What is a game?

For the purposes of this chapter, we adopt Sykes and Reinhardt's (2013) definition of game in which they assert:

• A player voluntarily plays a game knowing that she is bound by a set of rules (these can be followed or flouted).
• Games require effort to reach a goal (this goal can be open ended or clearly defined, yet it is always ultimately authenticated by the player).
• Games will often result in a variety of differing outcomes, some better than others.
• Games create an internally rewarding system. (p. 3)

We choose to use this definition because player/learner agency is central to all four listed characteristics. Players choose whether to follow the rules. Similarly, they are agentive in the goal authentication process and make decisions that impact their outcomes. Also, this definition recognizes that players play because they are somehow rewarded in the game. As we will establish, player agency in gameplay facilitates learning.

What are informal gaming spaces?

As previously defined, games can be played in spaces that are formal or informal. Informal spaces are at the heart of this chapter. Simply put, informal gaming spaces are gaming environments whose contexts of use are not directly and explicitly tied to achievement measures in the classroom. These spaces are distinct from what Sundqvist and Sylvén (2016) call extramural learning, or learning that occurs outside the classroom, because the location of gameplay is not as important to our discussion as its relationship to formal learning measures. Additionally, the determining factor in deciding whether or not a gaming space is informal is how it is ultimately used, not its original purpose as conceived by game designers. If a commercial vernacular game like Sorry! or Grand Theft Auto is used in the language classroom (or other formal learning context) as a form of intervention, the gaming space is formal. However, if the game in question is designed specifically for language learning but is used by an individual entirely under her own auspices, the gaming space qualifies as informal.

Admittedly, there is a certain degree of variability in how academy‐influenced informal gameplay might be. For example, if a player/learner, in accordance with a desire to improve his language proficiency, asks a teacher for some recommendations of games to play in the target language and chooses to play them himself, he is certainly participating in an informal gaming space. This behavior, though academy‐influenced, is born out of gaming efforts that were not assigned (we avoid the term autonomous here because individuals always have the autonomy to choose whether or not they comply with that which is assigned). Conversely, if an individual is given a grade for completing a gaming journal, even if she is permitted to choose the game, the gaming space is formal. In this sense, unlike learning and play, informal gaming spaces and formal gaming spaces are mutually exclusive. As we will see in our discussion of the literature that follows, there is actually very little empirical evidence from gaming spaces that are purely informal, and it is a central goal of this chapter to synthesize what we do know in this nascent domain.

What is learner‐directedness?

Learner‐directedness is connected to the degree to which the learner/player has agency both (i) in choosing to be in the gaming space and (ii) choosing what to do in the gaming space. Though upon initial consideration it might seem as such, learner‐directedness should not be conceptualized as antithetical to other‐directedness in gameplay that results in language learning; as Thorne and Black (2007) discuss, a driving force behind language acquisition is the desire to build social relationships. Play might very well be learner‐directed and motivated by a desire to participate in what Gee (2004) calls “affinity spaces,” or places where people “affiliate … based primarily on shared activities, interests, and goals” (p. 67). Additionally, though learner‐directedness is connected to informal gaming spaces in that the player/learner has to have agency in selecting the gaming space for it to be considered informal, the two terms are not synonymous. In our previous example of a student choosing to play a games in the target language based on a few recommendations from his teacher, the student's gameplay is highly, though not completely, learner‐directed, and it is informal (provided that it is not assigned as a classroom intervention). Similarly, as is seen in our other previous example of the learner being told she has to play a game and keep a game journal but is permitted to choose the game, her play is somewhat learner‐directed, but it is also explicitly tied to a formal learning space.

The synergistic nature of games and language learning

The question as to why learner‐directedness relates to informal gaming spaces is worth exploring. Part of the reason that we address games in our discussion of learner‐directedness, as we have already alluded to, is that there are parallels between good game design and research‐based language teaching practices (see Gee 2007; Thorne, Black, and Sykes 2009). Sykes and Reinhardt (2013) provide an apt summary of some of these affordances. Specifically, they mention that good games and good classrooms both involve quality goal orientation (awareness of success metrics), meaningful interaction (player/learner–text, player/learner–player/learner, or player/learner–expert interlocutor), feedback (awareness of failstates), that language use is contextualized (situated meaning takes precedence over translation), and that both environments, if they are well‐designed, are motivating provided that they promote player/learner autonomy and provide challenges that are achievable. Essentially, good game design, like a well‐designed classroom, promotes the development of the analytical and critical thinking skills that are necessary to promote that learners move beyond the acquisition of content (e.g. target vocabulary and discreet grammar points) to the appropriate application of that content in a diverse set of contexts (e.g. effective communication across relevant domains). In other words, games have the potential to scaffold the langauge learning process.

The case for play

Play is a social activity inextricably linked to recreation and/or amusement. For an activity to be considered play, it must be both time‐bound and place‐bound within rules or a framework that is distinct from that which governs the rest of the world. Play can take on a variety of forms: paidia (free play), ludus (rule‐bound play), mimesis (imitation), alea (chance), agon (competition), or ilinx (movement) (Caillois 1961 as cited in Sykes and Reinhardt 2013, p. 2).

No matter the form, play is associated with learning across domains. In formal language learning contexts, this association is evidenced in a growing body of literature that explores the potential of gameful play via edutainment (e.g. Korkmaz 2013), apps with adaptive learning technologies (e.g. Munday 2016), and extracurricular clubs designed to promote literacy (e.g. Honeyford and Boyd 2015). The merit of this research is perhaps unsurprising; play (in both formal and informal contexts) facilitates the development of critical problem‐solving skills (Jenkins et al. 2006), is associated with identity development (Gee 2005), and is connected to the development of multiliteracies (New London Group 1996) via game literacy (Gee 2007).

Of equal importance with respect to language learning, applied linguists have theorized and explored the potential for language play, the act of manipulating the formal qualities of language, to facilitate learning. As Sykes and Reinhardt (2013) summarize:

Language play by second language (L2) learners during speaking (Bell 2005; Pomerantz and Bell 2007), writing (Belz 2002), or online chat (Belz and Reinhardt 2004) may aid learning by drawing attention to language form and may relate to identity development

(Belz 2002). (p. 2)

Additionally, it should be noted that any type of play involving language can facilitate language acquisition. For example, Sundqvist and Sylvén (2016) write that extramural language use in gaming and other activities encompasses “input, output, and/or interaction in [the target language]; that is, the essential components needed for second‐language (L2) learning are in place” (p. 7). Indeed, the potential for both language play and play involving language use to inspire language acquisition is clear.

The social turn: Moving beyond input, output, and interaction

While it is true that L2 input, output, and interaction are critical for language learning, we take a more socially informed view of the essential components of language acquisition in our analysis of learner‐directed gameplay, with a special focus on co‐construction, which assumes “the fundamentally interactional basis of the human construction of meaning, context, activity, and identity” (Jacoby and Ochs 1995, p. 175). Through this lens, language input and output do not exist independently of social interaction. Further, learners' intercultural, pragmatic, affective, and linguistic knowledge, whether implicit or explicit, is employed “through the spontaneous playing out of the sequentially contingent and co‐constructed external flow of interactional events” (Jacoby and Ochs 1995, p. 175). Research on gaming, along with online environments and other new media literacies, points to players'/learners' desire to build social relationships as the driving force behind language learning (Thorne and Black 2007). Learner‐directed gaming, driven by this desire and co‐constructed via interactions with, through, around, and about the game, has several benefits for L2 development: games tend to provide low‐risk practice simulations, affinity groups are oftentimes emotionally supportive, the inherent complexity of most informal gaming spaces provides a rich environment that primes learning in a way that is difficult to replicate in a formal classroom, and online interactions facilitate the development of global competencies. We turn our attention to these benefits now.

Benefit 1: Low‐risk, simulated practice with meaningful consequences

Gameplay promotes language learning via its allowance of low‐risk practice in simulated conditions with and through multiple player identities. As noted by Sykes, Oskoz, and Thorne (2008, pp. 538–539), within‐game interactions with non‐player characters (NPCs) have the potential to allow for the performance of high‐stakes speech acts (e.g. apologies) without offending “real” people when poorly executing the interactions. Simultaneously, simulations provide valuable feedback for pragmatic development through the instantiation of contexts in which the consequences of interaction are meaningful outside the game. Interactions through the game with other players similarly allow for the performance of communicative functions. For example, Sykes et al. (2008) reference Thorne’s (2008) examples of “solidarity building, greeting and leave taking, apologizing, and requesting” (p. 536). Players have the opportunity to explore and play through a variety of identities, outlined by Gee (2007) as their “real‐world” identities, identities that different in‐game characters are assigned, and “projective identities,” (p. 62) the long‐term values and characteristics that players project onto their characters. These identities also constitute a “project‐in‐the‐making” (p. 62) on the part of the player in the game space. Multiple identities allow for practice from a variety of perspectives and for multifaceted interactions; navigating interactions from different roles challenges learners to consider new perspectives and ways of thinking (Thorne et al. 2009).

Benefit 2: Emotionally supportive environments

Second, though players may engage in the practice of “griefing” one another (giving one another a hard time), research points to another reality, the reality of positive and emotionally supportive gaming experiences. These experiences may yield positive affective factors that should be facilitative of language development. Players' voluntary entry into shared affinity spaces allows for an affiliative bond among players in through‐game, around‐game, and about‐game interactions, as will be discussed in more detail below, as well as a positive emotional connection with the game itself. For example, Thorne and Black (2007) note that massively multiplayer online (MMO) environments abound with cultures that promote assistance and experienced players' scaffolding for novice players so that all can participate successfully. Thorne et al. (2009) summarize findings that through‐ and around‐game communication features more socioemotional talk than “purely task‐associated communication” (p. 810), with more experienced players producing more positive messages.

Benefit 3: Complexity to prime learning

Third, learner‐directed game play has been noted to have a built‐in complexity that is difficult to create in a classroom setting or in traditional language curriculum, both of which may tend toward more prescriptive and oversimplified models of language use (Sykes et al. 2008; Thorne et al. 2009). The potential benefit of complexity is further highlighted by the fact that interactions through, around, and about the game call for progressively less scripted and more natural language use. Thorne (2008) finds evidence of reference to external resources to facilitate communication (as when a conversant texts a friend who is a more proficient speaker of a target language). Additionally, Thorne and Black (2007) note “reciprocal alternation in expert‐novice status wherein both participants provided expert knowledge, language‐specific explicit corrections, made requests for help, and collaboratively assembled successful repair sequences” (p. 9). Indeed, far from distracting players from the “real world,” gameplay and its emergent and attendant discourses place learners in a complex yet scaffolded collection of worlds that require diverse interactions to attain learner‐selected goals. Such behaviors help players to navigate in a changing world in which “digital literacies and plurilingual contexts of communication” (Thorne et al. 2009, p. 814) are becoming increasingly prominent.

Benefit 4: Global competencies through online interactions

Finally, today's online players build global competencies as they interact in what Shapiro (2018) calls “digital sandboxes” to develop macromindedness, or “habits of mind that are associated with a world‐wide outlook” (p. 5). Global competencies, as defined by the Programme for International Student Assessment, entail four components:

1. the capacity to examine issues and situations of local, global and cultural significance…; 2. the capacity to understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views; 3. the ability to establish positive interactions with people of different … backgrounds; and 4. the capacity and disposition to take constructive action toward sustainable development and collective well‐being.

(OECD 2018, pp. 7–8)

Digital interactions through, around, and about games especially reinforce the second component, as is evidenced by interactions on gaming websites and forums with international participation. Said interactions also facilitate the third component, as players of different backgrounds must work together to accomplish in‐game tasks.

Interactions with the game

Reinhardt and Sykes (2011) define in‐game discourses as those dealing with “game narratives or fictional content, and game rules” (p. 3). These discourses range from navigating menus to interactions with NPCs imbued with their own personalities and idiosyncratic behaviors. In these interactions, language is more “highly structured and goal‐directed” (Thorne and Black 2007, p. 6) than in other game discourses. Purushotma's (2005) observation that the vocabulary and tasks used to play The Sims are similar to the content he studied in his beginning German class serves to highlight this structured nature. However, whereas classroom teachers must engage in careful curriculum planning to meaningfully contextualize classroom communication, within games all language use tends to be “linked to carrying out tasks and social actions, which concomitantly embeds vocabulary and grammatical constructions in rich associative contexts” (Thorne and Black 2007, p. 6). In a very real sense, rich gaming environments in commercial games provide more opportunities for contextualized, meaningful language use to players than any traditional textbook could.

This observation is particularly true for the development of specialized language proficiencies when players encounter robust NPCs that align with their interests. For example, Thorne and Black (2007) note that players may interact with NPCs in World of Warcraft via such specialized functions as banking transactions and armor repair. Additionally, DeVane and Squire (2008) report that a frequent player of Grand Theft Auto who “wanted to work in vehicle customization as a career…learned about car accessories and design using the game” (p. 275), and Chik's (2014) case studies include Raymond, who “pointed out during the focus group discussion that his preference for football games meant that he had a better vocabulary of football than of any other sports or on many other leisure topics” (p. 94).

Interactions through the game

As we have already indicated, many multiplayer games allow players to communicate synchronously through chat or shared audio. Content of these emergent discourses that are prominent in through‐game interaction focuses on rules and strategies and is highly situational and role‐dependent (Reinhardt and Sykes 2011). The limited focus and shared extralinguistic cues are likely beneficial to language learners in that they may make more language accessible to players with low proficiency. Language learners may also be supported in these interactions via explicit feedback, as was the case in a text chat between an English‐speaking American World of Warcraft player and a Russian‐speaking Ukrainian player (Thorne 2008).

It is important to note that emergent discourses support not only lexical and grammatical development, but also the observation, evaluation, and practice of language pragmatics and intercultural communicative interactions. For example, teenage English learners in China paired with teenage L1 English speakers in the United States to complete quests in Quest Atlantis, a virtual world designed for educational use, made use of affordances for both utterance‐level and discourse‐level language acquisition (Zheng et al. 2009).

Interactions around the game

As previously discussed, a shared interest in a particular game, whether single‐player or multiplayer, creates an affinity space. Players/learners with shared interests in particular games often communicate with each other via dedicated social media platforms such as Facebook and Reddit and use chat rooms and applications such as Discord, a free voice and text chat application for gamers who build private, invite‐only groups. Additionally, people write game‐associated fan fiction on dedicated wikis, as exemplified by the case of Nanako, a Canadian who immigrated from China at age 11 and wrote animé fan fiction in English (Black 2009). Having a shared affinity space with an appreciative audience allowed Nanako to co‐construct an identity as a successful English‐language writer. In other words, her learning was motivated by her around‐game interactions.

Regardless of the degree of physical separation in these interactions, the emergent and attendant discourses (Reinhardt and Sykes 2011) used in these spaces may, like interactions through the game, deal with game strategies; or they may move into extended narratives. This broader scope of discourse allows for increased proficiency development. However, the nature of what Thorne et al. (2009) refer to as hybridizing (recombining and altering existing materials in new ways) as seen in fan fiction helps to scaffold language use for participants; characters, settings, plotlines, and context are already provided for the learner/player to make use of and add his/her own meanings to. Thanks to the scaffolding created by provided elements and shared context with other players, learners are able to produce output at a higher level of proficiency, indicating a zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1987) in which a learner can work at a more advanced level with help than when working alone (Sykes and Reinhardt 2013).

Interactions about the game

Interactions about the game involve players making connections between the game and the rest of the world around them. When engaging in such interactions, players might share information about game rules and strategies in online forums, discuss the culture and endgame of a particular game, and even engage in scholarly discussions of game elements that facilitate language acquisition. These interactions are particularly beneficial to language learning because they include “collecting discourses, analyzing their linguistic, pragmatic, and socio‐cultural meanings, and more reflective creation and participation” than interactions with, through, and around games (Reinhardt and Sykes 2011, p. 3).

The disconnect between popular language‐learning apps and contemporary language pedagogies

All games that we have presented up to this point are united by a compelling commonality: They provide unique affordances for language acquisition in spite of the fact that they were not developed with language acquisition in mind. While fascinating, this reality presents a troubling situation. In largely monolingual cultures, it is unlikely that the novice language learner would turn to these games to improve her proficiency. Instead, she and her novice counterparts are likely to turn to game‐like apps and online platforms, at least in part because they have a narrow view of what language learning entails.

Are these apps and online platforms actually games according to the definition that we have previously presented? The answer, at least for the most popular apps in terms of downloads (Duolingo) and gross revenues (Babbel), is no, but close. In both examples, a player voluntarily interacts in a rule‐bound environment, badging and other achievements promote that actions are internally rewarding, and effort is necessary to achieve goals. Where the apps depart from games is that there are not really a variety of outcomes for gameplay. Given their high degree of relatedness with games (punctuated by Duolingo's own emphasis that its activities are minigames) and popularity, we argue that they wield great influence in the market for language learning via games in informal contexts. We presently turn our attention to dissecting that influence and parsing its impact.

As we have established in our discussion, language learning happens via gameplay in a variety of contexts, be they designed to promote language acquisition or not, through diverse means of co‐constructing meaning in a shared space (e.g. player/learner–game, player/learner–player, player/learner–member of an affinity space). Central to this position is the idea that language acquisition is born out of interaction (Long 1996) and, certainly, games as we have defined them provide facilitatory structures to that interaction. Conversely, while many researchers recognize the potential of the aforementioned game‐like learning apps to promote language acquisition, the approach in popular apps is noted oftentimes to be in sharp contrast to contemporary language pedagogy. As Rosell‐Aguilar (2017) writes,

App design for language learning has recently come under criticism. For example, Burston [2014] argued that language‐learning activities on mobile apps are basic and have mostly replicated what was done before other technologies. Although most practitioners in Computer‐Assisted Language Learning [CALL] would agree that design for online language learning and teaching should be pedagogy driven [Colpaert 2006], many language‐learning apps often provide exercises that test the user without first providing instruction… Further criticisms related to the design of language‐learning apps include too much focus on translation… and little use of the unique properties of smartphones – connectivity with other users in particular [Burston 2014; Godwin‐Jones 2011].

(pp. 244–245)

However critical a view one takes of language learning apps, we argue that it is necessary for educators and researchers to familiarize themselves with this facet of the informal learning landscape, particularly given their high degree of proliferation and visibility to informal language learners. Both Babbel and Duolingo are categorized as “full language learning solutions” (p. 248) in Rosell‐Aguilar's (2017) proposed taxonomy of language‐learning apps, meaning that they are “designed as full language‐learning solutions and offer a variety of exercises, grammatical explanations, and interactions with other students and native speakers as well as support from communities of learners” (p. 248). Yet, as our discussion will show, the platforms are not sufficient tools to building language proficiency across modes.

Babbel

Babbel is a subscription‐based mobile and online language‐learning platform that explicitly ties progression to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Babbel purports to differentiate itself from other language‐learning platforms by its focus on language acquisition in realistic situations. For example, players learn “language that you can actually use in real life” (TC Video 2018) in real‐world settings (e.g. business offices and restaurants). There is merit to this stated approach, particularly upon consideration of its relationship to scaffolding player/learners into practitioner‐like achievement in relevant semiotic domains (Gee 2007).

Unfortunately, the current iteration of this platform provides no mechanism to ensure spontaneous and socially mediated communication (though at the time of this printing, the creators of Babbel were engaged in piloting live online tutoring), unlike other extramural platforms including massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). Instead, most interactions are simulated and scaffolded sometimes to the point that it is unnecessary to understand the context for communication at play to arrive at correct answers. Players first engage with content via the presentation, pronunciation, and recognition of a few vocabulary terms. Productive simulations, like conversation simulations with avatars, are typically scaffolded by English translations or by the target language script itself. While this approach is attractive for its scaffolded and multimodal input (most targeted vocabulary is supported by images, and written language that is seen is supported by audio recordings) and chunked vocabulary (empowering learners to acquire phrase‐length utterances quickly), Babbel's potential effectiveness for an informal language learner desiring to become fluent in the L2 may be limited. Though the platform does attempt to contextualize communication, our tests revealed no explicit instruction in language pragmatics and that, in concert with its scripted nature, likely lessens the ease with which players will apply their knowledge to additional contexts. The language presented in the platform is neat and packaged, and therefore achievable, but the actual proficiency that one would gain in playing the app has only recently undergone initial empirical evaluation in a self‐published study (Van Duesen‐Scholl, Lubrano, and Sporn 2019).

Duolingo

Duolingo is free app and mobile platform. It is distinct from Babbel in that it provides less context for its lessons. Vocabulary is grouped by theme but not contextualized communicatively, and the logic behind the sequencing of content is unclear. Additionally, while Babbel is explicitly tied to a framework for proficiency, Duolingo's portrayal of proficiency is unfounded in contemporary conceptualizations of language acquisition; learners are shown to become a certain percentage fluent as they complete tasks that are unrelated to language proficiency (in one of our tests, we translated and typed seemingly random sentences in the past perfect, and our fluency increased by 7%).

Obviously, however, Duolingo is attractive to users. Its interface is friendly and approachable, and language is neatly packaged in small, digestible chunks. Additionally, there is a robust community of learners to connect with if any questions arise as players interact with the various minigames, and interactions with the chatbots have the potential to make learners feel like they are engaging in realistic, authentic conversations. Perhaps even more critical to its appeal, fluency percentages can increase with each interaction, and players can earn badges to document their successes. This gaming framework is likely very motivating to beginning learners.

Unsurprisingly, researchers and other reviewers have continued to note that Duolingo is not a communicative platform, highlighting its lack of focus on pragmatic and cultural skills (e.g. Teske 2017; Munday 2016). The potential for this deficiency to negatively impact a player's ability to participate in spontaneous communication is evidenced in a string of recent op‐ed pieces about struggles players have had in face‐to‐face communicative settings (e.g. London 2017; Agomuoh 2018). Though Duolingo has been empirically validated for its ability to promote language acquisition to an extent, it should be noted that the company itself sponsored its most widely circulated study (Vesselinov and Grego 2012), and the conclusions of the study are contested (see Krashen 2014). Moreover, the reported benefits seem most impactful for novice learners; Munday (2016) found that novice learners in a university language program reported higher levels of user satisfaction (as measured by ease of use, perceived utility, and enjoyment) and preferring Duolingo over other language homework apps than did their intermediate level peers. Additionally, the novice learners were more likely to have completed more work in Duolingo than that which was assigned (56.5%) than intermediate learners (20%), also indicating a drop in the perceived utility of the app as one's proficiency grows and one (likely) experiences improved understanding of what language learning entails.

Involving language experts in language learning

Somewhat ironically, the relative popularity of apps like Duolingo may indicate a simultaneous dissatisfaction with formal approaches to language learning and a popular (but naive) expectation that language‐learning involves, at its heart, the memorization of word lists and discrete vocabulary (an approach that is typical of many formal contexts). As a result, individuals (many of whom are not language experts) develop language‐learning platforms that use a variety of tactics including fun and games (like the aforementioned minigames) and even sexual desire (e.g. SexyMandarin) to dress up a pedagogy that remains outdated. Researchers and practitioners should recognize this proliferation, evaluate its impact, and seek to harness what drives the success of the platforms in the creation of apps that do harness contemporary, communicative language pedagogies. LingroToGo, a new Spanish language‐learning app that includes explicit focus on language‐learning strategies and language pragmatics, was created by applied linguists at the University of Oregon, and should be evaluated to see if its approach results in increased communicative gains for learners relative to other language apps.

Players as game designers

While many people tend to think of games as static entities that players co‐construct experiences with, through, around, and about, many games (see Marks 2016a and Marks 2016b regarding Warframe) are constantly being modified by their designers in response to player use and demand. Though this developmental reciprocity is already evident in design‐based research (e.g. Holden and Sykes 2013), researchers have yet to carefully explore the impact of interaction between game designers and end users (player/learners) for their potential relationship to language learning. Bluntly put, the design‐based research model is promising, and we hope to see it applied more in informal gaming contexts.

The role of reflection

The potential for reflection to promote increased academic gains is well‐documented in formal contexts (e.g. Moeller et al. 2012). Reinhardt and Sykes (2011) provide some insight into the potential of reflection in their distinction between awareness of language, which can develop through experiential learning involved in playing a game, and awareness about language, which requires analytic learning that happens when reflecting about the game (pp. 3–4). Currently, however, we have more questions than answers about the role of reflection in informal language learning and factors that encourage or discourage it in informal gameplay. We find it likely that reflection about games leads to greater awareness of the use of language, including pragmatics and sociocultural factors, which can lead to an increase in language proficiency. However, more research is needed explicitly studying the impact of learner reflection on language gains. For instance, it is possible that analytic learning must sometimes be other‐directed or facilitated for some learners. The extent and frequency to which players independently engage in reflection is unknown. Possibly, some learners do not reflect on the game or language used in interactions without external facilitation. Incentives for reflection may come from feedback in around‐game interactions, as in the case of Nanako's fan fiction (Black 2009), or from instructors in more formal settings (although we do not know whether such formal pressure to reflect actually results in analytic learning), or from the game design itself in the form of player performance summaries at the end of a gameplay session.

Games as a singular tool in a suite of learning experiences

What “language learning” entails is subjective. As we have mentioned, the popularity of apps like Duolingo that are largely predicated on grammar‐translation methods suggest a popular belief that language learning is cognitive and requires the acquisition of lists of words and discrete grammar points. Social constructivists reject this notion, noting that language learning is an outgrowth of socially mediated interactions. While we favor socially informed approaches for their various affordances (e.g. learner actualization, perceived relevance) and their promotion of language use in realistic contexts over more consumptive knowledge acquisition, the reality of the language‐learning landscape is that the player/learner must find value in what he is doing in order to play. If he values learning vocabulary and acquiring knowledge about grammar, he may never even wish to engage in more authentic, real‐world discourse practices. Only the individual player/learner can truly decide what is trivial or actualizable.

This observation does not suggest that language acquisition researchers and practitioners become passive actors. On the contrary, the lessons we see from informal gaming spaces point to a need to expand the general population's awareness of language‐learning opportunities that exist outside of formal academic spaces. A generally accepted principle is that learning is more meaningful when learners see its connection to the real (as defined by the player/learner) world. Informal games have the potential to illuminate salient language use in realistic contexts for learners. Researchers and practitioners must continue to delve into understanding informal gaming spaces and informing the general population of the opportunities that exist. While games should not be seen as a panacea for the struggle of acquiring a target language, they are a valuable tool in the suite of digital and analog tools that exist for language learners in informal contexts. Learners in places of the world where informal contact with the target language is common (e.g. the Netherlands and East Asia) hold a distinct advantage in this sense; they are likely more aware of ways to interact with the target language in the informal sphere than people residing in countries in which popular cultural texts, including games, are more linguistically homogeneous; the desire to play games that might only exist in the L2 is less prevalent.