NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM

A Look at the Role of Design in Education: Developments, Trends, andPractical Use
ANTON VEGEL
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Abstract
Research in game design has analyzed the role of design in games such as the design of conflict,engagement, and systems. Additionally, research in education has identified learning principles
inherent in good games such as actionable feedback, low cost of failure, and integrated learningand assessment. However, one of the conclusions of this research questions why these principles
are not more widely utilized beyond games. Design has been relevant in the field of educationfor over a century, but there seems to be a gap in the historical and practical context. This study
investigates the development of design in the field of education (from instruction design tolearning design), highlights current research (cybernetics, games and education), and offers
practical ways to apply design ideas in education.

BackgroundI became interested in the connection between games and language learning during my master’s
degree. I was interested in how tasks could be inherently self-assessed by design. I found it
fascinating that if a task was well designed, assessment could be built in. It occurred to me thatgames are similar. You never have to check whether you finished a game or not. As Gee (2013)
put it, “No one needs a Halo test after finishing Halo…” (p. 12). To help me pursue this idea
further, I was referred to James Paul Gee (quoted above). I wrote about the learning principles hedefined in good games and their relation to Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) (Vegel, 2019). Having now engaged more in the literature of gamedesign, I started to wonder why design ideas seem to feedforward into education rather thanfeedback. After all, teachers have lots of practice designing and revising lessons (among many

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
other considerations like designing materials and textbooks). I began to wonder what role design
has taken in the education field if at all.
DesignDesign, in common language, is not only referred to in terms of design fields like graphic design,
product design, or fashion design but also in terms of its negative associations like pretentious,
high-minded, or overpriced products like controversial architecture, ambiguous visual design
movements, or designer goods. That design seems to lend more to excessiveness than practicality
can be seen as a result of these popular conceptions. These negative associations are wellillustrated in design that lacks a focus on function – “design for design’s sake.” Take the 431 m,
18º slope of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The designof an art gallery, functionally a place to view art, became a place that functionally changed theway art is viewed – Frank Lloyd Wright’s intention. Negative associations may also come fromconflating the nature of aesthetics and design. While aesthetics according to Hegel (2004) isconcerned with the philosophical questions of art and fine art, design is concerned with concrete
problems: the desired outcome vs. the actual outcome.
SystemSalen and Zimmerman (2004), in their book Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals,
consider “games as designed systems” (p. 2). In a robust approach to game design analysis, they
set out to establish precise discourse on the subject. Emphasizing the nature of application
beyond game design, they define a designer as someone “involved in the creation of systems ofinteraction” and design as “the process by which a designer creates a context to be encounteredby a participant from which meaning emerges” (p. 41). Thinking in design terms means
considering how the system created will be interacted with and what will emerge from thatinteraction. Considering system within the definition of design extends our usual conception ofdesign to include interaction among the questions of design problems.
Systems can be found in design even if the visual aesthetics first elude us. Design books
such as Good Design 1993-1994 review standout product design and highlight the striking visual
aesthetics of each entry. Take the QR-10 Digital Sequencer released by Yamaha in 1993 (Japan
Institute of Design Promotion, 1994, p. 49). Its shape (a top-down silhouette of a grand piano),colors (purple, grey, orange, yellow, and red), and button layout (a small octave keyboard, a

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
diamond of 12 chord types, and performance sections) make it clear visually that it is a musicmachine. However, the button layout and quick-access features outline a proposed system: The
left-hand plays chords, and the right-hand solos. Quick functions are also accessible forsequencing and accompaniment (record, start/stop). The QR-10 is a unique music making
machine not because it looks like a grand piano or even because it can emulate acoustic
instruments. It is unique because of the design as a whole (the visual elements as well as thedesigned system). The possible outcomes from interacting within the system are far greater than
the sum of its parts. Chomsky (1957)’s famous sentence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”
illustrates this idea in terms of language. From limited rules, unpredictable outcomes emerge.
We can explore the role of systems in language education as well. Learning language
requires acquiring both declarative and procedural knowledge. Building language skills requires
interaction linked to a communicative purpose. Teachers can attempt to organize interaction andfeedback by carefully designing a lesson, but the outcome depends on a range of unpredictablefactors. As many teachers have experienced, when repeating the same lesson more than once,
rarely do the same teachable moments emerge or are the same outcomes reached. Textbooks(and learning materials in general) offer unique examples of these design considerations as well.
A complex system like an information gap might lead to a greater range of emergence due to its
open nature and reliance on interaction. A fixed system like a gap-fill offers less opportunity for
emergence due to its closed nature but still holds some potential for unpredictability i.e., when
vocabulary choices are ambiguous. How this unpredictability is handled in the design process isessentially considering second-order design problems.
Salen and Zimmerman (2004) consider these design questions in terms of games, but
practical considerations extend beyond. Design, whether it be a commercial music product likethe QR-10 or learning materials like a textbook, needs to consider not only the parts of thesystem but also the potential outcome of interacting with those parts. We can design the system
directly but experience only indirectly. Outcomes emerge greater than the sum of the parts of thesystem. With the range of our conception of design clarified, we can reflect on how design has
been considered in the field of education.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Design and Education
Instructional Design
Although design has been used in the field of language education, there is a more general use of
the word in the field of education. This history is covered by the historical reviews of Reiser(2001a, 2001b), An (2021), and Kang (2004). The history of instructional media and design (ID)spans over a century. Although the timeline is marked with developments in educational
psychology, it is also marked by edu-tech trends and commercial investments (An, 2021; Kang,
2004). While the history of instructional media focuses on the use of technology for educational
purposes, instructional design focuses on the problems of learning and performance related to
instructional principles. However, Reiser (2001b) observed that “there is an obvious overlap
between these two areas” (p. 64) as both have developed in parallel and in reaction to each other.
Therefore, although the term media is used to refer to actual technology, design implications are
inherent.
According to Reiser (2001a), ID began in the 1900s with school museums – functionallycenters of visual instruction that utilized slide projectors. From 1908-1910 the Keystone View
Company published Visual Education, a guide to visual media use in the classroom, andRochester, NY adopted films for instructional use as a first in the U.S. In 1913 Thomas Edison
declared textbooks would be obsolete due to the emergence of motion picture technology. From
1920-1930 radiobroadcasting and sound ushered in the audiovisual instruction movement.
However, both visual instruction and audiovisual instruction movements failed to facilitate
substantial changes in education, and commercial interests lost over $50 million. In the 1940s
during World War II, military services and industry made use of audiovisual instruction. The
U.S. Air Force produced 400 training films and 600 filmstrips from 1943-1945 withapproximately 4 million showings. However, again, educational practices in schools were notgreatly affected. In the 1950s, television channels with instructional programming started. This
technological trend was accompanied by the programmed instruction movement. In the 1960s
the Ford Foundation invested $170 million in educational closed-circuit television. Case studies
among all grade levels in Washington, Maryland, a junior college in Chicago, Illinois, and aseries of college courses at Pennsylvania State University utilized closed-circuit television as a
medium of instruction. By 1963 the Ford Foundation had divested from educational closed-

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
circuit television to focus on public television exclusively. In the 1970s terms educational
technology and instructional technology took hold along with over 40 different models fordesigning instruction. By the 1980s instruction design had still had little impact in public schoolsor higher education. Instructional improvement centers that were made from 1970-1980 werelargely disbanded and on a downward trend. By 1983 computers were used for educational
purposes in nearly 50% of elementary schools and over 75% of secondary schools in the U.S. In
the 1990s computers were mostly used as an extension of traditional methods like drill andpractice or teaching computer related skills like typing. From 1995 to 1998 higher education
institutions utilizing asynchronous distance learning classes rose from 22% to 60%, and internet
access in schools rose from 50% to 90% within the same period. However, yet again, theseincreased affordances garnered little uptake resulting in little actual use. Reiser (2001a)
concluded thatyou are likely to note a recurrent pattern of expectations and out-comes. As new medium
enters the educational scene, there is a great deal of initial interest … However,enthusiasm and interest eventually fade, and an examination reveals that the medium has
had a minimal impact… (p. 61).
An (2001) similarly concluded that the history of ID “shows a recurrent pattern of enthusiasm
and little effects on actual practice” (p. 13).
What is apparent in the history of ID is the overall whiplash pace of new trends, large
investments, and quick divestments. This may be what Dewey warned about in 1915, with theclaim that new movements in education can be seen as “at the worst transitory fads, and at thebest merely improvements in certain details” (p. 4). Dewey further questioned waste in education
blaming “the lack of unity in the aims of education, [and] the lack of coherence in its studies andmethods” (p. 60). Dewey’s century old reflections still reign true today.
Notably, however, despite the ebbs and flows of ID, some design ideas seem to haveproliferated quietly throughout the last century especially in regard to systems. Although runningparallel to emerging technology and commercial investments of the time, the idea of systems in
education progressed with concepts like general systems theory and instructional systems design(Kang, 2004). Starting from the 1960s programmed instruction ran parallel to the investments
and experimental take up of closed-circuit instruction, and a range of ideas were introduced

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
along with the concepts educational technology and instructional technology: systemdevelopment, systematic instruction, and instructional system (Reiser, 2001b).
Cybernetics
Among these systems ideas, research in the education field has looked to cybernetics to help
explain control systems and reflection in the learning process such as formative assessment,
positive feedback, and procedural knowledge. Cybernetics was first introduced in Cybernetics orthe science of control and communication in the animal and the machine – first published in1948 (Wiener, 1961). Cybernetics is concerned with problems of complexity and control insystems and “deviation from a stable state” in which negative feedback promotes stability andpositive feedback undermines stability (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 350). A simple example
of a cybernetic system (and feedback loops) is a temperature control system such as an air
conditioner or heater (Wiener, 1961). This system includes an environment, a sensor, acomparator, and an activator. The sensor, in this case a thermometer, samples the environment
and informs the comparator, the set temperature, which then decides how the activator, the coldor hot air system, should act. In the case of temperature control, a negative feedback loop works
best because it is designed to return environment to the target temperature while a positive
feedback loop is designed to move away from the target.
Admittedly, these ideas applied to education seem off-putting. For example, theautomaticity of education comes to mind – a point Wiener (1961) ardently warned against.
Ashby (1957) although similarly specifying cybernetics as focused on questions of co-ordination,
regulation, and control, also proposed that these questions provide a “common language” withwhich to approach problems related to systems. The potential of cybernetics lies beyond
machines and automaticity and among this common language.
Studies in the field of language education have emerged utilizing cybernetic concepts interms of understanding formative assessment as a means of controlling a loss of meaning (Roos& Hamilton, 2005), the role of circularity in teaching and learning (Murray, 2006), positive
feedback loops as a cognitive mechanism (Reigel, 2005), feedback in complex learning
environments (Westera, 2013), second-order implications of skill acquisition (Scott & Bansal,
2014), and frameworks for e-learning management (Hilgarth, 2011). From this small sample,
specific themes emerge:

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
1. A focus on feedback loops and stability
2. Second-order cybernetics: the ability of a sensor (or observer) to monitor itself
The first point borrows simple ideas like feedback loops in a temperature control system anduses this “common language” expand on language learning concepts. The second point explains
the problem of self-monitoring in the skill acquisition process. Although we can easily reflect onknowledge stored as declarative knowledge (expressed explicitly), we have far more difficultyreflecting on the knowledge of skills and procedures (expressed procedurally). Althoughcybernetics may initially seem ridged and antithetical to the questions of education, its concepts
offer unique perspectives on issues related to language learning.
Learning Design
ID grew out of the movements of behaviorist psychology and systems engineering based on
developmental models used by the U.S. military in WWII. However, the term learning design(LD) has also entered the lexicon. “Reclaiming Instructional Design” (Merrill et al., 1966)
gleams some light into the internal struggle within the ID field and a move towards a new
approach. The authors claim that the field of ID has been too easily swayed by the whims ofsilver bullet ideas, and that “[education] and its related disciplines continue to flutter this way
and that by every philosophical wind that blows" (p. 1). The authors lament the (then current)
state of ID, and proposed signpost like directives that include understanding the learning
experience, environments that support it, and utilizing verified learning strategies. They called
for a more science-based paradigm by offering an anecdote from aviation. The discovery of
principles such as lift, drag, and flight (the science) preceded the invention of an airplane capableof sustaining powered flight (the technology). Although instructional design is informed byprinciples of behaviorism (and then refined by cognitivism), lots of what has steered the fieldappears to come from emerging commercial technology not fundamental principles agreed upon
within the field. This is well illustrated in the historical record of ID (An, 2021; Kang, 2004;
Reiser, 2001a, 2001b).
Another article titled “Beyond Instructional Design: Making Learning Design a Reality”(Sims, 2006) seems to further summarize the movement away from ID simply enough, but
reality appears more nuanced. Although LD, according to Donald et al. (2009), “documents anddescribes a learning activity in such a way that other teachers can understand it and use it in theirown context” (p. 180), the overall theme of LD has been focused on e-learning and online

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
learning. Koper and Tattersall (2005) further frame this movement as a reaction to current elearning tools’ lack of pedagogical quality. Even the epistemological underpinnings of ID andLD (the conceptual understanding of knowledge) have been questioned as whether education is a“transfer of knowledge” (ID) or a “complex process between teachers, learners, and the context
domain” (LD) (Sims, 2006, p. 1). Beyond this fuzzy discourse, the main focus of LD has been
the Learning Design Frameworks that have grown out of a simple, concrete design problem: how
to describe pedagogical styles within a pedagogical meta-model (Koper & Tattersall, 2005).
This meta-model in its current form describes the roles, activities, learning environment,
and methods like the notation of a stage play. These descriptive elements have also been referred
to as “educational notation” and compared to musical notation (Dalziel et al., 2016). Throughthis notation-like approach, a “toolkit” around the concept of learning activity has emerged todefine task (type, technique, interaction, roles, resources, tools, assessment, sequence), context(aims, learning outcomes, pre-requisites, skills, subject, environment, time, difficulty), andlearning and teaching approaches (associative, cognitive, situative) (Conole & Fill, 2005).
In practice utilizing LD requires coding in a learning specification language like the now
Instructional Management System (IMS) adopted Educational Modelling Language (EML) andthen running the encoded file in a player (Westera et al., 2005). These innovative ideas bothconceptually and practically seem key to summarize, record, and distribute lessons in a robust
and accurate way. As Dalziel et al. (2016) summarize “[LD’s] ultimate goal … is not justrepresentation for representation’s sake, it is to help educators to describe, share and adapt
effective teaching and learning activities – that is, designing for learning” (p. 22). However, thegoals of making design explicit and easily reflected upon by designers and others while also
allowing for refinement and sharing, Koper and Tattersall (2005) admitted, is “still a future
perspective” (p. 3). Cameron (2017) helps cement this fact by showing that recent policy has
already started to reference LD, yet little of what LD offers seems to be readily applied in praxis– in this case, a sample of 6 Australian universities.
There should be a further note of caution in regard to LD and the role of IMS Global
Learning Consortium in LD development especially in light of the tumultuous timeline of ID.
IMS is a non-profit organization (IMS Global, 2003). This, however, is not always a good
indicator of incentives or intentions as Au and Ferrare (2014) illustrated in their case study ofcharter school reform in Washington state. IMS maintains non-profit status, but of the 18 board

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
of directors, 7 hold positions at for-profit institutions. Additionally, some Contributing Members,
members who have voting privileges, are not only for-profit institutions but private for-profit
universities or holdings companies for such universities. Private for-profit universities frequently
make headlines for federal investigations, scams, false promises, and pay outs to students
ordered by federal agencies. American Military University (AMU), an online-learning university
system of private for-profit universities under the American Public University System (APUS),
was ordered to pay $270,000 by the Attorney General who found AMU in violation of
Massachusetts law (Office of Attorney General Maura Healey, 2018). University of Phoenix(UoPX), a private for-profit university, was ordered by the FTC to pay $50 million in refund
checks and $141 million in canceled balances (Federal Trade Commission, 2021a). Additionally,
UoPX and APUS, are both named in an FTC Notice of Penalty Offenses list, which although notdirectly incriminating, does include possible offenders put “on notice.” This list also named IMS
Global Affiliate Members, non-voting members, Full Sail University and Walden University(Federal Trade Commission, 2021b).
LD, despite its innovative and unique approach to education’s problems, does not seem tostray far from ID in terms of trajectory. LD even drags edu-tech to the precipice of new trends
like data collection and digital rights management in a market fraught with profit driven motives.
ID and LD both have a trove of innovative ideas, but both have failed to apply substantively
design ideas in the classroom.
Methods
Despite the use of the word design in the education field for over a century, fundamental design
questions seem to have been overlooked. This point is reiterated as James Paul Gee has longshown: Design in good games utilize learning principles not often found in classrooms. Gee(2013) made these ideas more concise by suggesting that good learning is “situated embodied
problem-focused well-designed and well-mentored learning” (p. 12). Some approaches tolanguage education have developed along similar lines – TBLT notably (Vegel, 2019). However,many methods seem to have developed largely by reactionary turns. Like the long historicalsignificance of ID, methods have played an integral role in the language education field and are
well situated in teacher training. It is thus important to understand where design starts, method
ends, and how these ideas function together if at all.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
To approach an understanding of method, it first needs to be situated among the milieu ofsimilar terminology. Anthony (1963) offered hierarchal categories to differentiate approach,method, and technique. Approach refers to the underlying principles guiding teaching andlearning (behavioral science, cognitive science, psycholinguistics, sociocultural theory). Methodrefers to the plan to carry out language teaching and learning (the set of procedures or processes).
Technique refers to the actual elements of implementation (the activities or exercises).
Design, however, is more elusive. Although the term is used in education (instructional
design, learning design, material design), a clear, narrow definition is lacking and even usage inlanguage education reference books lends more its general meaning in terms of ID or LD.
Richards and Rodgers (1986) offered some insight into the use of design in language education
as they explored the gap between approach (values) and method (plan/procedure) suggesting theneed to develop an “instructional system.” For them, considering design meant considering
objectives, syllabus, learning tasks, learners, teachers, and instructional materials. Great lengths
were taken to explain these six elements, but little attention was given to the concept of system.
Even their critique of Anthony (1963)’s description of approach, method, and technique with
their own take, “method as approach, design, and procedure” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 28),
did little to help the ambiguity. Design, defined by Richards and Rodgers (1986), was notconsidered a value (approach) in and of itself; it was primarily considered a tool of analysis tobridge the gap between approach and method, and further left an ill-defined “instructional
system.” Even though design should be concerned with the problems of interaction andemergence, it appears again that little attention has been given to defining it in those terms.
However, other clues about the role of design in language education can be found bylooking further into the past. For centuries even though design was not likely a serious concern
in education, it seemed to be on the tip of the tongue of educators and theorists. Celce-Murcia(2013) surveyed language teaching methods from pre-20th to the 21st century. One notable casecomes from the 19th Century, when von Humboldt, a German philosopher-scientist, argued that
“A language cannot be taught. One can only create conditions for learning to take place” (p. 2).
von Humboldt’s use of “create” and “conditions” suggests an understanding of designed learning
opportunities – a nod to second-order design problems.
Celce-Murcia (2013) further examined methods by observing that methodological trends
have long been reactionary emphasizing that these trends are easily misunderstood without a

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
clear historical perspective. Three reasons are proposed to explain the state of methods inlanguage education:
1. Methods are easily sellable and thus profitable.
2. Methods do hold a place in education but only in ideal conditions.
3. Much of the field has been bouncing between a use-analysis dichotomy.
Celce-Murcia (2013)’s first point is a call to skepticism. A movement to post-methods explains
this well. Dale’s Cone or Dale’s Cone of Experience also well illustrates similarly how damaging
inflated silver bullet ideas can be. Disambiguating the complex web of misinformation related toDale’s Cone has unfortunately become an important area of study. Dale’s Cone is a pyramid
shaped chart introduced by Dale (1946). It presented 11 learning experiences afforded to learnersof the time (e.g., motion pictures, educational television, exhibits). Dale (1970) clarified the coneas “only a model,” “a visual analogy,” and one that “does not bear an exact and detailed
relationship to the complex elements it represents” (p. 98). Despite this clarification, the cone
was misread and erroneously conflated with ideas of retention and learning efficacy – ideas thatwere ostensibly generalized support of popular ID trends (Subramony et al., 2014a).
Unsubstantiated percentages were applied to each learning experience (Letrud & Hernes, 2018).
The cone was then corrupted with the creation and publication of different versions andadaptations of the conflated cone, again unsubstantiated (Dwyer, 2010; Subramony, et al.,2014a). Since the 1970s investigative and analytical work has focused on illuminating thedubious and falsified nature of the conflated and corrupted cones. However, these cones continue
to disseminate at large (Subramony et al., 2014b). These cones can be found referenced
uncritically on public university websites and in recent peer-reviewed academic publications
referencing Edgar Dale despite the now well-established historical record. This is an alarming
fact that echoes a need for skepticism and illuminates a surprising lack of due diligence in thefield of education.
Celce-Murica (2013)’s second and third points consider the ideal conditions necessary to
implement methods and the use-analysis dichotomy that seems to have guided reactionary
trends. Kumaravadivelu (2006) touched on these two issues by looking at past methods andtowards post-methods. Most prominent in the timeline of methods to post-methods is the turn toa Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in reaction to the Audiolingual method. Despite

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
CLT’s promise to be a “principled response” to traditional approaches, Kumaravadivelu (2006)
summarized a range of critiques that questioned its authenticity, acceptability, and adaptability as
a viable method. These critiques emphasized CLT’s inability to guarantee authentic
communication, its lack of divergence from past methods, and its inability to be widely adapted
across teaching contexts respectively.
Kumaravadivelu (2006) summarized the post-method movement as “not an alternative
method but an alternative to method” (p. 67). Post-methods grew from a perceived need tounderstand the lack of neutrality of methods (Pennycook, 1989) as well as reject the infatuation
with finding the best method (Prabhu, 1990). Work towards a post-methods approach has thus
led to alternative frameworks. One convincing contribution is the production of three operating
principles of pedagogy: particularity, practicality, and possibility (Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
Particularity considers the context and location. Practicality considers the theory to practiceloop. Possibility considers the role of identity formation. Unsurprisingly, these ideas bode wellwith Gee (2013)’s refined principles of good learning: “situated embodied problem-focusedwell-designed and well-mentored learning” (p. 12):•

Meeting the needs of particularity requires education that is well-mentored.

•

Meeting the needs of practicality requires education that is well-designed.

•

Meeting the needs of possibility requires education that is situated and embodied andproblem-focused.

Although this is a simple and generalizable synthesis, it is important to note the divergence in
how these ideas were attained, consider why there is cohesion, and frame practicalconsiderations. Kumaravadivelu (2001) approached these ideas “in the search of an alternative
organizing principle” (p. 557) while Gee (2013) approached these ideas by identifying learning
principles inherent in good games. In other words, despite one approach developing through theconsiderations of a problematic framework in language learning and the other through theanalysis of how good games are designed, both come to similar conclusions about goodeducation.
This convergence of ideas highlights the popularity of TBLT in post-methods literature.
TBLT is a method blurring approach that embraces situated and problem-focused learning.
Although the lack of clear definition of task has been noted (Willis & Willis, 2007), a basic if not

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
robust concept of task has been accomplished (Ellis, 2009; Nunan, 2004), one that falls well inline with learning principles utilized in good games (Vegel, 2019). The general concept of TBLT
embraces the idea of situated learning as a value (approach). Even a basic definition of taskemphasizes co-construction, negotiation of form and function relationships, and accomplishing
locally determined goals (Ellis, 2009). However, designing this kind of learning opportunity
requires an understanding of emergence more so than a traditional classroom lesson would.
Kumaravadivelu (2001)’s words reign true here: “Admirable intentions need to betranslated into attainable goals, which, in turn, need to be supported by actionable plans” (p. 76).
TBLT remains flexible because it does not manifest a single method, but this is a double edge
sword that keeps TBLT somewhat esoteric. Looking at a way forward, following past trends of
reductionism and more minutely defined definitions and relying on edu-tech trends to create
substantive change in education seems unreasonable; moving forward with ideas that synthesize
well from post-methods and learning principles found in good games, especially those withattainable goals and actionable plans, does seem reasonable.
Beyond the Winds of Change: Emerging from Under the Carpet
Strategic Interaction
The work done with Strategic Interaction (SI) seems to provide potential in terms of attainable
goals and actional plans as well as practical design ideas. SI was introduced by Di Pietro (1987)
through a rejection of language as a “script-based, disembodied, information-transfer process”(Danesi, 1993, p. 481). The basis for this approach is situated in the 18th century philosophy of
Giambattista Vico. This philosophy established the importance of rhetoric and rejected the “oldspectator epistemology that resulted in ‘receptor’ classrooms” (Perkinson, 1976, p. 756).
Dialogue is established as a significant part of Vico’s philosophy because of the concept ofmodification, only through which one can refine, change, and continually improve. SI thus grewout of the idea that learning needs to involve doing and reflecting. Danesi (1993) described an SI
approach as:
The use of the student’s innate tendency literally ‘to imagine’ what to do in a given
situation implies allowing learners to come up with the crucial concepts involved intypical social scenarios so that they can be reformulated – or reconceptualized – in termsof the target language. (p. 484)

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Danesi (1993) noted the importance of situations and scenarios for discursive engagement.
Building a scenario requires asking question like “who says what to whom; where and when it issaid; and how and why it is said” (p. 483). Answering these questions helps create setting,message content, participant roles, and goals. Scenarios in SI are supported by role cards usedthroughout 4 stages. Role cards include a title, roles, topics, and notions/functions (speech acts)
as well as robust role descriptions that clarify each interlocutors’ goals for the scenario.
SI puts scenarios and roles to use in stages:•

Pre-class Preparation: The teacher selects or creates appropriate scenarios and preparesrole cards to describe them.

•Phase 1 (Rehearsal): The students form groups and prepare agendas to fulfill the roles
assigned to them. The teacher acts as advisor and guide to student groups as needed.

•

Phase 2 (Performance): The students perform their roles with the support of theirrespective groups while the teacher and the remainder of the class look on.

•

Phase 3 (Debriefing): The teacher leads the entire class in a discussion of the student’s
performance. (p. 487)

The rehearsal stage is for learners to imagine and work through how the scenario can be
performed. After preparation and deliberation, the performance phase stresses fluency and theuse of already acquired knowledge and skills. After the performance phase, learners reanalyze
the scenario and performance as a form of debriefing (Danesi, 1993). This phase considers
Vico’s concept of modification; learners reflect on and modify their performance.
Weber State University published 150 scenarios with an SI approach following the same
scenario/role style mentioned above. One example is adapted:•

Roles: parent/child•

Topics: travel, weather, clothing•

Notations/Functions (speech acts): expressing needs, convincing•

Role A: You need to pack for a trip to France. You want your parents’ help, but you also
know they usually packs too much, which you want to avoid to leave room forsouvenirs.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM•

Role B: You just got information about the weather report in France. It will be an
unreasonably cold season you want to convince your child to bring enough warm
clothes. (Weber State University, n.d.)

Limitations are an important part of what makes role cards work. First, there is the limitation ofrole. Without clear descriptions, roles would be non-functional. The descriptions introduce
conflict that needs to be resolved while also limiting the scope of the scenario. Another importantpart of scenario is the focused speech acts that, although limiting how the conflict is approachedand handled, creates a way to simulate a real-world situation. Limitations can be seen in otheradapted examples as well (notice the conflict inherent in each):•

Scenario: Students on the wrong bus vs. A bus driver who needs to stick to his schedule
Speech acts: Explaining, apologizing, asking, refusing, submitting•

Scenario: Friends planning a visit to the zoo vs. One friend wants to see a movie
Speech acts: Convincing, describing (Weber State University, n.d.)

SI provides not only potential for practical in-class use in the form of actional plans(scenario/role) but also attainable goals (via reasonable means) in terms of the rehearsal,
performance, and debriefing phases. Danesi (1993) appropriately appraised SI as allowing “thecontents to emerge from the learner” (p. 489). By playing within the parts of the system different
kinds of solutions can emerge.
Extending the Definition of System
So far, we have framed design in terms of system and second-order design problems: what
emerges when we interact with the parts of a system. However, we have not yet expanded theconcept of system to include the role of limitations clearly. In terms of language education,
learners are tasked with not just learning the forms of language but also the functions and more
specifically how both are situated in real-world scenarios. Practicing real-world scenarios withina system of limitations is thus a simulation.
According to Salen and Zimmerman (2004), “a simulation arises from the operation of asystem in which every element contributes in an integrated way to the larger representation” (p.
439). This definition establishes simulations as a complex system – one that is representational.
Representational proceduralism requires limitations for two reasons:

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
1. Simulations are abstractions in that “a simulation does not attempt to simulate every
aspect of its referent, but instead only focuses on those elements necessary” (p. 439)
2. Simulations are purposefully limited as “even a supposedly ‘realistic’ simulation only
depicts a tiny slice of any real world or imagined phenomenon” (p. 440)
Again, this discussion is in terms of game design, but the analysis is salient in terms ofunderstanding education as a “purposeful learning process” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004, p. 17). SI
is a convincing approach because it involves simulations of real-life scenarios. There aremeaningful choices to be made because of (not in spite of) the limitations. The alternative, nolimitations, would result in learners struggling with available options and stumbling to proceed.
In terms of design, simulations are designed systems of interaction and abstraction that are
inherently aligned with the goals of language education.
Games and Education
Games, as Salen and Zimmerman (2004) define them, are “system[s] in which players engage inan artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (p. 80) whichsituates them in the considerations of design. The use of games for educational purposes is not aparticularly new phenomenon starting with military strategy games like Chaturanga, an ancestorof chess, and Kriegsspiel, a map-based board game – both popularized in the 18th and 19th
centuries respectively (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). The use of electronic, commercial games in
education began in the 1970s with the Learning Company producing games like Oregon Trailand Lemonade Stand. However, the development of these kinds of games peaked in the 1990s(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). If you were in primary school in the 1990s like me, you may recall
playing the Learning Company developed Super Solvers games like Treasure Mountain andTreasure Cove. However, the fate of commercial education games unfortunately parallels thehistory of ID – initial investment followed by near abandonment. The decade between 19902000 saw education game related revenue drop nearly 50% (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). Despite
this dramatic divestment, the research field of games and education saw a marked increase from2001-2010 (Hwang & Wu, 2012) and a relatively stable increase between 2014-2019 (Benini &Thomas, 2021).

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) completed a detailed review of the field of games and education. Thisis a broad field distributed across disciplines. This multidisciplinary nature has resulted in the
proliferation of many unique ideas. The challenge now is achieving consensus. The terms digital
game-based learning (DGBL), game-based learning (GBL), game-based language teaching(GBLT), and edutainment are all used to describe the various facets of the field. Furthermore, alarge focus of game-based research is bifurcated between:
1. The use of games for education purposes (both electronic and analog games).
2. Exploring the design elements and learning principles inherent in good games aspedagogical inspiration.
The use side of the field has focused on games’ learning potential whether they be digital or
analog and applying that potential in praxis. Here games are considered valuable because of the
motivational affect and the situated, active learning opportunities they offer learners. In terms oflanguage education specifically, games offer a way for learners to encounter novel language,
cooperate towards shared goals, and use context specific language. This is seen in the use of
massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) to promote interaction (Peterson,
2012; Bytheway, 2015), games that include repetitive game elements and particular vocabulary
like a baseball game (deHann, 2005) or music game (deHann, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010), the useof role-playing board games to promote interaction and reflection (York, 2020), or the use ofvarious games to promote language and literacy both with and around games (deHann, 2019;
York, Poole, & deHann, 2021). Although Benini and Thomas (2021) identified a number of
empirical studies in the field of game-based learning research, they find the research still limited
and lacking rigorous methodology. deHann (2021) critiqued the current state of the field in
similar terms highlighting the lack of practical implementation and praxis focus calling for a“pedagogy-first approach with games” (p. 270).
The inspiration side has looked at the design elements and learning principles inherent ingood games. This has been the focus of Gee (2003, 2004, 2013). Gee (2013) explains that “goodvideo games have design features that are particularly relevant to language learning” (p. 19). By
playing “good” games like Sim City, Civilization, Deus Ex, Half-Life, and Metal Gear Solid, Gee(2003) identified 36 learning principles found in games (a small sample of which follows):•

Psychosocial Moratorium Principle: a low-risk practice space

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM•

Concentrated Sample Principle: tasks concentrated in early stages•

Bottom-up Basic Skills Principle: basic skills learned in context•

Practice Principle: lots of practice•

Active, Critical Learning Principle: active, critical•

Committed Learning Principle: time, engagement, commitment•

Incremental Principle: builds towards more complexity•

Probing Principle: form a hypothesis and test it

The first level of “Super Mario Bros.” (released by Nintendo in 1983) is a good case study to
explore how these principles support the acquisition of skills and skill utilities in-game andfurther why such an analysis has been seen as worthwhile in general.
In 1-1, the introductory quasi-tutorial first level of “Super Mario Bros.,” the player ispresented with a low-risk practice space. If the player fails, they lose very little progress. Thisinitial area acts as a small sample of skills and skill utilities needed to progress (Skill: jump;
Jump utility: avoid enemy, eliminate enemy, pass barriers, traverse gap, direct shell). These skills
are acquired bottom-up. Although this first level is ostensibly a tutorial, nothing is explained
explicitly in-game; instead, players are afforded lots of practice. The player must actively learn
and critically test skills and skill utilities if to progress past even the first 10% of the level.
Progressing through the level, skills become more challenging to utilize as the level builds inincremental complexity (gaps: wider, barriers: higher, enemies: more concentrated and complex).
The player is given plenty of time to commit and engage in the environment (400 s/6.6 min)through which they can form and test hypotheses (e.g., If I can jump, can the “question block” be
hit and utilized? If I can jump and move up (an early skill), can I crouch and move down a tube
(a later skill)?). A rough analysis identifies at least eight learning principles (17 instances), threeskills, and six skill utilities. This deconstruction does not propose that Super Mario Bros. is a
replacement for good teaching or even that utilizing the game in a classroom would be
pedagogically sound. This deconstruction simply shows why the inspiration side of the field has
found game design so convincing. Game design takes active and situated learning seriously.
Similar to deHann (2021)’s critiques, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) sums up both sides of the
field and suggests a way forward:

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM… games should challenge educational practices while seeking the realization of realistic
educational scenarios. This balance is delicate, but also critical if computer games are tohave a real impact and justification in educational efforts. Without the challenge ofcurrent practice … games risk becoming of little interest to anyone; trapped in the
caricature of edutainment, pointing educators back in time instead of forward (p. 11)
Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) is particularly concerned with the balance between the two broad areasof focus (use and inspiration). Although work has been done to identify the learning potential ingames and the reasons some games are well designed learning systems, the actual use of games
in education aside from experimental studies remains anemic. A need for more wide scale
acceptance and interest is apparent in this still emerging field.
Games, Play, and Fun
Above we looked at the field of games in education. Games were defined as systems, and like SI,
simulations that rely on limitations. Regardless of whether your interest in games (in terms ofeducation) resides in the use or inspiration side of the field (or naturally somewhere in between),
an understanding of how play and fun are related to systems, simulations, and games is required.
In simple terms, why bother interacting with the parts of a system or simulation?
Although Salen and Zimmerman (2004) do not define games in terms of, fun isfundamental to games, and in fact, fun and play are inextricably connected. When we decide toplay a game (or interact with a system or within a simulation), we enter a magic circle where we
accept the rules and limitations taking on what is called a lusory attitude. We can then playwithin the limitations as the game was designed. Bogost (2016) in the book Play Anything offersa unique understanding of these concepts:
We experience games by ‘playing’ them, and play is an activity we tend to associate withfreedom, with being able to do whatever we want. This view of play stems fromconditioning ourselves to see play as the opposite of work … [However,] … games andplay offer the opposite: an invitation to do only what the system allows, for no reason
other than the fact that it was designed that way. Games are built out of constraints, andplay arises from limitations (p. 138).
For Bogost (2016) play is not freedom but rather acting within playgrounds of limitations, andfun is not an escape from reality but rather “manipulating a familiar situation in a new way” (p.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
79). In short, utilizing games in education is not a shortcut or a cheat; it is a deliberative design
choice that involves organizing learning opportunities through designed conflict and interaction,
by setting limitations, and approaching problems in novel ways.
Practical Considerations
Although design in education has been, in simple terms, imprecise, I hope it is now clear thatdesign is concerned with concrete problems and practical solutions: the design of systems,
simulations, and emergence. These ideas fall well in-line with the goals of education. Among theideas covered throughout this review, here are some practical considerations:•

Design learning (in design terms): Even though textbooks may be considered oldtechnology, they still require careful design considerations. Avoid techniques that havequestionable second-order design. For example, instead of directing students to “Pretend
you don’t understand and ask for clarification” (or similar instructions with vague
limitations), design the task right. Create roles and scenarios. Describe situations. Designtasks that require clarification by design. A coin flip can be used to randomly designate“clarification roles.” Minimal pairs or nonsense words can be used to practiceclarification authentically and genuinely.

•

Design learning opportunities around a simple mantra: “situated embodied problemfocused well-designed and well-mentored learning” (Gee, 2013, p. 12). TBLT and SI areboth good places to start as both generally offer clear approach and technique. Teachingwith games also offers active and situated learning opportunities that are already welldesigned.

•

Design playgrounds of limitations. Simulations rely on limitations and abstractions. If
education is a “purposeful learning process” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004, p. 17), theprocedural representation afforded by simulation is key. Set limitations and allow
learners to test the limits and explore solutions freely. Give learners lots of feedback andpractice in stages. SI offers techniques in stages or phases and TBLT in task repetition.

•

Use games in your classes. The Ludic Language Pedagogy project (LLP) is a great
resource on this topic and offers detailed techniques and case studies. Role-playing games
are well-designed simulations that utilize roles and abstractions to create playgrounds oflimitations. Playing both with and around games (researching, playing, reflecting, andNUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
comparing) also introduces learners to a wider knowledge base that includes purposeful
and authentic engagement in a language community.
Conclusion
Design is not an easy topic to review. It is, in common language, simplified, bound with negative
associations, and conflated with the philosophy of aesthetics obfuscating its concrete practicality.
While the fundamentals of design are not esoteric (in fact very accessible), design ideas ineducation have long been trapped in the whirlwind of edu-tech trends and disregarded by the
microscope of reductionist research (despite falling well in-line with the goals of education).
However, design concepts like systems, simulations, and emergence have proliferated incybernetics, new and old ideas in language education like SI and TBLT, and in the emerging
fields of games and education. Furthermore, limitations and especially the concept of
playgrounds of limitations help us reframe our common conceptions of play and fun (beyond
simply the opposite of work). The potential of design literacy seems essential for educators
whose jobs are predicated on their ability to design learning opportunities. This look at the roleof design in education hopefully illuminates how accessible and practical design ideas are,inspires creativity and innovation among educators, and promotes criticality and skepticism
towards future edu-tech trends.

BIO DATA
Anton Vegel holds two degrees in TESL and has nearly a decade of university ESL/EFL
experience. He has published on a variety of topics from language and national identity to TBLT.
Currently his interests are how design-based perspectives can inform pedagogy.

References
An, Y. (2020). A history of instructional media, instructional design, and theories. International
Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.35
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. ELT Journal, XVII(2), 63-67.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XVII.2.63
Ashby, W. R. (1957). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.
Au, W., & Ferrare, F. J. (2014). Sponsors of policy: A network analysis of wealthy elites, theiraffiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington state. Teachers
College Record, 116(8). http://www.tcrecord.org/
Benini, S., & Thomas, N. (2021). A critical review of research on gamification and second
language. In M. Peterson, K. Yamazaki, & M. Thomas (Eds.), Digital games andlanguage learning: Theory, development and implementation (pp. 9-46). Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Bogost, I. (2016). Play anything: The pleasure of limits, the uses of boredom, and the secretof games. Basic Books.
Bytheway, J. (2015). A taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies used in massively
multiplayer online role-playing games. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 508-527.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/calicojournal.32.3.508
Cameron, L. (2017). How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline
in Australian universities. Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 69-84.
https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v10i2.289
Celce-Murcia, M. (2013). Language teaching methods from the Greeks to Gattegno. MEXTESOLJournal, 37(2), 1-9. http://www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?
page=journal&id_article=394
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton & Co.
Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning
activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005(1), 1-16.
http://doi.org/10.5334/2005-8
Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., Cameron, L., BadilescuBuga, E., & Bower, M. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Journal ofInteractive Media in Education, 1(7), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jime.407

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Danesi, M. (1993). The strategic interaction view of language: Robert J. Pietro's Vichianparadigm for theoretical and applied linguistics. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown
University Round Table on languages and linguistics 1993: Strategic interaction andlanguage acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 480-491). Georgetown
University Press.
deHaan, J. (2005). Acquisition of Japanese as foreign language through a baseball video game.
Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 278-282. http://www.actfl.org/ publications/all/foreignlanguage-annals
deHann, J. (2019). Teaching language and literacy with games: What? How? Why? Ludic
Language Pedagogy, (1), 1-57. https://llpjournal.org/2019/09/18/dehaan-what-howwhy.html
deHann, J. (2021). Is game-based language teaching 'vaporware'? In M. Peterson, K. Yamazaki,& M. Thomas (Eds.), Digital games and language learning: Theory, development andimplementation (pp. 257-276). Bloomsbury Publishing.
deHaan, J. M., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music
video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology,
14(2), 74-94. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Di Pietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge
University Press.
Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design:
Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903023181
Dwyer, F. (2010). Edgar Dale's Cone of experience: a quasi-experimental analysis. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 1-8. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=
googlescholar&id=GALE%7CA273786647&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=661f131f
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2004). Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential ofComputer Games [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. IT-University of Copenhagen.

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M.
Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109-130). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins Pub.
Federal Trade Commission. (2021a, April 29). University of Phoenix settlement
payments. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/universityphoenix-settlement-payments
Federal Trade Commission. (2021b, October 6). Penalty offenses concerning
education. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/penalty-offenses/education
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2013). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games,
learning, and literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Good design 1993-1994. (1994). Japan Institute of Design Promotion.
Hegel, G. (2004). Introductory lectures on aesthetics (B. Bosanquet, Trans.). Penguin Books.
Hilgarth, B. (2011). E-Learning Success in Action! From Case Study Research to the creation of
the Cybernetic e-Learning Management Model. International Journal of Computer
Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications, 3, 415-426.
www.mirlabs.net/ijcisim/index.html
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Using Gamification to Design Courses: Lessons Learned in a
Three-year Design-based Study. Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 44–63.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26977856
Hwang, G., & Wu, P. (2011). Advancements and trends in digital game-based learning research:a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(1), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x
IMS Global. (2003, January 20). IMS learning design information model version 1.0 final | IMS
global learning consortium. IMS Global Learning Consortium.
https://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_infov1p0.html

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Kang, S. (2004). Instructional Design and Development: A Brief Historical
Overview. Educational Technology, 44(6), 39-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428949
Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (2005). Preface to learning design: A handbook on modelling anddelivering networked education and training. Journal of Interactive Media in Education,
1, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5334/2005-18
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588427
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264511
Letrud, K., & Hernes, S. (2018). Excavating the origins of the learning pyramid myths. Cogent
Education, 5(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1518638
Merrill, D., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J., & the ID2 Research Group. (1966). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428356
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Office of Attorney General Maura Healey. (2018, August 8). American military university pays
$270,000 for alleged failure to disclose job prospects, high-pressure enrollment tactics.
Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/news/american-military-university-pays-270000-foralleged-failure-to-disclose-job-prospects-high-pressure-enrollment-tactics
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics oflanguage. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587534
Perkinson, H. J. (1976). Vico and the methods of study of our time. Social Research, 43(4), 358372. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970256
Peterson, M. (2012). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online role playing game
(MMORPG): A sociocultural discourse analysis. ReCALL, 24(3), 361-380.
http://hdl.handle.net/2433/168065

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161–176.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897
Reigel, D. (2005). Positive feedback loops in second language learning [Master's thesis].
http://www.labschool.pdx.edu/research/current/Reigel%20Thesis.pdf
Reiser, R. A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 49(1), 53-64.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220299
Reiser, R. A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of
instructional design. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 49(1), 57-67.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220311
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge
Language Teaching Library.
Roos, B., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Formative assessment: A cybernetic viewpoint. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 7-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333887
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. The MIT Press.
Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of
Learning Design, 1(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v1i2.11
Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014a). Previous Attempts to
Debunk the Mythical Retention Chart and Corrupted Dale’s Cone. Educational
Technology, 54(6), 17–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430318
Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K., & Thalheimer, W. (2014b). Timeline of the Mythical
Retention Chart and Corrupted Dale’s Cone. Educational Technology, 54(6), 31–34.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430320
Vegel, A (2019). Critical perspective on language learning: TBLT and digital games.
Proceedings of the TBLT in Asia 2018 Conference, 4(1), 110-120.
http://www.tblsig.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TBLT _in_Asia_2018_

NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM
Conference_Proceedings.pdf
Weber State University. (n.d.). 150 scenarios for use in foreign language classes specificallymade to use with the strategic interaction method. T. J. Mathews (Ed.),
https://faculty.weber.edu/tmathews/ScenarioCollection.pdf
Westera, W. (2013). On the cybernetic arrangement of feedback in serious games: A systemstheoretical perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 5773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9267-7
Westera, W., Brouns, F., Pannekeet, K., Janssen, J., & Manderveld, J. (2005). Achieving Elearning with IMS Learning Design - Workflow Implications at the Open University of
the Netherlands. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 216-225.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.8.3.216
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine(2nd ed.). MIT Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
York, J. (2020). Pedagogical considerations for teaching with games: Improving oral proficiency
with self-transcription, task repetition, and online video analysis. Ludic Language
Pedagogy, (2), 225-255. https://llpjournal.org/2020/10/20/j-york-transcription.html
York, J., Poole, F. J., & DeHaan, J. W. (2021). Playing a new game—An argument for a teacher‐focused field around games and play in language education. Foreign Language
Annals, 54(4), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12585