tom cobb université du québec à montréal “does my word coach coach words?” this ppt at
TRANSCRIPT
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
