Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children: From Potential to Practice

Abstract

Picture 15–20 school desks seating two students each, arranged in four to five rows with the teacher at the front, an English book in one hand and a marker pen in the other. All students have a copy of the textbook and use their fingers to follow each word as they repeat after the teacher. When the choral work is completed, they complete the drill-and-practise exercises at the end of each unit in the book. By the end of the semester, students who can best answer multiple-choice questions, match sentences and fill-in-the-gaps, get an A. Those who can’t, fail.

Full text

141
10
Implementing Play-Based Language
Learning with Children: From
Potential to Practice
Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and
Punchalee Wasanasomsithi*
Introduction
Picture 15–20 school desks seating two students each, arranged in four
to five rows with the teacher at the front, an English book in one hand
and a marker pen in the other. All students have a copy of the textbook
and use their fingers to follow each word as they repeat after the teacher.
When the choral work is completed, they complete the drill-and-practise
exercises at the end of each unit in the book. By the end of the semester,
students who can best answer multiple-choice questions, match sen-
tences and fill-in-the-gaps, get an A. Those who can’t, fail.
What is described above is not only common practice at secondary
school, but is also the most common form of teaching found at primary
and early learning levels. Young learners are taught in the same way as
(young) adults, with little opportunity for creativity, actual language use,
and with little enjoyment for most (Nuktong 2010; Panthumasen 2007).
Many children become bored and demotivated and start to view English
as an object of study only. One possible remedy, certainly with younger
learners, is to create excitement and enjoyment through the use of play.
Play-based learning has been used for decades in early childhood teaching
around the world and there is a large body of literature to show its benefits
(Dau 1999; Landreth 2002). In addition, the right to play is enshrined by
the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. However play-
based learning has not been used much in the language classroom, despite
its obvious potential. Below we will begin by describing some of the theo-
retical basis of play for learning, and for language learning in particular.
* Non-contributing author. Although the third author did not contribute to the writ-
ing of this chapter we thank her for her previous advice and suppor for the study.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1419781137449740_11_cha10.indd 141 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
This file is to be used only for a purpose specified by Palgrave Macmillan, such as checking proofs, preparing an index,
reviewing, endorsing or planning coursework/other institutional needs. You may store and print the file and share it with
others helping you with the specified purpose, but under no circumstances may the file be distributed or otherwise made
accessible to any other third parties without the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan.
Please contact rights@palgrave.com if you have any queries regarding use of the file.
PROOF

142 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
The role of play in learning
While the word ‘play’ and its meaning may seem straightforward, it is
in fact a complex and much-debated concept. As Sutton-Smith (1997: 1
cited in Rieber 2001) notes, ‘We all play occasionally, and we all
know what playing feels like. But when it comes to making theoreti-
cal statements about what play is, we fall into silliness. There is little
agreement among us, and much ambiguity.’ Before defining play, it is
useful to consider its characteristics. First and foremost, play consists
of an integration between mental and physical activities that take
place in a meaningful context. Play is characterised by enjoyment,
spontaneity, creativity, imagination and an absence of fear of failure
and negative consequences. Vygotsky (1967 cited in Bodrova & Leong
2007) describes how children, in working with objects, start to figure
out solutions to problems as well as interpret symbols with help from
resources within the context of play that is meaningful and that draws
both on reality (Ramsden 1992: 110 cited in Rice 2009) and fantasy
(Jrank 2010). In play, children conceive of and interpret the real world,
build on and extend their schemata and construct and reflect on new
knowledge (Rice 2009). This takes place in an environment that is both
safe and enjoyable (Lantolf 2000; Smith & Pellegrini 2008). Play is also
a spontaneous activity and is often initiated by children themselves
(Whitebread 2003), done for its own sake (Smith and Pellegrini 2008)
and involving private speech, helpful for the development of language.
Finally, play is free from fear and negative forces (McMahon 1992) and a
way for children to ease feelings of stress and boredom (Landreth 2002).
In summary then, play has several key characteristics, which lead us to
define it as
An activity that integrates mental and physical activity in a meaning-
ful context characterised by enjoyment, spontaneity, creativity, and
an absence of fear and punishment.
Play is a natural process of learning whereby children develop physi-
cally, cognitively, emotionally and socially through problem-solving
and perseverance. In an influential early study, Bruner (1972, in
Whitebread, 2003: 11) showed that children who had opportunities to
play with objects achieved similar to higher problem-solving skills than
children who had not, but also that they developed greater tolerance
in trying to solve problems and in dealing with difficulties in doing
so, were more creative and had more positive attitudes. According to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1429781137449740_11_cha10.indd 142 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 143
Landreth (2002), ‘play stimulates creative thinking and exploration,
regulates our emotions, and boosts our ego’ (p. 1).
Enjoyment and absence of fear of failure are the key characteristics
of play that benefit learning (Cordier et al. 2009). Enjoyment has been
shown to stimulate the brain, aid cognitive development (Whitebread
2003: 15) and encourage imagination and creativity (Jrank 2010;
McMahon 1992). These are all characteristics that support language
development as well and we will now briefly review the role of play in
language acquisition.
The role of play in learning language
In addition to helping children’s general cognitive and social devel-
opment, play also has an important role in the development of L1
language skills. Vygotsky’s work has been particularly important in rec-
ognising how play allows children to make meaning based on resources
(real or imagined) in their immediate context to express feelings and
to share intentions and ideas with other children, even in the absence
of fully developed language ability. For example, where a gap in chil-
dren’s interlanguage exists, the use of physical objects or movement
can make up for this. This not only allows for meaning to be expressed
but for collaborative construction and scaffolding of language to occur
(Weininger & Daniel 1992). As Widdowson (2001: 137) notes, ‘the play-
ground culture is almost exclusively oral’ and this oral aspect requires
children to seek ways to express themselves verbally. A good example
of an oral play activity is a narrative, which, Seach (2007) argues, pro-
vides two key elements in children’s language development; context
and meaningful communication. Play partners facilitate children to
share their play experience with each other and implicitly acquire vital
pragmalinguistic knowledge.
Play activities allow children to transfer skills and knowledge to
solve problems, discover, and analyse ongoing processes to develop
language skills and strategies. Frost, Wortham, and Reifel (2001) show
how children use metalinguistic ability when talking about their play.
Language assists children in structuring and understanding the mean-
ing of their experiences and emotions, recognising and making sense
of their sensory faculties; in other words, play, language use, language
development and children’s wider cognitive and social development are
closely linked.
An important source of information about play-based learning comes
from research on games and their benefits for language development.
AQ1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1439781137449740_11_cha10.indd 143 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
PROOF

144 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
A great deal of work has recently started to be carried out specifically
in the area of L2 learning (i.e. the learning of a second or foreign
language). Gee argues that good games incorporate a wide range of
learning principles (Gee 2007: 65) and have a variety of design features
that ‘are particularly relevant to language learning’ (Gee 2012: xiii).
Games have been shown to have a wide range of potential benefits for
L2 acquisition. For example games can impact vocabulary acquisition
(deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada 2010; Milton et al. 2012; Ranalli 2008); can
help with the development of listening skills (deHaan 2005a), and can
help improve university students’ reading skills and reading efficacy (Lu
et al. 2011). Especially massively-multiplayer online role playing games
(MMORPGs) have been investigated extensively and have been shown
to provide language learners with immersive (Gee, 2007; Zhao & Lai,
2009), linguistically rich, and cognitively challenging environments
(Sylvén & Sundqvist 2012). In addition, such games provide learners
with many opportunities to acquire another language (Peterson 2010b,
2012a, 2012b; Rankin, Gold, & Gooch 2006). Specifically, MMORPGS
afford learners opportunities to learn conversational language, use and
practice the L2 (Bryant 2006; Peterson 2011; Thorne 2008; Thorne,
Black, & Sykes 2009), engage in various forms of interaction (such as
negotiation of meaning) necessary for language learning (Peterson
2012b), foster pragmatic development (Thorne 2008), and develop
their communicative competence, especially when played together with
native speakers and learners from different countries (Peterson 2010a,
2010b; Rama et al 2012).
However, the benefits of games and play are not only limited to lin-
guistic development. They also have an important impact in the affec-
tive domain. According to Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis (1981),
learners acquire a language better when they have high motivation,
positive attitudes, high self-confidence, and low anxiety. Environments
that lower learners’ affective filter are more likely to help learners to use
the L2, receive comprehensible input, and engage in L2 interaction. It
has been shown that games and play can provide this type of context
(Anyaegbu, Ting, & Li 2012; Gee 2007; Hubbard 1991; Li, Liu, & Boyer
2009; Zhao & Lai 2009).
An important focus of research, and one particularly relevant in the
Thai context, has been on the use of play and games to encourage
‘Willingness to Communicate’ (WTC) as a final step before actual L2
use (MacIntyre et al. 1998). An increase in WTC has been shown to have
positive effects on L2 acquisition; L2 learners with high levels of WTC are
more likely to benefit from communicative language teaching (Ellis 2004),
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1449781137449740_11_cha10.indd 144 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 145
interact in the L2 more frequently (Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre 2003;
MacIntyre & Charos 1996; Yashima 2002), have more potential to
practice in the L2 (MacIntyre & Gardner 1991; MacIntyre et al. 2001;
Peng & Woodrow 2010), be more inclined to take risks using the L2 to
communicate (Oxford 1997), have more opportunities for authentic
L2 use, become more active and autonomous learners (Kang 2005),
acquire higher levels of language fluency (Derwing, Munro, & Thomson
2008), and generally achieve greater language proficiency (MacIntyre et
al. 2001; MacIntyre et al. 1998; Yashima 2002), and, as a result, show
more improvement in communication skills (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, &
Shimizu 2004). Accordingly, scholars such as MacIntyre et al. (1998)
and Dörnyei (2001) have argued that encouraging WTC be a key goal
for L2 instruction. In particular in the Southeast Asian context in which
this study was conducted, WTC seems to be a good predictor of L2
interaction.
Our aim was to investigate the use of play and games in class on learn-
ers’ development and their experience of play as a means of instruction.
In Thailand, Early Years Education is mainly provided by government
primary schools that use traditional curricula and teaching methods,
similar to those used at the primary and secondary levels. Play-based
learning is uncommon, except in some international and bilingual
schools that are not affordable to most Thai people. Play is not gener-
ally regarded as a serious contributor to language learning and as such is
not implemented in formal education. For this reason, we were eager to
develop our own, alternative approach to teaching children and to docu-
ment its effect. We will now describe how we developed the curriculum.
The development of a play-based curriculum
The first author of this chapter is affiliated with a Demonstration school
in Thailand that caters to learners of the ages five to 12 years from
first to sixth grades and focuses on the teaching of content, based on
the national core curriculum for elementary education. Classes in the
school are spacious and flexible, with outdoor space, good age-appropri-
ate resources and furnishings. In 2014, the first author developed and
taught a course on oral language skills for children of the ages eight
to nine years old. The course lasted 15 weeks, with a one-hour class of
three classes per week of 45 hours in total. In addition, three volunteer
teachers helped with delivering the course.
Course content was based on a number of sources. Firstly, a key deci-
sion was to use the main textbook in use in the school. The rationale for
AQ2
AQ3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1459781137449740_11_cha10.indd 145 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
PROOF

146 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
this was to ensure that children would not be disadvantaged by taking
this course (by missing content other children would cover), and also
to make implementation of the course easier for the school to accept
(as it would be unlikely to be detrimental to children’s performance
on the language test). Learning outcomes were based on the textbook
and in addition on a number of national and international standards
(the national standard for English language teaching and learning for
elementary at third-grade level, the Basic Education Core Curriculum
B.E. 2551, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) performance guidelines for K-12 Learners, and the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages). The use of both
national and international standards was again to integrate the course
as closely as possible with the rest of the school curriculum.
The course consisted of three broad chapters and 15 themes, starting
with those closest to the learners (e.g. their bodies) and moving to social
and cultural environments around them (e.g. festivals). These themes
were considered relevant to the learners and also suitable for play activi-
ties (Table 10.1).
Instructional design
Play activities used in the course were based on sources from the lit-
erature (Herr 2013; Pappas, Kiefer, & Levstik 2006; Roskos, Tabors, &
Lenhart 2009) as well as the framework of the National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment or NCCA (2009). Although it recognises the
Table 10.1 Chapters and themes of the play-based course
Chapter Week / Theme
1
Face and Body
1 / My body
2 / Clothes
3 / Routine
4 / Sickness
5 / Review Chapter 1 – A super doctor
2
Family and Friend
6 / Family
7 / Home
8 / School
9 / Sports
10 / Review Chapter 2 – A sporting family
3
Festivals
11 / My town
12 / Food
13 / Fruit and vegetable
14 / New Year
15 / Review Chapter 3 – Let’s party
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1469781137449740_11_cha10.indd 146 3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM3/12/2015 2:17:52 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 147
importance of play in children’s lives and gives clear explanations, the
examples were all for individual, rather than social play and therefore
needed adapting to encourage more dialoguing, negotiation of meaning
and cooperative learning among peers and adult playmates. Another
useful source proved to be online video materials demonstrating dif-
ferent play activities, though not all of these were suitable for use in a
classroom and also had to be adjusted. The initial list of play activities
included a long list of options, such as playing with toys, singing, danc-
ing, running-freezing tag, pat-a-cake, snakes and ladders, Monopoly
board games, playing dress-up, paper dolls, colouring, playing shop-
ping, and many others. The five types of activities are grounded in the
description by National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009),
as shown below (Table 10.2).
Each lesson consisted of three moves. In the first move, called circle
time, children and adult playmates sit together with the teacher in a circle
and engage in Language Play and Physical Play. As a warm-up activity
children may do a brainstorm, listen to the teacher tell a story or do
different tasks according to the theme’s lesson. This kind of warm-up
activity is a key preparatory activity for oral language practice, known
as a ‘round’ (Mosley 2005: 45). To encourage participation, learners
are invited to use formulaic speech to contribute their own ideas (see
example below). An important aspect of this stage is to make learners
feel confident and safe. Shy learners may be offered soft toys to make
them feel secure, and no one is forced to speak at this point.
In the next move, called centers, learners choose one of three groups
set up around the room and led by an adult playmate (one of the volun-
teer teachers). Centers are designed for learners to experience Creative
Play, Games with Rules, and Pretend Play. The emphasis here is on the
target language that learners used or heard during circle time as used in
a range of meaningful play activities that learners choose from. In this
move, the dialogues can be extended and improvised with the assis-
tance of the adult playmates.
In the final move, chitchat, the children sit together with the teacher
afterwards to talk and share their ideas and feelings, to show their play
objects or activities to other children, and to demonstrate what they
have learned. The focus here is on encouraging reflection and giving
learners a chance to share their success. Table 10.3 shows an example
of the timetable for one week and lists the different activities, all per-
formed in English.
The table below shows one activity in detail and describes how chil-
dren used language to complete their play.
AQ4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1479781137449740_11_cha10.indd 147 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

148
Table 10.2 Types of play organised by National Council for Curriculum and
Assessment (2009)
Type of Play Description
Creative Creative play involves children exploring and using their
bodies and materials to make and do things and to share
their feelings, ideas and thoughts. They enjoy being
creative by dancing, painting, playing with junk and
recycled materials, working with play-dough and clay, and
using their imaginations.
Games with
rules
Another type of play involves games with rules. Even
babies and toddlers can partake in these, as peek-a-boo and
turn-taking games have rules. In the beginning children
often play by their own rather flexible rules! In time they
also partake in more conventional games with ‘external’
rules. Language is an important part of games with rules as
children explain, question and negotiate the rules. Rules
are often an important part of pretend play where children
negotiate rules about what can and can’t be done.
Language Language play involves children playing with sounds
and words. It includes unrehearsed and spontaneous
manipulation of these, often with rhythmic and repetitive
elements. Children like playing with language – enjoying
patterns, sounds and nonsense words. They also love jokes
and funny stories.
Physical Physical play involves children developing, practising and
refining bodily movements and control. It includes whole
body and limb movements, co-ordination and balance.
These activities involve physical movements for their own
sake and enjoyment. Children gain control over their gross
motor skills first before refining their fine motor skills.
Exploratory play involves children using physical skills and
their senses to find out what things feel like and what can
be done with them. Children explore their own bodies and
then they explore the things in their environment.
Manipulative play involves practising and refining motor
skills. This type of play enhances physical dexterity and
hand-eye co-ordination. Over time children need to
experience a range of different levels of manipulation
if they are to refine their motor skills. This type of play
includes manipulating objects and materials.
Constructive play involves building something using
natural and manufactured materials. As children develop,
this type of play can become more complex and intricate.
(continued)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1489781137449740_11_cha10.indd 148 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

149
Table 10.2 Continued
Table 10.3 An example of the timetable for a one-week play-based instruction
Move Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Circle time Language Play and
Physical Play
– Say vocabulary and
point or touch the
body parts
– Sing, dance, and act
following the songs
– Listen and repeat
– Talk about the picture
of a superhero
Language Play and
Physical Play
– Sing, dance, and
act following the
songs
– Listen and repeat
– Connect body
parts of a
superhero
– Talk about their
superhero
Language Play and
Physical Play
– Sing, dance, and act
following the songs
– Say vocabulary and
point or touch the
body parts
– Ask and answer
questions
– Whisper and guess
Centers Creative Play: Create at least one superhero cooperatively
Games with Rules: Identify a superhero playing like a quiz show
Pretend Play: Pretend superhero to help people in different situations
Chitchat Sharing opinion and
expressing feelings
toward play activity
of the day
Sharing opinion
and expressing
feelings toward play
activity of the day
Sharing opinion and
expressing feelings
toward play activity
of the day
Pretend Pretend, dramatic, make-believe, role, and fantasy play
involves children using their imaginations. It includes
pretending with objects, actions and situations. As children
grow, their imaginations and their play become increasingly
complex. Children use their developing language to move
from thinking in the concrete to thinking in the abstract.
They make up stories and scenarios. Children act out real
events and they also take part in fantasy play about things
that are not real, such as fairies or super heroes. Children try
out roles, occupations and experiences in their pretend play.
Early literary and numeracy are clearly evident in this
type of play, for example children make lists and menus
and pay for cinema tickets. They also get the chance to
play with different forms of ICT such as mobile phones,
keyboards, cameras, and calculators.
Small world play involves children using small-scale
representations of real things like animals, people, cars,
and train sets as play props.
Socio-dramatic play involves children playing with other
children and/or adults. It provides opportunities for children
to make friends, to negotiate with others, and to develop their
communication skills. This play helps extend language. The
ability to write stories also has its roots in socio-dramatic play.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1499781137449740_11_cha10.indd 149 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

150 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
Superheroes
During circle time, the teacher plays a number of songs for the
children. Every time the students have to repeat after the teacher
and point to the part of their body to which the song refers. One of
the songs is about ‘superheroes’ who have special strengths, such as
extra long arms, or laser eyes. Each of these is placed, as an object,
in a special ‘magic bag’. The children randomly pick one body part
and use formulaic speech to describe the body part they got and
what it does. For example, the children would have to say ‘I’ve got
a nose. What have you got?’, or ‘What can the nose do? The nose
can smell’. Next, the children work together to assemble the whole
superhero’s body. The focus here is on the vocabulary for different
body parts and on formulae to describe different body parts and
their functions.
In the next phase, children choose one of three centers. The first
one uses ‘Creative Play’, in which learners work in pairs to create
their own superhero from the available body parts. In the second
center, the children play ‘Games with Rules’ and use flashcards to
describe the superhero’s body parts to each other and get points for
correct answers. In the third center ‘Pretend Play’ is used to have
children use props such as huge glasses, pointy ears or masks to dress
up as their favourite superhero and describe to each other what the
different parts of their bodies are and what their character can do
with them.
In the final phase, chitchat, the children sit together in a circle and
take turns to discuss what they played in each of the three centers
and how they felt about it.
The implementation of a play-based course
Parents were sent information about the proposed course, explaining
its purpose, content and the rationale for using play with children as a
means of learning language. Most responses were favourable and par-
ents were intrigued by the possibility of an entire course based on play.
The same applied to the three volunteer teachers. Although they were
all experienced in teaching children, they were new to the use of play
in class and several training sessions took place during which the first
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1509781137449740_11_cha10.indd 150 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 151
author of this chapter explained play-based learning and each of the
activities was discussed and tried out.
All classes were videotaped and the first author spent 45 hours as a
participant-observer in class, taking notes, making observations and,
subsequently, collating and reflecting on these, together with the other
researchers. In addition, at the end of each of the three chapters, short
(10–15 minutes) semi-structured interviews were held with the children
to enquire about their experiences and their feelings (Kvale 1996).
Mostly open questions were used to ‘allow the respondents opportuni-
ties to develop their responses in ways which the interviewer might not
have foreseen’ (Campbell, McNamara & Gilroy 2004: 99). We wanted
to identify what they felt they had learned so asked them about their
communication, who they had played with, what they had done, how
they had worked with others and so on. The interviews were held in
Thai. A further source of data was the regular communication with
parents, either in person or on the phone, to ask about their impres-
sion of the course and their children’s involvement and enjoyment.
Communication with school administrators was likewise an important
source for obtaining information about their impressions and to iden-
tify any obstacles that might have occurred. Finally, regular de-briefings
were held with the volunteer teachers to ask about their experience of
working in this environment, as well as their observations of the chil-
dren and their progress. As a multiple-source qualitative study (Denzin &
Lincoln 2003), the information we gathered offers an ecological per-
spective of children’s learning as a relational activity (Kramsch 2002: 5)
and although impressionistic and subject to further detailed analysis,
the data amounts to a rich tapestry of information about the course
and how it was experienced by all stakeholders. We now describe our
observations.
Our experience in class
On the first day, the children dutifully entered the classroom and took
their seats, pens and notebooks ready, to show that they were ready
to study. When they were told to put those things away and sit on
the floor, there was initially some confusion. Some children did not
immediately sit down, and were clearly unhappy with this unexpected
event. When the class started, the children were asked their names and
some familiar questions. The children spoke quietly, sat up straight,
as in a regular class, and stayed close to their friends. Some were
completely quiet. This started to change during circle time when the
AQ5
AQ6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1519781137449740_11_cha10.indd 151 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

152 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
children chose to play in the centre of their interest. The play activity
started to excite them and they became louder and started to speak up
more, especially with their friends. During chitchat time the children
were asked about their activities during centers and once again spoke
softly and became shy. However, this changed as the days went by and
the children became familiar with the routine of the class. A major
change occurred after about 3–5 weeks (depending on the individual
child) when the children started to become familiar with the play
activities and became more actively involved. Some would bring toys
or other objects from home, and many would come to ask what game
they would be playing next time. Approximately half-way through
the course, the children became noticeably louder, spoke more and
responded attentively. Especially some of the more shy children deve-
loped more confidence, participated more often, and even sat closer
to the teacher.
A number of points of interest arose. First, not all children liked all
kinds of play and neither did their adult playmates. Some children
did not like to sing and dance, some did not draw pictures and some
never played board games or dress-up. Some children became nervous
and reluctant to play with something they were not familiar or confi-
dent with, showing their disagreement by not participating or through
aggressive behaviour. For example, during creative play, one of the boys
used a black marker to randomly draw some lines in order to finish the
play as soon as possible. On the other hand, children were often willing
to try new experiences. Gradually they would try their hand at some
activities that were new to them. As one girl says, ‘I only like to draw
and colour, and never know that I like Pretend Play. Now, I know that
I like it a lot.’
A second point was that playing in English was challenging as the
children’s natural tendency was to use Thai and the adult playmates
had to assume the role of English speakers to encourage the children
to converse with them in the L2. As a result there was a considerable
amount of code switching. Nonetheless, even shy learners started using
English with each other over time, as they became more used to the
routines in the classroom. Towards the end of the course this extended
also to their spontaneous play, showing that they started to feel com-
fortable about using English. To readers familiar with Thai learners it
will be apparent that this is a significant change from the way English
is normally viewed.
A third observation was that previously covered vocabulary and top-
ics kept being used by the children throughout the course, showing
AQ7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1529781137449740_11_cha10.indd 152 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 153
remarkable ability to remember new words and expressions, as well as
creativity in their language use, for example when we heard one of the
boys talk about the ‘ears of the carrots’ to describe the small protuber-
ances on the vegetable.
A final point relates to the role of gender. At this age some clear dif-
ferences became apparent, for example in colour and toy preferences
(with girls selecting mainly pink colours, soft dolls, cute stickers). This
lead to some hilarious situations where a boy would randomly pick up
a pink toy (for example from the ‘magic bag’ described above) and pre-
tend to be a girl. Others would ask for a different toy, or hide or even
destroy a toy.
Even though the course was new to all stakeholders a shared under-
standing emerged among teacher, parents, and certainly also the chil-
dren. School administrators showed considerable interest and asked
if other teachers could observe the class. Parents collaborated with all
activities during the course and requested that more play-based courses
be offered in future. The most important, at this stage tentative, con-
clusion from our observations was that the children not only enjoyed
the course (which was obvious from their participation and from the
interviews) but also engaged in a considerable amount of language
production and developed confidence over the 15 weeks of the course.
Future analysis of our video recordings will be able to decisively confirm
or reject these observations.
Implications and lessons learned
Cook (2000) describes play as a phenomenon in a child’s development
that is ‘a use of language in which form, meaning, and function are
in dynamic and mutually determining interaction’ (p. 175). This was
evident from the interaction our learners engaged in. Play helped to
create a relaxed environment in which the children were willing to
collaborate, take risks and co-create language and meaning, often by
incorporating external mediation such as play toys, playmates, and the
adults. This is quite different from learners’ behaviour at later ages in
Thailand and shows play could be a context for learning in a country
where L2 interaction is not often promoted.
A major point was the obvious pleasure the learners had in the activi-
ties. After the first few weeks they were confident and clearly enjoying
themselves. In other words, they had developed a low affective filter
(Krashen and Terrell 1983) and were comfortable performing in the
new language. A low affective filter is a precursor to Willingness to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1539781137449740_11_cha10.indd 153 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

154 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
Communicate (MacIntyre et al. 1998), which as discussed in our litera-
ture review, determines much of the type and amount of L2 interac-
tion learners engage in. The children in our study were able to use all
resources in the environment (other learners, toys, teachers) to get their
meaning across in a safe and fun environment, and to choose activi-
ties they enjoyed. This is very different from the highly structured and
limiting language learning experience most receive later in life, where
there is little or no choice, either in the content or method of learning.
At the practical level, it is important to stress that play-based learn-
ing is very time consuming. Preparation time for the activities, finding
the right toys and creating an environment conducive to learning are
all challenging, especially in the absence of good quality materials for
learners of this age; most of the materials appear to have been written
without the practicalities of working with young learners in mind. For
example, in working with children a great deal of flexibility is needed
but most materials require all activities to be completed entirely and in
order. Another issue is to ensure that play contributes to language learn-
ing and not just entertainment. It is quite common, for example, for a
game designed to include dialoguing and turn taking to be completed
by learners without the use of language at all (for example, simply by
pointing to objects). Similarly, competitive games may be useful to
engage and excite learners, but result in many incomplete sentences or
even the absence of language. Clearly, play activities need to be care-
fully evaluated for their potential benefits and drawbacks.
A further implication is the need for well-structured and extensive
teacher development. Play-based learning is new for most teachers in
Thailand and requires the development of a body of skills to ensure
successful learning takes place. Ideally, any project allocates signifi-
cant time to supporting teachers and monitoring their performance
over time.
An important aspect of implementing play-based learning, or any
innovation for that matter, is the way it is introduced to stakeholders
and put into practice. In our project we deliberately decided to adjust
our course materials to those used in school, so as to make the transi-
tion easier for both learners and teachers. We used standards widely
used in Thailand for determining language levels. We also spent con-
siderable time on consulting with school administration and teachers
to engage them in the project and explain its purpose and potential
benefits. Similarly, we worked extensively with the teacher volunteers
to make sure they understood the rationale behind play-based learning.
Finally, an important, and often overlooked, group of stakeholders are
AQ8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1549781137449740_11_cha10.indd 154 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 155
the parents. We did our best to engage them as much as possible in the
project, asking them to participate by contributing toys for example,
and by communicating with them frequently to let them know what
was happening in the course. It is this continuous communication
with stakeholders that we believe has contributed to the success of this
project.
Conclusion
Our chapter only describes our initial impressions and lessons learned
from our study. A great deal more analysis will take place to identify
exactly how the children participated and learned and which activities
contributed most to their L2 acquisition. Nonetheless, initial observa-
tions point to considerable potential for play-based learning to create a
positive environment for young learners. We feel strongly that play can
have a key role in introducing English to Thai learners in a context that
supports language learning and is meaningful and enjoyable. By expe-
riencing success and the joy of communicating in another language we
believe learners will see more value in English learning later in life. We
hope more research will be conducted on this important topic in future.
References
Anyaegbu, R., Ting, W., & Li, Y. (2012). Serious Game Motivation in an EFL
Classroom in Chinese Primary School. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 11(1), 154–164.
Belinda, C. (2011). Connecting Play and Learning. TIPS – The Basics for Caring for
Children in your Home. Pennsylvania: Better Kid Care Program, The Pennsylvania
State University. Retrieved from www.betterkidcare.psu.edu/ TIPS/Tips906.pdf.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to
Early Childhood Education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Broadhead, P. and English, C. (2005). Open-ended Role Play: Supporting
Creativity and Developing Identity. In Moyles, J. R. (ed.), The Excellence of Play
(2nd ed.), (pp. 72–85). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Bryant, T. (2006). Using World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs to foster a tar-
geted, social, and cooperative approach toward language learning. Retrieved
19 July, 2009, from http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/
bryant-MMORPGs-for-SLA#comments
Campbell, A., McNamara, O. & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner Research and
Professional Development in Education. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). (2012) Creating
an Assessment Unit. Retrieved in March, 2013 from http://www.carla.umn.
edu/ assessment/VAC/CreateUnit/e_1.html.Chin, N. B. and Wigglesworth, G.
(2007). Bilingualism: an advanced resource book. New York, US: Routledge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1559781137449740_11_cha10.indd 155 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

156 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to Communicate
in a Second Language: The Effects of Context, Norms, and Vitality. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190–209.
Cook, G. (2000). Language Play, Language Learning. NY: Oxford University Press.
Cordier, R., Bundy, A., Hocking, C., & Einfeld, S. (2009). A Model for Play-based
Intervention for Children with ADHD. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
56(5), 332–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2009.00796.x
Dau, E. (1999). Child’s Play. Revisiting Play in Early Childhood Settings. Baltimore:
Paul H Brookes Publishing.
deHaan, J. (2005a). Acquisition of Japanese as a Foreign Language through a
Baseball Video Game. Foreign Language Annuals, 38(2), 278–282.
deHaan, J. (2005b). Learning Language through Video Games: A Theoretical
Framework, an Evaluation of Game Genres and Questions for further research.
In S. P. Schaffer & M. L. Price (eds), Interactive Convergence: Critical Issues in
Multimedia (pp. 229–239). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
deHaan, J., 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.
Denzin, K. &.Lincoln, Y. (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A Longitudinal Study of
ESL Learners’ Fluency and Comprehensibility Development. Applied Linguistics,
29(3), 359–380.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New Themes and Approaches in Second Language Motivation
Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–59.
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In A. Davies &
C. Elder (eds), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights Under the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, Article 31, http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf,
accessed November 15, 2014
Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2001). Play and Child Development. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
García-Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., & Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/
Gaming and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence in another
Language. Simulation & Gaming, 32(4), 481–491.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harding, S. (2005). Outdoor Play and the Pedagogic Garden, in Moyles, J. (ed.)
The Excellence of Play, (3rd Edition). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Herr, J. (2013). Creative Resources for the Early Childhood Classroom (6th ed.,
International ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Hubbard, P. (1991). Evaluating Computer Games for Language Learning.
Simulation & Gaming, 22(2), 220–223.
Jrank (2010). Child Development Reference – Vol.6 - Play - What Is Play?, The
Importance of Play, Elements of Children’s Play, Social Elements of Play. Net
Industries, LLC. Retrieved in September 2010 from http://social.jrank.org/
pages/492/Play.html.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1569781137449740_11_cha10.indd 156 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 157
Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic Emergence of Situational Willingness to Communicate
in a Second Language. System, 33(2), 277–292.
Kramsch, C. (2002). In Search of the Intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2),
275–285.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Landreth, G. (2002). What is Play? Eureka Retrieved in September 2010 from
http://www.eureka.org.uk/Play_and_learn/what_is_play.
Lantolf, J. (ed.). (2000). Introducing Sociocultural Theory. Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, Z., Liu, F., & Boyer, J. (2009). Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through
E-games. In R. d. C. V. Marriott & P. L. Torres (eds), Handbook of Research on
E-learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition (pp. 132–150). Hershey, NY:
Information Science Reference.
Lu, H.-M., Lou, S.-J., Papa, C., & Chung, C.-C. (2011). Study on Influence of
Adventure Game on English Reading Confidence, Motive and Self-Efficacy. In
M. Chang, W.-Y. Hwang, M.-P. Chen & W. Müller (eds), Edutainment Technologies.
Educational Games and Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality Applications (Vol. 6872,
pp. 430–434): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness
to Communicate, Social Support, and Language-Learning Orientations of
Immersion Students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, Attitudes, and Affect as
Predictors of Second Language Communication. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 15(1), 3–26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing
Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence
and Affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Investigating Language Class Anxiety
using the Focused Essay Technique. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 296–304.
McMahon, L. (1992). The Handbook of Play Therapy. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551
(A.D.2008). Bangkok: Kurusapa Ladprao Publishing.
Milton, J., Jonsen, S., Hirst, S., & Lindenburn, S. (2012). Foreign Language
Vocabulary Development through Activities in an Online 3D Environment.
The Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 99–112.
Moyles, J. R. (ed). (2005). The Excellence of Play (3rd edition). Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2009). Aistear: The Early
Childhood Curriculum Framework – Guidelines for Good Practice. Dublin:
NCCA. Retrieved from http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/pdfs/Guidelines_ENG/Play_
ENG.pdf.
Nuktong, P. (2010). The effects of Drama-based instruction on English oral commu-
nication ability and motivation in learning English of the eleventh grade students
(Doctoral dissertation). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1579781137449740_11_cha10.indd 157 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

158 Rin Cheep-Aranai, Hayo Reinders and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and
Interaction: Three Communicative Strands in the Language Classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443–456.
Panthumasen, P. (2007). International program for teacher education: An
approach to tackling problems of English education in Thailand. Proceedings
of 11th UNESCO-APEID International Conference, Bangkok: Thailand.
Retrieved in April, 2013 from http://www.worldedreform.com/pub/paperie
13dec07.pdf.
Pappas, C. C., Kiefer, B. Z. & Levstik, L. S. (2006). An Integrated Language
Perspective in the Elementary School – An Action Approach (4th ed.). Boston, US:
Pearson Education.
Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to Communicate in English:
A Model in the Chinese EFL Classroom Context. Language Learning, 60(4),
834–876.
Peterson, M. (2010a). Computerized Games and Simulations in Computer-
Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-analysis of Research. Simulation & Gaming,
41(1), 72–93.
Peterson, M. (2010b). Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Games as
Arenas for Second Language Learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
23(5), 429–439.
Peterson, M. (2011). Digital Gaming and Second Language Development:
Japanese Learners Interactions in a MMORPG. Digital Culture & Education, 3(1),
56–73.
Peterson, M. (2012a). Language Learner Interaction in a Massively Multiplayer
Online Role-Playing Games. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital Games in Language
Learning and Teaching (pp. 70–92). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peterson, M. (2012b). Learner Interaction in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role
Playing Game (MMORPG): A Sociocultural Discourse Analysis. ReCALL, 24(3),
361–380.
Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for
Second Language Learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24(3), 322–338.
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploring Authentic
Computer Simulation Games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 21(3), 441–445.
Rankin, Y., Gold, R., & Gooch, B. (2006). 3D Role-Playing Game as Language
Learning Tools. Paper presented at the EuroGraphics 2006, Vienna, Austria.
Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2014). Can I Say Something? The Effects of Digital
Game Play on Willingness to Communicate.Language Learning & Technology,
18(2), 101–123.
Rice, L. (2009). Playful Learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment,
4(2), 94–108 (15). ISSN: 1747-4205 (Online). Retrieved in July, 2011 from
http://ctiweb.cf.ac.uk/jebe/pdf/LouisRice4(2).pdf
Rieber, L. P. (2001). Designing learning environments that excite serious play. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, Australia.
Roskos, K. A., Tabors, P. O., & Lenhart, L. A. (2009). Oral Language and Early
Literacy in Preschool: Talking, Reading, and Writing (2nd ed.). Neward, DE:
International Reading Association, Inc.
Seach, D. (2007). Interactive Play for Children with Autism. New York: Routledge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1589781137449740_11_cha10.indd 158 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Implementing Play-Based Language Learning with Children 159
Smith P. K., & Pellegrini A. (2008). Learning through Play. In Tremblay, R. E.,
Barr, R. G., Peters, R. D., Boivin, M. (eds), Encyclopedia on Early Childhood
Development. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood
Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/
Smith-PellegriniANGxp.pdf.
Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as Extramural English L2 Learning
and L2 Proficiency among Young Learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302–321.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose,
origin, reception and impact. David Little Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland dlittle@
tcd.ie. Retrieved in March, 2012 from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/yousif/ELT%20
Resources/Primary%20ELT/the%20common%20euroupean%20framework.pdf
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural Communication in Open Internet Environ-
ments and Massively Multiplayer Online Games. In S. S. Magnan (ed.), Mediating
Discourse Online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second Language Use,
Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online
Gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 802–821.
Voulgari, I. (2011). Collaborative Learning in Massively Multiplayer Online
Games: A Review of Social, Cognitive, and Motivational Perspectives. In
P. Felicia (ed.), Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation through
Educational Games: Multidisciplinary Approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 370–394). Hershey:
IGI Global.
Vygotsky, L. (1933). Play and Its Role in the Mental Development of the Child.
Mulholland, C. (trans). (1966). Voprosy psikhologii. Psychology and Marxism
Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/
archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm
Weininger, O. and Daniel, S. (1992). Playing to Learn: The Young Child, the Teacher,
and the Classroom. Illinois: Charles C Thomas.
Whitebread, D. (ed.) (2003). Teaching and Learning in the Early Years (2nd. edition).
NY: Routledge.
Widdowson, J. D. A. (2001). Rhythm, Repetition and Rhetoric: Learning
Language the School Playground. In Bishop, J. C. and Curtis, M. (eds), Play
Today in the Primary School Playground – Life, Learning and Creativity (pp. 135–
151). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The
Japanese EFL Context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The Influence of
Attitudes and Affect on Willingness to Communicate and Second Language
Communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119–152.
Zhao, Y., & Lai, C. (2009). MMORPGs and Foreign Language Education. In
R. E. Ferdig (ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education
(Vol. 1, pp. 402–421). New York: Information Science Reference.
Z heng, D., Young, M. F., Brewer, R. A., & Wagner, M. (2009). Attitude and
Self-efficacy Change: English Language Learning in Virtual Worlds. CALICO
Journal, 27(1), 205–231.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1599781137449740_11_cha10.indd 159 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF

Query Form
Book Title: Darasawang
Chapter No: 10
Queries and / or remarks
Query No. Query / remark Response
AQ1 Please check if a comma should be inserted after
<context>
AQ2 Please check if this sentence needs reworking.
Perhaps change to <Our aim was to investigate
the effect of play and games in class on learners’
development, as well as their experience of play
as a means of instruction.>
AQ3 Please check. Perhaps change to <The course
lasted 15 weeks, with three one-hour classes per
week and 45 hours in total.>
AQ4 Please check if this can be changed to UK
spelling for consistency. Please check all
occurences.
AQ5 Please check if <of this chapter> should be
inserted again here
AQ6 Please check as intended
AQ7 Perhaps instead <began to>
AQ8 Please check repetition of <environment>
9781137449740_11_cha10.indd 1609781137449740_11_cha10.indd 160 3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM3/12/2015 2:17:53 PM
PROOF