Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Comparative study of game-based learning on

preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition in
Taiwan

Joni Tzuchen Tang

To cite this article: Joni Tzuchen Tang (2020): Comparative study of game-based learning on
preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition in Taiwan, Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2020.1865406

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1865406

Published online: 30 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 178

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1865406

Comparative study of game-based learning on preschoolers’

English vocabulary acquisition in Taiwan
Joni Tzuchen Tang
Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This is a comparative study that explores preschoolers’ English vocabulary Received 18 September 2020
acquisition in Taiwan and tries to look for a better pedagogy. After Accepted 13 December 2020
Taiwan’s government announced the policy of developing a “Bilingual
KEYWORDS
Nation,” English is the second language in Taiwan. The reforming of vocabulary acquisition;
English instruction is in urgent need. Under this background, this game-based learning (GBL);
research aims to investigate whether English vocabulary acquisition will interactive learning;
occur in a variety of GBL. In this study, we grouped participants into autonomous learning, early
four instructional groups. Two groups are designed as instructional childhood education
groups of “flashcard game” in learning 2 words or 3 words per day.
Another two groups are designed as groups of “driving games” in
learning 2 words or 3 words per day. Without explicit instruction, the
study’s result showed that preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition
can occur autonomously by GBL, and “2 words per day” is the best and
suitable vocabulary size for preschoolers to acquire English in their
memory. We found that games can produce children’s autonomous
learning, and the numbers of children’s vocabulary memory can be
taken into consideration. Besides, the appropriate amount of
information can train children to enter long-term memory. The above
findings will benefit language learning, game-based learning (GBL), and
interactive learning.

Introduction
Like other Asian countries, English is one of the foreign languages in Taiwan. It turns especially
important after Taiwan’s government announced the policy of “Bilingual Nation,” where it means
English is the major official and second language by 2030. Cultivating English proficiency and the
bilingual education system are the main implementations in the policy as well (National Develop-
ment Council, 2018). In a background like this, to reform English instruction is in urgent need.
Besides, more and more parents wish their children to be prepared ahead of others. Under the
current education system in Taiwan, children begin to learn English in the first grade in elementary
school. English is a required course during the whole 12-Year Basic Education, including an elemen-
tary school for six years, a junior high school for three years, and a high school for another three
years. Yet some papers found that there is an increasing amount of kindergarten children or even
preschoolers learning English now (Ku, 2019; Tseng et al., 2019).
“Vocabulary learning” and “Game-Based Learning” (GBL) are common areas in the field of chil-
dren’s English education in Taiwan. Traditionally, “teacher” plays an important role in education (Ku,
2019; Tseng et al., 2019). But in the digital world, “learning” is another thing. We wonder if kids could

CONTACT Joni Tzuchen Tang jttang0@mail.ntust.edu.tw

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. T. TANG

learn autonomously by digital games, especially preschoolers. Is it possible to break through the
traditional teaching mode into digital learning mode on their English vocabulary acquisition?
We hope to find out preschooler’s learning differences in different curriculum designs.

Study purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore preschoolers’ vocabulary learning status by incorporate the
traditional way of recitation into GBL. Our main assumptions are as follows.

Assumption 1: “vocabulary acquisition” is the base of English learning

Vocabulary is the most basic component in a language. English instruction to kids usually sets four
basic skills, including listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Studies on speaking skills found that
most students have difficulties in speaking English at the beginning because they lack vocabulary.
Scholars assumed that the richer their English vocabulary size, the better students can understand
the sentence structure (Brown, 2007; Chen & Li, 2010; Greffe et al., 2005; Song & Hwang, 2020).
Besides, vocabulary acquisition is important in reading. National Reading Panel identified “voca-
bulary” as one of the five essential components of reading instruction (NICHD, 2000). Many studies
showed that vocabulary proficiency has a core impact on reading comprehension (August et al.,
2005; Baumann, 2009; Chall et al., 1990; Chen & Li, 2010; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Man-
cilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Song & Hwang, 2020).
Overall speaking, “vocabulary acquisition” is an important foundation for English learning.

Assumption 2: Game-based Learning (GBL) can help young children to acquire

vocabulary learning
Early childhood education usually focuses on how to apply learning in playful activities. GBL has
become fashionable recently (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng & Su, 2012;
Hooshyar et al., 2018a, 2018b; Lin & Hou, 2016; Zou et al., 2019).
Emerging technology companies on “child learning” have developed and created various unique
games for children, such as Toca Boca, Kizpad, etc. Many studies explored GBL application in voca-
bulary acquisition (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng & Su, 2012; Hooshyar et al.,
2018a; Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Zou et al., 2019).
Many studies found GBL can make children’s learning fruitful. Most games are designed to
balance different subject matters and to assess the learner’s ability to retain or apply the acquired
knowledge (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng & Su, 2012; Hooshyar et al., 2018a;
Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Lin & Hou, 2016; Prensky, 2007; Zou et al., 2019).
Children love to play games and daily activities are full of games. According to various study
results, reasons for children to play games can be that, games are fun, exciting, and offer challenges
of figuring out how to do things (Dalton & Devitt, 2016; Gerkushenko & Gerkushenko, 2014; Godwin
et al., 2015; Hooshyar et al., 2018a; Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Jones & Chang, 2012; Lin & Hou, 2016;
Mouws & Bleumers, 2015; Zou et al., 2019). Other studies found that children love games because
they provide a sense of independence and autonomy (Cheng, 2009; Grimley et al., 2012). In a
game scenario, children enjoy stimulation if they feel that they capable of meeting the challenges
that the game comprises (Dalton & Devitt, 2016; Gerkushenko & Gerkushenko, 2014).
Therefore, based on the characteristics of GBL and vocabulary acquisition, this study expects to
enhance children’s vocabulary memory ability with GBL. Many studies on children’s acquisition
found that constant gaming can be helpful to stimulate children’s memory of new vocabulary
and improve their response to a new one (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng
& Su, 2012; Zou et al., 2019). The improvement of vocabulary acquisition through GBL enables
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

children not only to memorize vocabulary with fun games but also to intuitively respond to the
learned one while encountering it afterward.
Games can stimulate our reactions to make vocabulary acquisition more interesting and attrac-
tive. This paper is to find the relationship between English acquisition, GBL, vocabulary size, and
instructions. According to the assumption above, we employed GBL in digital games and instruction
with traditional recitation tool to compare the learning difference in preschoolers.

Research question
This study aims to investigate whether English vocabulary acquisition will occur in a variety of GBL
scenarios.
Our research questions are as follows.

(1) How does GBL affect preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition?

(2) How do various scenarios and conditions affect English acquisition?

Theoretical background
Based on the above research questions, our literature review is as follows: “Applied Linguistics” and
“Game-Based Learning (GBL).”

Applied linguistics
Applied Linguistics seeks to understand how human beings solve kinds of language problems and
concerns, such as English vocabulary learning and language acquisition. From this perspective, our
study employed GBL models and focused on how students acquire English vocabulary and how to
enhance their English vocabulary competency.

English vocabulary learning

Vocabulary in English involves not only simple words in various aspects, but also complex words and
compound words in meaningful language units (Brown, 1988; Greffe et al., 2005). Specifically, English
vocabulary belongs to a package of words used in a particular context (Jackson & Amvela, 2007). In
other words, vocabulary is a wordstock in a certain context.
Fan (2003) stated that “vocabulary” is in charge of the main part of the meaning in a language, so
that vocabulary acquisition is a nightmare to most learners. Therefore, vocabulary acquisition is quite
the key to the second language (L2) learning. According to Stahl (2005), “Vocabulary knowledge is
knowledge; the knowledge of a word not only implies a definition but also implies how that word fits
into the world.”
Researchers (Beck et al., 2013) said “The word knowledge gap between groups of children begins
before they enter school.” Although vocabulary proficiency might vary greatly among preschoolers
due to family background and individual differences, vocabulary size can be increased gradually
throughout a lifetime. According to Beck et al. (2013), young children acquire vocabulary indirectly,
first by listening when others speak or read to them, and then by using words to talk to others. As
children begin to read and write, they acquire more words through understanding what they are
reading and then incorporate those words into their speaking and writing.
On the other hand, various studies suggested that to increase English vocabulary proficiency and
comprehension, it is better to put vocabulary in context with “easy-to-understand explanations”
(Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).
Overall speaking, according to the above literature review, we designed four different groups in
this study to see if preschoolers can acquire vocabulary while playing games with scenarios.
4 J. T. TANG

Language acquisition
“Language Acquisition” follows different schools as bellow, from behaviorism to social constructivism.
Behaviorism and cognitivism. Behaviorism believes that language is a conditioned behavior that is
acquired through “the principles of conditioning,” especially reinforcement (Skinner, 1938, 1957).
However, Cognitive theorists, like Piaget and Bloom, believe that language can be acquired in a
human meaningful process (Bloom, 1978; Piaget, 1926, 1972).
Humanistic linguistics and social constructivism. Humanistic linguistics takes language acquisition
as a natural process to human beings; the linguistic capacity is innate and spontaneous, especially in
childhood (Chomsky, 1993). Scholar Noam Chomsky suggested, “Language Acquisition Device
(LAD)” in human brains enables us to develop language skills. All children are born with the “univer-
sal grammar,” which makes them receptive to the common features in languages (Chomsky, 1993).
Social constructivists agree with Chomsky’s concept that language acquisition is an innate and social
process (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Chomsky, 1993).
On the L2 acquisition theory by Krashen, language acquisition is in the natural order as well. His
“Input Hypothesis (i + 1)” and “Affective Filter” suggested that, with proper language input and
some affective factors, language acquisition can be improved and achieved automatically
(Krashen, 1981, 1985, 2003).
Overall speaking, according to the above literature review, we believe that language acquisition is
natural, innate, and social contextual (Chomsky, 1993; Krashen, 1985, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986).
Therefore, we built a gaming environment for preschoolers in Taiwan to observe their English acqui-
sition. Besides, to align with our beliefs stated above, we designed games as “autonomous learning
games” in the study, so that we could analyze and compare the acquisition outcomes in different
types of games.

Game-Based Learning (GBL)

Game-based learning (GBL) is a kind of gameplay that defines the learning outcomes. The idea of
GBL believes that if we can motivate children and allow them to develop a learning awareness, chil-
dren can automatically learn and obtain knowledge and information (Van Eck, 2006).
In the past decade, GBL has grown tremendously (Hooshyar et al., 2016, 2019; Kulman, 2014;
Peirce, 2013; Rivera, 2016). With education as the core constituent of games, “educational games”
have a promising prospect because they are a medium that can combine learning and motivation.
The blooming game industry and the increasing popularity of mobile devices are changing learners’
expectations and their gaming habits. As a result, the educational game improves the learning
environment to be highly interactive and stimulates the vision in a positive way (Kulman, 2014;
Peirce, 2013; Rivera, 2016).
Why is GBL a must in the early childhood acquisition process? There are several reasons. First of
all, children are interested in games. If we can provide games while learning, then we can get chil-
dren’s learning motivation. Secondly, mobile devices can carry games; therefore, we can provide
children with ubiquitous learning opportunities. Third, GBL researchers believe that games can navi-
gate learning to make it happen automatically; it relates to our beliefs about early childhood acqui-
sition as mentioned above.
To explore children’s behaviors in games, this study explores the behavior of the “flow experience”
and vocabulary integration in GBL. What kind of behavior outcomes will children produce in games?
Whether or not can such behaviors help us design games that cultivate children’s concentration? In
the preschool stage, what kind of GBL do children prefer? What is the difference in different ways of voca-
bulary acquisition? In response to the inquiry above, we further reviewed the subjects as follows.

Game mind of flow state

In the beliefs of positive psychology, the “Flow State” refers to the act fully involved (Cherry, 2018;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1998; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). “Flow State” is also called
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

“being in the zone” (Cherry, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1998), which means players are in a
mental state of fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus. They are fully involved and enjoy the
process of operating the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1998).
As we know, the “flow state” can provide an increased focus and attention span. However, people
might want to ask, “What can we do to increase children’s acquisition ability in a flow state?” In
Csikszentmihalyi’s interpretation of “flow state,” it occurs when a task has clear goals that require
specific responses for players to deal with (Cherry, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1998; Naka-
mura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). The “Flow State” can always happen in a well-designed game,
which gives players a specific goal and response so that which allows them to pay attention and
focused on the game.
As a well-designed game can provide players’ Flow State (Cherry, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,
1990, 1998; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), in this study, we employed GBL to track the
game behavior of players to figure out how to design an appropriate game for preschoolers.

Game-Based Learning (GBL) in vocabulary acquisition for preschoolers

Games are beneficial and effective in learning vocabulary. Games are motivating because people
often associate games with friendly competition and games can create an attractive learning
environment. Vocabulary games bring real-world contexts into children’s world. To apply GBL in
vocabulary acquisition can enhance children’s autonomous learning and immediate response to
English.
Studies have found that in the context of GBL, children can become interested in vocabulary
learning and improve their vocabulary acquisition. Games can take children into a state of auton-
omous learning (Cherry, 2018; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1998; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi,
2002). Besides, while learning new vocabulary, children need to cultivate a lot of memory (Brown,
1988; Greffe et al., 2005). Games enable preschoolers to actively and continuously practice vocabu-
lary in an autonomous state; thereby, games improve their vocabulary memory ability.
Many researchers have explored how to apply GBL in vocabulary acquisition for preschoolers.
Studies in 21 publications in SSCI journals showed that GBL in L2 acquisition demonstrates positive
effects in promoting short-term and long-term vocabulary learning (Zou et al., 2019). The theory of
“procedural content generation” in GBL found that children who have played language games can
cultivate early English reading skills (Hooshyar et al., 2018a). There is also another study in Iran, dis-
cussing how they employ digital computer games to improve the L2 vocabulary learning effects for
Iranian children (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011).
Overall speaking, according to the above literature review, we used GBL and vocabulary acqui-
sition features, such as “Flow State” and continuous practice, in this study. The two games designed
in this study are “non-digital flashcards games” and “digital racing games.” Besides, the game design
incorporates speed, continuous practice, and challenges, so that children can generate the “flow”
and improve their vocabulary ability.

Method
The method of this study is Experimental Research to analyze the performances of preschoolers in
GBL. We designed four different English vocabulary lessons for children aged 3–5 in Taiwan. To
design curriculums, we used digital car-driving games and instructional flashcards. There were a
total of 38 children participating and 12 vocabulary words for fruits and vegetables among all of
the four groups. We designed two groups as traditional instructional groups with flashcards as
Group A and Group C by the vocabulary size in which children are taught per day. Group A is
designed as teaching 2 words, the “2 Words Flashcard Game Group,” and Group C is the “3
Words Flashcard Game Group.” Then, we designed Group B and Group D as groups of “gaming
first.” Without explicit instruction, we let children play car-driving games that embedded English
vocabulary on tablets to see if children could learn through pure gaming. Group B is designed as
6 J. T. TANG

playing games that embedded 2 words, called “2 Words Car Game Group,” and so Group D is “3
Words Car Game Group.” Each group would be conducted a unit (of a game or instruction with flash-
cards) at a fixed time each day. Every unit is different from each other every day.
To ensure that no interference affects the cause of the study, we randomly selected 38 children
from three kindergartens. Each group spent half an hour to learn English vocabulary every day and
would complete the whole session in 8–10 days. Group A and C are flashcard games with instruction
to learn 2 and 3 English vocabulary per day. Group B and D are car-driving games on tablets to learn
2 and 3 English vocabulary per day.
In order to make the research method clearer, details of each part are explained as below:

Instruments
To compare the differences among groups, we used F-test for testing (Lomax & Hahs-Vaughn, 2007).
In terms of the reliability of the scorer, each child should be recorded simultaneously by at least two
observers. In terms of expert validity, all tests would be discussed with child development specialists,
kindergarten teachers, and principals to ensure that the test methods meet the needs of young
children.
The method adopted in this study is mainly to solve the following issues.

(1) Issue 1: The method can compare the differences between groups.
(2) Issue 2: The method can meet the needs of children’s development.
(3) Issue 3: Observation of the method can reach the reliability and validity of the study.

Participants
We invited 38 students of 3–5 years old from 3 kindergartens in Taiwan to participate in this study.
Table 1 shows the number of 4 groups of participants and their curriculum types.

Materials
Learning a new language requires repetition and practice to strengthen vocabulary memory. This
study used flashcards games in instruction and driving games in the tablets for children to learn.

Flashcards games
In “Flashcards Games”, the teachers led a “fishing game,” which is an activity often adopted in young
children’s education. In the fishing game, children collected flashcards in hand quickly correspon-
dence to the word they heard. Figure 1 shows the materials we used in “Flashcards Games”.

Driving games
On the other hand, we chose “driving game in tablets” in this study because it can achieve the effect
of “immediate response.” In the driving game, once children hear the new word, they must answer
correctly within driving time and know how to drive to the correct word in time. Figure 2 shows the
gameplay we used in the digital game “Driving Games”.

Table 1. Participants.
Group A B C D
Using Teaching Materials Flashcards Tablet Flashcards Tablet
Numbers of memorizing English vocabulary for Two words per Two words per Three words per Three words per
each day day day day day
Numbers of participants 10 10 9 9
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

Figure 1. “Flashcards games” design.

Figure 2. “Driving games” design.

Although the two methods are different, both have an element of speed, and both generate a
sense of excitement.
To avoid errors caused by students being unfamiliar with game materials (flashcards instruction
and tablets), before the research program, every child in this study were trained by applying
different words in the same game formats to make sure they have been familiar with the process
of study.

Procedure
This study used experimental methods to observe children’s learning performance and followed the
steps below:

Step one: planning and action

First, we interviewed three different kindergartens and invited children who never learned those
vocabulary words in our research settings to participate in the study.
8 J. T. TANG

Figure 3. Pre-test.

The children were taught by their schoolteachers, but for the teaching methods, we had defined
the guideline for teachers to follow.

Step two: pre-test

To be sure participants did not have prior knowledge of the research program, we asked kindergar-
ten teachers to select the English vocabulary words that they had not taught in all three kindergarten
curriculum. Besides, this study selected 19 boys and 19 girls as participants.
In the Pre-test, students entered a classroom together before divided into groups. Each student
received a vocabulary card. Once the teacher says the word, students should raise the vocabulary
card, and then the teacher would record whether the child answers correctly. The child’s correct
answer ratio would become the pre-test for the study. Figure 3 shows the pre-test experiment in
the classroom.

Step three: implement lesson plans

Six kindergarten teachers and three college students joined to help us implement these courses.
Each kindergarten teacher received the teaching guidelines which include instruction plans, an
English vocabulary list, and even the response methods that presumed what children might behave.
According to our experiment design, the courses followed four different types, and each teacher
was guided by at least two different lesson plans.
Group A. Teachers used flashcards to implement the teaching. The game provided here is “fishing
game:” Children need to listen to these words, and whoever can collect the correct flashcards of
words can win the game. First, the teacher would teach the students two words a day and then
review the English vocabulary. To evaluate and practice English vocabulary, the evaluation would
continue in the “fishing game” so that children could practice in pairs and groups. Each lesson
would last for 30 min. Table 2 represents the daily instruction for Group A.

Table 2. Summary of Group A lesson (flashcards).

Instructions Reviewing Evaluation
Days (10 min) (10 min) (10 min)
Day 1 Pre-Test (let children play flashcards to recognize the words)
Day 2 Corn, peach None Corn, peach
Day 3 Broccoli, mango Corn, peach Corn, peach, broccoli, mango
Day 4 Cherry, onion Broccoli, mango Broccoli, mango, cherry, onion
Day 5 Cucumber, peanut Cherry, onion Cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut
Day 6 Carrot, tomato Cucumber, peanut Cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato
Day 7 Watermelon, strawberry Carrot, tomato Carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 8 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon,
strawberry
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

Group B. Teachers brought tablets with the game, “Driving Game,” to let children learn. In
“Driving Game” children would hear the vocabulary and need to drive the car toward the correct
one. The game would count their correct responses and immediately give hints about the wrong
response. The game of “Driving Game” would first instruct children two words per day, and then
review English vocabulary. After that, the children would play card games to practice English voca-
bulary individually. Each lesson would last for 30 min. Table 3 represents the daily games playing for
Group B.
Group C. Teachers used flashcards to implement teaching; the process is almost the same as
Group A. The only difference is that the teachers in Group A taught two English vocabulary words
per day, whereas the teachers in this group taught three per day. Table 4 represents the daily instruc-
tion for Group C.
Group D. Teachers brought tablets with the game, “Racing Car,” to let children learn. Group D is
almost the same as Group B. The only difference is that the games in Group B taught two English
vocabulary words per day, whereas the games in this group taught three per day. Table 5 represents
the daily games playing for Group D.

Table 3. Summary of Group B Lesson (Driving Game).

Instructions Reviewing Evaluation
Days (10 min) (10 min) (10 min)
Day 1 Pre-Test (let children play the “Driving Game” without instructions and reviewing)
Day 2 Corn, peach None Corn, peach
Day 3 Broccoli, mango Corn, peach Corn, peach, broccoli, mango
Day 4 Cherry, onion Broccoli, mango Broccoli, mango, cherry, onion
Day 5 Cucumber, peanut Cherry, onion Cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut
Day 6 Carrot, tomato Cucumber, peanut Cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato
Day 7 Watermelon, strawberry Carrot, tomato Carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 8 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon,
strawberry

Table 4. Summary of Group C Lesson (Flashcards).

Instructions Reviewing Evaluation
Days (10 min) (10 min) (10 min)
Day 1 Pre-Test (let children play flashcards to recognize the words)
Day 2 Corn, peach, broccoli. None Corn, peach, broccoli.
Day 3 Mango, cherry, onion Corn, peach, broccoli. Corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion
Day 4 Cucumber, peanut, carrot, Mango, cherry, onion Mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot,
Day 5 Tomato, watermelon, Cucumber, peanut, Cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon,
strawberry carrot, strawberry,
Day 6 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 7 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 8 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry

Table 5. Summary of Group D Lesson (Driving Game).

Instructions Reviewing Evaluation
Days (10 min) (10 min) (10 min)
Day 1 Pre-Test (let children play the racing game without instructions and reviewing)
Day 2 Corn, peach, broccoli. None Corn, peach, broccoli.
Day 3 Mango, cherry, onion Corn, peach, broccoli. Corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion
Day 4 Cucumber, peanut, carrot, Mango, cherry, onion Mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot,
Day 5 Tomato, watermelon, Cucumber, peanut, Cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon,
strawberry carrot, strawberry,
Day 6 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 7 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
Day 8 Overall Review: corn, peach, broccoli, mango, cherry, onion, cucumber, peanut, carrot, tomato, watermelon, strawberry
10 J. T. TANG

Figure 4. Post-test.

Step four: post-test

After completing all the lessons, four groups of children would take the post-test within 2 weeks to see
if the children could still remember all of the vocabularies. The researchers went to the classroom and
worked with teachers. In the post-test, we asked children the 12 different vocabulary words in the
study to see if different kinds of instructions would have different effects on their long-term memory.
The post-test performed the same steps as the pre-test. Once the teacher says a vocabulary, stu-
dents have to raise the vocabulary card. Then the teacher would record the student’s correct answer
ratio as the post-test score. Figure 4 shows the post-test experiment in the classroom.

Results
Following the above methods, we will discuss the research results in different orientations for each
section as follows.

Analysis and measure

Analysis of the performances of Game-Based Learning (GBL)
In this study, there was a total of 40 participants at first, however, there were two students that did
not attend the entire courses. Therefore, we omitted the calculation of the two, so that the number
of participants became 38.
To show the difference between the students’ pre and post-test, we first analyzed both test scores
to see the children’s progress in the lessons. Table 6 provides descriptive statistics between the pre-
test and post-test scores.
Table 6 shows that students have developed their English vocabulary in the courses. The pre-tests
show that the average correct English vocabulary rate is 7.24%. After all courses were completed, the
average level of the post-test is 84.87%.

Analysis of the performances of different game scenarios

The study used 4 different courses in 4 different groups of children. The statistics of these 4 groups
are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 6 overview of pre-test and post-test

Numbers Range Min Max Average SD
Pre-test 38 20.83 0 20.83 7.24 6.69
Post-Test 38 70.83 29.17 100.00 84.87 15.87
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of groups’ difference.

Groups Average SD Numbers
Flashcards + 2 words 84.26 11.37 10
Tablet + 2 words 90.50 18.21 10
Flashcards +3 words 80.42 20.88 9
Tablet + 3 words 87.50 11.41 9
Total 84.87 15.87 38

Table 8. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (Groups).

F test Sig
.655 .585

The scores of each group do not reach a significant difference (p < 0.05), but Groups B and Group
D (children in the tablet groups) score higher than the flashcard groups (groups A and C).
Comparing the relationship between the number of words learned in one day and the amount of
vocabulary memory size, the learning performance of the children group who learned in 2 words is
higher than the learning performance of the groups of 3 words.
In this study, all four groups of students have developed their memory of English vocabulary.
However, the scores of participants in the tablet groups are higher than those in the traditional
instructional groups. The score of the 2-word per unit group is higher than the 3-word per unit
group.

Analyze the performances of different school environments

To understand the differences between different schools, the study calculated the post-tests of stu-
dents in all three schools and separated the scores to see the answer. Table 9 provides the students’
scores at schools. Table 10 provides an F test to see if the scores can reach significant differences.
According to the analysis, the scores of children in different kindergartens have reached signifi-
cant differences (p < 0.05). Therefore, we assume that different environments, such as schools, could
affect children’s learning significant differences.

Analysis of the performance of different genders in game scenarios

Table 11 provides the scores of students of different genders. Table 12 provides the F test to see if the
scores reach significant differences.
There is no significant difference in the scores of children of different genders (p < 0.05). However,
boys score higher than girls. We can assume that GBL did not show significant differences between
genders, even boys tended to score a bit higher than girls.
Analysis of the performance of different ages in game scenarios
A total of 38 students enrolled in the study. Table 13 provides scores for students of different ages.
Table 14 provides the F test to see if the scores reach significant differences.
The scores of children of different ages do not reach a significant difference (p < 0.05). Most of our
participants are 4–5 years old, but among the 38 children’s scores, older children score higher. We
can assume that GBL could learn across different ages, and even younger children could gain knowl-
edge while playing games they enjoy.

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of school differences.

Schools Average SD Numbers
A 94.10 4.85 12
B 78.41 20.57 11
C 82.22 15.22 15
Total 84.87 15.87 38
12 J. T. TANG

Table 10. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (schools).

F test Sig
3.922 .029

Table 11. Descriptive Statistics of Gender Differences.

Genders Average SD Numbers
Female 83.04 18.88 14
Male 85.94 14.16 24
Total 84.87 15.87 38

Table 12. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (Genders).

F test Sig
.823 .370

Table 13. Descriptive Statistics of ages’ differences.

Ages Average SD Numbers
3–4 71.67 19.41 5
4–5 85.94 15.87 25
5–6 98.62 9.39 8
Total 84.87 15.87 38

Table 14. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (Ages).

F test Sig
.775 .468

Summary of researcher analysis

The researcher summarized the similarities and differences of these scenarios and then found six
important key points:

(1) In all different GBL scenarios, children of English vocabulary acquisition could occur autono-
mously. Therefore, the curriculum could adapt to the game-based setting as a learning
medium to provide more opportunities for learning English vocabulary.
(2) The memory and effectiveness of children who learned 2 words at a time are higher than those
of children who learned 3 words at a time. Therefore, we can assume that the number of words
suitable for children might be 2 words per unit.
(3) Children in different game types do not reach a significant difference (p < 0.05), but the scores of
children in the tablet groups (groups B and D) are higher than those in the flashcard groups
(groups A and C). Therefore, we assume that well-designed tablet games could make children
perform better than non-digital games.
(4) Children’s scores in different kindergartens reach a significant difference (p < 0.05). Therefore,
we assume that different schools should implement different curriculums to provide the best
instruction and guidance for different cultural backgrounds.
(5) The scores of children of different genders do not reach a significant difference (p < 0.05), but
among the 38 children’s scores, boys score higher than girls. GBL could be implemented
between different genders.
(6) Scores of children of different ages do not reach a significant difference (p < 0.05), but among
them, older children score higher. We can assume that GBL could perform at different ages,
and even for younger children.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

Discussion
Research question 1: how does Game-Based Learning (GBL) affect children’s English
vocabulary acquisition?
During a one-month-long experiment, the researchers found that human language acquisition could
occur in a GBL context. In these four game-based circumstances, all of the L2 vocabulary words have
been practiced in different game scenarios, and all students have passed the post-test to prove that
they have developed long-term vocabulary memory through games.
According to the findings, this research confirmed that children can acquire vocabulary in GBL.
We extended Autonomous Learning studies (Cheng, 2009; Grimley et al., 2012) and found that
appropriate GBL not only generates vocabulary acquisition, but also integrates the memory of
new words into children’s long-term memory.
The result echoed our second assumption: GBL can help young children to acquire vocabulary
learning. Children love games, and the emergence of technology has changed children’s game pre-
ferences (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng & Su, 2012; Hooshyar et al., 2018b;
Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Zou et al., 2019). The first assumption of our GBL research is: Vocabulary
acquisition is the base of English learning. Children’s autonomous memorizing of new words in
the game echoed the different theory of language acquisition (Bloom, 1978; Chomsky, 1993;
Krashen, 1981, 1985, 2003; Piaget, 1926, 1972; Skinner, 1938, 1957; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). According
to Chomsky (1993), language acquisition is innate and spontaneous, and GBL provide a scenario for
children to learn new words autonomously (Van Eck, 2006).

Research question 2: how do various scenarios and conditions affect English acquisition?
While analyzing various scenarios and cases, the researchers found that different games,
genders, and ages would not make a significant difference in learning. However, different schools
show a significant difference in their post-test. Therefore, we can assume that if children like the
games, the scenario of the game could be different in background, device, and across ages, and
genders.
According to the analysis, we found that age and gender do not affect learning benefits in GBL. In
this way, the GBL designed by this research can across age and gender. On the other hand, we found
that going to different schools has a significant impact on learning benefits. We assumed that the
school culture would affect whether or not students get the maximum benefit from GBL. If the
school and parents agree to let children learn in GBL, students will have good academic performance.
However, different from other GBL studies of preschoolers’ vocabulary acquisition that only
explored whether or not vocabulary acquisition learning occurs (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011;
Hooshyar et al., 2018a; Zou et al., 2019), we further explored factors that will affect preschoolers’
GBL in vocabulary acquisition. This research found that the most significant difference is
“different schools,” which we hypothesized as schools’ acceptance degree to the GBL or digital
learning curriculums. Thereby, school affects students’ perceptions of GBL significantly.
From our results, we conclude that the different cultures of the school may affect children’s
understanding of learning. To provide the best GBL instruction, we should first realize what is the
most comfortable and familiar instruction for children. To be able to do this, understanding the
school’s curriculum and background has become an important influencing element for game
designers.

Limitations and future directions

To make the study credible, the study limited many possible variables, such as subject selection,
instructional guidance, the same number of lesson days, and post-testing two weeks later. Although
these limits could control research variables, they also made teaching less comfortable.
14 J. T. TANG

Besides, the grouping in this study was based on games. Although we all knew that GBL should be
more effective than traditional learning, “traditional instructions without any kinds of games” should
also become a group so that it can prove GBL is indeed better than traditional learning.
We recommend to future researchers to strengthen the points as follows.

(1) To consider how to control variables while creating a free learning environment.
(2) To add pure traditional teaching groups to compare the differences between traditional teach-
ing and game learning.
(3) In our study, to complete the course within the same number of days for all groups, we gave the
three-word group more opportunities to practice. This can be modified in future studies.

Conclusion
A GBL environment can help children, teachers, and game designers work together and create a
friendly learning environment. From our results, this study shows that if children are willing to
play the educational games repeatedly, they will automatically and successfully develop their learn-
ing achievements.
This research compares previous studies of vocabulary acquisition (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011;
Al Neyadi, 2007; Cheng & Su, 2012; Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Hooshyar et al., 2018b; Zou et al., 2019)
and GBL (Aghlara & Hadiditamjid, 2011; Cheng, 2009; Grimley et al., 2012; Hooshyar et al., 2018a; Zou
et al., 2019), and then discovered important dimensions which unnoticed before: What will affect
vocabulary acquisition in GBL? Does the amount of the vocabulary size of new words in the game
affect learning efficiency?
Our research results find that GBL indeed across gender and age, but there are significant learning
differences in different school areas. The latter finding proves the theory that children’s language
acquisition relies on social contextual (Chomsky, 1993; Krashen, 1985, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986).
On the amount of vocabulary size of new words, to learn two words per day is better than three
words per day. We hope our study results are available for learning reference.
In the future, we aim to continue to apply different GBL methods and further discover children’s
acquisition, learning, and development. To improve the future study, we list more inquiries from the
point of views of L2 learning as follows:

(1) In the game-based situation, are there any differences or similarities between first language and
L2 scores achievement?
(2) If games are not provided in the classroom, is there still a possibility of autonomous language
acquisition?

Children need many aspects to learn their second language. We believe that a game-based
environment can help young learners enjoy the fun of learning and practicing. The acquisition
should focus on children’s autonomous inquiry. Since GBL can provide children with fun automati-
cally, we should apply more GBL in the future.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Joni Tzuchen Tang is currently an assistant professor of the Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology at
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. from National Taipei University
of Education (NTUE) under Kuo-En Chang’s supervision. Her researches include early childhood education, game-based
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 15

learning, mobile learning, language learning. Her books include Entering the world of children’s thinking: the exploration
of children’s games (2019), The Application of Situated Learning Theory in Chinese Virtual Communities (2016), Educational
Psychology (2010). She has written articles on a variety of topics in the children’s play state of mind and language
learning.

References
Aghlara, L., & Hadiditamjid, N. (2011). The effect of digital games on Iranian vocabulary retention in foreign language
acquisition. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 552–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.275
Al Neyadi, O. (2007). The effects of using games to reinforce vocabulary learning. In H. C. T. Marifa (Ed.), Action research
and initial teacher education in the UAE (pp. 99–107). HCT Press. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.696.2297&rep=rep1&type=pdf
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English
language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.
2005.00120.x
Baumann, J. F. (2009). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: The nexus of meaning. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.),
Handbook of research on reading comprehension, 2 (pp. 323–346). Routledge.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44
Bloom, L. (1978). Reading in language development. John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, D S. (1988). A world of books: An annotated reading list for ESL/EFL students (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Harvard University Press.
Chen, C. M., & Li, Y. L. (2010). Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting effective English
vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802602329
Cheng, G. (2009). Using game making pedagogy to facilitate student learning of interactive multimedia. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1150
Cheng, C., & Su, C. (2012). A game-based learning system for improving student’s learning effectiveness in system analy-
sis course. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.122
Cherry, K. (2018, February 12). ‘Flow’ can help you achieve goals, understanding the psychology of flow. Verywell Mind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-flow-2794768
Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and Thought. Moyer Ball.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday Life. Basic Books.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability
10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
Dalton, G., & Devitt, A. (2016). Gaeilge gaming: assessing how games can help children to learn Irish. International
Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6(4), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2016100102
Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived, usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strat-
egies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
4781.00187
Gerkushenko, S., & Gerkushenko, G. (2014). The play theory and computer games using in early childhood education.
International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(3), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2014070105
Godwin, K., Lomas, D., Koedinger, K., & Fisher, A. (2015). Monster mischief: Designing a video game to assess selective
sustained attention. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 7(4), 18–39. https://doi.org/
10.4018/IJGCMS.2015100102
Greffe, C., Linden, M. V., Majerus, S., & Poncelet, M. (2005). Relations between vocabulary development and verbal short-
term memory: The relative importance of short-term memory for serial order and item information. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 93(2), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.07.005
Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., & Thompson, D. (2012). Comparing computer game and traditional lecture using
experience ratings from high and low achieving students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4),
619–638. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.831
Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S. J., & Lim, H. S. (2016). Applying an online game-based for-
mative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills. Computers
and Education, 94, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.013
Hooshyar, D., Lim, H., Pedaste, M., Yang, K., & Fathi, M. (2019). Autothinking: An adaptive computational thinking game.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11937, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_41
16 J. T. TANG

Hooshyar, D., Yousefi, M., & Lim, H. (2018a). A procedural content generation-based framework for educational games:
Toward a tailored data-driven game for developing early English reading skills. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 56(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117706909
Hooshyar, D., Yousefi, M., Wang, M., & Lim, H. (2018b). A data-driven procedural-content-generation approach for edu-
cational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 731–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12280
Jackson, H., & Amvela, E. Z. (2007). Words, meaning and vocabulary: An introduction to modern English lexicology.
Bloomsbury Academic.
Jones, D. A., & Chang, M. (2012). Multiplayer online role-playing game for teaching Youth Finance in Canada.
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 2(2), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijopcd.2012040104
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Heinemann.
Ku, E. K. (2019). “Can we do a not-all-in-English drama for kids?”: Translingual practices in a Taiwanese EFL play. English
Teaching & Learning, 43(5), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0012-6
Kulman, R. (2014, September 16). Why do kids love to play video games? Learning Works for Kids. http://
learningworksforkids.com/2014/09/why-do-kids-love-to-play-video-games
Lin, Y.-H., & Hou, H.-T. (2016). Exploring young children’s performance on and acceptance of an educational scenario-
based digital game for teaching route-planning strategies: A case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8),
1967–1980. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073745
Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2007). Statistical concepts: A second course. 10-10. Routledge.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of
Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0019135
Mouws, K., & Bleumers, M. (2015). Co-Creating games with children: A case study. International Journal of Gaming and
Computer-Mediated Simulations, 7(3), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2015070102
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 89–105). University Press.
National Development Council. Bilingual Nation. (2018). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/
Content_List.aspx?n=D933E5569A87A91C
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its impli-
cations for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Peirce, N. (2013). Digital Game-based Learning for early childhood. https://www.learnovatecentre.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/05/Digital_Game-based_Learning_for_Early_Childhood_Report_FINAL.pdf
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. Harcourt, Brace.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill.
Rivera, M. (2016). Is a digital game-based learning the future of learning? eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.
com/digital-game-based-learning-future
Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Song, Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). What “seams” have been bridged in seamless vocabulary learning?- A review of the
literature. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789667
Stahl, S. A. (2005). Four problems with teaching word meanings (and what to do to make vocabulary an integral part of
instruction). In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice.
Erlbaum, p.95–114.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based Meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056001072
Tseng, W.-T., Cheng, H.-F., & Hsiao, T.-Y. (2019). Validating a motivational process model for mobile-assisted language
learning. English Teaching & Learning, 43(4), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00034-1
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educate Review, 41(2),
1–16. https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/article-downloads/erm0620.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2019). Digital game-based vocabulary learning: Where are we and where are we going?
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1640745