1 WORD COACH DOES IT COACH WORDS?

? Tom Cobb Universit du Qubec Montral ABSTRACT This study reports on the motivation, design, development, and testing of a research informed video game for vocabulary learning, My Word Coach, played on a Nintendo D or !ii and distributed commercially since late "##$% The learning effects of the game &ere tested over four months in "##' &ith (# age) appropriate *nglish as a second language +* ,- students in a Montreal school% . battery of observational and empirical tests trac/ed e0perimental and 1uasi) control groups2 le0ical development on the dimensions of meaning recognition, free production, and speed of access% T&o months2 game use coincided &ith an average 1#3)"#3 increase in recognition vocabulary si4e5 6#)(#3 reduction in code)s&itching in oral productions5 and 1'3)783 increase in speed of le0ical access% 9ncreased fluency appears to be the most interesting outcome% Questions are raised about the importance of post)game follo& up, and suggestions made for principled modification of the game2s learner model INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND :ideo games occupy more and more of the time and attention of school age learners, &ith an effect on learning that almost definitely e0ists but is presently un/no&n% .rguments in principle for the learning po&er of such games are many +;ee, "##75 <ens/y, "##8-, &hile empirical investigations are fe&% This paper describes the design and testing of a video game focused on the specific goal of vocabulary e0pansion% My !ord =oach +Ubisoft, "##$- is a video game &hose goal is to help either first) language +,1- or second)language +,"- learners of *nglish gro& their le0icons systematically by playing &ord games% .s author of this investigation of the game2s

" learning effects, 9 had also been a linguistic consultant for its design and development, and first presented the game to the public at the Getting the Word Out symposium at the .merican .ssociation of .pplied ,inguistics conference in "##$% The symposium &as a collection of pro>ects &here some part of the voluminous vocabulary research of the past "# years had been applied to a real)&orld problem and &ould potentially help large numbers of real learners meet their vocabulary needs%

The vocabular !roblem !hat are the vocabulary needs of real learners? 9f *nglish users are not re1uired to read, &rite or listen to lectures, these needs may not be all that great or difficult to meet% @esearch has sho&n that the most fre1uent 1### &ord families of *nglish account for almost A#3 of the individual &ords other than proper nouns in typical conversations +.dolphs B chmitt, "##7-% These &ords can be learned fairly easily because of their fre1uent recurrence in the environment% Cut if the learners have to read, &rite, or listen to lectures, the picture changes dramatically% @esearchers have sho&n that the minimal vocabulary needed to read a basic academic te0t in *nglish is probably about ',### &ord families +Nation, "##8-% This figure presents little challenge to educated adult native spea/ers of *nglish, &ho typically /no& roughly "#,### &ord families +;oulden, Nation B @ead, 1AA#-% Cut for ,1 children, there is a notable vocabulary divide along socio) economic lines even before school begins +=hall B Da/obs, "##7- &hich only &idens over the school years% =hildren of immigrant families are particularly at ris/, particular those &hose 1uic/ ac1uisition of conversational ability hides a vocabulary deficit that only appears in high school &hen literacy s/ills become crucial and remediation is difficult +@oessingh B *lgie, "##A-% ,aufer2s +"###- survey of seven vocabulary si4e studies of *E, learners on three continents found that many students attempting to study academic sub>ects through *nglish medium &ere functioning &ith an average of only ",1## + D A$$- &ord families% 9t seems uncontroversial to conclude that vast numbers of learners of *nglish both as ,1 and ," are several thousand &ords short of a functional

7 le0icon in the tas/s they have set for themselves% There is clearly a place in this &orld for a cheap, principled, and effective means of rapid vocabulary e0pansion%

A role "or #ech$olo% The idea that a computer)based training system could be a good &ay to meet the vocabulary instruction challenge has been around for some time% The large amount of material to be covered, the li/elihood of strong individual differences in both goals and learning rates, and the need for recycling and record)/eeping &ere identified early on as reasons to loo/ to computeri4ed instruction +e%g%, .t/inson, 1A$"-% @ecent developments add strength to the argumentF increased capacity allo&s for the provision of concordances or glossaries as learning tools, increased processing speed allo&s for fine) tuned control of procedural interactions, and the advent of net&or/s frees the learner from particular times or places of learning% The still more recent development of game) playing devices carries the potential benefits of a computational medium to a logical conclusion% <layers such as the Nintendo and the various smart mobile telephones combine massive information storage and net&or/ access &ith total learner mobility, and add some features that computers do not normally offer such as stylus entry and e0tended animation% ;aming technology may be able to put the findings of vocabulary research into the service of learners on a larger scale than has been possible through the traditional mediation of courseboo/s and teacher training +as discussed in =obb, "##', &hich ma/es a case for direct research)to)learner lin/s-%

De&'%$ (rece)e$#& 9 have been developing and researching three types of computational vocabulary tutors for some time, in collaboration &ith teachers in a variety of language learning conte0ts% The three types are fre1uency)list driven, corpus)informed systems +=obb, 1AAA-, learner)driven collaborative database systems +Gorst, =obb B Nicolae, "##(-, and te0t)

6 driven, resource)informed systems +=obb, "##A-% =urrent development &or/ involves e0panding each of these approaches via game activities% Cased on <ariba/ht and !esche2s +1AA$- strong findings for @eading)<lus activities +learning is enhanced if &ord)focused activities follo& rather than precede te0t encounters-, the current list) driven, collaborative, and te0t)driven systems allo& learners to collect &ords met in other conte0ts and send them to games that give further practice in form recognition +e0traction of a &ord from a >umble of letters-, form production +spelling from te0t)to)speech dictation-, timed recognition access, and semantic transfer to novel conte0ts% !ords can be collected and sent from authored activities at these U@,sF conc%le0tutor%caHlistIlearn for list)driven systems5 le0tutor%caHgroupIle0 for collaboration)driven systems5 and le0tutor%caHhyperte0tHengI"H for te0t)driven-% These developments formed the basis of my &or/ &ith an international video gaming company to develop a pac/age of vocabulary training games for the Nintendo and !ii, for *nglish and then for several other *uropean languages% This &or/ &ould potentially ma/e at least some of the principles and technologies outlined above, and research principles to be outlined belo&, available to a large ne& learnership%

GA*E DESCRI(TION The learning content of My !ord =oach is effectively the entire contemporary, non) specialist le0icon of the *nglish language, as represented by its 16,### most fre1uent &ord families% This content is bro/en into 1###)family sections, &hich define a learner) player2s 4one of play at a given point in time% ,earners are tested at the beginning, assigned a fre1uency 4one to &or/ in, and then begin playing a series of &ord games &ith randomly selected &ords from this 4one% .ll &ords that pass through the game are recycled at least five times% !ords a player appears to be having trouble &ith, &hether &ith form or meaning, are recycled e0tensively according to an algorithm% The number and difficulty of the games evolves as play proceeds% The game /eeps detailed records, provides regular feedbac/, and moves the player through the levels as learning criteria are

( met% The games focus on one or more of the follo&ing s/ill areas as mentioned above J form, form)meaning connection, and le0ical access% The user loads Word Coach into the Nintendo console, enters his or her name +four can play on one machine, plus guests, and many more &irelessly- and begins to play the one game available at this point, &hich is effectively a placement test, a sample item from &hich appears in the leftmost screen of Eigure 1% The testing starts by pitching &ord sets from a medium fre1uency level +the 6### &ord level-5 if these &ords are not /no&n, the level goes do&n until a 4one containing at least 7#3 un/no&n &ords is determined +or if mainly /no&n, the level goes up-% 9n this &ay, players are challenged at their o&n level% More games are introduced as play proceeds% There are t&o form)based games5 Missing ,etter, &hich involves using the stylus to supply the letter missing from a &ord +e%g%, new_paper, see Eig% ", left screen-, and Cloc/ ,etters, &hich involves clic/ing on falling letters to form one of four given &ords as unused letters pile up to&ard an e0plosion +in a version of Tetris, see Eig% ", middle screen-% Eour of the games involve connecting &ords and simplified ," glosses, in various combinations of both receptive and productive tas/s% 9n plit Decision, the upper screen displays a definition &hile the lo&er screen presents &ords that players toggle through until they identify the one that matches the definition% 9n !ord huffle a &ord from the bottom screen is dragged and dropped on one of four definitions in the top screen% 9n <asta ,etters, players are sho&n a definition and must produce and spell the corresponding &ord by dragging its letters in se1uence from a bo&l of alphabet soup before they sin/% 9n afecrac/er a definition of a &ord is presented for players to produce and spell on the dial of a safe, but no& against an opponent either human or machine generated if no human is available% The games are played in sets of about "# &ords and advance from less to more challenging versions5 for e0ample, the advanced version of Missing ,etter challenges the player to identify the &rong letter from newlpaper and correct it rather than simply filling a gap% *ventually correct &ords &hich re1uire no change are added to the mi0% ,e0ical access speed is accentuated throughout, by advancing the rate at &hich the &ords drop, at &hich the opponent drags his letters out of the soup, and so on%

8 .t the end of each &ord set, missed &ords are revie&ed, points are tallied +&ith bonuses and penalties according to time ta/en-, progress graphs are presented, errors highlighted, meanings revie&ed +see Eig% ", middle-% =artoon tutors revie& speed, errors, and persistence, and offer encouragement, advice and admonition +KLou2ve been absent for a long timeM-% <layers are recommended to do 1## &ords per day, and at intervals they assume ne& levels of Ke0pression potentialM +*<-, each level being named for the language ability loosely associated &ith a la&yer, a reporter, a poet, and so on% This dubious but probably harmless idea, invented at the commercial end of the design process, addresses the legitimate concern that 1###)levels &ere both boringly named and entailed e0cessive delay bet&een promotions% Eigure 1 sho&s the placement)test format on the left5 the other screens sho& management tools &hich encourage players to reflect on their learning5 Eigure " sho&s a sample of form)based game screenshots and the deployment of the split screen5 and Eigure 7 sho&s a sample of form)meaning games +for others, see the game2s !eb site at httpFHHmy&ordcoach%us%ubi%comH -%

Eigure 1F Erom !ord =oach2s placement test and learning management tools +6 split screens-

Eigure "F !ord =oach2s form)based games and session feedbac/ +7 split screens-

Eigure 7F !ord =oach2s form and meaning games +7 split screensRE+IEW O, THE -ITERATURE Eollo&ing on this introduction to the game itself, &e turn to a revie& of the relevant research in three parts ) the research behind the game components, the research behind the learning choices, and the research precedents for vocabulary and literacy training games% Re&earch beh'$) #he %ame.& com!o$e$#&

' =ontent% Nnly relatively recently has it become possible to specify &hat the basic non) specialist le0icon of *nglish consists in% This specification follo&s from three connected research pro>ects over a 1#)year periodF the assembly of the 1## million &ord Critish National =orpus +N0ford =omputing ervices, "##(-5 its brea/do&n into a list organi4ed by fre1uency and range +,eech et al, "##1-5 and the pedagogical adaptation of the lists by Nation, &hich involved recombining items from the &ritten and spo/en sections to Kmore closely represented the order Oof learningP the &ordsM +Nation B Ceglar, "##$, p% 11- and organi4ing them into 16 family)grouped thousand lists +Cauer B Nation, 1AA75 Nation, "##8-% @andom items from the resulting lists are sho&n in Table 1 by &ay of illustration% . final adaption of the lists for !ord =oach purposes &as a ran/ing of each list into more and less difficult spellings according to number of syllables +si0 in unreasonableness-, number of double consonants +t&o pairs in committed-, presence of triple vo&els +agreeable-, and /no&n spelling conundrums +li/e admissible-, in order to provide se1uences according to difficulty for the form)oriented games +see le0tutor%caHspellingHbncIconundrumsH-% Table 1% !ords at five CN= fre1uency levels
Eirst 1### held transport point lighten degree line understand high&ay forty sale Third 1### steam adapt stream fiddle urge cheat clip trivial polite heal Eifth 1### diagnose minimal deer gloomy void spine captive glossary ra4or &indscreen *ighth 1### garlic bac/drop mai4e fret draughtsman bipolar caption tingle moron staunch Tenth 1### hairspray beehive vestry into0icate ban/note deliverance clang fallible temperance disservice

.lso relatively recent is the publication of learner dictionaries &ith simplified definitions, follo&ing the principle that as fe& &ords as possible in the definition should be less common than the head&ord itself +as &as al&ays the case &ith the format Ka car is a vehicle &hichQM-% The Cambridge Advanced Learners ictionary +"##(- &as used in

A !ord =oach mainly o&ing to its definitional format and ade1uate number of entries% Many of the definitions &ere further simplified by research assistants to match the screen si4e available and to be comprehensible to as many learners as possible% <lacement and progress testing% The game format is not compatible &ith e0tensive time devoted to testing, so simple Les)No tests are used to place !ord =oach users in an appropriate level 1uic/ly% . yes)no test simply as/s a learner &hether he /no&s each &ord on a list, yes or no, and relies on plausible non)&ord +<N!- items in the list to /eep a chec/ on learners2 honesty and a&areness% Meara and Cu0ton +1A'$- developed the algorithms to modify scores according to the number of <N! choices and tested the test2s predictions &ith large numbers of learners in medium)sta/es settings% @ecycling% 9t if &ell /no&n that &ords have to be encountered several times in order to be retained +see Rahar, =obb B pada for a discussion of ho& many-, but in a game conte0t &here motivation and variety are priorities the 1uestion is ho& fe& times &ill suffice% Mondria and Mondria)De :ries +1AA6- propose a regime based on some classic learning research for their Khand)held computer,M &hich is basically a shoe)bo0 &ith five compartments of increasing si4e% This simple technology attempts to reali4e the classic finding that paired)associate learning is ma0imally effective if associations are revie&ed >ust before they are forgotten, and that such revie&s should occur in a Kspaced distributionM since forgetting typically ta/es t&o to three times longer to occur after each revie&% ,earners ma/e a set of &ord cards, &ith ne& ," &ords on one side and ,1 glosses on the other, and then place the cards in the first compartment of a the bo0% They shuffle the cards +to avoid serial effects-, revie& them ,"),1 or ,1),", and move the ones they /no& to the second compartment, then the third, and so on% oon there are more &ords in the second and third compartments, so these get revie&ed less often +spaced distribution-5 forgotten &ords return to the first bo0 to start the >ourney over again +so &ords needing more attention &ill get it-% Ne& &ords are added periodically to the first bo0, and &ords that ma/e it to the fifth bo0, &hich represents long)term memory, are removed from play%

1# The principles of the hand computer &ere programmed into !ord =oach e0actly as presented in Mondria et al, such that all game &ords even if previously /no&n are recycled at least five times, &hile un/no&n or difficult &ords are recycled possibly a do4en or more times and are not dropped from the game +Ksucceeded,M in the designers2 vernacular- until they have made it through five correct trials at increasing intervals% ;ames, learning, and motivation% The basic cognitive operations that promote initial &ord retention and learning +moving &ords from &or/ing to long)term memory- are fairly &ell /no&n% These are operations that re1uire decisions about &ords, including rehearsal, repetition, recall, retrieval, and use, in conditions of attention and arousal, as discussed in Thornbury +"##", p% "6-% .ll of these operations are fairly straightfor&ard to embody in a game format +apart from KuseM in the type of games &e are discussing-% *ach of !ord =oach2s games gives learners practice in one or more of the basic operations of &ord learning, from rehearsal of form, recall of form cued by meaning, to recall of meaning cued by form, and all of them give learners motivation and opportunity to increase their speed of le0ical access%

Re&earch beh'$) #he lear$'$% cho'ce& !ord =oach is based on a classic paired associate learning model +&ords and glosses-, &ith some e0tra attention paid to processing speed and forms of &ords% .s argued by Nation +e%g%, "##1, pp% "A8)718-, paired)associate learning is +a- the learning model &e /no& most about and +b- the best &ay to meet the goal of establishing a critical mass of vocabulary as early as possible in language learning% The learning approach can also be positioned on a number of schemes from the more recent research literature% 9n terms of incidental or deliberate &ord learning +Nation, "##'-, the approach here is clearly deliberate% 9n terms of conte0tual vs% definitional +=obb, 1AAA5 <rince, 1AA8-, the approach is clearly definitional% 9n terms of broad vs% deep learning +=obb, 1AAA5 Qian, 1AAA-, the approach clearly targets breadth% 9n terms of initial vs% mature &or/ /no&ledge, the approach clearly targets initial% 9n terms of focus on form vs% focus on

11 forms +,aufer, "##8-, the approach is clearly focus on forms% <erhaps the reader has already decided that there is much in this approach that is reminiscent of language drilling, and if these games are drills they can be classed as ranging from mechanical +the t&o form)based games- to meaningful +the definition)matching games- but not communicative +in the scheme of <aulston B Cruder, 1A$8-% Nr if the games boil do&n to a set of electronic &ord cards, basically dividing and reuniting &ord and meaning repeatedly, as described in Mondria et al +1AA6-, then these cards are monolingual rather than bilingual +the &ord on one side and the meaning on the other are both ,"-% The general bias to&ard deconte0tuali4ed learning that is evident in these choices is based on evidence that +a- vocabulary gro&th by more natural or communicative means is far too slo& and patchy for many learners2 immediate needs +Nation, "##15 =obb, "##$-5 +b- such means are not strictly needed for strong initial &ord learning to occur +*lgort, "##$-5 and +c- many at)ris/ learners2 vocabulary needs are not in the area of conte0tual interpretation in familiar te0ts but rather the definitional demands of challenging te0ts +=hall B Da/obs, "##7-% Deconte0tuali4ed drills &ere out of favour at the height of the communicative era but are no& under restoration as a means to an end &ithin the cognitive s/ills approach to language learning +e%g%, deSeyser, 1AA$, =h% 1-% Three of !ord =oach2s design choices re1uire a more specific grounding in previous research, namely the presence of t&o games dealing &ith form alone, the emphasis on access speed, and the choice of ," definitions% 9n general terms, the desirability of focusing on form and meaning separately is a /ey recommendation from the input processing research, &ith its concern for information overload in early or pre)automati4ed language learning +e%g%, :an<atten, 1AA#-% The specific value of giving independent attention to form is based on research sho&ing that the form part of form)meaning connections are often &ea/ in naturalistic vocabulary ac1uisition% The rush to meaning in conte0tual inferences often leads to global comprehension but no retention for the novel &ord form itself +e%g%, Mondria B !it)de Coer, 1AA1-% 9ndeed, the establishment of a form in the mental le0icon is li/ely to be a much longer and slo&er process than putting together a meaning +&hich in any case is available through general /no&ledge and the ,1

1" le0icon- as &ell as being less amenable to e0plicit learning, as suggested by *llis +1AA6and Gulsti>n +"##"-% The games that give learners practice &ith forms alone are Missing ,etter and Cloc/ !ords, and these are designed to &or/ in con>unction &ith form) meaning games to establish the basis for high 1uality entries in the mental le0icon +<erfetti, "##$- in as brief a period as possible through en>oyable and variegated repetition, rehearsal, and reconstruction% The second choice to be >ustified is the emphasis on speed of processing% ,e0ical fluency, as normally represented by the time in milliseconds needed to ma/e le0ical decisions about single &ords out of conte0t, is one of the strongest predictors of both degree of consolidation of &ord /no&ledge and successful reading comprehension, as sho&n in both ,1 and ," studies +summari4ed in ;rabe, "##A, =h% "-% The automati4ation of lo&er level le0ical access processes frees up the memory resources needed for processing higher level meaning and novelty + egalo&it4 B Gulsti>n, "##(-% 9t is often argued that le0ical access speed li/e other implicit or procedural /no&ledge types can only be built up over thousands of hours of e0posure to a language +e%g%, *llis, 1AA6-, but some recent laboratory studies by nellings et al +"##"- and *lgort +"##$- suggests that le0ical access may in fact be trainable using activities built &ith research soft&are ) and replicable in principle on a game console such as My !ord =oach% Third, on the matter of ," definitions, a training study by *lgort +"##$- appears to sho& that le0ical ac1uisition at all levels including the implicit level can be achieved through e0plicit paired)associate training using ," glosses% he gave advanced * , learners practice in ac1uiring 6' *nglish)li/e <N!s using &ord cards &ith simple *nglish definitions on the bac/% .fter only four hours practice over one &ee/, in a version of the spaced rehearsal mentioned above, advanced learners had achieved native spea/er levels of formal, semantic and procedural /no&ledge of the &ords studies including speed of le0ical access in a range of priming conditions% pecifically, they had learned &ords to criterion on egalo&it42 t&o indicators of native level automaticity, ballisticity +primed associations are unstoppable by conscious attention- and lo& variability in reaction times + egalo&it4 B Gulsti>n, "##(-% *lgort e0plained these results in terms of Diang2s +"##6-

17 semantic transfer model of adult ," vocabulary ac1uisition% Diang2s model postulates that ne& ," &ords are almost inevitably associated &ith old ,1 concepts for e0tensive periods, or forever, even if the &ord is learned through conte0tual inference, unless steps are ta/en to prevent the association from forming% This can apparently be achieved through focus on an ," definition through several rehearsals, provided the definition is readable, &hich is &hy as mentioned above that the game definitions &ere doubly simplified%

(rev'ou& re&earch o$ %ame& "or vocabular a$) l'#erac .s mentioned above, the claims for learning from video games are many and the empirical studies fe&% There are some good reasons for the lac/ of studies% :ideo games are played on special machines that, unli/e computers, are not supplied by schools, so that getting an e0perimental group together is difficult% .lso, fe& such games attempt to teach school sub>ects, so school authorities might be reluctant to donate their learners2 time for purposes they see as unclear% *ven &hen literacy instruction is the presumed ob>ective +as can be inferred from the title of ;ee2s, "##7, What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy-, empirical evidence for learning from games is still thin% This is because literacy is often construed in some special &ay in this literature ) critical literacy, ne& literacy, and game playing as a literacy, in ;ee2s te0t ) &hich does not generate falsifiable propositions% !hat is the test that could establish Tthat reading and &riting should not be vie&ed only as mental achievements going on inside peopleUs heads but also as social and cultural practices &ith economic, historical, and political implicationsT +p% '-? :ideo game research, especially for games in the narrative, immersive, and Massive Multiplayer Nnline modes, appears to be at the stage of frame&or/ building and 1uestion forming, or, as the editors of a recent gaming issue of !ducational "echnology #esearch and evelopment + pector B @oss, "##', p% (1#- put it, is Kin its infancy%M ;ee2s student tein/uehler +"##'- describes the current games research agenda in this &ayF K.s part of

16 this success Oof ma/ing games and learning a serious topic on the intellectual and social agendaP, &e have begun to move beyond mere plausibility arguments and are poised to start as/ing more focused and empirically driven research 1uestionsM +p% "(1, emphasis added-% .pparently &e must &ait a &hile for anything definite about learning from this sort of gaming% There is a legitimate 1uestion about K!hat is a game?M The &ord &as !ittgenstein2s +1A(7- classic e0ample of a concept &ith almost no common features across instances% The games under discussion in the present study are clearly much simpler than the multiplayer versions mentioned above% Go&ever, even simpler video games &ith clear and even curricular ob>ectives have not generated strong research as yet% . study referenced by <ens/y +"##8- claims a K"(3 gain in vocabulary /no&ledgeM as a result of a V1## million investment in games targeting curricular competencies in U schools% =loser e0amination reveals that these results are based on the performance of t&o learners +nW"- on an unstandardi4ed measure +,ightspan, "##7, p% 7-% 9t is not clear &hy there should not be a clean transfer of methodologies from computer assisted language learning +=.,,- research to at least some types of video game research, but until no& this does not appear to have happened to any great e0tent% The present study ta/es a step in this direction%

*ETHODO-OG/ AND RESEARCH 0UESTIONS .s outlined above, the goals of Word Coach are to present learners &ith a principled diet of ne& &ords in their vocabulary gro&th area, recycle these &ords via &ord games that emphasi4e different aspect of &ord learning and are fun to play% The design is meant to ensure that many of the &ords presented are remembered, understood, processed fluently, and &ill eventually be used% There are many potential research 1uestions &ithin this agenda, but in this initial study of vocabulary by video game only the follo&ing basic 1uestions are as/edF

1( 1% !hat is the e0tent of game use, and are there any game or learner characteristics that predict game use? "% Go& many &ords are /no&n receptively before and after game use? 7% Go& many learned &ords are used productively after game use? 6% 9s there a difference in speed of le0ical access before and after game use?

-ear$er& a$) Se##'$% The learners &ho participated in this study &ere t&o intact classes of "( ;rade 8 Erancophone * , learners in a middle)class suburban school in Montreal% The ethnicity of both groups &as roughly 7#3 Quebec Erancophone children and $#3 immigrant children mainly from Erancophone countries% The medium of instruction at the school &as Erench, e0cept for t&o hours per &ee/ of * ,, &here the teacher used *nglish as much as possible follo&ing a communicative language teaching approach% The children had various amounts of *nglish e0posure out of class, from e0tensive to none, and &idely varying levels of *nglish proficiency% The teacher reported that the parents of these children had complained that non)educational video games &ere eating into their children2s home&or/ time and that they &ere more than &illing to try the educational variety +A'3 of parents supported this e0periment-% The school supported the research, &hich too/ place over a four month period in the spring of "##$% Nn receiving the game, each group received (# minutes training and roughly e1ual encouragement during * , class to use the game%

The role o" #he %am'$% com!a$ Ubisoft 9nc% of Montreal provided 8# Nintendo D players and My Word Coach game dis/s, &ithout &hich the study could not have ta/en place% Cy mutual agreement &ith Ubisoft, no conditions &ere placed on the /inds of results e0pected or on ho& or &here these &ould be publici4ed%

18

Re&earch De&'%$ Cecause of the school2s re1uirements that all children have a chance to use the game, and that the research groups be intact classes, a pre)e0perimental, &ithin)sub>ects design &as chosen for this study% Nne group used the game for t&o months &hile the other served as 1uasi)control, and then the roles &ere reversed% The same &ord /no&ledge tests &ere administered to both groups at the beginning of the e0periment, at the changeover point, and at the end of the four months% Eor learners &ho received the game first, the se1uence &as as follo&sF pre)test, t&o months &ith the game, post)test 1, t&o months of normal classes &ithout the game, and post)test "% +The second post)test served as a measure of delayed retention%- Eor learners &ho received the game second, the se1uence &as pre)test 1, t&o months &ithout the game, pre)test ", t&o months &ith the game, and a post)test% +The t&o pre)tests serves as a baseline for normal le0ical development against &hich game inspired development could be compared%- The design is sho&n schematically in Table "% Table "F Diagram of research design Eirst game group
T1 <re) Test " months =lassroom X ;ame use " months =lassroom T" <ost) test 1 " months =lassroom T7 <ost) test "

$econd game group

<re) Test 1

<re) Test "

" months =lassroom X ;ame use

<ost) test

The t&o intact classes &ere in the same school, and no attempt &as made to assure that learners had no contact &ith the game in the non)game periods +indeed the game is set up to encourage multiple players-% Go&ever, the same teacher &as in charge of both groups and reported never observing a game player in the hands of a learner other than in the

1$ game period% .ll measures &ere compared at the three test points using basic .NN:.s, since the usual arrivals and absences of an intact setting created slightly une1ual groups and made a repeated measure impossible% Re&earch I$&#rume$#& The research instruments &ere as follo&sF 1% The game itself provides detailed trac/ing of &hich &ords &ere played and ho& often, as &ell as session si4e and fre1uency +Eig 1-% "% The recognition /no&ledge measure is Nation and Ceglar2s +"##$- revision of the classic :ocabulary ,evels Test +Nation, 1AA#-% The levels for this version of the test are sampled from the first fourteen CN= fre1uency lists, as elaborated by Nation, and thus correspond precisely to the content of the game% The test measures only recognition /no&ledge, in that the test ta/er is not as/ed to produce the &ord or its meaning but merely to match the underlined &ord in a short non)defining conte0t to one of five short glosses +Eigure 6-% The test glosses are not the same as the glosses encountered playing !ord =oach e0cept coincidentally%
3. PERIOD: It was a difficult period. a. question b. time c. thing to do d. book

Eigure 6F ,evels Test +"##$- format There are ten test 1uestions at each 1###)family level, such that the score multiplied by 1## gives an estimate of the number of &ord families /no&n at that level +eight out of 1# suggests '## families /no&n-% Nation and Ceglar +"##$discuss the test2s sampling and reliability% 9n this e0periment only the first 1# levels of the test &ere administered, in vie& of the learners2 predicted level and institutional time constraints% ince only one validated version of the test e0isted

1' at the time of the e0periment, the same test &as used &ith each learner three times% 7% The production measure &as an oral telling of the "( line dra&ings of Mayer2s +1A8$- &ordless story A %oy, a og, and a &rog as told +untimed- to a research assistant and recorded% The recordings &ere transcribed as te0t files for processing by the CN= version of :ocabprofile +httpFHH&&&%le0tutor%caHvpHbncH -% This program categori4es each &ord of an input te0t by 1### level, according to Nation2s famili4ed lists as described above, resulting in a fre1uency profile of the learner2s production +the percentage of &ord families, types, and to/ens at each 1### level-% 6% ,e0ical access speed &as measured &ith a simple instrument developed by UN* =N for literacy testing in developing countries% 9t is simply a list of 8# &ords in order of decreasing fre1uency and increasing length +all &ithin the first 1### fre1uency 4one-% The learner is as/ed to read the list aloud to a research assistant for one minute as 1uic/ly as possible% The assistant notes the last &ord reached &ithin the time and stri/es out any mispronunciations that appear to indicate unfamiliarity &ith the &ord, resulting in a tally of &ords read correctly in one minute% .ll four measures &ere administered in one hour in each of the three testing periods% 9n addition, the teacher solicited &ritten comments using a 1uestionnaire format% RESU-TS Game u&e .ccording to Word Coach2s tally of K&ords succeededM +in the game2s vernacular- the amount of game use in each of the t&o)month periods &as e0tensive and similar bet&een the groups, although &ith considerable variance among individuals% ;roup 1 players

1A succeeded an average of "'6A &ords + DW1'$A-, &hile ;roup " succeeded "(78 &ords + D 1A(A-, &ith the difference bet&een means not statistically significant +pW%('-% The standard deviations are high, sho&ing that some too/ to the game more than others +range for &ords succeeded is 86## do&n to "$"-% These numbers translate into days and hours as follo&sF .t the high end, there &ere si0 players in each group &ho succeeded at over 6### &ords in 8# days, &hich at an estimated average of eight appearances of each &ord needed to succeed it, totals roughly 7",### &ords played, or >ust over (## &ords per day, or about "( game sets of "# &ords apiece% .t five minutes per game this &ould amount to roughly t&o hours of play per day, or a total of 1"# hours over t&o months% .t the lo& end, there &ere seven in each group &ho succeeded at fe&er than 1### &ords +',### recurrences, 176 &ords per day, si0 or seven game sets-% .t five minutes per game, this amounts to about 7# minutes per day, or total of 7# hours over t&o months%

*ea$'$% reco%$'#'o$ Coth groups too/ the first ten 1### levels of Nation2s +"##$- CN=)based ,evels Test of meaning recognition at all three testing points% 9t does not appear that the learners had learned the test +as opposed to its content- to any degree, despite ta/ing the same 1##) item test, since the T1)T" scores for ;roup " &hen they did not use the game are not significantly different% The pre)test results at T1 &ere similar bet&een groups +sho&n in Eigure ( and Table 7-, &ith the appearance of a slight advantage for the first game group +not significant for any single level belo& the fifth, or for the first five levels ta/en together-% ome&hat surprising in the results is the roughly e1ual numbers of &ords /no&n across the second through fifth levels5 it is more normal to see a decline as the &ords become less fre1uent%

"# Cecause the scores drop sharply after the fifth level, and because the first (### &ords are a sufficient immediate goal for these learners, it &as decided to calculate learning gains on the basis of only the first (### &ord families% The mean number of &ords /no&n from the first (,### &as ",6"' + D $$1- for the first group, and ","78 + D '$7- for the second, leaving a comfortable learning space of at least "(## &ords%

Eigure (F !ord families /no&n at Time 1 Table 7F Mean ,evels Test scores for first 1#,### &ord families at T1 + D1 game group ' game group
nd st

S1 8%77 +1%(18%## +"%#6-

S" (%#7 +"%7A6%78 +"%(7-

S7 6%17 +"%1$7%A8 +"%68-

S6 6%A# +1%866%66 +1%'8-

S( 6%'$ +1%A77%8# +"%86-

S8 "%$7 +"%#8"%## +1%A6-

S$ "%A7 +1%($1%86 +1%6A-

S' "%'# +"%#$1%(8 +1%$"-

SA 1%$# +1%(7#%'6 +1%#(-

S1# 1%6$ +1%8$#%(8 +#%A#-

Eollo&ing game play, learners in both groups ac1uired ne& &ords across the first five levels of the test, more or less e1ually, as sho&n in Eigure 8 for the first group +the group for &hich pre, post and delayed post scores are available in the present design-% Table 6 sho&s the number of &ords learned across five levels by both groups%

"1

Eigure 8F Mean ,evels Test scores by level for ;roup 1 at three times Table 6F !ord families from (### /no&n at three times Xgain, + DTime 1 Eirst game group "6"' +$$1Time " "("$ +$7AXAA Time 7

"A7"Y Y +$#"X6#( $econd game ""78 "77" "((8Y group +'$7+$$A+'7'X"A X""6 YY pZ%##15 YpZ%#15 underlining indicates game periods The results at T7 sho& significant and e0tensive gro&th of &ord /no&ledge but in a pattern that &ould have been difficult to predict% Eor the first game group, the average number of meanings recogni4ed had increased by only AA immediately after the game +n%s%d-, but then at a delay of t&o months increased by a further 6#( &ords +EWA%1A, pZ%##1-, for a total of (#6 &ords over the four)month period, or a gain of "#%$3 &ith respect to the starting /no&ledge of "6"' &ords% Eor the second group, the average number of meanings recogni4ed had increased by only "A &ords through t&o months2 normal classroom e0perience +n%s%d%-, but follo&ing the game had increased by ""6 &ords +significant at T1)T7, EW(%11, pZ%#1-, a gain of 1#3 &ith respect to the starting /no&ledge of ","78 average &ords%

""

,ro% S#or'e& 12or)& '$ u&e3 The story accounts &ere transcribed by research assistants, spell)chec/ed manually, stripped of immediately repeated &ords and phrases, and run through :ocabprofile)CN= both as corpora and individually% The 1uestion as/ed of the corpus &as &hether any of the 7/, 6/, and (/ &ords that had been learned for meaning recognition &ould sho& up in the tellings% 9f this &as not the case, it &ould not necessarily indicate that no learning had ta/en place, since the transformation of receptive into productive /no&ledge is rarely instantaneous +,aufer, 1AA'-% The :<)CN= analysis revealed that the stories &ere composed over&helmingly of first)1### level &ords, apart from the 6###)level &ord (rog, &hich the learners already /ne&, and that the pattern did not change across the period of the e0periment% @esults for ;roup 1 are sho&n in Eig% $ for ;roup 1 +results &ere virtually identical to ;roup "-%

Eigure $% <rofiles of the frog story corpus The first 1uestion to as/ of the individual frog stories is &hether any significant number of ne& &ord families from any level appear after game use that &ere not present at T1% Table (F Erog story mean &ord counts + D-, XH) gain Time 1 Time " Time 7

"7 Eam Typ To/ Eirst game group 6( +""(1 +"8 6( +16 18$ +'$ 1($ +6" Ea Typ To/ m 6' (6 "#$Y +"1- +"8 Y X7 +A#X7 X6# 7' +18)" 61 +1A )6 1(A +("X" Ea Typ To/ m 66 (# 1$A +"1- +"8 +$( )6 )6 )1( 66 +1$X7 6' +"1 X" 1$A +8# X11

econd game group

6# +17-

YYpZ%#15 off)list items are not included Table ( sho&s :ocabprofile2s family, type, and to/en counts for the t&o groups at three times% There are an average three additional &ord families for each group follo&ing the game periods +at T" for ;roup 1, T7 for ;roup "-, but these gains are statistically significant only at the pZ%1# criterion in both cases% There &ere ho&ever large increases in the number of total &ords used to tell the stories, as represented by the to/en counts, at T" for ;roup 1 +6# mean increase from an original mean of 18$, about "(3, EW(%$', pZ%#1- and T7 for ;roup " +"# mean increase from an original 1(A at T", about 1"3 but not significant-% There are declines for all units in repeated re)tellings follo&ing non) game periods, &hether preceding game use +;roup " at T"- or follo&ing +;roup 1 at T7-%

-e4'cal acce&& &!ee) Coth groups made small gains in le0ical access in the non)game periods +presumably a practice effect- and strong gains follo&ing game periods% Erom a similar starting point of (6%A average &ords read correctly in one minute for ;roup 1 and 87%8 &ords for ;roup " +n%s%d%-, ;roup 1 increased the number by 1A%( &ords or 783 from T1)T" and another 8%A by T7 +EW"#%'", pZ%###1-% ;roup " increased its &ords read by an average '%" at T1)T", and by 1"%" more &ords or 1'3 increase follo&ing the game period T")T7 +EW6%"A, pZ%#(-% This information is summari4ed in Table $% Table $F Number of error)free &ords read in 1 minute at three times + D-+Xgain-

"6 Time 1 Eirst game group (6%A +11%6Time " Time 7

$6%(YY '1%6Y +"$%A+7#%6X1A%( X8%A $econd game 87%8 $1%' '6%#Y group +"#%6+"(%"+"'%"X'%" X1"%" YY pZ%#1 YpZ%#(5 underlining indicates game period

S#u)e$# 5ue&#'o$$a're& .fter each game period, the teacher too/ &ritten reports from the students on their e0perience of the game% Most students e0pressed satisfaction &ith the game, seeming to prefer the games &ith less to read +single &ords rather than definitions- and faster action +li/e Cloc/ ,etters-% Nne recurring comment stands out, that the players perceived the systematic reappearance of &ords that &ere either ne& or had been involved in an error as KboringM% o much for the careful recycling algorithm J and a reminder that there are probably limits to the possibilities of edutainment%

(re)'c#or& o" %ame u&e ;iven the fact of very heavy and very light users, &ere there any obvious learner characteristics that &ould predict game use? The first guess is that some learners might not have enough *nglish to get started &ith the games% The participants &ere ran/ ordered by number of &ords succeeded and then divided into t&o groupings, those &ho had succeeded in more than "### game &ords +86#7 do&n to "#'#-, and those &ho had succeeded in fe&er than "### +1A8' do&n to 6(#-% The number of &ords succeeded &as then compared to performance on the different levels of the ,evels Test at T1% The only interesting relationship &as bet&een &ords succeeded and scores at the first 1### level%

"( Nf the heavy game users, $#3 had 1/ ,evels Test scores of 8#3 to $#3, suggesting they probably /ne& about 8## or $## of the first thousand &ords of *nglish% Nf the light users, $(3 had scores that &ere either belo& 6## &ords or else above '## &ords% 9n other &ords, too much or too little /no&ledge of the first 1### &ords predicted light game use5 a moderate /no&ledge predicted heavy game use% ;iven the crucial role of the first 1### &ords in *nglish at large +comprising at least $#3 of an average te0t and far more of an average conversation- or !ord =oach in particular +it is the language of all the game2s instructions, feedbac/, definitions, and tutorial messages-, a /no&ledge of only 7## or 6## &ords in this 4one &ould reasonably predict a tough time ma/ing sense of the game% =onversely, a score of over '## may have given learners the impression they &ere already good at *nglish +in the conte0t of their school and neighbourhood- and had little to learn%

DISCUSSION . pattern to notice across the measures is that &hile the results are in the same direction for the t&o groups &ith respect to the game periods, they are larger and more consistently significant for the first group that used the game despite their e1ual starting points and amount of game use% 9t is probably safe to say there &as an e0citement to the first run that had dissipated slightly &hen the game had become habitual% .nother pattern is that fluency gains +reaction speed, access to *nglish &ords rather than code s&itches- &hile strong appear to &ane as soon as the game period is over% <ut together, these results suggest that a longer period of game play is probably needed to consolidate learning, and yet that the motivation needed to sustain a longer period could not be ta/en for granted% Nther patterns pertain to the individual game ob>ectives%

Wor)& lear$e)

"8 Cased on the performance of the t&o groups of learners, it appears that an average of bet&een ""6 and (#6 of the &ords presumably met largely on !ord =oach &ere at least remembered and understood, in that they could be matched to a definition on the ,evels Test that &as not simply the one originally learned in the game% This &as an e0pansion of vocabulary si4e of about 1#3 and "#3 respectively +giving some credibility to the finding cited by <ens/y, above-% This finding is of course to some e0tent correlational, since individual game &ords &ere neither trac/ed nor tested, as indeed they could not be given the varying incoming vocabulary /no&ledge and the game2s ob>ective of matching game &ords to player levels% The importance of these gains should be assessed against t&o bac/drops, +1- the mean numbers of game &ords that had been through a full recycling +succeeded-, and +"- the normal vocabulary gro&th that occurs &ith classroom learning% The average number of &ords that had been succeeded &as roughly "(## and "'## &ords for the t&o groups, such that (#6 &ords or >ust under "#3 of succeeded &ords &ere remembered by the first group, and ""6 &ords or >ust under 1#3 &ere remembered for the second group% The typical or habitual vocabulary gro&th for learners in Quebec schools has never been measured, to my /no&ledge% The second group2s "A average &ords T1)T" is probably a good start to&ard building a baseline% The average gro&th e0perienced in this period appears plausible, in that "A &ords e0trapolates to "A# for a 1#)month school year and about "7## for eight years of school * ,, and this tallies &ith studies &ith comparable but older Quebec learners +Rahar et al, "##1-% 9t is interesting that the strongest /no&ledge gains +;roup 12s 6#( &ords T")T7- &ere registered not right after the game period but at a t&o)month delay% Delayed appearance of le0ical gro&th is not unprecedented +=obb, 1AAA- and may even be the norm +unac/no&ledged o&ing to the general lac/ of delayed posttest measures in vocabulary ac1uisition studies, as discussed in chmitt, in press-% 9t ma/es sense that &ords learned inside one2s gro&th area are encountered again &ithin a short period and that further consolidation and de)conte0tuali4ation ta/es place%

"$

The fre1uency levels of the &ords learned deserves comment% @esults sho& the participants had learned &ords across the first five fre1uency levels, but not to the $#3 criterion at any level +Eig% (-% ;iven the high coverage of the first and second thousand &ords +Nation, "##1-, it &ould seem an important element in any designed approach to vocabulary gro&th to fill these levels to at least '#3 /no&n items +achieving &hat ;rabe, "##A, p% 7"( calls a Kcritical massM of le0is- before moving the focus to less fre1uent items% !ord =oach2s placement test may have failed to do this because it assumed that learners entering the game had been learning &ords up to then roughly in order of fre1uency% 9f this &as the case, then once a level had been identified &ith (#) $#3 of &ords /no&n, this &ould be set as the &or/ing level% These learners, ho&ever, had several such gro&th 4ones J their mean percentages &ere 6#)(#3 at T1 right across the second through fifth levels +Eig% (-, ma/ing any of them plausible candidates for learning 4one% 9t is li/ely the learning algorithms &ere confused by these uneven profiles, and in their ongoing assessment /ept assigning learners to ne& levels, &here indeed the learners /ept on pic/ing up ne& &ords%

Wor)& '$ u&e Nral production results sho& that &hile only a fe& ne& &ord families &ent into immediate use in the Erog tories, the stories nonetheless changed on other units% tory si4e gre& significantly follo&ing game use, but &here did these e0tra &ords come from ? The presence of e0tra &ord to/ens indicates some additional elaboration of incidents in the story +not >ust repetitions as these had been removed-% Cut it also indicates a strong but unanticipated reduction in code s&itching, i%e% recourse to Erench &ords to flesh out the accounts% The off)list component of the :ocabprofiles &as mainly ,1 +Erench- &ords, and this component dropped by ("3 for ;roup 1 +EW'%A$, pZ%#1 T1)T", pZ%#( T1)T7and 6#3 for ;roup " +pW%#8-% The non)game periods produced a pattern similar to the one &e have seen before, for ;roup 1 some loss of gains at T7, and for ;roup " a T1)T" baseline sho&ing little movement%

"'

Table 8F <ercentage of Erench to/ens in Erog stories at three times + DTime 1 Eirst game group $econd game group YY pZ%#15 YpZ%#( 1#%7 +11%$1"%# +1#Time " (%6YY +'%71#%# +ATime 7 $%"Y +1#%68%# +$-

Acce&& &!ee) The increase of bet&een 1'3 and 7#3 in the number of &ords that could be recogni4ed and decoded in one minute adds to the ongoing conversation about &hether or not le0ical retrieval is Kan aspect of fluent ," production that can be enhancedM + nellings et al, "##"-% The emerging consensus is that it can, and the results presented here are a further positive demonstration% The ne0t 1uestion is &hether training gains transfer to resource sensitive operations li/e reading, and this is presently unclear% Nne thing &e do /no& is that fluent le0ical access does not necessarily develop by itself% @esearch reported in egalo&it4 B Gulsti>n +"##(- found that ostensible bilinguals in Montreal often had slo&er and more variant le0ical access times for common &ords than native spea/ers, suggesting the use of attention)demanding rather than automati4ed le0ical processing in reading% peed)up is not the same as automaticity, but it is presumably a step along the &ay, and *lgort2s +"##$- strong finding for a similar training regime suggests that gaming and le0ical access is a line &orth further development%

CONC-USION & ,UTURE 9s !ord =oach or something li/e it a solution to the problem &e started &ith, that many learners are in serious need of a means of rapid vocabulary e0pansion? The results presented above suggest it is a definite step along the &ay% 9n terms of ra& learning

"A po&er, an interesting game set attached to the currently available fre1uency lists seems a clear alternative or supplement to the slo& accumulation of a le0icon through e0perience and chance encounter% Cet&een 1#3 and "#3 of fully played &ords seem to have been remembered and transferred, at least as far as being attached to a novel definition% 9n the case of the heaviest ten players in the present study +over 8### &ords fully recycled-, this could amount to as many as 1"## reasonably stable ac1uisitions in a couple of months &ith corresponding gains in accessibility% uch an augmentation could ma/e a big difference to an academic learner2s le0icon, say from 1'## to 7### /no&n &ord families +or, from about $#3 to A#3 coverage in average academic te0ts- provided the &ords &ere the right ones% !as that the case here? These learners &ere pic/ing up &ords from across the first five 1###)levels, meaning that they &ould largely not e0perience a coverage gain in &hat they &ere li/ely to be reading in *nglish at school or else&here% The ma>ority of school te0ts or even home ne&spapers they &ould be reading comprise mainly &ords from the first t&o 1### levels, and at these levels their gains &ere minimal% !ith $#3 of first 1### items and 8#3 of second /no&n after game use +Eig% (-, a simplified reader still presents roughly 1(3 un/no&n le0ical items, as can be calculated at httpFHHle0tutor%caHclo4eHvpH% !hat this means is that despite /no&ing "(## and more &ords across the first five levels, these learners could still find their school materials heavy going% !hat it also means is that some of the gains at the lo&er fre1uency levels &ould probably be lost &ithin a fe& months through lac/ of further reinforcement and learning from the environment% The /ey to better targeting of game content lies in the design of !ord =oach2s placement and progress tests, or learner modeling% .t present, the game begins by testing a player2s &ord /no&ledge at a medium level +fourth thousand &ords li/e rigged, sigh, inhale, and poach- and &or/s do&n +third thousand, second thousand- until it finds a level &ith (#) $#3 of &ords /no&n% The game assumes this to be the primary gro&th 4one, since the level belo& that is presumably largely /no&n items% Cehind this choice, ho&ever, is the further assumption that le0icons gro& more or less linearly according to fre1uency% This appears to be the case in ,1 le0icon building, as research by Ciemiller and lonim +"##1-

7# sho&s% 9t cannot be assumed in ,", ho&ever, &here many factors +li/e accessibility of lo&er fre1uency cognates and transfer of items from technical domains- could encourage more top)heavy constructions% Eor many of the learners in this study, game play &ould have begun at the third or even fourth 1###)level, &hen in fact there &ere further gro&th 4ones &ell belo& that, and more useful ones in terms of the greater coverage afforded by higher fre1uency items and the greater gaps caused by not /no&ing them% The alternative approach to learner modeling &ould be to start lo& and &or/ up, as doing this &ould catch the most basic level of &ea/ness% 9t could, ho&ever, compromise the allure of the game for ,1 players to start &ith a test of basic &ords li/e meet, speed, touch, and grow) 9t is a 1uestion of &hether a single game can serve both ,1 and ," needs% 9t probably can, if the possibility of mi0ed profiles is incorporated into the learner modeling process% !or/ing at a less)than)ideal level does not, ho&ever, appear to affect implicit or procedural level gains% Most of the &ords being played and learned &ere at the third through fifth 1### levels, yet the le0ical access speed gains &ere achieved &ith first 1###)level &ords, and the e0tra &ord to/ens that replaced Erench &ords in the Erog stories &ere also first)1### items% 9n other &ords, it appears that retrieving and rehearsing medium fre1uency &ords under time pressure increases the access of high)fre1uency items in the player2s true gro&th 4one, or 4one of productive ability% There appears to be a generali4ed le0ical processing effect in the ," that does not necessarily apply to the e0act &ords played% There is thus much more &or/ to do &ith this type of &ord game, and follo&ing the resolution of the issues >ust mentioned still more testing is needed to determine &hether learned game &ords are retained long term, &hether and &hen they go into active use, and &hether fluency gains on the implicit level are permanent% The sense of previous research &ould suggest that production and deeper comprehension depend on meeting &ords not >ust matched to a gloss and recycled 1# times, although that is a reliable start, but also in meaningful and varied conte0ts and situations% This of course could also

71 happen in a game conte0t% The challenge follo&ing the successful revision and further testing of !ord =oach is the integration of vocabulary design into a more immersive, narrative game format% RE,ERENCES .dolphs, %, B chmitt, N% +"##7-% ,e0ical coverage of spo/en discourse% Applied Linguistics, '*+6-, 6"(J67'% .t/inson, @%=% +1A$"-% Nptimi4ing the ,earning of a econd),anguage :ocabulary% +ournal o( !,perimental -sychology, ./+1-, 1"6)1"A% Cauer, ,%, B Nation, 9% %<% +1AA7-% !ord families% 0nternational +ournal o( Le,icography, /+6-, "(7J"$A% Ciemiller, .% B lonim, N% +"##1-% *stimating @oot !ord :ocabulary ;ro&th in Normative and .dvantaged <opulations *vidence for a =ommon e1uence of :ocabulary .c1uisition% +ournal o( !ducational -sychology, .1+7-, 6A')("#% Cambridge advanced learners dictionary, 'nd ed% +"##(-% Ne& Lor/F =ambridge University <ress% =hall, D% B Da/obs, :% +"##7-% <oor childrenUs fourth)grade slump% American !ducator '2 +1-% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%aft%orgHpubs)reportsHamericanIeducatorHspring"##7Hchall%html =obb, T% +1AAA-% Creadth and depth of vocabulary ac1uisition &ith hands)on concordancing% Computer Assisted Language Learning, 3', 76()78#% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%le0tutor%caHcvHCreadth%htm

7" =obb, T% +1AA$-% Erom concord to le0iconF Development and test of a corpus)based le0ical tutor% Unpublished <hD dissertation, =oncordia University Dept of *ducational Technology% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%le0tutor%caHcvH&ebthesisHThesis#%html =obb, T% +"##$-% =omputing the vocabulary demands of ," reading% Language Learning 4 "echnology 33+7-, 7')87% @etrieved from httpFHHllt%msu%eduHvol11num7HcobbHdefault%html =obb, T% +"##'-% Necessary or nice? The role of computers in ," reading% 9n R% Gan B N% .nderson +*ds%-, L' #eading #esearch and 0nstruction5 Crossing the %oundaries% .nn .rborF University of Michigan <ress% =obb, T% +"##A-% 9nternet and literacy in the developing &orldF Delivering the teacher &ith the te0t% 9n S% <arry +*d%-, Literacy (or All in A(rica 6ol) '5 #eading in A(rica5 %eyond the $chool) SampalaF EountainH.frican Coo/ =ollective% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%le0tutor%caHcvH:ol" ec(=obb%doc deSeyser, @% +"##$-% -ractice in a $econd language5 -erspectives (rom applied linguistics and cognitive psychology) Ne& Lor/F =U<% *lgort, 9% +"##$-% "he role o( intentional, deconte,tuali7ed learning in second language vocabulary ac8uisition5 !vidence (rom primed le,ical decision tas9s with advanced bilinguals) <hD dissertation, :ictoria University of !ellington, Ne& Realand% *llis, N% +1AA6-% :ocabulary .c1uisitionF The 9mplicit 9ns and Nuts of *0plicit =ognitive Mediation% 9n N% *llis +*d%-, 9mplicit and e0plicit learning of languages +pp% "1l)"'"-% ,ondonF .cademic <ress% ;ee, D% <% +"##7-% What 6ideo Games :ave to "each ;s About Learning 4 Literacy% Ne& Lor/F <algrave Macmillan

77 ;oulden, @%, Nation, <%, B @ead, D% +1AA#-% Go& large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 33+6-, 761)7('% ;rabe, !% +"##A-% #eading in a second language5 Moving (rom theory to practice) Ne& Lor/F =ambridge University <ress% ;runeberg, M%, Morris, <%, B y/es, @% +*ds%- +1A$'-% -ractical Aspects o( Memory5 Current #esearch and 0ssues, :ol% 1F Memory in !veryday Li(e) =hicesterF Dohn !iley% Gorst, M%, T% =obb B 9% Nicolae +"##(-% *0panding academic vocabulary &ith a collaborative on)line database% Language Learning 4 "echnology . +"-, A#[11#% @etrieved from httpFHHllt%msu%eduHvolAnum"HhorstHdefault%html Gulsti>n, D%G% +"##"-% To&ards a unified account of the representation, processing and ac1uisition of second language /no&ledge% $econd Language #esearch, l<, 1A7)""7% Diang, N% +"##6-% emantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language% "he Modern Language +ournal, <<, 618)67"% ,aufer, C% +1AA'-% The Development of <assive and .ctive :ocabulary in a econd ,anguageF ame or Different? Applied Linguistics, 3.+"-, "(()"$1% ,aufer, C% +"###-% Tas/ effect on instructed vocabulary learningF The hypothesis of Uinvolvement%U $elected -apers (rom A0LA .. "o9yo +pp% 6$)8"-% To/yoF !aseda University <ress% ,aufer, C% +"##8-% =omparing focus on form and focus on forms in second language vocabulary learning% "he Canadian Modern Language #eview, /1+1-, 16A)188 ,eech, ;, @ayson, <%, B !ilson, !% +"##1-% Word (re8uencies in written and spo9en !nglish5 %ased on the %ritish =ational Corpus) ,ondonF ,ongman%

76

Lightspan #eport on Goodman !lementary $chool in Aldine, ">) +"##7-% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%plato%comHmediaH*valuation3"# tudiesH@H@alph3"#;%3"#;oodman 3"#*lementary%pdf Mayer, M% +1A8$-% A boy, a dog, and a (rog) Ne& Lor/F <enguin <utman% Meara, <%, B Cu0ton, C% +1A'$-% .n alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests% Language "esting, *, 16")(6% Mondria, D%).% B Mondria)De :ries, % +1AA6-% *fficiently memori4ing &ords &ith the help of &ord cards and Uhand computerUF Theory and applications% $ystem, '', 6$)($% Mondria, D%).%, B !it)de Coer, M% +1AA1-% The effects of conte0tual richness on the guessability and the retention of &ords in a foreign language% Applied Linguistics, 3' +7-, "6A)"8$% Nation, 9% %<% +"##'-% "eaching vocabulary5 $trategies 4 techni8ues) CostonF Geinle% Nation, 9% %<% +"##8-% Go& large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language #eview /1 +1-, (A)'"% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%victoria%ac%n4HlalsHstaffHpaul)nationH<ublicationsH"##83"#Go&3"#large 3"#a3"#vocab%pdf Nation, 9% %<% B Ceglar, D% +"##$- . vocabulary si4e test% "he Language "eacher, 13+$-, A)17% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%victoria%ac%n4HlalsHstaffHpaul) nationH<ublicationsH"##$3"#Ceglar3"#T,T%pdf Nation, <% +"##1-% Learning vocabulary in another language) Ne& Lor/F =ambridge University <ress%

7( N0ford University =omputing ervices +"##(-% "he %ritish =ational Corpus) 9nformation at httpFHH&&&%natcorp%o0%ac%u/ <ariba/ht, %, B !esche, M% +1AA$-% :ocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary ac1uisition% 9n D% =oady B T% Guc/in +*ds%-% $econd language vocabulary ac8uisition5 A rationale (or pedagogy) =ambridgeF =ambridge University <ress% <aulston, =% B Cruder, M% +1A$8-% "eaching !nglish as a second language5 "echni8ues 4 procedures) =ambridge M.F !inthrop% <ens/y, M% +"##8-% ont bother me Mom ? 0m learning5 :ow computer and video games are preparing your children (or twenty@(irst century success ? and how you can help) t <aul, MNF <aragon Gouse% <erfetti, =% +"##$-% @eading abilityF ,e0ical 1uality to comprehension% $cienti(ic $tudies o( #eading, 33+6-, 7($)7'7% <rince, <% 1AA8% econd language vocabulary learningF The role of conte0t versus translation as a function of proficiency% "he Modern Language +ournal, <A, 6$'JA7% Qian, D% +1AAA-% .ssessing the @oles of Depth and Creadth of :ocabulary Sno&ledge in @eading =omprehension% Canadian Modern Language #eview, B/+"-, "'")7#'% @oessingh, G% B *lgie, % +"##A-% *arly language and literacy development among young *nglish language learnersF <reliminary insights from a longitudinal study% "!$L Canada +ournal, '/ +"-, "6)6(% chmitt, N% +in press-% #esearching 6ocabulary5 A 6ocabulary #esearch Manual) Casingsto/eF <algrave Macmillan%

78 chmitt, N%, chmitt, D%, B =lapham, =% +"##1-% Developing and e0ploring the behaviour of t&o ne& versions of the :ocabulary ,evels Test% Language "esting 3<+1-, (( ) ''% egalo&it4, N%, B Gulsti>n, D% +"##(-% .utomaticity in bilingualism and second)language learning% 9n D% Sroll B .% de ;root +*ds%-, :andboo9 o( %ilingualism5 -sycholinguistic Approaches +pp% 7$1)7''-% N0ford, USF N0ford University <ress% nellings, <%, van ;elderen, .% B de ;lopper, S% +"##"-% ,e0ical retrievalF .n aspect of fluent ," production that can be enhanced% Language Learning, B'+6-, $"7)$(6% pector, D% B @oss, % +"##'-% 9ntroductionF pecial thematic issue on game)based learning% !ducation "echnology #esearch 4 evelopment, B/, (#A)(1#% tein/uehler, =% +"##'-% 9ntroduction to the ;ames, ,earning B ociety =onference special issue% Games 4 Culture, 1, "(1)"("% Thornbury, % +"##"-% :ow to teach vocabulary) Garlo&, USF <earson *ducational% :an<atten, !% +1AA#-% .ttending to form and content in the inputF .n e0periment in consciousness% $tudies in $econd Language Ac8uisition, 3', "'$)7#1% !ittgenstein, ,% +1A(7H"##1-% -hilosophical 0nvestigations) N0fordF Clac/&ell Rahar, @%, =obb, T%, B pada, N% +"##1-% .c1uiring vocabulary through readingF *ffects of fre1uency and conte0tual richness% =anadian Modern ,anguage @evie&, ($+6-, (61) ($"% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%le0tutor%caHcvHvIconditions%htm