Digital game-based learning involves leveraging the engaging nature of digital games for educational purposes. It emerges from a blend of educational and gaming components comprising two crucial aspects: entertainment and an educational element (Behnamnia et al., 2023). The digital game-based learning literature and effectiveness studies have considered both learning and engagement (Ağaoğlu and Şad, 2020; Hense and Mandl, 2014).

The effectiveness of digital game-based learning can be investigated through formative evaluation, which focuses on improvement over time, or through summative evaluation, which assesses the outcomes to determine whether digital game-based learning achieves its goals (All et al., 2016). Although studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of digital game-based learning (Eltahir et al., 2021; Salgarayeva et al., 2021), some authors have highlighted the importance of considering factors that contribute to the reliability and validity of these findings. These factors include ensuring sufficient time spent on tasks between experimental and control groups and incorporating principals for active participation, engagement, and communication during learning activities (Foster and Shah, 2020; Zhao et al., 2022).

Studies on the effectiveness of digital game-based learning have also revealed that its implementation necessitates the presence of an instructor during the intervention with various roles, including supervision, offering procedural assessment during gameplay, or providing contextualization of gameplay and in-game elements within the broader learning context (Huizenga et al., 2017; Tzuo et al., 2012).

The findings of studies on interactive language provide early insight into the developmental trajectory of language within interactions: speakers shift from using a limited range of literal uses of language to adopting a wider range of situated language for interaction. These include illocutionary acts, initiating agreements or disagreements, signaling active interaction or transitions, organizing discourse, and conveying emotion or reaction (Ford and Mori, 1994; Pekarek Doehler and Eskildsen, 2022). Researchers in interactional linguistics share certain assumptions with those in dynamic syntax, including the idea that language requires a syntax conceptualized as a dynamic process. A syntactic of this sort has three necessary properties: incremental, dialogical, and, therefore, reliant on constructions—that is, construction grammar rather than being fully compositional (Goldberg, 2009). However, much less is known about the effects of digital game-based learning on students’ interactive language. Previous research on the use of digital games to enhance students’ skills has predominantly focused on learning language in general rather than on interactive language aspects.

Interactional feedback encompasses responses triggered by linguistically incorrect and communicatively inappropriate utterances that learners produce during conversational interaction. This feedback can manifest through various negotiation and conversational strategies, including repetition, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (Nassaji, 2020). This approach assumes that these strategies emphasize linguistic problems, prompting learners to focus on structure during communicative interactions. As interactional feedback occurs during communicative interaction, it assists learners in addressing form while processing meaning (Sheen and Ellis, 2011).

Interactional feedback, predominantly verbal feedback, occurs in both naturalistic and classroom settings. It directs learners’ focus toward linguistic form through implicit methods, such as strategies employed to address communication challenges and more explicit approaches that deliberately highlight specific linguistic structures regardless of any communication breakdown (Yousefi and Nassaji, 2021). Figure 1 summarizes the typology of interactional feedback that will be examined in this study.

Studies investigating interactional feedback have identified various types of feedback used by teachers or other participants in interactions with learners, typically falling into two main types: reformulations, including recasts and direct correction, and elicitations, which comprise clarification, repetition, direct elicitation, metalinguistic cues, and non-verbal cues (Buchari, 2022; Lyster et al., 2013; Nassaji, 2015).

Previous research has demonstrated the potential of digital games, particularly those designed for educational purposes, to enhance language learning. For instance, serious digital games have been shown to effectively teach the correct use of modals, gerunds, and infinitives (Abdul Ghani et al., 2022; Castillo-Cuesta, 2020). Furthermore, studies indicate that digital games positively impact students’ learning outcomes, especially for those with lower initial intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (Liu and Hwang, 2024).

Digital game-based language learning (DGBLL) and feedback have garnered increasing interest in the field of language learning. Several studies have examined various forms of feedback, including written (Reynolds and Kao, 2021; Shintani and Ellis, 2015; Shintani et al., 2014), computer-automated (Zhao and MacWhinney, 2018), oral (Rassaei, 2015), and metalinguistic corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication (Gao and Ma, 2019; Monteiro, 2014). Other studies indicate that effective feedback emphasizes the learning approaches and support necessary for a motivating learning experience, with a particular emphasis on reflective practices (Ravyse et al., 2017). This involves integrating feedback into a task-based instructional approach, informing the player, intervening when misconceptions arise, and providing appropriate hints or feedback, ensuring that interventions are both unobtrusive and timely (Esteban, 2024; Rachayon and Soontornwipast, 2019).

Moreover, previous research on the relationship between DGBLL and feedback has shown that feedback not only facilitates learning but also positively influences students’ attitudes and immersion in the learning process (Erhel and Jamet, 2013; Kickmeier-Rust et al., 2008; Laurillard, 2016). However, studies specifically examining teachers’ interactional feedback in the context of digital game-based language learning are much less common. This gap highlights the need for more focused research on how teachers’ interactional feedback can further enhance the effectiveness of DGBL, potentially leading to more nuanced insights into optimizing educational outcomes through tailored interactional feedback mechanisms.

This study examined the effectiveness of training on Arabic language teachers’ ability to implement interactional feedback strategies while teaching Arabic language through digital game-based learning to fifth-grade primary students. Their practices were compared to those who had only received regular training. An embedded mixed methods design triangulated design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data to address research questions effectively. The convergent validation (triangulation) approach enhanced reliability and validity by examining the phenomenon from multiple perspectives, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding. The embedded design is an effective approach for designing interventions, emphasizing the timing of data collection and the rationale for integrating different data types (Creswell, 2021; Tashakkori et al., 2020). In this study, the intervention for the experimental group was guided by collecting data on their practices and conceptions of interactional feedback, both before and after the intervention. This informed the development of relevant instruments that represented participants’ perspectives.

The qualitative data was later used to reassess the experimental group’s practices and conceptions of interactional feedback following the program. Creswell (2021) emphasizes that mixed quantitative and qualitative approaches are effective and comprehensive methods for researchers investigating the meaning of phenomena in natural settings. In this study, the quantitative data facilitated a comparison of interactional feedback practices between the experimental and comparison groups. The purpose of quantitative research is to provide a valid and objective description of phenomena (Cohen et al., 2011). Researchers strive for objectivity and validity by controlling variables and minimizing biases in data analysis and interpretation. Quantitative research complements qualitative findings, particularly when comparing groups or examining relationships between variables. However, challenges exist, as complete control over variables is difficult in classroom case studies, and quantitative methods alone may not fully address complex research questions (Creswell, 2012). Quantitative methods were employed in this study to numerically assess teachers’ interactional feedback in supporting digital game-based language learning. Qualitative data were also collected through interviews to explore teachers’ conceptions of how to use interactional feedback in this context, which were classified and organized into appropriate themes. Quantitative pre- and post-observational interventions were conducted both before and after the professional development sessions, along with qualitative pre- and post-interview interventions.

To select the appropriate classrooms for this study, the researcher reached out to volunteer participants by sending letters to a diverse group of primary school teachers in Al-Qunfudah city, southern Saudi Arabia. These letters outlined the study’s purpose and procedures, emphasizing the significance of their participation. Out of 76 primary Arabic language school teachers, 43 responded. Given the focus of the study, 40 male primary Arabic language school teachers from the 43 respondents, representing 12 boys’ schools, were randomly selected and divided into two groups: The experimental group and the comparison group, with 20 teachers in each group. Their teaching experience ranged from 11 to 16 years. This mixed-method experimental study aimed not to generalize findings to a broader population but to conduct an in-depth exploration of a central phenomenon (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2021). The research questions were examined through quantitative and qualitative investigation into the impact of professional development program on teachers’ enactment and conception of interactional feedback strategies within digital game-based language settings. The practices and conceptions of interactional feedback strategies of 20 experimental group teachers were compared to those of the 20 teachers in the comparison group.

The 20 teachers in the experimental group participated in a 12-week intervention program, which included pre-and post -and post-workshops, classroom observations, interviews, and follow-up meetings. The workshops and subsequent monitoring sessions provided support in learning and practicing interactional feedback strategies while teaching the Arabic language in a digital game-based learning environment. Throughout the intervention, the teachers implemented these strategies, while the researcher analyzed changes in their interactional feedback practices. At the end of the program, the teachers reflected on their conceptions of interactional feedback strategies after having enacted them in the context of teaching language through digital game-based learning. The 20 teachers in the comparison group participated in standard training sessions conducted by regional supervisors from the Department of Education. These sessions focused on providing background knowledge on interactional feedback, and digital game-based language learning. Unlike the experimental group, the comparison group teachers only attended a 1-week advisory session and did not receive any additional training on embedded strategies for interactional feedback or digital game-based language learning.

The data collection strategies included pre- and post-professional development observations and interviews with experimental group teachers. Similarly, pre-and post -observations and interviews were conducted with the comparison group teachers following their regular teaching. Figure 2 illustrates the interactions between the different components of the program.

This section presents the results and analysis of the quantitative data in two subsections, addressing the first question regarding pre-and post-intervention practices of interactional feedback among experimental and comparison group teachers (R1) and the second question regarding the types of interactional feedback among both groups.

The results indicated a significant difference in the pre-and post-intervention practices of interactional feedback among experimental and comparison group teachers over time. A repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that the mean scores differed significantly across the three-time points (F = 866.205, P < 0.001). Effect-size estimates for teachers’ interactional feedback variable was η² = 0. 958 (Table 3).

The result of repeated-measures ANOVA, which indicated significant differences across the three-time points between the experimental and comparison groups, is likely to align with the scatter plot presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4 showcasing mean scores for each measure across three-time points, indicates a difference between the mean scores of teachers in the two groups.

As shown in Table 4, the types of interactional feedback implemented by experimental and comparison group teachers during digital game-based language learning – which improved over three time points-include: recasts (20.5%), clarification requests (21.3), metalinguistic cues (17.1%), Direct elicitation (10.7%), Repetition (10.0%), and Non-verbal cues (10.0%).

Additionally, the results indicate that experimental group teachers provided a total of 1,050 instances of interactional feedback during digital game-based language learning. This represents a significant increase from the total of 128 instances at the pre-measurement stage to 849 at post-measurement stage 2 (after 6 weeks), culminating in 1,050 overall.

In contrast, as shown in Table 5 the types of interactional feedback implemented by comparison group teachers during regular language learning – were monitored over the same three-time points: repetition (23.9%), direct correction (22.5%), recasts (18.1), direct elicitation (14.5%), clarification requests (11.6%), metalinguistic cues (10.0%), and non-verbal cues (3.6%).

Furthermore, the results show no notable improvement in the comparison group teachers’ use of interactional feedback during regular language learning. This number of instances increased only slightly, from a total of 126 at the pre-measurement stage to 134 at post-measurement 2 (after 6 weeks), with a total of just 138 instances overall.

An examination of the bar charts in Figure 5, which illustrate the types of interactional feedback used by experimental group teachers, indicates that interactional feedback effectively supports digital game-based language learning. In contrast, the limited use of interactional feedback by comparison group indicates that traditional language instruction does not integrate or benefit from such strategies as effectively.

Teachers in the experimental group generally utilized all types of interactional feedback, indicating that digital game-based language learning can effectively incorporate a wide range of interactional feedback strategies. A closer examination of the frequency and percentage scores revealed that the most notable improvements were found in clarification requests (21.3%), recasts (20.5%), and metalinguistic cues (17.1%). In contrast, analysis of the comparison group’s data revealed that teachers predominantly relied on repetition (23.9%) and direct correction (22.5%), with limited variation in the feedback strategies employed.

This section addresses the third research question regarding the pre-and post-intervention conceptions of interactional feedback among experimental group teachers (R4). This examination is based on data gathered from qualitative interview analysis.

The qualitative results of conceptions of interactional feedback among experimental teachers group generally aligned with their practices as indicated by the quantitative results. The teachers’ conceptions of interactional feedback within the experimental group are summarized in Figure 6.

In the pre-intervention interview, teachers in the experimental group did not specify any interactional feedback strategies they had for digital game-based language learning. They recognized that these strategies should be used to address issues arising during interaction. However, Faisal claimed that identifying who initiates the repairs and who completes them would enhance the effective use of interactional feedback strategies. He stated:

In the post-intervention interview, teachers indicated that learner uptake shows that students have noticed the feedback, which is essential in digital game-based language learning. They also observed that uptake provides evidence of modified output and demonstrated that learners benefited from interactional feedback. For example, Mansour stated that “the insights learners gained from a lesson serve as valuable indicators of the effectiveness of interactional feedback in enhancing digital game-based language learning.” Similarly, Khaled discussed advancing to the next level in digital games, where learners were scaffolded by utilizing the various forms of interactional feedback provided by teachers. Tarek discovered that learners exhibited varying degrees of language acquisition, which depended on the nature of the lesson and the types of activities they engaged in during digital game-based language learning.

Naser and Fahed emphasized the importance and value of using a variety of interactional feedback to support digital game-based language learning, suggesting that multiple types facilitate output modification and enhance student productivity. Naser used the term “output modification” and stated that “a learner’s response is successfully modified when the correction of the learner’s erroneous output is followed and facilitated by a variety of teachers’ interactional feedback.” Fahed used the term “student productivity” to describe when a learner’s response results in successful output.

In total, the importance and benefits of using interactional feedback to support digital game-based language learning are significant. All types of feedback are important and effective, but they function differently. For example, Bander, Marwan, and Salem indicated that they found that recasts were most effective for vocabulary and pronunciation, while Hussain, Tarek, and Youssef identified them as most effective for writing. Additionally, Assaf, Foad, Grant, Hamed, and Tony found that direct elicitations were most effective for learning grammar. Andres, Yasser, and Talal indicated that they found clarification requests and metalinguistic cues were most effective for reading.

Furthermore, In the post-intervention interview, teachers claimed that interactional feedback helped learners use digital games in a way that fostered their language development by making students’ screen time more enriching, supporting shared reading and teacher-student interactions. Monther said, “I know not all digital games are necessarily bad, but I used to wonder how my students are using digital games together. After this intervention, I see my students learning more from media when we join in, which highlights the importance of interactional feedback in supporting the use of digital games in learning.”