Tom CobbUniversité du Québec à Montréal

“Does My Word Coach

coach words?”

http://mywordcoach.us.ubi.com/

This PPT at http://www.lextutor.ca/cv/ppt/pittsburgh.ppt

2

Video Game use – exponential increase

A great deal of some kind of learning no doubt happens

But can targeted learning be made to happen?

Can we exploit this trend rather than fight it?

3

Many learning claims get made

4

Few games have specific learning goals

Claims are about “new ways of learning,” not about any particular content

Few (any?) claims are based on empirical investigation

But more in glossy books than dull research papers

5

To design a game with concrete learning goals

Based on learning principles

In one’s own research area And investigates its effects

empirically

An interesting opportunity therefore…

6

7

Game contains all the non-specialist words of English Sequenced by frequency/range in the BNC

Yes-no test determines start-point in sequence Words are introduced in six coordinated word games Games focus on

Form Meaning Verbal efficiency (speed of access)

Words are dropped only after six correct uses Principled recycling

Games are integrated within a tutor-model Choice of tutor Goal setting, record keeping, error review

Game incorporates a level-appropriate dictionary CALD

My Word Coach - description

8

Belief: Discovery is not a sufficient strategy to grow an L2 lexicon

Some type of vocab focus is demonstrably necessary

Computer /video game is an ideal start to this job

Although maybe not finish

My Word Coach - philosophy

9

Predecessors 1

10

Predecessors 2

11

Predecessors 3

12

13

Word Coach’s Pedagogy

14

Behind-the-scenes pedagogy

15

Word Coach’s Coaches

16

Content – 3 strands

1. Form of words

17

2. Meaning of words

18

19

3. Processing speed

20

All packaged in a small box

… and announced to the world in a huge publicity campaign -

http://mywordcoach.us.ubi.com

21

Are more word meanings known both immediately + after delay

Are more words used in oral production

Are words accessed more quickly?

Research Questions

Following substantial use of the game…

22

Grade 6 primary school in suburban Montreal Feb-June 2007

Two intact classes, same teacher, n=50 Condition 1: both groups get to use game Condition 2: testing sessions not to exceed 1 hr

60%+ immigrant children, some quasi-bi/tri-lingual French, English, another

Instruction is in French, 2 hrs/wk ESL

Game is integrated into ESL classwork Parents solidly behind experiment

DS players + game disks from Ubisoft

Subjects and setting

23

1. For meanings known Paul Nation’s BNC-based 14k

Levels test 10 levels used, then 5

2. For words used Boy, dog and frog story (Mercer) Analyzed with VP-kids

3. For word access UNESCO method

– Read words aloud from 60-word list in fixed time

Instruments

24

1

25

OLYMPUS DSS File

2

26

27

28

29

(60 words)

3

30

Research Design

31

Results

To note first:

Equal game use between groups

(despite considerable variance)

32

Results 11a. Levels Test (pretest, both groups, no diffs)

Levels Test (10k) at Time 1

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

K-levels

Scor

es/1

0

601 (First game group) 6.33 5.03 4.13 4.90 4.87 2.73 2.93 2.80 1.70 1.47

602 (second game group) 6.07 4.76 4.20 4.87 4.84 2.73 2.83 2.74 1.64 1.45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

About 2350 word meanings known from first 5000 families but only just over half at key 1k level (600 words, SD 150)

33

Results1b. Levels post-test

Significant gains for first 5 k-levels combined at T3

601 - Levels Scores @ Times 1,2,3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5 6

K-levels (up to 6)

Sco

res/

10 Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

34

Results

1c. Levels Test (3 times, both groups)

35

Results – Levels Test - Summary

Initial state: No significant difference

Baseline (602, T1-T2): No significant difference

Following game use

601: 459 words average gain, **sig – but at T3, not T2

602: 178 words average gain, * sig

Note: These are average gainsIncorporating wide range of variance

36

Results 2

2a. Frog stories – new words in use

37

601 (first game group) VP-Kids at Times 1, 2, 3

0102030405060708090

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

250-word levels

Per

cen

t w

ord

s u

sed

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Results2b. Frog stories – where are these gains?

602 (second game group) VP-Kids at Times 1, 2, 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

250-word levels

Pe

rce

nt

wo

rds

us

ed

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

38

Results

2c. Frog stories – story size

39

Results

2c. Frog stories – the main difference

40

OLYMPUS DSS File

OLYMPUS DSS File

Listen & compare

Which Frog story is T1, and which is T3?

From same userJust above average use-record Francophone

but no code-switching issue

Press on to see VP-Kids profiles

41

Results - 2e. Example

OLYMPUS DSS File

42

Results – 2f. Example

OLYMPUS DSS File

43

Results – Frog stories - Summary Initial state: No significant difference (n.s.d.)

- In # families used - In # tokens (=story size)

Baseline (602, T1-T2): n.s.d.

Following game use

Despite variance:- Average 3 new word families- Average 35 more word tokens- Average 45% reduction

in # of L1 words used

44

Results 3

3. Access – number of words read in 1 min.

45

Results3. Access – number of words read in 1 min.

46

Results – Lexical access - Summary Initial state: No significant difference (n.s.d.)

Baseline (602, T1-T2): Small but sig gains *

Practice effect

Following game useDespite variance:

- Av. 23 more words read/minute- Statistically significant **

47

Results 4– qualitative + post-hoc

4a. Beyond our means

48

Results – qualitative + post-hoc

4b. Winning profiles

49

Results – qualitative + post-hoc4b. Winning conditions

50

Are more word meanings known both immediately + after delay

Are more words used in oral production

Are words accessed more quickly?

Research Questions

Following substantial use of the game…

51

For this population, results are significantly and meaningfully positive on all three measures

Esp. compared to baselines e.g., Milton & Meara (1995): 550 wds/yr

in classroom on recognition measure

But paradoxical

Lexical development is at opposite ends of the spectrum Recognition – gains throughout first 5k Production – gains in first 250 words

Conclusions

52

Source of productive gains unclear Learning or activation of existing knowledge?

Apparent confirmation that lexical access is trainable Small effect for practice with format; big effect for time-

pressure processing• As known since SkiJump days but never widely exploited

First successful use of Levels Test as pre-post measure

Unsurprising since game and test derive from same wordlists

Conclusions 2

53

Significant prior vocab knowledge from somewhere 2350 known words at pretest

… but not in use

Frog stories of 100 toks / 40 fams• (cf. age 6 NS: 350 toks / 91 fams,)

… and distributed so that half the words are unknown at key 1k + 2k levels (# 32)

• Which explains weak reading levels• Which reflects neglect of lexis in MEQ curriculum

Conclusions 3 – Interesting portrait of Quebec ESL learner

54

Can Word Coach compensate for any of this?

Effects of moderate-to-heavy users of the game

Word knowledge: 1k and 2k levels rise to equivalent age native speaker (NS) levels (80% plus)

Word use: Story size of 250 word, pushing age= NS average of 350

Access: 85 words read aloud/minute is approaching NS average of 110

A lot of compensation in a short time!

Conclusions 3 – Interesting portrait of Quebec ESL learner

55

Two possible directions

1) More of the same

Game 2 which extends Word Coach approach into collocation, context, idioms, specialized domains

2) Integration of Word Coach principles (whole lexicon, sequence, recycle, review) into a full adventure narrative

“Look out ! They’re shooting from the balcony !!”

Next steps for Word Coach

56“Look out – the other one’s in a garbage can!”

57

Further reading 1 Frequency lists

– Leech et al, Word Frequencies in Written & Spoken English

Lemmatization procedures– Nation, unpublished

20k as size of adult educated lexicon– Goulding, Nation & Read (1990)

Yes-No Test– Buxton & Meara (1987)

Spaced recycling– Mondria & Mondria-Wit de Boer (1993)

Reaction-time & practice– Snellings, van Geldeen, & de Glopper (2002)

Easy and hard spelling– Connor (c.1986), N. Ellis (c.1996), Cognitive processes

in spelling

58

Further reading 2 Baseline 550 words/year classroom

– Milton & Meara Pet-200 study

– Cobb, 1997 PET-2000 study

– Cobb, 1999a+b Francophones and cognates in Levels test

– Cobb 2000 Notion of a fixed order of lex growth

– Biemiller and Slonim, 200x Need for delayed post in vocab studies

– Cobb, 1999b

59

Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J.(1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11, 341-358.

Meara, P., & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing 4, 142-154.

Nation, P. (2007). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review 63 (1), 1-12.

Mondria, J.-A. & Mondria-De Vries, S.(1993). Efficiently memorizing words with the help of word cards and 'hand computer': Theory and applications. System 22, 47-57.

Snellings, P., van Gelderen, A,, & de Glopper, K. (2002). Lexical retrieval: An aspect of fluent second language production that can be enhanced. Language Learning 52 (4), 723-754.

60

Cobb, T. (2000). One size fits all? Francophone learners and English vocabulary tests. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (2), 295-324.

Cobb, T. (1999a). Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47 (3), 15-33

Cobb, T. (1999b). Breadth and depth of vocabulary acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12, p. 345 - 360.

Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25 (3), 301-315.

This PPT at http://www.lextutor.ca/cv/ppt/pittsburgh.ppt

cobb.tom@uqam.ca

www.lextutor.ca

This PPT at http://www.lextutor.ca/cv/ppt/pittsburgh.ppt