I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a bit out of my element; neither am I bashful about admitting to reading various articles (and Wikipedia) about Huizinga and his role in Game Theory. With that said, I’m starting to look at this whole concept of “play” a little more critically with a lot more questions. What exactly is play? According to Huizinga it’s everything yet nothing – it’s reality and fantasy, it’s poetry and war, it’s law and philosophy, it’s both work (if work is not serious) and leisure, it’s the precipitant of language and establishing rules among a group of people. I may be minimizing this 200+ page book on play, but is it another word for competitive interaction? If so, then I have some wiggle room for agreement. When we think about the most effect ways students learn, the need for interaction seems obvious, especially if you consider wanting an authentic context to learn a language in. There are plenty of SLA theories that look at this interaction from varies perspectives: one being sociocultural (focusing on real world events where collaboration occurs) and the other interactionist (much more cognitive approach, focusing on the input’s rule in acquisition). The idea is that learners are engaged in negotiating form and meaning.

…I still trying to piece this all together in my mind.