Adapting a Social Deduction Game into an Online Synchronous L2 Chinese Classroom

By WeiHsuan Lo, University of Northern Colorado and Kevin Fedewa, Michigan State University

DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.69732/XRAP4854

Introduction

If you are struggling with whether or not to use games in your language classroom, you are not alone. While games have been shown to improve language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing), to increase communicative competence, and foster positive attitudes, they can also be difficult to implement effectively due to technical issues, classroom dynamics, teacher’s comfort level, classroom management style and the level of difficulty level of the game (for a review of research see Yang et al., 2024). Trying to adapt games to online settings can pose additional challenges. Despite these challenges, we recently tried out several games while teaching Chinese as a Second Language online. And based on our experiences, we believe that games are worth the effort when the teaching context allows for them. Below, we would like to share with you one game that we found to be particularly fun and effective in our context. It is a social deduction game (think of games like Mafia, Among Us, and Werewolf) that we worked into our online, synchronous Chinese language class. We’ll share a bit about our context, our game and how it worked, what the students thought about it, and how you might adapt it to your own context.  

Before we do that though, a quick note about what we mean by games and why, at least in theory, games can be effective in language classrooms. First, by games, we don’t mean games that are just used to memorize facts or vocabulary, though we admit those have their place and can be useful. Instead, we follow Poole and Clarke-Midura’s (2020) definition of games that (1) have a system of rules, clear goals, and built-in feedback, but also (2) require a bit of luck and some skill. In other words, they’re fun and resemble games that people play for fun outside of classrooms. We also mean games that can meet the definition of a task in Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), that is, games that (1) have a primary focus on meaning, (2) have some sort of gap in knowledge among the players, (3) require players to use the language and skills that they already have, and (4) have a clearly defined (non-linguistic) outcome (for the full definition see East, 2021, p. 47). In theory, games that meet such definitions, like social deduction games, can be more than just a fun or motivating classroom activity. They can also facilitate language learning because of the meaningful social interaction that they elicit. During gameplay, learners have to interact in meaningful ways to achieve their goal – winning the game. Learners must internalize the language input they receive, make guesses about how the language works and what it means, use language based on their guesses, get feedback on their language use (both positive and negative) from others, and then make new guesses from there, all of which promotes language acquisition (see Erlam & Tolosa, 2022, p.5-6; East, 2021, p.24-43).

Our Context

The social deduction game we present below was made for students in an extracurricular, non-credit-bearing Chinese language program. In this program, we taught high school and college students whose proficiency levels ranged from the ACTFL Novice-Mid to Advanced-Low levels. The language program ran twice for two consecutive years.

The program had three phases. The first phase was a semester of online synchronous classes held for a couple hours each weekend in the spring. This was followed by an in-person summer camp phase in the second phase. And the third phase returned to online and synchronous classes which were held on weekends. Each year, the program had a cohort of 24 students. The program’s overarching theme was career readiness and aimed not only to advance students’ Chinese language skills, but also provide opportunities to develop basic professional competencies such as the 21st-Century Skills (e.g., the 4Cs: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking) (Battelle for Kids, 2019). We integrated our social deduction game into the third phase of the program and played it on Zoom as a part of regular online synchronous class periods. To match the goals and theme of the program, we re-skinned (or redesigned) the social deduction game Werewolf (for a brief history of Werewolf, see Herkewitz, 2019), also known as Mafia, which is commonly played in person (see how to play it here). We set our version in a company facing a crisis – company secrets were leaked to a competitor by an insider. We named our game, The Secret Leaker.

To re-skin Werewolf, we followed a structured game design approach: (a) ideation, (b) prototyping, (c) playtesting, and (d) evaluation (Fullerton, 2024).

Designing our version of Werewolf

In the first step, we made sure the game would match the goals of the program and then adapted the game’s premise to match the program’s theme. Since the theme was career readiness, we set the game in a fictional company, which we called The Dream Company. In line with the program’s goals, the game requires players to collaborate effectively, communicate clearly, and think creatively and critically all while using their Chinese language skills in order to win. To win, players need to identify who is lying and who is telling the truth about leaking company secrets. 

During the prototyping phase, we re-skinned the player roles and abilities to match the company setting and game objective (more about this below in Table 1). Then, after the initial set up, we had the first cohort of students play the game three times. We asked students their opinions on the game and made improvements based on their suggestions (more about this in the “Student Feedback and Our Takeaways” section below). A year later, we did a more systematic evaluation of the game, looking at criteria such as functionality, completeness, balance, fun, and accessibility with the second cohort. We also collected information about how effective the students perceived the game to be in terms of the course goals such as improving their language skills and the 21st-Century Skills listed above. Before we get to that though, we’ll walk you through the game. 

The Secret Leaker

As we explained above, The Secret Leaker takes place in a fictional company, called The Dream Company, where company secrets have been leaked by an employee. Players win by either identifying who among them is the secret leaker or, for the players who are given the role of Secret Leaker, by not being identified. The game goes for many rounds until there is a winner. Each round has two stages: Stage 1 is an interrogation stage, in which players secretly frame, defend, or search other players, and Stage 2 is a stage for players to discuss, accuse others, and decide whether or not to vote anyone out. The table below shares the roles for each character and the table is followed by instructions on how to play.   

Table 1

Game Characters and Their Roles

Character	Stage	Roles
Detective  (teacher)	Stage 1	Narrates the game.  Receives and records messages from the Secret Leaker, Security Officers, and Legal Consultants via Zoom direct message. Announces who (if anyone) has been framed and put in jail.
	Stage 2	Records time. Records votes sent via Zoom direct messages. Announces who (if anyone) has been voted out.
Regular Employees (students)	Stage 1	Waits and observes.
	Stage 2	Gives a self-introduction (required), accuses other players (optional), and votes on whom they think is the Secret Leaker (required).
Security Officers (students)	Stage 1	Searches the identity of a player (Secret Leaker or not).
	Stage 2	Gives a self-introduction (required), accuses other players (optional), and votes on whom they think is the Secret Leaker (required).
Legal Consultants (students)	Stage 1	Defends a player from being framed or bails out a player from jail.
	Stage 2	Gives a self-introduction (required), accuses other players (optional), and votes on whom they think is the Secret Leaker (required).
Secret Leakers (students)	Stage 1	Frames a player and puts them in jail.
	Stage 2	Gives a self-introduction (required), accuses other players (optional), and votes on whom they think is the Secret Leaker (required).

As you read through the “How to Play” section below, notice how this game elicits a variety of language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and a variety of 21st-Century Skills like communication (requiring interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational communication). 

The Secret Leaker: How to Play

Pre-Class Preparation Stage

After deciding the game mechanics, we prepared Canva slides and a Google Sheets to help facilitate gameplay in class. When you play other social deduction games, like Werewolf or Mafia, in person, there isn’t much to prepare. They typically require nothing more than a deck of cards or slips of paper with the character roles on them and a space to play. For our online game however, we wanted to make sure that our students (who had a range of language proficiency levels, Novice-Mid to Advanced-Low) would all be able to fully participate in the game. To that end, we decided to make Canva slides (see a modified version of them here) to help students follow each phase of the game and to have immediate access to useful vocabulary and phrases. We also created a Google Sheet (you can see and download it here) to help us keep track of who was in which role, who was framing who, etc. 

Since our class was free, on Saturday mornings, non-credit-bearing, and for mainly high school students who also participated in a myriad of other activities outside our class, we would typically only have about 9 to 13 of our 24 students present for each two hour class. Since we often didn’t know which students would be present, we had to be prepared for any combination of them. For that reason, in our Google Sheet document, we prepped for the class by using numbers in place of student names and assigned roles to these numbers. When the students started class, we randomly assigned those numbers to the students. 

The Secret Leaker seemed to work best when there were three “good” employees for every one Secret Leaker. So, ideally, you need about seven or more students to play. With seven students, you would have three regular employees, one legal consultant, one security officer, and two secret leakers. With more than seven students, then you would just scale up. For example, with 13 students, you would want about six regular employees, two legal consultants, two security officers, and three secret leakers. We found that the game lasted around forty minutes. We also found that having a place to keep records (like in our Google Sheets doc) and having slides to explain each phase kept the game moving at a reasonable pace. 

Pre-Game Introduction Stage

Once class started, we used Canva slides to first provide the goals for the lesson. We then used pictures and slides to explain the game’s setting and background story. Next, we walked through character roles, game rules, and phases. This was all done in Mandarin, but supported with Canva slides. We then practiced vocabulary using a game-based flashcard website called Gimkit (see our flashcards for the students here). After that, we asked students questions about the game and the characters to check their understanding. Once that was all done, we started the game. 

Stage 1: Interrogation Phase (approximately 5 minutes)

In the interrogation phase, we told all players to have their cameras on and their microphones off. These directions were also shown in Chinese and English on the Canva slides. All players stayed in the main Zoom meeting room, and we did not use breakout rooms during the game. As the “Detective,” we randomly assigned numbers to each player and told them to change their Zoom name to their assigned number (which students could do in the “Participants” panel in Zoom). We then let each player know their role by sending everyone a direct message in the Zoom chat panel. 

Note. In the picture, Player No. 2 reacted to the message, “You are an employee,” with a thumbs up.  

Next, we turned on our microphone and narrated the following steps below. For the rest of Stage 1, communication to the Detective (teacher) and among the players was done via Zoom’s private messaging in the “Chat” panel in Zoom.

Step 1: The Secret Leaker(s)

• The Detective announces that the Secret Leaker(s) are up. All other players wait and observe. (Note that this is different from in person gameplay. During this stage in person, all other players would put their heads down or close their eyes.)
• Via direct messages, the Detective asks the Secret Leaker(s) who they would like to frame with fake evidence and gives 60 seconds to respond. 
• If there is more than one Secret Leaker, they must chat via direct messages to make a decision. Once a decision is made, they notify, again via direct message, the Detective and the Detective records their response.  (When playing the game in person, Secret Leakers would communicate their decision to the Detective via pointing silently.) 
• Example direct messages:
  • The Detective asks via direct message: “你们是在谁的桌子上找到证据的？” [On whose table did you find “evidence”?]
  • Secret Leakers respond via direct message: “我们是在三号的桌子上找到证据的。” [We found the evidence on Player No. 3’s table.]

Step 2: Legal Consultant(s)

• The Detective announces that the Legal Consultant(s) are up. All other players wait and observe.
• Via direct messages, the Detective asks the Legal Consultant(s) who they would like to defend and gives 60 seconds to respond. 
• If there is more than one Legal Consultant, they must chat via direct messages to make a decision. Once a decision is made, they notify the Detective via direct message and the Detective records their response. The Legal Consultants’ goal is to protect innocent players, but they will not know for certain who is the Secret Leaker. Instead, they need to observe other players, send private messages to other Legal Consultants, and try their best to judge who they believe is innocent. Legal Consultants can also choose to defend themselves. 
• Example direct messages:
  • The Detective asks: “法务，你要为谁出庭辩护？” [Who would you like to defend?]
  •  Legal Consultants respond:  “我要为三号出庭辩护。” [I will defend No. 3.]
• Additionally, once there are three players in jail, the Legal Consultant(s) may select one player who is in jail to bail out and rejoin the game.

Step 3: Security Officer(s)

• The Detective announces that the Security Officer(s) are up. All other players wait and observe.
• Via direct messages, the Detective asks the Security Officer(s) who they would like to search and gives 60 seconds to respond. 
• If there is more than one Security Officer, they must chat via direct messages to make a decision. The security officer(s) select a suspect (i.e., any other player) to search for evidence (i.e., learn if the player is or is not the Secret Leaker). The Detective will confirm whether evidence is found or not.
• Example direct messages:
  • The Detective asks: “请选择一个嫌疑人搜索证据。” [Pick someone to search for evidence.]
  • Security Officers respond:  “我要搜索三号嫌疑人。” [I want to search Player No. 3.]
  • The Detective checks that player’s role and replies either:
    • 没有找到证据。 [No evidence was found] (i.e., they are an innocent employee), or
    • 找到证据。[Evidence found] (i.e., they are a Secret Leaker).

Step 4: Investigation Report

The Detective announces the findings and says whether a suspect was framed and put behind bars. If the Legal Consultant successfully selected the same player whom the Secret Leakers selected to frame, then no players are put behind bars and all players continue to Stage 2. If the Legal Consultants did not successfully select the same player whom the Secret Leakers selected to frame, then the framed player can observe Stage 2, but cannot participate in the discussion or vote. 

Stage 2: Discussion and Voting

In Stage 2, all players (except for those in jail) leave their cameras on and turn on their microphones. In this stage, each student has an opportunity to introduce themselves, state whom they think is the Secret Leaker, and vote for whom to put in jail.

Step 1: Self-introductions

• Each player (who is not in jail) takes turns introducing themself, explaining why they are innocent.

Step 2: Accusations

• Immediately after each player’s self-introduction, they have the option of making an accusation about another player, stating why they think that player is the Secret Leaker.

Step 3: Refuting Accusations

• Once a player is accused twice, they are immediately given 30 seconds to defend themselves. After the players defend themselves, self-introductions continue until every player has had a chance to speak. 

Step 4: Voting

• After all suspects have spoken, all players who are not in jail vote to determine who the possible secret leaker is. Voting is sent via direct message to the Detective. 
• The Detective collects and tallies votes. The player who receives the most votes is sent to jail. 

Note. In the picture, Player 1 says: “I am just an employee. I know nothing. But, I suspect Player No. 4 because…” Player 2 says:” I am a security officer. I searched Player No. 3. He is not the secret leaker! I think Player No. 4 is acting strange though, because…” The vocabulary on the right shows words and phrases that students used. These vocabulary items were also pre-taught and provided on slides during gameplay. 

Note. In the picture, Player 3 says: “I am the company’s legal consultant. Player No. 3 got caught, and I defended him in court. I think Player no. 1 is suspicious because…” The vocabulary on the right shows words and phrases that students used. These vocabulary items were also pre-taught and provided on slides during gameplay. 

Note. In the picture, Player 4 says: “I feel so hurt! Actually, I’m the real security officer. I searched Player No. 2. and he is the secret leaker!” Player 5 says: “I am just an employee who knows nothing. I also think that Player No. 2 is suspicious because…” The vocabulary on the left shows words and phrases that students used. These vocabulary items were also pre-taught and provided on slides during gameplay. 

Step 5: Investigation Report

The Detective announces the outcome of the vote. If all Secret Leakers are caught, then all the other employees win. If only Secret Leakers remain, they win. If there are employees and Secret Leakers who have not yet been put in jail, the game continues with another round of interrogation and discussion (repeating Stages 1 and 2).

Student Feedback and Our Takeaways

In the first year after playing The Secret Leaker three times with our students, we conducted a quick 15-minute focus group interview with them. For the first cohort of students, we did not pre-teach any vocabulary or phrases that students could use in the game, but rather provided language input when introducing the game and then also when students needed help during game play. The logic behind this was that it is similar to a “strong” approach to TBLT which encourages pushing students to use the language that they already know and, when students struggle, teachers provide assistance as needed (see Van Gorp, 2025). We asked students for their opinions about the game and although they enjoyed it, several mentioned that they would have preferred learning related vocabulary prior to playing. Some students also mentioned that the game wasn’t fun if you were eliminated right away. 

Since students preferred to be pre-taught vocabulary, a year later when we played the game with the second cohort, we made adjustments. We pre-taught useful vocabulary that they could use in the game as well as the game rules. This present, practice, and then play model is similar to a “weak” version of TBLT which tries to anticipate what vocabulary and grammar students will need to complete the task, present the language to students, have students practice with it, and finally have students perform the task (see Van Gorp, 2025). We also changed the rules to allow “eliminated” players to potentially be brought back into the game (see the Legal Consultants’s role above). This reduced the amount of time that we could spend on playing the game, and in the second cohort, students only played the game twice. But, we felt that students played in a more structured and confident way. 

Additionally, for the second cohort, we added a culminating activity after playing. In the final class, students were given a fictional news article (Picture 13) to read which we had adapted from a real one. The adapted article was about The Dream Company’s secrets being leaked. The students read and analyzed the article. They were then asked to write a similar news report based on the events and facts that happened during their last round of gameplay. Our goal was to reinforce and consolidate what they learned, using the target vocabulary and sentence structures they had practiced during the game.

After the culminating activity, eleven of our students in the second cohort completed a survey about the game. The survey asked students to rate whether they felt playing the game helped them improve their language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and certain aspects of their language abilities (pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar). See the heat map below for a summary of the results. Surprisingly, students felt that playing the game really helped their listening skills with one commenting that, “I think my listening skills became better because in order to understand the game, you have to pay attention and understand most of what is going on.” This shows that students were focusing on the meanings behind what classmates and teachers were saying in Chinese–in other words students were engaging in meaningful interaction. 

The 11 students also rated statements about whether they felt playing the game helped them to improve 21st-Century Skills (i.e., the 4Cs: collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking). Specifically, we had students rate seven statements about various aspects of collaboration, four statements about various aspects of communication, seven statements about various aspects of creative thinking, and four statements about critical thinking. The results are below in Picture 14. Of note, students responded fairly strongly that playing the game helped improve collaboration skills.  

Adapting the Game to Your Class

We recognize that each classroom is unique and that what we did might not be appropriate for your classroom. But, the game lends itself to adaptation. To prove this (and hopefully to inspire your own creative thinking), we want to share an example of another version that might be appropriate for a wider group of teachers and learners. Since we’re Chinese language teachers, our example below is based on a unit from a popular Chinese textbook. 

Implementing any activity in a classroom needs to be done strategically and systematically. So, we recommend following the steps from Fullerton’s (2024) game design process. Beginning with ideation, we would want to consider our theme and learning objectives. Imagine our theme is “Seeing a Doctor” and that our learning objectives are “to be able to describe how you feel to a doctor” and assume that this aligns with our students’ proficiency levels and overall curriculum. Many Chinese teachers might have a unit like this because it matches Integrated Chinese Lesson 15: Seeing a Doctor (看病) (Liu et al., 2018). We could re-skin Werewolf into a new game around this theme. We could call it Outbreakers and students could take on roles of doctors and patients. In our new game, the story could be set in our school. We could pretend that there are a number of students coming down with something. Some students could just have allergies but others could be catching and spreading the flu. Students would have to work together to find out who just has allergies and who needs to stay home.  

After setting the theme and goal, we would move to prototyping. We would need to set up the rules, characters, and mechanics in a way that fits our new theme. We would also want to imagine the game and how it could play out, thinking through what language players from the textbook could be used at each stage of the game. We’ve tried this out below with vocabulary from Lesson 15 in parenthesis. In our new game, Outbreakers, in place of Secret Leakers or Werewolves, we may want to have Flu Spreaders. In Stage 1, Flu Spreaders could message the narrator to say which player they most recently sat next to (and therefore passed the flu onto). Then, in place of Legal Consultants, we could have some players be Doctors. The Doctors could choose a patient to protect in Stage 1 by prescribing medicine or giving injections (吃药、打针). Nurses could replace the Security Officers and could choose a player to give a flu test to (检查) to see whether a student has the flu (感冒) or just allergies (过敏). Allergy Sufferers could be the rest of the students who may have a fever (发烧), have red, scratchy eyes (眼睛又红又痒), and may have a stomachache (肚子疼) but do not have the flu. Like in Secret Leakers, the Flu Spreaders could try to avoid detection while school Doctors, Nurses, and Allergy Sufferers try to catch the Flu Spreaders and send them home to get better. 

During game play, students may need to use certain words and phrases. For example, during Stage 2 Step 1, the self-introductions in Secret Leakers could be replaced with each student describing how they feel, if they are taking medicine and saying how they know they do not have the flu. We could imagine phrases could be 我肚子疼死了，还发烧。[My stomach hurts and I have a fever] 医生说我过敏了。[But the doctor says that it’s just allergies.] 早饭前吃过敏药，一天一次，一次一颗。很快就好了。[He said if I take one allergy pill once a day before breakfast, I’ll be fine.]; 医生说我眼睛越来越红，过敏越来越重，得打针才能好 [The doctor said that my eyes are getting redder and redder and that I need a shot to get better.] Then, in Stage 2 Step 2 in place of accusing another student, students must ask the next student about their health. For example, they could ask how the player feels, if they are taking (fictional) medicine, and how often. Example questions could be 你感冒了吗? [Do you have the flu?]

Next, we would want to test it out in a playtesting phase. We would want students to have multiple opportunities to play the game while we observe what is working and what is not.  We would want to jump in and give language feedback during the game if students struggle. Scaffolding techniques (e.g., slides with character roles with key phrases) could be provided to support interactions if necessary. We could also observe whether language is being used accurately and provide feedback to the whole group after each round of play, pointing out what was done well and what could be improved. 

Finally, we would want to evaluate the game in terms of its functionality, completeness, balance, fun, and accessibility. For functionality, we would want to observe whether the game mechanics work well in our classroom and if our students are able to play the game in the target language. For completeness, we would want to check to make sure that we are meeting our course goals and students are meeting learning outcomes. For balance, we would want to ensure that all students are actively engaged and have equal opportunities to speak and participate. For fun, we can observe student behavior and also ask students directly whether they enjoyed the game. Finally, for accessibility, we would need to consider whether students of a variety of proficiency levels and other abilities were able to participate and engage in the game and if not then decide what other scaffolding activities could be added. 

Conclusion

We sincerely believe that language classrooms can be both fun and effective when we take the time to carefully and systematically plan, implement, and evaluate our activities. We understand that games are not appropriate for every context and require time and some creativity, but we hope that we’ve convinced you to consider trying out a social deduction game in your own context, to think about what worked or didn’t, and share your experiences. In this article, we tried to do just that–The Secret Leakers led to very engaged language learners, who made use of their reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills in a meaningful way. 

References

Battelle for Kids. (2019). P21 Frameworks & Resources. Battelle for Kids. https://battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources 

East, M. (2021). Foundational principles of Task-Based Language Teaching (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039709 

Erlam, R., & Tolosa, C. (2022). Pedagogical realities of implementing task-based language teaching (1st ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.14 

Herkewitz, W. (2019). How a Soviet social experiment became a game for liars. Popular Mechanics, 30. https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/gaming/a28800275/soviet-mafia-werewolf/ 

Fullerton, T. (2024) Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (5th ed.). CRC Press.

Liu, Y., Yao, T., Bi, N., Ge, L. & Shi, Y. (2018). Integrated Chinese Level 1 Part 2, Textbook: Simplified Characters (4th ed.). Cheng & Tsui Company. 

Poole, F. J., & Clarke-Midura, J.  (2020). A systematic review of digital games in second language learning studies. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 10(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2020070101 

Van Gorp, K. (2025). How do you like your TBLT? Strong or weak? Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juhb0mvFKbc 

Yang, L., Li, R., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Research trends of game-based language learning in K-12 education: A systematic review of SSCI articles during 2009–2022. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 1218–1230. https://doi-org.ezproxy3.library.arizona.edu/10.1111/jcal.12944