Thesis for the Degree of Master

Gaining Access to Communities of Practice in

Virtual Environments: Looking for Evidence

by
Thomas S. Avery

The Graduate School of TESOL

Sookmyung Women’s University
Gaining Access to Communities of Practice in
Virtual Environments: Looking for Evidence

by
Thomas S. Avery

A Thesis submitted to the Department of TESOL and

the Graduate School of Sookmyung Women’s University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master

In charge of major work: Dr. Levi McNeil

Submission Date: January 2015

Gaining Access to Communities of Practice in
Virtual Environments: Looking for Evidence

This certifies that the degree of master of TESOL of

Thomas S. Avery is approved by

(Signature)
Chair of Committee

(Signature)
Committee Member

(Signature)
Committee Member

The Graduate School of TESOL

Sookmyung Women’s University

January 2015
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1. Communities of Practice .................................................................. 3

2.2. Learning as Practice ......................................................................... 4
2.3. Identifying Communities ................................................................. 6
2.4. Access to Learning ........................................................................... 9

3.1. Learning in CoPs ........................................................................... 12

3.2. Access to CoPs............................................................................... 14
3.2.1. Framework ........................................................................... 15
3.2.2. Mentoring ............................................................................ 16
3.2.3. Negotiation of identity ......................................................... 18

i
4.1. Research Questions ........................................................................ 22
4.2. Game context ................................................................................. 23
4.3. Participants .................................................................................... 23
4.4. Data Sources .................................................................................. 24
4.5. On Studying One’s Self ................................................................. 26
4.6. Analysis ......................................................................................... 27
4.6.1. Discourse ............................................................................. 27
4.6.2. Analyzing discourse ............................................................. 28
4.6.3. Functions ............................................................................. 29
4.6.4. Analytic procedure ............................................................... 30

5.1. The Existence of CoPs ................................................................... 34

5.1.1. Mutual engagement .............................................................. 34
5.1.2. Joint enterprise ..................................................................... 36
5.1.3. Shared repertoire .................................................................. 37
5.2. Access and Framework .................................................................. 38
5.2.1. Leveling up .......................................................................... 39
5.2.2. The meta-game .................................................................... 41
5.3. Access and Mentoring .................................................................... 43
5.4. Access through Identity ................................................................. 45
5.4.1. Practicing pushing / pulling lines ......................................... 45
5.4.2. Practicing the support role ................................................... 46

6.1. The Existence of CoPs ................................................................... 50

ii
6.2. Access to CoPs............................................................................... 54

7.1. Implications for research ................................................................ 57

7.2. Limitations ..................................................................................... 58
7.3. Future research ............................................................................... 59
7.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 60

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

The standard LoL "Summoner’s Rift" arena, showing the main routes

The line is pushed to the enemy's tower with a ward placed to lift the fog of
war and reveal ganks.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Gaining Access to Communities of Practice in Virtual

Environments: Looking for Evidence

Thomas S. Avery
The Graduate School of TESOL
Sookmyung Women’s University

Research on learning in virtual environments has offered educators with many

insights. In particular, the Communities of Practice (CoP, Wenger, 1998)
theory of learning has provided a useful approach for thinking outside of the
educational box. However, researchers often fail to provide a basic proof that
1) such communities exist, or that 2) newcomers can gain membership in
these groups, both of which are critical to the theory. In this qualitative study,
a discourse analysis was performed on 100 hours of gameplay in the online
multiplayer game League of Legends. The aim was to provide a tentative
demonstration of how researchers could go about proving the existence of
CoPs, and how newcomers may gain access to these. It was found that CoPs
do, indeed, exist in League of Legends and that access to one in particular is
possible. However, the results did not turn out as expected. The thesis draws
on Norton (2001) and Gee (2004) to theorize the problems and provide
suggestions on how to better perform similar research in the future. This
thesis may provide a rough framework for future research, and demonstrates
the need to theoretically identify groups as CoPs before applying the label.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Key words: Virtual Environments, Communities of Practice, Proof, Access

v
 Introduction
Research on second language learning and teaching within Massive
Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) and Virtual Environments (VEs,
Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009) is both maturing and gaining mainstream
acceptance (Bryant, 2007; de Freitas, 2006). Indeed, games can offer
learners what many classrooms cannot – they are both “cognitively
complex and consequential for those who participate” (Steinkuehler, 2006,
p. 50) and demonstrate the completion of frustrating and repetitive tasks,
despite frequent failure (Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013).
In this light, researchers have tried to identify how games promote
learning, particularly from socially situated approaches (see Lantolf, 2000;
Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Watson-Gegeo, 2004; Wenger, 1998). Here the
learner is sociohistorically located in a context, and learning involves the
emergence of culturally appropriate behaviour (Kramsch, 2003; van Lier,
2000). Games have the potential to enhance real-world learning, but
exactly “which sorts of game genres, structures, and player configurations
afford which sorts of potentials is an ongoing question. […] There is a
great need for further research” (Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013, p. 38).
Wenger’s Communities of Practice (CoPs, 1998; see also Lave &
Wenger, 1991) is a widely cited social theory explaining how learning
emerges from activity within groups of individuals as they actively
participate in shared practices. This makes the approach well-suited for
VEs, as gameplay is often very complex and requires group interaction
(Steinkuehler, 2004). By studying such groups with a CoP lens, we can
identify not only how a game nurtures learning, but also how the players
themselves (as members of CoPs) participate in and use the game to create
further opportunities for learning.

1
 This approach has been applied mainly to MMO Role Play Games
(MMORPGs) which have clearly defined group gameplay such as World
of Warcraft (WoW, Lee & Gerber, 2013; Oliver & Carr, 2009; Palmer,
2010), and VEs such as There and Second Life (Lee & Hoadley, 2007).
However, these researchers often fail to properly define CoPs, and simply
assume their existence. Also, as learning in CoPs necessarily emerges
alongside developing membership in a CoP, it is also necessary to
demonstrate how and if newcomers can work towards becoming members
– that is, gain access to the CoP. Therefore, my thesis’s first aim is to look
for evidence of CoPs in a VE in order to validate using the CoP
framework, then to identify and describe the possible ways a newcomer
might gain access to a CoP, and therefore the learning opportunities it
presents.
In doing so I first outline the theory this thesis is based upon,
Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), in detail. I then discuss how
research has approached CoPs in an online gaming context by reviewing
relevant literature, particularly in virtual environments, thus drawing out
the issues my thesis aims to address. Next, I provide a theoretical
framework for identifying and analysing access to CoPs by bringing
together what other researchers have contributed. This will lead me to my
research questions, and provide a basis for answering them.

2
 Theoretical Background
I here provide an overview of Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998)
and how it conceptualizes learning, as it forms the basis of my research.
This will allow me to characterize and describe CoPs, and hence identify
them and the learning within. Lastly, I present how newcomers gain access
to CoPs, because, as we will see, a level of participation in the
community’s practice precedes learning.
Communities of Practice
While much socially situated research describes learning by closely
scrutinizing discourse or the individual in context, CoP is a middle-range
theory in which individuals (at the local level) are in a constant state of
negotiation with and within different communities (at a meta-level, Lamb,
2009). CoP does not support evaluative research or provide a model for
how learning should occur in formal pedagogical situations. Rather, it is a
conceptualization of how learning emerges in social environments
(Hoadley, 2012; Li et al., 2009), which “is crucial if we are to forward
educational theory and practice beyond the contexts we ourselves
contrive” (Steinkuehler, 2004, p. 22).
CoP was first theorized by Lave and Wenger (1991), who conceived
of learning as Legitimate Peripheral Participation. A newcomer begins on
the outside of a community, but over time may increase their participation
in a community’s practices. As such, learning depends on “access by
newcomers to the community of practice and all that membership entails”
(p. 100).
Here we find a number of terms which require clear definition if we
are to understand the CoP approach to learning. Firstly, I will identify
exactly what I mean by the terms community and practice, and explain

3
their combination in the phrase “communities of practice”. I will then be
able to describe what a CoP should look like, and finally explore what we
mean by socially situated individuals having increased participation, or, as
Lave and Wenger alternatively referred to it, how they gain access to the
CoP.
Learning as Practice
In a very general sense, learning means that a newcomer to (or members
of) a CoP becomes better at the practice(s) the community is based upon.
A standard definition of a practice points to an activity that people do
together with some regularity, often forming a consistent group. In CoP,
however, practice is based around the concept of meaning. For Wenger
(1998), meaning is always socially mediated, and does not exist outside of
interaction; we can only talk about meaning as fixed if we describe a
specific point in sociohistory, as in discourse analysis. Meaning is always
negotiated through participation and reification.
As we participate in activity with members of a community, we
come to understand our environment via interactions within it. Here I take
environment in the ecological sense (van Lier, 2000), and therefore
include every aspect, from artefacts (computers, servers, weapons, etc.),
individuals, their relationships, the social contexts, and even to the
languages used. Interaction with any aspect of an environment can result
in learning, provided the community has reified it.
Reification refers to the process of giving meaning to and defining
the environment. Participating in an environment necessarily creates
personal and shared experiences which are connected to that environment,
and meaning can intentionally be created, as when a group chooses to
make a space “theirs”. We therefore create an emergent cycle, whereby

4
members of a community understand their environment through
participation, and also create new meanings together through reification,
itself causing a new understanding through participation. I have broken it
down like this for theoretical explanation, but in reality this is a dynamic,
constant process which Steinkuehler (2006) helpfully refers to as
“cognition as (inter)action” (p. 39). Our communal interaction in an
environment both shapes and is shaped by our cognition.
As an example, we could say that a random group of people might
play an online MMORPG such as World of Warcraft (WoW). As they
play, they learn about the game environment, and in order to progress
further they begin to participate with other players in the VE. WoW
actually requires co-operation to progress, and players often form or join a
“guild”, an invite-only group who participate in group-reified shared
activity. When the players join a guild they must participate to become a
part of it and understand it. At the same time, however, they also
contribute to the continuous processes of reification, forming unique
identities, and shared, unique understandings of the game environment and
their participation in it. This will then further shape their activity and their
engagement with it and each other. The cyclical emergent process
described here is known as negotiation of meaning.
This understanding of negotiation of meaning allows us to define
practice. To put it explicitly in Wenger’s (1998) terms, a Practice (and
therefore learning) involves Mutual Engagement in a Joint Enterprise
using a Shared Repertoire, all of which are constantly negotiated and
emergent. I now provide a detailed explanation of Practice through these
terms, allowing us to also define the term community. This detail will form
a blueprint for me to identify CoPs, a key aim of my thesis.

5
 Identifying Communities
Wenger (1998) states that we can only recognise the players in WoW
above as a community when there is Mutual Engagement (ME) around a
practice. Suppose that a key practice their group is built around is
completing dungeon quests. Then ME might involve the players preparing
strategies, sharing their knowledge and equipment, and supporting each
other throughout each quest. Over time, they therefore develop complex
relationships and understandings of how the members of the community
relate to each other.
The next element, Joint Enterprise (JE) explicitly integrates
learning as negotiation of meaning into the above. Each player in a WoW
guild can accurately describe how they understand their practices, and as
this understanding changes over time its meaning changes; that is, the
interaction of players’ emergent participation and reification result in the
practice’s development. Negotiation of meaning here happens at the group
level, allowing the community to define the practice, and become
accountable to one another through it. It is therefore necessarily a joint
enterprise. Two communities initially based on the same practice can, in
this way, become very different over a short period of time.
We can further explain such differences through Shared Repertoire
(SR). Wenger explains that “over time, the joint pursuit of an enterprise
creates resources for negotiating meaning” (1998, p. 82). These resources
are elements of the environment that have been reified or created by the
community, and appropriated for specific purposes within the practice. We
can include in SR elements such as players’ use of specialised language,
combat strategy, etiquette when distributing quest rewards, and the

6
evolving meanings attached to each of these and only properly understood
by members of the community.
Wenger is careful to explain that it is only when all three of these
are present and identifiable that a group can constitute a community (of
practice). Therefore, my definition of a community is not just a group of
people who regularly do something together, but rather individuals
actively engaged in sociohistoric group practices over time. To mutually
engage in an activity there must be a joint enterprise to engage in, and this
both requires and results in an emergent shared repertoire. In a way, each
of these points to fine-grain examples of how learning occurs in CoPs; at
every level presented above there is a constant negotiation of meaning.
However, studies using the theory often fail to identify the group
they are studying as a CoP in the first place. Indeed, as in the WoW
example above, researchers (e.g. Lee & Gerber, 2013; Palmer, 2010) use
the guild environment common in MMORPGs to describe how learning
socially occurs in a CoP context, aiming to apply the theory practically.
These studies effectively take guilds as equivalents of CoPs without
actually justifying the claim. I cannot do this so lightly, however, as the
existence of a group of people interacting for any length of time does not
mean a CoP exists, nor the learning this may offer.
I have shown above that Wenger (1998) allows us to address this
problem by identifying CoPs through the terms Mutual Engagement, Joint
Enterprise, and Shared Repertoire. My thesis, therefore, will apply the
theory directly to a gaming environment and take steps to prove the
existence of practices within CoPs before making further claims about
learning. Though WoW is still a popular game, it has been covered
repeatedly in the research, and new, more salient opportunities present

7
themselves. Therefore, this thesis aims to locate CoP theory in the online
game League of Legends (LoL).
LoL is currently the most popular online game in South Korea (where
I am located), with 36.5% of regular online gamers playing it (Gametrics,
2014). It is also so popular globally that its creators, Riot Games,
successfully lobbied for professional LoL “eSport” players to be eligible
for U.S. visas previously reserved for athletes (LeJacq, 2013). The eSport
label is apt, as LoL does not fit into the traditional Role Playing Game
(RPG) genre, but is unofficially labelled a Massive Online Battle Arena
(MOBA).
Rather than an open virtual environment where players can explore
and interact, LoL is based upon short (less than an hour) matches in which
players work in teams of 5 to level up and destroy the enemy team’s base
at the other end of the game map. As in competitive sports, LoL requires
players to work together to complete their objectives, and strategizing is
common in the game’s extensive attendant discourses. In short, LoL is a
socially relevant and potentially interesting context in which to investigate
both the existence of and ease of access to CoPs.
Should I find that there are CoPs in LoL, I am then faced with another
problem not addressed in the literature. Learning requires a level of
membership in a CoP, but we cannot assume that newcomers can all gain
access to the CoP. It is not unreasonable to imagine a group rejecting
newcomers for any number of reasons, as demonstrated by the many
second language learners who fail to integrate into native speaking
communities (e.g. Kim & Duff, 2012). I now provide a theoretical
framework for access, before moving to show how the issues described in
this section have been dealt with practically in the literature.

8
 Access to Learning
Theoretically speaking, Lave and Wenger (1991) describe access as an
important element of learning. In demonstrating this they provide
examples of CoPs that display signs of learning and increased membership
for newcomers and others that do not. For example, while butchers
working in a certain supermarket are allowed to participate peripherally,
they are not allowed to be involved in more than one specific practice, and
cannot progress towards fuller community membership. Apprentice tailors
working in a certain tailor shop, on the other hand, participate peripherally
in many practices, work with many different people in collaboration, and
are given degrees of responsibility as they increase their knowledge of the
community’s practices.
We can begin discussing access in terms of the extent to which
newcomers can interact with the members and their practices by applying
the elements of CoPs above, namely mutual engagement, joint enterprise,
and shared repertoire. Each of these elements is explicitly reciprocal and
involves negotiation of meaning. Given no negotiation of identity or role
there are no opportunities for negotiation of meaning, and therefore no
access to the CoP or learning (as with the butchers). Where there is active
interaction between members and newcomers in terms of negotiation of
meaning and practice, and especially the first element of mutual
engagement, we can expect a progression of learning as the newcomer
accesses more and more of the CoP and its knowledges. We see this in the
way that apprentice tailors interact with their seniors.
Expanding on this description and theorization of access, Wenger
(1998, 2000) takes pains to theorize three “modes of belonging” which

9
allow us to assess different trajectories (changes in membership over
time) into CoPs, namely engagement, imagination, and alignment.
To give a brief overview, engagement refers to how an individual is
actively involved in the community and working to participate in the
various practices which define membership to the community. The second,
imagination, describes the way the individual (and community) constructs
internal images of the self. This can cover multiple sociohistorical
identities, the way the individual positions themselves towards the
community, and the identity they are striving for by participating as part of
the community. Despite the label of “imagination”, we must consider this
concept of very real and material importance to the individual, as it makes
up a part of their identity. Lastly, individuals may choose to align
themselves to the values and practice of the community in order to gain
membership. In this we can see that there is a negotiation of identity and
practice as the individual works to gain knowledge of (learn about) and a
place in the community.
These modes of belonging should be taken together as three aspects
of social learning systems like CoPs, but are described separately to allow
deeper analysis. They provide a lens through which to view access, and we
can chart an individual’s trajectory through their discourse. For example,
the ways in which discourse reveals an individual’s engagement in a
certain practice, and their ability to do this in line with the community’s
standards, can suggest how far they have moved (and desire to move)
along an inward-bound trajectory. The way discourse and actions reveal
who people say they want to be, and importantly, how this changes over
time with respect to others’ projected identities (imagination), also reveals

10
an individual’s access. I may find, for example, that a newcomer chooses
to remain on the edge of the community on a peripheral trajectory.
Perhaps most valuable, alignment with the community is revealed
in discourse through how the individual finds a place within the
community and how they have negotiated this over time. Importantly, the
opposite may also happen, and a failure to align can create outbound
trajectories. Note how each of these different aspects of access all revolve
around the notion of identities and their negotiation in relation to the CoP,
and therefore how all members and newcomers to the CoP have emergent
trajectories.
In this section, I have introduced the theory of Communities of
Practice, exploring the concept of negotiation of meaning and its
connection to learning through participation and reification. I thereby
defined both practice and community, showed how CoPs can be identified,
and introduced my thesis as an initial attempt to address other studies’
failure to define the CoPs they focus on. Lastly, I explored the issue of
access, a large factor in deciding if a newcomer can make use of the
learning opportunities offered by a CoP.
I now turn to how the literature has dealt with the above theories,
and lay the foundation for the thesis. I first solidify the concept of learning
in CoPs, again highlighting some of the problems of studies which have
done this, particularly in virtual environment contexts. I then go to some
length unpacking the issue of access, drawing from a number of sources to
allow myself to identify and measure access accurately. Having built up
support for identifying CoPs and access to them, I will be in a position to
propose my research questions, and go about answering them.

11
 Literature Review
Having laid down the important theory on CoPs, I now turn to how the
literature has worked with the theory. I first present two studies which cite
Wenger (1998) to demonstrate that learning does, indeed, occur in CoPs.
Especially relevant here will be the methods used to identify and measure
how and when learning took place.
Learning in CoPs
Firstly, Oliver and Carr (2009) performed a series of interviews with
dyads who had participated long term in the MMORPG World of Warcraft
(WoW). The interview data revealed emergent signs of learning, and they
noted ‘management of resources’ as a key marker of greater participation
(access), and therefore learning. This term describes how the players
“identified and leveraged an increasingly complex array of in-game
resources” (p. 6), and provides us with three important foci, namely
knowledge of gameplay, community practices, and social rules.
Oliver and Carr explained access in the data using Wenger’s (1998)
identification of trajectories of participation, as described above. Though
they were successful in showing an extent of learning, and demonstrated
that a greater ability to perform inside a game is a marker of learning (and
therefore access) in its own right, there were also problems with the study.
Not only do Oliver and Carr (2009) make no work to show that the data
they collected originates from a CoP, they applied Wenger’s theory of
trajectories only because it resembled what they found in the data. This
resulted in applications of theory to entirely reported data (from five 90
minute interviews), with no exploration of whether the CoPs resembled
the descriptions Wenger provides.

12
 Nevertheless, such an attempt to demonstrate CoP theory in VEs
provides a valuable insight for this thesis, particularly in highlighting the
idea of trajectories. That said, attempts to connect data and theory should
be based on actual sociocultural interactions within gameplay, as it is only
in the investigation of actual interactions that we can find our markers of
CoPs. This is just what Palmer (2010) did, using pragmatics to explore the
Spanish that she and another learner acquired over 360 hours of gameplay
in WoW. She tied learning directly to the progression of their ability to
participate in the shared repertoire of the communities they were involved
in, and documented the important pragmatic functions they did and did not
pick up through analysis of speech acts (functions).
Palmer finds that the two participants did learn Spanish in-game. Of
particular importance is, as outlined above, that learning only presented
itself in interaction, as this is the location of negotiation of meaning.
Indeed, the most of the language learned was those speech acts needed to
interact with other members of guilds, negotiate their social position, and
complete quests. While Palmer easily identified a standard set of speech
acts such as greetings and farewells, others proved harder to pinpoint.
Many only became evident when Palmer had to perform them herself
within the game context: “I would realize I had not focused on this speech
act yet because I had no idea how to go about performing it” (Palmer,
2010, p. 119). This is a critical observation, and will be important later in
this thesis.
However, while Palmer demonstrates the learning involved here she
does not show how their interactions reveal aspects of CoPs or access to
them, and she often uses the term community (of practice) very loosely to
refer to, alternatively, every player of the game, the group she is currently

13
playing with, and a long-term guild she is a part of. Wenger (1998), on the
other hand, is very careful about applying the CoP term to any and every
group, as it takes time to build up the mutual engagement, joint enterprise,
and shared repertoire by which he defines them, and therefore learning as
negotiation of meaning.
We can suggest, then, that the functions of the language (speech
acts) themselves are not what we are interested in here. Instead, because
CoPs are in a constant state of negotiation, proof of access will be most
readily found in the interactions between the participant and those in the
community as revealed by functions. We can expect patterns and
progressions of negotiations to emerge over the course of the study, and
these will be marked by the community’s practices, particularly their use
of shared repertoire. Essentially this is what functions are in this context; a
shared repertoire, remember, refers to the ways in which a CoP has created
meanings and practices unique to the group, and reified countless artefacts
(words, phrases, affordances, frameworks, members, etc.) which are
revealed and given new meaning in interaction. Just as Palmer finds, we
cannot identify or understand these unless we are in some way a part of
the community.
Access to CoPs
Now that we have a better idea of how learning occurs in CoPs, I will
discuss how one might gain access to that learning. I am not aware of any
literature that provides a clear practical indication of how a new member
may gain access to a CoP in VEs, and therefore the learning opportunities
it offers. However, access is of key importance, as if an individual cannot
gain access to the CoP, they are thereby withheld from the chance to learn
in that context – a very real problem for L2 learners interacting with

14
specific L1 communities (e.g. Kim & Duff, 2012; Lam, 2004). I therefore
proceed by reviewing three studies which take different approaches to
access in CoPs and help me devise my approach.
The first of these refers to the structure of the community itself, and
how institutional and sociohistorical frameworks can influence practice
and access to it (Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 2002). The second presents
aspects of mentoring within CoPs, and how they relate to access (Iddings,
2010). Thirdly, I will discuss the importance of identity in providing and
gaining access in terms of both the newcomer and CoP (Kim & Duff,
2012; Papargyris & Poulymenakou 2005). In this way, I focus my
argument and provide the final basis for my research questions.
Framework
The first major element which I will need to analyse when investigating
access to CoPs is the framework of the community and the institution(s) it
is based on. Schlager et al. (2002) explain that the (digital) platform the
community is based on can have an important effect on the strength of
communities and the ability of new members to enter.
In an online teacher’s community platform (Tapped In) designed by
the researchers to provide a CoP for teachers’ professional development,
Schlager et al. studied new members’ experiences of access. Using
discourse analysis to observe and assess the various trajectories
newcomers took into the group, they aimed to streamline access for future
inbound teachers. Areas they identified as important to access included:
1) providing software which could support the practices of
many different groups,
2) allowing users to negotiate and create discourse objects
(artefacts),

15
 3) enabling users to know with whom they are interacting and
what is happening around them, and
4) allowing users to engage with the organization, colleagues
and others.
Within these findings, I further propose that the layers of
frameworks presented in Schlager et al. (2002) work in both institutional
and sociohistorical aspects. That is, in VEs such as LoL, we can use
discourse analysis to identify both the extent to which the company who
created and runs the VE meet Schlager et al.’s four aspects of access, how
members of the community make use of these to provide/deny access, and
how the two interact to provide access, if at all. Such identification acts as
an important precursor and basis for the other ways I will discuss access
below; it provides me with an initial idea of where to look for access
(though this should by no means limit analysis to just these areas), and
provides a model for identifying other potential trajectories.
Mentoring
Mentoring is the next key aspect of access we need to explore, firstly by
discussing point four above. Schlager et al. (2004) said that allowing
different parties within a CoP to engage with each other was a key aspect
of framework. They achieved this by appointing a community director to
aid newcomers in becoming part of the group by mentoring them, putting
them in touch with other members, and building forms of mentoring into
the framework itself as and when they discovered a need. They show
forms of mentoring to be important in allowing access to CoPs, as it gives
newcomers a clear link to a (more experienced) practicing member. The
newcomer can then gain insights into how to engage with the community,

16
what their identity may be, and how to align themselves within the
community.
We see an equivalent role detailed in Papargyris and Poulymenakou
(2005). While playing and researching two MMORPGs, Earth & Beyond
and EVE, they identified a Director role which performed many of the
same functions as above, but in the context of guilds. Guilds are a
framework set up by the game creators which allow people to interact and
develop communities, for the purposes of both socializing and progressing
through the game. Having identified frameworks within the CoP,
Papargyris and Poulymenakou were able to observe how newcomers were
enabled to interact with both senior members, who act as mentors, and the
various artefacts the guild had built about the game world, quests, and
other relevant knowledge. This method of identifying frameworks and
observing specific forms of interaction (such as mentoring) within them
will prove important for my study.
Mentoring has been identified in moments where newcomers
interacted with more experienced members and the artefacts found within
the community. From a CoP perspective, this is a description of
negotiation of meaning, but they are both effectively describing the act of
scaffolding as conceptualized in Sociocultural Theory (see Aljaafreh &
Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf, 2000). Scaffolding is a practice in which an expert
provides appropriate degrees of help over time in order for another to
eventually become autonomously competent in some area. It has also been
shown to occur in groups of peers as they provide each other with unique
knowledges and experiences of the world (see Donato & McCormick,
1994; also Kim, 2008). In a CoP context, we might therefore expect a
newcomer to have various interactions with more experienced members,

17
peers, and the artefacts associated with the CoP. Each of these might give
them a small amount of help towards understanding of and better
participation in the CoP’s practices, and therefore grant them a level of
access. As scaffolding occurs in interaction, we can identify and measure
moments of mentoring through discourse analysis. Identifying moments of
help in my data may therefore reveal a newcomer’s access to a CoP.
However, the discussion so far has only focused on ideal situations
in which the communities are often actively welcoming and integrating
new members. We must also recognise situations in which newcomers do
not become members in any capacity. I do this by locating my discussion
of framework and mentoring in the issue of how identity relates to access.
Negotiation of Identity
I have shown the importance of a CoP’s (institutional and socio-historical)
frameworks. Within these, access can be achieved through interactions
with CoP members via scaffolding, whether through mentors, peers or
community artefacts. I now turn to the issue of identity, as it will give us
insight into when and why framework and interaction do or do not lead to
access. I therefore give a brief reminder of the theory which acts as a base
for the discussion, before examining identity in two second language
classroom situations.
Theoretically, I described access to CoPs above firstly in terms of a
newcomer’s progression along a trajectory from peripheral participation to
some level of membership (Lave & Wenger, 1991). I then explored how
Wenger (1998) developed the idea of access using the terms engagement,
imagination, and alignment. Though each aspect gave us a different angle
to understand access, these terms all came down to the negotiation of
identity through interaction. Indeed, Lam (2004) shows two Chinese

18
learners of English as very not engaged with English study in the
classroom, but who later show great enthusiasm and learning as they align
themselves to participate in a Chinese-English bilingual chat room.
In this light, Iddings (2010) examined an American elementary
school classroom in which six students were Spanish L1 English
Language Learners (ELLs). She aimed to observe the extent of their
access through 30 hours of classroom and interview recordings and
collections of student artefacts. The teacher tried to teach them English
and integrate these ELLs into the classroom by giving them simplified
tasks based on a full activity. We could see this as a peripheral task,
however, Iddings concluded that the ELL students in fact developed a CoP
separate from the native students, suggesting a lack of access into the
classroom CoP (though it was never demonstrated to be one).
Iddings explained this in two ways. Firstly, the identities of different
students were given different value. That is, while most of the students
were allowed to explore their identity and express themselves, the ELL
students were denied this, instead often restricted to surface understanding
of a text, albeit it was because they lacked the knowledge to participate in
the full practice. These students were kept on the periphery because of
their lack of knowledge.
On top of this, the teacher and students communicated through
highly contextual, vague language (shared repertoire) which the ELL
students could not follow. For example, students were expected to ask
questions in a certain way, but the ELLs were not capable of this. In one
case, the teacher refused to answer an ELL’s question, referring vaguely to
a rule that she assumed everyone knew. Here was one of many examples
of a miscommunication which needed resolving. We see that access can

19
depend on different values placed on identities and the resolution, or lack
thereof, of miscommunications. However, Iddings does not explore the
ELL’s identities specifically, rather choosing to focus on how they are
viewed by the CoP.
Papargyris and Poulymenakou (2005) can help us explain this, as
they refer back to Wenger’s notion that newcomers must negotiate their
identities and align themselves with both the community’s demands and
their own imagined CoP. Idding’s (2010) students could not align
themselves with the community’s demands due to the language gap and
lack of access to full classroom practices. While we cannot know each
student’s identification with English, Idding’s observation that they
formed their own CoP suggests that they created their own identity as it
was offered to them – that of ELLs.
Taking Wenger’s (1998) modes of belonging, Norton (2001) shows
how non-participation and marginality relate to negotiation of identity.
When a newcomer aims to access a CoP, their identity defines how they
perceive it (an imagined community) and their desire to be a part of it.
However, upon interaction with the CoP they negotiate the meaning of
artefacts, members, or even practices in relation to their sociohistorical
experience and expectations. When this does not match up with their
imagined CoP, or if newcomers fail to align themselves with what they
perceive as reality, they may refuse to engage (non-participation) or be
rejected by members of the CoP (marginality).
Norton uses data from two immigrant language learners in Canada
to illustrate this. One English language learner, Katarina, desired to be
recognised as a professional teacher as she had been in her native country.
Her inbound trajectory into an imagined community of professionals was

20
cut off, however, when she perceived her ESL teacher to have labelled her
as only a student, not a peer. This may not have been the teacher’s
intention, but Katarina felt rejected from her imagined community, and
she chose to drop the course. Though she did not find access to her
imagined CoP here, Katarina may have found membership elsewhere. In
fact, Norton suggests that her “extreme acts of non-participation were acts
of alignment on [her] part to preserve the integrity of their imagined
communities” (Norton, 2001, p. 165).
In terms of my study, I must therefore look at both what an
individual desires to be, but also what they reject, moments where they are
not granted access, and how they resolve these issues either with the
community or within themselves. We can therefore expect both intra- and
inter-mental negotiations of identity to reveal access to a given
community, particularly where someone acts to realign themselves with
their imagined community.
To summarize, we began exploring access by summarizing
Wenger’s modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment.
We then looked to other literature, which identified three other areas
which point to access. First was the frameworks of the community, both as
enforced by institutional bodies and sociohistorically by the communities
themselves. We next saw the use of scaffolding by mentors and peers to
guide newcomers into communities. Finally, the issue of identity allowed
us to explore non-participation, in which newcomers only align
themselves with a CoP if and when they can negotiate their identity to
match the imagined community they desire, or negotiate that imagined
community itself by alignment with the CoP.

21
 Methodology
So far, I have presented the theory of learning from a CoP perspective,
expressing it in terms Negotiation of Meaning. Within this, I showed how
the factors of Mutual Engagement, Joint Enterprise, and Shared Repertoire
define a CoP, and so laid down the theory for identifying CoPs. I then
moved on to review the literature on learning in CoPs, showing how CoPs
in the literature are almost never defined, but merely presumed to exist.
This also allowed me to identify discourse analysis as an important tool in
researching interactions (and therefore learning) in CoPs.
It then became clear that learning in CoPs occurs for those who are
practicing members of the community, meaning that access to it is
paramount. I therefore identified three main ways in which previous
literature has described and measured access, including community
frameworks, the interaction of newcomers with some form of mentor, and
the negotiation of identities. However, we still observed that none of the
studies reviewed verified the existence of CoPs in the first place.
Research Questions
The first issue to investigate here, then, are whether CoPs truly exist in
virtual environments, as many studies have assumed. This will potentially
influence if and how learning occurs within VEs. The second follows from
this, and relates to the issue of access; if learning occurs within CoPs, one
must first become a member of such a community in order to participate in
that learning. Therefore, the research questions explored in this paper are:
1) Are there any identifiable practices in LoL which suggest the
existence of CoPs?
2) Is it possible for me to gain access to any of these practices, and
how is this access negotiated?

22
 Game context
The data for this study was collected entirely in and around the free online
game League of Legends (LoL). LoL is a MOBA (Multiplayer Online
Battle Arena, LoL Website) which puts two 5-player teams head to head
(player vs player, PvP) in an arena. Games last on average around 34
minutes, plus a 75 second queue (planning time) and post-game chat.
Players can play for free by selecting between ten champions (characters)
which are rotated from a selection of 121 (at time of writing) premium
characters on a weekly basis. Each champion has complex and unique
skills and attributes which must be understood to play the game well. The
creators intentionally make some champions more difficult to play than
others, intending for new players to pick the game up quickly, while
rewarding skilled players with difficult, but powerful, champions.
In order to gain victory in a game, you must protect your team’s
nexus (the centre of the base), while managing to destroy that of the
enemy. The game revolves around players using initially weak champions
to gather resources, control map objectives, and kill the enemy, which then
allows them to slowly build their champion by choosing spells and items
to augment their stats. However, because each player controls a different
champion and builds that champion differently, one has to have good
knowledge of how every champion and item plays and the potential
synergies between them. Therefore, to beat the enemy team players must
use their combined knowledge and work together, as only those who play
well as a team achieve victory.
Participants
The sole participant in this study was me, the researcher. I have been
living in South Korea for five years, and have reached an Advanced Low

23
proficiency in Korean (a self-assessment based on ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines, 2012) through social interactions with, among others, my
Korean wife and her family. I have never taken formal Korean language
classes. I have experience playing computer games, and consider myself
computer-literate, but have never made the transition to MMOGs, and
therefore playing LoL was a relatively new experience for me.
Studies of this type tend to collect upwards of 300 hours of
gameplay. This allows the subjects ample time to enter into CoPs and form
some kind of membership, and increases the reliability of the data
considerably. Unfortunately, the data collection for this thesis had to be
performed over the course of one summer, therefore this was not possible.
By putting in upwards of 12 hours of gameplay a week, I managed to
collect a total of 100 hours, which is still a reasonable amount, though not
ideal. Any more would have been impossible given the time constraints.
Data Sources
Three data sources were used in this study. The first, transcripts of in-
game interactions, relied on screen capture technology. Many studies rely
on chat logs for their data (e.g. Palmer, 2010; Papargyris &
Poulymenakou, 2005), but this was insufficient for the socially situated
perspective taken in this thesis. Chat logs merely provide linguistic
transfers between various interlocutors, and forsake much of the rich
context of the interactions. Screen capture technology, on the other hand,
allows us to record and access exactly what happened in an interaction
without the ethical questions and difficulty of recording everything
participants do, as they are all virtual characters. In short, screen capture
technology allows us access to the ecological components so central to

24
sociohistorical discourse analysis, as they can replay any moment as
desired.
The screen capture technology used was SmartPixel, a cheap and
lightweight programme which has minimal impact on a computer’s
resources and by extension in-game experience. It was important that the
technology was simple, as if the software were to take up too much of the
computer’s resources the player might experience lag (where the game
stutters), making the game virtually unplayable. For the same reason it was
essential to have a good internet connection, however this was not a
problem at the time in South Korea, where high-speed Wi-Fi was
common.
For the second data source, I recorded regular Game Session
Analyses (GSAs), which were designed to stimulate analysis of games
based on the principles of identifying CoPs outlined above, namely mutual
engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. They were therefore
filled with both field notes and responses to questions I designed to allow
insightful observations about CoPs (see Appendix). It was important to
record these as soon after each match as possible so that the insight
provided was both accurate, fresh, and not affected by later games. When
it was not possible to record GSAs straight away, as when multiple games
were played back-to-back or time did not allow for recording directly after
a game, GSAs were recorded within 24 hours at the latest.
I recorded 40 GSAs in total, and these formed an important part of
the data, offering insights about how I understood any practices or
communities I came across at particular points in time, and my position
within them. This, co-ordinated with video and transcript data, allowed a
strong retrospective analysis through which I identified moments of

25
negotiation and my thoughts about them, thereby constructing a detailed
projection of my trajectory into any given CoP.
Lastly, I kept a weekly diary about my experiences playing the
game. The aim of this was to provide a completely open, unguided forum
to express what I thought and felt about my experiences, and to enable a
less fine-grain analysis of the data. I therefore allowed for specific,
detailed analyses of each game, and a general, meta-perspective on my
overall progress.
On Studying One’s Self
It might be suggested that the researcher acting as the main (and only)
participant, especially while critically reflecting on the experience, could
affect the data somewhat; a researcher might have a metacognitive
awareness of their own learning, which normal participants do not. This
may well be true, especially for GSAs which were designed to allow
reflection on gameplay. However, this is to misunderstand the nature of
the theoretical view this thesis takes, whereby all language learners are by
definition part of multiple communities of practice and have multiple
identities which are shifting and causing others to change, too. Not only
this, but they are all open systems, and we must assume that each learner
may have some advantage over another in a given area. Indeed, from this
perspective my knowledge of language learning and education is merely a
part of my participation in another community of practice, and therefore a
part of the experiment.
That said, it is of course imperative to consider my own position as
a researcher as an important aspect of the results, just as the sociohistory
of any learner must be considered in analysis. Therefore I worked to
provide different forms of data in the form of screen capture, diary-

26
writing, and field notes (GSAs), which, when triangulated (see Duff,
2008), should log and account for all possible communication and
environmental factors. Indeed, Ochs and Schieffelin (2011), suggest that
for sociological data to be ecologically valid, it must include “all relevant
macro- and micro-dimensions of context; […] incorporate whole events
and behaviour rather than short strips of time” and should be
“systematically documented through audiotape, videotape, and careful
field note records of interaction” (p. 341-2). My proposed data collection
provides all of these elements, and should as such allow me to notice
emergent patterns in the accumulation of data.
Analysis
To round off my methodology I need to lay out how the data collected was
used and analysed. I therefore first present the theoretical approach of my
analysis, followed by the units of analysis, and lastly the process through
which I came to my results.
Discourse
All transcribed data collected in this study were put through discourse
analysis. As I took a situated sociocultural approach, the analysis was
based upon Gee’s (2014) discourse theory and method of analysis. Such
an approach focuses on people’s discourse and interactions (which he
labels discourse, with a small d), but places them in any present larger
sociohistorical contexts (labelled Discourse, with a capital D). In this
sense, Gee’s discourse analysis is truly situated, in that Discourse reveals
the relationships between different people, their surroundings, and their
values. It describes how people express “ways of thinking, acting,
integrating, valuing, feeling, believing, and using symbols, tools, and
objects in the right places and at the right times so as to … give the

27
material world certain meanings” (Gee, 2014, p. 13). Thus considering
Discourse when analysing discourse is important, as it provides a specific
lens which can alter meaning. To the greatest extent possible, then, we
need to understand the larger social issues and norms surrounding each
and every interaction, and must take a discourse in its original physical,
social, and historical context.
Analyzing Discourse
Performing discourse analysis in a study about CoPs provides a unique
challenge and opportunity, as by definition outsiders cannot know the
various Discourses at play inside the CoP. I discussed above that
membership in a CoP includes mastering and negotiation a shared
repertoire (a collection of meanings and shared understandings that mark
membership) which can only be understood through extended practice
(Wenger, 1998). An informed discourse analysis can only be performed
with inside perspectives on the CoP, and therefore the discourse analysis
here only worked in as far as I became a member of any communities
present within the data.
As such, all analysis took place after data collection, and
represented my understanding of the community and my access to it at the
point of writing. As an example of this, I translated all data using my
knowledge of Korean and the language used by the community, and then
had it checked by a Korean speaker. However, the Korean speaker also
had to refer back to me extensively for clarification when dealing with
terms and language which are specific to or require knowledge of LoL and
Korean gaming Discourses (contexts).
I do not see this as a weakness or problem from my approach, as, by
definition, every member of a CoP is always negotiating their position,

28
practice, and trajectory within (or without) the community. The same
would be true of any member, thus making my own understanding of the
community no less valid than anyone else’s.
Functions
When identifying practices and access in the data, speech acts were used
as initial units of analysis following Palmer (2010). This term, however, is
theoretically burdensome, and so I opted to describe these speech acts
(such as greetings, apologies, or insults) as language functions, as is more
common in second language research. I used Palmer’s observations of
speech acts as a guide for what to look for in the data, but also kept an eye
out for functions which emerged from the data as I progressed into the
community.
The following data, taken from game 090, provide examples of
function coding. This example reveals how difficult coding functions in
this context was, as the transcripts were all written (that is, typed). Even
locating the data sociohistorically often did not reveal the precise function,
or the motivation behind it. For example, (a) was coded as showing Master
Yi either accusing or complaining, but it could just as well be a genuine
question. The other turns are equally ambiguous, with Sona asking Annie
for help (c). While we can interpret this simply as asking for help, it is also
important to know the reason for the request. We cannot know if it is out
of frustration, as with Master Yi’s turn, a result of previous interactions, or
any other interpretation. This is a common problem when dealing with
computer-mediated communication, and has led researchers to both
analyse the issue and develop ways around it (e.g. Neviarouskaya,
Prendinger, & Ishizuka, 2007).

29
 Example from data Function
마스터 이: 왜안들어와
Accusation,
a Master Yi: Why didn’t you come in[to the
complaint
fight]
마스터 이: 갱같는데 Supporting (of
b Master Yi: I ganked for you accusation)
나: 애니 돠좀
Call for assistance
c Sona: Annie, help me
룰루: ㅜㅜ ㅅ
d Lulu:  JS [sorry] 
Apology

마스터 이: 들어오면이기는데 Explaining

e Master Yi: We would’ve won if you joined complaint
마스터 이: ㄱ
Reassurance
f Master Yi: GC [it’s alright]

Despite the coding of functions presenting some difficulties, it still

provided a basic framework for analysing results. The functions
themselves were not the goal, rather, by searching for functions within
interactions at various points in the data I was able to identify specific LoL
practices in which I participated. The ways in which interaction and use of
functions changed throughout the data also acted as markers of access to
the CoP, and form a significant part of the data.
Analytic Procedure
In order to reach my results I analysed the data in the following way.
Firstly, I went through all transcripts looking for salient moments of
interaction, and, referring to the videos for social context, coded and
collated them with the appropriate functions. These were organised and
sorted into possible practices found in the data. I then cross-referenced
these with GSAs to provide the sociohistorical context of each data point
and chart both evidence of these practices and possible trajectories I

30
noticed or took into the CoPs around them. These were again cross-
referenced to diary entries, which provided a meta-perspective on all the
data, and confirmed or challenged the coding scheme. Whenever a code
did not fit with the GSAs or diary entries, it was re-examined and resolved
where possible.
As explained above, having begun my analysis by looking at salient
functions, I realised that these would be most helpful when tied to the
issue of access by examining the practices they reveal. I therefore present
the results below not in order of function, as this is not the focus of the
study, but rather present the practices of CoPs that were revealed, and
aspects of access into them.
I present the results in light of the literature reviewed above. Firstly
I detail any frameworks that are evident (Schlager et al., 2002), followed
by the presence or absence of scaffolding (graduated help provided by
mentors, peers or artefacts) in interaction with individuals, and, most
importantly, the negotiation of identities (Iddings, 2009; Kim & Duff,
2012; Norton, 2001). This will allow me to reach conclusions on how, if it
all, a newcomer can gain various types of access to a community, and
therefore the viability of learning in LoL.

31
 Results
Before getting into the results, we must understand a number of LoL
concepts and terms. On top of the brief description of LoL given above, I
will further explain the concepts of Lanes and Warding. It should be noted
that I knew none of these before collecting data, and all knowledge was
built in-game.
The standard LoL arena is a square, with a base (nexus) in two
opposing corners. The space between these is entirely navigable, but there
are three main lanes champions traverse, labelled top, mid, and bottom
(see figure 1). There are three allied and three enemy turrets spaced along
each lane which provide defense and must be destroyed to reach the nexus
safely. The lanes all meet a central shallow river area, allowing lane swaps
and an open area to fight in. Between these lanes is a jungle area, a
complex series of narrow passages filled with neutral monsters, many of
which provide buffs (temporary stat increases). As there are five

Figure 1 The standard LoL "Summoner’s Rift" arena, showing the main routes

32
 champions per team, each champion takes one area each, resulting in a
top, mid, bottom, and jungle champion. The last champion acts as a
support, and normally travels in the bottom lane.
Figure 2 The line is pushed to the enemy's tower with a ward placed to lift
the fog of war and reveal ganks.

○
C

○
B

○
A
○
D

At intervals of 30 seconds, minions (small monsters) are released in

waves from each nexus and form lines down each lane. Each team kills
minions to collect gold for items, and either pushes or pulls the point
where the minion lines meet (see figure 2, point A), thereby applying or
easing pressure on each lane. Applying pressure by pushing the line to a
turret (point B), as has been done in figure 2, allows a team to attack the
turret, but it also leave the pushing player open to ganks. This is when a
champion moves to another lane and performs a surprise attack on the
enemy, trying to kill them or at least force a retreat. These are most often
performed by the jungler, as they are hidden in the jungle’s fog of war
(point C - the grey area of the map which signifies the extent of your
vision). The best way to prevent a gank is to remove the fog of war, which
is usually done through placing wards (warding, point D). Wards are

33
immobile items which, once placed on the map, provide vision in a small
area for a set time. Strategic use of wards through warding can warn a
pushed lane against ganks, and offer protection by prevention.
I now turn to the data in order to explore my research questions. I
first present sections of the data which point to the existence of CoPs
(RQ1), focusing on Mutual Engagement, Joint Enterprise, and Shared
Repertoire (Wenger, 1998). I then examine access to whichever CoPs
emerge (RQ2) in terms of its framework, the mentoring therein, and the
negotiation of identity throughout.
The Existence of CoPs
Mutual Engagement
Before every blind-pick game of LoL, players are randomly placed in a
queue (champion select) with 9 others. Here they have 75 seconds to
negotiate the roles and champions each player will take through avatars
and a chat box. This emerged from the data as the foremost site of mutual
engagement, as it is perceived that successful negotiation in queue greatly
increases a team’s chances of winning a match. Similarly, games are often
lost when one or more players do not engage in the practice of negotiating
roles, creating a stigma about leaving games. Nevertheless, players often
choose not to engage in the negotiation if they do not get to play the role
or champion they want, making the queue a key moment.
This is clear from the following discourse from game 100 (G100),
where we see four players fighting for top lane. Though I attempted to
negotiate roles, there are also threats (Line 2: “I’ll throw the game” [play
badly]), and one player forced the queue to close. This is a clear example
of players failing to engage mutually by not negotiating their roles.

34
 G100
Jang: I’m going top whatever
1 무장: 들어도 제가 탑가
you say
2 헹헹힝: 던진다 시 1 발 Ho: I’ll throw the fu1cking game
3 User45: 나도 갈거 User45: I’m top too
4 헹헹: 탑만 4 명이다… Ho: 4 people going top alone…
*all names in queue shown in English are simplified abbreviations
We also see moments of this in-game when players go afk (away
from keyboard [leave the game]), as shown in the GSA for G092. By
leaving the game, a team is left to fight 4v5 and their chances of winning
are greatly reduced. Such situations are common at lower levels where
players often only know just one role, and refuse to engage when they do
not get it.
G092
BD quit the game after 7 mins. This is seriously frowned upon,
as it forces the team to lose. But they claimed it was urgent…
Happened in G095, too. Getting bored of it!
However, there were also plentiful examples of mutual engagement
occurring. The data for G100 continues in a new queue. Four players have
already claimed their roles, and Hwa is left with Jungle, which was not
claimed. However, as they express their inexperience (line 6), Ya requests
that someone change roles (line 7), which I (Tom) then fulfil (line 9). Hwa
ends up taking mid lane, and I go for the jungle. The team proceeded to
have an excellent game, which we won. Such examples of successful
negotiation of roles were more common later in the data (at higher levels),
while refusal to negotiate was less common, though ever-present.

35
 G100
5 야이코: 정글남음 Ya*: Only Jungle left

6 화연초: 정글은 한번도 Hwa: I’ve never tried jungle before

안해봤어 …
7 화연초: 어 하는지도 몰라 Hwa: I’ve no idea how to do it :’(

8 야이코: 정글할줄아는사람이좀.. Ya: Could someone who can

jungle...?
9 토마스 : 그럼 ㅁㄷ가 , 제가 TOM*: Then you go mid, I’ll
정글 jungle
*Caps are used to represent my presence in each game from here on
Lastly, the data revealed that it was very rare to meet players more
than once unless intentionally playing with a friend. Therefore, any mutual
engagement between these specific players that occurred was mostly for
the span of one game (up to 60 minutes), after which it ended. For
example, in G064 we see players surprised to have met again. This kind of
exchange only occurred three times in the data, though there may be more
examples where players did not realise they were paired with someone
they knew.

G064
10 By: 아 꽃꽃꽃님 또만나 By: Oh, Flower, we meet
again lol
11 꽃: Flower: lol
12 By: 연 3 판 같은팀; By: Same team three times
in a row!
Joint Enterprise
In searching for Joint Enterprises, I found various references to both short-
term goals and long-term goals, often referred to when players encouraged
each other or commented on the game. For example, in G113 we find
players chatting about how long they had been playing LoL that day. Here

36
 Tryndamere reveals he is trying to reach level 30 as quickly as possible
(line 18), and put in a lot of game hours for it. To put this in context,
playing matches in LoL grants experience, which allows you to level up.
The maximum level is 30, at which point you are allowed to enter ranked
matches and play more competitively (an explanation of this is provided in
section 5.2.1.). The practice of levelling up and reaching level 30 is
important, and appears elsewhere in the data, such as Viktor asking a
friend in G041: “When will we reach 30”.

G113
13 야스오: 오늘만 롤 5 시간한듯 Yasuo*: I’m on 5 hours today
alone
14 트린다미르: 난 9 시간 Tryndamere: I’ve played 9 hours

15 야스오: 야스오로만 헐 Yasuo: Only with Yasuo lol omg

16 케일: 뭐지 Kayle: What the… lol

17 야스오: 폐인?~! Yasuo: You’re still alive?!

18 트린다미르: 빨리 렙 30 을라고 Tryndamere: Trying to reach

lvl30 quickly
* Players usually refer to each other in-game by champion name, not ID.

Winning games provides more experience, and so there are many

more practices which support that of reaching level 30. These generally
revolve around winning, and include discussing strategy, reviewing plays,
and identifying weaknesses. However, the main focus here is the
pushing/pulling of lines and warding. These practices will be the main
focus of my results, and receive fuller treatment below.
Shared Repertoire
Due to the complexity of LoL, players make extensive use of jargon, even
without including the names of champions, their abilities, and items.

37
 However, more interestingly the data was marked by excessive
abbreviation. As chatting in-game needs to be fast (early in the data many
ganks were not seen due to typing), there is little focus on accuracy and a
lot on efficiency. Therefore, players make use of a shared repertoire of
abbreviations, as shown in G049. We can see it is common for to write

two letters, the first of each syllable, in this community. ㄴㄴ (nn, literally

“no no” was particularly common to warn teammates not to do something

quickly, as was ㄱㄱ (gg, literally “go go”) to signal teammates to go

ahead with something. This kind of language is used extensively,

particularly during intense game moments when brevity is rewarded with
crucial moments for skilled plays, but is thus difficult for those outside the
group to understand without someone providing the meaning, or extensive
observation of the term in use, as in a CoP.

G049
19 블리츠크랭크: Blitzcrank: tt [Top]
20 다리우스: ㅅ Darius: js [Sorry]
21 블리츠크랭크: ㄱㄷㄱㄷ Blitzcrank: gdgd [wait wait]
22 블리츠크랭크: 앞으로 ㄴㄴ Blitzcrank: Ahead nn [not any more]
23 블리츠크랭크: ㄱㄱ Blitzcrank: gg [go go]

Access and Framework

In revealing how the frameworks of CoPs allow and encourage access, I
used Schlager et al. (2002) as a guideline. Above I highlighted four main
foci, and while elements of each emerged from the data, the most salient
points came from points one and two. The first was whether LoL supports
a variety of practices and groups, and then if it allows the negotiation of
discourse objects (artefacts). I also distinguished between the institutional

38
and sociohistorical frameworks of CoPs. With this in mind, the two most
salient frameworks that emerged from the data were levelling up and the
meta-game, which I now proceed to describe.
Leveling up
In 5.1.2., I identified winning games and reaching level 30 as key
practices. I go into more detail about these here, as they form a major
institutional framework of LoL. I explained above that an institutional
framework refers to those elements of the game which are fixed and
controlled by an official body or company - some kind of institution. This
section therefore presents how the creators of LoL, Riot Games, have
created and developed a framework in which CoPs might thrive.
The game gets its name from an actual league system which ranks
players globally according to their ability and recent match history.
Players are placed in one of 25 leagues ranging from Bronze V to
Platinum I, with professional competitions above this, and work towards
increasing their ranking. However, in order to be placed into a league the
software requires that you reach level 30, hence the practice of levelling.
The game also dictates how a player gets to this point.
When first playing LoL the game forces you to play beginner AI
games (computer opponents, Human allies). The idea here is to “[allow]
you to interact with other summoners [players] and tailor AI's difficulty to
your skill level” (LoL website). When the player has achieved a few levels
and can beat the beginner AI successfully, they are then allowed to play
intermediate AI and PvP (player vs player) matches, but this is a big step
up. Indeed, at lower levels trying out new champions playing in PvP is
actually frowned upon. For example, in G033, a PvP match, Cho’Gath
(line 26) complains about this very problem.

39
 G033
24 럭스: 첨임? Lux: Your first time? [as Zillean]
25 질리언: Zillean: YY [Yeah]
26 초가스: 첨이면 ai 부터 하는게 CHO’GATH: If it’s your first
좋은데.. time it’s better to start with ai…
The Game Session Analysis for G097 also attested to this, saying that “AI
is really full up of amateurs […] trying a new champion for the first time
in a safe, low-risk environment”. Players are made to slowly build up
experience (grind), which pushes them up towards level 30, with various
artefacts unlocking along the way. In the end, the league a level 30 player
is placed in depends on how much knowledge they have built up and the
skill with which they can participate in the CoP’s practices. At a certain
point, players aiming to play ranked games leave AI matches behind, and
they should become too easy. In G110, I was encouraged into PvP (player
vs player) games for this very reason.

G110
27 토마스 : 해보자 TOM: Let’s give it a go [PvP]
28 Ballon: 뭐, pvp 하면서 Ballon: Well, when you play PvP
29 Ballon: 실력 느는거니깐 Ballon: You improve your
gameplay
30 토마스 : TOM: YY [Yup!]

The levelling system acts as a very clearly defined framework in

which players have to work to meet on of the community’s main practices.
However, as we see in the examples, the community negotiates how they
understand this throughout time. Indeed, the occasional presence of Gold-
tier ranked players in non-ranked matches shows that ranked matches are
not the end, and ranked players might play them for other reasons.

40
 The Meta-Game
Within the institutional framework above, there are also sociohistorical
frameworks in place, that is, those frameworks created, developed, and
maintained by the community, intentionally or not. The meta-game of LoL
refers to a widespread, emergent social understanding of how the game is
best played, and has many nuances. A significant part of this occurs in the
queue as described above, and also in the early game. I explained that
players negotiate roles and champions within the queue. Exactly which
champions fit which roles is not defined explicitly by the game; players
are free to choose any champion for any role. Nevertheless, there are
traceable social patterns about which champions fit which roles, such as
that bottom lane should choose an “AD carry [attack damage carry]”
champion (that starts very weak but is unstoppable late-game), and they
should be joined by a support (who can protect the carry from ganks until
they are strong). Practicing outside of this meta-game often leads to in-
game negotiation and conflict, as choosing an off-meta champion is much
riskier than what are considered safe picks.
At the beginning of G087, we see an example of a team discussing
which choices the enemy team made in queue to find out whom they will
be facing in lane. In this short exchange, the enemy Ashe has chosen top
lane despite being an AD carry (line 31), and is therefore very vulnerable
in the early game. According to the meta-game, we would expect our top
laner to dominate the lane easily, and the jungler to kill Ashe early on in a
gank. The enemy having no jungler (line 32, 34) also means the team
should be much safer from ganks. However, the enemy Ashe played very
well, and one of our players going afk (away from keyboard - leaving the
game) early on meant our team lost the game.

41
 G087
31 잭스: 상 애쉬가 탑이네 Jax: The enemy Ashe is top!
32 잭스: 정글 Jax: Jungler
33 나: 쉽겠네 SONA: That’ll be easy, then
34 잭스: 없다 Jax: There isn’t one

The two concepts introduced above, pushing / pulling lanes and

warding, also form a part of the meta-game which is negotiated
sociohistorically. These techniques are not defined by the game, and are
not immediately obvious. Indeed, it is not until later games we see pushing
and pulling lanes discussed or mentioned as a common practice (G122),
and even then it has to be socially negotiated.

G122
35 리신: 라인만빼 Lee Sin: Pull away from the line.
36 리신: 제가 배달 ㄱㄱ씽함 Lee Sin: Then I’ll deliver [a gank]

Likewise, warding (placing wards) is a sociohistorical framework

players are aware of (they are the only free items) but do not practice early
on. There is no institutional framework for their use, but the
sociohistorical framework can be seen in G061. Here Lux tells me
(Karma) to place a ward (line 37). As soon as I do, Master Yi uses the
vision we gain to warn me of a gank (line 38), and I retreat to safety while
asking for assistance. This reveals a clear negotiation of wards as valuable
artefacts, stemming from the sociohistorical structure to which Lux, a
more experienced player, provides access.

42
 G061
37 럭스: 카르마님 수풀에 와딩점 Lux: Karma, put a ward in the
갱조심하게 jungle to watch for ganks.
38 마스터 이님이 위험 신 를 보냄 Master Yi signals to be careful

39 럭스: 다 이당 Lux: That was lucky

40 카르마님이 지원 청을 보냄 KARMA signals for assistance

41 럭스: 갱올것같아서 와드박으니 Lux: We put a ward down as it

딱 갱이온.. looked like you’d be ganked, and
a gank comes!
Access and Mentoring
My last point about experienced players naturally leads into the issue of
mentoring. I presented access through mentoring in terms of more
experienced or official members of the community who interact with
newer (incoming) members to provide access, and the levels of scaffolding
towards effective practice both more experienced members and peers can
provide. Though I present examples of mentoring and scaffolding below, I
cannot make a judgment on any individual’s seniority in the community.
There is a practice in LoL where very experienced players sometimes
create low-level second accounts to play on (smurfs). Though there is no
room to detail this practice further, it casts doubt on the level of
membership of a player in any match, and I cannot include it as part of the
results.
The one example where this was not the case was a friendship I

made with BallonDor 존스 (Ballon). We began playing at a similar time,

and were initially peers, but he played a lot more than me, reached ranked
matches when I was level 20, and ended up providing scaffolding to me.
This included explicit help with understanding champions and their

43
abilities, how to use items effectively, and even pushing and pulling the
line. For example, in G139, I (Morgana, line 43) state that I know to
“back” (return to the nexus to heal), however the recording reveals that I
did not understand this practice as Ballon (Ashe) described it.

G139
42 애쉬: 토마스 , 집가야되 Ashe: Tom, you have to back
43 모르가나: 알아 MORGANA: I know
44 애쉬: 라인 밀어져있으면 Ashe: When the line has been pushed
45 애쉬: 집가는게 올아 Ashe: It’s best to back

I knew to back periodically, but I hadn’t made the connection with

pushing the line, a relatively new concept to me at the time. If Ballon
hadn’t provided help in this moment, it would have taken a lot longer for
me to better participate in this practice.
There were also many examples of scaffolding from players I didn’t
know. For example, Master Yi directs me in G052, again on the subject of
pushing/pulling lines, explaining that, in order to gank, the line must not
be pushed (line 47, 48). If the line is pushed to the turret (as it was in
figure 2), anyone who ganks the enemy champion will be attacked by the
turret (common when “diving”, line 48), which, as it deals a lot of damage,
makes a gank very risky. Therefore, Yi urges me to leave the line (line
46), allowing the enemy champions to move into a more vulnerable
position away from their turret. The interaction provides clear and useful
knowledge about a practice which can lead others to participate more
effectively in a specific practice later.

44
 G052
46 마스터 이: 라인빼놔 Master Yi: Come away from the line

47 마스터 이: 라인그 게밀면 Master Yi: If you push it like that

48 마스터 이: 포탑다이브하란 Master Yi: It means I have to dive

린데
49 마스터 이: 지금 피없음 Master Yi: [I don’t have] enough
health right now
Access through Identity
Lastly, I have explained that all forms of access are irrelevant if the
newcomer chooses not to participate, or if they are rejected in some way.
This led us to see that access is tied up closely with identity. I therefore
explored the data for changes in my identity over time, in both the positive
and negative senses. I first present data related to my practice in
pushing/pushing the line, completing the examples given above. I then
explore how my trajectory into the meta-game developed, specifically in
the support role, where my practice developed substantially, but was not
entirely accepted.
Practicing Pushing/Pulling Lines
Throughout my results I have presented data in which I negotiated the
pushing and pulling of lanes. This came from early games in which others
presented the practice to me, but (recordings showed that) I didn’t
understand the practice. Indeed, I (Here, Leona) even directed others using
the term without understanding it fully (G117).

G117
50 오나: 라인댕길게여 LEONA: I’ll pull the line
51 오나: ㅅㅅ LEONA: SS [Good work]

45
Not only did the usage of this phrase not make sense in the context, but I
didn’t proceed to do anything to the line at all. However, the data from
later games shows that I had successfully understood and begun to
participate in the practice (G137). Here I (Morgana, a support) instruct
Caitlyn, the AD carry, not to push the lane, as it makes it harder to kill the
enemy. This relates directly to the data where Master Yi explained
pushing and ganking above.

G137
52 모르가나: 너무 밀지마 MORGANA: Don’t push too much

53 모르가나: 밀지말라고 MORGANA: I said don’t push

54 케이틀린: Caitlyn: YY [Ok]

55 모르가나: 밀면 못 여 MORGANA: If you push we can’t kill

[the enemy champions]
[TA1]I eventually became so confident in the practice that in the
GSA for G159 I complained that “people don’t seem to understand about
pushing lane” making it “hard to attack. I wish people wouldn’t push”.
I can therefore chart my progression from being a compete
newcomer to having enough confidence and authority in the CoP to
participate in this specific practice.
Practicing the Support Role
For the last part of the results I present the development of my place in the
meta-game. I have shown how it is important for all players in LoL to
understand the meta-game, and have knowledge of every champion.
However, to be really good it is common for players to form practices
around a certain role and a few champions. I realized this in diary entry 4
(around G080), where I state I began focusing “on developing [our] ability
and identity in one certain role: that of support”. I present a few key data

46
points below which demonstrate my trajectory through the practice of the
role.
I first tried the support role early on (G026), and it was clear that I
had very limited knowledge of the role. The data reveals the relationship
between the bottom lane roles of AD carry and support, described above.
As the support’s role is to allow the carry to safely gather resources and
kills, often by placing wards and fending off the enemy, they are a more
passive role. As killing minions (measured by your “creep score”, CS)
provides gold (to buy items), the support is supposed to let the AD carry
kill all the minions. However, in G026 we see that I (Alistar) did not
understand this, and instead kept killing the minions (line 56, 29, 60).
Twitch was also angry that I tried to kill the enemy, when this, too, is
supposed to provide a carry with needed experience and gold. Instead of
kills, a support is supposed to build up assists, where they damage and
apprehend the enemy so the carry can kill them.
G026
56 트위치: 시에스먹지망 Twitch: Don’t take the CS
57 트위치: 먹지말라고 Twitch: I said don’t take it!
58 알리스타: 죄송 ALISTAR: Sorry :’(
59 트위치: 때리자마 Twitch: Don’t hit them [the minions]
60 트위치: 건들지말라고 Twitch: I said don’t touch them

I understood this much better by G060, though it was still an intermediate

AI game. BD, the friend introduced above, mentions my assist score to
encourage me after a hard game (lines 61, 62). While there was much to
improve on, me getting lots of assists was important to our team winning
the game (line 65).

47
 G060
61 BallonDor 존스: 토마스 어시 봐 Ballon: Tom, look at your assi
62 BallonDor 존스: 18 이야, 단해 Ballon: You got 18, that’s
awesome
63 토: 18? 아 Tom: 18? Oh
64 BallonDor 존스: 응어시스트 Ballon: Yeah, assists
65 BallonDor 존스: 토마스 때문에 Ballon: We got 18 kills thanks to
적을 18 번 처치 어 you
However, G080 shows that I was still far off participating effectively as a
support, as we see the AD carry, Tristana, complaining about me (Sona).
Though this excerpt again mentions attacking minions (as in G026), the
recording reveals the meaning to be different. In this case, I had only taken
two minions by accident, but Tristana was complaining that I was
attacking minions to reduce their health, causing them to die faster and
thus pushing the lane (which I did not understand at this point). This
meant that as soon as I backed, Tristana was left open to a gank which I
could have easily prevented.

G080
66 트리스타나: 아니 나 진짜 Tristana: Ah, Sona, you’re so
답답한 frustrating
67 나: 나 집갈땐 좀 조심하지 SONA: You should be careful when
I back
68 이블린: 트타형 못하면서 Evelyn: Tris[tana], you can’t talk

69 트리스타나: 너 쉿 나가 Tristana: Shut up, Sona’s attacking

칼질한다 이새끼야 minions, the son of a bitch

In the end, I clearly had a place in the community [TA2]as a decent

support. We see Die7 discussing how G126 went in post-game chat.
Where before I had prevented the AD carry from growing strong by
stealing their minions and kills, I now provided so well for the AD carry

48
that they were able to gain strength and carry [cause us to win] the game.
This practice is in direct line with the meta-game, and a sign of successful
participation.

G126
70 Die7: 오나님후더럳, Die7: Leona [me] was scary, so f-ing
ㄴ잘하셔;; good
71 Die7: 오나님이 Die7: Leona looked after us at the
초반에잘해 셔서 start
72 Die7: 루시안님잘크고 Die7: So Lucian grew nicely

73 Die7: 루시안님이 Die7: and Lucian [was able to carry]

It should be noted, however, that though this game was successful, games
after this point were not all as positive. The extent of positive comments
increased, but we must remember that every game involves random
players, and identities must be established through practice and negotiated
anew every time.[TA3]

49
 Discussion
The Existence of CoPs
The first research question in this paper involved the existence of CoPs in
LoL, based on Wenger’s (1998) theories of Mutual Engagement, Joint
Enterprise, and Shared Repertoire. My data showed all three of these to be
present to some extent, suggesting that LoL does support CoPs. However,
we must more accurately explore these based on the data presented.
Much of my evidence for CoPs revolves around the practice of
negotiating roles in the queue. We saw that players used knowledge of
champions and the meta-game (shared repertoire) to select a team of
champions that they hope will provide them the tools to win the game
(joint enterprise), and therefore reach level 30, a main practice. However,
it was clear that not all players in the queue shared these goals, and were
perhaps engaging in different practices. We can point to practices and
examples of evidence, but exactly who is part of a CoP, and how we
define the limits of it are problematic.
Indeed, one of Wenger’s key arguments about CoPs is that they
cannot form for a short time, but take time to grow and develop – they
need a sociohistory. The way I played LoL involved short matches with
random players, so we are left with the problem of accounting for CoP-
like evidence, such as an extensive knowledge-building and negotiation of
practices, despite players often not knowing each other. I propose that
there are two ways of theorizing the issue.
The first is to apply Wenger’s modes of belonging (engagement,
imagination, and alignment) critically in light of the newcomer’s identity,
as in Norton (2001). I explained above that Norton sees a newcomer’s
non-participation in a community in terms of a conflict between their

50
imagined community and the practice of a mentor who represented access
to that community. In the same way, as a newcomer begins to play LoL
they will have specific reasons for doing so (though not always
consciously) tied up in their identity. The way they view the CoP they are
trying to access (their imagined community) will guide the interactions
they have, and every negotiation of meaning they encounter with
individuals and artefacts within the CoP will force a negotiation of their
identity, and the imagined community. The culmination of this experience
along with interactions with many individuals means that, assuming the
individual continues to engage with and participate in the CoP, they will
develop an identity as a part of that imagined CoP.
Norton compares this to the experience of nationality. People in a
given country are raised in different communities and may have a range of
different practices. They create an identity as a citizen of their country
based on their experience, and have a mental perception of the kinds of
people and practices within it – though they do not participate in all of
them, nor know all citizens. When two strangers with the same nationality
meet, therefore, it is usually not difficult for them to find a level of
affinity, and to recognise the other as a member of the same community.
They might even make use of a shared repertoire and engage in a practice
together, be it a simple greeting. In the same way, any large group of
people can potentially form a CoP despite not truly knowing other
members. As long as there is a negotiated sociohistory established which
members can share in and identify with.
Though discussing LoL in this way allows me to theorize how my
evidence fits with Wenger’s theory, it is not truly satisfactory in that it
muddies the situation further. To bring some clarity to the issue, I

51
therefore introduce Gee’s (2005) consideration of CoPs as located in
semiotic spaces. Gee addresses many of the issues I have presented here,
including the lack of personal ties and the difficulty of identifying
boundaries (and therefore membership).
Rather than discussing CoPs in terms of membership, as my
exploration of access (how to become a member) has done here, he instead
focused on spaces. This isn’t to say that membership is not important, but
rather the difficulty of defining and measuring it provides an unhelpful
starting point for research. Using the same concept of nationality, Gee
suggests that rather than looking for people who are Korean, we should
look for the geographical location of Korea and study the practices of
those within the space to identify who is and is not Korean. Naturally this
will not reveal all Koreans, but it gives a rich starting point to learn about
what it means to be Korean and the practices of these people. In the same
way, rather than looking for members of a community, we might profit
from taking a specific space and identifying the practices which occur
there as a starting point.
The analogy has its limits – an entire country is too vast to perform
research on at the CoP level. However, the point holds in that rather than
looking for a certain group, beginning at a space may yield better research.
In my thesis, I happened to be studying the cyber-geographic location of
LoL, as one might happen to study Korea in the analogy above. However,
this was not my initial approach at a fine-grain level. I searched for
practices and CoPs in the interaction between individuals, going through
language functions to categorize practices. What I found, however, as
evidenced in my results, was that a lot of the data did, in fact, congregate
around specific (cyber-) geographical locations, such as the pre-game

52
queue. We could even suggest that certain situations at certain times also
acted as sociohistorical “locations”, such as the practice of warding when
a line has been pushed to the enemy tower. Beginning from such a point
may have saved time and yielded better data, as would the initial
identification of different spaces.
Let us explore the implications of this approach on my data. I
identified the lack of long-term interaction with known individuals as a
major problem in the data, though Norton (2001) helped me theorize it.
We cannot easily identify who is a member of a CoP if we cannot see
relationships between people, as there is nothing tying them explicitly
together. We cannot know that two people performing a similar practice
are actually engaging in the same CoP. However, if we instead take as our
starting point a space, we can then suppose that, as two people are
performing a similar practice in a similar space, say the LoL queue, they
are therefore part of the same CoP.
Indeed, taking this approach reduces the need to talk about CoPs
through membership, though the theory behind it stands. Rather, we can
explore learning from the perspective of how people within a set space
participate in and negotiate emergent practices. In the sense that the LoL
software itself is a space containing multiple spaces, we can effectively
talk about the global LoL community as a meta-CoP with millions of
members (as with a nationality), with many smaller CoPs within this
depending on level, role, time, and space. Therefore, though I have
provided an alternative theoretical framework for the data, it still stands
that a newcomer to a CoP / semiotic space may find themselves with
issues of access similar to those6 I presented above.

53
 Access to CoPs
The second research question asked if and how it is possible to gain access
to the practices of CoPs. I specifically chose three closely related aspects
of access to investigate this, namely framework (Schlager et al., 2002),
mentoring (ibid., Papargyris & Poulymenakou, 2005), and identity
(Iddings, 2010, Norton, 2001).
Overall, it was clear that I gained a certain level of access to a meta-
CoP (global semiotic space), and participated well in some important
practices. My data revolved around these practices, as each pointed to
specific communities within the meta-CoP. These were leveling up (to
ranked matches), understanding and negotiating the meta-game and
identity within it, and the specific practice of pushing and pulling lines and
warding.
By bringing these together, we can observe different levels of
access. In LoL, all access is primarily defined by the software itself
(institutionally, Schlager et al., 2002), in that the creators provide both the
platform and the premise of the game. For example, one of the key
practices of the community I found was winning matches to reach ranked
level. Riot Games, the institution, forces players to grind through 30 levels
of AI and PvP matches. Players cannot get around this. That said,
throughout this process the community of players negotiate the meaning
and importance of what the institution provides, creating a meta-game
which includes artefacts and practices through, for example, interactions
between newcomers and smurfs and in personal relationships. The
institution has very little control over this.
This sociohistoric framework is highly complex, and it is clear that
newcomers only have good opportunities to gain the necessary knowledge

54
when it is provided to them through some form of scaffolding (Lantolf,
2000), be it a mentor (Papargyris & Poulymenakou, 2005) or an allied
champion expressing anger at what the meta-CoP recognizes as misplays.
While knowledge can be built up through interaction with community
artefacts themselves just by playing the game, the interactions shown
above reveal just how much more effective learning can be given access to
a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), particularly in understanding
their use of language.
However, this positive light is offset somewhat by the final aspect
of identity, upon which everything else relies. I demonstrated through two
different practices (pushing/pulling lines and playing support role), that
moving along a trajectory into a community takes a lot of time, effort, and
negotiation. Indeed, at the time of writing I still have not fully completed
practices associated with reaching ranked matches, at which point whole
new types of community practice opens up (climbing the league through
ranked games), and a whole new process of access and learning begins.
The problem this presents returns back to something Iddings
(2010) and Norton (2001) both mentioned; despite a mentor’s best
intentions in allowing new members access, identity can interrupt this
process through either non-participation or marginalization. Often, non-
participation is not an issue with the community, but rather the
unwillingness of a newcomer to align themselves with some aspect of the
community. We see lack of alignment in those who close the queue or
refuse to negotiate their role. On the other hand, my willingness to align
myself with certain practices, such as those described in this thesis, meant
I was able to act as a mentor to some extent later on in the data. I did not
have to do this however. Mentoring merely opens up the possibility of

55
access, but access itself depends upon the desire of the newcomer to align
themselves with a practice.
There are also occasions when members of the CoP outright reject
newcomers. I didn’t include many examples of this in the data because I
was attempting to show routes of access, however there are many more
examples in the vein of G080, shown above. This game in particular was
very rough, as I was verbally attacked (or flamed) by Tristana (Line 66:
“You’re so frustrating”) for not participating correctly in various practices.
Unless a newcomer has a strong urge or identification with the CoP (albeit
an imagined community), such negativity and marginalization can lead to
newcomers not gaining access to the community.

56
 Conclusion
Implications for research
The complications and unexpected outcomes of this paper, which at points
looked as though it would show there was no clear CoP in LoL, show that
other research should also be more careful when applying the CoP label. If
we are to rely on CoP as the base for our theories about learning, it is
important to justify its use. I have suggested that Gee’s (2005) theory of
semiotic spaces can act as a useful tool for doing just this job.
In terms of research on VEs, we have stepped away from VEs
which seem to explicitly support CoPs (such as WoW, Lee & Gerber,
2013; Oliver & Carr, 2009; Palmer, 2010) and explored another genre of
game, MOBAs. This was important because of LoL’s sheer popularity,
and because it allowed us to also investigate limits to access, where
previous research only looked at the positives of CoPs in ideal
environments (guilds). Other research would also benefit from
investigating the issue of access to CoPs, rather than a focus on describing
what CoPs are like and how they support learning, as these become useless
if newcomers cannot access them.
Observations and descriptions about learning in commercial VEs
also offer potential pedagogical implications. I have described LoL as a
difficult, time consuming game which requires large amounts of learning –
knowledge of all champions, situations, and artifacts is essential to do
well. Millions of players worldwide are engaging willingly in this process
of learning, despite setbacks such as losing matches and being flamed. I
have demonstrated that I became one of them. Though there are no doubt
many aspects of learning in LoL, it would seem that CoPs could account
for a reasonable portion.

57
 This presents two options for researchers and teachers. The first is to
study the VE further, draw out principles which seem to drive learning,
and apply them to classrooms (as in, for example, Steinkuehler, Squire, &
Barab, 2012; Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013). However, this seems to miss the
point of the CoP theory of learning. Instead, and I admit it is an idealistic
claim, another valuable field of research could be to explore reforming
education into a community-based model, wherein students’ progress into
learning communities based on their interests and progress rather than, for
example, their age or status.
Limitations
The biggest limitation on this study was time. 100 hours of data is not
enough for a study of this type, though it allowed us some level of access
to the CoP. Ideally, I would have reached level 30 and reached full
participation in the community, perhaps even pushing on into ranked
matches. Other studies focusing on gaming, particularly with a researcher-
participant, boast data at least 300 hours; this was not possible for an MA
thesis written over the course of one summer.
It may also be supposed that having the researcher as the sole
participant is a limitation. However, as before I insist that the only way to
properly analyze a CoP is from the inside, and so this is somewhat
inevitable. It should be emphasized that CoPs are emergent and
fluctuating, and so each individual with their unique sociohistory will have
a different experience of access. Ways around this could be to include
multiple researcher-participants working separately, who then analyse
their own data from their understanding of the CoP, then cross-analyze
this with the others’. This would allow a more nuanced and objective take
on the CoP and access to it.

58
 There is one last issue in that, while I collected a lot of data from in-
game chat and game recordings, it is highly unlikely that I noticed all of
the chat while focusing on playing the game well, especially in early
matches where there was so much to take in. I can therefore make no
statement about which moments actually led to my access. Though I didn’t
have room to study it here, I also made use of large online communities
built around the game in various forums, particularly lol.inven.co.kr,
where there is extensive discourse about champions, professional games,
and shifts in the meta-game, to name just a few topics.
Future research
Future research should continue in the vein of this paper, only with more
data. It may also be an option to include other researchers in a similar
project, and chart the access of a group of participants, though it would be
a challenge to build up enough hours to validate the research. It would also
be interesting to see if similar results emerge from a study of LoL on a
non-Korean server, as the game is very popular globally. Potential servers
include North America, China, Europe, and Oceania.
Having identified CoPs in VEs and access to them, I can go on to
analysing what it is about these CoPs that encourages learning, as has been
a heavy focus in CALL literature in particular (Sykes & Reinhardt, 2013).
Most interesting of all would be to take or create a commercial virtual
environment, nurture CoPs, and build curricula into them to see if they
still result in learning. This is different from many current approaches
which try to apply teaching methods to gaming environments. I am
suggesting that, for example, requiring bilingual interaction within a CoP
to complete a popular commercial game could result in successful
language learning, just as we would expect from foreign exchange

59
students who actively participate in the language communities they move
into.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to investigate two gaps in current research on
CoPs. The first was the need to prove the existence of CoPs before
analyzing them, and the second was to investigate if and how newcomers
could gain access to these CoPs, as this is a prerequisite for learning. I
have shown that LoL acts as a huge semiotic (virtual) space in which
newcomers can gradually gain access to a community of millions of
players through institutional and sociohistorical frameworks should they
so desire. Indeed, the vast amount of knowledge required to play the game
well means this is a requirement for the game’s success.
While LoL does support CoPs in many ways, it is yet to be seen if
this is the case for other VEs. Also, although a variety of emergent
structures of access exist in this study of LoL, we cannot say whether this
will be the case for others, or that similar access exists for newcomers in
other CoPs. I hope this paper provides a precedent for a deeper level of
research in learning theory, particularly within CoPs.

60
 References
ACTFL proficiency guidelines. (2012). Alexandria, VA: American
Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Bryant, T. (2007). Games as an Ideal learning Environment. Retrieved on
June 06, 2014 from
https://www.academia.edu/164496/Games_as_an_Ideal_Learning_Env
ironment
de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-
based learning. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.
Donato, R., & MacCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on
language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern
Language Journal, 78(4), 453-464.
Kim, J., & Duff, P. A. (2012). The language socialization and identity
negotiations of generation 1.5 Korean-Canadian university
students. TESL Canada Journal, 29(SI6), 81-102.
Gametrics. (2014). Game Usage Stats. Retrieved on June 06, 2014 from
http://gametrics.com/rank/Rank02.aspx
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the
Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In Barton & Tusting (Eds.),
Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power, & Social Context,
(pp. 214–232). Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and
Method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a Community of Practice and How Can We
Support It?. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 286.

61
Iddings, A. D. S. (2010). Linguistic access and participation: English
language learners in an English-dominant community of practice.
Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 165-183.
Kim, S. Y. (2008). The interactional patterns of socializing into reading
strategy development in an ESL reading class. 언어연구, 25(2), 21-44.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2003). Language acquisition and language
socialization: Ecological perspectives. Continuum.
Lam, W. S. E., & Kramsch, C. (2003). The ecology of an SLA community
in a computer-mediated environment. In Ecology of language
acquisition (pp. 141-158). Springer Netherlands.
Lamb, M. (2009). Situating the L2 Self: Two Indonesian school learners
of English. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language
Identity and the L2 Self, (pp. 229-247), Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge university press.
Lee, J. J., & Hoadley, C. (2007). Leveraging identity to make learning fun:
Possible selves and experiential learning in massively multiplayer
online games (MMOGs). Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(6),
Lee, Y. J., & Gerber, H. (2013). It’s a WoW World: Second language
acquisition and massively multiplayer online gaming. Multimedia-
Assisted Language Learning, 16(2), 53-70.
LeJacq, Y. (2013). Score! Professional video gamers awarded athletic
visas. NBC News. Retrieved July 06, 2014 from
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/score-professional-video-gamers-
awarded-athletic-visas-6C10679998

62
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham,
I. D. (2009). Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice.
Implementation Science, 4(1), 11.
Neviarouskaya, A., Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2007). Analysis of
affect expressed through the evolving language of online
communication. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on
Intelligent user interfaces (pp. 278-281). ACM.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the
language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.). Learner Contributions to
Language Learning: New Directions in Research, (pp. 159-171),
Harlow: Pearson Education.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language
socialization. The Handbook of Language Socialization, 71, 1.
Oliver, M., & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using
communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 444-457.
Palmer, D. S. (2010). Second language pragmatic socialization in World
of Warcraft (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of
California.
Papargyris, A., & Poulymenakou, A. (2005). Learning to fly in persistent
digital worlds: the case of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing
Games. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1), 41-49.
Sykes, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at play: Digital games in
second and foreign language teaching and learning. Prentice Hall.
Schlager, S. M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online
education community of practice. In K. A. Renniger & W. Shumar

63
 (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in
Cyberspace. Cambridge University Press.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online
games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F.
Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of
the Learning Sciences (pp. 521–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as
participation in a discourse. Mind, culture, and activity, 13(1), 38-52.
Steinkuehler, C. A., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games,
learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age.
Cambridge University Press.
Sykes, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at play: Digital games in
second and foreign language teaching and learning. Prentice Hall.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use,
socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online
gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 802-821.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning
from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
Theory and Second Language Learning (pp.245-259). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Watson‐Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward
a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(3), 331-350.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
Identity. Cambridge University Press.

64
 Appendix
GSA022
Date: 2014-06-30 Games played: G097-G100
Time played: 140 mins
Brief Description G097 – Simple midai with Kayle, went two top and
found it tough. Ran out of mana, but Kayle is fast
and play fun to play. Not much else to say!
G098 – Tried Kayle again, and did better. I didn't
die in lane (though the guy I was against, Brand,
was really strong! First time I met him).
G099 – Kayle Support. My 원딜 died a couple of
times cos I mistimed my heals, but he also didn't
dive in at the right times. A little
miscommunication! But I generally did an ok job, I
think. Lots of peeling and poking!
G100 – Best result yet! I had the highest damage,
though we all had similar kills and assists. I was
really tanky and fed at the end! Awesome! But I
need to learn how to chase people down. Forgot to
use my E as stun if I double tap it, which is a shame.
Made some good ganks, too.

Is there a CoP How did I become

Guiding Questions
here? aware of this?
1) Mutual Engagement - Are you able to engage with other
members and respond to their actions, establish relationships? (What
your communities pay attention to reifies you as a participant – what
do people say about you?)

a) What did you find G099 – Players often protest that they cannot
out about the members do a certain position. So I offered to support
of the community? so another player could take mid. I wanted to
try Kayle support anyway.
i) Who are the
G099 – Team play became important again. I
members?
was low health, but instead of running I hung
around so that I could help out in team fights

65
 ii) What do they do when the enemy had used their spells and I
(what is their could help deal a final blow or support
practice)? someone. Key moment towards the end
(28mins?)
iii) How do they
G100 – Great communication in queue
interact?
again. We negotiated a couple of people and
iv) How does my roles, including a character switch and role
interaction compare to swap. I ended up jungle Jax, though I forgot
theirs? to take 강타, which is really important for
jungle.
b) What did you find G098 – It’s worth being aggressive even
out about yourself from against his DPS players. I faced Brand for
the session or what the first time, and he was owning lane with
others said about you? his range and damage (partly because I
didn’t know his skills!), but I eventually beat
him by avoiding his skills and attacking
when I could. Helped out by ganks, of
course. He was really squishy in the end!
When he used all his attacks, he doesn’t have
good aa. I can chase him down and aa him to
death!
G099 – I can see when a 원딜 doesn’t know
what they’re doing… They overstretch, then
die, then play it too safe, when we could
have gotten some easy kills.
c) How do you G097 – Just practicing Kayle’s abilities,
understand the world / trying him out. Not much learned, apart from
community differently his W uses a lot of mana, that he is pretty
after playing? How did fast, and that his ranged attack is really
you come to this important.
understanding? G100 – I’ve never succeeded as jungle
before, but this time I did pretty well. I made
good ganks on mid which led to a few kills,
and had good worldwide presence. I also
didn’t die once to neutrals, which is new for
me. Need to keep working on this though.
Looks like a fun role to play! Need to work
out a good jungle route too, otherwise I will

66
 lose out on CS and gold and levels as the
game progresses.
d) Are there any salientG099 – There was a short debate about roles,
moments in which these and what Kayle was good for, at the start of
things were negotiated, the game. This made me take a mid-item
or in which your instead of a utility item, but eventually we
position in the settled that I’d be better in support. An
community seemed to interesting exchange!
change? G100 – Made an excelled but risky flash-kill
at level 1, which I initiated and signalled,
then led my team back to get a blue leash. I
controlled the beginning of the game! And it
went really well!
2) Joint Enterprise - Can you understand the enterprise of a
community enough to take on responsibility? Can you contribute to
its pursuit and negotiation?

a) What does the G097 – AI is really full up of amateurs, those

community’s practice wanting to practice something, or smurfs. I
consist of? only use it when trying a new champion for
the first time in a safe, low-risk environment.
G098 – Kayle players favour attack speed
items, as of new patch updates, as they allow
a passive stack and high AP aa damage. I
tried to follow this practice, to limited
success.
b) How do your and the G099 – I try to learn each role, so I can be
community’s actions / flexible and understand the meta game.
values / choice differ Other players seem to focus on a few players
(or not)? or roles, and get stuck if they don’t get this
in queue. I wonder if this is why some
people are so stubborn sometimes?
c) What is your role in
the community?

d) How is your role G100 –I got an excellent early kill by

changing (trajectory)? ganking someone before minions spawned.
Awesome! First time I’ve done that. I also

67
 gave really good ganks in mid lane, once by
jumping in and dealing damage then
running, then again by faux-retreating and
running back in. Excellent!
3) Shared Repertoire - Can you understand the CoP’s repertoire
enough to see the group’s history in it and make the history newly
meaningful?

a) How does the G099 – My partner in lane had an interesting

community make use of resurrection skill I’ve never seen.
the various artefacts at Interesting! Shame they threw their life away
its disposal? so easily…
I communicated well with the jungler, who
was really chatty the whole time! This meant
that when I called him for a gank, he heard
and came. Saved my life and gained a kill a
couple of times (they thanked me for it, too)!
Good communication like this is really
important, and shared understanding of the
situation is key to success here. I think a lack
of shared understanding of my support role
leads to difficulty with many 원딜.
G100 – My use of signals was excellent. I
warned and guided the team early on. I also
used a signal to say that I needed no more
help with a blue leash, which I’d seen done
before, but I don’t know if the rest of the
team understood this.
Made an excellent escape. Near the end, I
tower dived to get a kill, but missed it and
left myself in danger. But then I managed to
use my q to escape to a ward then flash over
a wall to safety. Awesome! Gonna have to
make strategic use of wards for grabbing
from now on.
b) How does this use
differ from yours and
others’?

68
c) Which events stick G099 – As support there were a couple of
out as memorable or times I could’ve made a kill, but I just didn’t
salient to negotiations have enough damage without risking my life.
(of meaning, tools, I chose to play it safe, which I gather is
identity etc.) with generally the better option.
respect to practice?

d) Which paradigmatic G097 – Used more builds to guide my item

trajectories does the buys. Kayle seems to be quite flexible, so
CoP provide for access? this was a real help. This can define how you
understand and play a character, and gives
you a way in to the game.

69