage to
execute the experiment with one class in one school (protected by a document stating that I was
essential personnel since I was completing my teaching practice in that school). This thus caused me
to have a much smaller sample of students participating in my experiment (as well as a less diverse
group). The long search for a school willing to participate in the research project has also caused some
delay in order to conduct my research. Nevertheless, I managed to finish my thesis in time and I am
extremely grateful to the principal(s) of this school who showed exceeding effort to enable me to carry
through with my research.

This preamble was written in consultation with the supervisor and was approved by both student and
supervisor.

De Spiegeleir 2
De Spiegeleir 3
 ABSTRACT

Many scholars suggested that board games can positively affect learning results when used for
educational purposes (e.g. Bontchev & Vassileva, 2010). Even though utilising board games is a well-
known and fairly frequently used method to stimulate the acquisition of language(s) (Faya Cerqueiro
& Chao Castro, 2015), many teachers have implemented games into their teaching practice on a rather
intuitive base (Soetaert et al., 2010). More research remains necessary to assess the educational
potential of various types of board games (cf. Bourgonjon et al., 2013). My study investigates whether
board games can assist ESL learners to improve vocabulary acquisition and grammar revision.
Moreover, the attitudes of Flemish students towards incorporating board games into ESL education are
examined. Eighteen Flemish students from the fifth year in secondary (general) education participated
in an experiment wherein they were randomly assigned to either a commercial board game or an
educational one. Before and after the gaming activity all participants filled in a language test.
Furthermore, they completed questionnaires and interviews. The results show that only the students
who played the educational game managed to slightly improve their scores (in all test components).
Students assigned to the commercial board game show no significant improvement, but still score
higher than the control group. In general, the students’ attitude regarding board games seemed positive
and open-minded. They recognised several benefits of board games such as the entertainment factor,
cooperative learning, authentic learning environment and improving communication skills. In terms of
the commercial board game, roleplay and fictional elements were mentioned as well. However,
students also considered it to be a challenge to consistently communicate in English and some students
struggled with game-based learning due to inexperience with board games. In conclusion, this research
provides support for the implementation of (particularly educational) board games into ESL education.

De Spiegeleir 4
De Spiegeleir 5
 DUTCH SUMMARY

Veel onderzoekers hebben al gesuggereerd dat bordspelen bepaalde leerresultaten op een

positieve manier kunnen beïnvloeden wanneer deze gebruikt worden voor educatieve doeleinden (e.g.
Bontchev & Vassileva, 2010). Ook al is het gebruik van bordspelen een welgekend en relatief vaak
gebruikte methode om taalverwerving te stimuleren (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015), hebben
veel leerkrachten tot dusver bordspelen slecht toegepast op hun lespraktijk op een eerder intuïtieve
manier (Soetaert et al., 2010). Verder onderzoek blijft dus noodzakelijk om het educatieve potentieel
van verschillende bordspelen te evalueren (cf. Bourgonjon et al., 2013). Mijn studie onderzoekt of
bordspelen ESL studenten kunnen ondersteunen om de verwerving van woordenschat en herhaling van
grammatica te verbeteren. Overigens werden ook de attitudes van Vlaamse studenten onderzocht over
het mogelijke gebruik van bordspelen in ESL onderwijs. Achttien Vlaamse studenten uit het vijfde
jaar van het secundair onderwijs (ASO) namen deel aan een experiment waarin ze willekeurig
geselecteerd werden om ofwel een commercieel bordspel te spelen ofwel een educatief spel. Voor en
na de spelactiviteit vulden alle participanten een taaltest in. Daarnaast vervolledigden ze ook
vragenlijsten en interviews. De resultaten tonen aan dat enkel de studenten die het educatieve bordspel
speelden erin zijn geslaagd om hun scores lichtjes te verbeteren (in alle testonderdelen). De studenten
die het commerciële bordspel speelden, ondervonden geen significante verbetering in hun scores.
Desalniettemin scoorden zij nog steeds hoger dan de controlegroep. In het algemeen bleken de
studenten met een open geest en positieve attitude te kijken naar het mogelijke gebruik van bordspelen
in ESL onderwijs. Ze erkenden verscheidene voordelen van bordspelen zoals plezier en ontspanning,
samenwerkend leren, authentieke leeromgeving and verbetering van communicatievaardigheden. In
het geval van het commerciële bordspel werden ook rollenspel en fictionele elementen in het spel
genoemd. In contrast beschouwden studenten het wel een uitdaging om consequent in het Engels te
communiceren. Daarnaast worstelden sommige studenten ook met het spel omdat ze slechts beperkte
ervaring hadden met bordspelen. Ter conclusie, dit onderzoek leidde tot bemoedigende resultaten om
(vooral educatieve) bordspelen toe te passen in het ESL onderwijs.

De Spiegeleir 6
De Spiegeleir 7
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout the whole process of writing this master’s dissertation, I have received support
from numerous people. Therefore, I would like to offer due recognition to the following people as I
am highly grateful for their support, motivation and effort.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Stef Slembrouck for his willingness to
support this research project. Throughout the whole process he consistently provided me excellent
counsel, offered constructive criticism and motivated me to continue with my ambitious project.
Second, I would like to express my gratitude towards Dr. Ludovic De Cuypere who enabled
me to complete the necessary statistics for my experiment. Without him I would not have been able to
finish the data analysis of this research project.
Third, I am very grateful towards Dr. Phil Benson from Macquarie University, Australia.
Attending his master’s course ‘Language Teaching and Learning Beyond the Classroom’ inspired me
to investigate learning opportunities beyond the traditional teaching methods in ESL education. The
illuminating content of his lessons gave me the sincere pleasure to learn more about this topic which
paved my way towards an interesting research question for my master’s dissertation.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude towards all students who were willing to
participate in my research. Thank you for your enthusiasm during the experiment and your trust and
openness during the interviews. It has been an absolute pleasure to conduct my research with all of
you. I truly appreciate your efforts.

De Spiegeleir 8
De Spiegeleir 9
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLIL = Content and Language Integrated Learning

CLT = Communicative Language Teaching

ESL = English as a Second Language

ESP = English for Specific Purposes

FI = Forbidden Island (commercial board game)

GYPOE= Get Your Piece Of English (educational board game)

M-RQ = Main Research Question

RQ = Research Question

TBLT = Task-Based Language Teaching

De Spiegeleir 10
De Spiegeleir 11
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Experiment: Completely Randomised Design 42

Figure 2. Experiment: All Steps Involved 46

Figure 3. Overview of Language Test Scores 48

Figure 4. The Average Scores for Each Group 49

Figure 5. The Evolution of the Average Scores for Each Group 50

Figure 6. Visualisation of General Test Scores for Each Participant 51

Figure 7. Visualisation of Subscore Vocabulary for Each Participant 52

Figure 8. Visualisation of Subscore Tenses (Grammar) for Each Participant 53

Figure 9. Visualisation of Subscore Quantifiers (Grammar) for Each Participant 54

Figure 10. Questionnaire: Learning Experience (3 Groups) 57

Figure 11. Questionnaire: Game Experience (2 Groups) 59

De Spiegeleir 12
De Spiegeleir 13
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1 From Broad-Ranging Exploration to Focused Research 20

1.1 Research Topic: Board Games and Learning Outcomes in ESL Education 20

1.1.1 Game-Based Learning in ESL Education 20

1.1.2 Learning Effects of Board Games 21

1.1.3 Categorisation of Learning Effects 22

1.1.4 Board Games: Opportunity or Waste of Time? 22

1.1.5 Game-Based Learning: Other Research Objectives 23

1.2. Mind the Gap: Opportunities for New Research 23

1.3. The Research Question(s) 24

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2. Games as Innovative Resources for Language Teaching 26

2.1 Game-Based Learning 26

2.2 Digital Games versus Board Games 26

2.3 Educational versus Commercial Board Games 27

2.4 Towards a Working Definition 28

2.4.1 Digital Games 28

2.4.2 Educational Games 28

2.4.3 Commercial Games 28

3. Important Concepts of Game-Based Learning in an Educational Context 29

3.1 Strengths of Board Games 29

3.1.1 Into another World: Fictional Aspects 29

De Spiegeleir 14
 3.1.2 Communication Skills 30

3.1.2.1 Social Interaction 30

3.1.2.2 Cooperative Learning 30

3.1.2.3 Roleplay 31

3.1.2.4 Significance for Language Teaching Methods 31

3.1.3 Authentic Learning Experience 32

3.1.4 Motivation and Entertainment Factor 32

3.1.4.1 Motivation 32

3.1.4.2 Well-being and Involvement 33

3.1.5 Memory Practice 33

3.1.6 Logical Thinking and Problem-solving Skills 34

3.2 Challenges of Board Games 34

3.2.1 Insufficient Amount of Language Input 34

3.2.2 Necessity of Explicit Feedback 35

3.2.3 Negligence of Language 36

3.2.4 Not All Students Like Games 36

3.2.5 Little Acceptance of Games as Education Tools 37

3.2.5.1 Advanced Technology and Limited IT Infrastructure 37

3.2.5.2 Limited Personal Experience with Games 38

3.2.5.3 The Notion of Complexity 38

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

4. Methodology 40

4.1 Research Aim 40

4.2 Description of the Two Board Games 40

4.2.1 The Educational Board Game: ‘Get your Piece of English’ 40

De Spiegeleir 15
 4.2.2 The Commercial Board Game: ‘Forbidden Island’ 41

4.3 Research Design 42

4.3.1 Procedure: The Experimental Design 42

4.3.2 Research Components 43

4.3.2.1 Lesson Materials 43

4.3.2.2 Language Tests 43

4.3.2.3 Playing the Games: Different Groups 44

4.3.2.4 Perceptions and Attitudes of Game-Based Learning in ESL 44

Education

4.3.3 Summary: Overview of the Experimental Design 45

4.4 Description of the Participants 46

CHAPTER 4: Results

5. Results 48

5.1 Language Tests 48

5.1.1 Average Scores 49

5.1.2 The Sign Test 50

5.1.2.1 Visualisation of General Test Scores 51

5.1.2.2 Visualisation of Test Scores per Test Component 52

5.2 Interviews 54

CHAPTER 5: Discussion

6. Discussion 56

6.1 Language Tests 56

6.2 Questionnaires 57

6.3 Interviews 60

De Spiegeleir 16
 6.3.1 Self-Perceived Learning Effects 61

6.3.2 Beneficial Components of Board Games in ESL Education 63

6.3.2.1 Entertainment Factor 63

6.3.2.2 Communication 65

6.3.2.3 Cooperative Learning 65

6.3.2.4 Fictional World, Roleplay and Authentic Learning Experience 67

6.3.3 Challenges of Board Games in ESL Education 68

6.3.3.1 Negligence of Target Language 68

6.3.3.2 Limited Experience with Games 69

6.4 Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 6: Limitations and Further Research

7. Limitations and Further Research 71

CHAPTER 7: Conclusion

8. Conclusion 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Information Sheet Participant 87

Appendix B: Lesson Materials 88

Appendix C: Lesson Materials: Correction Key 100

Appendix D: Language Tests: Pretest and Posttest 102

Appendix E: Language Tests: Correction Key 106

Appendix F: Questionnaire 108

De Spiegeleir 17
Appendix G: Data Analysis: Statistics (Language Tests and Questionnaires) 111

Appendix H: Observation Notes 128

Appendix I: Structured Interviews: Questions 130

Appendix J: Interview Transcripts 133

(23340 words)

De Spiegeleir 18
De Spiegeleir 19
 CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1 From Broad-Ranging Exploration to Focused Research

1.1 Research Topic: Board Games and Learning Outcomes in ESL Education

1.1.1 Game-Based Learning in ESL Education

Several studies indicate that games can have a positive impact on learning results when used
for educational purposes (cf. Batson & Feinberg, 2006; Bontchev & Vassileva, 2010; Connolly, Boyle,
MacArthur, Hainey & Boyle, 2012; Ferreira, Pereira, Anacleto, Carvalho & Carelli, 2008; Prensky,
2001, 2006; Salen & Zimmerman, 2003). In order to assess how games can offer support in achieving
(both cognitive and affective) learning outcomes (Bellotti, Kapralos, Lee, Moreno-Ger & Berta, 2013),
many studies have been conducted in the last decennia. However, research on the learning outcomes of
game-based learning stumbled on some methodological complications (All, Castellar & Van Looy,
2014; Hays, 2005), especially within the area of digital gaming. For a full discussion and overview of
the challenges within this research area, I refer to the article of All, Castellar and Van Looy (2016).
My own study will focus on the learning outcomes of board games that are utilised as
supplemental learning resources to teach English as a second language (ESL) in secondary schools.
Wu, Chen and Huang (2014: p. 210) state that ‘the impact of technology in globalisation has
accelerated English into a powerful language’ tool to communicate worldwide. Wu et al. (2014: p.
210) hypothesise that traditional English teaching in primary and secondary schools do not prepare
students enough to be able to fluently and professionally utilise English on a high proficiency level
which is a necessity in the twenty-first century. This observation has led to more research about
alternative, informal methods that can prepare learners more thoroughly by practising English in
authentic contexts. Increasingly, English learning materials and programmes appear online (usually
animated or communicative) to support people in improving their English which indicates that
‘informal learning has been more acquirable and flexible within context relevance’ (Wu et al., 2014: p.
210). However, it remains debatable whether informal learning might be superior to formal learning
(Wu et al., 2014: p. 210).
Nonetheless, scholars agree it is indisputable that schools nowadays no longer focus on
unilateral, superficial knowledge transfer (cf. Wu et al., 2014: p. 210). Schools seem to employ more
diverse teaching methods that focus on acquiring more practical skills and know-how (Wu et al., 2014:

De Spiegeleir 20
p. 210). According to Wu et al. (2014: p. 210), schools ‘provide an orderly and well-supported’
learning environment which implies that they have a ‘direct and decisive impact’ on language
learning. Moreover, teachers play a pivotal role in selecting suitable learning materials and
determining which methodology will be used. Therefore, research remains vital to assess the
effectiveness of contemporary teaching methods and tools, such as board games, to assure that the
learning activities are real-life connected, intriguing and challenging.

1.1.2 Learning Effects of Board Games

According to Van Oers and Janssen-Vos (1992), children learn via playing since a very young
age. However, simply letting children play freely is not enough to expect significant learning results.
Van Oers and Janssen-Vos (1992) recommend that children and youngsters should be exposed to
elaborate games with clear rules, such as movement games (e.g. hide and seek), roleplays, construction
games (e.g. Planet Coaster) or board games.
In education, the main purpose evidently is to reach specific learning targets (Soetaert,
Bourgonjon & Rutten, 2010). Using board games is a well-known and fairly frequently used method
to stimulate the acquisition of language(s) (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 68). In general,
many teachers have implemented educational games into their teaching practice on a rather intuitive
base (Soetaert et al., 2010). Educational games, also known as ‘serious games’, became an important
part of how teachers introduced more variety in their lesson activities (Dormann & Biddle, 2008).
These educational games are specifically designed to support educational purposes and thus aim to
teach a subject, expand knowledge about a specific topic, to stimulate general development or to
encourage learners in drills or other linguistic exercises (Neve & Valcke, 2014: p. 10). According to
Faya Cerqueiro and Chao Castro (2015: p. 69), the implementation of games can certainly be ‘a
valuable resource in second language teaching’. Teachers may create their own educational games
(with specific intentions or pedagogical principles behind the design) or they might resort to available
commercial board games, possibly adapting them to the desired learning targets (Faya Cerqueiro &
Chao Castro, 2015: p. 68).
Harris (2009: p. 25) emphasises the importance of aligning games with the curriculum targets
in order to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Following his line of thought, educational board
games could be expected to be most effective since these games directly aim to attain predefined
learning outcomes (Michael & Chen, 2006). While there is more uncertainty about the learning results
of commercial board games, Harris (2009: p. 25) states that commercial board games are still much
more effective than relying on digital games. Since a digital game cannot easily be adapted (e.g. to
instructional needs), it could be quite challenging to align these games with the curriculum.
In conclusion, within this research area it remains a recurring question what types of board

De Spiegeleir 21
games could be most useful in an educational context: educational or commercial board games (cf. De
Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013; Squire & Barab, 2004; Van Eck, 2006).

1.1.3 Categorisation of Learning Effects

Research has increasingly explored the potential of implementing games into teaching
practice. Board games are one of these game types that have known a big revival and have become
increasingly popular again, both at home and at school (Neve & Valcke, 2014: p. 10). Especially
commercial designer board games, more modern and intellectually challenging, have known the
biggest come-back (Neve & Valcke, 2014: p. 1; cf. also Harris, 2009: pp. 24-25). The learning effects
of board games can differ greatly from game to game (All, Plovie, Castellar & Van Looy, 2017).
Connolly et al. (2012) recognise the following divisions in learning effects: behavioural effects
(including change in motivation), learning effects (e.g. knowledge and language acquisition), general
(versus specific) effects and intentional (versus unintentional) effects. Connolly et al. (2012) add that
learners may also experience beneficial psychological effects.
De Grove, Van Looy and Merchant (2013: p. 24) restrict the categorisation of learning
outcomes to three major components: skill-based, affective and cognitive learning effects. First, skill-
based learning includes specific (often hands-on) exercises that request learners to effectively execute
a specific task (De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: p. 24). Second, affective learning outcomes
refer to positive effects on motivation, learners’ attitudes and perceptions, as well as imparting values
to learners (Kraiger, Ford & Salas, 1993; Rovai, Wighting, Baker & Grooms, 2009). Third, cognitive
learning outcomes include gaining knowledge about a topic, comprehending theoretical concepts,
developing skills or improving cognitive capabilities (e.g. logical thinking, increasing memory
capacity) (Rovai, 2002).

1.1.4 Board Games: Opportunity or Waste of Time?

Most studies agree that board games can have a positive effect on the learning results of
pupils, no matter which age group (cf. Cruickhank & Telfer, 2001; Harris, 2009; Williams, 2007). A
major benefit of board games is that they can easily support other educational methods (e.g. as an
engaging exercise or as revision material) (cf. Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015; Williams, 2007).
Nowadays, games are often part of the teacher’s strategy to work towards the objectives of the
curriculum (Dormann & Biddle, 2008) as they allow leaners to practise skills, learn specific learning
content and improve their capabilities (Harris, 2009: p. 30).
On the other hand, Cruickhank and Telfer (2001) believe board games to have no greater
learning effect than any other method. In terms of learning outcomes, Cruickhank and Telfer (2001)

De Spiegeleir 22
consider games to be equally effective in reaching specific learning targets. However, De Groot (2001)
gives a more nuanced version by stating that different board games could have different learning
effects. While educational board games mainly aim to attain cognitive learning targets (since these
games are aligned with the curriculum), commercial board games might have more potential to
improve social skills (e.g. interaction and communication skills) and could be more entertaining (De
Groot, 2001). The on-going discussion in existing literature thus confirms that more research on
learning effects of specific board games is essential.

1.1.5 Game-Based Learning: Other Research Objectives

Researchers have examined a broad spectrum of games and their potential to support
educational purposes. More recently, there has been a major interest in game and learning experiences
of digital games as well (De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: p. 23). Existing literature displays
‘a broad spectrum of research objectives ranging from constructing a scale to measure game
experiences’ (De Kort and Ijsselsteijn, 2008) to define and uncover ‘different dimensions and
determinants of enjoyment’ (De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: p. 23). Other scholars examined
how game experience can be manipulated by specific aspects related to playing games (De Grove, Van
Looy & Merchant, 2013: p. 23). For example, the ‘relation between game experience and the social
context (De Kort & IJsselsteijn, 2008), the effect of performance on enjoyment’ or the ‘relation
between identification and game experience’ (as cited in De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: p.
23). Despite the diversity in studies, most scholars agree that playing games provoke a strong feeling
of joy and excitement (De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: pp. 23-24).

1.2. Mind the Gap: Opportunities for New Research

The research area of game-based learning is a relatively recent one. Increasingly, scholars
started to critically assess the efficiency of traditional teaching methods (cf. Harris, 2009; Wu et al.,
2014) and examine the potential of other more progressive teaching resources, such as board games
(cf. Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015; Harris, 2009). Even though most
studies agree that learners might benefit from game-based learning, it remains unclear how exactly
games lead to the desired learning effects (Bellotti et al., 2013; Connolly et al., 2012).
Using board games is a well-known and fairly frequently used teaching method to stimulate
the acquisition of languages (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 68). Nonetheless, existing
literature remains divided on which types of board games have most potential to utilise for educational
purposes. One of the main questions in the debate is whether educational games or commercial games

De Spiegeleir 23
lead to the best learning results. Since educational games are specifically designed to support learners
in achieving certain curriculum targets, many researchers recommend this game type for educational
purposes (cf. All et al., 2017; Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015). On the other hand, commercial
board games can also be valuable resources because this type of game seems to encourage more social
interaction, could be more appealing and might increase students’ motivation to engage in the activity
(cf. De Groot, 2001; Harris, 2009). Despite the plethora of studies, research has been slow to provide
hard empirical evidence of the educational potential of different types of board games (cf. Bourgonjon
et al., 2013; Hays, 2005; Papastergiou, 2009; Wrzesien & Alcañiz Raya, 2010).
In conclusion, more research is required to understand which types of board game (educational
or commercial) will result in the most beneficial learning outcomes. Additionally, it could be valuable
to investigate the attitudes of students about the implementation of board games into language
education because ‘insights gained from a user-centric perspective are largely absent (Looi, See, Iris &
Aria, 2011)’ in research (as cited in De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2011: p. 129). This is why I
decided to set up an experimental study that compares the learning outcomes of two board games (an
educational and a commercial one) and examines the game experiences of students. The selection
process of the two board games is based on existing literature: the educational one is developed by
Faya Cerqueiro and Chao Castro (2015) and the commercial one is randomly selected (to create more
contrast with educational board games).

1.3. The Research Question(s)

My study includes three sub-questions in order to thoroughly build up towards finding an

answer on my main research question (M-RQ).

M-RQ: Which board game (the educational one ‘Get your piece of English’ or the commercial one
‘Forbidden island’) leads to the best learning results in terms of English grammar and vocabulary,
and what are the attitudes of Flemish students towards incorporating these board games into ESL
education?

A first sub-question evaluates the learning outcomes of each board game and should thus clarify which
board game leads to the highest learning results.

RQ1: Can playing board games assist learners of English as a second language (ESL) to improve
vocabulary acquisition and revise grammar?

A second sub-question focuses on the attitudes and perceptions of the participants. This part should
investigate whether game and learning experiences may differ between participants, potentially
depending on the board game they played.

De Spiegeleir 24
RQ2: What are the attitudes of students towards incorporating board games into ESL education?

A third and last sub-question examines the value of board games as educational resources in ESL
education.

RQ3: Can board games be used as valuable, supplementary resources in ESL teaching?

In chapter three, methodology, I will explain how this study is set up in order to answer the
research question(s). In the next chapter, the existing literature on this topic will be discussed.

De Spiegeleir 25
 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2. Games as Innovative Resources for Language Teaching

2.1 Game-Based Learning

Using games for educational purposes is a traditional and well-known teaching method to
stimulate the acquisition of language(s) (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 68). Increasingly,
teachers advocate for the implementation of more games and resources that can support students in the
acquisition of specific learning content, especially within foreign language education (cf. Faya
Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015; Macedonia, 2005). Using games as resources in a learning context
has been referred to as ‘gamification’ (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 69). Kapp (2012: pp.
15-16) defines this concept as ‘a careful and considered application of game thinking to solving
problems and encouraging learning’ by incorporating all the required game elements. Alternatively,
other scholars refer to this phenomenon as ‘edutainment’ or ‘game-based learning’ (cf. Faya Cerqueiro
& Chao Castro, 2015; Gerber, 2014). Within this paper, I will refer to this concept as ‘game-based
learning’.

2.2 Digital Games versus Board Games

Some scholars prefer using digital games to support foreign language acquisition. To
exemplify, some studies have suggested the following games to support English lessons (for non-
native speakers): the platform Mingoville, ideal for young learners of English (Meyer & Sørensen,
2009); computer simulation games, such as The Sims, to expand one’s English lexicon (Miller &
Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008) or revision games to improve one’s general English, mostly
targeting English at university level (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015). Chuang (2007) states that
the entertaining component of digital games increases the intrinsic motivation of players. Thus, digital
games have much potential as an additional resource to facilitate learning (Chuang, 2007). Gee (2003)
and Prensky (2003) argue that education will be more effective by taking advantage of the
motivational aspect of digital games.
Other researchers recommend using board games since these resources have high potential to

De Spiegeleir 26
stimulate students to achieve the predefined learning outcomes (All et al., 2017). All et al. (2017)
argue that board games assure that students have acquired the desired knowledge and skills when they
complete the game successfully (without the necessary know-how, completion would not have been
possible). All et al. (2017) consider board games to have more potential in education, opposed to
traditional lessons (which might be considered boring or dull) or digital games (which may be too
extensive or not specifically leading to the desired learning outcomes). In contrast to digital games,
board games can more easily be customised to the desired teaching level, theme, target audience and
so on which is another advantage when using games for educational purposes.

2.3 Educational versus Commercial Board Games

Within the plethora of board games, All et al. (2017) state that educational board games could
be more useful than commercial games. Educational board games are specifically designed (or altered)
with certain learning outcomes in mind which ascertains that these games will support players in their
learning process (All et al., 2017). Examples of such educational board games are Wisdom Roulette
which follows a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao
Castro, 2015: pp. 73-75) or Athletic Mind Quiz which combines a CLIL approach and English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) teaching methodology (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: pp. 75-77). On
the other hand, commercial board games are also often considered to be valuable resources in second
language teaching (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 69). De Grove, Van Looy and Merchant
(2013: p. 24) hypothesise that educational games might be more appealing due to the adapted content
and matching learning outcomes, opposed to commercial games that often create a more attractive
story with captivating audio-visual elements (but perhaps with less obvious learning goals).
To conclude, scholars thus remain divided which types of board game might best support
language learning: specialised ‘language-learning games or commercial off-the-shelf games’ (De
Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: pp. 22-25). In other words, more research is necessary to predict
which types of board games (educational or commercial ones) have most potential to evoke a better
game experience and support language learning.

De Spiegeleir 27
 2.4 Towards a Working Definition

Zimmerman (2004: p. 160) describes a game as a voluntary and interactive activity, in which
one or more players must follow certain rules that constrain their behaviour, but allows the game to
enact ‘an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome’. Soetaert et al. (2010: p. 158) add that a
board game is usually carried out to relax and amuse the participants by incorporating entertaining
elements such as imagination, competition and attractive visual elements. In the section below I will
endeavour to define the various types of games that will be discussed in this paper.

2.4.1 Digital Games

Digital games are games played online or on an electronical device (Godwin-Jones, 2014: p.
9). Digital games are often relatively complicated, interactive programmes that predominantly aim to
amuse players (Godwin-Jones, 2014: pp. 9-11).

2.4.2 Educational Games

Educational games or ‘serious games’ can be explained as games that are designed (or altered)
in order to achieve specific learning targets or certain curricular content, often by including activities
that are ‘fun, enjoyable and challenging’ (Von Wangenheim, Savi & Borgatto, 2012: p. 291).
Educational games may teach a ‘certain subject, expand concepts, reinforce development’ or improve
a specific skill (Von Wangenheim et al., 2012: p. 288). However, the primary goal of educational
games is always education, not entertainment (Godwin-Jones, 2014: p. 11).

2.4.3 Commercial Games

Commercial games can be specified as ‘off-the-shelf (entertainment) games’ (Michael &

Chen, 2006; Zyda, 2005). The primary goal of commercial games is entertainment, not education
(Godwin-Jones, 2014; Michael & Chen, 2006; Zyda, 2005). Commercial games can still have
educational value though, including benefits like enhancement of digital literacy (Godwin-Jones,
2014: p. 11), building self-confidence, reinforcing socialisation with other players (Arnseth, 2006;
Steinkueler, 2007), peer collaboration, increased motivation or raised interest in a specific subject
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007: p. 84). However, Godwin-Jones (2014: pp. 11-12) warns that curricular
integration of commercial games might prove difficult.

De Spiegeleir 28
3. Important Concepts of Game-Based Learning in an Educational Context

In the following sections, I will discuss strengths (cf. section 3.1) and challenges (cf. section
3.2) of game-based learning. Simultaneously, I will introduce important concepts that reoccur in
existing literature about game-based learning.

3.1 Strengths of Board Games

3.1.1 Into another World: Fictional Aspects

Games and similar teaching resources (e.g. quizzes, roleplay) were originally incorporated into
education for young children (cf. Alsina, 2006). Through time, more and more scholars (cf. Ariel,
2002; Bettleheim, 1987; Hughes, 2009; Vigotsky, 1978) considered these amusing resources to be
eminent techniques to let young children adapt to reality and encourage them to solve problems
(which may be more difficult without games). Alsina (2006: p. 13) argues that play is an ideal bridge
between fantasy and reality for children. However, the ‘action of playing cannot be regarded as
intrinsic only of infant learning and development’ (Moyles, 1989: p. 22) as it is present in daily life of
both children and adults (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 68). Consequently, a major strength
of games can be the creation of a new (sometimes virtual) world, full of fictional aspects, that allow
players to truly indulge into the story (All et al., 2017). The fictional world both motivates people to
play and encourages the players to persevere in order to complete the given tasks within a game (All et
al., 2017).
Recently, some researchers started to examine whether the context could influence one’s game
experience. For instance, De Grove, Neys, Van Looy and Jansz (2011) state that the context wherein
games are played (e.g. at home versus at school), affects the eventual game and learning experience. In
their explorative study the effect of context seemed small to moderate, but still showed that ‘people
playing at home reported significantly higher scores on enjoyment, perceived learning and
identification’ (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 204). Soetaert et al. (2010) however believe that it may
not be the location that influences the game experience, but rather whether people feel that they are in
a safe learning environment. A feeling of safety will often be applicable to the home environment, but
could equally be the case in other locations as long as it functions as a safe learning environment to the
players (e.g. not feeling judged when making mistakes). Nevertheless, this consideration has only been
made relatively recently in the research area. More studies are necessary in order to make reliable
inferences about the impact of this variable. It thus remains unsure to what extent game experience
depends on location and context.

De Spiegeleir 29
 3.1.2 Communication Skills

3.1.2.1 Social Interaction

Castle (1998) hypothesises that board games allow learners to develop their social skills. All et
al. (2017) state that games can be particularly useful for educational purposes because of the
interaction aspect. They (All et al., 2017) explain that students might quickly stop paying attention in
conventional lessons, but that games ascertain that students will have acquired certain skills and
knowledge in order to have successfully completed the gaming activity. Moreover, board games can
be customised by the teacher which assures that students practise at the appropriate level (All et al.,
2017). All et al. (2017) conclude that these characteristics promote the cooperation and social
interaction between learners. Additionally, Von Wangenheim et al. (2012) argue that this social
interaction leads to a higher level of excitement and pleasure. Harris (2009: p. 25) adds that most
modern board games require players to share new understandings with each other and make decisions
together. This assures that players have to work together ‘as members of a social and intellectual
network’ of learners (Harris, 2009: p. 25). Herrington, Reeves and Oliver (2010) argue that
collaborative games will likely improve social skills the most.

3.1.2.2 Cooperative Learning

The previous section on social interaction (cf. section 3.1.2.1) leads us to the notion of
cooperative learning. In cooperative learning, all players need to do their part and collaborate with
each other in order to successfully complete a given task or challenge (e.g. winning a game) (Faya
Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 70). Cooperative learning has been proven beneficial for various
subjects (Pujolàs Maset, 2008: pp. 303-304), but McCafferty, Jacobs and DaSilva Iddings (2006) show
that cooperative learning can be extremely successful in language education (independent of the
language level). McCafferty et al. (2006) partially ascribe the positive results to the large amount of
available techniques and diverse activities. In existing literature there seems to be a consensus that a
sufficient amount of social interaction is an absolute necessity to facilitate cooperative learning (cf. De
Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 200). It thus remains important that games do ‘not prevent or inhibit social
interaction’ in any way (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 200). When implementing board games into
the language classroom, the learning environment should thus encourage as much social interaction as
possible (Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003; Nastasi & Clements, 1993).
On the other hand, some researchers believe that not collaboration, but competition is the
crucial factor that leads to positive learning outcomes. (e.g. All et al., 2017; Cohen, 1994; Faya
Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015). De Groot (2001), however, preaches a balanced perspective by
arguing that both teamwork and competition may simultaneously stimulate learners to work together
and motivate them to do effort to complete the given tasks (cf. also Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro,

De Spiegeleir 30
2015: p. 70). De Groot (2001) concludes that what truly leads to success is connecting the learning
targets to the board game of choice. Presumably, this connection will be more self-evident with
educational board games (above all, those are originally designed with educational purposes in mind).

3.1.2.3 Roleplay

Roleplay is another component that occurs in several games which offers learning
opportunities in terms of communication skills. Originally, roleplay mostly occurred as a prominent
characteristic of digital games (cf. Godwin-Jones, 2014; Ranalli, 2008). Nowadays, board games
increasingly incorporate roleplay by including in-game roles and social roles while playing the game
(Harris, 2009: pp. 24-26). An interesting study from De Kort and Ijsselsteijn (2008) illustrates an
arsenal of possible social roles (e.g. co-player, opponent, spectator) and discusses the variety of
experiences players might have, depending on their role in the game. Other researchers investigated
(predominantly via surveys) how roleplay in games might motivate learners to play and why roles are
important within games (cf. Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Griffiths, Davies & Chappell, 2003; Van Looy,
Courtois, De Vocht & De Marez, 2012; Yee, 2006). For example, players seem to report a higher
sense of identification if games incorporate social roles (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 205).
Consequently, players with a higher degree of identification mostly achieve higher learning outcomes
(De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 205).
Some experimental studies have manipulated the social context to examine how this could
affect the game experience (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 200). For example, Weibel, Wissmath,
Habegger, Steiner and Groner (2008) experimented with human versus computer-controlled opponents
in digital gaming. People playing against other humans felt more present in the moment, expressed
more joy while playing and indicated that the game had a better flow (Weibel et al., 2008). This might
indicate that board games have an advantage (opposed to digital gaming) since board games are
usually played with human company. Nonetheless, De Grove, Neys et al. (2011: p. 200) note that
educational board games impose ‘certain limitations regarding the possible social and spatial
configurations in which such games are used’. Since educational board games are specifically
designed for use in an educational context, these games may have different spatial characteristics and
different social roles (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 200). Educational, commercial and digital games
can incorporate different roleplays, depending on the design and the context wherein they are used.

3.1.2.4 Significance for Language Teaching Methods

Next, this paragraph will focus on the importance of communication aspects in games,
especially when applied to language education. Wu et al. (2014, p. 215) recommend that the way
teachers select and implement games into language education should ideally be based on
communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT). Important

De Spiegeleir 31
characteristics of CLT are real-world simulation, authenticity and manageable tasks (Brown, 2007).
TBLT aims to give meaningful tasks to students within an authentic language scenario (e.g. visiting a
doctor, playing a receptionist in a hotel) (Harmer, 2015). Many games create an authentic learning
experience by creating a stimulating design, incorporating historical elements and using themes, rules
and graphics (Wu et al., 2014: p. 215). Therefore, board games have much potential to be original and
valuable teaching supplements in language education (Wu et al., 2014).

3.1.3 Authentic Learning Experience

Wu et al. (2014, p. 210) state that traditional teaching methods often narrowly focus on
transferring theoretical knowledge and teaching abstract concepts. Some students regard this is as ‘dull
and irrelevant’ (Wu et al., 2014: p. 210) because the learning content seems to have few connections to
real life (cf. also Brown, 2007; Collins & Brown, 1988; Herrington, 1997; Hirsch, 2010-2011, Miller
& Gildea, 1987). This is why it remains important to search for more progressive teaching methods
that stimulate students to put theory into practice by creating a more authentic learning experience.
Board games are one of these innovative tools which create a more natural, authentic learning
environment (Harris, 2009: p. 25). Harris (2009: p. 25) argues that board games are likely to be more
effective than traditional lessons as the last can only allow students to offer artificial practice with
conventional worksheets. Krashen (1982) has since long emphasised that language improvement
depends on opportunities for meaningful interaction in the target language, preferably in an authentic
context. Meaningful interaction refers to speaking opportunities wherein learners of a foreign language
can communicate in a natural way, generally in informal settings (Garcia-Carbonell, Rising, Montero
& Wats, 2001).

3.1.4 Motivation and Entertainment Factor

3.1.4.1 Motivation

The level of entertainment directly influences motivation (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro,
2015: pp. 70-71). Within language education motivation is a crucial element, particularly distinctive in
cooperative learning (Dörnyei, 1997; Jacobs & McCafferty, 2006). Cooperative learning may increase
motivation by intrinsic elements (e.g. responsibility or confidence in own abilities) rather than
extrinsic ones (e.g. evaluation) (Brecke & Jensen, 2007). Sharon and Shaulov (1990) observe a
connection between motivation and learning outcomes. For instance, students seem to display more
perseverance, do more effort to complete challenges and improve their learning results (Sharon &
Shaulov, 1990). All et al. (2017) add that educational games deliberately incorporate entertaining
elements in order to motivate students to participate in the learning activity and to achieve the learning
targets.

De Spiegeleir 32
 3.1.4.2 Well-being and Involvement

Various researchers observe a connection between board games on the one hand and well-
being and involvement on the other hand (Ketsman, 2013; Laevers & Depondt, 2008; Laevers et al.,
2008). In general, playing board games result in experiencing more pleasure (opposed to traditional
education) (Brougère, 1999; Cruickshank & Telfer, 2001; De Groot, 2001; Janssen-Vos, 2006) which
seems to be an indication of a higher well-being (Laevers & Depondt, 2008) and increased
involvement (Laevers et al., 2008).
The concept ‘involvement’ refers to the intensity of an activity that demands a certain amount
of energy and concentration in order to fully indulge into an activity (Bertrands & Laevers, no date: p.
3; Laevers & Depondt, 2008: p. 9). Highly involved players often forget time while playing because
they are entertained which allows them to persist in continuing the game for a long time (Laevers &
Depondt, 2008: p. 9).
‘Well-being’ is a multidimensional aspect that has been defined by certain characteristics, such
as happiness, social relations, a feeling of involvement, academic self-concept, the pedagogical
climate, one’s standard of living and a shared understanding between people (Pollard & Lee, 2003: pp.
64-66).
Well-being and involvement are the foundations of learning and development (Janssen-Vos,
2006; Laevers, 1992, 2002) which can be supported by a variety of games (e.g. board games,
construction games, simulation games) (Laevers & Depondt, 2008). While some researchers consider
well-being to be the fundamental condition to improve learning outcomes (cf. Engels, Aelterman, Van
Petegem & Schepens, 2004), others value high involvement as this may stimulate development the
most (Simonis, 1995). In conclusion, Cruickshank and Telfer (2001) state that assuring the
entertainment factor within a game will always be a major benefit. De Grove, Neys et al. (2011: p.
200) recommend that teachers should always select board games based on potential learning effects as
well as their level of entertainment.

3.1.5 Memory Practice

Faya Cerqueiro and Chao Castro (2015: p. 69) found out that memory capacity can increase by
playing games, especially educational board games or quiz format games. These types of games can be
designed as a review lesson since the activities can easily be adjusted to the desired target audience,
required level and learning content of choice (Faya Cerqueiro and Chao Castro, 2015: p. 69).
Roediger, Agarwal, Mcdaniel and Mcdermott (2011) agree that learners’ memory capacity might
benefit from playing games, if done frequently. Landrum (2007) states that games can function as
successful strategies to increase retrieval and retention of contents which may eventually strengthen
the memory. Researchers often refer to this effect as ‘active retrieval’ or the ‘testing effect’ (cf. Faya
Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008).

De Spiegeleir 33
 3.1.6 Logical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Harris (2009: p. 24) argues that modern designer board games (meaning contemporary
commercial ones) involve complex thought processes that challenge players to think critically. Players
engage in ‘an enquiry-based research process by applying critical-thinking skills’ (e.g. analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and organisation) in order to interpret events in the game, solve problems, come
to new understandings and create new knowledge (Harris, 2009: p. 24). Furthermore, learners have to
participate and collaborate as members of a group in order to complete the game (Harris, 2009, p. 25).
Castle (1998) believes that games could improve logical thinking skills as well. In short, modern
commercial games seem to challenge all players in various ways that could improve their ability to
think logically, be critical and solve problems.

3.2 Challenges of Board Games

3.2.1 Insufficient Amount of Language Input

Another issue with board games could be that games might not offer a sufficient amount of
language input (Wu et al., 2014: p. 210). ESL learners are inevitably in disadvantageous circumstances
as they cannot practise English in daily life, nor do they have enough natural language input (Wu et
al., 2014: p. 210). Wu et al. (2014: p. 210) state that unfortunately ‘the trend of language assessment
including weekly practice, tests, exams and coursework’ too often follows a behaviouristic tendency
that perhaps focuses too much ‘on accumulative amount of vocabulary and form’. These traditional
methods might have implicitly encouraged irrelevant learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989;
Bransford, Franks, Vye & Sharwood, 1989; Moseley, 2012). Brown (2007) states that students often
express difficulty understanding the relevance of certain subjects or some specific learning materials.
This might indicate that the traditional teaching methods result in low intrinsic motivation (Brown,
2007).
This is why board games could be a valuable supplement for the language classroom (e.g. to
increase motivation, to entertain or to create a more authentic learning experience). When applying
board games to language education, one should secure considerable amounts of comprehensible input
on the one hand (i.e. language elements just above the current language level of the student) and
enough opportunities for comprehensible output on the other hand (i.e. understandable language
content produced by the learner) (Krashen, 1982). Even though comprehensible input remains
important to stimulate language learning, the amount of new linguistic features should not be
exaggerated. If language learners are overwhelmed while playing, this could have the opposite effect
and might completely hinder language acquisition.
Over the past few years, most scholars came to the consensus that much conscious attention is

De Spiegeleir 34
required to notice formal aspects of a second language (De Grove, Cornillie, Van Looy and Merchant,
2013). Only when language learners are able to notice these formal aspects (DeKeyser, 2005), they
may become candidates for intake, according to Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990).
This is why some scholars argue that many commercial games are unsuitable for language learning,
especially if these games contain roleplay or adventurous elements that include a large amount of text
(De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013). DeHaan, Reed and Kuwada (2010) explain that these games
possibly do not create sufficient opportunities for ‘noticing’ since the large amount of language items
that learners need to process within a limited time might exceed their cognitive capacities.
In contrast, some experimental studies (cf. Godwin-Jones, 2014; Harris, 2009; Miller &
Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008) have found that certain commercial games could benefit from
making alterations that enhance the possibility of noticing (e.g. highlighting certain structures, offering
explanatory notes, adding translations or word descriptions) (De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, DeHaan et al. (2010) still contradict this by stating that game interactivity, highly
present in commercial games, may hinder vocabulary learning. It is important to note that the literary
discussion on this topic mostly criticises the learning potential of commercial digital games, but
focuses less on obstructions within commercial board games. The exact potential of commercial board
games thus remains slightly ignored in existing literature.

3.2.2 Necessity of Explicit Feedback

In addition, it is important to consider the amount of feedback learners get while playing the
game, especially within language education (De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013: pp. 48-52). Many
researchers (cf. De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Sykes,
2008) agree that incorporating explicit feedback on linguistic forms is pivotal in order to maximise
opportunities for learning. According to Jones (1982), a teacher’s role in guiding the game is crucial
here because a teacher overtly observes and corrects language (observer), manages time (organizer),
provides feedback (adviser) and encourages engagement (stimulator) (cf. also Moseley & Jones, 2012;
Watson & Sharrock, 1990). De Grove, Van Looy and Merchant (2013: p. 19) state that teachers also
have an important role in assuring that the game content accurately leads to the desired learning
outcomes. In this way, the role of a teacher includes designing effective games or selecting existing
games (designer), possibly adapting them based on the aspired learning targets (De Grove, Cornillie et
al., 2013).
Nevertheless, some scholars are concerned that explicit language input and feedback may
compromise the gaming experience and potentially decrease the level of entertainment (cf. Cornillie,
Clarebout & Desmet, 2010; Purushotma, Thorne & Wheatley, 2008). Naturally, more research is
necessary to fully understand how games can combine the entertaining aspects with educational
elements to support (language) learning outcomes. De Grove, Cornillie et al. (2013) recommend that

De Spiegeleir 35
teachers should always strive to keep the balance between learning and fun, thus between educational
components and entertaining in-class activities.

3.2.3 Negligence of Language

One of the pitfalls of implementing games into the language classroom could be that students
might easily neglect the language itself (Wu et al., 2014: p. 213). Since the overall game play is often
highly strategy-oriented (Wu et al., 2014: p. 213), learners might lose themselves in the flow of the
game and potentially focus less on the linguistic aspects. This is why some studies justly question the
effectiveness of board games used for language teaching (cf. Chen, Wu & Chen, 2011; Wu et al.,
2014).
Wu et al. (2014: p. 213) warn that certain games are not suitable for language learning as the
linguistic aspects may be too complex for ESL learners to understand or imagine. Learners should be
able to play fluently without being constantly distracted or hindered by language barriers. When
implementing board games into the language classroom, the teacher should keep the balance between
including enough language input in order to improve language proficiency (cf. section 3.2.1) and
assuring that learners can play without too many distractions from language barriers (Wu et al., 2014:
p. 212). The game design should ascertain that players have to practise the linguistic features while
playing in order to assure that learners will achieve the learning outcomes (Wu et al., 2014: p. 213).
Chen et al. (2011) conclude that the true challenge is to modify strategy-dominated gaming
mechanisms into knowledge-driven games while maintaining the challenging and entertaining features
of the game.

3.2.4 Not All Students Like Games

ESL teaching, just like many other subjects that might utilise games for educational goals, is
‘not a domain solely reserved to school going youth’ (De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013: p. 59). De
Grove, Van Looy and Merchant (2013: p. 59) also call it ‘a playground for higher education, for adult
education and for professionals in a business to business context’. Since various domains reach such a
diverse target group, it should be obvious that teachers need to adjust their approach to the needs of
each section (De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013).
The personal background of individual learners hardly seems to affect the learning outcomes
of playing board games. For example, the variables age, sex and socioeconomic status have no
significant influence on learning outcomes (Bellens, Arkens, Van Damme & Gielen, 2013).
Additionally, one’s native language does not seem to affect learning outcomes either (Neve & Valcke,
2014).
De Grove, Cornillie et al. (2013) argue that as part of these individual characteristics, some

De Spiegeleir 36
language learners might not enjoy playing games (no matter which context). This raises the question
whether it is possible to design games as educational tools that can appeal to gamers and non-gamers
alike (De Grove, Cornillie et al., 2013). De Grove, Cornillie et al. (2013) thus challenge other scholars
to justify the implementation of board games into education when games may not appeal to, nor
encourage a minority of learners that do not enjoy playing games. After all, if these learners usually do
not rejoice in playing games, how can games implemented in education still motivate or stimulate
these learners to participate to their fullest potential?

3.2.5 Little Acceptance of Games as Education Tools

Another challenge of using board games as educational tools is convincing teachers that board
games have educational potential. Teachers often have a slightly reserved attitude towards the idea of
incorporating games into their teaching methodology (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 31). Cuban (1986)
argues that ignoring the perceptions of teachers is why many attempts to integrate games into
education have failed in the past (cf. also Albirini, 2006). The adoption and effectiveness of game-
based learning depends largely on teachers’ acceptance of games as educational tools (Bourgonjon et
al., 2013: p. 21). Therefore, teachers can be considered to be the ‘true change agents of schools’
(Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 22; cf. also Fullan, 2001; Teo, 2008; Usluel, Askar & Bas, 2008; Van
Driel, Verloop, Van Werven & Dekkers, 1997). As one of the first, Bourgonjon et al. (2013)
investigated the perceptions and attitudes of Flemish secondary school teachers towards games as
educational tools. Based on other studies, they discussed and examined several key issues that affect
teachers’ opinions about games. Last, I will discuss the most prominent features of teachers’
perceptions below (cf. sections 3.2.5.1 – 3.2.5.3).

3.2.5.1 Advanced Technology and Limited IT Infrastructure

During the last decennia, the perceptions and attitudes of teachers have mostly been
investigated via questionnaires (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 23) evaluating the willingness of teachers
to implement games into their teaching methods as well as examining which factors might predict
acceptance or refutation of game-based learning (cf. Baek, 2008; Becker & Jacobsen, 2005; Can &
Cagiltay, 2006; Pastore & Falvo, 2010; Schrader, Zheng & Young, 2006). For instance, studies often
identify the following two major restrictions: lessons are usually restricted by fixed class schedules
linked to a rather inflexible curriculum (Baek, 2008) and IT infrastructure at schools is often outdated
(Squire, 2005). This could hinder the incorporation of games in an educational context (De Grove,
Van Looy & Merchant, 2011). Bourgonjon et al. (2013: p. 23) add that teachers often mention a lack
of time to change existing lesson preparations, as well as encounter certain technical issues when

De Spiegeleir 37
trying out games themselves (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 23).
In their study, Bourgonjon et al. (2013: p. 23) state that the major challenges that come with
implementing games into education are two-sided. First, teachers need to find the time to incorporate
games into new lesson plans. Second, teachers need to figure out certain technical knowledge or
experience required to play the game (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 23). In their article about acceptance
of game-based learning by Flemish secondary school teachers, Bourgonjon et al. (2013: p. 31) found
out that (based on the analysis of descriptive statistics) the average Flemish teacher does not intend to
incorporate games in the near future, especially not digital games.

3.2.5.2 Limited Personal Experience with Games

Another influential factor is the familiarity and personal experience that teachers have with
playing games (cf. Barbour & Evans, 2009; Becker & Jacobson, 2005; Kenny & McDaniel, 2011;
Schrader et al., 2006). Many researchers seem to believe that a lack of familiarity with using games as
educational tools could negatively affect teachers’ acceptance of game-based learning (Hu, Clark &
Ma, 2003). Nonetheless, Bourgonjon et al. (2013: p. 31) contradict this traditional view since their
statistical study (directly questioning teachers’ opinions) shows no connection between the factor
familiarity or personal experience with games on the one hand, and teachers’ willingness to integrate
games into their lessons on the other hand. It remains a mystery to what extent game experience truly
affects teachers’ beliefs (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 23).
As a side note, social influences, norms and surrounding culture also seem to influence
teachers in their beliefs about the benefits and values of using games in the classroom (Bourgonjon et
al., 2013). For example, if games are generally depicted negatively within a certain society, this will
likely affect the way a teacher evaluates the opportunities and usefulness of games as educational tools
(Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hsu and Lu, 2004). Bourgonjon et al. (2013: p. 24) argue that ‘both
usefulness and learning opportunities should be accounted for’ in order to understand a teacher’s
restraint or willingness to utilise games for educational purposes.

3.2.5.3 The Notion of Complexity

Additionally, the complexity of certain board games might keep teachers from integrating
games into their lessons (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 24). Though, researchers remain unsure how the
notion of complexity relates to other factors (e.g. usefulness, learning opportunities) (Kennedy-Clark,
2011; Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Proctor & Marks, 2013). Another uncertainty is what type of games
teachers are thinking about when filling in questionnaires (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011): does their
frame of reference include complex games (e.g. Pandemic, Dominion, The Golden City) or is it
limited to fairly simple games (e.g. Chutes and Ladders, Four in a Row, Who is it?).

De Spiegeleir 38
 In conclusion, the adoption (Bakar, Inal & Cagiltay, 2006; Din & Caleo, 2000) and the
effectiveness (Baek, 2008; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007) of game-based learning ‘largely depend on the
acceptance by classroom teachers’ (Bourgonjon et al., 2013: p. 22). This importance of teachers’
acceptance and perceived values of games seems to be confirmed in the general findings within the
research area of technology integration and implementation (cf. Albirini, 2006; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997;
Kao & Tsai, 2009; Usluel et al., 2008).

De Spiegeleir 39
 CHAPTER 3: Methodology

4. Methodology

4.1 Research Aim

The aim of my research is to examine which types of board games have most potential to
improve English grammar and vocabulary within Flemish secondary education by evaluating the
learning outcomes and the perceptions of students. In my own experimental design, I compared one
educational board game ‘Get your piece of English’ and one commercial board game ‘Forbidden
island’. In this chapter I will outline my research methodology by describing the two selected board
games (cf. section 4.2), illustrating the lesson materials (cf. section 4.3.2.1) and language tests (cf.
section 4.3.2.2), defining the group of participants (cf. section 4.3.2.3) and discussing the
questionnaire and reflective interviews (cf. section 4.3.2.4).

4.2 Description of the Two Board Games

4.2.1 The Educational Board Game: ‘Get your Piece of English’

The first game ‘Get your piece of English’ was developed and tested by Faya Cerqueiro and
Chao Castro (2015). It is a tailored board game (similar to Trivial Pursuit) intended as revision
material, designed for English courses at various academic levels (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Chao
Castro, 2015: p. 71). While playing, individual players (or teams of two) try to earn wedges by
correctly answering questions from the five available categories. These categories correspond to the
main aspects of the English language taught in class. In the original test version of the game these
categories were grammar, vocabulary, reading and speaking, listening and curiosities (i.e. questions
about various cultures and phenomena around the world) (cf. Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p.
72). The player (or team of players) with the most wedges wins the game.
A crucial aspect is that the categories and questions in the game correspond to the lesson
materials that students have learned beforehand as this board game is designed as a revision activity.
Since I am not yet a teacher myself, I did not have multiple lessons to teach students specific topics or

De Spiegeleir 40
to practise English proficiency skills as preparation for the game. Therefore, I had to change some
categories (and corresponding questions) to assure that the revision elements in the game are fully
connected to the lesson materials that the participants have learned beforehand. This option to
customise the board game is what the designers recommend doing in order to make the activity more
effective in education (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: pp. 71-73).
In this paragraph I will explain which alterations I made. As my experiment aims to evaluate
the learning effects on grammar and vocabulary, these categories remained present in my version of
the board game. Since my lesson materials did not include practising English proficiency skills, I
omitted the categories listening, reading and speaking. Instead, I introduced the category literature on
the one hand (focusing on features from a literary that was incorporated in the lesson materials) and
the category translation on the other hand (including translation exercises that require knowledge
about the grammar and vocabulary items educated in the preparatory lesson materials). Lastly, the
category curiosities remained the same as this domain does not necessarily need to be taught
beforehand. Furthermore, this category may prove to be a more entertaining category with diversified
questions that might potentially increase the flow of the game.

4.2.2 The Commercial Board Game: ‘Forbidden Island’

The second game ‘Forbidden island’ is a commercial board game produced by Gamewright
Games in 2010 (invented by Matt Leacock). In this cooperative board game players take different
roles as adventurers (e.g. explorer, engineer, pilot, navigator) who search for hidden treasures while
the island is rapidly sinking. The players have to strategically work together and can only win the
game when having retrieved all four sacred treasures before the island has permanently sunk to the
bottom of the sea.
In comparison to the first board game ‘Get your piece of English’, it is important to emphasise
that commercial games have been designed with enjoyment as the primary goal (De Grove, Van Looy
& Merchant, 2013: p. 24). De Grove, Van Looy and Merchant (2013: p. 24) argue that commercial
games often are visually more attractive and may lead to more exciting game experiences than non-
commercial games. Commercial games usually do not implement any learning targets into the design
(De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013: pp. 24-25). These observations seem to apply to the board
game ‘Forbidden island’ as well.

De Spiegeleir 41
 4.3 Research Design

4.3.1 Procedure: The Experimental Design

My research aims to compare the game experiences and learning effects evoked by playing
two types of board games. On the one hand I will examine an educational board game ‘Get your piece
of English’ and on the other hand a commercial game ‘Forbidden island’, both tested in a secondary
school context (ESL education). With my experiment I aim to present some results that could support
English teachers when deciding to utilise board games as supplemental teaching resources.
Additionally, I hope that the results may provide a valuable starting point for further comparative
research. Using an experimental design (subtype: completely randomised design), this study compares
the learning outcomes (in terms of English grammar and vocabulary) of two board games in an
educational context.
First, this study includes a quantitative component, namely the evaluation of the learning
outcomes which is assessed according to a pretest-posttest design (cf. section 4.3.2.2 Language Tests).
The participants are divided into an experimental group and a control group. Within the experimental
group, one half is randomly assigned to the educational game and the other half is instructed to play
the commercial game. Male and female participants are more or less equally distributed throughout the
three groups (cf. section 4.3.2.3 Playing the Games: Different Groups). An overview of the
experimental design of my study can be found in figure one below.

Experiment: completely randomised design

Random assignment to groups

Total amount of partcipants: 18 students

Group 1: 6 students Group 2: 6 students Group 3: 6 students

Roles in experiment

Educational board game Commercial board grame No board game (control group)

Comparison results: learning outcomes

1 Experiment: Completely Randomised Design

De Spiegeleir 42
 Second, this study also includes a qualitative component. While the participants are playing
the board games, I will write down observation notes. After the gaming activity the participants will be
asked to complete a short survey (including a questionnaire and a structured interview) to examine the
opinions, perceptions and attitudes of the participants belonging to the experimental groups.
According to De Grove, Neys et al. (2011: p. 205), complementary interviews and observations can be
valuable techniques to gain more detailed insight into the effects of the experiment. Additionally,
studies following an experimental design may often benefit from combining quantitative research with
qualitative research (De Grove, Neys et al., 2011: p. 205). Based on this advice, I opted to combine
both in order to get more detailed results.

4.3.2 Research Components

4.3.2.1 Lesson Materials

As preparation for playing the board games, the participants needed to go through some lesson
materials (cf. appendix B and C). In these materials the participants will learn new English vocabulary
items and grammar aspects (both revising known and studying new grammar). The whole experiment
will start with giving fifty minutes to the participants to process these lesson materials. While all
participants (thus two experimental groups and one control group) will study these lesson materials, it
is likely that only the group of the educational game will explicitly need this information. This is self-
evident since the educational game ‘Get your piece of English’ is the only board game that is directly
linked to the learning targets of the lesson materials.
Next, all participants will fill in a complementary language test (and a second time two days
later). I will discuss the language tests in more detail in the next section (cf. section 4.3.2.2). When all
participants have completed the lesson materials and the first language test, the participants are divided
into three groups. The control group does not participate in the gaming activity and may leave the
room. The two experimental groups will each start playing their assigned board game.

4.3.2.2 Language Tests

As mentioned before, my study follows an experimental design (subtype: completely

randomised design). In order to evaluate the learning outcomes in terms of grammar and vocabulary, a
language test is necessary to examine the potential progress. My study follows a pretest-posttest
experimental design (cf. Salkind, 2010) which implies that a language test will be done before and
after playing the game. All participants of my study (both experimental and control group) will thus
carry out the language test twice. In this way, the language test should be able to determine whether
the intervention of playing a board game affects the learning outcomes and whether different board

De Spiegeleir 43
games may lead to different learning results.
The language test will evaluate the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the lesson
materials that they have learned beforehand. Concretely, each language test includes ten vocabulary
items (wherefrom only five are evaluated), six phrases to assess the English tenses and four fill-in-the-
gap sentences to screen one’s knowledge about quantifiers (cf. appendix D and E). Even though the
language tests assess the same grammar and vocabulary items twice, each language test may look
slightly different. In order to avoid that participants might recognise the questions or exercises when
doing the language test the second time, the concrete structure of the language test was formally
changed to camouflage that it actually assesses the same language items (e.g. by additionally
interrogating other vocabulary items or providing different names or words in the given sentences).
Otherwise, the test results could give a distorted image of the true learning outcomes of the board
games as the participants might recognise the test too easily.

4.3.2.3 Playing the Games: Different Groups

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not gather as many participants as I was hoping for.
Concretely, the total amount of participants was only eighteen students. These students were equally
divided into three groups: six for the educational board game, six for the commercial board game and
six as the control group. In order to secure the representativeness of the results, I attempted to evenly
assign male and female students to the three groups. The experiment thus includes two experimental
groups (who each play a different board game) and one control group (that does not participate in any
gaming activity). This control group is important in order to correctly interpret the data of the
experimental groups (playing board games) by comparing it to the data of the control group (no
intervention). This additional group ensures higher validity and reliability of the results.

4.3.2.4 Perceptions and Attitudes of Game-Based Learning in ESL Education

A second part of this study is the qualitative component which visualizes the perceptions,
attitudes and opinions of the participating students about using board games to support English
language teaching. While some scholars (cf. Michael & Chen, 2006) seem to consider fun and learning
to be a complete contradiction, it may be advisable to examine the variety of perceptions, attitudes and
experiences of the students themselves (Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015: p. 4). This component
of the study will be valuable when trying to conclude whether game-based learning could be both
pedagogically justified and enjoyable for students as well.
This qualitative component incorporates a small survey which comprises two approaches: a
questionnaire and a structured interview. The combination of a questionnaire and an interview seemed
to be the most suitable data collection method. On the one hand the questionnaire can evaluate specific

De Spiegeleir 44
statements which allows more accurate data analysis by using statistics. On the other hand, the
interview exposes detailed, insightful information which can precisely illustrate what participants
thought, felt or experienced during the gaming activity. Each participant belonging to the experimental
group will participate in the survey. Concretely, this implies that twelve participants will be asked to
fill in a questionnaire and to conduct an interview.
The questionnaire (cf. appendix F) consists of two sections: the first examining general
impressions about the gaming experience and the second investigating the participants’ attitudes
towards the potential of board games as resources to reinforce English language learning. Each section
consists of several statements about the experiment. All statements will be presented and evaluated by
a five-point Likert scale that allows the participants to express how much they agree or disagree with
each specific statement (cf. De Grove, Van Looy & Merchant, 2013).
Apart from the fixed, scale-based statements, an extra opportunity will be given to the
participants to share their opinions more freely with structured interviews of approximately ten
minutes that will be conducted individually. The structured interviews consist of six open-ended
questions (cf. appendix I) that should gather more in-depth information concerning the participants’
opinions. These questions mainly function as a guideline to assure that each participant is presented
with the exact same questions as other participants (Wright, Lichtenfels & Pursell, 1989: pp. 191-194).
However, participants will also have the possibility (and will even be encouraged) to freely share other
thoughts and opinions about the experiment. Being more flexible with the interviews, could increase
the potential to attain unexpected findings or to explore unanticipated answers (Smith, Flowers &
Larkin, 2009: p. 70). In short, the interviews should lead to a richer, deeper reflection of participants
about their gaming and learning experience. The transcriptions of all interviews can be found in
appendix J.

4.3.3 Summary: Overview of the Experimental Design

To clarify how my experiment is designed, I will summarise all the steps of the process (cf.
figure 2) in this section. On the first day, I will go the school in Ghent to execute the initial part of the
experiment (approximately two lessons). The different steps belonging to the first part of the
experiment are light-coloured in the figure (steps one to five). First, I reserve time to introduce myself,
to briefly explain my research, to give an informed consent document to the participants and so on.
When the next thirty-five minutes are used to process the lesson materials, the experiment has truly
begun. After studying these materials, all participants do a written language test which will evaluate
certain grammar and vocabulary items within an estimated time of ten minutes. In a next phase, the
participants will be split up in groups (two experimental groups and one control group). Only the
experimental groups will continue with the remaining activities of the day. The start-up phase (e.g.

De Spiegeleir 45
moving around the tables to play games, explaining the rules) will roughly take five minutes. As a
final activity of the first day, the participants have a timeslot of thirty-five minutes to play their
assigned board game.

1 • Introduction (5')
2 • Lesson materials (35')
3 • Language test: pretest (10')
4 • Explanation board games (5')
5 • Playing board games (35')
6 • Language test: posttest (10')
7 • Individual interviews (120')

2 Experiment: All Steps Involved

Two days later, I will return to the school for the second part of the experiment. The different
steps belonging to the second part of the experiment are dark-coloured in the figure (steps 6 to 7).
First, all participants (thus both the experimental groups and the control group) will do a second
language test which will evaluate the same grammar and vocabulary items as the first time. In the next
two lessons I plan to conduct individual interviews (of roughly ten minutes) with each participant
belonging to the experimental group. Finally, the participants fill in the complementary questionnaire.

4.4 Description of the Participants

The experiment will be executed in a Flemish secondary school in the area of Ghent (fifth
grade, general education). The school has not been selected based on representativeness, but has been
selected randomly (coinciding with the idea of following a completely randomised experimental
design). However, it should be mentioned that the school is partially selected based on its willingness
to participate in this study.
This school invited eighteen Flemish students from the same class to participate in my
research study. They are approximately sixteen years old. None of the participants are native speakers

De Spiegeleir 46
of English. In terms of their educational background, they were taught English in a Flemish secondary
school from the age of thirteen. This means that they have completed three years of English classes
when participating in the experiment.
However, teenagers nowadays often encounter a large amount of English before they are
taught English at schools. The sociocultural context of Flanders arguably allowed them to experience a
lot of exposure to the English language outside the classroom as well. According to Dewey (2007),
English is present in daily life which is due to various factors, such as migration, cultural diversity and
the status of English as an international medium of communication in many domains (e.g. science,
technology, media). It often functions as a lingua franca for people who speak different languages (e.g.
on holiday, on the internet) (Vanneste, Huyghe, Vaandensavel & Vanginderachter, 2009: pp. 32-33).
In Flanders the ability to sufficiently speak English is considered quite important for
‘internationalisation and globalisation of business, tourism and leisure’ and ‘travel and mobility
benefits’ (Vanneste et al., 2009: p. 32). Furthermore, De Wilde and Eyckmans (2017: pp. 675-695)
argued that especially the media may expose Flemish children to English long before the start of
formal education. Kuppens (2010) also mentioned that media exposure seemed to be a major
influencing factor, as well as the large impact of English computer games.
The educational background of the participants could be important to keep in mind as it might
have allowed the participants to attain a relatively high level of English proficiency opposed to what
some people might expect to be the average proficiency level after three years of formal education in
English.

De Spiegeleir 47
 CHAPTER 4: Results

5. Results

5.1 Language Tests

In order to evaluate whether the two board games improve students’ English, I will compare
the test scores from the pretest and the posttest for each experimental group. An overview of the
(sub)scores of the language tests is given in figure 3. One can see the scores for all eighteen
participants (divided into three groups). For each participant the score of the pretest is given as well as
the posttest. Figure 3 also includes the subscores for each component of the test: vocabulary (on 5
points), the tenses (on 6 points) and quantifiers (on 4 points).

3 Overview of Language Test Scores

I will compare the total scores of each language test with two different methods. First, I will look at
the evolution of the average score for each group. Second, the sign test will be used to examine the
probability of success for each participant.

De Spiegeleir 48
 5.1.1 Average Scores

In order to evaluate the general evolution in the test scores of the participants, I will first
calculate the average scores for each experimental group (cf. figure 4). The evolution of the pretest
score versus the posttest score is visualised for each group in figure 5.

The Average Scores

85

80

75

70

65

60
Control group Experimental group FI Experimental group GYPOE

Pretest Posttest

4 The Average Scores for Each Group

First, the control group has an average score of 76,67% for the pretest and an average score of
70% for the posttest. This means that the average score for the test group declines with 6,67%.
Second, the experimental group who played ‘Forbidden island’ (FI) has an average score of 77,78%
for both the pre- and the posttest. The average score for the experimental group FI thus remains the
same. Last, the experimental group who played ‘Get your piece of English’ (GYPOE) has an average
score of 66,67% for the pretest and an average score of 83,33% for the posttest. This means that the
average score for the experimental group GYPOE improves with 16,66%.

De Spiegeleir 49
 The Evolution of the Average Scores
85

80

75

70

65

60
Pretest Posttest

Control group Experimental group FI Experimental group GYPOE

5 The Evolution of the Average Scores for Each Group

The experimental group GYPOE thus displays the highest rise when examining the average scores of
each group. The average score of the experimental group FI remains in balance while the control
group shows a minor decline in the average score.
However, drawing conclusions about improvements in the average scores for a test group of
only eighteen people may be less reliable as this test group is arguably too small for generalisations.
Therefore, I will continue with a more nuanced sign test to encourage the potential for drawing
conclusions later on.

5.1.2 The Sign Test

Due to the low amount of participants within this experiment, the assumptions for a parametric
test are violated. Therefore, I opted for a non-parametric alternative, namely the sign test. The sign test
is a non-parametric test (Glen, 2016) which is used to ‘decide whether a binomial distribution has the
equal chance of success and failure’ (Yau, n.d.: n.p.). The sign test is thus a statistical method to
determine whether there is a consistent median difference between paired or matched observations,
such as the test score before and after an intervention (Laerd Statistics, n.d.).

De Spiegeleir 50
 5.1.2.1 Visualisation of General Test Scores

In figure 6 the difference between the pretest score and the posttest score for each participant
is visually represented.

6 Visualistion of General Test Scores for Each Participant

The visualisation of the control group shows that the scores either remain the same or decline. Here
the general trend seems to be a decreasing one. With the experimental group who played the board
game ‘Forbidden island’ individual scores seem to develop in all directions: some rise, some remain
stable and some decrease. There thus seems to be no one overarching trend within this group as we
cannot truly predict which direction the test scores may follow when having played ‘Forbidden
island’. As for the last experimental group who played ‘Get your piece of English’ the general test
scores seem to follow quite deviant directions as well. Again we are not be able to predict in which
direction the test scores for this group may develop, but we do observe a relatively large increase in
the test scores for three participants of this experimental group.
After executing a sign test on the general test scores (cf. appendix G for all statistical details) it
becomes clear that none of the test scores have significantly changed. For both the group FI and the
group GYPOE there is an improvement in the scores for four out of six participants (p-value = .69).
There is a probability of success of 67%. However, there is no proof that the method of playing a
board game has a positive effect. For the control group there are two participants out of six who have
managed to improve their score (p-value = .69). The probability of success here is 33% which is lower
than the two experimental groups. In short, the sign test shows that the test scores do not significantly

De Spiegeleir 51
increase of decrease due to the intervention (of either playing a board game or doing nothing). Having
played one of the board games thus does not significantly affect one’s test scores. In the next section I
will further investigate the results of the language tests by looking at the evolution of the subscores
(each corresponding to a different component of the test).

5.1.2.2 Visualisation of Test Scores per Test Component

Each language test consists of three components: a vocabulary component, a grammar

component regarding the English tenses and another grammar component regarding quantifiers. In this
part the evolution of each subscore will be visualised and discussed (cf. appendix G for all statistical
details).
First, I will investigate the vocabulary component (cf. figure 7). The test scores for vocabulary
mainly remain the same with the exception of one student in group FI that decreases one point and
quite interestingly three students in group GYPOE whose scores improve with 2 or 3 points. When
further analysing these improvements in the discussion it could be illuminating to focus on these last
improvements within the experimental group GYPOE.

7 Visualisation of Subscore Vocabulary for Each Participant

De Spiegeleir 52
 Second, the grammar component of the English tenses displays a rather diversified image (cf.
figure 8). Within the control group the scores either remain the same or decrease. The control group
thus shows no improvement at all for the English tenses. The experimental group FI shows a
development of test scores in all directions. As some of the scores increase, decrease or remain the
same, it seems that the board game ‘Forbidden island’ has no predictable learning effect for the
English tenses. The scores of the experimental group GYPOE also demonstrate some variety in the
scores. However, there seems to be a general slight improvement in the test scores for the English
tenses as four out of six participants from the group GYPOE have improved (while only one
participant’s score has decreased).

8 Visualisation of Subscore Tenses (Grammar) for Each Participant

De Spiegeleir 53
 Third, the grammar component of the quantifiers demonstrates some interesting developments.
The control group’s subscores only display a change of zero or one point(s) in the posttest. Thus, there
seems to be no major change in the scores of the control group in terms of the component quantifiers.
Similarly, the experimental group FI only shows a change of zero or one point(s) in the posttest.
Again, the test scores for quantifiers remain mainly unaffected. However, some interesting tendency
seems to take place with the experimental group GYPOE since half of the participants in that group
have improved their score for quantifiers with at least two points (on a maximum of four). The other
three participants of that group either maintain the same score or decrease slightly. Even though the
experimental group only displays a relatively small improvement in test scores for quantifiers, it seems
a fascinating tendency because in contrast only one of the remaining twelve participants (from the
control group and group FI) has managed to improve his/her subscore (yet only with one point).

9 Visualisation of Subscore Quantifiers (Grammar) for Each Participant

5.2 Interviews

In order to evaluate the attitudes of students towards incorporating board games into ESL
education twelve interviews were conducted with all participants who played a board game during the
experiment. In imitation of Braun and Clarke (2006), I did a manual thematic analysis. First, I noted
down which participant perceived to have improved in vocabulary or grammar. I would then continue
with inductive coding which means I devised codes and themes by looking at the data itself. After

De Spiegeleir 54
indicating some initial codes, I sorted them out into potential themes. As a result of re-coding, re-
defining and re-naming the themes, I drew a coherent thematic map.
A first important notion is the self-perceived learning effects from playing a board game.
Additionally, the various themes could be divided into beneficial aspects and challenges while playing
a board game. The beneficial themes are the entertainment factor, communication, cooperative
learning, authentic learning experience, roleplay and fictional elements. The themes that represent the
challenges to incorporate board games into ESL education are negligence of target language,
inexperience with board games and the notion of complexity. All these themes will be further
discussed in detail in the next chapter (cf. section 6.3).

De Spiegeleir 55
 CHAPTER 5: Discussion

6. Discussion

6.1 Language Tests

First, the overview of the average test scores per group (cf. figure 4 and 5) shows that
generally the scores of the control group have slightly declined (mainly due to a lower score for
grammar). This decreasing trend was to be expected since the posttest was executed two days after the
first test. I would argue that this decline is due to the retention effect: on the first day students learned
some vocabulary and grammar during a lesson immediately followed by a first language test. Only
two days later the posttest was conducted which presumably caused students to have already forgotten
some of the theory. The small decline in the control group may thus be explicable by the retention
effect.
Second, there seems to be a general stabilisation in the average test scores of the first
experimental group playing ‘Forbidden island’ (cf. figure 5). However, when looking at the
development of individual scores within this group (cf. figure 6) it seems that each test score could
develop in any direction as both increasing and decreasing scores can be observed (as well as one
participant who obtained the same score). When examining the subscores of each test component it
becomes clear that this stabilisation can indeed be found with the components vocabulary and
quantifiers, but there is more fluctuation in the subscores for the English tenses. However, no
evolution within these test scores is significantly changing. In conclusion, it seems that the board game
‘Forbidden island’ does not consistently lead to any improvement in the language tests because the
developments could be a pure coincidence.
Third, some more interesting trends occur within the experimental group GYPOE. When
looking at the average scores there seems to be a slight improvement in the general test scores (cf.
figure 5). This development can be explained by a slight increase in the subscores for vocabulary and
quantifiers since there are three participants who managed to improve their subscores with 2 or 3
points. Since the other three participants do not display any improvements, the developments within
the experimental group GYPOE remain insignificant. However, the slight improvement for three out
of six participants may be worth looking into. When I will discuss the interviews (cf. section 6.3) as
well as my observation notes (cf. appendix H), it will become clear that these students seem to have
had more opportunities within the game ‘Get your piece of English’ to revise the theory of quantifiers
De Spiegeleir 56
as well as some words they have learned from the lesson materials. This may explain why half of the
students within this group have learned and revised more than the other groups before completing the
second language test. Their evolution in the test scores could be an argument why the educational
game ‘Get your piece of English’ may prove to be a valuable learning activity within ESL education to
revise some lesson materials.

6.2 Questionnaires

As part of the experiment all participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire interrogating
their game and learning experiences during the project (cf. appendix F for the questionnaire format).
All groups contemplated four statements regarding one’s general learning experience during the
project. Statements corresponding to the game experience were only filled in by the two experimental
groups (since the control group did not play a game in between the two language tests). First, I will
discuss the questions regarding one’s learning experience.

10 Questionnaire: Learning Experience (3 Groups)

In general, I can observe that many questions were answered by ‘neutral’ for the learning
experience part. Furthermore, many statements display a mix of participants who either agree or

De Spiegeleir 57
disagree. I will further discuss the parts of the questionnaires where the responses to a question deviate
in some way. A first part of the questionnaire regarding the participants’ learning experience
interrogates whether students themselves believe to have improved in their English proficiency,
vocabulary or grammar. The answers on these questions display mixed responses.
However, one statement regarding the usefulness of the lesson materials (prior to playing a
board game) shows that the control group unanimously agrees that the lesson materials are useful to
learn English (opposite to the two experimental groups). This could mean that participants who
additionally got the opportunity to play a board game (i.e. the two experimental groups) also consider
other activities as potentially useful and seem to question whether traditional lesson materials are as
useful as conventionally thought. When I compare this observation with the interviews, it will become
clear that most participants from the experimental groups indeed seem to seriously consider board
games as useful supplemental learning activities to improve one’s English. This might explain why the
two experimental groups have indicated in the questionnaire that they are less unanimously convinced
of the unconditional usefulness of traditional lesson materials. The opportunity to experience
alternative learning activities (such as board games) thus could stimulate participants to question the
unconditional usefulness of traditional teaching methods.

De Spiegeleir 58
 Let us continue by looking into the game experience section of the questionnaires.

11 Questionnaire: Game Experience (2 Groups)

Analogous to the previous section, many statements in the game experience part of the questionnaire
are rated as either neutral or a mixture of agreed and disagreed. Next, I will discuss the deviant
reactions of the participants.
A first striking observation is that the experimental group who played ‘Forbidden island’
unanimously agreed with the statement ‘I enjoyed this game activity’ (opposed to a more divided
response within group GYPOE). This seems to suggest that the commercial board game ‘Forbidden
island’ clearly evokes more amusement than the educational game ‘Get your piece of English’.
A second observation applies to the statement ‘I spoke a lot of English while playing the
game’. The group GYPOE either remains neutral or agrees with the statement while the group FI has

De Spiegeleir 59
an equal division in agreement and disagreement. This indicates that the board game ‘Forbidden
island’ would somehow invite players less to speak (English) with each other. This would be a curious
phenomenon as this commercial board game is a very communicative (and collaborative) game.
However, this can be explained since one team playing ‘Forbidden island’ (thus three out of six
participants) admitted to have spoken Dutch while playing (cf. observation notes and interviews). This
explains why half of the participants from group FI have indicated not to have spoken a lot of English
during the game. Nevertheless, having taken this into account it seems that the board game ‘Forbidden
island’ still has potential to improve one’s communication skills (as long as students are motivated to
consistently speak English while playing).
Third, not one participant disagrees with the statement ‘I think the game could help me to
improve my English’. This observation is in line with the previous section ‘learning experience’
wherein only a minority of the experimental groups have indicated that they thought they had not
improved on either grammar, vocabulary or English proficiency. Connecting this statement with the
previous section thus seems to indicate that a majority of the participants believes that the board games
have the potential to support them in improving their English.
Last, a small majority of the experimental groups has indicated that they agree with the
statement ‘speaking English with my classmates is instructive/educational’. This indicates that
participants recognise the game activity’s potential to give students an opportunity to speak more
English with each other which they seem to consider being constructive towards their English
proficiency. This raises the question whether the board games might be beneficial due to the
possibility of giving more speaking opportunities (which could arguably be lacking too much in
traditional lessons). I will further investigate this hypothesis when looking into the themes of the
interviews.

6.3 Interviews

In order to apprehend the attitudes and perceptions of the participants (RQ2), interviews were
conducted with all participants who played a board game (cf. appendix J for all interview transcripts).
This section about the interviews consists of three parts. In a first part, I will discuss whether the
participants themselves had expected to improve their vocabulary and grammar by playing a board
game. It will become clear that the (self-perceived) learning effects differ depending on which board
game they were assigned to. In a second part, I will present several beneficial aspects that the board
games have offered. Some of these benefits were the entertainment factor, the opportunity to practise
communication skills, cooperative learning and the creation of an authentic learning experience. In
case of the commercial board game, students also benefited from roleplay as well as the incorporation

De Spiegeleir 60
of fictional elements into the game. In a third part, I will focus on a few challenges that emerged
during the project. On the one hand, some students did not consistently communicate in the target
language while playing their board game. On the other hand, it seemed challenging for some students
to instantly play the commercial game due to inexperience with board games. Some students also
deemed the commercial game to be relatively complicated which shows how challenging it can be for
a teacher to select an appropriate board game that suits both experienced and inexperienced players.

6.3.1 Self-Perceived Learning Effects

In this section I will discuss whether the participants expected themselves to be able to
improve their English vocabulary and grammar by playing board games. At the time of the interviews,
the participants had no knowledge of any of their test scores. This means that their statements are
purely based on their personal opinion whether they consider a board game suitable to enable them to
improve their vocabulary or grammar.
First, I will look into some comments of participants who played the commercial board game
‘Forbidden island’.

‘Games are not enough to learn vocabulary […] To learn English? To learn to speak it? Like
to have a better accent? Yeah. But […] to learn new words? Not that much.’ (P2: 137, 152-
153)

‘In games sometimes it’s fun, but you don’t actually learn new words and stuff. But [the
game] supports [one in learning English]. It’s also much more fun.’ (P4: 356-364)

‘Do you think you can learn words by games as well?’ / ‘No, I don’t think so.’ (P6: 555-556)

As one can see, the participants who played FI were not convinced that the board game enabled them
to learn new vocabulary. The more general use of ‘games’ in these comments seems to indicate that
these participants believe that games in general may not be suitable to teach vocabulary (thus not only
referring to commercial board games). When comparing this with the language test scores of this
experimental group, it can be confirmed that the subscores for vocabulary indeed remained equal
(apart from participant 3 whose score declined with one point). However, it should be noted that this
group already scored a high mark in the first vocabulary test which offers them little space to improve
their second test score. In terms of their expectations about grammar, no detailed comments were
given. However, some participants from group FI still believed that board games could support
students to ‘improve their English’. Thus, even though these students did not consider their
commercial board game to considerably support vocabulary acquisition, they still displayed a
generally positive attitude towards games by stating that board games could improve one’s general
level of English.

De Spiegeleir 61
 Second, I will discuss the attitudes and perceptions of the experimental group who played the
educational board game ‘Get your piece of English’. All six participants from this group explicitly
mentioned that they learned new words or considered this board game to be useful to practise
vocabulary this way.

‘When you are learning words – vocabulary for example – games can be also okay […] For
vocabulary I think I um prefer to play the game.’ (P8: 740-741, 770)

‘[The game] had a lot of um, good questions [to revise the lesson materials] […]. You can
learn a lot from the game, um, about vocabulary and so.’ (P9: 833-852)

‘[You can best practise vocabulary with] games […] You can memorise it way easier than just
‘blocking’ it. It’s way more fun too. You’ll remember way easily, um way easier.’ (P11: 1037-
1041)

These comments show that the participants who played GYPOE have an optimistic perception on how
the board game enables them to learn vocabulary. The test scores of this experimental group indeed
confirm that a slight improvement in vocabulary has taken place. This is mainly due to three
participants who managed to increase their subscores. Furthermore, not one participant’s score for
vocabulary has declined. Thus, the participants’ impressions that the board game supports them to
increase their vocabulary seems confirmed by the slightly improved test scores. Next, I will continue
to these participants’ comments on revising grammar by playing the board game.

‘When you are learning grammar, I think it’s better to study it [with traditional lesson
materials].’ (P8: 739-740)

‘You can learn things in the game, like vocabulary and um, the rules about some and any. You
can um, you can play with the others, have fun and learn at the same time.’ (P9: 858-859)

‘It was fun. Yeah. It was easier to learn that way.’ (P10: 896-900)

‘[The most useful part was] rehearsing the [English tenses].’ (P11: 1025-1031)

In terms of the grammar component, only a few students commented on the game’s potential to revise
grammar. On the one hand, participant 8 seemed convinced that grammar should be studied by heart,
preferably not by playing a board game. On the other hand, two other participants mentioned that they
were able to revise the quantifiers as well as the English tenses. This could indicate that some students
consider the educational game to be a useful learning activity with the potential to practise grammar.
However, not all students share the same opinion here. When looking at the test scores of the
experimental group GYPOE, a slight improvement in the scores for grammar can be observed. Most
subscores for the English tenses in this experimental group have increased slightly. In terms of the
quantifiers, again a slight improvement becomes apparent. However, not all participants managed to

De Spiegeleir 62
improve their score for grammar which means that the general improvement could also be a
coincidence. As such, the diverse attitudes towards the potential of the educational board game to
enable grammar revision seem to reflect the mixed results from the language tests in terms of
grammar.
To conclude, the self-perceived learning effects depend greatly on which type of board game
the participants were assigned to. Participants who played the commercial board game FI did not
consider the game to be adequate to learn new vocabulary. This expectation was confirmed by the
language test results. In terms of grammar, there were no clear attitudes or expectations from this
group. Participants who played the educational board game GYPOE considered their game to have a
positive effect on their vocabulary acquisition. Their perceptions were in accordance with the test
results. In terms of grammar, the participants displayed more diverse attitudes about the usefulness of
the game to revise grammar. The test results indeed confirm that the game can lead to different results
since an improvement, stabilisation as well as a decline in scores was possible. In my interviews the
attitudes thus seemed to be connected to their assigned type of board game and their eventual language
test scores. Students playing the educational board game generally seemed to display a more positive
attitude towards the learning opportunities of board games. Furthermore, students who managed to
improve their test scores also displayed a more positive attitude towards board games in ESL
education. This could imply that the participants’ personal experience during the experiment
(regarding the type of board game and the language test) influences one’s opinion of game-based
learning. Nonetheless, most students have a generally positive attitude (or at least open-mindedness)
towards the implementation of board games into ESL education and expect the board game to have
some positive effect on their English.

6.3.2 Beneficial Components of Board Games in ESL Education

6.3.2.1 Entertainment Factor

A first interesting theme which seems to be quite representative for most participants is the
high entertainment factor of the board games. In the interviews more than half of the participants
explicitly confirmed to have enjoyed their board game.

‘I actually don’t like playing um, word games. This one was actually fun!’ (P3: 204)

‘In class, um, it’s sometimes boring, you know, and when you play games, it’s better, you
know. You can learn and play games at the same time. It’s not boring anymore.’ (P7: 643-646)

‘You’re having fun with your friends and also learn things.’ (P8: 776)

De Spiegeleir 63
 ‘Honestly, it’s um, a pretty good idea. It can be fun if- if everyone is enjoying themselves […].
In class I – I prefer playing a board game.’(P11: 1003, 1056)

When connecting this to the results of the questionnaires, the amount of participants enjoying their
board game seems to be even larger as only one participant did not agree with the statement ‘I enjoyed
this game activity’ (and two remained neutral). This means that three out of four participants indicate
to have enjoyed the board game that they played during the experiment which is an encouraging
number to motivate researchers to keep experimenting with games within ESL education. Especially
since the students who did not particularly like the board game they were assigned to, still expressed
they were interested in trying another game or would feel more motivated when teachers would
incorporate more games into their lessons.

‘Games are more fun to play, at least um, better than lessons […] Games can motivate
students because um, first you learn and then you can play a game, which is more fun to end a
lesson.’ (P5: 458, 467-468)

‘[Playing games] is more fun. [You play] and you learn at the same time.’ (P7: 661-663)

‘When you are learning vocabulary and you are playing, then we don’t get time to get bored.
So you are learning, but you are also having fun.’ (P8: 743-744)

‘It will, um, motivate the students to um, listen to your lesson [in order to be able to] play the
game [afterwards].’ (P12: 1167-1168)

Many students thus seem to consider board games to be a good complementary learning activity in
ESL education. The interviews show that students consider themselves to be more motivated to
engage with the learning materials when they are allowed to play board games afterwards. It does not
seem to matter whether they were assigned to the educational game or the commercial one.
Connecting this to the existing literature, my experiment seems to confirm that the
entertainment factor and motivation are indeed linked (cf. Faya Cerqueiro & Chao Castro, 2015).
Moreover, Sharon and Shaulov (1990) have stated that a higher motivation will often lead to more
learning outcomes. This is an interesting statement since the two experimental groups indeed have
higher test scores than the control group. While the educational game may have allowed students to
improve their vocabulary and grammar due to the direct implementation of the learning content into
the game, the commercial game did not include any theory relating to the lesson materials/language
tests. Perhaps here the entertainment effect of the game as well as the increased motivation to engage
with the activities in class could have caused them to still achieve higher learning outcomes than the
control group (whose motivation presumably remained equal since they did not play any games). This
could explain why the expected retention effect can be observed for control group, but not for the two
experimental groups.

De Spiegeleir 64
 6.3.2.2 Communication

Some students also mentioned the opportunity to speak with each other as a beneficial aspect
of playing board games. They suggested that traditional English lessons do not sufficiently offer
speaking opportunities to the students in order to practise their English. Eight out of twelve
participants explicitly mentioned that the gaming activity gave them the rare opportunity to practise
their speaking skills. Some students also believe that speaking English will sufficiently support them
to improve their general level of English.

‘We talk a lot, teach others a lot, would be helpful to, um, increase your English.’ (P1: 27)

‘I was with people, I was not alone. That was [a] good thing about it […] [Something useful
about the game is] to communicate with other people. And […] if you communicate with
people who can speak English decently, your English is getting better anyway.’ (P2: 113, 119-
121)

‘You speak English to each other and you can get better at it.’ (P4: 333)

‘You can improve your speaking in English and um, in the game you actually had to talk a lot.
So um, you can learn from that.’ (P5: 435-436)

‘[I liked] the conversation, um, with my classmates […] [It was useful] to speak English.’ (P6:
518, 528). ‘Sometimes it can be great to play games […] because you’re talking more [in
English] and it’s a good way to learn a language.’ (P6: 546-548)

‘[I enjoyed] the talking, um, with my classmates […] I still prefer games because it’s more fun
and you can talk more.’ (P10: 918, 949-951)

These quotes can be connected to the theme of communication because students mentioned the
opportunity to practise their speaking skills and focused on the entertaining aspect of being able to
connect with classmates (social interaction). This seems to indicate that the participants consider
communication (whether connected to the board game or additional social interaction) as an
opportunity to both learn English while playing as well as to have fun by interacting with one’s peers.

6.3.2.3 Cooperative Learning

Another theme within the interviews was the notion of cooperative learning. This was
mentioned by half of the participants, but it partially relates to the previous theme of communication.
Participants here mentioned team work, explaining theory to each other and the competition element
of the game to motivate them to give it their best.

De Spiegeleir 65
 ‘I enjoyed that we had to work in teams, that was cool. We had to discuss our […] tactics in
order to find the treasures. And um, we had to work together in order to win the game.’ (P5:
415-418)

‘I got a lot of good answers. Yes, I won the game, yeah. Um, a fun element is um, that you are
playing and at the same moment you are learning the words […] It’s very good’ (P7: 605-610)

‘I liked it. The game was nice, we were playing in groups which was fun.’ (P9: 811).
‘Somebody from the group explained [the quantifiers] again to me and then I learned the
difference [between some and any].’ (P9: 819-825)

‘I think there are a lot of people who would, um, learn better [with board games]. I think with
the games you can talk more and practise your pronunciation and you can help each other […]
You talk about many things and then you learn more from each other and things that the others
know and you didn’t.’ (P10: 963-976)

Cooperative learning may have influenced both experimental groups since the board game ‘Forbidden
island’ is a communicative cooperative board game which requires students to work together in order
to win and the board game ‘Get your piece of English’ was played in teams that motivate students to
combine their knowledge in order to answer the questions (traditional quiz format game). Some
participants explicitly mentioned working in teams in the game ‘Get your piece of English’. This
seems to have had two effects: the students enjoyed working together in teams to share their
knowledge in order to learn from each other and simultaneously they seem to have been motivated by
the competition element as they displayed positive emotions and comments regarding (trying to) win
the game (e.g. participant 7).
Additionally, I would like to discuss the three participants from the experimental group
GYPOE (participants 8, 9 and 10) whose test scores improved tremendously. Their improvement was
mainly due to an improved subscore for vocabulary and quantifiers. The educational board game
GYPOE may have led to this learning effect since participant 9 and 10 explicitly mentioned to have
learned a great deal from the game. The educational game was of course directly based on the content
of the lesson materials which allows the participants to actively revise the learning content.
Additionally, it seems that this board game allowed cooperative learning to take place as well. In the
quotes above, participant 9 explicitly states that he/she only truly understood the theory of quantifiers
because another student had explained it to him/her again while playing. This could clarify why the
second test score for quantifiers had suddenly improved to the highest possible result. A similar
process seems to have taken place with participant 10 since he/she states to have learned from sharing
knowledge with each other and from ‘things that the others know and you didn’t’. The intensive
revision of the lesson materials by playing GYPOE and the supportive aspect of cooperative learning
seem to reveal why this experimental group displays the largest improvement in test scores, especially

De Spiegeleir 66
with the three participants whose test scores have almost doubled. In short, cooperative learning seems
to be a major benefit of certain board games that could prove useful when implementing games into
ESL education.

6.3.2.4 Fictional World, Roleplay and Authentic Learning Experience

Another noticeable benefit became apparent in the interviews with the experimental group
playing ‘Forbidden island’. Some of the participants here mentioned the beneficial aspect of being
emerged into the fictional world of the game wherein they enjoyed being adventurers looking for
valuable treasures on an island.

‘It was fun. […] I liked the design… of the treasures.’ (P1: 11-15)

‘We [were adventurers and] had to search for treasures [on an island] […] I enjoyed that we
had to work in teams, that was cool. We had to discuss our […] tactics in order to find the
treasures.’ (P5: 402-418)

This can be connected to three notions from existing literature regarding the implementation of games
into ESL education (cf. literature review for more details). First, fictional aspects of games have often
been observed to have a positive impact on the game experience of players (All et al., 2017). Second,
the notion of roleplay seems to enrich one’s gaming experience (cf. Cole & Griffiths, 2007; De Kort &
Ijsselsteijn, 2008; Harris, 2009). This roleplay may apply to the board game ‘Forbidden island’ since it
assigns a specific role to each individual player (who thus receives some special skills he or she may
use to reach a goal within the game). Third, two participants hinted that the board game therefore
manages to create an authentic learning experience to practise one’s English.

‘[We apply] words like we need to in real life.’ (P3: 218)

‘You use English to apply in a useful real context, not fake, like exercises in class.’ (P9: 813)

This last notion of creating an authentic learning experience seems to apply to both board games
(participant 3 played FI and participant 9 played GYPOE). My experiment thus indicates that both
educational and commercial games can offer this authentic learning experience which allows students
to practise English in a unique context. This observation confirms the argument of Harris (2009: p. 25)
that board games are innovative tools which can create a more natural, authentic learning environment.

De Spiegeleir 67
 6.3.3 Challenges of Board Games in ESL Education

6.3.3.1 Negligence of Target Language

A first major challenge that is confirmed by the experiment is the concern that some students
are reluctant to speak English at all times. During the experiment I observed the implementation of
(some) Dutch by students playing ‘Get your piece of English’ as well as one group playing ‘Forbidden
Island’ (cf. observation notes in appendix H). Within the quiz format game GYPOE the participants
made some spontaneous comments in Dutch (or interacted with each other in Dutch when not paying
attention to the game). However, these students were still engaged with the game and spoke English
while playing. Even when students spontaneously revised some of the theory around the quantifiers,
the participants made an effort to communicate and explain this in English. On the other hand, one
group playing FI seemed to have spoken Dutch the majority of the time (at least when I was not
around to guide them).

‘We actually didn’t speak English. Um, we spoke Dutch’. (P3: 206-208)

‘The people from my group didn’t actually speak English […] They were too lazy.’ (P5: 430-
431)

‘To be honest, no. We talk Dutch.’ (P7: 630)

These quotes show how easily students fall back on their native language. Arguably it may be a sign
that there is a low commitment to consistently interact in English (when not being observed by a
teacher). These observations are in line with the warning of Wu et al. (2014) that students could easily
neglect the language itself while playing games because students may lose themselves in the flow of
the game, focus more on the strategy in order to win it or simply are not motivated enough to keep
interacting in the target language. In order to reduce the risk of neglecting the target language, I
suggest some solutions to motivate students to speak English during the board game. One the one hand
it may be necessary for a teacher to be present at all times in order to motivate students to
communicate in the target language at all times. This offers the additional benefit that a teacher can
frequently give explicit feedback on potential language errors that the students could make while
playing. On the other hand students could be encouraged to motivate each other to speak English by
convincing them of the beneficial learning outcomes they could achieve by continually practising in
English. If students are informed about the learning goals of the gaming activity and are eager to fully
utilise the learning opportunities from game-based learning, they may feel more motivated to
consistently communicate in English. Nonetheless, the potential negligence of the target language may
indeed remain a challenge in order to constructively implement board games into ESL education.

De Spiegeleir 68
 6.3.3.2 Limited Experience with Games

Another theme that emerged from the interviews is that not all students have experience with
playing board games.

‘I don’t play board games. I don’t like them.’ (P3: 253-255)

‘I actually don’t – I usually don’t really play games.’ (P5: 411)

These comments suggest that it cannot be assumed that students will automatically enjoy playing
commercial board games when the teacher chooses to use these for educational purposes. Two
students mentioned that they have limited experience with playing (board) games. This lack of
experience could prove to be a challenge, especially with the commercial board game ‘Forbidden
island’. Within the experimental group who played the commercial game, five out of six participants
stated that they considered the game to be relatively difficult to play.

‘It was too complicated […] it took a bit time to know.’ (P2: 102)

‘The idea was fun, but then I didn’t actually get the game so much, so it was difficult.’ (P4:
320)

‘I didn’t like the game because um, it was too long to understand.’ (P6: 516)

It thus seems that commercial board games could easily prove to be challenging to understand when
playing it for the first time, at least such seems to be the case with the commercial board game I
selected for this experiment. It thus remains highly important that a teacher selects a suitable
commercial game when incorporating it into the English classroom. Furthermore, if students lack
experience with playing board games as well, this could be an additional challenge to overcome.
So far, some scholars have recognised the challenge of implementing games into ESL
education due to teachers having insufficient gaming experience (e.g. Hu, Clark & Ma, 2003).
However, the interviews indicate that it may be valuable to also take the students’ experience into
account. It seems that the current generation of secondary school students could lack experience with
board games as well. This could complicate a teacher’s intention to introduce board games into the
English classroom. Thus, when teachers would like to use commercial board games as a learning
activity, the challenge remains to select an appropriate board game that suits both experienced and
inexperienced players.

De Spiegeleir 69
 6.4 Conclusion

The results of the language tests show that only the students who played the educational game
managed to slightly improve their scores (in all test components). This could indicate that the
educational board game ‘Get your piece of English’ has most potential to support vocabulary
acquisition and grammar revision because the game content is directly based on the lesson materials
that students had to study. Students who were assigned to the commercial board game show no
significant improvement, but still score higher than the control group. While the slightly decreased
scores of the control group seem to hint that this may be due to the retention effect, this decline in
scores cannot be found with the experimental group who played ‘Forbidden island’. Since all students
who played the commercial board game indicated in the questionnaire that they enjoyed the game, this
could mean that this experimental group experienced more pleasure and motivation during the
experiment. According to Faya Cerqueiro and Chao Castro (2015: pp. 70-71), the level of
entertainment directly influences motivation. Subsequently, an increased motivation often results in
higher learning outcomes (Sharon & Shaulov, 1990). The experimental group playing ‘Forbidden
island’ might have experienced more pleasure and motivation which could have led to higher learning
outcomes. This could be an explanation as to how playing ‘Forbidden island’ might still have enabled
this experimental group to attain better scores than the control group. However, due to the small
amount of participants no reliable generalisations or conclusions can be made. This difference in
scores could thus just as well be a coincidence.
When examining the attitudes of Flemish students regarding board games as supplementary
learning activities in ESL education, the interviews seem to indicate that most students seem positive
and open-minded about the educational value of board games. The participants recognised several
benefits of board games such as the entertainment factor, cooperative learning, authentic learning
environment and improving communication skills. In terms of the commercial board game, roleplay
and fictional elements were mentioned as well. However, students also considered it to be a challenge
to consistently communicate in English and some students struggled with game-based learning due to
inexperience with board games. In conclusion, this research provides some support for the
implementation of (particularly educational) board games into ESL education. However, no reliable
generalisations can be made regarding the results of the language tests.

De Spiegeleir 70
 CHAPTER 6: Limitations and Further Research

7. Limitations and Further Research

In this section I will address the limitations that my study suffered from as well as the
possibilities for further research on this topic. Even though my experiment offers some interesting
insights into the learning opportunities of commercial and educational board games, the small-scale
and explorative character of this study cannot lead to reliable generalisations. For instance, my study
focused on only eighteen students because very few schools were willing to participate in my
experiment due to Covid-19 restrictions. As understandable as that is, it caused this experiment to be
conducted with a very small group of participants. Therefore, my group of participants cannot fully
represent all students in secondary schools. Furthermore, the small amount of participants does not
allow me to draw fully reliable conclusions about the language test scores. These test scores offer
some interesting trends and encouraging results, but the experiment should be repeated on a much
larger scale in order to deduct representative results. Even though no evolution in the language test
scores turned out to be statistically significant, one should especially be careful to interpret the
(evolution in) average test scores due the small amount of participants. However, the combination of
calculating average test scores and applying a sign test increases the reliability of the test results.
Therefore, it can still be assumed that this study offers some encouraging indications of potential
learning opportunities by incorporating board games into ESL education.
In terms of future research on this topic, it could be interesting to look at the possibilities to
elaborate on this research. As mentioned before, it could be illuminating to repeat my experiment with
a larger amount of participants. In this way the language test scores could offer a more representative
image of the potential learning outcomes. A larger test group may offer scholars more opportunities to
generalise the findings. Second, it may be interesting to change certain variables within this
experiment. The gaming activity could be repeated with students from different schools, different
regions, students with deviant degrees (e.g. ASO vs TSO, language vs non-language studies) etcetera.
When variables are carefully changed one by one, it could be quite interesting to compare the data in
different studies and to examine which influence that could have on the results. Third, it could also be
interesting to think beyond vocabulary and grammar. Scholars could investigate whether board games
might have the potential to improve one’s English proficiency. For example, do collaborative
commercial board games have more potential to support students in practising speaking skills than
listening skills? Finally, one could also repeat the experiment with other (educational or commercial)

De Spiegeleir 71
board games since the results could differ greatly depending on which board game is selected for the
project. There may be different learning outcomes depending on which educational board game is
selected. Furthermore, it could be interesting to examine how the lesson materials should be connected
to the (learning) content of the selected educational board game.
To summarise, my study has suffered from several limitations. The most important one is the
small amount of participants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, I hope that the results of
my study will still contribute to the knowledge within this research area since it offers some
encouraging observations about potential learning opportunities when using board games as
supplementary learning activities in ESL education. However, more research remains necessary to
fully understand the learning effects of board games, as well as the attitudes towards the
implementation of board games into ESL education.

De Spiegeleir 72
 CHAPTER 7: Conclusion

8. Conclusion

In this last section I will turn to my main research question once again. Next, I will also
incrementally discuss my three sub-questions.

M-RQ: Which board game (the educational one ‘Get your piece of English’ or the commercial one
‘Forbidden island’) leads to the best learning results in terms of English grammar and vocabulary,
and what are the attitudes of Flemish students towards incorporating these board games into ESL
education?

Within my experiment the educational board game ‘Get your piece of English’ generates the
most promising learning outcomes in terms of vocabulary acquisition and grammar revision. An
analysis of the test scores from the experimental group GYPOE shows a slight improvement in all test
components. This is mainly due to an improvement in the test scores of three out of six participants. In
general, the commercial board game ‘Forbidden island’ leads to no significant improvement in
vocabulary or grammar. However, the experimental group FI still scores better than the control group
(whose scores decreased slightly).
In terms of the attitudes of Flemish students towards implementing board games into ESL
education, most students display a positive and open-minded attitude towards playing board games for
educational purposes. Some participants have certain concerns regarding the inexperience of some
students with board games. Other participants also mention the challenge to consistently keep
communicating in the target language. However, most students are strongly convinced of several
benefits from incorporating board games into the English classroom. They mention the entertainment
factor, practising communication skills, cooperative learning and playing board games as an authentic
learning experience. In terms of the commercial board game students consider fictional elements and
roleplay to be two more arguments to implement board games into ESL education.

RQ1: Can playing board games assist learners of English as a second language (ESL) to improve
vocabulary acquisition and revise grammar?

My experiment cautiously points into the encouraging observation that some aspects of board
games seem to support learners of English to improve vocabulary acquisition and to revise grammar.
The educational game ‘Get your piece of English’ on the one hand displays the most promising
results. The average scores for this experimental group show a slight improvement (mainly due to a

De Spiegeleir 73
relatively high increased score for three out of six participants playing GYPOE). Since this slight
improvement can be found in each part of the language test, this trend could indicate that the
educational board game may be more capable of supporting students to learn vocabulary as well as
grammar (English tenses and quantifiers). On the other hand, there seems to be no general
improvement in the test scores of the group playing the commercial board game ‘Forbidden island’.
Even though the participants from this group display a generally positive attitude regarding the
potential of the board game to improve one’s English, the language tests show no consistent progress
in the scores for vocabulary or grammar. Nevertheless, the experimental group FI still achieved higher
scores than the control group whose average scores have decreased (presumably due to the expected
retention effect). To conclude, these observations suggest that educational board games, such as
GYPOE, promise better learning outcomes as they are more directly based on the specific learning
content that students need to acquire. However, no change in the scores of the different language tests
proved to be statistically significant which causes me to be careful about drawing any big conclusions.
The educational board game merely seems to indicate a larger potential to support students in
acquiring vocabulary and revising certain components of grammar.

RQ2: What are the attitudes of students towards incorporating board games into ESL education?

First, I will focus on which learning outcomes the students expect from playing board games
in English class. In general, the beliefs concerning learning effects seem to depend greatly on which
type of board game the participants were assigned to. After having played the commercial board game
FI, the participants from this group remained rather neutral concerning grammar and half of them
stated that board games may not be the best learning activity to acquire vocabulary. By contrast,
participants playing the educational game GYPOE considered board games to be greatly beneficial for
vocabulary acquisition and some of them considered board games to be useful for grammar revision as
well. In general, the participants are divided about which learning outcomes can be expected from
playing board games in ESL education. Nonetheless, most students show a generally positive attitude
(or at least a certain open-mindedness) towards the implementation of board games into ESL
education. Furthermore, all participants believe that board games can have at least some positive
learning effect since they all agreed in the questionnaires that board games can ‘help them to improve
their English’.
Second, the participants considered board games to have several other beneficial components
as well. Many student mentioned the entertainment factor of the gaming activity, partially because it
seemed to motivate them to learn and play. They also considered board games to offer them unique
opportunities to train their communication skills and to practise English in an authentic learning
environment. This seems to be an appreciated component of the experiment since students may lack
sufficient speaking opportunities in traditional English classes. Another major beneficial aspect of
board games is cooperative learning. Participants stated that both team work and (for some) the

De Spiegeleir 74
element of competition enabled them to learn English and motivated them to participate in the activity.
Regarding the commercial board game FI two more benefits appeared. Students were convinced of the
board game’s potential to allow practising English with roleplay, as well as feeling more motivated to
engage in the game activity due to the fictional elements of the board game. Many of these benefits
were already confirmed within existing literature. However, it seems encouraging that students
recognise these benefits as well and therefore display a generally positive attitude and open-
mindedness towards implementing board games into ESL education.
Third, the participants also mentioned a few concerns regarding board games in ESL
education. Not all students consistently spoke English while playing the board game. This may indeed
prove to be a challenge when incorporating board games into the English classroom. Additionally,
some students mentioned their inexperience with board games which may affect their willingness to
play. The specific board game FI may have been a little too complicated to incorporate into English
lessons with third grade students. This shows how important it is for a teacher to select or create a
board game which is perfectly aligned with the development of (both experienced and inexperienced)
players. Even though existing literature has indicated the challenge of teachers being not experienced
enough with (board) games, my study shows the opposite. In this case it was not the teacher who
appeared inexperienced, but rather some students who felt insecure or unmotivated due to
inexperience with board games.

RQ3: Can board games be used as valuable, supplementary resources in ESL teaching?

Board games can definitely prove to be valuable, supplementary resources in ESL teaching.
The language tests indicate that especially educational board games seem to have much potential to
support ESL learners in acquiring vocabulary and revising grammar. Students seem to expect some of
these learning outcomes as well. Furthermore, both existing literature and the interviews from this
study indicate that board games have valuable beneficial components that are rather unique within
traditional ESL education. It will be interesting to see how future studies continue to work on this
research topic as I am convinced that many teachers and ESL learners will benefit from engaging with
more progressive, alternative learning resources, such as board games.

De Spiegeleir 75
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case
of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47(4), 373–398.
All, A., Castellar, E. P. N. & J., Van Looy (2014). Measuring effectiveness in digital game-based
learning: A methodological review. International Journal of Serious Games, 1(1), 3-20.
All, A., Castellar, E. P. N. & J., Van Looy (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based
learning: Best practices. Computers & Education, 92, 90-103.
All, A., Plovie, B., Castellar, E. P. N. & J., Van Looy (2017). Pre-test influences on the effectiveness
of digital-game based learning: A case study of a fire safety game. Computers & Education,
114, 24-37.
Alsina, Á. (2006). Desarrollo de competencias matemáticas con recursos lúdicomanipulativos.
Madrid: Narcea.
Ariel, S. (2002). Children's Imaginative Play: A Visit to Wonderland. Westport: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Arnseth, H. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn: A critical account of the models of
communication informing educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies, 6(1), 1-
11.
Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the classroom?
Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video games. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 11(6), 665–671.
Bakar, A., Inal, Y. & K., Cagiltay (2006). Use of commercial games for educational purposes: Will
today’s teacher candidates use them in the future? In The World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2006 (pp. 1757-1762). Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
Barbour, M. K. & M., Evans (2009). Making sense of video games. Pre-service teachers struggle with
this new medium. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the society of
informational technology and teacher education (pp. 1367–1371). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Batson, L. & S., Feinberg (2006). Game designs that enhance motivation and learning for teenagers.
Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 34-43.
Becker, K. & D. M., Jacobsen (2005). Games for learning: Are schools ready for what’s to come. In
The DiGRA 2005 Conference, “Changing Views: Worlds in Play” (pp. 1-9). Vancouver.
Bellens, B., Arkens, T., Van Damme, J., & S., Gielen (2013). Sociale ongelijkheid en ongelijkheid op
basis van thuistaal inzake wetenschapsprestaties in het Vlaamse onderwijs. Retrieved from

De Spiegeleir 76
 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/34582356.pdf
Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P. & R., Berta (2013). Assessment in and of serious
games: An overview. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Special Issue 2013, 1-11.
Bertrands, E. & F., Laevers (n.d.). De relatie tussen de leeromgeving, betrokkenheid en het
schoolsucces in het licht van gelijke onderwijskansen. Retrieved from
http://www.steunpuntgok.be/downloads/leren_uit_gok_welbevinden_betrokkenheid.pdf
Bettleheim, B. (1987). A Good Enough Parent: A Book on Child-Rearing. New York: Knopf.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brecke, R. & J., Jensen (2007). Cooperative learning, responsibility, ambiguity, controversy and
support in motivating students. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 2(1), 57-63.
Bontchev, B. & D., Vassileva (2010). Educational quiz board games for adaptive E-learning. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66, 256-263.
Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R. & M., Valcke (2013).
Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education 67,
21-35.
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J. & R. D., Sharwood (1989). New approaches to instruction:
Because wisdom can’t be told. In Vosniadou, S. & A., Ortony (Eds.). Similarity and
analogical reasoning (pp. 470-497). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brougère, G. (1999). Some elements relating to children's play and adult simulation/gaming.
Simulation & Gaming, 30(2), 134-146.
Brown, D. H. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White
Plains: Pearson Education.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & P., Duguid (1989). Situated cognition and culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Can, G. & K., Cagiltay (2006). Turkish prospective teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of
computer games with educational features. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 308–321.
Castle, K. (1998). Children's rule knowledge in invented games. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 12(2), 197-197.
Chen, K. C., Wu, C. J. & G. D., Chen (2011). A digital board game based learning system for
authentic learning. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on advance
learning technologies, ICALT 2011, Athens, Georgia (pp. 25-99). Athens, GA: IEEE
Computer Society.
Chuang, T. Y. (2007). Effect of computer-based video games on children: An experimental
study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1-10.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York:
Teachers College Press.

De Spiegeleir 77
Cole, H. & M. D., Griffiths (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing
gamers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 575-583.
Collins, A. & J. S., Brown (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In Mandel,
H. & A. Lesgold (Eds.). Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 1-18). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & J., Boyle (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education,
59(2), 661-686.
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G. & P., Desmet (2010). The role of feedback in the instruction of L2
pragmatics through serious games. In Languages, Cultures and Virtual Communities.
Proceedings of EuroCALL 2010 (pp. 152-153). Bordeaux.
Cruickshank, D.R. & R., Telfer (2001). Classroom games and simulations. Theory in to practice,
19(1), 75-80.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York:
Teachers College Press.
De Groot, S. (2001). Spelend leren werkt! De kracht van educatieve spelen. Retrieved from

https://adoc.tips/spelend-leren-werkt-de-kracht-van-educatieve-spellen.html
De Grove, F., Bourgonjon, J. & J., Van Looy (2012). Digital games in the classroom? A contextual
approach to teachers’ adoption intention of digital games in formal education. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28(6), 2023-2033.
De Grove, F., Neys, J., Van Looy, J. & Jansz, J. (2011). Playing in school or at home? An exploration
of the effects of context on educational game experience. Electronic Journal of E-learning,
10(2), 199-208.
De Grove, F., Van Looy, J. & P., Merchant (2011). Comparing the potential of commercial off-the-
shelf and educational video games for adult foreign language education: An experimental
study. Proceedings of the 5th European conference on games-based learning, 20(21), 129-
136.
De Grove, F., Van Looy, J. & P., Merchant (2013). Learning to play, playing to learn. Comparing the
experiences of adult foreign language learners with off-the-shelf and specialized games for
learning German. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(2), 22-35.
De Grove, F., Cornillie, F., Van Looy, J. & P., Merchant (2013). Tapping into the field of foreign
language learning games. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(1), 44-60.
DeHaan, J., Reed, W. M. & K., Kuwada (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game
on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74-94.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & M. H. Long (Eds.). The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

De Spiegeleir 78
De Kort, Y. & W. A., Ijsselsteijn (2008). People, places and play: player experience in a socio-spatial
context. Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 1-11.
Dewey, M. (2007). English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected perspective.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 332-354.
De Wilde, V. & J., Eyckmans (2017). Game on! Young learners’ incidental language learning of
English prior to instruction. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 7(4), 675-695.
Din, F. S. & J., Caleo (2000). Playing computer games versus better learning. In The Annual
Conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association (pp. 2-17). Florida.
Dormann, C. & R., Biddle (2008). Understanding game design for affective learning. In Proceedings
of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (pp. 41-48). New York.
Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and
motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482-493.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Educational potential of computer games. New York: Continuum Press.
Engels, N., Aelterman, A., Van Petegem, K. & A., Schepens (2004). Factors which influence the well-
being of pupils in Flemish secondary schools. Educational Studies, 30(2), 127-143.
Faya Cerqueiro, F. & M., Chao Castro (2015). Board-games as review lessons in English language
teaching: Useful resources for any level. Docencia e Investigación, 25(2), 67-82.
Ferreira, A., Pereira, E., Anacleto, J., Carvalho, A. & I. Carelli (2008). The common sense-based
educational quiz game framework “What is it?”. ACM International Conference Proceeding
Series, 378, 338-339.
Fullan, M. (2001). The NEW meaning of educational change. New York & London: Teachers College
Press.
Garcia-Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B. & F., Watts (2001). Simulation/gaming and the
acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation & Gaming, 32(4),
481-491.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in
Entertainment, 1(1), 1-4.
Gerber, H. (2014). Problems and possibilities in gamifying learning: A conceptual review. Internet
Learning Journal, 3(2), 46-54.
Ghaith, G. & H., Yaghi (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward
the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–
458.
Glen, S. (2016, March 1). Sign Test: Step by Step Calculation. Statistics How To. Retrieved April 4,
2021 from https://www.statisticshowto.com/sign-test/
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language learning: opportunities and challenges. Language
Learning & Technology, 18(2), 9-19.
Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O. & D., Chappell (2003). Breaking the stereotype: The case of online

De Spiegeleir 79
 gaming. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(1), 81-91.
Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: P.Ed Australia.
Harris, C. (2009). Meet the new school board: Board games are back – and they’re exactly what your
curriculum needs. School Library Journal, 55(5), 24-26.
Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. In
Technical Report, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (pp. 5-63). Orlando.
Herrington, A. J. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. Edith Cowan University.
Herrington, A. J., Reeves, T. C. & R., Oliver (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York:
Routledge.
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2010–2011). Beyond comprehension: We have yet to adopt a common core
curriculum. American Educator, 34(4), 30-36.
Hsu, C. L. & H. P., Lu (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social
influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853-868.
Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K. & W. W., Ma (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school
teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241.
Hughes, F. P. (2009). Children, play and development. London: SAGE Publications.
Jacobs, G. M. & S. G., McCafferty (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second
language learning and teaching. In McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, J. M. & A. C., DaSilva Innings
(Eds.). Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 18-29). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Janssen-Vos (2004). Spel en ontwikkeling. Assen: van Gorcum.
Jones, K. (1982). Simulations in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kao, C. P. & C. C., Tsai (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based professional development, with
relation to internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based learning. Computers &
Education, 53(1), 66-73.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Karpicke, J. D. & H. L., Roediger (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science,
319(5865), 966-968.
Kennedy-Clark, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario-based virtual worlds in
science education. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2224-2235.
Kenny, R. F., & R., McDaniel (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments of video
games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42(2), 197-213.
Ketsman, L. (2013). Wiskunde kan megaleuk en leerrijk zijn: Spelvormen voor wiskunde in het eerste
jaar S.O.. Retrieved from https://docplayer.nl/10744560-Wiskunde-kan-megaleuk-en-leerrijk-

De Spiegeleir 80
 zijn.html
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K. & E., Salas (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories
of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of applied Psychology,
78(2), 311.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergaman.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & W., Jochems (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers
in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
Kuppens, A.H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media
and Technology, 35(1), 65-85.
Laerd Statistics (n.d.). Sign Test using SPSS Statistics. Retrieved April 4, 2021, from
https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/sign-test-using-spss-statistics.php
Laevers, F. (1992). Welbevinden en betrokkenheid. Richtsnoeren voor een ervaringsgerichte
onderwijspraktijk. In Van Oers, B. & F., Janssen-Vos (Eds.). Visies op onderwijs aan jonge
kinderen (pp. 36-51). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Laevers, F. (2002). Handleiding Procesgericht kindvolgsysteem voor leerlingen. Leuven: Centrum
voor ervaringsgericht onderwijs.
Laevers, F., Daems, M., Debruyckere, G., Declercq, B., Silkens, K. & G., Snoeck (2008). ZiKo-Vo:
Kindvolgsysteem voor baby's en peuters. Leuven: CEGO Publishers.
Laevers, F. & L., Depondt (2008). Ervaringsgericht werken met kleuters in het basisonderwijs.
Leuven: CEGO Publishers.
Landrum, R. E. (2007). Introductory psychology student performance: Weekly quizzes followed by a
cumulative final exam. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 177-180.
Looi, Q., See, S., Iris, N. & S., Aria (2011). Adopting a user-centric approach to evaluate HCI in
online games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Engineering and
Technology. Kuala Lumpur.
Lyster, R. & K., Saito (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA. A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
Macedonia, M. (2005). Games and foreign language teaching. Support for Learning, 20(3), 135-140.
Mackey, A. & J., Goo (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In
Mackey, A. (Ed.). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 407-453).
Oxford: Oxford UP.
McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M. & A. C., DaSilva Iddings (2006). Cooperative learning and second
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, B. & B. H., Sørensen, (2009). Designing serious games for computer assisted language
learning: A framework for development and analysis. In Kankaanranta, M. H. & P.,
Neittaanmäki (Eds.). Design and use of serious games (pp. 69-82). Springer, Dordrecht.

De Spiegeleir 81
Michael, D. & S., Chen (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train and inform. Boston, MA.:
Thomson Course Technology.
Miller, G. A. & P. M., Gildea (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 86-99.
Miller, M. & V., Hegelheimer (2006). The SIMs meet ESL incorporating authentic computer
simulation games into the language classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart Education,
3(4), 311-328.
Moseley, A. (2012). Assessment and games. In Whitton, N. & A., Moseley (Eds.). Using games to
enhance learning and teaching: A beginner’s guide (pp. 124-137). New York: Routledge.
Moseley, A. & R., Jones (2012). Mapping games to curricula. In Whitton, N. & A., Moseley (Eds.).
Using games to enhance learning and teaching: A beginner’s guide (pp. 109–123). New York:
Routledge.
Moyles, J. R. (1989). Just playing?: The role and status of play in early childhood education.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Nastasi, B. K. & D. H., Clements (1993). Motivational and social outcomes of cooperative computer
education environments. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 4(1), 15-43.
Neve, A. & M., Valcke (2014). Board games in het lager onderwijs [Unpublished master’s thesis].
Ghent University.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high-school computer science education:
Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1),
1-12.
Pastore, R. & D., Falvo (2010). Video games in the classroom: Pre- and in-service teachers’
perceptions of games in the K-12 classroom. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 7(12), 49-57.
Pollard, E., & P., Lee, (2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social
Indicators Research, 61(1), 59-78.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 21.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, mom, I’m learning! St. Paul, Minn., MN: Paragon House.
Proctor, M. & Y., Marks (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use and access of
computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62,
171-180.
Pujolàs Maset, P. (2008). Nueve ideas clave: El aprendizaje cooperative. Barcelona: Graó.
Purushotma, R., Thorne, S. L. & J., Wheatley (2008). 10 key principles for designing video games for
foreign language learning. Retrieved from
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=wll_fac.
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games
for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441-455.

De Spiegeleir 82
Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., Mcdaniel, M. A. & K. B., Mcdermott (2011). Test-enhanced learning
in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 17, 382-395.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and higher education, 5(4), 319-332.
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D. & L. D., Grooms (2009). Development of an instrument to
measure perceived cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual
classroom higher education settings. The Internet and higher education, 12(1), 7-13.
Salen, K. & E., Zimmerman (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11(2), 17-46.
Schrader, P. G., Zheng, D. & M., Young (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of video games: MMOGs and
the future of preservice teacher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3).
Sharan, S. & A., Shaulov (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn and academic
achievement. In Sharan, S. (Ed.). Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173-202).
New York: Praeger.
Simonis, L. (1995). Ervaringsgericht onderwijs en de praktijk. In Van Oers, B. & F., Janssens-Vos
(Eds.). Visies op onderwijs aan jonge kinderen (pp. 109-125). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P. & M., Larkin (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory,
method and research. London: SAGE Publications.
Soetaert, R., Bourgonjon, J., & K., Rutten (2010). Games: Retoriek van verhaal & spel. In Segers, K.
& J., Bauwens (Eds.). Maak mij wat wijs: Media kennen, begrijpen en zelf creëren (pp. 156-
166). Leuven: LannooCampus.
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom.
Innovate: Journal of online education, 1(6), 25–49.
Squire, K. D. & S. A., Barab (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing
Civilization III. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University.
Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices.
eLearning, 4(3), 297-318.
Sykes, J. M. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive environments &
Spanish pragmatics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4).
Usluel, Y. K., Askar, P. & T., Bas (2008). A structural equation model for ICT usage in higher
education. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 262-273.

De Spiegeleir 83
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., Van Werven, H. I., & H., Dekkers (1997). Teachers’ craft knowledge
and curriculum innovation in higher engineering education. Higher Education, 34(1), 105-122.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless.
educause review, 41(2), 55-63.
Van Looy, Jan, Courtois, C., De Vocht, M. & L., De Marez (2012). Player identification in online
games: Validation of a scale for measuring identification in MMOGs. Media Psychology,
15(2), 197-221.
Vanneste, D., Huyghe, S., Vandensavel, K. & K., Vanginderachter (2009). Languages and aspects of
tourism education and training in Flanders (Belgium). Scottish Languages review, 19, 25-34.
Van Oers, B. & F., Janssen-Vos (1992). Visies op onderwijs aan jonge kinderen. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Von Wangenheim, C., Savi, R. & A., Borgatto (2012). Deliver! An educational game for teaching
earned value management in computing courses. Information and Software Technology, 54(3),
286-298.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, D. R. & W. W., Sharrock (1990). Realities in simulation gaming. In Crookall, D. & R. L.
Oxford (Eds.). Simulation, gaming and language learning (pp. 231-245). New York: Newbury
House Publishers.
Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y. & R., Groner (2008). Playing online games
against computer-vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow and enjoyment.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2274-2291.
Williams, D. (2007). A unique review strategy that motivates student learning. InSight: A Journal of
Scholarly Teaching, 2(1), 64-69.
Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & E. D., Pursell (1989). The structured interview: additional studies
and a meta‐analysis. Journal of occupational psychology, 62(3), 191-199.
Wrzesien, M. & M., Alcañiz Raya (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning
effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education, 55(1),
178-187.
Wu, C. J., Chen, G. D. & C. W., Huang (2014). Using digital board games for genuine communication
in EFL classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 209-226.
Yau, C. (n.d.). Sign Test. R Turorial. Retrieved April 4, 2021, from http://www.r-
tutor.com/elementary-statistics/non-parametric-methods/sign-test
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology & behavior : The impact of
the internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society, 9(6), 772-5.
Yee, N. (2006). The psychology of massively multi-user online role-playing games: Motivations,
emotional investment, relationships and problematic usage. In Schroeder, R. & A., Axelsson
(Eds.). Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual

De Spiegeleir 84
 environments (pp. 187–208). Springer, Dordrecht.
Zimmerman, E. (2004). Narrative, interactivity, play and games: Four naughty concepts in need of
discipline. In Wardrip-Fruin, N. and Harrigan, P. (Eds.). First person: New media as story,
performance and game (pp. 154-164). Cambridge, MT: MIT Press.
Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25-32.

De Spiegeleir 85