A Study of Flow in EFL Classroom Through Walkthrough Games Cheng-chao Su Doctoral student, Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan

Normal University vennysu@gmail.com

The flow theory is a new way of understanding motivation, first proposed by Csikszentmihalyi in 1975. If language learning can produce such flow experience, learning would become optimal experience, which is a heightened level of motivated task engagement, leading to improved performance on a task. As flow is often found in computer and human interaction, playing computer games is not unusual to experience flow, and thus can improve motivation. Through four walkthrough games, the study investigates: 1) if walkthrough games can motivate students, and if flow occurs in the EFL classroom by such games; 2) how different levels of challenge and skills in the walkthrough games will influence students perception of flow. The four walkthrough games are selected according to their difficulty levels on: 1) how to play the game, 2) language use in the game, and 3) computer skills. Through the investigation of students perception of flow in playing different walkthroughs, the study finds that: 1) Walkthrough games can motivate EFL students, and flow occurs in the EFL classroom based on the challenge and skills of the walkthroughs; 2) MOO may need more orientation because of its pure text interface; 3) Balance between challenge and skills plays an important role in designing game tasks. Since there is not much research on flow in EFL classrooms, this study provides a preliminary application of flow theory into EFL context, and advocates the use of walkthrough games in English teaching.

INTRODUCTION The flow theory, first proposed by Csikszentmihalyi in 1975, is a distinct state of consciousness that integrates high but effortless concentration, intrinsic motivation, loss of awareness of self and clock time, facile response to challenge, and feelings of competence and freedom (1975, 1990, 1997). Flow Theory claims that as a result of the intrinsically rewarding experience associated with flow, people push themselves to "higher levels of performance" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) that encourage them to engage in exploratory behaviors and to perform an activity repeatedly (Trevino & Webster, 1992). In this way, flow contributes to optimal performance and learning (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), and is a new way of understanding motivation.

As language learning is a complicated and arduous task, arousing and keeping students motivation becomes one of the key issues to succeed. If language learning can produce flow experience, learning would become optimal experience, which is a heightened level of motivated task engagement, leading to improved performance on a task (Dornyei, 2005). When students are intrinsically motivated to learn, they not only learn more, they also experience more positive affect and self esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This flow experience may be one of the good solutions to motivate many English learners who have lost their motivation because of low achievements in the traditional classrooms. It is easy to enter flow in games such as chess, tennis, or poker, because they have goals and rules that make it possible for the player to act without questioning what should be done, and how (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Prensky (2001) also suggests that learning via digital games is one good way to reach Digital Natives in their native language. As a new generation of students is growing up on computer games, we need to be able to engage these learners by appealing to their interests and make our language teaching relevant to their world (Stanley, 2008). Occasionally using games as an aid to language teaching is one way of doing this. Although computer games are becoming increasingly realistic and interactive, their language-learning potential has gone largely unrealized because games designed specifically for L2 instruction are in short supply, due largely to competition from the entertainment-oriented commercial sector (Purushotma, 2005). Computer games, however, have yet to make a serious impact in the sphere of language learning. There are not many studies on the L2 learning potential of computer games, and ideas and help for teachers interested in using games in the language class are still difficult to find. Through walkthrough games, this study investigates how to utilize computer games in EFL classroom, and if the learners perceive flow to motivate their language learning. LITERATURE REVIEW Flow theory has subsequently been applied in many other fields including sports, leisure, computer games, etc. Initially, researchers employed flow theory to explain the optimal state of athletes. These days, more researchers study users flow experience in human-computer interaction, and the design of educational activities and computer games (Jones, 1998; Gee, Halverson, Shaffer, & Squire, 2005; Chen, 2007). Researchers in SLA field begin to pay attention to flow theory and L2 learning potential of computer games recently although there are not many studies so far. Flow Theory The term "flow experiences" refer to periods of deep, intense involvement in activities

that challenge but do not overwhelm one's skills. Flow Theory involves the complex interplay of a number of dimensions. Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990, 1997) summarized those factors related to flow experiences into nine dimensions: 1) clear goals; 2) immediate feedback; 3) personal skills well suited to given challenges; 4) merger of action and awareness; 5) concentration on the task at hand; 6) a sense of potential control; 7) a loss of self-consciousness; 8) an altered sense of time; and 9) experience which becomes autotelic. Based on the nine dimensions, most studies investigated the effect of challenge & skills, control, attention, interactivity, curiosity and interest on flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Massimini & Carli, 1988; Trevino & Webster, 1992; Liao, 2006; Egbert, 2003, 2005). Chen observed that these dimensions can be categorized into three stages: antecedents, experiences and effects (Chen et al., 1999): The antecedents comprise: a clear set of goals; timely and appropriate feedback; and, most importantly, a perception of challenges that are well matched to the persons skills. The second stage comprises: a merging of action and awareness; a sense of control over the activity; and concentration. The final stage describes the individuals inner experience: loss of self-consciousness; time distortion; and a feeling that the activity becomes worth doing for its own sake (autotelic). Flow in Second Language Acquisition Few language researchers have focused on flow; in fact, there are only three studies to date concerning flow in language learning, and only one of them addresses CALL. Schmidt and Savage (1992) investigated flow experiences with Thai EFL students, comparing participants English learning experiences with other work and leisure activities. They were interested in the challenge/skills balance offered by each activity and during which flow would occur. Flow did occur in many contexts for these learners, including their English learning experiences both within and outside of class. In a second study, Schmidt, Boraie & Kassabgy (1996) reported that Egyptian EFL learners also experienced flow during learning tasks. Finally, Egbert (2003) found that flow occurred during activities in which learners had more control, were presented with new situations for learning, and had their interests addressed. She concluded that flow did exist in the FL classroom and that flow theory offered an interesting and useful framework for conceptualizing and evaluating language learning activities. This study follows Egberts (2003) model of flow in language learning in Figure 1 as a foundation for the study of flow and language learning. According to Egbert (2003, 2005), this study investigates flow along the four dimensions:

 There is a challenge/skills balance (Figure 2). The user perceives that his or her attention is focused on the task. The user finds the task intrinsically interesting or authentic (and will repeat it) The user perceives a sense of control.

Figure 1. Model of flow in language learning acquisition

Figure 2. Flow channel Computer Games in Language Learning Although there are not many studies, researchers have always tried to adapted computer games for language learning in the CALL field. Through the study of a text-based MOO, Schwienhorst (2002) suggested that virtual reality can help us overcome the physical separation between language learners and the target language culture, by bringing learners together. Most studies on MOO generally agreed that MOO could motivate students engagement, and promote language learning (Turbee, 1999; Ktter, 2001; Peterson, 2001; von der Emde, Schneider, & Ktter, 2001; Schwienhorst, 2002, 2004). Another focus on computer-based games for language learning is simulation games. Purushotma (2005) demonstrated how to modify the video game The Sims from the English

edition to form a bilingual gaming environment for German language learning. In his dissertation, Dabrowski (2005) investigated how to design and create computer-based game-types simulations for learning Arabic as a foreign language. He concluded that the latest advances in computer technology have made computer-based language instruction both an ever more authentic approximation of a study abroad experience and something which potentially can be widely and conveniently distributed. In his study of nine intermediate-level ESL learners, Ranalli (2008) found that the video game The Sims with supporting materials on a website could improve learners vocabulary knowledge. These studies all show the potential of integrating computer games into language learning environments. Computer Games and Flow: As flow is often found in computer and human interaction, playing computer games is not unusual to experience flow. Flow has become an important criterion to evaluate video games, and more studies investigate how to creating electronic learning environments with computer games and flow (Jones, 1999). Studies have found flow in playing computer games, and evaluate video games based on whether or not they provide a flow experience (Holt, 2000). Descriptions of the flow experience are identical to what players experience when immersed in games, losing track of time and external pressure, along with other interests (Chen, 2007). In order to evaluate and compare the quality of the flow experience in video games and other forms of interactive experience, the duration of the flow experience becomes the major criteria determining whether or not a player is transported to the zone (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Computer-based reading tasks might be good candidates for supporting flow because they present a way for individuals to experience optimal levels of challenge, control, and interest (Egbert, 2003). Computer based tasks provided opportunities that were not provided in regular teacher-centered activities. Turbee (1996, 1999) indicated that mooing, one computer-based task, had been linked conceptually to Csikszentmihalyis theory. Learners talked about MOOing being addictive, when it might in fact be the flow experience that caused them to return to the MOO repeatedly. Schwienhorst (2002) also confirmed that virtual Reality (such as MOOs) can enhance constructivist activities, student participation and empowerment, as well as support learner control, self-monitoring and self-evaluation. He concluded that VR could lead to intrinsic motivation, more intercultural awareness, more efficiency on tasks, and a reduction of the affective filter. Although the above studies suggested that MOO tasks might support flow easily, this study will investigate whether MOO tasks are too challenging for beginners because of their pure text-based interface and environment. Online walkthrough games: Because of the popularity of internet and faster computers recently, online games are getting more and more popular. For language teachers, the most useful way of engaging learners is by exploiting free online games. There are many different types of online computer games, but not all are appropriate for language learning. Many of

the games with their emphasis on fun are more engaging to students, and many have authentic language in context that is often hard to find in the games that have been produced specifically for learning. This study employs one type of popular online game, walkthrough, which is suitable is the logic game whereby you have to solve puzzles, or find hidden objects which in turn allows you to escape to the next level. In order to transform these games into learning tools, walkthroughs create an information gap exercise of the game. A walkthrough game will provide a textualized explanation in English on how to complete the game. This study uses the text as reading comprehension activities as students have to read and comprehend the explanation texts to escape to the next level. The walkthrough games adopted in this study are like well-planned tasks with clear goal for language learning. Research Questions This study is going to use some walkthrough games in EFL classrooms to see if students would experience flow while carrying out the tasks. Since there are not many studies on flow in SLA, or on the use of computer games in language learning, the purposes of this study are: (1) To investigate if walkthrough games can motivate students, and if flow occurs in the EFL classroom by walkthrough games. (2) To investigate how different levels of challenge and skills in the walkthrough games will influence students perception of flow. Based on the above two purposes, the research questions for this study are: (1) Can walkthrough games motivate EFL students? Does flow occur in EFL classroom? (2) Does flow occur in different walkthrough games? (3) What will influence students perception of flow? How does difficulty level of challenge and skills play a role in students perception of flow? METHODOLOGY Participants The participants in this study are about 80 freshmen in a technical college in northern Taiwan. Almost all of them graduated form vocational senior high schools with a beginning level of English although they have learned English as a foreign language at least for 6 years. Their average score for the elementary reading test of GEPT is 38.5 while only 3 of them get more than 80 and can pass the test. Their average score for Nations 1000 word level test is 59 while only 7 of them are more than 80 -- a passing grade. The Instruments:

Walkthrough games: Four free online walkthrough games were selected, and for each game, a textualized explanation on how to pass each level was designed in steps. Students have to read and comprehend the explaining texts, and follow the steps to solve puzzles or find hidden objects to move on to the next level. Table 1 is a brief description of the four walkthrough games used in this study1. Table 1. Walkthrough games Task Focus Organization Process of 1. Nesquick Reading Individual or Students read the 8 passages Game walkthrough steps, small group directions to go through 8 levels. problem solving 2. MOTAS Reading Individual or Students read the 8 passages walkthrough steps, small group directions to go through 8 levels. problem solving 3. Stage 07 Reading Individual or walkthrough steps small group and texts in the game, Listening to conversations, & answering, problem solving Students help the hero solve a mystery by interacting with the other robot characters. Audio clues and multiple choices on characters interaction. of

4. SchMOOze

Reading Individual or Treasure hunt of 12 hidden words, and walkthrough steps small group put the words in sentences. and texts in the game, problem solving

The four walkthrough games are all role playing games where students play a role in the game to collect or manipulate objects to move on to the next level. The objects and clues that can be collected help the gamer to interact with other elements of the game and/or progress to a 'higher' level within the game. The emphasis is on solving problems and puzzles. The stress is on the gamer using logic and mental processing rather than quick reactions. The selected games and designed walkthrough steps are based on different requirements of skills and challenges. Three kinds of skills are required in the tasks: Game skill, Language skill and Computer skill. The game skill represents the structure and complex of the games. If the design or structure of the game is more complicated, this game will require a higher game skill. Nesquick Game and MOATAS require easy game skill because their goals in each level are clear and simple. Stage 07 has a more complicated plot that requires gamers to interact with many robot characters to collect information to solve the puzzles; thus it needs a
1

For details of the walkthrough games, please contact the author as it is too long to put them in the appendix.

moderate game skill. MOO requires a higher game skill because users need to imagine that they are walking around a campus in a text-based environment. The language skill represents the English that requires in the games. Nesquick Game requires easy language skill as most of its textualized explanation use short sentences with simple words. Stage 07 needs higher language skill because it uses more complicated sentences, and it also requires listening and answering in a conversation. MOO also needs higher language skill as it employs lots of pure texts to direct users to move to the next treasure, and many users will be lost in the pure English text jungle. The computer skill means the interface between the users and the computers. MOO needs the most difficult computer skill as it only uses text interface and users have to learn command to move around while the other three games are 3-dimention virtual reality that users can move around easily by clicking a mouse. The four walkthrough games represent different levels of difficulty from Game 1 (easy) to Game 4 (difficult). Based on the students current average skills, the different skills and difficulty levels of the tasks are estimated as Table 2. Table 2 Different difficult skills and difficulty levels of the walkthrough games Task 1. Nesquick Game 2. MOTAS 3. Stage 07 4. MOO Game skill Easy Easy Moderate Difficult Language skill Easy Moderate Difficult Difficult Computer skill Easy Easy Moderate Difficult

Flow perceptions questionnaire: Data for learners perceptions of their flow experiences on each game are reported on a perceptions questionnaire adopted directly from Egbert (2003) as Appendix I. Besides Egberts 14 items, the author adds one open question to collect students opinions on the tasks. The 14 items in a five-point Liker scale from 1 (strong disagree) to 5 (strong agree) reflect the four flow dimensions of interest, control, focus, and challenge. Item 4, 10 and 12 are reverse scored. Procedure All the four games are set up on a Moodle course with a description of the walkthrough game and a Flow Perceptions Questionnaire for each game as follows.

Every week, the participants went to the lab, and carried out a walkthrough games from Game 1 to Game 4 individually. Participants were advised to use online vocabulary, consult other online resource or discuss with their classmates while playing the game. After the participants played a walkthrough game, they filled out a flow perceptions questionnaire so as to obtain information about their perceptions of the flow dimensions as related to the game. Each game and questionnaire would take about one hour. The time table of the four walkthrough games is as follows: Tale 3. Time table Week 1
Game 1 Flow questionnaire

Week 2
Game 2 Flow questionnaire

Week 3
Game 3 Flow questionnaire

Week 4
Game 4 Flow questionnaire

As Game 1 is easy, most students could finish the 8 levels in one hour. For Game 2, most students could perform about half of the 8 levels, and some could finish all 8 levels in an hour. Game 3 required more language skill in listening and interacting with the robot characters, those whose English proficiency were not good complained this game was too difficult, and only some of them could finish this game. As Game 4 was the most difficult, one hour was not enough for most of the participants, and neither of them finished the twelve levels while only 23 participants did the flow perception questionnaire. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Through the different walkthrough games and questionnaires, the study wants to address the following research questions:

(1) Can walkthrough games motivate EFL students? Does flow occur in EFL classroom? In order to investigate if students experience flow in each task, participants who average above 3.50 on any flow perception questionnaire are designated as having experiencing flow2. Table 4 presents the number of participants in flow for each game. More than half of the students experienced flow in Game 1 and 2 while Game 3 and 4 may be too challenging for most of them to experience flow. From these data, all but five students have experienced flow during Game 1, 2 or 3. Seven participants have experienced flow to some degree during all of the Game 1, 2 and 3. Table 4. Number of participants in flow Game Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Number of participants in flow 52 (71%) 47 (65%) 18 (25%) 4 (17%) Numbers of students 73 72 73 23

(2) Does flow occur in different walkthrough games? Table 5 is the average scores of the flow perception questionnaire for each game. The scores are decreasing from Game 1 to Game 4 in consistent with their difficulty levels. Flow seems to occur in the English classroom in response to the challenge and skills of the games. Table 5. Average score of flow perception for each game Game Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Average score 3.78 3.72 3.03 2.69 Numbers of students 73 72 73 23

Game 1 and Game 2 can engender the highest level of flow (3.78 and 3.72) across participants since their skill requirements are rather easy. As Game 3 requires more language and computer skills, this task can only promote a moderate flow (3.03). Since Game 4 is the most difficult in language and computer interface, it may need more time to orient students to understand how to use the text-based environments lest they may get lost in the text jungle. As students complained a lot on the MOO environment, many students dropped out of the game and only 23 of them finished the flow perception questionnaire. For the students current English and MOO skills, MOO may not a suitable environment for them to learn English.
2

In a five-point Liker scale, 3.50 are far above the average 2.50. This procedure is comparable to that of previous research that designates a flow experience as being above average (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) or above 5.0 in a seven-point Liker scale (Egbert, 2003).

(3) What will influence students perception of flow? How does difficulty level play a role in students perception of flow? In order to compare individual students flow experience in different games, the 41 students who participated in Game 1, 2 and 33 are picked out and analyzed by a repeated measure ANOVA. Table 6 is their average score of flow perception for each game, which is very similar to Table 5. The mean scores are consistent with our estimated difficulty level from Game 1 (easy) to Game 3 (more difficult). Table 6. Mean score and standard deviation of flow perception for each game Mean Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 3.7073 3.6272 3.0314 SD .62878 .61081 .69437 N 41 41 41

Table 7 shows a significant difference between the three games, which are estimated to be of different difficulty levels. This suggests that the challenge and skills play a very important role in the perception of flow during the games. Table 7. ANOVA analysis of the 3 different walkthrough games Source Between subject Within subject Treatment Residual Total SS 11.18 11.61 19.86 42.65 df 2 40 80 122 MS 5.59 0.29 0.25 F 22.53 **

P <.05 A post-hoc comparison between the flow perception scores of the three games find that there is significant difference between Game 1 & Game 3, and Game 2 & Game 3. Game 1 and Game 2 are not significantly different in students flow perception. Game 1 and Game 2 both offer enough challenge for most students current skill level, and thus could engender higher flow. Game 3 is more challenging that some students current skills could not cope with so they can experience lower flow (3.03). Thats why Game 3 is significantly different from Game 1 and Game 2. This supports Csikszentmihalyis (1975) flow channel that demonstrated a balance between challenge and skills. When the challenge increases but ones skills do not improve to meet the challenge, then one might get into a state of boredom or anxiety, but not flow. Except some students, Game 1 and 2 are just challenging enough that most students perceive some flow. As the skill requirement of Game 3 is higher than Game 1 and 2, less than half of the students still perceive flow while more students cannot perceive flow because
3

Task 4 is omitted as it has only 23 participants.

its too challenging for them. Only four students can perceive flow in Game 4 which suggests that Game 4 is to challenging for most of the students current skill level. This supports the importance of a challenge/skills balance in students perception of flow, and also suggests that only the relative balance of challenge and skills is relevant to flow, not the absolute values. That is, an activity could offer very little challenge, yet could still produce flow if the skills of the person are commensurately low (Massimini & Carli, 1988). This finding consists with the previous studies by Chapelle & Jamieson (1988) and McQuillan & Conde (1996). Chapelle and Jamieson (1988) reported a study revealing that the balance of challenge and skills could be used to predict their ESL students attitudes toward their lessons. McQuillan and Conde (1996) also concluded that reading texts are more likely to induce flow when they are neither boring nor frustrating for the reader. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This study employs a larger sample than Egberts (2003) study on flow in EFL classrooms, and utilizes walkthrough games in language learning. Through the investigation of students perception of flow in playing different online walkthrough games, the study finds that: (1) Flow can occur in the EFL classrooms based on the challenge and skills of the games. 71% and 65% of participants experienced flow in Game 1 and 2 while only 25% and 17% of participants experienced flow in Game 3 and 4 because the skill requirements of Game 3 and 4 are higher and may be too challenging to most students to experience flow since most of the participants English were at the elementary level. (2) Online walkthrough games offer a potential for language learning. Like well-planned tasks, walkthrough games not only motivate students but also involve them in learning. MOO tasks may need more orientation because of its pure text interface, and MOO may not be suitable for students with elementary English proficiency. For the students current low English level and MOO skills, MOO may not be a suitable environment for them to learn English. (3) A balance between challenge and skills plays an important role in participants perception of flow. Flow theory suggests that we should provide learners with the task with a challenge/skills balance. Well-planned tasks that reflect the balance between challenge and skills may arouse students motivation, focus students attention and attract students involvement. When finding computer games or designing language tasks, it would be valuable for teachers to consider the difficulty of game, language, and computer skills based on students current level. This study not only shows the existence of flow in the EFL classroom, which is consistent with Egberts (2003, 2005) studies on flow in language learning activities, but also

demonstrates the potential of employing online games in language learning. As there are not many studies on flow and computer games in language learning, some limitations of this study and suggestions for further studies are presented as follows: (1) Lack of the evaluation of students performances: In this study, the only evaluation of students performance on different games was to see if they passed all the levels. This may not be the most effective approach to facilitating English learning. For future study, there may be two more ways to collect more data of how students perform and learn in the games: a) catch computer screens of all the process of students performances; b) design some exercises and tests to examine students achievements of playing the games and learning the language. (2) Students perception of flow: This study uses a self-report scale to measure students flow by a questionnaire, which may cause some bias for some of the results as participant-recall survey may not reflect participants true experience. For further investigation, it would be appropriate to add other direct and objective tools to measure participant flow experience, such as observation and experience sampling method (ESM). (3) Other computer-based games and variables: Besides walkthrough games, other computer games may also possess the potential for language learning and flow experiencing. Studies on how to shape language learning in terms of computer games are in need of further investigation, other variables, such as teachers role4, which may influence or interact with students perception of flow should also be examined. Computer games may provide another door for language learning, especially for those low motivated, unsuccessful students who feel frustrated and helpless in traditional classrooms. Much of the potential for the integration of entertainment media with mainstream language learning remains untapped (Purushotma, 2005). As Csikszentmihalyi reiterates in many places that it is not that students cannot learn, it is that they do not wish to. Prensky (2001) also warns the teachers that it generally isnt that Digital Natives cant pay attention, its that they choose not to. It may be time for teachers to think of how to integrated flow into their classroom no matter by computer games or by any other activities.

References Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26-44.
4

Egbert (2003) proposed that teachers can theoretically facilitate the flow experience for students by developing tasks that might lead to flow. Bakker (2005) found that the more flow experiences music teachers reported, the higher the frequency of comparable experiences among their students.

Backer, J. (2001). Using a modular approach to schMOOze with ESL/EFL students. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(5). http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Backer-SchMOOze.html Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experiences of web activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 585-608. Chen, J. (2007). Flow in games. Communications of the ACM Magazine, 50(4), 31-34. Chen, P. (2003). EFL student learning style preferences and attitudes toward technology-integrated instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15-35). Cambridge University. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. London: Harper Perennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Culligan, M. (2003). Digital natives in the classroom. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology. http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/digitalnatives/start.htm Dabrowski, R. (2005). Criteria for appraising computer-based simulations for teaching arabic as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington. Dornyei, D. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 499-518. Egbert, J. (2005). Flow as a model for CALL research. In J. Edbert (Ed.), Call research perspectives (pp. 129-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated. Gee, J. P., Halverson, R., Shaffer, D. W., & Squire, K. R. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2005. www.wcer.wisc.edu Hektner, J. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). A longitudinal exploration of flow and intrinsic motivation in adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, NY, April 8-12, 1996). Holt, R. (2000). Examining video games immersion as a flow state. Unpublished BA thesis, Brock University, Ontario, Canada. Jones, M. (1988). Creating electronic learning environments: Games, flow, and the user interface. Paper from the Proceedings of selected research and development presentations, National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).

Ktter, Markus (2001). MOOrituri te salutant? Language learning through MOO-based synchronous exchanges between learner tandems. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14 (3-4), 289-304. Lliao, L. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance education. Distance Education, 27(1), 45-62. Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 288-306). New York: Cambridge University. Pearce, J., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 745-771. Peterson, M. (2001). MOOs and second language acquisition: Towards a rationale for MOO-based learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14 (5), 443~459. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001). Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9. Purushotma, R. (2005). Commentary: Youre not studying, youre just Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 80-96. Schwienhorst, K. (2002). The state of VR: A meta-analysis of virtual reality tools in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 221-239. Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/Non-native-speakers discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17 (1), 35-50. Stanley, G. (2008). Language learners & computer games: From space invaders to second life. TESL-EJ, 11(4). http://tesl-ej.org/ej44/a5.html Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). Game flow: A model for evaluation player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1-24. Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). Thats why I do it: Flow and EFL teachers practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), 118-128. Trevino, L., & Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research, 19, 539-573. Turbee, L. (1996). MOOing in a foreign language: how, why, and who? A paper for the Information Technology Education Connection's International Virtual Conference/Exhibition on Schooling and the Information Superhighway, June 3-9, 1996. Turbee, L. (1999). Language learning MOO theory and practical application. http://lonniechu.com/LLMOOTPA.html von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Ktter, M. (2001). Technically speaking: Transforming language learning through virtual learning environments (MOOs). Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 210-225

Appendix I. Perceptions Questionnaire Participants responded to each of the following items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions 4, 10 and 12 were reverse-scored. Question 15 is an open question. 1. This game excited my curiouslity. 2. This game was interesting in itself. 3. I felt that I had control over what was happening during this game. 4. When doing this game I was aware of distractions. 5. This game made me curious. 6. This game was fun for me. 7. I would play this game again. 8. This game allowed me to control what I was doing. 9. When playing this game, I was totally absorbed in what I was doing. 10. This game bored me. 11. During this game, I could make decisions about what to study, how to study it, and/or with whom to study. 12. When playing this game I thought about other things. 13. This game aroused my imagination. 14. I would play this game even if it were not required. Open questions: What do you think of the game? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________