1 WORD COACH – DOES IT COACH WORDS?

Tom Cobb Université du Québec à Montréal 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)

and then begin playing a series of &ord games &ith randomly selected &ords from this 4one% . available to a large ne& learnership% GA*E DESCRI(TION The learning content of My !ord =oach is effectively the entire contemporary. &hich define a learner) player2s 4one of play at a given point in time% . and moves the player through the levels as learning criteria are .earners are tested at the beginning.ll &ords that pass through the game are recycled at least five times% !ords a player appears to be having trouble &ith. are recycled e0tensively according to an algorithm% The number and difficulty of the games evolves as play proceeds% The game /eeps detailed records. and research principles to be outlined belo&. non) specialist le0icon of the *nglish language. and semantic transfer to novel conte0ts% !ords can be collected and sent from authored activities at these U@. as represented by its 16. "##A-% =urrent development &or/ involves e0panding each of these approaches via game activities% Cased on <ariba/ht and !esche2s +1AA$. provides regular feedbac/.strong findings for @eading)<lus activities +learning is enhanced if &ord)focused activities follo& rather than precede te0t encounters-. form production +spelling from te0t)to)speech dictation-. 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. timed recognition access. the current list) driven. assigned a fre1uency 4one to &or/ in.6 driven. 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-.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.### most fre1uent &ord families% This content is bro/en into 1###)family sections. &hether &ith form or meaning. collaborative. resource)informed systems +=obb.

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. at &hich the opponent drags his letters out of the soup. enters his or her name +four can play on one machine. new_paper. &hich involves using the stylus to supply the letter missing from a &ord +e%g%. by advancing the rate at &hich the &ords drop. the level goes up-% 9n this &ay.e0ical access speed is accentuated throughout. see Eig% ". in various combinations of both receptive and productive tas/s% 9n plit Decision. 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. &hich is effectively a placement test. and Cloc/ .etter. 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. &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." glosses.etters. and le0ical access% The user loads Word Coach into the Nintendo console. the advanced version of Missing . middle screen-% Eour of the games involve connecting &ords and simplified . left screen-. and many more &irelessly. and so on% . the level goes do&n until a 4one containing at least 7#3 un/no&n &ords is determined +or if mainly /no&n.and begins to play the one game available at this point. players are challenged at their o&n level% More games are introduced as play proceeds% There are t&o form)based games5 Missing . plus guests.etters. form)meaning connection.( met% The games focus on one or more of the follo&ing s/ill areas as mentioned above J form. see Eig% ".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% . 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 .

advice and admonition +KLou2ve been absent for a long timeM-% <layers are recommended to do 1## &ords per day. 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- . a poet. missed &ords are revie&ed. points are tallied +&ith bonuses and penalties according to time ta/en-. invented at the commercial end of the design process.8 . and at intervals they assume ne& levels of Ke0pression potentialM +*<-. meanings revie&ed +see Eig% ". errors. and persistence. progress graphs are presented. each level being named for the language ability loosely associated &ith a la&yer. 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. middle-% =artoon tutors revie& speed.t the end of each &ord set. and so on% This dubious but probably harmless idea. errors highlighted. and offer encouragement. a reporter.

THE -ITERATURE Eollo&ing on this introduction to the game itself. and the research precedents for vocabulary and literacy training games% Re&earch beh'$) #he %ame.& com!o$e$#& . &e turn to a revie& of the relevant research in three parts ) the research behind the game components. the research behind the learning choices.$ 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.

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 . "##1-5 and the pedagogical adaptation of the lists by Nation.and organi4ing them into 16 family)grouped thousand lists +Cauer B Nation. and /no&n spelling conundrums +li/e admissible-. 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-. "##$.lso relatively recent is the publication of learner dictionaries &ith simplified definitions. presence of triple vo&els +agreeable-. "##8-% @andom items from the resulting lists are sho&n in Table 1 by &ay of illustration% .' =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. number of double consonants +t&o pairs in committed-. "##(-5 its brea/do&n into a list organi4ed by fre1uency and range +.&as used in . p% 11. 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 Learner’s ictionary +"##(. 1AA75 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.eech et al.

and &ords that ma/e it to the fifth bo0. so simple Les)No tests are used to place !ord =oach users in an appropriate level 1uic/ly% . are removed from play% . and then place the cards in the first compartment of a the bo0% They shuffle the cards +to avoid serial effects-.propose a regime based on some classic learning research for their Khand)held computer. 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. &ith ne& .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. =obb B pada for a discussion of ho& many-. &hich represents long)term memory." &ords on one side and . 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.". yes or no. 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&% .1 glosses on the other. 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.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.1).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.").earners ma/e a set of &ord cards.items in the list to /eep a chec/ on learners2 honesty and a&areness% Meara and Cu0ton +1A'$.1 or . and relies on plausible non)&ord +<N!. yes)no test simply as/s a learner &hether he /no&s each &ord on a list. revie& them .

the approach here is clearly deliberate% 9n terms of conte0tual vs% definitional +=obb. 1AAA5 Qian.s argued by Nation +e%g%. &ith some e0tra attention paid to processing speed and forms of &ords% . 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-. repetition. including rehearsal. 1AAA-. in conditions of attention and arousal. such that all game &ords even if previously /no&n are recycled at least five times. and motivation% The basic cognitive operations that promote initial &ord retention and learning +moving &ords from &or/ing to long)term memory. and use. learning. 1AA8-. recall.1# The principles of the hand computer &ere programmed into !ord =oach e0actly as presented in Mondria et al. the approach is clearly definitional% 9n terms of broad vs% deep learning +=obb.are fairly &ell /no&n% These are operations that re1uire decisions about &ords.until they have made it through five correct trials at increasing intervals% . retrieval.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. recall of form cued by meaning. from rehearsal of form. pp% "A8)718-.ames. p% "6-% . "##'-. paired)associate learning is +a.the learning model &e /no& most about and +b.M in the designers2 vernacular. as discussed in Thornbury +"##". the approach clearly targets initial% 9n terms of focus on form vs% focus on . 1AAA5 <rince.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. &hile un/no&n or difficult &ords are recycled possibly a do4en or more times and are not dropped from the game +Ksucceeded. the approach clearly targets breadth% 9n terms of initial vs% mature &or/ /no&ledge. "##1.

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

as normally represented by the time in milliseconds needed to ma/e le0ical decisions about single &ords out of conte0t. =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. and reconstruction% The second choice to be >ustified is the emphasis on speed of processing% . *llis." definitions. on the matter of . "##$.and *lgort +"##$." studies +summari4ed in .rabe.and lo& variability in reaction times + egalo&it4 B Gulsti>n. in a version of the spaced rehearsal mentioned above. 1AA6-. advanced learners had achieved native spea/er levels of formal.as &ell as being less amenable to e0plicit learning.appears to sho& that le0ical ac1uisition at all levels including the implicit level can be achieved through e0plicit paired)associate training using . is one of the strongest predictors of both degree of consolidation of &ord /no&ledge and successful reading comprehension. a training study by *lgort +"##$.1 and . "##(-% *lgort e0plained these results in terms of Diang2s +"##6- . 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. but some recent laboratory studies by nellings et al +"##". ballisticity +primed associations are unstoppable by conscious attention. learners practice in ac1uiring 6' *nglish)li/e <N!s using &ord cards &ith simple *nglish definitions on the bac/% . as sho&n in both .fter only four hours practice over one &ee/.etter and Cloc/ !ords.1" le0icon. they had learned &ords to criterion on egalo&it42 t&o indicators of native level automaticity. "##A.in as brief a period as possible through en>oyable and variegated repetition. rehearsal. as suggested by *llis +1AA6and Gulsti>n +"##"-% The games that give learners practice &ith forms alone are Missing . "##(-% 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%.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. semantic and procedural /no&ledge of the &ords studies including speed of le0ical access in a range of priming conditions% pecifically.e0ical fluency." glosses% he gave advanced * .

especially for games in the narrative. "##'. or forever. "##7. unless steps are ta/en to prevent the association from forming% This can apparently be achieved through focus on an .s part of . provided the definition is readable. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy-.s mentioned above. is Kin its infancy%M . are not supplied by schools. fe& such games attempt to teach school sub>ects. p% (1#. ne& literacy. even if the &ord is learned through conte0tual inference.ee2s. &hich is &hy as mentioned above that the game definitions &ere doubly simplified% (rev'ou& re&earch o$ %ame& "or vocabular a$) l'#erac .lso.17 semantic transfer model of adult . 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. and game playing as a literacy.ee2s student tein/uehler +"##'. as the editors of a recent gaming issue of !ducational "echnology #esearch and evelopment + pector B @oss." definition through several rehearsals. 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 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. immersive. so that getting an e0perimental group together is difficult% . and political implicationsT +p% '-? :ideo game research." vocabulary ac1uisition% Diang2s model postulates that ne& . and Massive Multiplayer Nnline modes. or. 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." &ords are almost inevitably associated &ith old .1 concepts for e0tensive periods. in . appears to be at the stage of frame&or/ building and 1uestion forming.put it. unli/e computers. historical.describes the current games research agenda in this &ayF K.

even simpler video games &ith clear and even curricular ob>ectives have not generated strong research as yet% .ightspan. p% 7-% 9t is not clear &hy there should not be a clean transfer of methodologies from computer assisted language learning +=.. 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". 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.16 this success Oof ma/ing games and learning a serious topic on the intellectual and social agendaP. but in this initial study of vocabulary by video game only the follo&ing basic 1uestions are as/edF .. "##7. the goals of Word Coach are to present learners &ith a principled diet of ne& &ords in their vocabulary gro&th area. understood.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. emphasis added-% . and &ill eventually be used% There are many potential research 1uestions &ithin this agenda. 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 . processed fluently.on an unstandardi4ed measure +..research to at least some types of video game research. &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.s outlined above.

learners in a middle)class suburban school in Montreal% The ethnicity of both groups &as roughly 7#3 Quebec Erancophone children and $#3 immigrant children mainly from Erancophone countries% The medium of instruction at the school &as Erench. &here the teacher used *nglish as much as possible follo&ing a communicative language teaching approach% The children had various amounts of *nglish e0posure out of class.rade 8 Erancophone * .1( 1% !hat is the e0tent of game use. no conditions &ere placed on the /inds of results e0pected or on ho& or &here these &ould be publici4ed% . and are there any game or learner characteristics that predict game use? "% Go& many &ords are /no&n receptively before and after game use? 7% Go& many learned &ords are used productively after game use? 6% 9s there a difference in speed of le0ical access before and after game use? -ear$er& a$) Se##'$% The learners &ho participated in this study &ere t&o intact classes of "( . each group received (# minutes training and roughly e1ual encouragement during * . from e0tensive to none.. 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. e0cept for t&o hours per &ee/ of * . 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. &ithout &hich the study could not have ta/en place% Cy mutual agreement &ith Ubisoft.

and then the roles &ere reversed% The same &ord /no&ledge tests &ere administered to both groups at the beginning of the e0periment. post)test 1. 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 . t&o months &ith the game. and that the research groups be intact classes. at the changeover point. t&o months &ithout the game. t&o months of normal classes &ithout the game.Eor learners &ho received the game second. &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. the se1uence &as as follo&sF pre)test. 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. and at the end of the four months% Eor learners &ho received the game first. 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%. t&o months &ith the game.18 Re&earch De&'%$ Cecause of the school2s re1uirements that all children have a chance to use the game.ame use " months =lassroom T" <ost) test 1 " months =lassroom T7 <ost) test " $econd game group <re) Test 1 <re) Test " " months =lassroom X . the se1uence &as pre)test 1.ame use <ost) test The t&o intact classes &ere in the same school. pre)test ". a pre)e0perimental.The design is sho&n schematically in Table "% Table "F Diagram of research design Eirst game group T1 <re) Test " months =lassroom X . and post)test "% +The second post)test served as a measure of delayed retention%.

evels Test +"##$. question b.evels Test +Nation. in vie& of the learners2 predicted level and institutional time constraints% ince only one validated version of the test e0isted . time c. thing to do d. in that the test ta/er is not as/ed to produce the &ord or its meaning but merely to match the underlined &ord in a short non)defining conte0t to one of five short glosses +Eigure 6-% The test glosses are not the same as the glosses encountered playing !ord =oach e0cept coincidentally% 3.NN:.ll measures &ere compared at the three test points using basic .revision of the classic :ocabulary .1$ game period% . 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. a. and thus correspond precisely to the content of the game% The test measures only recognition /no&ledge. book Eigure 6F .s. 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 +"##$discuss the test2s sampling and reliability% 9n this e0periment only the first 1# levels of the test &ere administered. as &ell as session si4e and fre1uency +Eig 1-% "% The recognition /no&ledge measure is Nation and Ceglar2s +"##$. as elaborated by Nation. PERIOD: It was a difficult period.format There are ten test 1uestions at each 1###)family level. 1AA#-% The levels for this version of the test are sampled from the first fourteen CN= fre1uency lists.

1' at the time of the e0periment.ll four measures &ere administered in one hour in each of the three testing periods% 9n addition.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.ccording to Word Coach2s tally of K&ords succeededM +in the game2s vernacular.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. a og. and to/ens at each 1### level-% 6% . types. although &ith considerable variance among individuals% . resulting in a fre1uency profile of the learner2s production +the percentage of &ord families.the amount of game use in each of the t&o)month periods &as e0tensive and similar bet&een the groups. resulting in a tally of &ords read correctly in one minute% . according to Nation2s famili4ed lists as described above. and a &rog as told +untimed. 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$.roup 1 players . the teacher solicited &ritten comments using a 1uestionnaire format% RESU-TS Game u&e .&ordless story A %oy.

si0 or seven game sets-% .1A succeeded an average of "'6A &ords + DW1'$A-. or total of 7# hours over t&o months% *ea$'$% reco%$'#'o$ Coth groups too/ the first ten 1### levels of Nation2s +"##$. &ith the difference bet&een means not statistically significant +pW%('-% The standard deviations are high. there &ere si0 players in each group &ho succeeded at over 6### &ords in 8# days.roup " succeeded "(78 &ords + D 1A(A-.t five minutes per game this &ould amount to roughly t&o hours of play per day. or a total of 1"# hours over t&o months% . this amounts to about 7# minutes per day. &ith the appearance of a slight advantage for the first game group +not significant for any single level belo& the fifth. there &ere seven in each group &ho succeeded at fe&er than 1### &ords +'. &hich at an estimated average of eight appearances of each &ord needed to succeed it.t the high end.### recurrences.roup " &hen they did not use the game are not significantly different% The pre)test results at T1 &ere similar bet&een groups +sho&n in Eigure ( and Table 7-.### &ords played.CN=)based . totals roughly 7". since the T1)T" scores for . 176 &ords per day. or for the first five levels ta/en together-% ome&hat surprising in the results is the roughly e1ual numbers of &ords /no&n across the second through fifth levels5 it is more normal to see a decline as the &ords become less fre1uent% .evels Test of meaning recognition at all three testing points% 9t does not appear that the learners had learned the test +as opposed to its content.to any degree. or >ust over (## &ords per day.t five minutes per game. or about "( game sets of "# &ords apiece% .t the lo& end. sho&ing that some too/ to the game more than others +range for &ords succeeded is 86## do&n to "$"-% These numbers translate into days and hours as follo&sF . &hile . despite ta/ing the same 1##) item test.

### &as ".for the first group."# Cecause the scores drop sharply after the fifth level. more or less e1ually. and ".for the second. learners in both groups ac1uired ne& &ords across the first five levels of the test. 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 (.evels Test scores for first 1#."78 + D '$7. as sho&n in Eigure 8 for the first group +the group for &hich pre.### &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.6"' + D $$1. 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% . leaving a comfortable learning space of at least "(## &ords% Eigure (F !ord families /no&n at Time 1 Table 7F Mean . and because the first (### &ords are a sufficient immediate goal for these learners.

but follo&ing the game had increased by ""6 &ords +significant at T1)T7. pZ%#1-."1 Eigure 8F Mean . for a total of (#6 &ords over the four)month period. EW(%11.evels Test scores by level for ."78 average &ords% . the average number of meanings recogni4ed had increased by only AA immediately after the game +n%s%d-. + 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 "A &ords through t&o months2 normal classroom e0perience +n%s%d%-.roup 1 at three times Table 6F !ord families from (### /no&n at three times Xgain. but then at a delay of t&o months increased by a further 6#( &ords +EWA%1A. pZ%##1-. a gain of 1#3 &ith respect to the starting /no&ledge of ". or a gain of "#%$3 &ith respect to the starting /no&ledge of "6"' &ords% Eor the second group.

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

pZ%#(-% This information is summari4ed in Table $% Table $F Number of error)free &ords read in 1 minute at three times + D-+Xgain- . type. EW(%$'. T7 for .roup 1 increased the number by 1A%( &ords or 783 from T1)T" and another 8%A by T7 +EW"#%'". 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 . and by 1"%" more &ords or 1'3 increase follo&ing the game period T")T7 +EW6%"A.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."7 Eam Typ To/ Eirst game group 6( +""(1 +"8 6( +16 18$ +'$ 1($ +6" Ea Typ To/ m 6' (6 "#$Y +"1. as represented by the to/en counts.roup 1.roup " at T". . about "(3. but these gains are statistically significant only at the pZ%1# criterion in both cases% There &ere ho&ever large increases in the number of total &ords used to tell the stories. at T" for .roup " +n%s%d%-.roup "-.roup " increased its &ords read by an average '%" at T1)T".or follo&ing +.and strong gains follo&ing game periods% Erom a similar starting point of (6%A average &ords read correctly in one minute for . pZ%#1.roup 1 and 87%8 &ords for . pZ%###1-% . &hether preceding game use +.roup " +"# mean increase from an original 1(A at T".+"8 +$( )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.+"8 Y X7 +A#X7 X6# 7' +18)" 61 +1A )6 1(A +("X" Ea Typ To/ m 66 (# 1$A +"1.roup 1 +6# mean increase from an original mean of 18$. about 1"3 but not significant-% There are declines for all units in repeated re)tellings follo&ing non) game periods.and T7 for .

&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. seeming to prefer the games &ith less to read +single &ords rather than definitions. those &ho had succeeded in more than "### game &ords +86#7 do&n to "#'#-.fter each game period.evels Test at T1% The only interesting relationship &as bet&een &ords succeeded and scores at the first 1### level% .etters-% Nne recurring comment stands out."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& . 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 . 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.and faster action +li/e Cloc/ . the teacher too/ &ritten reports from the students on their e0perience of the game% Most students e0pressed satisfaction &ith the game.

too much or too little /no&ledge of the first 1### &ords predicted light game use5 a moderate /no&ledge predicted heavy game use% ."( Nf the heavy game users. and tutorial messages-. 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) . a score of over '## may have given learners the impression they &ere already good at *nglish +in the conte0t of their school and neighbourhood.nother pattern is that fluency gains +reaction speed. these results suggest that a longer period of game play is probably needed to consolidate learning. 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.evels Test scores of 8#3 to $#3. $#3 had 1/ .and had little to learn% DISCUSSION .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/. 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% . 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. definitions. access to *nglish &ords rather than code s&itches. 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.&hile strong appear to &ane as soon as the game period is over% <ut together.

the mean numbers of game &ords that had been through a full recycling +succeeded-. in that "A &ords e0trapolates to "A# for a 1#)month school year and about "7## for eight years of school * . 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. +1.roup 12s 6#( &ords T")T7. in that they could be matched to a definition on the . 1AAA. and this tallies &ith studies &ith comparable but older Quebec learners +Rahar et al. as discussed in chmitt."8 Cased on the performance of the t&o groups of learners. 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. 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 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.. 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. 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. since individual game &ords &ere neither trac/ed nor tested. such that (#6 &ords or >ust under "#3 of succeeded &ords &ere remembered by the first group.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. "##1-% 9t is interesting that the strongest /no&ledge gains +. and +".and may even be the norm +unac/no&ledged o&ing to the general lac/ of delayed posttest measures in vocabulary ac1uisition studies. above-% This finding is of course to some e0tent correlational.&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.

had several such gro&th 4ones J their mean percentages &ere 6#)(#3 at T1 right across the second through fifth levels +Eig% (-. and for .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. i%e% recourse to Erench &ords to flesh out the accounts% The off)list component of the :ocabprofiles &as mainly .1 +Erench.roup 1 some loss of gains at T7. ho&ever. ma/ing any of them plausible candidates for learning 4one% 9t is li/ely the learning algorithms &ere confused by these uneven profiles.iven the high coverage of the first and second thousand &ords +Nation. p% 7"( calls a Kcritical massM of le0is. this &ould be set as the &or/ing level% These learners. pZ%#1 T1)T".&ords. "##1-. "##A.roup 1 +EW'%A$. &here indeed the learners /ept on pic/ing up ne& &ords% Wor)& '$ u&e Nral production results sho& that &hile only a fe& ne& &ord families &ent into immediate use in the Erog tories. then once a level had been identified &ith (#) $#3 of &ords /no&n.roup " a T1)T" baseline sho&ing little movement% .roup " +pW%#8-% The non)game periods produced a pattern similar to the one &e have seen before. but not to the $#3 criterion at any level +Eig% (-% . but &here did these e0tra &ords come from ? The presence of e0tra &ord to/ens indicates some additional elaboration of incidents in the story +not >ust repetitions as these had been removed-% Cut it also indicates a strong but unanticipated reduction in code s&itching. it &ould seem an important element in any designed approach to vocabulary gro&th to fill these levels to at least '#3 /no&n items +achieving &hat . and this component dropped by ("3 for . for . pZ%#( T1)T7and 6#3 for . the stories nonetheless changed on other units% tory si4e gre& significantly follo&ing game use. and in their ongoing assessment /ept assigning learners to ne& levels."$ The fre1uency levels of the &ords learned deserves comment% @esults sho& the participants had learned &ords across the first five fre1uency levels.rabe.

strong finding for a similar training regime suggests that gaming and le0ical access is a line &orth further development% CONC-USION & . 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.UTURE 9s !ord =oach or something li/e it a solution to the problem &e started &ith. "##"-% The emerging consensus is that it can.found that ostensible bilinguals in Montreal often had slo&er and more variant le0ical access times for common &ords than native spea/ers. and *lgort2s +"##$."' 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 . suggesting the use of attention)demanding rather than automati4ed le0ical processing in reading% peed)up is not the same as automaticity." production that can be enhancedM + nellings et al. 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 . 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 +"##(. but it is presumably a step along the &ay.

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.1 le0icon building. is the further assumption that le0icons gro& more or less linearly according to fre1uency% This appears to be the case in . or learner modeling% . as research by Ciemiller and lonim +"##1- . as can be calculated at httpFHHle0tutor%caHclo4eHvpH% !hat this means is that despite /no&ing "(## and more &ords across the first five levels. the game begins by testing a player2s &ord /no&ledge at a medium level +fourth thousand &ords li/e rigged. 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. sigh. say from 1'## to 7### /no&n &ord families +or. second thousand.and &or/s do&n +third thousand."A po&er. inhale.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.t present. a simplified reader still presents roughly 1(3 un/no&n le0ical items. 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% (-. 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. ho&ever. 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. from about $#3 to A#3 coverage in average academic te0ts. and poach. 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-.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.

7# sho&s% 9t cannot be assumed in .". appear to affect implicit or procedural level gains% Most of the &ords being played and learned &ere at the third through fifth 1### levels. ho&ever." that does not necessarily apply to the e0act &ords played% There is thus much more &or/ to do &ith this type of &ord game. or 4one of productive ability% There appears to be a generali4ed le0ical processing effect in the . 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. 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. and the e0tra &ord to/ens that replaced Erench &ords in the Erog stories &ere also first)1### items% 9n other &ords. speed. although that is a reliable start.1 and . as doing this &ould catch the most basic level of &ea/ness% 9t could. compromise the allure of the game for . but also in meaningful and varied conte0ts and situations% This of course could also . and grow) 9t is a 1uestion of &hether a single game can serve both . &hen in fact there &ere further gro&th 4ones &ell belo& that. 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. 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.could encourage more top)heavy constructions% Eor many of the learners in this study. touch. if the possibility of mi0ed profiles is incorporated into the learner modeling process% !or/ing at a less)than)ideal level does not. &hether and &hen they go into active use. game play &ould have begun at the third or even fourth 1###)level.1 players to start &ith a test of basic &ords li/e meet. ho&ever. ho&ever." needs% 9t probably can. &here many factors +li/e accessibility of lo&er fre1uency cognates and transfer of items from technical domains. yet the le0ical access speed gains &ere achieved &ith first 1###)level &ords.

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

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

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

">) +"##7-% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%plato%comHmediaH*valuation3"# tudiesH@H@alph3"#.76 Lightspan #eport on Goodman !lementary $chool in Aldine. D%). 13+$-. % +1AA6-% *fficiently memori4ing &ords &ith the help of &ord cards and Uhand computerUF Theory and applications% $ystem. *. B !it)de Coer.T%pdf Nation. "6A)"8$% Nation. <%.%.oodman 3"#*lementary%pdf Mayer. B Cu0ton.n alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests% Language "esting. <% +"##1-% Learning vocabulary in another language) Ne& Lor/F =ambridge University <ress% . (A)'"% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%victoria%ac%n4HlalsHstaffHpaul)nationH<ublicationsH"##83"#Go&3"#large 3"#a3"#vocab%pdf Nation. 9% %<% +"##'-% "eaching vocabulary5 $trategies 4 techni8ues) CostonF Geinle% Nation. C% +1A'$-% . 9% %<% +"##8-% Go& large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language #eview /1 +1-. ''. D% +"##$. a dog. D%).%3"#.% B Mondria)De :ries. 9% %<% B Ceglar. vocabulary si4e test% "he Language "eacher. M% +1AA1-% The effects of conte0tual richness on the guessability and the retention of &ords in a foreign language% Applied Linguistics. A)17% @etrieved from httpFHH&&&%victoria%ac%n4HlalsHstaffHpaul) nationH<ublicationsH"##$3"#Ceglar3"#T. and a (rog) Ne& Lor/F <enguin <utman% Meara. M% +1A8$-% A boy. 6$)($% Mondria. 16")(6% Mondria. 3' +7-..

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

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