Farhana Bt Mohd Hanapiah Language Games
801128-03-5238 SHE 4932
AP 980432 En. Ghazali Bunari
4 SPL Literature Review of Game 1

How did my Game 1 might have enhanced language learning of my students? Most probably this question would not refer to me and my game alone, in fact many language teachers who venture to implement language games in the classroom may asked this question too. The game that I have implemented is known as ‘Word Scavenger’, a game that hunts for words, words and words. The hunting for words activity was based on certain theme or topic that basically drilled on the vocabulary. The set of words were introduced in the lesson plan, and ‘Word Scavenger’ could only be implemented after the topics had been covered. It’s like recalling the previous input and putting it into an exciting game. The topics chosen revolved around simple topics stated in the KBSR syllabus specification. The topics chosen were animal, fruits and vegetables and transport. It is appropriate for standard 4, 5 and 6 level, because they were introduced to these sets of lexical item that increase their list of vocabulary. The game activated the students’ brain to search for words started with the particular letter but confined to a particular theme.
First of all, ‘Word Scavenger’ instilled the quality of group work. As the students were divided into groups, they would need to work the game in-group. It means that if the group unites well, then the group members would not have many problems in achieving the game’s goal (also the learning goal at that time). Many researchers have proved the advantages of learning in-group work. Group work trains the students to work together as a team, cooperatively helping each other. It has been outlined in the notion of collaborative learning that instructional use of small group promotes active learning and students’ self-reliance in learning (Foote, 1997).
Collaborative learning is a learning strategy whereby learners grouped themselves into smaller units to go through the learning process together (http://www.clrc.com) . It is a student-centred approach where the teacher acts as facilitator or guidance, instead of having full authority on students (http://www.clrc.com). What I’ve mentioned here, occurred during the implementation of my game.
There are five basic principles in collaborative learning, which are positive interdependence, group processing, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction and social skills (Knight & Bohlmeyer, without year). How did ‘Word Scavenger’ manage to full fill these essential components of collaborative learning? Positive interdependence emphasizes on the principe of sink and swim together, where students know that they have to go through the learning together. They could not leave anyone to drown, whatever they do; it must be the responsibility of the whole group. There are two main categories in positive interdependence, output interdependence and means interdependence that will identify the learners assumption of what they want to achieve at the end of an activity and the ways to get what they want (Knight & Bohlmeyer, without year). In short, positive interdependence means the positive dependence of each group member where it lifts up motivation and individual productivity, which somehow would contribute to group success in general (Knight & Bohlmeyer, without year). Words Scavenger had this positive interdependence because each member in a group knew that, they need to work together (depend positively on each other) in order to come out with the longest word list started with announced letters. Everybody had the same goal (i.e. hunting for words) and all of them worked on by cracking their head to think of the words. Realizing that each of them, individually contributed in one’s own way in making the group to the top, they would double up their effort, again to come out with the words.
The second component, face-to-face promotive interaction stresses that teacher must ensure the students to interact, encourage and praise each other during the group work. It will lead to interpersonal dynamic and cognitive activity (Knight & Bohlmeyer, without year). After the teacher announcing the letter, the students with the role of word shooters would run to the word scribbler and automatically there is interaction between them in order to come out with the words, and positive encouragement of praising would definitely occurred when one of their team mate came with word that they could not think of.
‘Words Scavenger’ also built individual accountability on the students, where they were not only responsible toward teacher but also toward the other group members. Moreover, they were assigned with roles that they must be responsible for the task. For example, Word Scribbler would need to be to play his or her role as the one to write all the words that the others groups members said. He or she must not missed any given words cause it if it so it would mean she or he was taking the chance of the group to win the game. So she or he would need to listen carefully and write the words quickly and correctly in the term of spelling. It was the same for the Word Shooters and Words Hunters; they must be accountable for their roles.
The last element that could also be found during the implementation of ‘Words Scavenger’ was social skills. Even though, the students were not able to talk much because they were all busy thinking of the words but they learnt to give and take, negotiating on certain words on which they were not sure whether about the spelling or the acceptability of the words. More or less, there was some interaction in which the students socialize and using their social skills.
‘Words Scavenger’ obviously tried to meet the interest of the students with linguistic intelligence. Linguistic intelligence according to Gardner, is the ability of children to demonstrate strength in the language arts, be it in writing, speaking, reading and listening (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9903/gardner.html). The class activity cannot cater for all the different types of intelligence that each student posses, but at least, ‘Words Scavenger’ attempted to answer the need of the students with linguistic intelligence where they would involve in vocabulary building (when hunting for words) and spelling (in assuring they got the right words). ‘Words Scavengers’ was able to furnish this linguistic intelligence especially under the vocabulary component.
‘Words Scavenger’ also concerns the personality of the students. According to previous study, there is a relationship between student’s personality and second language acquisition (Ellis, 1985). This personal factors can be grouped into three headings but only group dynamics and individual learning would be mentioned in the case of ‘Words Scavengers’. According to McDonough (cited in Ellis, 1985: 101) that group dynamics as an important set of personal variables. Asking the students to work in group during the game had enabled to promote stimulus for learning. At the same time ‘Words Scavenger’ had borrowed the factor of individual learning technique especially in learning the vocabulary of second language. As Naiman (1978) and Pickett (1978) reported that some of the learners in their studies employed the technique of (cited in Ellis, 1985: 104);
“practicing vocabulary whether by putting words into different structures in order to drill oneself, reading to reinforce vocabulary, playing games such as trying to think of words with the same ending and repeating words to oneself”
‘Words Scavenger’ met this individual learning style to learn vocabulary through game that required the students to think of words that start of with the announced letters under a particular theme.
Learning vocabulary through game manages to reduce the threat of learning from the students. It would encourage the learners to learn in the most relax environment and reducing the feeling of insecurity on the students. Krashen includes this value in one of his hypotheses. According to Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis, learners with low affective filter would be more ready to receive input. Affect refers to motives, needs, attitudes and emotional states (Lightbown and Spada, 1993: 28). The game would surely provides a conducive environment for learning since learners are not feeling anxious or tense but they rather enjoying themselves playing the game of vocabulary. When the affective filter is low, the students would be more receptive to the input. Furthermore the classroom became less formal and the focus of the lesson seemed to be on the game and not a particular language structure which would appear more serious or formal. Without realizing that they were actually learning vocabulary instead of just participating in the game, the students were put in low affective filter where they gained self-confidence and motivation to join the activity.
Moreover, Krashen emphasizes that ‘acquired knowledge’ results to better learning through his acquisition-learning hypothesis. He refers acquisition as subconscious process; while learning as conscious process that mostly happen in formal language classroom. He adds that ‘learnt knowledge’ cannot be turn into ‘acquired knowledge’ (Lightbown & Spada, 1993). In ‘Word Scavengers’, learners subconsciously learn the vocabulary through games, which in Krashen’s acquisition-learning hypothesis is more preferable.

References.
1. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. http://www.clcrc.com
3. http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9903/gardner.html
4. Foote, E. 1997. Collaborative Learning in Community Colleges. ERIC Digest.
5. Knight, G. P. & Bohlmeyer, E.M. Without Year. Cooperative Learning and
Achievement: Methods for Assessing Casual Mechanisms. Without the place of publishing: Without the Publisher.
6. Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. 1993. How Languages are Learned? Oxford: Oxford University Press.