Hamilton, H. E, & Cohen, A. D. TE creating 2 playworld: Motivating learners to lake chances in a second language-TA J. Frodesen & C. Hotten (Eds.), The power of Context language teaching and leaming (pp. 237-247). Boston: Thomson/Heinie Heidi E. Hamilton Georgetown University Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances in a Second Language’ Creating suitable contexts for interaction... and providing learners with opportunities to process language within a variety of sitvations are ... necessary for developing learning environments where language acquisition and language development can take place within a communicative perspective. (Otshtain & Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 707) Introduction ‘A young girl looks down at the coins in her out stretched hand. Puzzled, she directs her glance k to the store clerk behind the cash register and slowly opens her mouth: Aber... das ist falsch. Das ist xu viel Geld (‘But .. this is wrong. ‘This is too much money’). Somehow the clerk has confused the first two girls in line and has given one girl's change to the other. The clerk recognizes the problem and gives the girl the correct change. With a quick Danke schén. Tichift (Thanks. Bye’), the girl pockets her money, grabs her cola, and is out the door and down the path to meet up with her friends. A few hundred meters away from the store, a German environmentalist gently guides a high school sophomore along a Sinnespfad (a sensory path) in the woods. Blindfolded and barefoot, the girl steps first onto a raised area of flat, smooth stones. Shifting her weight to her left Jeg, she runs the bottom of her tight foot very carefully over the individual stones, trying to dis- cern which ones are grifer (bigger) than the oth ers. A slight step downward takes her into some soft, cool sand. As she pauses to dig her toes into the sand, the guide notices a smile on her face. van denkst du, wenn du in dem Sand spielst? (‘What are you thinking about when you're play- ing in the sand?") Ick bin am Strand (‘I'm on the beach’), replies the girl. They converse a bit more and move on to the next station on the path: Kies (gravel) After dinner that evening, almost sixty high school students gather in the dining hall to dis- cuss Austria's approach to enlarging the Euro- pean Union. Thirty students sit around a large square conference table, representing the range of political parties and opinions in Austria; the other thirty head upstairs and form smaller .groups representing such candidate countries as Hungary, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. While the “Austrian” diplomats negotiate acces- sion to the E.U. with their neighbors upstairs, the “Austrian” political parties seek to win popu lar favor for their positions downstairs, The preceding conversations took place among American learners and their counselors at Waldsee, the German Language Village of Con- cordia Language Villages in northern Minnesota (USA). These interactions constitute the au- thentic and situated language learning that is ad- vocated by scholars such as CelceMurcia and Olshtain (see CelceMurcia & Olshtain, 2000; 237vided Olshtain & Celce-Murcia, 2001). Among school- based language programs, language immersion seems to offer opportunities for extended con- versation in a second language about a wide range of realife situations and contexts, and has thus become a popular curricular model for sec- ond and foreign language teaching in elemen- tary and secondary schools. Yet despite the contextrich language exposure these programs provide, it has become clear that learners may only infrequently have opportunities for ex- tended conversation in the target language. Fur- thermore, they may be exposed to a limited range of language functions, vocabulary, and so ciolinguistic variation (see Tarone & Swain, 1995), namely, those that are consonant with the academic setting. Frequently lacking in such programs is an exploration and understanding of the broader sociohistorical and cultural con texts of the target language—an understanding that is arguably vital to sustaining students’ in- terest in and motivation to study the language. In an effort to provide a sociohistorical and cultural complement to the classroom, language educators have been promoting enrichment programs such as summer language camps. ‘Twenty years ago Vines (1983) described 49 for- ign language camps in 26 U.S. states that pro- Tanguage immersion and cultural experiences for high school students outside of the classroom. Generally, however, the efféctive- ness of these programs has not been the subject, of systematic or in-depth research (see, for ex- ample, Haukebo, 1969, with regard to elemen- tary and secondary programs; for high school: Baudin, 1978; Davis, 1982; Nyhus & Maiwald, 1980; Tryjillo, 1982; for college: Baughin, 1983; Griswold, 1983). The apparent dearth of re- search on the summer language camp experi- ence prompted the current researchers to undertake a study with the dual goals of (a) dis- covering, understanding, and characterizing the dynamics of a summer language camp experi- ence that can enhance language development; and (b) exploring ways in which these dynamics might be applicable to programs of instruction in more formal learning contexts. The research reported in this chapter was conducted in the summer of 2001 within one 238 © Chapter 21 such program, Concordia Language Villages (CLV). CLV is the oldest and most extensive summer residential program for elementary and secondary students in the United States, offeri summer programs for over 6,000 young people* ages 7-18 in the following 18 languages: Ger man, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Jap nese, Chinese, Korean, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, and English as a Second Lan- guage. These camp programs take place in Tetreatstyle communities where counselors/ instructors and learners live everyday life in the target language, typically engaging in a wide va riety of activites including sports, arts and crafts, dancing, cooking, swimming, nature programs, singing, banking, and shopping. Several times a day, leamers meet with a small group of peers (usually six to eight learners) at their language level and an instructor/counselor to focus specifically on language forms and functions that then can be practiced in the ongoing daily activities. Although in-depth investigation was under- taken in three programs, the German Language Village (Waldsee), the Russian Language Village (Lesnoe Ozero), and the French Wilderness Pro- gram (Les Voyageurs), we will focus here on German Language Village. To understand the dynamics of the language learning and use context at Waldsee, we undertook extensive ethnographic participantobservation and video- recording of language use in small language learning and residential groups, conducted fo- cus group and individual interviews, and admin- istered written questionnaires. Methodology Description of the Site and the Subject Waldsee, the German program of the Concordia Language Villages, is the oldest of all of the Con- cordia Language Villages, having been founded in 1961 by a professor in the German Depart ment at Concordia College in Minnesota. As is true of all of the Language Village programs, Waldsee has as its mission “to prepare young peo- ple for responsible citizenship in our global community" and strives to fulfill this mission byproviding varied opportunities for participants to learn and practice the target language as well as to learn about cultural norms and directly ex- perience related cultural practices. These lin- guistic and cultural goals are further enhanced by opportunities for participants to explore is. sues of relevance to the world at large, such as the environment, war/peace, justice, literacy, health, and human rights. In the summer of 2001, the year in which this study was conducted, 716 young people ages 7-18 took part in one of nine sessions at Waldsee. Our study focused on three of these sessions, two 2aveek sessions and one 4week session. During these sessions, a total of 244 children partici- pated, 186 in one of the two-week sessions and 5B in the one 4-week session. Of these 244 chil- dren, 239 took part in our study. (Five children did not receive permission from their parents to participate.) Questionnaires were completed by 216 children. Of these 216, 41% (N = 88) were participating in Waldsee for the first time. Twenty- four percent (N = 51) were returning for their fourth year or more. Regarding their contact with German outside the CLV context, 58% (N = 126) of the children reported taking Ger- man in school, and 54% (N = 117) reported speaking some German at home with family members and/or friends. Design of the Study and Data Collection As indicated above, data collection for this part of the study involved (2) ethnographic participantobservation, (b) videorecording lan- guage use, (c) focus groups, and (d) written questionnaires. The questionnaires were con- structed to tap language use patterns by the vik lagers, the counselors, and the instructors. Specifically, questions were designed to probe how counselors used the target language with villagers, how they used the target language with other counselors in the presence of villagers, the factors determining the extent to which villagers used the target language with the counselors, and the factors determining the extent to which villagers used the target language with each other. Emphasis was given to various situations over the span of the village day and evening, ranging from those led by staff to those involving staff but undirected to those where staff were not present. Co-author Hamilton functioned as the on- site supervisor of the two full-time summer re- search assistants (RAs) in the German village. These RAs acted as participantobservers in small language learning groups and in the cab- ins, taking notes and videotaping interactions with a hand-held camcorder. They also video- taped a series of focus group sessions conducted by Hamilton, In addition, the RAs interviewed selected villagers and staff members and facili tated the collection of end-ofsession villager questionnaires specific to this project. Both RAs had worked at least one year in the program pre- viously and had near-native language skills in German. In her role as on-site research supervi sor, co-author Hamilton lived and had an office at the German Language Village. The summer the research was conducted marked her twenty: seventh summer as a staff member with that pro- gram. Prior to that, she had spent two years as a villager. Co-author Cohen served as an outside researcher with no formal ties to the Concordia program. He helped to conceive and design the study and was active in the design of the data col- lection methods. He visited the site for several days during the data collection process, had an opportunity to meet at length with the two RAs, and also attended a number of village activities. Constructing a Playworld: Creating Opportunities for Language Use ‘The findings from the study have given us a bet- ter understanding of how opportunities are cre- ated for language use in a wide range of contexts within the German village. Key to creating these opportunities is a discourse community that con- tinuously constructs and maintains a “play world,” a world into which participants are drawn through use of space and allocation of time® In Goffiman’s (1959) theatrical terms, virtu- ally all interactions between learners and staff take place within the playworld that unfolds “frontstage”; the only “backstage” discourse community activities occur in spaces (such as the Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances in a Second Language * 239staff lounge) and times of day (such as after the villagers have gone to sleep) where villagers and staff do not typically come together. These off stage moments allow staff critical time to plan “playworld” activities as well as to reflect on the program. The only times that villagers get to peek “behind the curtains” is when they are “act ing” in the role of counselors or instructors (see, for example, the discussion of “counselor for a day” in the section entitled “Accepting the Invi- tation: Learners Entering into the Playworld” be- low) or when they happen to overhear or eavesdrop on staffonly conversations in public. This playworld is based on both senses of the term play as discussed by Broner and Tarone (2001).* First, following Lantolf (1997), the fanction of language play is “exercise, or the re- hhearsal of target forms” (Broner & Tarone, 2001, p. 366)—in this case, in preparation for a future trip to German-speaking Europe. Second, fol- lowing Cook (1997), the function of language play is enjoyment and relaxation; it is an “exu- berance of the mind” (p. 227). The construction of this playworld where village participants can both rehearse and enjoy using the language cre- atively relies upon interrelationships between key structural components of village life, includ- ing physical space, participants, and time alloca- tion, as well as on the implicit principles that guide the types of activities carried out by these participants in time and space. These compo- nents are described in the following sections. Physical Site Waldsee takes place within a real village that shares an 830-acre tract of land on Turtle River Lake northeast of Bemidji, Minnesota with the French, Norwegian, Finnish, and Spanish Lan- guage Villages. Waldsee is made up of many dif ferent kinds of buildings and spaces: a dining hhall, a train station, activity buildings, immigrant cabins, stores, cafés, a bank, a health center, res- idential buildings, a library, a sauna, a soccer field, a marketplace, a beach on a large lake, a ropes course, a rustic theater hidden away in the ‘woods, a wilderness campground, and several nature trails and campfire circles. Consistent with the playworld concept, additional “spaces” are temporarily constructed to serve particular 240 © Chapter 21 programmatic purposes. Examples of such spaces include a travel agency set up to facilitate a Sunday afternoon recreational program and a Saturday evening restaurant and disco (a tray formation of the dining hall), complete with menus, new décor, and counselors and villagers serving as waitstafl. Participants At any given time at Waldsee, there are approxi- mately 180 learners and 60 counselors/instruc- tors. Just under half of the staff members are native speakers of German; the vast majority of the nonnative speakers on staff have excellent or nearly native command of the target language, acquired by significant experience living abroad, They range in age from 18 through 40, with most in their early to mid 20s. Some are trained as language teachers; others have skills and knowledge that are important in other ways to the community, induding music, art, sports, en- vironmental sciences, and drama. The learners, ‘who range in age from 7-18, come from across the United States as well as from several foreign countries. Approximately half learn German in school. Each summer more than half of the pre- vious year’s participants—staff and learne alike—return to Waldsee. From the moment the learners arrive on the first day, they begin to gather up the compo- nents of a new “identity” that they will be enact. ing in the village playworld. They arrive at the border of the new “country,” show their “pass ports” and go through customs. They choose a new name, find out what new “city” (cabin) they will be living in, open a bank account, and change their U.S. dollars into euros; they are surrounded by German language, music, and signs. Within a few hours of arrival, they will be eating the types of food that German-speaking Europeans eat. Time Allocation Waldsee hosts its learners 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for sessions of one, two, or four weeks. On. 2 typical day, learners wake up around 7:30 am. and go through the day immersed in the lan- guage until they go to bed around 10:00 p.m. As Figure 1 shows, the majority of the day is broken8.00 Morning circle 830 Breakfast 9.15 Large group: language and singing 10.00 Small language group 10.45 Break (bank, stores, cafés open) 11.15 Activity period 3230 Lunch’ 13.15 Rest period in cabin 14.00 Small language group 15.00 Activity period 15.45 Break (bank, stores, café open) 16.15 Small language group 17.15 Activity period, mail, staff meeting 18.15 Cabin time 19.00 Dinner 20.30 Evening program 22.00 Lights out up into 45-60 minute periods, during which time villagers participate in small language learning groups, free choice activities, meal- times, cabin-based activities, and large group song sessions and evening programs. Activities The three components just discussed—physical setting, participants, and allocation of time— come together to create a kaleidoscopic play- world that nourishes a wide range of learning activities. And it is within these activities that learners are offered extensive and varied oppor- tunities to learn and use the target language. Vil lagers interact with a range of different villagers and instructors throughout the day—from wake- up routines in their cabins, breakfast with differ- ent groups of friends, large group singing sessions, small language groups, soccer games, stained glass-making activities, nature hikes, working on the village newspaper, to numerous other activities. ‘While living groups are made up of learners who are of the same sex and approximately the same age, learning groups comprise learners who are more or less at the same language level, Activity groups are mixed in terms of age, lan- guage level, and sex, but homogeneous in terms of areas of interest. It is these different constel- lations of individuals accomplishing different tasks in German at different locations in the vil- lage throughout the day that create opportuni- ties for learners to use a range of language appropriate to various sociolinguistic and cul- ural contexts, ranging from dealing with a prob- Jem in the store to representing a political party's ideas, as illustrated in the opening sce- narios of this chapter. ‘Our empirical investigation of village life, which included observations of and discussions with participants, suggests that these playworld activities are guided by the following six (im- plicit) principles:® 1. activities should take place in linguistically and culturally authentic surroundings; 2. activities should be experiential and hands- on, involving multiple senses and drawing on multiple intelligences; 3. activities should take place out of a real need to interact and communicate; 4. activities should be embedded within ex- tended projects; 5. activities should be carried out in a learner centered way so that learners become in- vested in their own learning; and 6. activities should be carried out in such a ‘way as to give learners courage to partici- pate and use the language. Some readers may have noticed an apparent paradox in this section: as part of the construc- tion of a playworld, we are discussing the impor- tance of authentic objects and surroundings as well as participants’ authentic practices related to reakworld, needs-based communication. This paradox can be resolved if one keeps in mind the following points. The playworld is the domi- nant conceptual frame; in its service, authentic materials are useful to participants as they try out authentic (real-world) communicative prac- tices (and try on new identities, as Bruner 1990 suggests). Preschoolers do this all the time, try: ing on Dad’s hat and Mom's shoes and carrying around older siblings’ school books. These are authentic objects that serve the children’s de- sires to role-play events and situations in the Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances in a Second Language * 242workplace or in school, for example, that are be- yond their current scope. It is in this sense that the language village relates the authentic world to the playworld. It should also be clear from previous and subsequent descriptions of village activities that the goal is not to recreate everyday life in a German-speaking village. A quick glance at the daily schedule along with the introductory sce- narios should make it clear that each day is lived very intensively and contains a wider range of ac- tivities than most individuals undertake in a “normal” day. Life in the village is more akin to life on a theater stage or in film, where almost no activity is unfocused. This focused life of the playworld allows participants to experience much more than they would during a typical day in the “real world.” Invitation to Play Along: Motivating Learners to Take Advantage of Opportunities For many learners, the very “existence” of a play- world that provides opportunities to learn and speak German throughout the day is enough to spark them into playing along. They jump right jinto their new play “identities” and take advan- tage of the opportunities to learn and to practice their second language. For other villagers, how- ever, the temptation to cling to their “real-life” identities—and to continue speaking English— is strong, Since these learners are not required to take an oath to speak only German while they are within the village (as is the case at the Mid- dlebury adult lariguage programs: see, for exam- ple, Spielmann & Radnofsky, 2001), the motivation has to come from elsewhere. Creat- ing opportunities is irrelevant if learners do not take advantage of them. From viewing videotapes of village life, ana- lyzing the content of villager and staff focus groups, and reviewing the research assistants’ field notes, it became clear that a key to motivat- ing even the most reticent learners into parti pating in the playworld is the practice of keeping learners slightly offguard at all times. Coun- selors and instructors begin by establishing clear 242 © Chapter 21 routines and expectations. Once learners’ ex: pectations about the village routines have be- come established, the counselors playfully behave in ways that fly in the face of expect tions, a technique used in improvisational the- atre or in jazz music (see Erickson, 1986). This surprising “creative tilt” can be used to motivate the learners to participate. (See Bruner, 1986, for a useful discussion of the relationship be- tween surprise and the gaining of attention.) This can perhaps best be grasped by referring to two concrete illustrations from life at Waldseer one relating to dining hall routines, the other to singing. In both cases, learners are enticed to participate by altering the expected, known rou- tine, standing it on its head. Gasthof (‘Dining Hall") Routine Before the morning and evening meals each day, learners gather in a circle around the market square in the center of the village. After singing a song and reciting a poem, the village dean (di- rector) asks those gathered if they are hungry (Habt ihr Hunger?). Upon hearing a loud fa, the dean directs them to go across the square to the dining hall (Dann gehen wir um Gasthof!). The vik lagers learn on the very first evening that th should gather outside the righthand entrance w the Gasthof and wait while the counselors enter through the left-hand entrance. While the coun- selors are finding places at the tables, the villagers sing Wir haben Hunger, Hunge, Hun- ger... (We're hungry, hungry, hungry) and shout together Kénnen wir bitte essen? (‘Can we please eat?') When everything is ready in the Gasthof, the counselors invite them to come in by answering Ja and singing one of several songs, Kommt, das Essen ist bereitet... (‘Come. The food is ready’), as the learners walk to their tables. Routines continue throughout the time in the Gasthof, with meal presentations, announcements regarding upcoming programs and classes, 2 ‘weather show, and a closing song all interspersed within everyday mealtime conversations. ‘One evening, Waldsee’s dean did the unex- pected: He directed the villagers to enter the Gasthof through the left (counselors’) entrance and the counselors to gather in front of the right entrance and wait. A brief moment of confusionensued and then a new energy surged through the entire group. The learners immediately took on the behaviors and associated language of the counselors, which up until this point they had only witnessed and never practiced. They en- tered into the Gasthofand distributed themselves among the tables. Several took on the roles of the counselors who stand in front of the right- hand entrance, directing the villagers’ singing and questions to the staff. For their part, the counselors ran towards the dining hall and be- gan to sing the villagers’ song. When the vik lagers inside decided it was time to allow the counselors in, they began to sing Kommt, das Es- sen ist beretet at the top of their lungs, a song that they had only heard before. The opportunity had presented itself for the learners to use the instructors’ language—and the words (and melody) were all in place! More importantly, any boredom associated with routine had been erased and supplanted by new-found motivation and energy to participate in the program. Lieder (‘Songs’) Singing is pervasive at Waldsee. Villagers learn 20 or more songs by heart each session, including hiking songs, traditional and present-day folk songs, “oldies,” and current top-of the-chart hits Each day villagers learn songs in an hourlong singing session and then practice these songs at circle times, before and afier meals, and at evening campfires. Songs are critical both to lan- guage learning and to community-building within the village. (See also Kind, 1980 and 1983, for discussions of singing as it relates to language learning methodology.) ‘The village songs themselves are often sub- Ject to the “creative tilt,” whereby portions of a familiar song's text are changed. Such parodies are frequently modeled by counselors during meal presentations. For example, one “oldie” entitled Bossanova contains the line Schuld war nur der Bossanova (‘It was all the Bossanova's fault’); a meal presentation about Misti, a breakfast food containing oat flakes, contains the rewritten line: Schuld waren nur die Hofer flocken (‘Tt was all the oat flakes’ fault’). Upon hearing the fractured lines, learners’ ears perk up; they notice the unexpected differences and wonder what is being said. Instead of listening mindlessly to a song they have already memo- rized, surprise propels them into the playworld, and they pay attention to the new portions of the text. This technique is also used with a different twist in a favorite rainy day program. Villagers are asked to take songs they have learned and to reshape and perform them in a different musi- cal style. A rock song might be sung as a Grego- rian chant; a simple good-night song as a rap. The “creative tilt” is a dominant tool in the larger Waldsee discourse community. It teaches that language is a resource to be reshaped and played with and fosters an attitude of flexibility and openness to the new and unexpected. After all, confounded expectations play an important role in intercultural misunderstandings (see Agar, 1994). Such play gives learners practice in responding with emotional comfort and intel- lectual acuity and helps them to remain open- minded in unexpected situations, a critical survival skill for a global citizen. Accepting the Invitation: Learners Entering into the Playworld When the unexpected has happened and the learners’ attention has been caught, they often accept the implicit invitation to enter into the playworld and use the target language readily ‘What do the leamers do as they enter into the playworld? Following the discussion of language play by Broner and Tarone (2001), we describe learners (a) using language play as rehearsal (Lantolf, 1997), (b) using language play as fun (Cook, 1997), and (c) combining the two, re- hearsing in a humorous way. Central to each i+ lustration is Becker's (1995) discussion of jarwa dhosok, the Javanese term for pushing old lan- guage into new contexts. Learners display “real language competence” by remembering old lan- guage and reshaping it to fit new contexts. Play as Rehearsal In “play as rehearsal,” learners take language that they have heard more proficient speakers use in particular contexts in the past, and they use it in 2 productive way for their own purposes. In most Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances in a Second Language * 243—_ cases, learners are trying on new identities (Bruner, 1990) or are within a “zone of proximal development” in which they have opportunities assisted by peers or teachers to act “beyond aver age age, above daily behavior” (Vygotsky in Lan- tolf, 1997). A clear example of this kind of play as. rehearsal occurs when experienced and/or ad- vanced villagers become “counselor for a day Learners go through the day, slipping into very different kinds of roles than they are used to: working behind the cash register in the store, Jeading an arts and crafts activity, even explaining the evening program to the entire village. In these new roles, then, learners are given rare op- portunities to experience village life “backstage” and to use the more advanced language that of ten accompanies these experiences. Beyond the “counselor for a day” experience, this kind of language stretching happens on a regular basis within the mixed language level groups described earlier; in cabins and in free choice activities, less proficient leamers often eam from their more experienced peers. At the candy store, for example, one frequently observes beginning language learners intently listening to "the transactions involving children in front of them in line and learning what they need to say just in time for their tum at the cash register. Occasionally, learners will do this rehearsal subvocally, rehearsing to themselves, as Lantolf, suggests. One such example observed was a high school boy walking up to the telephone in the Gasthof repeating to himself: Kann ich bitte eine Reservierung machen? (°Can I please make a reser- vation?’) This was on a day when villagers needed to call for reservations to eat in a restau- rant that evening. Frequently, however, rehearsal is done aloud in public rather than privately, as we saw in the “counselor for a day” and candy store examples above. Arguably, itis the perva- siveness of the established playworld that gives learners courage to speak their rehearsals out loud, just as if rehearsing a play on a stage (to continue with Goffman's theatrical metaphor) Play as Fun In “play as fun,” learners take the language they have already learned in other settings and re- shape it to fit the context at hand. This reshap- 244 © Chapter 21 ing of texts is modeled by the counselors via the Kinds of meal presentations discussed under “Songs” above; learners pick up on this “exube ance of the mind” (Cook, 1997, p. 227) and v it freely. As a teenage girl was helping to clean up her table following the evening meal, she held up the butter plate and sang Mit dem But terteller unter'm Arm... Tivarliralira (‘with the butter plate under the arm’); this was a reshap- ing of a popular song she had learned earlier that week that contained the line Mit der Mize ‘unter’ Arm (‘with the cap under the arm) Another example comes from an announce- ment made by a group of villagers following the evening meal. They stood up and said together Wir haben nur Essen gegessen! (‘We only ate food!) This statement of the obvious was met with great laughter. Why? It was a reshaping of the rou- tinely heard statement Wir haben nur Deutsch gesprochen! (‘We spoke only German’) by tables of learners who were able to make it chrough the ‘entire mealtime without speaking any English at all. Examples of this kind of language play were pervasive. In fact, one of the leitmotifs of village life is the way in which routine, formulaic lan- guage is used in new contexts by learners at all language levels to humorous effect. Many pa ipants emphasized in their interviews with us how important it is for them to be able to be funny in their second language; it'is then that, they start to “own the language” and feel their personality begin to shine through. Play as Fun Rehearsal Most frequent, however, seems to be a hybrid of both kinds of language play~language play that, is rehearsal, but fun at the same time. Some- times the fun comes solely from the way in which learners completely appropriate not only the language, but also the identity of the speakers they are imitating, as when a learner took on the role of a particular counselor, including all of the counselor's mannerisms and idiosyncracies. In another, even more humorous example, dur- ing the clean-up period one very warm evening, a young boy was overheard carrying on a con- versation with his dirty knife and fork Holding his silverware upright on the table top, the boy began the following dialogue:BOY SHAKING KNIFE: Guten Tag! Ich heife Herr Messer. Wie heipt du? (Hello! My name is Mr. Knife. What's your name?") BOY SHAKING FORE: Guten Tag! Ich heife Frau Gabel. Bist du heip? (‘Hello! My name is Mrs. Fork. Are you hot”) BOY SHAKING RNIFE: Nein, man sagt nicht, “Bist du heif?” Das ist falsch. Man sagt, “Ist es dir heip?” (No, one doesn’t say, “Are you how” That's werong. One says, “Is it hot for you?” ") In this case, the boy was reshaping a conver- sation—corrections and all—that he had been a part of earlier. Unlike the boy described in “Play as Rehearsal” above, who was rehearsing to him- self Kann ich bitte cine Reservierung machen, how- ever, this learner had chosen to rehearse out loud in a public location with a creative tilt. By turning his knife and fork into conversational partners, he was reshaping old objects to the new context and reenvisioning familiar lan- guage practice as play. Conclusion Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) have pointed out the necessity in communicative language teaching of creating suitable contexts for inter- action and of providing opportunities to process Ianguage within a variety of situations. The sum- mer language program—Waldsee of the Concor- dia Language Villages—constructs a playworld in which such contexts and opportunities exist. ‘While Waldsee is a constructed discourse com- munity, in every part of its design it invites learn- ers to use language in a variety of real-world contexts and encourages them to reshape old language to suit the new contexts they en- counter, even at a beginner's level. This explo- ration has shown the complex interplay between language and context in language acquisition and, particularly, how essential situational con- text is in motivating learners to take chances in a second language. ‘On the basis of our research findings, we would like in closing to sketch out some impli- cations for teachers and curriculum planners in more traditional schoobbased programs. First, even within the physical constraints of most schools, teachers can offer a wider range of lan- guage play opportunities by setting up different physical areas to be utilized at different times within the classroom or school, frequently re- grouping students, and changing types of activi- ties. Within the classroom, adding several shelves of everyday (possibly culturally authen- tic) objects and 2 coat closet full of secondhand clothes will spark learners’ creativity and help to maintain an overall play frame. Collaborations between foreign language teachers and faculty within music, art, or drama departments may open up opportunities for students and teachers to create a playworld outside the confines of their regular classroom space. Second, in order to encourage students to ‘enter into the playworld and take advantage of the language use opportunities it presents, the scale should be tipped away from the routine. Solid expectations can be established first and then utilized as the basis for creative improvisa- tion, Students’ interest will be piqued by sur- prise. It will be difficult for them to sit back in their seats and not enter into the playworld. In addition, students can be encouraged to reshape “old language into new contexts,” to take lan- guage they already know from songs and class. room routines and to play with it Finally, classroom instructors may find they are able to give students courage to get past the need for private rehearsal time by establishing a playworld in the classroom where both learner and teacher identities are fluid and wide rang- ing. As the teacher shifts from “king” to “shop owner” to “head waiter” to "movie stay,” the op- portunities for language use extend far beyond those available within the traditional roles of teacher and student. Acknowledgements + This study is part of a larger study entided “Lan- guage Learning in a NonSchool Environment,” funded by the US. Office of International Educa- tion, through a grant to the University of Min- nesota's National Language Resource Center housed at the Center for Advanced Research on Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances in a Second Language * 245Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. We. gratefully acknowl edge the fine work of our research assistants Corinne Crane, Start Gorman, Nathan Garth, and Anne Skoe Fouquerel, the encouragement of Concordia Language Villages deans Daniel S. Hamilton, Laurie ludinNelson, and Francois Fou- querel, and the unwavering support of Christine Schulze, Executive Director of the Concordia Lan- guage Villages. Thanks also to Gertrude I. Hew- apathirana for statistical analyses of the villager questionnaires. We wish to acknowledge Karin Lar- son and the CARLA team for their support of this, study. In addition, we thank Anne Fretheim for her efforts at the study design and piloting phases of this research project and Heidi Byrnes for her assistance in aligning our transcripts with the most, ‘current German language spelling reform prac- tices. Finally, thanks to Paul Magnusen for his in- sightful comments on an earlier version of this chapter. References ‘Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the cul- ture of conversation. New York: William Morrow. Baudin, P. (1978). Foreign language camps: Camp * Waskowitx: Teachers guide and planning book. North- bend, WA: Snoqualine Valley Public Schools (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED182978) Baughin, J.A. (1983). A successful French weekend camp. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 280055) Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond translation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Broner, M. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2001). Is it fun? Lan- ‘guage play in a fifthgrade Spanish immersion Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 363-879. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Har- vard University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse ‘and context in language teacking: A guide for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51, 994-231 Davis, M. S. (1982). campamento de esparil para las ‘studiantes de las exculas secundarias (Spanish Camp for Secondary School Students). Columbus, OH: 246 © Chapter 21 Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED219952) Erickson, F. (1986). Listening and speaking. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Procedings of the Georgetoun Unive sity Round Table 1985 (pp. 294-319). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday tif. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Griswold, J. 8. (1988). Foreign language comps t the cob lege level Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Uni- versity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233602) Hamilton, H., Crane, C., & Bartoshesky, A. (2004) Doing foreign language: Adapting the best practices of Concordia Language Villages to the foreign language dassroom. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Haukebo, G. K. (1969). Summer foreign language pro- grams for school students. ERIC focus reports on the teaching of forign languages (Report No. 10). New ‘York: MLA/ACTFL Materials Center. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED031986) Kind, U. (1980). Tune in to English. New York: Re- nts Kind, U, (1988). Eine Heine Desimus: Learng German through familiar tunes. Munich: Langen- scheidt Publishing Group. Lantolf, J. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In W. R. Glass & A.T. Perez-Leroux (Eds.), Contemporary perspect, on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3-24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Nyhus, S., & Maiwald, M. (1980). Europe comes to lowe. (Guidenes for establishing a foreign language immersion. weekend for students. Des Moines, IA: Towa State Dept. of Public Transportation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED203669) Olshtain, E., & CelceMurcia, M. (2001). Discourse analysis and language teaching, In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Spielmann, G., & Radnofsky, M. L. (2001). Learning language under tension: New directions from a qualitative study. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 250-278, Tarone, E,, & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic per- spective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Mode Language Journal, 79, 166-178, ‘Trajillo, L. A. (1982). Foreign language comps: Jffeson County Pubic Schools R-1. Lakewood, CO: Jefferson County Public Schools. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No, ED236582)Vines, L (1988). A guide 1 language comps in the US. 2. Language in education: Tharry and practice (Report No. 58). Washington, DC: National Institute of E- uucation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED226608) Notes } ‘This is the same program that was featured exten- sively in the Haukebo (1969) report cited above. With academicyear programming added in, the annual enrollment of Concordia Language Vik lages reaches 9,500. ® Drawing on Swales (1990), Olsbtain and Celce- Murcia (2001, p. 711) describe a discourse com- munity as ‘a group of people who share many things—a considerable body of knowledge, a spe- cific group culture, an acceptable code of behav. jor, a common language, a common physical envi- ronment, and perhaps a common goal or interest” According to this definition, Waldwe (and the Con- cordia Language Villages in general) is a prime ex- ample of a discourse community Although the discussion of play in Broner and Tarone (2001), in Cook (1997), and in Lantolf (1997) refers to “language play” only, play in both senses (‘as rehearsal” and “as fun") needs to be extended to cover the full range of human activi- ties, including language. The play, then, can re- volve around eating, sports, clothing, and other activities. Full descriptions of these principles as well as ac- Livities for classroom teachers illustrating the prin- ciples can be found in Hamilton, Crane, and Bartoshesky (2004). Creating a Playworld: Motivating Learners to Take Chances ina Second Language * 247