USING  BOARD  GAMES  AS  A  MEDIUM  FOR  COMMUNICATIVE  LANGUAGE  TEACHING  (CLT)    Rachel  Manley  English  Language  Institute,  Kanda  University  of  International  Studies    ABSTRACT    There   are   many   different   types   of   pedagogic   methods   that   are   currently   used   in   ESL   and   EFL  contexts.    Several  of  these  contexts  still  use  traditional  methods  which  are  heavily  teacher  centered,  such  as  the  audiolingual  method.  Fortunately,  many  institutes  have  started  to  transition  from  more  traditional   methods   of   teaching   to   communicative   language   teaching   (CLT)   and   task-­‐based  learning  (TBL),   both   of  which  focus   more   on  student  centered  learning.   One   process   in   which  to  foster  student-­‐centered  learning  is  using  materials  in  the  class  that  provide  students  a  task  they  must  complete  through  active  communication  with  each  other.  Thus,  the  research  laid  out  in  this  paper   used   the   collaborative   board   game   Forbidden   Island   as   a   task-­‐based   learning   tool.   The  participants  played  the  game,  in  which  communication  was  the  key  to  winning.  After  playing,  they  filled  out  a  questionnaire  eliciting  their  perception  on  whether  this  game  had  any  impact  on  their  English  language  skills.  Results  from  the  data  found  that  the  students  believed  Forbidden  Island  was   a   useful   tool   in   improving   listening,   reading,  and   especially   speaking   skills.   In   addition,   the  participants  also  stated  that  they  perceive  board  games  to  be  beneficial  for  increasing  their  English  skills  and  would  like  to  see  more  materials  like  this  in  the  classroom    INTRODUCTION    This  paper   focuses   on   communicative  language   teaching   (CLT)   and   how   task-­‐based   learning  (TBL),   can  be   applied   to   foster   CLT   through   the   board   game   Forbidden   Island.   CLT   provides  students  with   an   opportunity   to  practice  and  improve  communication  skills  such  as  speaking  through  collaboration,  while  TBL  focuses  on  motivating  students  to  participate  by  giving  tasks  and  goals  to  complete.  It  should  be  noted  that  CLT  has  been  referred  to  in  literature  alternatively  as  a  method,  pedagogy,  and/or  approach,  however  for  the  purposes  of  this  paper  it  is  defined  as  a   approach.  Game   mechanics   suit   the  CLT  and  TBL   approaches  by  providing   common  group  goals  and  tasks.  Some  types  of  communication  that  occur  during  the  course  of  playing  a  game  are:   negotiation,   future   predictions,   planning   moves,   and   convincing   other   players   to   take   a  particular   series   of   maneuvers.   The   aims   of   this   study   are   to   investigate   student   perception  about  which  communication  skills  increased  through  playing  a  board  game,  and  whether  they  are  beneficial  for  practicing  communication.    
  
  

29  

LITERATURE  REVIEW    Nunan  (1999)  claims  that,  in  traditional  ESL  education  systems  students  are  taught  about  the  rules  and  ‘proper’  use  of  language,  rather  than  how  to  communicate  and  interact  naturally  with  others.   Hall   (2011)   defines   CLT   as   a   method   that   “emphasizes   meaning   and   ‘genuine’  communication   in   the   classroom”   (p.   94).   CLT   teaches   students   the   mechanics   of  communication   and   conversation,   not   just   memorized   forms   of   grammatical   sentence  structures  (Hu,  2002).  The  approach  gives  students  free  rein  to  practice  with  each  other,  learn  from  trial  and  error  (Richards  &  Rodgers,  2001),  and  experiment  with  language  without  losing  the  teacher’s  assistance,  the  structure  of  the  class,  or  the  students’  motivation  (Finocchiaro  &  Brumfit,  1983).  It  is  language  teaching  through  interaction  and  “task-­‐based  and  goal-­‐oriented  activities”  (Wang,  2010,  p.  130),  which  can  then  be  applied  to  ‘real  life’  language  use.  
  CLT  has  been  referred  to  as  an  overarching  pedagogy  (Ellis,  2003),  of  which  TBL  is  one  method.  
TBL  consists  of  giving  the  students  a  task  that  can  only  be  completed  through  communication.  
There   are  different   interpretations   of  what   ‘task’  in   TBL  means   (Nunan,   1991).   Nunan  (2004)  separates  the  word  “task”  into  two  categories:  target  tasks  which  involve  language  use  outside  the  classroom,  and  in-­‐class  pedagogical  tasks  (p.  1).  These  in-­‐class  tasks  are  “a  bridge  between  the  classroom  and  the  real  world”  (Brandl,  2007,  p.  9).  They  are  important  because  “language  learning  does  not  depend  only  on  what  specific  pieces  of  language  the  learner  encounters,”  but  also  on  whether  students  can  take  what  they  learned  in  the  classroom  and  apply  it  to  situations  they  find  outside  of  it  (Littlewood,  1981,  p.  44).  
  Similarly  to  China  (Rao,  2002),  Taiwan  (Wang,  2010)  and  South  Korea  (Li,  1998),  the  standard  English   curriculum   in   Japan   incorporates   predominantly   traditional   methods   (Nishino,   2008),  such  as  audiolingual  or  grammar-­‐translation  (Hall,  2011)  in  the  classroom.  The  current  project  expands  on  traditional  teaching  by  incorporating  a  pedagogical  task-­‐based  board  game  into  a  CLT  classroom  to  facilitate  the  development  of  language  proficiency.  Since  completing  a  game  is  a  task,  almost  any  game  can  fit  into  the  category  of  task-­‐based  materials.  CLT  allows  students  to  discuss  freely  using  real  language  (Li,  1984),  which  has  the  benefit  of  giving  them  practice  for  facing  real  life  experiences.  TBL  materials  that  can  be  used  in  the  context  of  CLT  are  necessary,  and   games   like   Forbidden   Island   can   fulfill   this   role   by  helping   classrooms   become   places  of  spontaneous  interaction.  
  Breen  (1987)  defines  a  task  as  being  something  that  facilitates  language  learning  by  having  “a  particular   objective,   appropriate   content,   a   specified   working   procedure,   and   a   range   of  outcomes”   (p.   23).   Most   games   have   a   particular   objective   or   goal   (Kapp,   2012),   a   specified  working   procedure   in   the   form   of   instructions   and   moving   options,   and   a   range   of   possible  outcomes   depending  on   the   moves   that   the  players  make.  Games   become   a   communicative  
  

30  

language  activity  because  the  students  must  use  language  in  order  to  complete  it.  Emphasizing  this,   McGrath   (2002)   lists   four   language   learning   requirements:   exposure,   opportunity,  motivation,   and   feedback.   Games   give   the   students   wide   exposure   to   language,   provide  opportunities   to   practice   in   the   form   of   in-­‐game   negotiation,   enhance   motivation   through  concrete  goals,  and  can  even  provide  feedback  in  the  form  of  instant  guidance  through  the  game  or   co-­‐players.   These   positive   aspects   of   using   games   to   learn   a   language   support   the  interpretation  of  Wilkins’  (1972,  1976)  functional-­‐notional  approach  that  states  “any  device  that  helps  the  learners  is  accepted”  (Finocchiaro  &  Brumfit,  1983,  p.  91).  
  METHODS    This  paper  investigates  task-­‐based  learning  outcomes  through  the  use  of  questionnaires.  The  research  differs  from  current  literature  in  that  it  focuses  on  student  perceptions,  specifically  how  they  believe  their  language  skills  improved  through  playing  the  game  Forbidden  Island.  
  The  Game:  Forbidden  Island    How  to  Play  Figure  1a  shows  the  suggested  setup  for  Forbidden  Island.  Due  to  the  size  of  the  playing  area,  the  setup  was  adjusted  (Figure  1b),  with  the  Treasure  deck  and  Flood  deck  (Figures  7  &  8)    placed  face-­‐down  on  another  desk.  After  setting  up  the  board  (Figure  1b),  six  cards  from  the  Flood  deck  (Figure  8)  are  chosen  randomly,  and  the  corresponding  tiles  are  flipped  (Figure  2).  The  six  cards  go  into  a  discard  pile,  until  a  Water  Rise  card  (Figure  7)  is  drawn  later  in  the  game,  at  which  time  the  discarded  Flood  cards  are  shuffled  back  into  the  Flood  deck.    
  Participants  are  randomly  given  player  role  cards  (Figure  9),  and  their  corresponding  pawns  are  placed  on  designated  tiles  (Figure  4).  At  the  start  of  the  game,  players  are  given  two  cards  from  the  Treasure  deck  (Figure  7).  The  water  meter  (Figure  11)  will  rise  up  one  tick  whenever  a  Water  Rise  card  is  drawn.  After  each  player’s  turn,  they  draw  two  cards  from  the  Treasure  deck  and  as  many  Flood  cards  as  there  are  ticks  on  the  water  meter.  For  example,  if  the  tick  is  on  3  then  the  player  draws  three  Flood  cards.  If  a  tile  is  already  flooded,  and  its  card  is  drawn  again  from  the  Flood  deck,  that  tile  and  its  corresponding  card,  are  removed  from  the  game.  
  Actions  Each  player  has  three  actions  (Figure  10)  during  their  turn.    
•   Move  –  Players  can  move  to  adjacent  tiles  only,  except  for  the  Explorer,  who  can  move  diagonally.  
•   Shore  Up  –  Players  can  flip  a  flooded  tile  back  to  its  original  non-­‐flooded  state.    

  

31  

•  

Give  a  Treasure  Card  –  If  the  current  player  is  on  the  same  tile  as  another  player,  they  can  give  their  Treasure  cards  to  them;  however,  the  Messenger  can  give  their  cards  to  anyone,  regardless  of  their  location.  
•   Capture  a  Treasure  –  When  a  player  collects  four  of  the  same  Treasure  cards  (Figure  7)  they  go  to  a  Treasure  tile  (Figure  5)  and  collect  a  treasure  (Figure  12).  
    Forbidden  Island  was  chosen  because  it  is  a  game  that  contains  inherent  tasks,  such  as  collecting  treasure  (Figure  12),  exchanging  cards  needed  to  collect  the  treasure  (Figure  7),  and  making  sure  the  tiles  needed  to  get  the  treasure  (Figure  5)  and  the  helipad,  Fool’s  Landing  (Figure  6)  do  not  sink.  To  win  the  game,  players  need  to  collect  all  four  treasures  (Figure  12),  get  to  Fool’s  Landing  (Figure  6)  and  fly  off  using  a  Helicopter  Lift  card  (Figure  7).  The  players  lose  the  game  if  Treasure  tiles  sink  before  the  players  retrieve  the  corresponding  treasure,  if  Fool’s  Landing  disappears,  if  the  water  meter  hits  the  skull  and  crossbones  limit  (Figure  11),  or  if  a  tile  a  player  is  on  sinks  and  there  are  no  adjacent  tiles  to  swim  to  (Figure  3).  The  game  encourages  collaboration  among  the  players   by   requiring   participants   to   communicate   with   each   other   in   order   to   win   the   game  (Linderoth,  2011),  thus  making  it  a  suitable  medium  for  CLT.  
  Image  1a.  Game  setup  in  the  instruction  manual.  
Image  1b.  Setup  of  the  board.

.  

  

Image  2.  Prior  to  the  start  of  the  game,  six  tiles  must  be  turned  over  to  indicate  a  flooded  state.    

Image  3.  If  there  are  no  tiles  adjacent  to  their  current  position  to  “swim”  to,  the  player  “dies”  and  everyone  loses  the  game.  

  

  

  

32  

  
Image  4.  Starting  point  of  pawns.  
    Image  5.  Tiles  where  players  trade  Treasure  Deck  cards  for  the  corresponding  treasure,  all  are  needed  to  win  the  game.  

    

  

Image  6.  At  the  end  of  the  game,  everyone  must   Image  7.  Treasure  Deck  cards  -­‐    Waters  Rise  reach  this  tile  to  get  off  the  island.  
card,  Treasure  cards,  Sandbag  to  unflood  a  tile,  and  a  Helicopter  Lift  card  to  fly  anywhere,  anytime  and  off  the  island.

    

    

  
  
  
  
  
  

  

33  

Image  8.  The  Flood  Deck.    
  Image  9.  Adventurer  Cards  -­‐  Roles  with  special  abilities  given.

    

  
  
Image  10.  Order  of  Play  and  Actions.  

Image  11.  Water  Meter  -­‐  determines  how  many  “Flood  Deck”  cards  and  tiles  need  to  be  flipped.  The  game  is  over  when  it  reaches  the  Skull  and  Crossbones.  The  marker  goes  up  for  every  “Water  Rise”  card  drawn  from  the  “Treasure  Deck.”  

  

  

  
Image  12.  Treasures.  Need  to  get  all  four  are  needed  to  win  the  game.      

  

  
  

34  

  
Participants  and  Procedures      Participants  All  participants  were  from  Kanda  University  of  International  Studies  (KUIS).  There  were  a  total  of  20  Japanese  freshman  students:  three  males  and  17  females  between  the  ages  of  17  and  19  years  old.  The  members  were  part  of  the  author’s  English  class.  
  Ethics  All  students  played  the  game  and  completed  the  questionnaire.  The  project  was  deemed  low  risk  in  terms  of  ethical  implications,  and  the  participants  were  given  consent  forms.  The  consent  form  offered  participants  the  choice  of  having  their  data  omitted  from  the  research  project  and  publication.    
  Design  of  Data  Collection  At  the   end  of  each   gaming   session,   the   participants  answered   questions   (see   Appendix)  that  elicited  their  perception  of  whether  certain  language  skills  improved  through  playing  the  game.  
The  questionnaire  used  a  Likert-­‐scale  (Hirschel,  Yamamoto,  &  Lee,  2012;  Peterson,  2011),  open  ended  questions  (Chen  &  Yang,  2013),  and  closed  questions.  A  Likert-­‐scale  was  used  because  it  “uses   fewer   statistical   assumptions   and   ...no   judges   are   required.”   (Karavas-­‐Doukas,   1996).  
Open-­‐ended   and   closed   questions   were   also   included   in   order   to   get   detailed   feedback   on  students’  perception  of  themselves.  Having  the  quantitative  Likert  scale  results  to  compare  with  the   qualitative   open-­‐ended   opinions   offered   insights   into   the   relationship   between   different  aspects  of  the  results.  
  The   questionnaire   contents   were   created   to   elicit   responses   that   could   directly   answer   the  research  questions:  1.   What   English   language   skills   do   students   believe   are   increased   through   playing  collaborative  games?  
2.   Do  students  perceive  games  as  beneficial  for  practicing  English  language  skills?  
  Procedures  for  Observation  Video  recordings  were  the  tool  for  gathering  observational  data  of  game  play,  rather  than  audio  recordings   or   field   notes.   The   videos   were   necessary   for   transcribing   the   dialogue   between  students  and  using  information  from  the  video  for  future  reference.  
  Procedures  for  Data  Collection  Students   first   learned   the   game   mechanics   before   playing   it   with   their  group   members.   The  participants  played  the  game  twice  on  different  days,  for  sessions  ranging  from  30  to  40  minutes,  
  

35  

and  video  recordings  were  made  of  the  sessions.  After  each  session,  the  participants  filled  out  a  questionnaire  (see  Appendix).  
  The  students  filled  out  the  questionnaire  while  they  watched  recordings  of  themselves  playing  the  game.  The  videos  provided  students  the  opportunity  to  observe  and  self-­‐reflect.    Watching  the  video  can  help  them  remember  what  types  of  communication  and  interactions  transpired  during   the   game   play   (Hirschel,   Yamamoto   &   Lee,   2012).   Lastly,   video   recordings   were  necessary  for  contextualizing  the  interactions  and  responses  of  the  participant’s  questionnaire  answers  in  relation  to  particular  aspects  of  the  games  that  were  played.  
  RESULTS  &  DISCUSSION    The  student  responses  in  this  section  are  copied  verbatim  from  the  worksheets  and  have  not  been  corrected  for  syntactic  or  semantic  mistakes.  Students  are  distinguished  individually  (S+#)  and  by  group  (G+#).  
  Research  Question  1  Some  prior  research  into  game-­‐assisted  learning  of  English  has  failed  to  find  evidence  for  the  effectiveness  of  games  on  developing  speaking  skills.  For  instance,  while  Chen  &  Yang  (2013)  showed  that   the   game   their   students  played   was   helpful   in   improving  other  English  abilities,  such  as  vocabulary  knowledge,  their  results  did  not  indicate  that  speaking  was  facilitated.  This  may  be  due  to  a  specific  game’s  failure  to  provide  adequate  opportunities  for  students  to  speak.  
Forbidden  Island,  on  the  other  hand,  provided  ample  speaking  opportunities  for  the  participants.  
In  fact,  students  in  this  research  project  seemed  to  believe  that  their  speaking  skills,  and  to  some  extent   their   listening   skills,   had   improved   (Tables   1   and   2).   Students   mentioned   they   had   to  communicate  with  each  other  when  discussing  and  collaborating  in  order  to  explain  their  ideas  and   decide   which   plan   would   help   them   complete   their   task   of   winning   the   game.   The  quantitative  data  in  Table  1  supports  these  comments.    
  Table  1.  Number  of  student  responses  identifying  which  skill  they  feel  improved  (question  2)    Reading   Listening     Speaking   Other    Number  of  Students*  

0  

5    

12    

3  (Listening  &  Speaking)      Table  2.  Sample  of  student  responses  to  question  3    

  

36  

Questionnaire  Question  3:  Do  you  think  your  communication  skills  in  one  of  the  four  areas  below  increased  while  playing  the  game?  A.  Reading  B.  Listening  C.  Speaking  D.  Others  Why  do  you  think  so?  Please  provide  at  least  2  examples  and  explain.    
  Speaking:  G3S1:  Forbidden  Island  is  a  game  which  cannot  be  cleared  if  notice  cooperation  with  my  team  members,  so  I  have  to  speak  what  I  will  do....  If  I  don't  speak  my  opinion  our  team  can't  win  the  game.  I  think  FORBIDDEN  ISLAND’s  most  important  thing  is  communicate  with  other  people.    
  G1S2:  Because  we  have  to  win  the  game  together  so  if  I  think  my  idea  is  better  than  someone,  I  have  to  tell  them  even  can't  speak  English.  I  need  to  tell.  When  I  was  playing  the  board  game,  I   didn’t   scary   and   worry   to   speak   English,   so   to   playing   game   is   very   good   for   improving  speaking  skill.    
  Listening:  G4S3:  Speaking  is  important  to  communicate  with  others.  But  I  think  listening  is  important,  too.   For   example,   if   someone   can   speak   well   and   she   or  he   cannot   listening   [sic]   well,   the  conversation  won't  continue  or  become  heated.  
  Research  Question  2  In   the   past,   games   were   not   taken   seriously   as   tools   for   language   learning   and   were   often  thought   of   as   fillers,   rewards   or   entertainment   (Krashen   &   Terrell,   1992;   Anderson,   1993).  
Students  in  traditional  classrooms  would  often  rather  use  the  English  class  to  study  grammar  for  standardized   tests   (Rao,   2002;   Lee,   2012)  instead  of  practicing   speaking   skills.  This  does  not  mean   students   do   not   like   playing   games,   but   rather   they   have   other   priorities.   The  questionnaire  asked  the  participants  if  they  thought  games  were  useful  “devices”  (Finocchiaro  &  Brumfit,  1983)  for  practicing  English  skills,  and  which  language  skill  they  practiced  the  most.  
The   results   (Table   3)   showed   that   the   gaming   experience   was   perceived   as   a   useful   tool   for  language   acquisition   in   the   areas   of   speaking   and   listening   specifically.   The   results   from   this  question   show   that   according   to   the   participants,   a   game   like   Forbidden   Island   can   provide  communicative  opportunities  for  students.    
  Table  3.  Student  questionnaire  responses  to  question  17  Questionnaire  Question  #17:  Do  you  think  board  games  are  useful  for  practicing  English  skills?  Which  skills  do  you  think  you  practice?  Why?  
  

  

37  

G2S4:  Yes  I  do.  I  think  board  games  are  useful  for  practicing  English.  There  are  rules  we  should  discuss.  When  we  need  to  speak  English,  people  speak  English.  I  think  I  practiced  speaking  skill.  Speaking  is  most  important  to  tell  them  my  ideas.  If  we  don't  have  enough  speaking  skill,  we  cannot  do  anything.  But  we  don't  have  to  stick  on  practicing  speaking  skill  too  much.  We  can   use   English   with   having   fun  and  relaxing.  That’s  why  I   think   playing  game  in   English  is  useful  for  practicing  English  and  we  can  practice  speaking  skill  effectively.  
  G4S2:  Yes,  I  do.  I  do  think  board  games  are  useful  for  practicing  English  skills  so  much.  If  we  do  play  board  game,  we  can  improve  our  English  speaking  skills  and  English  listening  skills  at  the  same  time.  And  also  we  can  enjoy  while  we  playing.  The  most  important  thing  for  English  learner  is  enjoying  I  think.  We  must  not  feel  boring  for  English  learning  because  we  cannot  improve  English  skills  if  we  feel  it  is  boring.  
  CONCLUSION    This  study  examined  whether  students  viewed  the  collaborative  board  game  Forbidden  Island  as  a   beneficial  TBL   tool   for  improving   communicative   language   skills.   Games  assist   in  language  acquisition   and  practice  and   are   conducive   to   learning  because   they   can   promote   motivation  (Julkunen,  2001)  while  preventing  anxiety,  which  are  necessary  to  create  a  low  filter  for  students  to  foster  language  acquisition  (Krashen  &  Terrell,  1992)  (see  Table  3).  Though  there  are  some  limitations  to  this  study,  one  in  particular  needs  addressing.  Asking  respondents  what  improved,  rather  than  did  anything  improve,  could  be  seen  as  a  leading  question.  There  were  no  options  for  the  participants  to  say  that  no  skills  improved,  only  options  for  them  to  choose  communicative  skills   which   they   felt   had   improved.   Nonetheless,  it   seems   that   students  perceived  Forbidden  Island  as  a  beneficial  tool  overall  for  improving  their  communicative  skills,  specifically  speaking.  
This   shows   that   a   collaborative   game   that   makes   use   of   TBL   and   CLT   methodology   has   the  potential  to  be  a  useful  communicative  language  tool.  
    REFERENCES    Anderson,  J.  (1993).  Is  a  communicative  approach  practical  for  teaching  English  in  China?  Pros  and  cons.  System  21(4),  471-­‐480.  
  Brandl,  K.  (2007).  Communicative  language  teaching  in  action:  Putting  principles  to  work.  United  States:  Pearson  Prentice  Hall.    
  

  

38  

Breen,  M.  (1987).  Learner  contributions  to  task  design.  In  C.  Candlin  and  D.  Murphy  (Eds).  
Language  learning  tasks.  Englewood  Cliffs,  NJ:  Prentice-­‐Hall,  pp.23-­‐46.  
  Chen,  H.J.,  &  Yang,  T.Y.  (2013).  The  impact  of  adventure  video  games  on  foreign  language  learning  and  the  perceptions  of  learners.  Interactive  Learning  Environments,  21(2),  129-­‐141.  
  Ellis,  R.  (2003).  Task-­‐based  language  learning  and  teaching.  5th  ed.  Oxford,  UK:  Oxford  University  Press.    
  Finocchiaro,  M.  &  Brumfit,  C.  (1983).  The  functional-­‐notional  approach.  Oxford,  UK:  Oxford  University  Press.  
  Hall,  G.  (2011).  Exploring  English  language  teaching:  Language  in  action.  London,  UK:  Routledge.  
  Hirschel,  R.,  Yamamoto,  C.,  &  Lee,  P.  (2012).  Video  self-­‐assessment  for  language  learners.  
Studies  in  Self-­‐Access  Learning  Journal,  3(3),  291-­‐309.  
  Hu,  G.  (2002).  Potential  cultural  resistance  to  pedagogical  imports:  The  case  of  communicative  language  teaching  in  China.  Language,  Culture  and  Curriculum  15(2),  93-­‐103.        Julkunen,  K.  (2001).  Situation-­‐and  task-­‐specific  motivation  in  foreign  language  learning.  In  Z.  
Dornyei  &  R.  Schmidt  (Eds.),  Motivation  and  second  language  acquisition  (Technical  Report  #23).  Honolulu,  Hawai’i:  University  of  Hawai’i,  Second  Language  Teaching  and  Curriculum  Center,  pp.  29-­‐41.  
  Kapp,  K.  (2012).  The  gamification  of  learning  and  instruction:  Game-­‐based  methods  and  strategies  for  training  and  education.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Pfeiffer.    
  Karavas-­‐Doukas,  E.  (1996).  Using  attitude  scales  to  investigate  teachers  attitudes  to  the  communicative  approach.  ELT  Journal  50(3),  187-­‐198.  
  Krashen,  S.  D.,  &  Terrell,  T.D.  (1983).  The  natural  approach:  Language  acquisition  in  the  classroom.  London,  UK:  Prentice  Hall  Europe.    
  Lee,  H.  (2012).    SMARTies:  Using  a  board  game  in  the  English  classroom  for  edutainment  and  assessment.  Malaysian  Journal  of  ELT  Research,  8(1),  1-­‐35.    
  

  

39  

Li,  D.  (1998).  “It’s  always  more  difficult  than  you  plan  and  imagine”:  Teachers’  perceived  difficulties  in  introducing  the  communicative  approach  in  South  Korea.  TESOL  Quarterly  32(4),  677-­‐698.    
  Li,  X.  (1984).  In  defence  of  the  communicative  approach.  ELT  Journal,  38(1),  1-­‐13.  
  Linderoth,  J.  (2011).  Exploring  anonymity  in  cooperative  board  games.  In  Proceedings  of  DiGRA  2011  Conference:  Think,  Design,  Play,  1-­‐18    Littlewood,  W.  (1981).  Communicate  language  teaching:  An  introduction.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.    
  McGrath,  I.  (2002).  Materials  evaluation  and  design  for  language  teaching.  Edinburgh,  UK:  Edinburgh  University  Press.  
  Nishino,  T.  (2008).  Japanese  secondary  school  teachers’  beliefs  and  practices  regarding  communicative  language  teaching:  An  exploratory  survey.  JALT  Journal,  30(1).  pp.  27-­‐50.  
  Nunan,  D.  (1991).  Communicative  tasks  and  the  language  curriculum.  TESOL  Quarterly,  25(2),  pp.  279–295.  http://doi.org/10.2307/3587464    Nunan,  D.  (1999).  Second  language  teaching  &  learning.  Boston,  MA:  Heinle  &  Heinle  Publishers.    
  Nunan,  D.  (2004).  Task-­‐based  language  teaching.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.  
  Peterson,  M.  (2011).  Digital  gaming  and  second  language  development:  Japanese  learners  interactions  in  an  MMORPG.  Digital  Culture  &  Education,  3(1),  56-­‐73.  
  Rao,  Z.  (2002).  Chinese  students’  perceptions  of  communicative  and  non-­‐communicative  activities  in  EFL  classroom.  System,  30(1),  85-­‐105.  
  Richards,  J.C.,  &  Rodgers,  T.S.  (2001).  Approaches  and  methods  in  language  teaching.  2nd  Ed.  
Cambridge  University  Press.    
  Wang,  Y.  H.  (2010).  Using  communicative  language  games  in  teaching  and  learning  English  in  Taiwanese  primary  schools.  Journal  of  Engineering  Technology  and  Education,  7(1),  126-­‐142.  
  Wilkins,  D.  A.  (1972).  Linguistics  in  language  teaching.  London:  Edward  Arnold.  
  

40  

  
Wilkins,  D.  A.  (1976).  Notional  syllabuses:  A  taxonomy  and  its  relevance  to  foreign  language  curriculum  development.  Oxford,  UK:  Oxford  University  Press.    
  
  
  

  

41  

APPENDIX      Forbidden  Island  After-­‐Game  Questions  Directions:  After  watching  your  recording,  please  answer  the  questions  below.  Please  write  at  least  5  sentences  for  each  question  (if  possible).    
Do  you  like  playing  board  games  where  you  have  to  collaborate  with  other  players?  Why?  
  On  a  scale  of  1  to  4,  where  4  is  the  highest  and  1  is  the  lowest,  how  much  did  you  enjoy  playing  Forbidden  Island?  
  1                2                3                4    Do  you  think  your  communication  skills  in  one  of  the  four  areas  below  increased  while  playing  the  game?    
  Reading  Listening  Speaking  Other    Why  do  you  think  so?  Please  provide  at  least  2  examples  and  explain.    
  Look  at  this  table:  order  the  items  from  1-­‐3  (1  being  the  first  choice).  Which  activity  helped  you  understand  the  game  the  most?    
  Check  box   Choices    Reading  the  explanations  in  the  game  (ex.  event  cards)    Discussing,  negotiating,  and  speaking  with  other  team  members.  
  Listening  to  other  team  members.  
  Give  reasons  for  your  choice(s)    How  did  your  group  members  react  to  your  suggestions  and  opinions,  did  they  agree  or  disagree  with  you?  Please  give  at  least  2  examples  and  explain.        How  did  you  feel  about  their  reaction  to  your  suggestions  and  opinions  in  the  2  examples  you  provided  above?    

  

42  

From  your  first  example  choose  from  the  list   From   your   second   example   choose   from   the  below   which   you   felt   when   you   gave   your   list  below  which  you  felt  when  you  gave  your  suggestion:    suggestion:      a.  There  was  an  agreement  a.  There  was  an  agreement  b.  There  was  a  disagreement  b.  There  was  a  disagreement  c.   Other:    c.   Other:    In  my  reaction  to  their  response  I  felt:  In  my  reaction  to  their  response  I  felt:      I   think   that  the   best   way   to   respond   would   I   think   that   the   best   way   to   respond   would  have  been  to:    have  been  to:      Did  you  feel   you   had   enough   opportunities   to  say   what   you  wanted?   Or   not   enough?  Please  explain.  
  Out  of  all  the  problems  you  faced  today  in  the  game  or  with  other  players,  what  was  the  most  difficult?  
  How  did  you  solve  it?  
  What  was  difficult  about  learning  to  play  the  game  for  the  first  time?    
  Before  the  game,  did  you  like  to  work  in  groups?  
  During  the  game,  how  did  you  feel  about  working  with  others?  
  In  what  ways  was  playing  the  game  with  others  helpful  to  you?  
  After  this  game,  has  your  opinion  about  working  in  groups  changed?  
  What  language  skills  do  you  think  you  need  in  order  to  collaborate  better  with  other  players?  
Why?    Do  you  think  board  games  are  useful  for  practicing  English  skills?  Which  skills  do  you  think  you  practice?  Why?    
  Does  having  a  task  or  goal  help  motivate  you  to  want  to  play?  
  Does  completing  a  task  or  goal  give  you  confidence  and  motivation?    

  

43  

  
Would  you  like  to  play  board  games  in  your  class?  Why?    

  44