MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105979213 · doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p235

Sustaining Vocabulary Acquisition through Computer Game: A Case Study

2013· article· en· W2105979213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadzrah Abu Bakar, Elaheh Nosratirad

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularySession (web analytics)Computer scienceChecklistVocabulary learningSpace (punctuation)Vocabulary developmentLanguage acquisitionMathematics educationComputer gameMultimediaPsychologyLinguisticsWorld Wide WebCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning vocabulary is not easy and it may be very frustrating to some learners. Many approaches have been taken to attract learners to learn new vocabulary. The aim of this case study is to explore how a computer game can be adapted as a learning tool to sustain adult vocabulary learning independently. This study used the existing SIM 3 game as a selected platform to investigate the vocabulary learning among ESL adult learners in an independent learning environment. Three adult ESL learners from different backgrounds participated in this study. Learners were examined on how they learned vocabulary and the learning experiences that helped them to gain new knowledge of English vocabulary while playing the game. A combination of mixed-data methods, including playing session observations, semi-structured interviews, a self-report checklist, pre- and post-tests and vocabulary lists, were used to collect extensive data. The findings show that computer games can be beneficial in sustaining language learning, especially in providing space to learn independently. With enough practice and consistent playing, along with the right objective of using it, a computer game can be utilized as a tool for independent learning to learn new vocabulary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207