View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Comparative Review of Mobile and Non-Mobile Games for Language Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Comparative Review of Mobile and Non-Mobile Games for Language Learning
Language: English
Authors: Su, Fan, Zou, Di (ORCID 0000-0001-8435-9739), Xie, Haoran, Wang, Fu Lee (ORCID 0000-0002-3976-0053)
Source: SAGE Open. Oct-Dec 2021 11(4).
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Handheld Devices, Computer Games, Game Based Learning, Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, English (Second Language), Chinese, Computer Simulation, Instructional Effectiveness, Psychological Patterns, Educational Research
DOI: 10.1177/21582440211067247
ISSN: 2158-2440
Abstract: Recent studies have increasingly investigated the effectiveness of both mobile and non-mobile digital game-based language learning. To gain an in-depth understanding of the differences in the effectiveness of mobile and non-mobile games, we compared studies from January 2000 to August 2020 investigating mobile game-based language learning (MGBLL) and non-mobile game-based language learning (NMGBLL). Sixty-four articles were analyzed from four aspects: game types, game elements, target languages, and learning outcomes. The results showed that (a) gamification, simulation games, and immersive games were applied most; (b) all games possessed the game elements of goals or rules; (c) the most investigated target languages were English and Chinese; and (d) the most discussed learning outcomes were language acquisition and psychological/affective state. The similarities and differences between MGBLL and NMGBLL were also identified. The current review provides an overview and in-depth analysis of mobile and non-mobile games for language learning, guiding practitioners to select appropriate digital games to cater to specific language teaching goals. Future directions of research are also discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1320688
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFutD15b4SFe5ztayHvGSeeAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKY6SxWOSWcdFMpiGQIBEICBm3l9771_ed3u1HVzAAVcV-x-xnVjQXP8r7Q3L6k4efUqSrx6dUPmVr9bWGvG9PnMhSxRkM71DVsMYDntJZQKLrRLyzdAbpd6DkdQLAIo8W2KjjHp24jeGDC9AibC6ss4XYztgkfxvZYrA6mkeqltbleciH9nrr_JI3-Ocu5Axdk4GJAHmHcpKYWm5HLUERrrIk4eSZukjVTS7Sxt
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0154324090;[kbz6]01oct.21;2021Dec28.07:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0154324090-1">A Comparative Review of Mobile and Non-Mobile Games for Language Learning </title> <p>Recent studies have increasingly investigated the effectiveness of both mobile and non-mobile digital game-based language learning. To gain an in-depth understanding of the differences in the effectiveness of mobile and non-mobile games, we compared studies from January 2000 to August 2020 investigating mobile game-based language learning (MGBLL) and non-mobile game-based language learning (NMGBLL). Sixty-four articles were analyzed from four aspects: game types, game elements, target languages, and learning outcomes. The results showed that (a) gamification, simulation games, and immersive games were applied most; (b) all games possessed the game elements of goals or rules; (c) the most investigated target languages were English and Chinese; and (d) the most discussed learning outcomes were language acquisition and psychological/affective state. The similarities and differences between MGBLL and NMGBLL were also identified. The current review provides an overview and in-depth analysis of mobile and non-mobile games for language learning, guiding practitioners to select appropriate digital games to cater to specific language teaching goals. Future directions of research are also discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: mobile games; non-mobile games; digital games; language learning</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Digital games are a new approach for assisting learning across a wide range of subjects, such as mathematics ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]), engineering ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]), science ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]), law ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]), and language learning ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref6">87</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref7">86</reflink>]). Language learning appears to be the most promising because through digital games it is grounded in well-established theories, such as immersion in the language learning environment and the use of the target language for interaction in games ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]). For this reason, an increasing number of studies have investigated digital game-based language learning (DGBLL) ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]). DGBLL places learners in interactive situations which engage them in game-based learning tasks ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref12">80</reflink>]) while encouraging the use of the target language ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref13">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref14">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>The advent of mobile devices has arrived in tandem with the movement from DGBLL to mobile game-based language learning (MGBLL) ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref16">57</reflink>]). Mobile games are played with portable devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and phablets ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref18">88</reflink>]). Mobile games can engage students in extramural language learning, as they apply mobile and gaming technologies together with socializing and learning activities ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]). In this way, learners are able to acquire a language outside the classroom. In addition to mobile devices, digital games in support of language learning can also be played on non-mobile devices, such as personal computers (PCs) and video consoles, and other gaming platforms and means (e.g., multimedia and robots) to support language learning ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Compared with games played on non-mobile platforms, mobile games have been found to be more promising for making language learning portable and seamless ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]). This is mainly because MGBLL is usually delivered on devices that enable students to learn anytime and anywhere ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]). To gain a more in-depth understanding of language learning through games, a systematic review of mobile and non-mobile games appears timely for two reasons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) to enrich the literature by presenting the differences and similarities between the application of mobile games and non-mobile games in language learning; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) to clarify the efficiency of mobile and non-mobile games for instructional purposes in language learning.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>Several reviews on DGBLL have been conducted using diverse analytical methods and review foci (see a summary in Table 1) including four representative ones by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref29">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref31">90</reflink>]. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref32">30</reflink>] performed a scoping review of 50 high-quality studies from 2007 to 2016, exploring the impact of digital game-based language education. Their foci were partly in line with the current review and thus can inform our research. Hung et al. reached seven conclusions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>) mixed methods were used most; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>) researchers frequently applied immersive games and tutorial games to assist language learning; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>) most games were researcher-developed for specific language learning purposes; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>) PCs were the most popular gaming device; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>) among languages English was investigated the most; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>) participants were usually of mixed language proficiency mostly at the university level; and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>) most learning outcomes were positive, in particular language acquisition and affective states. Although Huang et al.'s study guided teachers' selection of digital games to assist language learning, they did not compare different gaming devices (e.g., PCs, mobile phones, and tablets).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. A Comparison of Methodologies and Focus of Previous Reviews.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Previous review article</th><th align="center">Analytical method</th><th align="center">Review focus</th><th align="center">Field</th><th align="center">Time range</th><th align="center">Number of articles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">Hung et al. (2018)</xref></td><td>Scoping review</td><td>Digital games in language education</td><td>DGBLL</td><td>2007–2016</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Talan et al. (2020)</xref></td><td>Meta-analysis</td><td>Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games</td><td>DGBLL</td><td>2004–2019</td><td>154</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">Acquah and Katz (2020)</xref></td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Digital game-based second language learning outcomes for primary through high-school students</td><td>DGBLL</td><td>2014–2018</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">Zou et al. (2019)</xref></td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Digital games in vocabulary learning</td><td>DGVL</td><td>2008–2018</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">Chang and Hwang (2019)</xref></td><td>Systematic review</td><td>Mobile games in learning</td><td>MGBL</td><td>2007–2016</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">Schmitz et al. (2012)</xref></td><td>Not specified</td><td>Mobile gaming patterns on learning outcomes</td><td>MGBL</td><td>2001–2011</td><td>43</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> DGBLL = digital game-based language learning; DGVL = digital game-based vocabulary learning; MGBL = mobile game-based learning.</p> <p>In another study, a meta-analysis on the efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games of 154 articles from 2004 to 2019, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref40">67</reflink>] found that games had modest positive effects on academic achievements and that learning achievements did not vary with the student levels and duration of implementation. However, they did vary depending on the courses, class size (small class size had the largest effect size and large classes the smallest), and game types (the effect size of the non-digital games was higher than digital ones). Notably, both digital and non-digital games contributed to cognitive gains among their reviewed studies. The disadvantages of games, such as the deviation of learning goals, alienation from the social environment, and the difficulty to control the in-class atmosphere, were also reported. Although Talan et al. compared the effect sizes between digital and non-digital games, they did not highlight the specific game genres. They also did not consider target language, knowledge acquisition, and learner affective state, indicating a need for future reviews to investigate these dimensions.</p> <p>Based on 26 articles from 2014 to 2018, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>] systematically reviewed the influences of digital games on second language learning outcomes for primary to high-school students. Several findings reported by Acquah and Katz were similar to [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>], including the frequent use of mixed research methods, the tendency to use computer games and research-developed games, the tendency to design learning-driven games, the focus on the English language, and the positive influences on language acquisition and affective states. Acquah and Katz identified game features, such as the degree of ease-of-use, challenge, goal-orientation, and interactivity, thereby providing a more thorough understanding of digital games. However, their review did not identify game features of various gaming devices (e.g., PCs, mobile phones, and tablets) learners used.</p> <p>Focusing on the domain-specific topics, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref43">90</reflink>] reviewed past studies from 2008 to 2018 and speculated on possible future trends of digital game-based vocabulary learning (DGVL). They found 10 types of digital games, with tutorial games being the most popular, followed by simulation games and role-playing games. These games enhanced learners' vocabulary learning both in the short and long term. Zou et al. also categorized the theoretical foundations of DGVL, which included the linguistic theories (e.g., involvement hypothesis, input hypothesis) and the educational theories (scaffolding, game-based learning, etc.). Zou et al.'s review was comprehensive. However, their focus was unitary, without classifying the types of game devices that were used by learners.</p> <p>Two other studies investigated mobile game-based learning (MGBL). In the first study, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>] reviewed MGBL studies published from 2007 to 2016 resulting in four major findings. First, smartphones, tablet computers, and PDAs were commonly adopted to support mobile games. Second, mobile games were used by several broad discipline areas, such as social science, social studies, science, and languages. Third, some learning strategies were applied to MGBL, such as contests, contextual mobile learning, and project-based learning. Fourth, research topics tended to include multiple perspectives with at least two domains, for example, affective states, learning outcomes, cognition, etc. Although their findings were compelling, Chang and Hwang did not include non-mobile games, thus limiting the scope of their review and suggesting a need for a further review of mobile and non-mobile games for language learning.</p> <p>In the second study, Schmitz et al.'s (2012) review of 43 studies on MGBL from 2001 to 2011 revealed that mobile learning gaming generated affective and cognitive learning outcomes. As for affective outcomes, features of gaming, such as cooperation, augmented reality (AR), pervasive games, and physical navigation, improved students' motivation to learn. However, unlike affective outcomes, the educational values of diverse gaming features on cognitive outcomes were less evident. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref45">57</reflink>] offered insights into the effects of mobile gaming features on affective and cognitive learning outcomes, but they did not focus on other learning outcomes (e.g., knowledge outcomes, learning skills, etc.) and did not investigate non-mobile games. Thus, again, a review of mobile and non-mobile games to understand their influence on learning outcomes would be informative.</p> <p>In summary, with more empirical studies exploring the effects of digital games on language learning, an updated review is needed to identify their effects on language learning ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]). Seeing that digital games are played on both mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones and tablets) and non-mobile ones (PCs, video consoles, multimedia, etc.) ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>]), the present review compares MGBLL and NMGBLL studies. The need for such a comparative review has been noted in previous reviews on digital games, which have been either too broad or too narrow in their focus. To respond to these needs, this study compared MGBLL and NMGBLL studies published from January 2000 to August 2020 in terms of game types, game elements, target languages, learning outcomes, and similarities and differences. Accordingly, the present review is guided by the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) What types of games have been investigated in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>) What game elements have been investigated in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>) What target languages have been investigated in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>) What were the learning outcomes of MGBLL and NMGBLL studies?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>) What were the similarities and differences between MGBLL and NMGBLL studies?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0154324090-4">Method</hd> <p>A three-step process was used to identify and analyze relevant articles: search, selection, and data analysis ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref55">64</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref56">87</reflink>]). The search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection because it is a compilation of high-quality articles published in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref57">87</reflink>]). In the present study, publications from January 1, 2000 to August 31, 2020 were retrieved by using the keywords: <emph>gam</emph>* covering game-related keywords ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]) and <emph>language learning</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref59">31</reflink>]), with AND between them to locate papers related to the review theme. Although the present study is qualitative in nature, it describes some frequencies of the retrieved information (e.g., game genres and game elements) from the identified articles, which were helpful for us to answer the research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-5">Journal Selection</hd> <p>The researchers limited the selected articles to publications from SSCI journals for quality assurance because articles in SSCI journals are published based on rigorous criteria and have a greater impact ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>]). We selected the following journals according to the 2019 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). First, the top four journals which publish research on educational technology in Language and Linguistics were selected: <emph>Language Learning and Technology, Computer Assisted Language Learning, System</emph>, and <emph>ReCALL</emph>. Second, five journals that publish research on language education in E-learning were identified: <emph>Computers and Education, British Journal of Educational Technology, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Educational Technology and Society</emph>, and <emph>Interactive Learning Environments</emph>. After comparing our journal list with [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref61">30</reflink>], we found that <emph>Educational Technology Research and Development</emph> was included in their review of DGBLL. Considering that it is an influential journal in the field, we also included it in our list. In the end, we finalized 10 journals.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-6">Article Selection</hd> <p>Our search at the end of August 2020 generated 155 articles from the 10 journals. These articles were further examined based on certain inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2). The criteria for inclusion are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) being an experimental or empirical study; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) being related to investigating digital game-assisted language learning; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) being explicit in describing the adopted games.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Inclusion criteria</th><th align="center">Exclusion criteria</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Experimental or empirical</td><td>Review articles, bibliometric analysis, commentaries, or editorials</td></tr><tr><td>Related to investigating digital game-assisted language learning</td><td>No investigation on language knowledge or skills</td></tr><tr><td>Explicit in describing the adopted games</td><td>No application of digital games to language activities</td></tr><tr><td /><td>No relation to the language subject</td></tr><tr><td /><td>No relation to digital games</td></tr><tr><td /><td>With foci on game upgrade</td></tr><tr><td /><td>No explicit description on digital games</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Several types of exclusion criteria were applied: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>) being a review, bibliometric analysis, commentaries, or editorials; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) lacking investigation on language knowledge or skills; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>) lacking application of digital games to learning activities (e.g., descriptions of the game <emph>per se</emph>, applications of games to social activities); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>) focusing on game upgrade (e.g., algorithm design, game programing, game environment design); (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>) lacking any connections to the language subject; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>) lacking any relationship to digital games; and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>) lacking explicit descriptions on digital games. Within these constraints, 91 articles were excluded after the abstract and full-text screening. For example, the following articles were excluded: [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>] for being a meta-analysis review; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref73">68</reflink>] for focusing only on learners' psychological states rather than investigating language knowledge or skills; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>] for applying digital games to facilitate social collaboration; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>] for being irrelevant to language learning; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>] for being irrelevant to digital games; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref77">52</reflink>] for centering on the design of the game environment; and [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>] for giving sparse descriptions on the adopted game. Thus, 64 articles were included in the review. The method of data collection and processing is illustrated in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Method of data collection and processing.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-7">Coding Scheme</hd> <p>To review MGBLL and NMGBLL studies over the past 20 years, two researchers devised a coding scheme, which consisted of four categories: game genres, game elements, target languages, and learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-8">Game genres, game elements, and target languages</hd> <p>To differentiate MGBLL and NMGBLL, the researchers divided 64 games (one for each article) into two broad categories: mobile games and non-mobile games. Mobile games are games played with portable devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, PDAs, and phablets ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]). Non-mobile games are those played with non-mobile devices ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]), such as PCs, video consoles, multimedia, and robots. In total, there were 27 and 37 in the categories of MGBLL and NMGBLL, respectively.</p> <p>Following [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref82">90</reflink>], we categorized games into 11 genres: simulation games, puzzle games, exergames, tutorial games, immersive games, board games, adventure games, music games, alternate reality games, gamification, and mixed games.</p> <p>In line with [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref83">80</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>], we adopted several game elements applicable to the language learning field to code the identified games: interactive problem solving, goals or rules, adaptive challenges, control, continuous feedback, uncertainty, and sensory stimuli (see Table 3).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Description of Core Game Element ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref85">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref86">80</reflink>]).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Element</th><th align="center">Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Interactive problem solving</td><td>A game requires ongoing interaction between learner and game to solve problems/quest</td></tr><tr><td>Goals or rules</td><td>A game sets explicit or implicit goals for learners</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptive challenges</td><td>A game adjusts difficulty levels according to learners' proficiency</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>Learners' behaviors influence the environment or the learning experience</td></tr><tr><td>Continuous feedback</td><td>A game provides timely feedback to learners</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertainty</td><td>A game engages learners and invokes the unpredictable learning outcomes</td></tr><tr><td>Sensory stimuli</td><td>A game equipped with graphics, sounds, and other stimuli to activate learner senses</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The target languages involved in the selected studies were coded as reported in the articles, for example, English, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-9">Learning outcomes</hd> <p>The learning outcomes included six dimensions: language acquisition, knowledge acquisition, contemporary competencies, participatory behaviors, affective or psychological states, and correlation outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]) (Table 4).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Coding Scheme for Learning Outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Content items</th><th align="center">Content items</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Language acquisition• Listening• Speaking• Reading• Writing• Vocabulary• Grammar• Pronunciation• Pragmatic competence• Mixed/Integrated language</td><td>Affective or psychological state• General perceptions• Attitudes• Motivation/Interest• Engagement/Flow• Technology acceptance or tool evaluation• Self-efficacy/Confidence• Cognitive load• Learner autonomy• learning anxiety• Willingness to communicate• Others</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge acquisition• Subject-matter knowledge• Cultural learning• Others</td><td>Participatory behavior• Classroom interaction• In-game linguistic interaction• Beyond-game linguistic interaction• Gaming culture/Linguistic ecology</td></tr><tr><td>Contemporary competence• Critical thinking• Creativity• Collaboration• Communication</td><td>Correlation outcomes</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Language acquisition included both knowledge and skills ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref88">30</reflink>]), and it mainly covered listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and pragmatic competence (one's ability to use knowledge of linguistics and norms in socially bound interactions) ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref89">63</reflink>]). If a study investigated two or more language knowledge and/or skills, the label "mixed" or "integrated language" was applied ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref90">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref91">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Knowledge acquisition was coded as subject-matter knowledge (content learning in one's target language), cultural learning, and others.</p> <p>The category "contemporary competence outcomes" was devised based on [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref92">49</reflink>], mainly including critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication or communicative competence.</p> <p>"Participatory behaviors" referred to students' use of target languages to engage in game-based language activities, which involved classroom interactions among language learners, in-game linguistic interactions, beyond-game linguistic interactions, and the gaming culture or linguistic ecology ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref93">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>"Affective or psychological state" consisted of general perceptions, attitudes, motivation/interest, engagement/flow, technology acceptance/tool evaluation, self-efficacy/confidence, cognitive load, learner autonomy, learning anxiety, willingness to communicate, and others ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some studies have examined the relationship between different influential factors (i.e., affective state, individual difference, and external factors) and learning outcomes, and all of these were classified as correlation outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-10">Results</hd> <p>The results were divided into four categories: game genres, game elements, target language, and learning outcomes. Based on these, the similarities and differences between MGBLL and NMGBLL were identified accordingly.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-11">Game Genres</hd> <p>Concerning the types of games, we found 11 heterogeneous game genres (Figure 2). Of these, gamification (<emph>n</emph> = 24) was by far the most popular, followed by immersive games (<emph>n</emph> = 16), then simulation games (<emph>n</emph> = 13). A few studies applied alternate reality games (<emph>n</emph> = 2) and adventure games (<emph>n</emph> = 2). The following game types were used once in the sampled studies: puzzle games, exergames, mixed games, tutorial games, board games, and music games.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Game genres adopted in MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Gamification refers to the use of game elements and design, such as incentive systems, points, badges, levels, experience points (XP), and leaderboards, to engage players in a task that they otherwise would not find attractive ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref96">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref97">85</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref98">89</reflink>]). Gamification was found to be used more frequently in MBGLL than NMGBLL. Examples of mobile gamification were <emph>Happy2Languages</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref99">9</reflink>]) and <emph>Duolingo</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]). Non-mobile gamification was usually played on computers (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref101">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref102">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref103">84</reflink>]). Immersive games provided learners with narrative experiences by allowing them to assume a role and to interact with other learners through avatars in computer-supported immersive gaming worlds ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]). This game genre was used most in NMGBLL, such as in the <emph>3D multi-user virtual environment (3DMUVE)</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref105">12</reflink>]), <emph>game-based on 3D virtual world (3DVW)</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref106">13</reflink>]), and massive multiplayer online role-playing game (<emph>MMORPG</emph>) ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref107">65</reflink>]), while it appeared only twice in MGBLL ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref108">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref109">43</reflink>]). Simulation games attracted similar attention from MGBLL and NMGBLL as they facilitated learning by engaging learners in simulated authentic language activities ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref110">30</reflink>]). Examples include the use of mobile <emph>spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR)</emph> to support Chinese writing ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref111">29</reflink>]) and the use of the computer game, <emph>The Sims</emph>, for learning English ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref112">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two game genres were used infrequently by MGBLL and NMGBLL: alternate reality games and adventure games. Alternate reality games enable learners to interact through multiple media both in the virtual world and in reality. For example, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref113">37</reflink>] organized a field observation for students visiting a physical English Village, then constructed a virtual context through a non-mobile game (i.e., <emph>3DMUVE</emph>) for learning English. Adventure games provide rich action elements and fictional scenarios for single learner players to conduct language activities in a fantasy setting ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref114">30</reflink>]). For example, students participated in finding and returning animals to cages according to given storylines in a mobile-enhanced zoo game ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref115">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>The remaining six game genres were the least adopted. Puzzle games, exergames, and mixed games were found in MGBLL studies, while tutorial games, board games, and music games were found in NMGBLL studies. "Her story" is a mobile puzzle game in which learners construct a murder story by rearranging archived video narratives ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref116">38</reflink>]). Mobile <emph>HOPSCOTCH</emph> is an exer-game that incorporates physical activities into learning via gaming. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref117">45</reflink>] applied <emph>HOPSCOTCH</emph> to assist English learning. When playing this game, learners answered questions on the screen by jumping on a sensor mat. Mixed games refer to the use of two or more different game genres. For example, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref118">46</reflink>] used seven different types of mobile games (e.g., Smurfs' <emph>Village, Clash of Clans</emph>) to support language learning. Tutorial games involve teaching presence to facilitate learning in the activities ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref119">30</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>], for example, created interactions among an assistant <emph>Robot</emph>, the teacher, and the children to develop children's pragmatic performance. As the name implies, board games engage learners by allowing them to play a game using a board, possibly with cards and dice, etc. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref121">75</reflink>] used playground board games for genuine communication in the EFL classroom. Finally, learners play music games to learn using music elements ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref122">30</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref123">22</reflink>] used a music video game to improve learners' vocabulary. However, they found the performance of players was not as good as those who were watching.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-12">Game Elements</hd> <p>Following [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref124">80</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref125">61</reflink>], our review summarized seven game elements to answer the second research question.</p> <p>As illustrated in Figure 3, the most common gaming element was goals or rules (<emph>n</emph> = 64, 100%), followed by sensory stimuli (<emph>n</emph> = 28, 43.8%), adaptive challenges (<emph>n</emph> = 27, 40.2%), continuous feedback (<emph>n</emph> = 24, 37.5%), control (<emph>n</emph> = 19, 29.7%), interactive problem solving (<emph>n</emph> = 14, 21.9%), and uncertainty (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 4.4%). The less incorporation of control, interactive problem solving, and uncertainty elements indicated much room for improvement among the identified games. For example, a game should possess a "control" element because learners' control over gameplay and the game environment decides their flow state, learning experience, and learning motivation ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref126">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref127">61</reflink>]), thus influencing the learning outcomes. Further, "interactive problem solving" was a necessary gaming element, as learners actively interacted with games to solve problems or quests. In turn, they gained a sense of achievement ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref128">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref129">72</reflink>]) and continued to complete their learning tasks ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref130">32</reflink>]), which contributed to learning achievements ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref131">19</reflink>]). Finally, "uncertainty" was important for creating an effective learning experience. It could surprise learners, thereby making them curious and eager to participate in the activities ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref132">56</reflink>]) and maximizes the possibility of language acquisition.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Game elements embedded in MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>In both MGBLL and NMGBLL studies, we found that all games were designed to fulfill goals or rules, which was essential for language acquisition ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref133">80</reflink>]), and that "uncertainty" was the least considered gaming element. The distribution of these game elements in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies was different.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-13">Target Languages</hd> <p>Ten target languages were investigated by the selected studies (Figure 4). Our review found that most studies targeted English (<emph>n</emph> = 46, 71.9%), with the second most common language being Chinese (<emph>n</emph> = 6, 9.4%), which corroborates with the findings of [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref134">1</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref135">30</reflink>]. The remaining eight languages were either discussed by researchers in MGBLL or NMGBLL studies. In MGBLL studies, researchers explored Spanish and Turkish, while in NMGBLL studies, researchers explored Dutch, German, French, Italian, Swedish, and Japanese.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Target languages investigated in MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>In both MGBLL and NMGBLL studies, English was investigated most, followed by Chinese. However, English was by far more frequently discussed than Chinese, which matched the findings of [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref136">31</reflink>]. This could be because English is widely used for international communication across trade, leisure, entertainment, and education ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref137">77</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-14">Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>The overall learning outcomes are shown in Figure 5, which includes six categories. Specifically, the learning outcomes of language acquisition were investigated by all MGBLL and NMGBLL studies (<emph>n</emph> = 64, 100%). Approximately 65.6% focused on learners' psychological/affective state (<emph>n</emph> = 42), indicating that the research theme tended to be multi-dimensional, including at least two aspects of affective states and learning outcomes. Other learning outcomes included correlational outcomes (<emph>n</emph> = 20, 31.3%), participatory behavior (<emph>n</emph> = 12, 18.8%), contemporary competence (<emph>n</emph> = 9, 14.1%), and knowledge acquisition (<emph>n</emph> = 7, 10.9%). Each learning outcome is further elaborated below in terms of their frequencies, with relevant studies as examples.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Outcome distribution of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-15">Language acquisition</hd> <p>Regarding language acquisition (Figure 6), a majority of MGBLL and NMGBLL studies investigated vocabulary acquisition (<emph>n</emph> = 24, 37.5%) and mixed/integrated language learning (<emph>n</emph> = 23, 36%), similar to [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref138">30</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref139">80</reflink>]. One MGBLL example of vocabulary acquisition was [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref140">76</reflink>], who helped learners effectively acquire English vocabulary through the AR game, named <emph>Pokémon G</emph>o. In this game, learners integrated the words on the flashcards through AR and repeated the Pokémon words (e.g., prefix, suffix, and root) they had learned. In this way, their attitude, motivation, and learning efficiency were improved. Many researchers applied games to facilitate mixed language development. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref141">13</reflink>] engaged learners in English learning through a computer-based 3DVW game. In this game, learners completed two second-life tasks, and then they wrote after-class reflection posts. Through this, learners' speaking and writing abilities improved significantly.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Language acquisition of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Underexplored aspects of language acquisition included writing ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref142">42</reflink>]), grammar ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref143">53</reflink>]), pronunciation ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref144">58</reflink>]), and pragmatic competence ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref145">2</reflink>]). The remaining three language skills (listening, speaking, and reading) are worth noting. Only one NMGBLL study investigated listening skills ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref146">32</reflink>]), and two MGBLL studies investigated speaking skills ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref147">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref148">40</reflink>]). Reading skills alone were not investigated in any study, but they were assessed with other skills. For example, one NMGBLL study explored the co-development of speaking and reading skills through a <emph>VirtUAM</emph> game ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref149">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref150">13</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref151">36</reflink>] improved learners' reading and listening skills together through a mobile <emph>Nintendo DS</emph> game.</p> <p>Tables 5 and 6 show the language acquisition results for MGBLL and NMGBLL. Most MGBLL studies (18 out of 27, 66.7%) reported positive results (annotated as positive and significant in Table 5). Regarding these positive results, we found that researchers frequently applied mobile games to facilitate vocabulary learning (<emph>n</emph> = 8, 29.6%). For example, learners who played mobile VR games (e.g., <emph>House of Languages</emph>) had greater vocabulary acquisition. To learn simple words, during the gameplay, learners viewed 3D objects with names and listened to their pronunciation through the interactive VR environment. To acquire complex vocabulary, learners played mini-games with increasing difficulty, such as word guessing tests and puzzles ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref152">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Language Acquisition Results for MGBLL.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Language acquisition</th><th align="center" colspan="7">MGBLL results (Total <italic>N</italic> = 27)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Positive</th><th align="center">Negative</th><th align="center">Sig.</th><th align="center">Non-sig.</th><th align="center">Mixed</th><th align="center">Depends</th><th align="center">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Listening</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Speaking</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Grammar</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pragmatic competence</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed/Integrated language</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>27</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 6. Language Acquisition Results for NMGBLL.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Language acquisition</th><th align="center" colspan="7">NMGBLL results (Total <italic>N</italic> = 37)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Positive</th><th align="center">Negative</th><th align="center">Sig.</th><th align="center">Non-sig.</th><th align="center">Mixed</th><th align="center">Depends</th><th align="center">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Listening</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Speaking</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Reading</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Grammar</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Pragmatic competence</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed/Integrated language</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>37</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The second and third most positive results in MGBLL were mixed/integrated language (<emph>n</emph> = 4, 14.8%) and writing (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 7.4%), respectively. To assist mixed language development, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref153">20</reflink>] employed <emph>Read Create Share (RCS)</emph> to help children read and write in Spanish. With <emph>RCS</emph>, children first read through a passage that culminates in an illustration, and then they located hidden objects in the illustration before narrating their pictures. This approach was promising for supporting learners' reading and narrative construction. For writing skills, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref154">38</reflink>] based their study on the game "Her story" in which learners constructed a piece of creative English writing according to the disordered video clips. Their writing ability and creativity subsequently improved significantly.</p> <p>Speaking ability, grammar, pronunciation, and pragmatic competence were found to have improved through MGBLL, using digital game-enhanced pedagogy ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref155">46</reflink>]), <emph>vTime</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref156">40</reflink>]), <emph>Save the Princess with Teddy</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref157">19</reflink>]), and <emph>Kes Sesi</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref158">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, not all results were positive. Mixed results of the learning outcomes (<emph>n</emph> = 5, 18.5%), non-significant results concerning the effectiveness of digital games (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 7.4%), and results that were conditional upon the players and contexts (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 7.4%) were identified in MGBLL studies. No studies reported negative results, demonstrating the potential of mobile games to facilitate language acquisition ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref159">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The language acquisition results for NMGBLL are reported in Table 6. A majority of positive results were regarding vocabulary acquisition (<emph>n</emph> = 10, 27%), followed by mixed/integrated language (<emph>n</emph> = 7, 18.9%), writing (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 5.4%) and pragmatic competence (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 5.4%). Specifically, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref160">83</reflink>] found that learners greatly improved their vocabulary through a cognitive, complexity-based competition game in which participants completed three vocabulary tasks with graded difficulty. For mixed language learning, language learners' collaborative completion of the <emph>Second Life</emph>-based assignments accounted for their comprehensive improvements in learning French ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref161">27</reflink>]). Through a game-based writing strategy tutoring system (<emph>Writing Pal</emph>), students had access to strategy instructions and practices, instructional videos, and mini-games when writing their essays, which led to their writing improvement ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref162">4</reflink>]). Children's pragmatic performances, such as thanking and requesting, were facilitated through interactions between an assistant robot (<emph>NIMA</emph>), the teacher, and the children ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref163">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The other two positive results were in listening ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref164">32</reflink>]) and pronunciation ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref165">58</reflink>]) skills. Mixed results of the learning outcomes (<emph>n</emph> = 7, 18.9%), non-significant results concerning the effectiveness of digital games (<emph>n</emph> = 1, 2.7%), and results that were conditional upon the players and contexts (<emph>n</emph> = 5, 13.5%) were also found. A negative result was reported by [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref166">22</reflink>], who found that learners who played a music video game recalled less vocabulary than their counterparts who did not play because of attention distraction and cognitive overload.</p> <p>From the above, we drew the following conclusions. First, a majority of mobile and non-mobile games contributed to language learning, especially in terms of vocabulary acquisition, mixed language learning, and writing. Second, mixed results, non-significant impact, and dependent results existed in both MGBLL and NMGBLL studies. However, one study in NMGBLL reported a negative result regarding vocabulary acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-16">Psychological/Affective state</hd> <p>The psychological/affective state emerged as a critical area for MGBLL and NMGBLL (Figure 7). Learner motivation/interest (<emph>n</emph> = 23, 36%) was the most frequently investigated affective aspect in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies. Usually, learners had higher motivation/interest, possibly because the game was interesting (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref167">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref168">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref169">38</reflink>]). However, the monotonous presentation of learning materials and the repetition of less interactive tasks in <emph>Duolingo</emph>, a mobile gamified learning application, caused a decrease in learner motivation ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref170">44</reflink>]). The second most discussed affective state was "general perceptions" (<emph>n</emph> = 13, 20.3%). Although learners encountered some barriers, such as limited technical knowledge and technical problems ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref171">39</reflink>]), these detractions did not override the benefits of MGBLL and NMGBLL ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref172">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref173">29</reflink>]). Finally, 13 MGBLL (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref174">39</reflink>]) and NMGBLL studies (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref175">42</reflink>]) investigated the sub-category of "others," such as enjoyment and learning satisfaction.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7. The psychological state of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Some studies investigated learner engagement/flow experience (<emph>n</emph> = 11, 17.1%), learning anxiety (<emph>n</emph> = 8, 12.5%), and attitude (<emph>n</emph> = 7, 10.9%). Most learners had high engagement and a positive attitude ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref176">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref177">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref178">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref179">45</reflink>]). Furthermore, these games reduced anxiety ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref180">71</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref181">77</reflink>]), providing learners with a relaxing learning environment.</p> <p>A few MGBLL and NMGBLL studies investigated learner cognitive loads and self-efficacy/confidence. Learners usually had lower cognitive loads ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref182">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref183">29</reflink>]) and higher self-efficacy/confidence in the learning tasks ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref184">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref185">29</reflink>]). However, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref186">50</reflink>] found a decrease in learners' self-efficacy in mobile learning using <emph>Duolingo</emph>, which may have been because the adaptive challenges of <emph>Duolingo</emph> did not stretch learners' current language knowledge. Notably, little attention was paid to technology acceptance or tool evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref187">66</reflink>]), learner autonomy ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref188">13</reflink>]), and willingness to communicate ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref189">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>As for the affective state, researchers in MGBLL and NMGBLL studies investigated the dimensions of learner motivation, general perceptions, engagement, and others more than technology acceptance, learner autonomy, and willingness to communicate. Regarding the affective state of "others," in addition to the investigation into learning satisfaction and enjoyment, MGBLL studies investigated learner attention ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref190">77</reflink>]), game attraction ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref191">45</reflink>]), and self-regulation ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref192">36</reflink>]); while NMGBLL studies investigated learners' perceived tension or pressure when they played digital board games ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref193">75</reflink>]) and whether learners felt boredom when they played and watched a music game ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref194">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-17">Correlation outcomes</hd> <p>A small proportion of MGBLL and NMGBLL studies explored how external factors (<emph>n</emph> = 10), affective states (<emph>n</emph> = 5), and individual differences (<emph>n</emph> = 5) influenced learners' learning outcomes (see Figure 8).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 8. Correlation outcomes for MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Regarding affective states, four MGBLL studies explored the role they played in learning outcomes, while only one NMGBLL study focused on this aspect. The results suggested that if learners had higher motivation, lower anxiety, and a positive attitude, they learned better ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref195">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref196">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref197">76</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref198">82</reflink>]). However, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref199">9</reflink>] found no relationship between learning motivation and learning achievements, and [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref200">32</reflink>] reported that learners with higher anxiety performed better in listening.</p> <p>MGBLL and NMGLL researchers paid moderate attention to the relationship between individual differences (e.g., gender, learning habits, learning style, and family background) and learning achievement, with mixed results. For instance, gender, learning habits, and learning style did not influence learning achievement ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref201">9</reflink>]). Learners who had advantaged family backgrounds ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref202">9</reflink>]) and prior knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref203">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref204">82</reflink>]) outscored those who did not.</p> <p>When looking into the relationship between external factors (time spent, game type, game behavior, etc.) and learning outcomes, our review found that NMGBLL studies focused more on this aspect than MGBLL studies. The relationship between time spent on learning games and learning achievements was discussed most, with four finding a positive correlation ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref205">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref206">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref207">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref208">58</reflink>]). The remaining study ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref209">60</reflink>]) found a negative correlation between the amount of participation in a computer-based discovery game and phonological gains. Another positive correlation between game type and learning outcomes were found: an interactive mobile jigsaw game facilitated verbal performance ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref210">33</reflink>]), and computer inferencing games contributed to vocabulary learning ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref211">62</reflink>]). No correlation was found between in-game note-taking behavior and learning progress or between the number of games played and learning progress ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref212">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref213">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>MGBLL studies distributed similar weight to identify whether external factors, individual differences, and affective states correlated with learning outcomes, while NMGBLL studies considered external factors the most.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-18">Participatory behaviors</hd> <p>As shown in Figure 9, a few MGBLL and NMGBLL studies discussed learner participatory behaviors. In-game linguistic interaction (<emph>n</emph> = 6) and classroom interaction (<emph>n</emph> = 5) were discussed most. In contrast, gaming culture/linguistic ecology (<emph>n</emph> = 1) attracted less attention, and no study specifically concerned beyond-class interactions.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 9. Participatory behavior of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Regarding in-game linguistic interaction, researchers in NMGBLL studies were more concerned with this aspect than MGBLL studies. For example, McNeil's MGBLL study (2020) examined Korean EFL learners' game participation by analyzing the learners' journals. The results showed that certain behaviors, such as experience exchanging, preparation to interact in discourses and around games, and willingness to pose questions in the community, were supportive. Through in-game collaboration, students overcame challenges and made learning gains.</p> <p>Classroom interactions were investigated more by MGBLL than NMGBLL studies. For example, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref214">73</reflink>] reported improvements in Chinese learning through the mobile game, <emph>Chinese-PP</emph>, in which learners continually constructed Chinese characters. In this way, they found that self-efficacy was improved, and the gap between high and low achievers was narrowed. A good illustration of NMGBLL was [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref215">27</reflink>], who found that the <emph>Second Life</emph>-based French learning environment greatly facilitated students' classroom collaborations, including context-inclusive collaboration, context-exclusive collaboration, and context-exclusive centralization.</p> <p>Only one MGBLL study specifically investigated gaming culture, which referred to the integration of in-game and beyond-game interactions. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref216">39</reflink>] categorized learners' social communications into two types: interactions within the team during the authoring stage and outside of the team during the playing stage. Both interactions created opportunities for authentic communication and language learning.</p> <p>No studies specifically looked at beyond-game interactions. Only [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref217">39</reflink>] took in-game and beyond-game as a whole. Beyond-game learning behaviors were viewed as autonomous learning, which was facilitative to language learning ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref218">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref219">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, MGBLL studies were more concerned with classroom interactions than in-game linguistic interactions. In contrast, NMGBLL studies investigated in-game linguistic interactions more than classroom interactions. No single MGBLL and NMGBLL study focused solely on beyond-game linguistic interaction.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-19">Contemporary competence</hd> <p>A few studies investigated contemporary competencies, otherwise known as "21st century skills" (Figure 10).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 10. Contemporary competence of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Research on communication competence was found in both NMGBLL and MGBLL studies. For example, in the NMGBLL study, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref220">75</reflink>] used a digital learning playground to blend communicative skills with simulation gameplay. Results showed that this facilitated learners' communicative skills regarding daily language use. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref221">46</reflink>] identified learners' socialization behaviors within mobile gaming spaces, including exchanging experiences, increasing interactions around games, and posing questions in the community. By socializing, learners overcame their learning challenges and gained language awareness.</p> <p>Only MGBLL studies discussed creativity and collaboration. For example, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref222">38</reflink>] study focused on the game, "Her story," in which learners constructed a piece of creative English writing according to a set of disordered video clips. Because of the game, their writing creativity improved significantly. In another study, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref223">25</reflink>] invited college students to pilot a spaceship in a mobile ESL game called <emph>Spaceteam</emph>. In the game, learners successfully collaborated through constant communication and peer feedback. Through this, the familiarity among group members increased, and speaking fluency was enhanced.</p> <p>Critical thinking skills were mentioned in only one writing scoring rubric ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref224">4</reflink>]), and no papers focused on it either in MGBLL or NMGBLL.</p> <p>Regarding contemporary competence, neither MGBLL nor NMBGLL studies investigated critical thinking. However, they frequently investigated communication competence. Learner creativity and collaboration were also explored by researchers in MGBLL studies.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-20">Knowledge acquisition</hd> <p>Figure 11 shows a small number of NMGBLL and MGBLL studies investigating learners' development of subject-matter knowledge (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and their cultural learning (<emph>n</emph> = 4) through game learning.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 11. Knowledge acquisition of MGBLL and NMGBLL.</p> <p>Only one NMGBLL study ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref225">69</reflink>]) and two MGBLL studies ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref226">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref227">76</reflink>]) explored the development of English subject-related knowledge. For example, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref228">69</reflink>] invited students to play a computer-based game called <emph>Divine Divinity</emph>, in which learners interacted with the game characters in a 3D environment to complete learning tasks. In this way, their formal and informal business English language usage improved. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref229">76</reflink>] facilitated learners' understanding of vocabulary-related knowledge (i.e., prefix, root, and suffix) by engaging them in the mobile AR game <emph>Pokémon Go</emph>.</p> <p>Another four studies in this coding category focused on cultural learning through immersive games ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref230">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref231">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref232">40</reflink>]) and simulation games ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref233">66</reflink>]). An example of an immersive game in a MGBLL study is <emph>vTime</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref234">40</reflink>]), in which learners socialized with people of different backgrounds. In this way, learners familiarized with the cultures of their interlocutors and learned communicative etiquette ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref235">40</reflink>]). An example of NMGBLL was a study by [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref236">66</reflink>], who developed a computer-based simulation game to help learners study Chinese culture based on the Analects of Confucius. When playing this game, learners interacted with non-player characters to answer questions related to Analects. The results showed that students eventually acquired higher motivation to learn Chinese culture.</p> <p>In sum, MGBLL and NMGBLL studies shared more similarities than differences in terms of knowledge acquisition. The results showed that digital games facilitated knowledge acquisition. However, researchers in MGBLL studies investigated subject-matter knowledge more than those in NMBLL studies, which was more concerned with learners' cultural learning development.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-21">Similarities and Differences Between MGBLL and NMGBLL Studies</hd> <p>Based on the above results, the following is a summary of the major similarities and differences between the selected MGBLL and NMGBLL studies.</p> <p>Four similarities between NMGBLL and MGBLL emerged from the broad aspects of game genres, game elements, target languages, and learning outcomes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref237">1</reflink>) gamification, simulation games, and immersive games were the top three popular game genres; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref238">2</reflink>) all games possessed goals or rules; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref239">3</reflink>) most studies targeted English and Chinese languages; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref240">4</reflink>) in terms of learning outcomes, learners' language acquisition and their affective states were the main research foci, but contemporary competence and knowledge acquisition were the least-considered learning outcomes.</p> <p>The following is six similarities regarding specific aspects of learning outcomes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref241">1</reflink>) vocabulary acquisition and mixed language learning were investigated most in language acquisition; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref242">2</reflink>) motivation/interest, general perceptions, and engagement were the most considered affective state; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref243">3</reflink>) the correlation between influential factors (i.e., affective states, individual differences, and external factors) and learning outcomes was discussed; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref244">4</reflink>) learners' participatory behaviors, especially classroom interaction and in-game linguistic interaction, were considered; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref245">5</reflink>) communication in the contemporary competence aspect was frequently investigated; and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref246">6</reflink>) knowledge acquisition was commonly investigated despite low frequency.</p> <p>There were several differences between the MGBLL and NMGBLL studies. As for game genres, NMGBLL used more immersive games, while MGBLL preferred gamification. Regarding game elements, the "sensory stimuli" element appeared more often in NMGBLL studies, whereas the "control" element occurred more often in MGBLL studies. As for targeted languages, MGBLL studies investigated Spanish and Turkish learning, whereas other languages (e.g., Dutch, German, and Japanese) were explored in NMGBLL studies. Regarding learning outcomes, the differences are elaborated as follows. First, MGBLL studies investigated speaking skills in language acquisition, while NMGBLL studies focused on listening skills. Second, MGBLL studies investigated learners' attention, game attraction, and self-regulation, while NMGBLL studies investigated learners' learning tension and learning boredom. Third, MGBLL studies distributed similar weight on identifying the correlation between the influential factors and learning outcomes, while NMGBLL studies considered external factors most often. Fourth, MGBLL studies looked more into classroom interactions than in-game linguistic interaction, as opposed to NMGBLL studies which attached much more attention to in-game linguistic interactions. Fifth, MGBLL studies examined creativity, collaboration, and communication in contemporary competence, whereas NMGBLL studies discussed only communication competence. Finally, regarding knowledge acquisition, MGBLL studies frequently investigated subject-matter knowledge, while NMGBLL studies were more concerned with cultural learning.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-22">Discussion</hd> <p>In this section, we discuss and elaborate on the implications of the major findings.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-23">Game Genres</hd> <p>Unlike [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref247">30</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref248">90</reflink>], who respectively identified immersive games and tutorial games as the most popular, our review found a wide application of gamification, followed by immersive games and simulation games. This may be because they possess rich game elements (e.g., goals, continuous feedback, control) that can maintain learners' motivation and confidence, raise their curiosity, and offer them ownership during the learning process ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref249">56</reflink>]), and thereby potentially facilitate language acquisition. Additionally, these games mainly capitalized on the unique features of task execution, such as interactions with peers or the gaming system ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref250">66</reflink>]), authentic language tasks, learning by doing, rich input, collaboration, and individualized instruction ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref251">13</reflink>]). These features align with task-based language teaching (TBLT), which is beneficial for language acquisition. As such, it was found that these games were suitable for operationalizing and assisting language learning.</p> <p>As for the games themselves, gamification was education-oriented, which helped reduce parents' concerns, such as deviating from the learning goals ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref252">67</reflink>]). Moreover, gamification allowed learners to experience online learning exchanges ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref253">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref254">44</reflink>]). In this way, learners were able to acquire additional language skills and knowledge from their peers, offsetting the drawback of being alienated from the social environment. We found that gamification was widely applied by MGBLL studies, which may be because many mobile learning applications ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref255">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref256">86</reflink>]) and systems ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref257">74</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref258">81</reflink>]) capitalize on gamification features (e.g., badges, levels, XP, leadership). Another possible explanation is that gamification is easy to implement on portable mobile devices. Cutting-edge immersive games also attracted much attention especially from NMGBLL studies because immersive games are usually developed for computers that are more frequently used to assist NMGBLL. Learners who played simulation games were able to experience an authentic language learning environment ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref259">30</reflink>]). During gameplay, they were more engaged in learning because they could interact with non-player characters ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref260">56</reflink>]), which positively influenced their learning achievements ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref261">4</reflink>]). Since simulation games can be played on both mobile and non-mobile platforms, both MGBLL and NMGBLL used this genre in similar amounts.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-24">Game Elements</hd> <p>As for game elements in the identified MGBLL and NMGBLL studies, our review discovered that the most commonly appearing elements were goals or rules, sensory stimuli, and adaptive challenges, while uncertainty had the lowest frequency. These results were partly in line with [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref262">80</reflink>].</p> <p>There are two main reasons accounting for the wide inclusion of goals or rules as the game element. First, learners can focus on learning objectives when playing goal-oriented games and hence gain learning achievement ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref263">80</reflink>]). Second, using games for educational purposes rather than for fun helps achieve learning goals ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref264">92</reflink>]). However, games were less likely to be introduced into classrooms because opponents raised such concerns as violence and overuse ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref265">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding sensory stimuli, games such as computer-based <emph>3DMUVE</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref266">12</reflink>]) and <emph>3DVW</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref267">13</reflink>]), which have rich visual and auditory stimuli, created a feeling of presence for learners, allowing them to fully engage in the game-based language activities ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref268">56</reflink>]) which improved their chances of language acquisition.</p> <p>A well-designed game is able to adapt challenges to match learners' abilities because tasks that are too easy result in boredom while tasks that are too difficult cause frustration ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref269">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref270">80</reflink>]). For example, <emph>Duolingo</emph> adapts course difficulty for learners according to the number of questions they have answered correctly in the previous exercises ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref271">44</reflink>]). This meets the principle of personalized learning, where learning level difficulty is adjusted according to the learners' language proficiency ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref272">78</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref273">79</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref274">91</reflink>]). In this way, learners' motivation can easily be maintained, which, in turn, positively affects learning.</p> <p>Over-emphasizing the aforementioned language learning-oriented elements resulted in neglecting the game element of "uncertainty." A game with an uncertainty element can arouse learners' interest in participating in learning activities ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref275">56</reflink>]), thereby improving the possibility of language acquisition. Moreover, the "uncertainty" element can influence a learner's psychological state, affecting language acquisition efficiency.</p> <p>Other important elements, such as competition, collaboration, and rewards ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref276">56</reflink>]), were not covered in our review because we followed [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref277">30</reflink>] in coding the games. Hence, several game elements that appear infrequently were not included.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-25">Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>Regarding language acquisition, a majority of MGBLL and NMGBLL studies reported positive results, of which vocabulary gains were the largest, indicating that vocabulary acquisition benefited from both mobile ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref278">86</reflink>]) and non-mobile games ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref279">3</reflink>]). Considering that vocabulary is necessary for effective communication ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref280">77</reflink>]), we suggest that researchers adopt different games to facilitate vocabulary acquisition. Aside from the positive results, other result orientations of language acquisition also existed, a possible explanation is that learning achievements were influenced by uncontrollable factors (i.e., individual differences, external factors, and affective states), which was also evidenced by correlation outcomes.</p> <p>Regarding the affective state, most MGBLL and NMGBLL studies focused on learners' motivation/interest and general perceptions. Generally, students had positive affective states (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref281">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref282">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref283">71</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref284">76</reflink>]). However, less encouraging affection still existed, including waved motivation ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref285">44</reflink>]) and decreased self-efficacy ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref286">50</reflink>]). This may have been caused by some displeasure that students encountered during game-based learning, such as the monotonous presentation of learning materials and the repetition of less interactive tasks ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref287">44</reflink>]), limited technical knowledge and technical issues ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref288">39</reflink>]), and inaccurate adaptive learning recommendations ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref289">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>As for learner behaviors, a small number of studies focused on classroom interactions ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref290">27</reflink>]), in-game linguistic interactions ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref291">46</reflink>]), and gaming culture ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref292">39</reflink>]). Classroom interactions were usually recorded by system-generated log files, self-reflection, or field observations. In-game interactions were usually explored by analyzing learner journals, through which educators and researchers can know how students overcome learning challenges and make progress ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref293">46</reflink>]). Beyond-game interactions were not specifically investigated by any single study. The combination of in- and beyond-game interactions constitutes gaming culture that demonstrates how students interact during and outside the game playing stage ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref294">39</reflink>]). An in-depth exploration of these aspects may help researchers analyze learners' participation and experiences, learning behaviors, and language forms in gamified learning contexts, thereby guiding educators to adjust the content for learners' better language acquisition.</p> <p>Few studies investigated learners' contemporary competence and knowledge acquisition, indicating that more attention should be paid to such issues. Contemporary competence (i.e., critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication) is indispensable for learners during the gameplay because they need to be creative and think critically ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref295">49</reflink>]). In addition, knowledge acquisition is an educational objective in game-based learning which has been investigated in other disciplines such as science and technology ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref296">30</reflink>]). Thus, future studies on MGBLL and NMGBLL should keep pace with research trends to understand learners' knowledge acquisition and enrich the current literature.</p> <hd id="AN0154324090-26">Implications</hd> <p>Based on our analyses, we propose the following implications:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref297">1</reflink>) In the identified studies, non-mobile games were used more than mobile games. This may be because some games, such as immersive ones, were predominantly developed for use with computers. Considering the current technological and pedagogical trends, we feel that mobile games are more promising than non-mobile ones for making language learning more portable and seamless ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref298">30</reflink>]) because many free-to-use and cost-effective mobile learning applications exist. Future research thus should constantly refine mobile games to make them effective in assisting language learning.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref299">2</reflink>) As for learners' affective state, technology acceptance and willingness to communicate were seldom addressed in both MGBLL and NMGBLL studies. Therefore, future research should emphasize these two aspects when dealing with learning outcomes in game-based language learning. The degree of technology acceptance may impact learners' willingness to learn using games, thereby influencing learning performances ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref300">66</reflink>]). As such, investigations on technology acceptance may help researchers better understand learning performance. The willingness to communicate with peers, game systems, or the instructor is influential to language acquisition, as it allows learners to receive feedback throughout the process, which leads to self-correction and shapes their language acquisition ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref301">56</reflink>]). Research into this area may reveal how learners develop their language ability from others during the gaming process.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref302">3</reflink>) Suggestions are put forward regarding game design, teacher training, and teacher role for both MGBLL and NMBGLL. First, it is important to consider learners' knowledge levels when designing an educational game because prior knowledge influences language achievement ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref303">65</reflink>]). Learners can make more progress studying a language with which they have some level of existing proficiency ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref304">44</reflink>]). Second, pre-technological training for teachers is a prerequisite for them to keep pace with the rapid changes brought by digital games ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref305">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref306">20</reflink>]). Without technical knowledge and skills to use advanced digital games, teachers would not be able to introduce games into the classroom, let alone apply them to assist learning. Third, a digital game is usually the teacher's assistant. Hence, teacher mediation is needed during gameplay ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref307">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref308">36</reflink>]). As learner motivation diminishes over long-term exposure to gamified learning, teachers should be able to analyze learners' needs and mediate the learning process at the right moment. Teacher scaffolding is indispensable because it reduces learner anxiety and enhances learners' immersion during learning activities ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref309">2</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0154324090-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current review, which compared MGBLL with NMGBLL studies, found that gamification, simulation games, and immersive games were popular. NMGBLL studies used immersive games more, while MGBLL studies preferred gamification. Despite the rich results, our review had some limitations. First, we assigned the games in the selected studies into categories classified by others. A more effective way to compensate for this could be to categorize different game types as reported by the selected literature. Second, our review was confined to MGBLL and NMGBLL studies in SSCI journals meaning other influential studies may have been omitted. Therefore, it is suggested that future reviews expand the reach of articles from a larger pool (e.g., conference papers, proceedings, and book chapters) to compare more comprehensively.</p> <ref id="AN0154324090-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acquah E. O., Katz H. T. (2020). Digital game-based L2 learning outcomes for primary through high-school students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 143, 103667.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alemi M., Haeri N. (2020). Robot-assisted instruction of L2 pragmatics: Effects on young EFL learners' speech act performance. Language Learning & Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alfadil M. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 153, 103893.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allen L. K., Crossley S. A., Snow E. L., McNamara D. S. (2014). L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 124–150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref37" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berns A., Gonzalez-Pardo A., Camacho D. (2013). Game-like language learning in 3-D virtual environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 210–220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Calderón J. F., Nussbaum M., Carmach I., Díaz J. J., Villalta M. (2016). A single-display groupware collaborative language laboratory. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 758–783.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chang C.-Y., Hwang G.-J. (2019). Trends in digital game-based learning in the mobile era: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 13(1), 68–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen C.-H., Shih C.-C., Law V. (2020). The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGBL): A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1855–1873.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref99" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cheng C.-H., Chen C.-H. (2019). Investigating the impacts of using a mobile interactive English learning system on the learning achievements and learning perceptions of student with different backgrounds. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1671460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen H.-J. H., Yang T.-Y. C. (2013). The impact of adventure video games on foreign language learning and the perceptions of learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 129–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen J. C. (2016). The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in second life. Computers & Education, 102, 152–171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen J. C. (2020). The effects of pre-task planning on EFL learners' oral performance in a 3D multi-user virtual environment. ReCALL, 32, 232–249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen J. C., Kent S. (2020). Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System, 88, 102168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen M.-P., Wang L.-C., Zou D., Lin S.-Y., Xie H. (2019). Effects of caption and gender on junior high students' EFL learning from iMap-enhanced contextualized learning. Computers & Education, 140, 103602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen M.-P., Wang L.-C., Zou D., Lin S.-Y, Xie H., Tsai C.-C., (2020). Effects of captions and English proficiency on learning effectiveness, motivation and attitude in augmented-reality-enhanced theme-based contextualized EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen P. G., Liu E. Z. F., Lin C. H., Chang W. L., Hsin T. H., Shih R. C. (2012, March 27–30). Developing an education card game for science learning in primary education [Paper presentation]. 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, Takamatsu, Japan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen X., Zou D., Xie H., Su F., (2021). Twenty-five years of computer-assisted language learning: A topic modeling analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 151–185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chik A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85–100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chu H.-C., Wang C.-C., Wang L. (2019). Impacts of concept map-based collaborative mobile gaming on English grammar learning performance and behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 86–100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cordero K., Nussbaum M., Ibaseta V., Otaíza M. J., Gleisner S., González S., Rodríguez-Montero W., Strasser K., Verdugo R., Ugarte A., Chiuminatto P., Carland C. (2015). Read create share (RCS): A new digital tool for interactive reading and writing. Computers & Education, 82, 486–496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danby S., Evaldsson A., Melander H., Aarsand P. (2018). Situated collaboration and problem solving in young Children's digital gameplay. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 959–972.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeHaan J., Reed W. M., Kuwanda K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franciosi S. J. (2017). The effect of computer game-based learning on FL vocabulary transferability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 123–133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furió D., González-Gancedo S., Juan M.-C., Seguí I., Rando N. (2013). Evaluation of learning outcomes using an educational iPhone game vs. traditional game. Computers & Education, 64, 1–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grimshaw J., Cardoso W. (2018). Activate space rats! Fluency development in a mobile game-assisted environment. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 159–175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hao Y., Hong J. C., Jong J. T., Hwang M. Y., Su C. Y., Yang J. S. (2010). Non-native Chinese language learners' attitudes towards online vision-based motion games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1043–1053.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsiao I. Y. T., Yang S. J. H., Chia-Jui C. (2015). The effects of collaborative models in second life on French learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(5), 645–670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu T.-C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter? Computers & Education, 106, 137–149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang H., Hwang G., Chang C. (2020). Learning to be a writer: A spherical video-based virtual reality approach to supporting descriptive article writing in high school Chinese courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1386–1405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung H.-T., Yang J. C., Hwang G.-J., Chu H.-C., Wang C.-C. (2018). A scoping review of research on digital game-based language learning. Computers & Education, 126, 89–104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang G.-J., Fu Q.-K. (2019). Trends in the research design and application of mobile language learning: A review of 2007–2016 publications in selected SSCI journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 567–581.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang G.-J., Hsu T.-C., Lai C.-L., Hsueh C.-J. (2017). Interaction of problem-based gaming and learning anxiety in language students' English listening performance and progressive behavioral patterns. Computers & Education, 106, 26–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang W.-Y., Shih T. K., Ma Z.-H., Shadiev R., Chen S.-Y. (2016). Evaluating listening and speaking skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with situational contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 639–657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwa S. P. (2018). Pedagogical change in mathematics learning: Harnessing the power of digital game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 259–276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnke L., Zou D., Zhang R. (2020). Exploring discipline-specific vocabulary retention in L2 through app design: Implications for higher education students. RELC Journal, 52(3), 539–556.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kondo M., Ishikawa Y., Smith C., Sakamoto K., Shimomura H., Wada N. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning in university EFL courses in Japan: Developing attitudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL, 24(2), 169–187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lan Y.-J. (2015). Contextual EFL learning in a 3D virtual environment. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 16–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee S.-M. (2019). Her storyor their own stories? Digital game-based learning, student creativity, and creative writing. ReCALL, 31(3), 238–254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee S.-M., Park M. (2020). Reconceptualization of the context in language learning with a location-based AR app. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(8), 936–959.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liaw M.-L. (2019). EFL learners' intercultural communication in an open social virtual environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 38–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li M.-C., Tsai C.-C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin C.-J., Hwang G.-J., Fu Q.-K., Chen J.-F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students' English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117–131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu T.-Y., Chu Y.-L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630–643.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loewen S., Crowther D., Isbell D. R., Kim K. M., Maloney J., Miller Z. F., Rawal H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A Duolingo case study. ReCALL, 31(3), 293–311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucht M., Heidig S. (2013). Applying HOPSCOTCH as an exer-learning game in English lessons: Two exploratory studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(5), 767–792.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeil L. (2020). Implementing digital game-enhanced pedagogy: Supportive and impeding language awareness and discourse participation phenomena. ReCALL, 32(1), 106–124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naik N. (2014, October 9–10). Non-digital game-based learning in the teaching of mathematics in higher education [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Games Based Learning, Berlin, Germany.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petri G., von Wangenheim C. G., Borgatto A. F. (2017, May 20–28). Quality of games for teaching software engineering: an analysis of empirical evidences of digital and non-digital games [Paper presentation]. 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training Track (ICSE-SEET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qian M., Clark K. R. (2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rachels J. R., Rockinson-Szapkiw A. J. (2018). The effects of a mobile gamification app on elementary students' Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 72–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ranalli J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441–455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravenscroft A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers & Education, 34(3–4), 241–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds B. L., Kao C.-W. (2021). The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(4), 462–482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryu D. (2013). Play to learn, learn to play: Language learning through gaming culture. ReCALL, 25(2), 286–301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samur Y. (2019). Kes Sesi: A mobile game designed to improve kindergarteners' recognition of letter sounds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 294–304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandberg J., Maris M., Hoogendoorn P. (2014). The added value of a gaming context and intelligent adaptation for a mobile learning application for vocabulary learning. Computers & Education, 76, 119–130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitz B., Klemke R., Specht M. (2012). Effects of mobile gaming patterns on learning outcomes: A literature review. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 345–358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schremm A., Hed A., Horne M., Roll M. (2017). Training predictive L2 processing with a digital game: Prototype promotes acquisition of anticipatory use of tone-suffix associations. Computers & Education, 114, 206–221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segers E., Verhoeven L. (2003). Effects of vocabulary training by computer in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 557–566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segers E., Verhoeven L. (2005). Long-term effects of computer training of phonological awareness in kindergarten. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 17–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shute V. J., Wang L., Greiff S., Zhao W., Moore G. (2016). Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 106–117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith G. G., Li M., Drobisz J., Park H.-R., Kim D., Smith S. D. (2013). Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers & Education, 69, 274–286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stockwell G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105–120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Su F., Zou D. (2020). Technology-enhanced collaborative language learning: theoretical foundations, technologies, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1831545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suh S., Kim S. W., Kim N. J. (2010). Effectiveness of MMORPG-based instruction in elementary english education in Korea. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 370–378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung H.-Y., Hwang G.-J., Lin C.-J., Hong T.-W. (2017). Experiencing the analects of confucius: An experiential game-based learning approach to promoting students' motivation and conception of learning. Computers & Education, 110, 143–153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talan T., Doğan Y., Batdı V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52, 474–514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troussas C., Krouska A., Sgouropoulou C. (2020). Collaboration and fuzzy-modeled personalization for mobile game-based learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 144, 103698.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandercruysse S., Vandewaetere M., Cornillie F., Clarebout G. (2013). Competition and students' perceptions in a game-based language learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 927–950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Sande E., Segers E., Verhoeven L. (2016). Supporting executive functions during Children's preliteracy learning with the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 468–480.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei C.-W., Kao H.-Y., Lu H.-H., Liu Y. C. (2018). The effects of competitive gaming scenarios and personalized assistance strategies on English vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 146–158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wen Y. (2018). Chinese character composition game with the augment paper. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 132–145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong L. H., Chen W., Chai C. S., Chin C. K., Gao P. (2011). A blended collaborative writing approach for Chinese L2 primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1208–1226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong L.-H., Hsu C.-K., Sun J., Boticki I. (2013). How flexible grouping affects the collaborative patterns in a mobile-assisted Chinese character learning game. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 174–187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu C.-J., Chen G.-D., Huang C.-W. (2014). Using digital board games for genuine communication in EFL classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 209–226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu M.-H. (2021). The applications and effects of learning English through augmented reality: A case study of Pokémon Go. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34, 778–812.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu T.-T., Huang Y.-M. (2017). A mobile game-based English vocabulary practice system based on portfolio analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 265–277.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie H., Zou D., Wang F. L., Wong T.-L., Rao Y., Wang S. H., (2017). Discover learning path for group users: A profile-based approach. Neurocomputing, 254, 59–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie H., Zou D., Zhang R., Wang M., Kwan R., (2019). Personalized word learning for university students: A profile-based method for e-learning systems. Journal of computing in Higher education, 31(2), 273–289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu Z., Chen Z., Eutsler L., Geng Z., Kogut A. (2020). A scoping review of digital game-based technology on English language learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 877–904.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang J.-C., Lin M. Y. D., Chen S. Y. (2018). Effects of anxiety levels on learning performance and gaming performance in digital game-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 324–334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang J. C., Quadir B. (2018). Effects of prior knowledge on learning performance and anxiety in an English learning online role-playing game. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 174–185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang Q.-F., Chang S.-C., Hwang G.-J., Zou D., (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition game on EFL students' English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety and behaviors. Computers & Education, 148, 103808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young S. S.-C., Wang Y.-H. (2014). The game embedded CALL system to facilitate English vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 239–251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yıldırım İ., Şen S. (2019). The effects of gamification on students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu Z., (2018). Differences in serious game-aided and traditional English vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 127, 214–232.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang R., Zou D., (2020). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang R., Zou D., Xie H., (2021). Spaced repetition for authentic mobile-assisted word learning: Nature, learner perceptions, and factors leading to positive perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou D. (2020). Gamified flipped EFL classroom for primary education: student and teacher perceptions. Journal of computers in education, 7(2), 213–228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou D., Huang Y., Xie H. (2019). Digital game-based vocabulary learning: where are we and where are we going? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou D., Wang M., Xie H., Cheng G., Wang F. L., Lee L.-K., (2020). A comparative study on linguistic theories for modeling EFL learners: Facilitating personalized vocabulary learning via task recommendations. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou D., Zhang R., Xie H., Wang F. L., (2021). Digital game-based learning of information literacy: Effects of gameplay modes on university students' learning performance, motivation, self-efficacy and flow experiences. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 152–170.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0154324090-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Teaching Development Grant (102489) of Lingnan University, Hong Kong.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Zou</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8435-9739 Fu Lee Wang</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-0053</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Fan Su; Di Zou; Haoran Xie and Fu Lee Wang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref258"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref264"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref272"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref273"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref274"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1320688
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Comparative Review of Mobile and Non-Mobile Games for Language Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Su%2C+Fan%22">Su, Fan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zou%2C+Di%22">Zou, Di</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8435-9739">0000-0001-8435-9739</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xie%2C+Haoran%22">Xie, Haoran</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wang%2C+Fu+Lee%22">Wang, Fu Lee</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-0053">0000-0002-3976-0053</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22SAGE+Open%22"><i>SAGE Open</i></searchLink>. Oct-Dec 2021 11(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Games%22">Computer Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Game+Based+Learning%22">Game Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/21582440211067247
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2158-2440
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Recent studies have increasingly investigated the effectiveness of both mobile and non-mobile digital game-based language learning. To gain an in-depth understanding of the differences in the effectiveness of mobile and non-mobile games, we compared studies from January 2000 to August 2020 investigating mobile game-based language learning (MGBLL) and non-mobile game-based language learning (NMGBLL). Sixty-four articles were analyzed from four aspects: game types, game elements, target languages, and learning outcomes. The results showed that (a) gamification, simulation games, and immersive games were applied most; (b) all games possessed the game elements of goals or rules; (c) the most investigated target languages were English and Chinese; and (d) the most discussed learning outcomes were language acquisition and psychological/affective state. The similarities and differences between MGBLL and NMGBLL were also identified. The current review provides an overview and in-depth analysis of mobile and non-mobile games for language learning, guiding practitioners to select appropriate digital games to cater to specific language teaching goals. Future directions of research are also discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1320688
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1320688
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/21582440211067247
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Game Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Comparative Review of Mobile and Non-Mobile Games for Language Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Su, Fan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zou, Di
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xie, Haoran
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wang, Fu Lee
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2158-2440
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 11
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: SAGE Open
              Type: main
ResultId 1