LLP accepts submissions of the following types.
Types of submissions
Submissions in this category typically map out and find gaps in relevant scholarly literature, have clear and compelling research questions, present a procedure and data to answer those questions, and end with a thoughtful discussion related to continued research and teaching. Alternatively, a submission might explain or critique a phenomenon or trend in the field. Topics include research, pedagogy, theory, and practice.
We welcome papers that aim to:
- push the field forwards
- question the field’s current trajectory
- end with more questions than they started with
- create a manifesto or a call to action.
Manuscripts should have clear implications for practice. We welcome all research approaches, methods, and contexts.
Submissions in this category show what ludic language pedagogy looks like in hi-resolution. Walkthroughs take the reader through an entire curriculum, project, single class, or activity. Prioritize depth over breadth. Submissions should not be hypothetical, but rather critical reflections on actual teaching. We regard teachers as designers of learning, who test, explore, reflect on and refine their practice. We appropriate the game design metaphor of iterative playtesting; where teachers actively improve their teaching through a process of iteration. Walkthroughs are organised into the following key sections: Background → Design → Playtest → Evaluation → Next steps. Guiding questions for each section are provided below.
- Who are you and your students?
- Where did you teach?
- What literature, ideas or experiences influenced or inspired you?
- What was your goal? Why?
- How did the background influence your design decisions?
- Describe your lesson plans, materials, game choices, etc.
- What happened?
- Narrate the intervention from start to finish.
- What did you and the students do?
- Critically reflect on the playtest. Support your reflections with specific examples.
- The good/epic: What was a success? What went well? What worked?
- The bad/ugly: What was a failure? What didn’t go well? What didn’t work?
- What are the practical implications for other teachers’ classrooms?
- Will you continue (or is it GAME OVER)? What does the next stage look like?
We advise teachers to include extensive media and teaching materials, such as:
- Curriculum and syllabus, lesson plans, teacher notes (e.g., diaries and observations), worksheets, student work (e.g., projects, reports, presentations, completed worksheets), tests, quizzes, grading rubrics, photos, videos, example interactions, and anecdotes.
We encourage authors to look at these for inspiration.
- Teacher Pioneers (particularly Paul Darvasi’s chapter on “The Ward.”).
- Analog Games Studies chapter on ARG creation: Chalk, props, and costumes: two exercises for teaching pervasive game design.
- Mark Rasmussen’s post on using Coup in the EFL classroom.
- James York’s reflection post on his game-based curriculum.
We have noticed a disproportionate number of studies in the field of games and education with a focus on the following topics.
|Design||Game designers are teachers; they design learning environments and experiences. However, many papers focus entirely on technology, relying on games as content, teacher, and all that is necessary for successful learning. Teachers are therefore relegated to ancillary roles if considered at all. LLP welcomes submissions that integrate technologies, teachers and communities.|
|Digital games||LLP welcomes papers that explore game- and play-based teaching and learning that employ a broad spectrum of games. We do not focus exclusively on digital games as is seen in CALL or EdTech literature and research fields.|
|Gamification||Gamification is often considered an easily implementable approach to teaching in a “game-like” fashion. However, many of the core constructs of gamification (e.g., grading, competition, tests) already exist in teaching contexts. We are concerned with research that leans too much on shallow and short-term behavioristic learning. Submissions should prioritize meaningful learning.|
|Motivation||Games can engage students in learning, but this is not the only reason for employing games in the classroom. An overfocus on affective affordances sidelines teachers’ connections of games to deeper intellectual, academic, and participatory work. Motivation can also be conflated with novelty factors.|
|Popularity||It can be powerful to use media that students enjoy, are knowledgeable about, and connect to others. However, general statistics about industries or demographics matter much less than who your learners are and their experiences with games. Leading with statements about general game popularity hypes games.|
|Survey data||Whilst teacher and student perceptions may be valuable in determining the appropriateness of a particular intervention, LLP favours studies which include participant perception data as a secondary research focus. Papers should prioritize thick descriptions of teaching and student interaction, learning gains, performance, knowledge and skill application.|
|Technological affordances||Games have affordances that connect to meaningful and effective language learning. However, many research papers focus on these affordances in isolation, without considering how they aid or hinder teaching practice.|
|The teacher||Teachers drive learning. The role of teachers in game-mediated learning contexts is multifaceted, complex and, unfortunately, under-researched. LLP welcomes papers that investigate the role of teachers in detail.|
|Vocabulary||Though vocabulary is an important building block of language, especially for beginning learners, over-focusing on it can perpetuate the idea of games as content. Games involve many more textual, pragmatic, interpersonal, social, ideological and cultural variations and aspects in language that have not been investigated enough in research and teaching.|
We accept submissions that deal with integrations of these topics
|Games||Keywords such as but not limited to:
play, technologies, genres, simulation, roleplay, design, game cultures and communities, etc.
|Language||Keywords such as but not limited to:
first languages (L1s), second and foreign languages (L2s), literacy, multimodality, literature, discourse, etc.
|Pedagogy||Keywords such as but not limited to:
curriculum, goals, student needs and differences, teacher roles, activities and materials, debriefing, assessment, extracurricular learning, educational philosophies, etc.
We are particularly interested in submissions that:
- Ask big questions.
- Have a strong focus.
- Provoke discussion.
- Consider a broad audience.
- Cross disciplinary lines.
- Do something new.
- Use multimedia.
- Create connections.
- Dive deep with analysis.
- Offer practical advice.
- Integrate teaching and technology.
Questions to guide your writing:
To promote integrated approaches to games and language teaching [link to mission page], submissions should consider the following key questions.
|Who?||Who are the learners? Who are the teachers? What is the influence of your backgrounds?|
|Where?||Where did the teaching and learning take place? What is the influence of the context?|
|Why?||Why were games used in the project? Why did you do the project? What are your underlying philosophies and approaches regarding teaching and learning?|
|What?||What game(s), activities or materials were used and how did they influence the outcome? What were the goals of the project?|
|How?||How did you use games, activities or materials? How did your pedagogical decisions influence the outcome? Consider needs analyses, curriculum design, pedagogical models, teacher roles, teacher interactions with students, feedback and assessment, etc.|
We especially value submissions which critique these topics, make connections to other approaches and outcomes, or promote integrated approaches to games and pedagogy. Submissions to LLP dealing with the above topics should have a clear focus, i.e., more than half of the discussion section, on practical implications of the research on actual teaching practices.
- LLP does not mandate a specific minimum or maximum word count for a submission, as long as the length is appropriate for the depth of analysis or breadth of presentation.
- As an international journal, LLP only publishes articles in English.
- Authors are encouraged to use “I” or “we” in their submissions (both articles and walkthroughs) to describe and reflect on their teaching and reflections.
- LLP is open access. There are no publication or access fees.
- Manuscripts that have been published or are being considered for publication elsewhere will not be considered.
- LLP operates under a CC BY-NC-ND license. Authors maintain the copyright of their original work. Please credit the original appearance on LLP if you republish somewhere else.
- We do not accept reviews of games, books, or other publications.
Do you have an idea that doesn’t seem to fit LLP?
We want to be inclusive of ideas and people who are working to develop LLP. Our suggested topics and formats are just that – suggestions for starting points. They are by no means exclusive. If you have an idea for a paper or format that does not immediately seem to fit into the scope and criteria we have laid out, please get in touch and propose something. We will give your ideas serious consideration.