In this section, a brief overview of relevant literature has been provided. The underpinning theoretical framework and key terms related to the study have been described.
Gamification
Gamification refers to using game components and game style within a context that is
not a game (Werbach & Hunter,
2012). Using gamification provides learners with a motivating learning setting (Flores,
2015, Philpott & Sun,
2022). This, in turn, empowers teachers’ pedagogy as motivation is necessary for EFL learning (Brown,
1994; Sanacore,
2008). However, how can gamification be employed in a particular EFL teaching context? Gamification can be applied in the classroom in various ways, meaning there are no strict rules that the teachers need to stick. The model of Huang and Soman (
2013)that consists of five steps could be beneficial to follow: know about the learners to whom the instruction will be delivered, define and design the lesson by considering instructional goals and particular learning aims, structure the experience, identify the resources, choose and apply gamification element. Applying a gamification element may include using points to assess and display in a leaderboard, adding levels that students can go through by passing each of them, setting a time limit for a specific task to boost excitement, and giving badges as rewards. Any mechanic of the gameplay can be “uniquely” and “independently” integrated into one’s own pedagogy by considering the aim of the lesson (Philpott & Sun,
2022, p. 2). Principled review studies reveal that gamification provides positive effects (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa,
2014) and helps maintain motivation as a solution to declining student engagement (Alsawaier,
2018) both intrinsically and extrinsically (Buckley & Doyle,
2016). Use of game elements as a novel approach increases student participation and engagement (Thiel & Fröhlich,
2017).
There are many games whose elements can be integrated into EFL teaching and learning. One example is the scavenger hunt. A scavenger hunt in education is an activity that learners search for hidden objects by following a series of locations in and around the school building to achieve particular learning aims. As scavenger hunt originates from a child game, it carries game elements such as rewards, scoring, competition, time limit, set of objectives. Scavenger hunt has been used in various fields of education for purposes such as an orientation activity for freshmen (Lu et al.,
2015), improving intercultural communication (Santoso,
2020), teaching academic writing (Lin et al.,
2021), a word study activity (Chen & Greenwood,
2021), enhancing confidence and networking (Mazzoli, Moffit, & Mansell,
2021), second language teacher training (Zhang,
2020), and improving learner engagement (Dakroub et al.,
2022).
Gamification and emergent technologies are interrelated (Flores,
2015). Teachers can gamify any lesson utilizing emergent technologies. For instance, AR helps EFL teachers to create an immersive learning environment for the learners.
Augmented reality
AR refers to the technology mixing the actual environment with virtual components (Klopfer & Sheldon,
2010, Diegmann et al.,
2015, Akçayir and Akçayir,
2017). It provides the learners with the experience of space, often seen through a camera implementing virtual objects and sounds into the actual environment. AR allows learners to experience both virtual and natural environments in an optimum way (Almenara & Osuna,
2016). AR allows learners to examine inaccessible items or get unavailable experiences (Merzlykin et al.,
2019; Wojciechowski & Cellary,
2013). For instance, students can investigate a brain to learn its parts, interact with it, and have pre-coded conversations. AR has been used in educational contexts such as art (Di Serio, Ibáñez, & Kloos,
2013; Wei et al.,
2015), medicine (Tang, Cheng, & Greenberg,
2019), biology (Erbas & Demirer,
2019), science education (Chang & Hwang,
2018), chemistry (Wan et al.,
2018), physics (Matcha & Rambli,
2015), and astronomy (Liou, Yang, Chen, & Tarng (
2017). There are mainly three types of AR: marker-based, markerless and markerless, and location-based AR.
Marker-based AR employs static images expected to be recognized by the camera to initiate the action (Godwin-Jones,
2016). QR (Quick Response) codes, a new kind of barcode, can be used as markers to generate learning experiences in a classroom setting (Kapp & Balkun,
2011, as cited in Kuru Gönen & Zeybek,
2021). The learners scan the code via camera and access the experience through the link automatically decoded by the handheld device. The essential ability of AR is to lay content upon the existing one so that the learners experience multiple facets (Radu,
2014). For instance, learners can experience three-dimensional (3D) visual representations and voiced pronunciations of words overlaid onto the real world in a vocabulary class by scanning a marker. In this way, learners’ cognitive load is lowered, facilitating the learning process (Mayer & Moreno,
2003). Marker-based AR is the easiest and simplest way to experience AR, as marker-based activation accurately directs the user to the experience. Smart learning environments can be created for the students in and around the school by placing markers. Scholars have implemented marker-based AR in foreign language classrooms, such as helping the students learn vocabulary (Santos et al.,
2016) and pronunciation (Solak & Cakir,
2015). Promoting the students to form marker-based AR experiences may also be engaging for students to learn (Godwin-Jones,
2016). Therefore, the teachers can take advantage of AR to help the learners. Markerless-AR scans the real environment and detects appropriate spaces to implement 3D virtual objects (Mystakidis et al.,
2022).
In markerless AR, the student usually scans a horizontal surface in the real environment, such as a table, or a vertical surface, such as a wall, to access the AR experience. The AR system analyzes the real space and identifies the pixels to map the space to implement digital objects. Thus, the physical environment’s actual characteristics are used instead of a marker. This brings about a limitation: the surface must have some patterns, colors, lines, or textures. A plain surface may ruin the AR experience as the technology usually cannot track the surface. On the other hand, markerless AR has some benefits. For instance, the experience can be interacted with in any place in time. Therefore, the learners have freedom of motion. They can also implement any digital content to express themselves easily. Metaverse Studio, CoSpaces Edu, and Figment AR are some platforms where teachers can find ready-to-use AR experiences. However, these experiences must be adapted to suit the lesson’s particular learning objectives and the learners’ needs (Karacan & Akoğlu,
2021).
Location-based AR layers digital data into the student’s real environment using sensors and tools including Global Positioning System (GPS) and compass (Mystakidis et al.,
2022). Unlike marker-based AR, location-based AR does not require a physical object to display the experience. The location of the students is utilized to trigger the experience (Belda-Medina,
2022). Location-based AR is a great source of technology that EFL teachers can use to create gamified AR-based experiences for learners (Lee & Park,
2020; Richardson,
2016).
The literature on the subject emphasizes the advantages of using AR for teaching purposes. The systematic review of 54 studies by Parmaxi and Demetriou (
2020) regarding the use of AR in language learning indicates that AR provides increased positive emotions, improved language skills, enhanced interaction and learning opportunities. AR fosters learners’ autonomy, creativity, motivation, and attention (Lee,
2012) and thus improves the learning process (Blagg,
2009; Alsowat,
2017; Arunsirot,
2020; Kuru Gönen & Zeybek,
2021). Regarding EFL learning, AR-based activities are engaging and may have a significant effect on learners’ language achievements (Küçük, Yılmaz, Baydaş, & Göktaş,
2014; Richardson,
2016; Çevik, Yılmaz, Göktaş, & Gülcü,
2017). AR can be utilized to teach both receptive and productive language skills. Emergent researches show that AR improves students’ reading skills (Tobar-Muñoz,
2017; ChanLin,
2018), listening skills (Río Guerra et al.,
2020; Suwancharas,
2016), speaking skills (Dalim et al.,
2020; Shea,
2014), and writing skills (Wang,
2017; Yılmaz & Göktaş,
2017). In addition, there is a substantial corpus of study reporting that AR improves EFL vocabulary repertoire of learners (Juan et al.,
2010; Barreira, Bessa, Adão, Peres, & Magalhães,
2012; Solak & Çakir,
2015; Tandoğan,
2019; Tsai,
2018; Tsai,
2020). Moreover, AR may also provide greater retention rates (Lam, Sadik & Elias,
2021).
CLIL
Implementing extensive foreign language programs seems inefficient as many weekly class hours are devoted to foreign language education. Thereupon, educators in many parts of the world try to find the optimum way to enhance students’ language learning processes. CLIL is a productive, strengthening, and supporting way of learning a foreign language (Lasagabaster & Sierra,
2010). A second or a foreign language rather than students’ native tongues is utilized for teaching language and subject matter together.
Such an immersion learning approach may facilitate the learning process by lowering the cognitive load (Blakemore & Frith,
2005). Thus, understanding how CLIL affects brain activities is of significance. Van de Craen, Mondt, Allain & Gao (
2007) compares monolingual, bilingual, and school-bilingual brains to address this question. Their study compares magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of the brains of monolinguals, bilinguals, and school bilinguals whose ages are around eight. The brains of the young learners have been scanned when the learners make basic tasks such as calculations. The images that Van de Craen et al. (
2007) share show that the bilingual brain is the one that has the lowest workload during the tasks. The monolingual brain has the highest workload, while school bilinguals have an intermediate load. Therefore, simultaneous learning of a foreign language and subject matter can lower the brain load during tasks that may lead to better learning (Van de Craen et al.,
2007). Although these effects may be the characteristics of brain plasticity of monolingual, bilingual and school bilingual children, the results may also imply that CLIL tries to utilize this plasticity of bilingual learners and can facilitate the learning process. Therefore, CLIL can improve the cognitive aspects for better learning (Blakemore & Frith,
2005, as cited in Van de Craen et al.,
2007).
Global goals
The technologies and industries have developed rapidly, but global issues such as inequity, poverty, access to clean water, and climate change remain consistent. A rapid solution to the problems does not exist. In 2015, leaders worldwide agreed on 17 goals with 169 objectives for global sustainability (Maley & Peachey,
2017). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) cover all the dimensions for sustainable development of the world, and they consist of steps that are achievable. We find teaching SDGs to the students essential. The role of a teacher, especially an EFL teacher with spontaneous ties with the international society, may have the greatest significance in students’ learning (Hattie,
2008 as cited in Maley & Peachey,
2017, p. 7). Therefore, we believe that EFL teachers around the world should take charge of making the new generation learn about the global issues and raising their consciousness on the SDGs for a sustainable development of the world. For this reason, the book of British Council has inspired us to implement SDGs into our study (Maley & Peachey,
2017). In the book, there are 22 chapters that point out a variety of SDGs. The book starts with a chapter written by Read (
2017). The chapter aims to teach the objectives and names of all 17 SDGs. For the next chapters, a single global issue such as empowering women and ensuring healthy lives is scrutinized by various scholars.
Recent studies in the literature support the view that CLIL is beneficial for teaching both the target language and the subject matter such as Biology (Satayev et al.,
2022), Chemistry (Bianco, Andonova, & Buhagiar,
2021), and Maths (Martí Arnándiz et al.,
2022). CLIL can also be employed to teach about global issues (Maley & Peachey,
2017). As we believe that SDGs should be taught to the students, we aim to teach SDGs through an AR-based gamified CLIL lesson. The participants of our study would meet with the SDGs for the first time. Thus, we have been inspired by the chapter of Read (
2017) to create an introductory AR-based gamified CLIL lesson for the students.
Although there is a growing corpus of research on AR, the number of studies concentrating on EFL learning is still limited. Regarding CLIL research based on AR, only a few studies are conducted (Martinez, Benito, Gonzalez, & Ajuria,
2017; Merzlykin et al.,
2019). Thus, the present study aims to determine the effect of using AR in a gamified CLIL lesson on students’ achievements at a private Turkish high school. The following research questions have been developed to achieve this goal:
1.
Does the use of AR in a gamified CLIL lesson improve EFL students’ achievements at a private Turkish high school?
2.
What are EFL students’ attitudes towards AR who used the AR in a CLIL lesson at a private Turkish high school?