MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321604890 · doi:10.5539/elt.v16n3p16

A Quantitative Study in Using Digital Games to Enhance the Vocabulary Level of Saudi Male Secondary School Students

2023· article· en· W4321604890 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sultan R Alfuhaid

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyPsychologyVocabulary developmentMathematics educationControl (management)ArabicSample (material)Teaching methodComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vocabulary learning is crucial to language acquisition. Although numerous techniques have been proposed for the teaching and learning of vocabulary, the need remains for the research and development of new, effective methods. In this technological era, digital games have proven their efficacy in promoting learners’ vocabulary acquisition. The current study investigates whether the integration of technology-driven digital games is effective in enhancing the vocabulary level by comparing experimental and control groups. The researcher conducted a pretest for the experimental group and a posttest for both groups within a period of five consecutive weeks. The experimental group used 7 Little Words, which is a game for learning vocabulary, whereas the participants in the control group learned vocabulary through traditional methods. The sample comprised 30 Arabic native speakers studying English as a required course in two all-male classes (15 students from each) in the third year of secondary school. Data were analyzed quantitatively. Paired-samples t-tests and independent-samples t-tests were used to compare the mean scores of the two groups. The results indicated that using digital games to learn vocabulary enhanced learners’ overall vocabulary acquisition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207