Using Games to Examine English L2 Learners’ Word Recognition Strategies

The following is a mini research project I conducted in 2015 using a simple card game designed for vocabulary learning, Word-A-RoundThis paper was never meant for actual publication and as such, the raw data for this project has been erased. But if you find the results here interesting, or the topic, this is might be a good jumping off point for your own work.

Introduction

ch870702

Garden-path jokes are a comedic staple.. and interesting linguistic phenomena!

Literacy and vocabulary knowledge, even in very young learners, has been suggested to predict future academic performance (Christian et al., 1998) and its importance both in education and the popular press has only increased over time. Additionally, literacy has been shown to improve cognitive functions and metalinguistic skill in ways that are similar to bilingualism (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). The interaction then, of education, reading and bilingualism has been a growing field of interest in second language acquisition (SLA) research.

Since the “sociocultural turn” (Johnson, 2006, p. 237) in SLA, literacy education focused on situated language use and the ecological affordances of the classroom have also shown new ways of understanding the role of literacy and learning. This turn, however, has often been viewed from the more general aspects of learning, considering fully contextual and authentic reading while ignoring traditional word recognition and decontexualized or perceived inauthentic reading. As such, little has been said in the new era of sociocultural SLA about word recognition in situated classroom environments.

Even less considered is the role of sublexical components of reading and their influence in L2 word recognition. It is the goal of this study therefore to examine the skills L2 learners of English use to identify words in impoverished contexts, while still engaging in meaningful and authentic language. We will first review the relevant literature related to L2 reading and word recognition and the influence of metalinguistic skill. Then, the current study will be introduced followed by the expected results of the methodology.

Processing Written Language in the Brain

Interactive-Activation (IA) theories of reading

While there have been many different theories of reading, currently the most dominant area of research is within the Bi-modal Interactive-Activation Model (BIAM), initially developed by Grainger & Dijkstra (1992). It is part of a family of explanatory models of language that consider the ecology of language in activated interconnected linguistic competitors. The BIAM contends that at each level of language (such as features, phonemes, words, phrases), context continually informs both what has been processed and what will be activated both within level and at the next levels.

For reading, the BIAM has traditionally considered the interactions between the phonological level of language and the orthographic to be a key feature. Additionally, the ability to rapidly identify words or name pictures has been considered a feature of the processing of reading (Hulme & Snowling, 2012). Bilingual reading models have grown out of the BIAM models, with the developmental Bilingual Interactive Bilingual model (BIA-d) (Grainger et al., 2010). The interference of a second language is the primary phenomenon of description that BIA-d and other bilingual models attempt to capture.

The BIAM and BIA-d assume a fast phonological interaction based on the results specific kind of priming test where a pseudoword (a non-word which conforms to the orthographic and morphological rules of a language) such as “bloo” is presented to a reader and is immediately followed by a real word, such as “blue”. Phonologically similar pseudowords like “bloo” correlate with faster word recognition of the real word, as opposed to dissimilar pseudowords (Hulme & Snowling, 2013). Additionally, Diependaele et al., (2010) have also shown through connectionist IA simulations that BIAM more accurately predicts the results of fast phonology than slow-phonology models like the dual-route model (Coltheart et al., 2001).

The problem of phonology and orthography

The relationship of phonology and orthography is not only a matter of processing, but also a metalinguistic skill in reading. Adams (1990) argues that phonological and orthographic skill are both not directly causal of reading ability and has shown that in the case of both monolinguals who have no problems speaking their language, and L2 learners, may have trouble reading. Additionally, bilinguals who are fluent in multiple languages as well as literate in their L1, may struggle to read in their L2. Haynes & Carr (1990) found that sensitivity to the metalinguistics of an L2 predicted successful word recognition of both real and pseudo-words, performing more like L1 speakers of English. L2 learners of English who lack these metalinguistic skills were able to recognize real words, but performed poorly in pseudo-word recognition.

One problem readers have with recognizing words in their L2 is the distance between their L1 and L2 orthographies. Writing systems between languages can vary in extremely different ways and are processed differently (Koda, 1996). L2 learners initially rely on their L1 processing to read in their L2, especially when their L1 and L2 are both similar types of writing systems, such as alphabetic or logographic. Wang, Park & Lee (2006), for example, found that ability to read in Korean successfully predicted English reading level in L2 English Korean students in early elementary. However, different orthographic systems have shown to also force L2 learners to focus on aspects of orthography that are not present or very strongly present in their L1 orthography. in her thesis, Commissaire (2012) cites a French study by Besse, Demont & Gombert (2007) who examined Arabic and Portuguese middle school L2 French learners on their ability to process morphology and phonology in written French. Arabic is reported to require higher phonological awareness and Portuguese morphological awareness. However, what they found in L2 French reading was that L1 Arabic learners attended more to French morphology and L1 Portuguese learners attended to phonology. In contrast to Wang et al. (2006), Besse et al (2007) claim that the strain of morphology for L1 Arabic learners made them more aware of it and therefore they attended more strongly to it and the same with L1 Portuguese learners.

The sublexical in word recognition

To date, research on word recognition has followed several main areas of research, two are of immediate relevance to this study, word frequency effects and phoneme / grapheme effects. Raney & Rayner (1995) found that the more frequent a word is, the less time an L2 English reader needs to recognize that word in re-reading. Like many studies, they used eye-tracking devices to see how often participants went over target words while reading them in context.

The effect of graphemes, or the fundamental written letters which correspond to sounds (such as -ee- in ‘deep’ for [dip]), have been studied in what are called feed forward effects (Ziegler, Montant & Jacobs, 1995). Researchers found that word recognition is slower in words which share many grapheme to phoneme representations, such as -ee-, -ea- to [i].

The Sociocultural Turn – affordances in L2 reading and word recognition

The “sociocultural turn” (Johnson, 2006, p. 235) has led to many researchers investigating the differences between reading environments and not just the act of reading itself, with findings that suggest reading in classrooms (Guerrero & Commander, 2013) affords learners different opportunities for comprehension and meaning than other environments like online reading (Al-Shehri & Gitsaki, 2010).

However, very little research has been done to date on the affordances of word recognition. This is likely due to the fact that word recognition itself is not viewed as a situated language activity. It is for this reason that game offer a useful area to examine the normally “decontexualized” processing of words in a centered and situated activity, playing a game. Neville, Shelton & McInnis (2009) examined L2 German learners in an online interactive fiction game. They found that students were able to learn new vocabulary and reading skills, but were initially distrustful of the games ability to teach them, given the very different teaching environment. This suggests that while students may enjoy playing games, they may not recognize or accept gaming as a form of teaching and learning.

However Meara (1995) notes that games in general lack what is deemed an authentic context by many teachers, even though word games are themselves hugely popular. Cobb & Horst (2011) examined how a Nintendo vocabulary game affected word learning in students and what benefits the game afforded. They found that learners did improve their vocabulary knowledge and that their use of vocabulary transcended the game and into other contexts.

A Game-based Proposal for Examining Word Recognition in L2 English Learners

There appears then, room for much more research into how L2 English learners in various contexts use games to both recognize and learn vocabulary items. It is the purpose of this study to examine the environmental factors related to word card games and the metalinguistic skills required to play the game effectively. The questions for this study are therefore:

RQ1 – What affordances are available and which do students use to recognize words in lexical items decontexualized below the word level?

RQ2 – What metalinguistic skills do student utilize or learn to utilize to recognize words in lexical items decontexualized below the word level?

Methodology (if you don’t care about data methods, skip to “results”)

Participants

Participants are twenty-eight South Korean 6th grade elementary school students at a private school in Seoul (10 male, 18 female). The students come from higher socio-economic backgrounds and have a range of linguistic experiences. Many of them have lived abroad for more than a year and some of them were born outside of South Korea. For some, their first language learned was primarily English, but their dominant language is self-reported as being Korean.

The participants are considered advanced English students in their school, which is determined by a level placement test at the beginning of the school year in March. The students meet with the researcher, who is also their English teacher, Mondays and Tuesdays for forty minutes for English lessons. The students are split into three classes of between eight and twelve students per class. Each class has their English period in the morning at 8:50am, 9:40am and 10:30am. They primarily study reading and writing through American English language arts textbooks and not English as foreign language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) textbooks.

These students were chosen for this study because of their relatively well-matched ability in English and vocabulary with the Word-A-Round game. As a prerequisite, the game requires a certain ability in reading and many of the students already read well-beyond a 6th grade reading level.

A brief word on Word-A-Round

Word-A-Round is a word-card game developed by ThinkFun game developers (ThinkFun, 2015). Each card in Word-A-Round has three rings of different colors (Black, Red and Blue). Within each ring there is a word put into a perfect, justified circle. It is not possible at first glance to know where the word in each ring starts or ends (see image below). The purpose of the game is to find the word in a specific ring.

81qk4mfsuol-_sl1500_

Finding words in Word-A-Round when playing against other people means that having orthographic, morphological or phonological English skills is an advantage if applied to the game. Knowing that ‘kn’ will not end a word, but that it can begin one, for example, is an orthographic and morphological cue that a player might take advantage of. Identifying an English prefix or suffix, like ‘-un’ or ‘-s’ or sounding the words out can provide morphological and phonological cues and knowing how to segment English orthography to its phonology is potentially helpful when trying to apply syllabic stress and identifying words.

Pre-activity word familiarity survey
Data Collection

Prior to the activity proper, the participants were split into four groups of two or three students per group. Each group was randomly assigned ten Word-A-Round cards. The words on these cards were identified and listed in random order on a word-familiarity survey (see appendix A). It is possible that this introduces a recency effect for some students and they will recognize the words on the card simply because it activates the memory of the familiarity test. For this reason, the familiarity survey was given a week before the actual activity.

The survey given to the participants is an adaptation of Barrow et al’s (1999) survey created for Japanese university students. Participants are asked to rate their level of familiarity on a scale of 1 to 4, however the scale is not strictly quantitative, as moving from 1 to 4 does not necessarily correspond to specific quantified abilities, but instead in an ability to produce. A ranking of 1 means “I don’t remember ever seeing this word”, 2 “I have seen this word before, but I don’t remember what it means”. After these two, 3 and 4 ask the students to produce evidence that they do actually know the words. 3 means “I have seen this word before, I think it means _____”. The participant must then produce some evidence that they know the word in some way. Participants could provide a definition, example sentences, translations or any multiple of these things. The participants are instructed that the more meanings they provide, the better. Finally, a ranking of 4 means “I know this word, it means ______.”

A criticism of self-reported familiarity surveys is the possibility that the students over-estimate their ability. By requiring them to provide evidence of knowing, the researchers are able to examine whether or not the student does know the word, and additionally, how well they know it. Anderson & Freebody (1983) note that requiring EFL students to compose written responses to familiarity tests can be overly-taxing for low-level learners and introduces several problems related to handwriting and language and they suggest a modified yes / no type of survey. However, for the participants in this survey, language level and ability to compose a response is not considered a problem. In the case that it is, the participants were also able to explain a word using Korean. The purpose of the writing component of the survey is not to test English writing ability, but understanding of the word. Therefore, using the student’s dominant language is an effective resource to ease these concerns.

word-a-round activity

The main activity of this study revolves around the participants playing Word-A-Round in their groups. The game was slightly modified in order to fit the purposes of the study in that instead of using the backside of each card to determine which ring the players will look on the next card, the participants simply worked through each ring of the ten cards in three rounds. For the purpose of answering the research questions, as the students played they were video recorded and given a specific worksheet to record their play.

Play time for all groups was between 8 and 12 minutes. During that time, the researcher went from group to group to answer questions the students had and to observe their game-play and to ensure they understood and were playing correctly. The researcher also video-recorded each group at least once, for at least two cards. The students knew they were being recorded and were told that the video was for the teacher to see how they play the game.

The students were recorded using an Iphone6 with the native video recording application. It was determined during a class prior to the study that the video and sound quality of the Iphone was sufficient for the purposes of the study, though a more in-depth phonetic analysis would require better equipment given the context.

Worksheet

In order to help the students play the game, each participant was given a worksheet. The worksheet provides the participant a space to write down the words that they identify by ring-color and number. Participants were directed to write down any words that they guessed correctly in the card number that they guessed. So if one player guessed the first card, they wrote their word in the first line, but if the second player identified the second word, they would leave the first line blank and write it in the second line instead.

Players are also given the ability to “pass” on a word if both agree. In this case, they both write “pass” in the line and move on to the next word card. Given the competitive nature of the game, this worksheet allows the students to see their progress versus their opponent, but it is also possibly disheartening to players who are not as good as their partner, or who are simply outmatched.

Post-activity questions

Following the last game session, the participants were given a short, open-ended questionnaire related to their attitude toward Word-A-Round and the strategies they used to play the game. The students were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was for the teacher to see how to improve the game in the classroom for future classes and to see what metalinguistic strategies the students are consciously aware of and use to play the game.

Data Analysis

Video collection and Affordances

In order to identify the affordances available and the affordances used by the participants, the video data was examined and recurring themes across groups will be noted in a table. This allowed the researcher to both identify affordances and see which groups do or do not use them and how much they do so. This is data is relevant particularly at the moment of word-recognition. Knowing if the student is turning the card, or listening to their partner say a word immediately prior to finding the word is an important goal of this study.

The video data was also be used to identify which linguistic cues the participants rely on to identify words. Players often remain silent while playing so as to not give help to their opponents, however testing possible words out-loud is helpful and during these events, it is possible to transcribe and identify across groups what phonological cues are important to either identifying or not identifying a word.

Pre and post activity questionnaires and metalinguistic awareness

Additionally, participants’ metalinguistic awareness were measured by their word-familiarity and reported strategies from the pre and post questionnaires. It is possible that knowing a word is essential to being able to find it in a decontexualized setting such as Word-A-Round. If that is the case, then knowing which words each participant knows or does not know will be a strong predictor of that.

The post-activity questionnaire showed how well students are aware of their own linguistic knowledge. It is possible that the students use phonological metalinguistic knowledge to find words while playing, but are not aware that that is what they are doing. For morphological and orthographic metalinguistic knowledge, the questionnaire is more important, as it is difficult to know through the video data whether or not the student is using those strategies.

Results

Our purpose in this study is to examine both the metalinguistic skills that are commonly found in bilinguals and literate people and the affordances that lead to successful word identification in decontexualized classroom situations. Following the ecological perspective, the “decontexualization” referred to here is not truly a non-contexual situation, but is instead a very rich context and the learners have many tools available to them to succeed in their task, which is to identify a word. The skills they utilized to do so were linguistic in part, but also non-linguistic.

Available affordances in decontextualized word recognition

Prior to data-collection, the researcher has identified several potential environmental affordances which may be taken advantage of in order to successfully identify a word in an orthographically decontexualized setting. These are organized in table ().

Linguistic Spatial interaction
Time – Speaking out loud can give help to the student’s opponent

– Other students are also playing different cards at the same time

– visual fatigue, not wanting to search for letters or morphemes. – Competition means the students need to quickly judge each card
Environ-ment – Orthographic cues: “dd” “kn”

– Morphological cues:
“-tion”

– Phonological: “[izland]-[iland]”

– Students use their fingers to trace the letters.

-Turning the head to get the card into the right orientation

– Distracting opponent with irrelevant content.

Of these affordances, the spatial cues seemed to be the most used, yet least reported of affordances. Two students noted the benefit of actually turning the card to get a better orientation, however in actual play, six students used the card-turning or head-turning technique. Phonological cues were also observed to be very important in the student’s word search technique. The mispronouncing of words was a big hint in most games. Additionally, students found it very fun to “steal” words from their friends, adding to the motivation to continue playing as is demonstrated in example ().

1: [i-izz…land]
1: [izland] haha
2:haha (shakes friend) [land-iz]

2: island!

Excerpt 1: two girls finding the word island.

1: (turns head)
2: (tapping finger) tel….
1: (turns head) …hotels
2: ah!…

Excerpt 2: use of spatial affordances to orient a student’s view.

The affordances of time, the game was very short, about 5 or 10 minutes per class, and the shortness of each round (each card took about 15 seconds for each group) means that the stress to find the word fast was handled differently for different students. Some students enjoyed the competition, and suggested on the post-survey that more competitive aspects, such as tournaments should be included in the game. Many wrote things like:

“..I like to play with other people because we can ask questions and they answer.”

“If you play by yourself, you can’t concentrate and you won’t be ‘one with the card’ [you will be bored]”.

Many noted specifically the competitive aspect:

“Become [more] competitive”

“It’s more fun with other people because it gives me a chance to compete and I feel like I need to guess the word first.”

However, other students, particularly those without the skills to play the game well, did not enjoy the high-stress aspect of the game. One student wrote:

“..by myself because I feel stress if they enjoy getting the card too much”.

All of the students are at about the same reading level (with more variablilty in their speaking ability), so the lack of identifying almost any words by one or two participants is explained more by their feelings of social pressure than linguistic competence. However, nothing definitive can be said here on this issue due to the lack of more complete understanding of the student proficencies.

Metalinguistic skills in decontexualized word recognition

As was seen in the previous examples, the participants’ ability to use these affordances is mediated by their ability to manipulate language through metalinguistic knowledge and skill. While many of the participants do not yet have the language to talk about English in terms of its grammar or morphology, many of them showed implicit knowledge of linguistic structure of English in the video recordings.

Of those with explicit knowledge, most were aware (64%) of the orthographic cues that they could take advantage. Tactile and phonological cues came behind orthography with 20% each. During gameplay however, many more students used skills related to morphology. There was however, not enough data to show a statistically significant relationship between any of the linguistic cues and successful recognition in a competitive setting.

This lack of cognitive awareness was expected prior to the activity to be less important than vocabulary knowledge. The students in this specific school spend a large portion of their English study-time preparing for a very large “word challenge” test. As such, vocabulary memorization is a big part of the students study. It was expected that this familiarity with vocabulary and the level of familiarity with the words on the pre-activity survey would predict a student’s ability to win against an opponent. However, no statistical significance (p<0.05) was found between word familiarity and word recognition.

This is likely due to a ceiling effect in the gathering data. A wider range of scale for the students to self-evaluate on may have produced more specific data that could have been more adequately analyzed for significance. As it stands, the lowest rate of familiarity was 87 and the highest was 144. However, most students were in the 100-120 range.

winners losers
mean std.d mean std.d
familiarity 113.5 14.7 104.7 14.5
words recognized 17.5 4.5 8.6 4.3
means and standard deviations of the winners and losers of the activity, with their pre-activity word familiarity.

Discussion

Affordances

Decontextual language is often considered to not offer much for language learning anymore. The social and situated functional use of language has taken its role as the primary concern of most serious language teachers. Word games, then, it seems to be a way that decontextual language can offer students a way to hone and use their metalinguistic skills.

The specific affordances related to Word-a-round highlight the sensitivities of language learners to orthographic and phonological cues, even if they are not overtly aware of these skills. Additionally, it offers opportunities for teachers to make students aware of these skills, and in a way, make them more aware in a more real situation. The act of contextual reading is more about comprehension and meaning and less to do with the sub-meaning areas of language. Word games in particular, focus the function of the language towards using those metalinguistic skills towards a real goal, winning a game.

The students in this study were aware of some of these skills, but perhaps most telling of all, they don’t refer to the ability to identify morphemes or sounds as skills but instead strategies, meaning strategies that will help them win the game. The competitive environment also affords the strategic student cues that they can take advantage of in order to also win. Like conversation, the cognitive load of identifying the word on the card can be shared if one listens well to what their opponent is attempting to say.

Metalinguistic skills

While statistically significant claims towards specific metalinguistic skills cannot be made in this study, the qualitative data can still be used to examine the types of skills evidenced in the gameplay. The most important result of this study is that students can demonstrate a metalinguistic skill before they are aware of their doing it.

Perhaps unsurprising however, is the focus the students placed on the orthographic aspect of word recognition in gameplay. The students in this study are taught in what is mostly a reading / writing class with little to no focus on speaking and listening. Every class is focused on specific texts and the reading and understanding of them. Graphemes, then make more sense to the students than phonemes would. Which explains why one student, described one of their strategies using the grapheme “kn”, and not the phoneme [n].

While orthography, phonology and tactile cues all gained some recognition, morphology was mostly unmentioned by the students. This is most likely due to the lack of any teaching related to specific morpheme identification. Some students are aware of suffixation, and they did at times know how to switch syllables and morphemes around in-game, but explicit knowledge was not evident in the post-activity surveys.

 Conclusion

This study attempted to identify significant relationships between metalinguistic skill and the ability to identify words using an unconventional word-game paradigm. It found that the ecological environment related to word games is very beneficial for positive attitudes towards reading and in developing metalinguistic skills, but it did not find any significant relationship between those skills and successful competitive play.

This does not warrant any conclusion in regards to the relationship of metalinguistic skill and sublexical word recognition, but it does suggest that other avenues for research may be better suited for future efforts.

Limitations and Future directions

There are two main issues at play with the present study. One is the number of students and number of game-play opportunities. It is possible that significant relationships between sublexical word recognition and metalinguistic skill could be determine with more participants and more rounds of gameplay. The second issue is related to the methodology of the word familiarity test. It is possible a ceiling effect may limit any possible interpretation from that specific test.

Future research efforts in this area should design their familiarity tests with more nuanced options to get more detailed results related to the familiarity of the students. Additionally, multiple methods for gameplay might be used to in order to determine if the competitive style limits some students while assisting others in word identification.


References

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Al-Shehri, S., & Gitsaki, C. (2010). Online reading: a preliminary study of the impact of integrated and split-attention formats on L2 students’ cognitive load. Recall, 22(03), 356-375.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. Advances in reading/language research, 2, 231-256.

Barrow, J., Nakanishi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999). Assessing Japanese college students’ vocabulary knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System, 27(2), 223-247.

Besse, A. S., Demont, E., & Gombert, J.-E. (2007). Traitements phonologiques et morphologiques dans l’apprentissage de la lecture en français langue seconde par desarabophones et des lusophones. Psychologie Française, 52, 89-105.

Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., & Bryant, F. B. (1998). Predicting kindergarten academic skills: Interactions among child care, maternal education, and family literacy environments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 501-521.

Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2011). Does word coach coach words?. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 639-661.

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological review, 108(1), 204.

Commissaire, E. (2015). Orthographic and phonological coding during L2 visual word recognition in L2 learners : lexical and sublexical mechanisms (Ph.d.). L’Université Lille Nord de France.

de Guerrero, M., & Commander, M. (2013). Shadow-reading: Affordances for imitation in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(4), 433-453.

Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 764-778.

Grainger, J., & Dijkstra, T. (1992). On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. Advances in psychology, 83, 207-220.

Grainger, J., Midgley, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2010). Re-thinking the bilingual interactive-activation model from a developmental perspective (BIA-d). Language acquisition across linguistic and cognitive systems, 52, 267-283.

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge University Press.

Haynes, M., & Carr, T. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. Carr & B. Levy,Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (1st ed., pp. 375-421). San Diego: Academic Press.

Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2012). Learning to read: What we know and what we need to understand better. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 1-5.

Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education.TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235.

Koda, K. (1996). L2 word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 450-460.

Meara, P. (1995). The importance of an early emphasis on L2 vocabulary.LANGUAGE TEACHER-KYOTO-JALT-, 19, 8-11.

Neville, D., Shelton, B., & McInnis, B. (2009). Cybertext redux: using digital game-based learning to teach L2 vocabulary, reading, and culture. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 409-424.

Raney, G., & Rayner, K. (1995). Word frequency effects and eye movements during two readings of a text. Canadian Journal Of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 49(2), 151-173.

The Game Aisle: Game Reviews,. (2013). WordARound: a quick and all-around fun game from ThinkFun | The Game Aisle: Game Reviews. Retrieved 27 October 2015, from http://www.thegameaisle.com/wordaround/

Thinkfun,. (2015). ThinkFun’s WordARound Game. Retrieved 27 October 2015, from http://thinkfun.com/wordaround

Wang, M., Park, Y., & Lee, K. R. (2006). Korean-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross language and orthography transfer.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 148-158.

Ziegler, J., Montant, M., & Jacobs, A. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal Of Memory And Language, 37(4), 533-554.


Appendix A – Word Familiarity Survey

Group1 (1) I don’t remember seeing this word
(2) I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means
(3) I have seen this word before, I think it means _____________.
(4) I know this word, it means _________________________.
Sphere ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Almond ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Miracle ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Origin ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Future ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Acoustic ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Elapse ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Haircut ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Tingling ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Inches ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Volume ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Hunches ①  ②  ③  ④ _______________________________________
Airplane ①  ②  ③  ④ ______________________________________
Touches ①  ②  ③  ④ ______________________________________

Appendix B – In class activity worksheet

Word-A-Round

Group: _________________

Directions:

  • Listen as your partner reads one of the three words on each card.
  • As they say the word, write it down in the space below. If your partner can’t find the word, say, “PASS!” and move onto to the next card.
  • In that space, also write, “pass”.

Blue

  1. _______________________________________
  2. _______________________________________
  3. _______________________________________
  4. _______________________________________
  5. _______________________________________
  6. _______________________________________
  7. _______________________________________
  8. _______________________________________
  9. _______________________________________
  10. ______________________________________

Red

  1. _______________________________________
  2. _______________________________________
  3. _______________________________________
  4. _______________________________________
  5. _______________________________________
  6. _______________________________________
  7. _______________________________________
  8. _______________________________________
  9. _______________________________________
  10. ______________________________________

Black

  1. _______________________________________
  2. _______________________________________
  3. _______________________________________
  4. _______________________________________
  5. _______________________________________
  6. _______________________________________
  7. _______________________________________
  8. _______________________________________
  9. _______________________________________
  10. ______________________________________
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s