Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ncal20

Investigating the effectiveness of a digital game-

based task on the acquisition of word knowledge

Amin Rasti-Behbahani & Maryam Shahbazi

To cite this article: Amin Rasti-Behbahani & Maryam Shahbazi (2022) Investigating the
effectiveness of a digital game-based task on the acquisition of word knowledge, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 35:8, 1920-1945, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1846567

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1846567

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 01 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5506

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
2022, VOL. 35, NO. 8, 1920–1945
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1846567

Investigating the effectiveness of a digital

game-based task on the acquisition
of word knowledge
Amin Rasti-Behbahania and Maryam Shahbazib
a
Department of Languages and Communication Studies, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla,
Finland; bDepartment of Teacher Education, Jyv€askyl€a University of Applied Sciences,
Jyvaskyla, Finland

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study investigates the probable effect of a digital Digital game-based
game-based vocabulary learning (DGBVL) task on the acqui- learning; vocabulary
sition of some components of a word knowledge frame- acquisition; word
knowledge framework
work. In so doing, 124 Persian speakers (56 males and 68
females) were randomly assigned to either a control or an
experimental group. The experimental group participants
completed a DGBVL task for acquiring ten low-frequent
inanimate object names, or lexical nouns, by playing a
commercial adventure game. The control group partici-
pants practiced the same words in a fill-in-the-blank
vocabulary acquisition exercise. In brief, first, all participants
sat for a word-checklist and a proficiency test; next, they
completed their tasks, and three weeks later, all participants
sat for eight achievement tests. In the achievement test
booklet, participants’ knowledge of receptive, productive,
recognition, and recall dimensions and scopes of meaning,
orthography, and association were evaluated. The results
revealed 1) the efficiency of the DGBVL task in enhancing
the acquisition of these components, 2) the precedence of
productive knowledge acquisition by the experimental
group participants, 3) strong associations among the com-
ponents acquired through DGBVL task assistance, and 4)
gains in the components that were not associated with
others due to the efficiency of DGBVL.

1. Introduction
Acquiring vocabulary is essential for language learners because “all other
things being equal, learners with big vocabularies are more proficient in
a wide range of language skills than learners with smaller vocabularies”

CONTACT Amin Rasti-Behbahani [email protected] Department of Languages and Communication

Studies, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
ß 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1921

(Krashen, 1989, p. 440). However, the multidimensionality of knowing a

word has made vocabulary acquisition challenging. In other words, a lan-
guage learner needs to retain information such as receptive, productive,
form, meaning, and use for every word. These bits of information have
been grouped into categories named aspects, dimensions, and scopes
(Nation, 2001; Ringbom, 1987). For acquiring aspects, dimensions, and
scopes of word knowledge effectively, many methods and techniques are
proposed, studied, and recommended; however, since no particular
method has yet shown to be very effective the search for a comprehen-
sive method of vocabulary acquisition continues.
Recently, researchers have found digital games as “another avenue for
experimentation in a safe virtual environment” (Kirriemuir, 2002, p. 2).
However, there are mixed reports on the effect of DGBVL tasks. For
example, although some studies report about the potentials of DGBVL tasks
(Chen, Tseng, & Hsiao, 2018; Zou, Huang, & Xie, 2019), the inefficacy of
DGBVL tasks was reported and discussed in a few other studies (e.g.,
deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010; Lee, 2019). These studies have mainly
reported on the effect of digital games on the acquisition of receptive know-
ledge of form-meaning (Zou et al., 2019), and mostly disregarded the multi-
dimensionality of knowing a word despite the existence of strong reasons
for considering it. For instance, firstly, aspects, dimensions, and scopes are
interrelated knowledge bases (Schmitt & Meara, 1997) and may affect each
other. Secondly, although language learners may obtain some aspects,
dimensions, and scopes of word knowledge, they cannot demonstrate
knowledge of meaning (Schmitt, 1998). Thirdly, “using only a receptive or
productive test to measure [vocabulary] learning might provide misleading
results” (Webb, 2005, p. 50). Hence, we can infer that disregarding the
multidimensionality of knowing a word and measuring only receptive/pro-
ductive knowledge of meaning might have led to the mixed results in the
DGBVL literature. In order to fill this gap, this study reinvestigates the
effect of a digital game task on vocabulary acquisition by considering the
multidimensionality of word knowledge. By doing so, we can obtain more
precise information on the effect of a DGBVL task. Also, it may reveal what
kind of word knowledge is acquired before others (Schmitt, 1998).

2. Literature review
2.1. Components of word knowledge
Aspects, dimensions, and scopes of word knowledge are outcomes of the
researchers’ attempts to answer what does it mean to know a word? For
instance, Richards (1976) answered that knowing a word was the acquisi-
tion of pieces of knowledge such as frequency, degree of exposure,
1922 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Table 1. Aspects Involved in Knowing a Word (adapted from Nation, 2001, p. 27).
Form Spoken R What does the word sound link?
P How is the word pronounced?
Written R What does the word look like?
P How is the word written and spelled?
Word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word?
P What word parts are needed to express the meanings?
Meaning Form and meaning R What meaning does this word form signals?
P What word form can be used to express this meaning?
Concept and referents R What is included in this concept?
P What items can the concept refer to?
Associations R What other words does this make us think of?
P What other words could we use instead of this one?
Use Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur?
P In what pattern must we use this word?
Collocations R What words or type of words with this one?
P What words or type of words must we use with this?
Constrains on use (register, R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet
frequency, ect.) this word
P Where, when, and how often can we use this word?
R ¼ Receptive Knowledge P ¼ Productive Knowledge.

Table 2. Degrees of form-meaning knowledge (adapted from Laufer & Goldstein, 2004,
p. 407).
Recall Recognition
Productive (retrieval of form) Supply the L2 word Select the L2 word
Receptive (retrieval of meaning) Supply the L1 word Select the L1 word

association, functions, syntax, derivations, semantic, and synonyms.

Ringbom (1987) explained that to know a word, a language learner
would need to retain its form (morphology), meaning (semantics), use
(syntax), relevant words (association), accessibility, and collocation.
Finally, Nation (2001) summarized the previous answers and introduced
the word knowledge framework (Table 1). In this framework, knowing a
word means acquiring aspects such as form, meaning, and use and the
receptive and productive dimensions. Receptive knowledge is the ability
to recognize and understand a word in a written or spoken form, and
productive knowledge is the ability to use a word in writing or speaking
(Nation, 2001).
Also, the receptive/productive dimension has been considered to
encompass two scopes, namely, recognition and recall, and mainly in the
form-meaning aspect of word knowledge, as defined in Table 2 (Laufer
& Goldstein, 2004).

2.2. Acquiring components of the word knowledge framework

In the literature of vocabulary acquisition, the precedence of receptive
knowledge has been widely discussed, especially in acquiring form-meaning
knowledge (Meara, 1997; Mondria & Wiersma, 2004; Schmitt, 2010; Webb,
2005). Nevertheless, Webb (2005) found that higher gains in receptive
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1923

knowledge were conditional on some contributory factors. He investigated

whether learning nonsense words, both receptively and productively, could
enhance gains in aspects of the word knowledge framework. Two groups
of Japanese participants tried to learn 14 nonsense words by practicing
them on a three glossed sentences task and a sentence writing task. Then,
their knowledge of orthography, syntax, association, form, and meaning
were evaluated by a 10-page test booklet. The results showed that the par-
ticipants performed significantly better in productive knowledge tests.
Webb (2005) discussed how factors like the type of task, ceiling effects on
the receptive test, and the experiment’s design could have supported the
acquisition of productive knowledge. Eventually he concluded that product-
ive vocabulary learning tasks could enhance the acquisition of components
of the word knowledge framework significantly. These findings by Webb
(2005) matter because they show that the acquisition of components of the
word knowledge framework is controllable, and the route and rate of
acquisition can be altered by vocabulary learning tasks.
Regarding the effect of task types, De La Fuente (2002) investigated
the effect of tasks such as “non-negotiated premodified input (NNPI),
negotiation without pushed output (NIWO), and negotiation plus pushed
output (NIPO)” (p. 84) on the acquisition of receptive and productive
knowledge of 10 Spanish target words. She showed how although negoti-
ation had been found to have a positive effect on vocabulary acquisition,
some types of negotiation would not enhance vocabulary acquisition and
retention at a similar rate. After participants had completed their tasks,
she evaluated their receptive and productive knowledge of the target
words immediately and then again three weeks later. She found that
although the participants had significantly increased both receptive and
productive knowledge of the target words, they performed better in pro-
ductive knowledge tests. She concluded that the type of task plays a sig-
nificant role in the acquisition of the aspects of the word knowledge
framework. Moreover, Webb (2007) studied the effect of contextualized
and decontextualized vocabulary learning tasks. He recruited 84 Japanese
EFL students and assigned them to either experimental (A), or compari-
son (B) groups. Group A experienced target words in glossed sentences,
whereas group B learned them in word pairs. Different types of word
knowledge, such as orthography, pragmatic association, meaning and
form, syntagmatic association, and grammatical function, were measured
separately immediately after the task completion. Results showed no sig-
nificant difference between the two groups. However, he found that par-
ticipants’ gains in the productive knowledge of meaning and the
receptive knowledge of orthography were noticeable. Webb (2007) con-
cluded that explicit vocabulary learning tasks, designed to strengthen the
1924 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

form-meaning link, should be encouraged because generating and devel-

oping a strong form-meaning link might enhance the acquisition of syn-
tagmatic and paradigmatic association and grammar. Webb’s finding
supported the previous findings by Schmitt (1998) and Schmitt and
Meara (1997). They found that some aspects and dimensions of word
knowledge, primarily meaning, suffix knowledge, and word association
knowledge, were associated with each other.

2.3. Digital games and the acquisition of components of the word

knowledge framework
The literature on DGBV has grown significantly over the past decade.
Many of those studies report on the positive effect of digital games on
vocabulary acquisition. For example, Vahdat and Rasti-Behbahani (2013)
reported that both female and male Iranian EFL learners who played a
commercial adventure digital game acquired receptive form-meaning
knowledge of 45 target words more effectively than those who tried to
acquire the same target words through text-and-drill exercises. Rabu and
Talib (2017) found that learners of English who played an educational/
serious game showed a significantly better performance than control
group participants who learned through drills in the post-tests evaluating
productive form-meaning knowledge of target words. Ebrahimzadeh and
Alavi (2017) reported that commercial digital games can support vocabu-
lary acquisition and enhance the retention of receptive knowledge of
form-meaning recognition. Chen and Hsu (2019) found that digital
games are not only effective in acquiring the receptive form-meaning
knowledge of vocabulary items but also in content acquisition. Bahari
(2020) reported that digital games, in general, can increase both the
depth and size of the gamers’ English word knowledge. Generally speak-
ing, regarding the recent meta-analysis studies, digital games have the
potentials to enhance vocabulary acquisition (Chen et al., 2018; Zou
et al., 2019).
However, the focus of the available DGBVL literature is mainly on the
acquisition of receptive (recognition or recall) word knowledge while the
acquisition of productive word knowledge is neglected or rarely studied
(Zou et al., 2019). In other words, few studies considered multidimen-
sionality, or at least both receptive and productive knowledge, of vocabu-
lary acquisition. For instance, Jasso (2012) investigated the effect of
playing SIMS on the acquisition of both receptive and productive know-
ledge of clothes-related vocabulary items. She found that the experimen-
tal group participants outperformed the control group participants in
both tests. Moreover, she reported that the experimental group
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1925

participants showed a significantly better performance in the productive

test than in the receptive test. Sundqvist and Wikstr€
om (2015) compared
the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of 80 Swedish teen-
age gamers. They categorized them into non/low-gamers, moderate
gamers, and frequent gamers. They reported that the performance of fre-
quent gamers was noticeably better in both receptive and productive
tests. Janebi Enayat and Haghighatpasand (2019) compared the perform-
ance of participants who played The Secret of Monkey Island - Special
Edition in learning target words, to the performance of participants who
learned the same target words through classroom vocabulary learning
tasks only, in a receptive and productive recall post-tests. They found
that experimental group participants outperformed control group partici-
pants in both post-tests. They concluded that factors such as the richness
of input, interactive dialogues, the contextualized exposure to unknown
words, and the frequency of occurrence in digital games could enhance
vocabulary acquisition efficiently. Last but not least, Sundqvist (2019)
compared digital game players (B: N ¼ 16) with non-players (A:
N ¼ 1,069) in their receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge
through 3 years of study. Playtime correlated positively with receptive as
well as productive test scores. Furthermore, she found that gamers
acquired productive knowledge of both frequent and infrequent vocabu-
lary items effectively. She concluded that commercial games could be
useful for vocabulary acquisition.
There remains a gap in our knowledge of the effect of digital games
on the acquisition of components of the word knowledge framework.
Hence, to fill this gap and to achieve the main aim of this study, we seek
answers to the following questions:
1. Does a DGBVL task make a significant difference in the acquisition
of aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the word knowledge frame-
work in comparison with a regular vocabulary learning task?
2. Which aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the word knowledge
framework are acquired significantly more efficiently?
3. To what extent are learned word knowledge framework components
correlated to one another?

3. Methodology
The design of the study was modeled on the study by Webb (2007). The
independent factor was a DGBVL task, and the dependent factor was the
acquisition of some components of the word knowledge framework.
1926 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

3.1. Participants
In this study, based on a convenience sampling method, we recruited
124 Persian speakers from two private English language learning insti-
tutes in Behbahan, Iran. The Oxford placement test (2004) revealed that
the volunteers’ English proficiency was at the lower-intermediate level.
The participants, both male (N ¼ 56) and female (N ¼ 68) teenagers
(11  13 years old), were randomly assigned to either control (N ¼ 62) or
experimental groups (N ¼ 62). Moreover, both participants and their
families were asked to fill in a consent form after being acquainted with
their rights and the ethics of the research.

3.2. Materials
We used a digital game, a game-guide, or walkthrough, and a regular
vocabulary learning task (RVLT). They are explained in detail below.

3.2.1. The digital game

The digital game, Haunted Hotel: Death Sentence – Collectors’ Edition,
was developed by Big Fish Games. It is a commercial adventure point-
and-click PC game, in which a gamer takes the role of a detective who
tries to solve the mystery of his friend’s murder in an abandoned hotel.
The gamer can control the game by mouse clicks. We came to the con-
clusion that among all other genres of digital games, the adventure genre
would be a pedagogically suitable choice for our study because
adventure games use intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivating games
incorporate learning activity in a virtual world. Game characters have to solve a
certain problem and can proceed further only after solving the problem. In this
case, the problem is part of the game and players are motivated to provide a
solution in order to continue with the game. (Pivec, Dziabenko, & Schinnerl,
2003, p. 218)

The game contains a series of events that must be solved by finding

specific objects. If gamers cannot solve the first problem, the second
problem does not appear, that is to say, the game does not progress.
Gamers can find the required objects in one of the following ways: by
searching the game areas, by combining collected objects, or by solving
issues in previous events. Likewise, the objects must be either used in a
specific area or place in the game or combined with other objects to cre-
ate another useful object. For instance, the following figures show two
examples of how objects can be used in the game (Figures 1 and 2).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1927

Figure 1. A gamer is trying to use an object (a rock) to interact with the environment
(breaking the glass).

Figure 2. A gamer is trying to combine and fix the found pieces of an object (a door knob)
to solve a problem (opening a door) in the game.

3.2.2. Walkthrough
A walkthrough is an instruction manual for the game. It helps a gamer
to complete the game by following its instructions. The walkthrough was
downloaded from the official website of the game. The first chapter of
the walkthrough was extracted and simplified by numbering the senten-
ces, putting them in numerical order, adding picture guides for the
mini-games that were not relevant to study but had to be played, and
rewriting complex sentences to make it both user-friendly and easy to
follow (Table 3).
Participants were given the walkthrough to prevent the negative effects
of extensive interactivity, which can result in negative cognitive load and
probably lead to difficulty in recalling vocabulary items (deHaan et al.,
2010). Moreover, it could reduce time-on-task and prevent demotivation.
1928 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Table 3. An excerpt from the walkthrough.

5. use the stone and click on the window 2 times; click on the latch; click on the door to open
6. now, try to find things in the list
7. click on the hook

Table 4. The target words profile.

Target words Number of frequencies in the text Frequency profile
Debris 1 K5
Drape 1 K5
Embers 1 K9
Tag 1 K4
Glove 1 K4
Latch 1 K6
Skeleton 1 K5
Projector 1 K8
Shack 1 K7
Skull 1 K4

3.2.3. RVLT
The RVLT was a fill-in-the-blanks task that was designed by the researchers.
In this task, the control group participants had to complete ten sentences by
choosing appropriate words from the wordlist at the top of the page
(Appendix A). The wordlist contained 12 words, and the sentences were
extracted from the British National Corpus. The control group participants did
not need to modify the grammatical form of the words to fit their sentences.

3.2.4. Target words

Firstly, we selected forty nouns, which were not repeated more than twice
throughout the first chapter of the walkthrough. The selected nouns were
names of inanimate objects. The experimental group participants needed to
know them to be able to solve the puzzles in the game. A vocabulary
checklist containing the selected forty nouns ensured that all the selected
words were entirely new for the participants in both groups. After we had
administered the checklist, we discovered that only twelve nouns were new
for the participants in both groups. We chose ten out of the twelve nouns
because those ten words were repeated only once throughout the first
chapter (Table 4). In so doing, we partially controlled the unintended
effects of the exposure frequency. The target words are in the classes (K) of
low-frequent words based on their frequency profile1. Finally, we selected
only nouns because it was found that, among other lexical classes, nouns
are acquired more effectively by DGBVL tasks (Rasti-Behbahani, 2017).

3.3. Instruments
We used the Oxford placement test (2004), a vocabulary checklist, and a
test booklet for eliciting data from the participants in this study. The
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1929

Oxford placement test was administered to identify the participants’ level

of English language proficiency. The test contained 60 items that meas-
ured the participants’ knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and their read-
ing comprehension. Based on the report by Geranpayeh (2003), this
version of the test has high validity and reliability (0.90).
Also, a vocabulary checklist was administered to test whether the par-
ticipants knew the selected target words. It contained forty nouns -
names of inanimate objects - that were selected from the first chapter of
the walkthrough. In the checklist all 124 participants were supposed to
checkmark yes if they knew the target words and to write whatever they
knew about it. They could have written, for example, Persian definitions,
synonyms, antonyms, relevant words, etc.
Moreover, based on the study by Webb (2007), we designed and
sequenced eight achievement tests carefully to measure the participants’
knowledge of aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the target words.
Assuming that randomly administering the tests would reduce the
effects of earlier tests affecting the result of later tests, we sequenced
the tests in the following order: A, F, B, H, E, D, G, C (tests are listed
and described below). Also, we randomly distributed the target words
in each test to control the learning from the tests even more effectively.
By doing so, we assumed that, for instance, what learners may learn
from test A would be of little or no use in test F and so on.
Furthermore, we had to isolate each component of the word knowledge
framework to provide a more accurate assessment of the relative effi-
cacy of the tasks (Webb, 2007).
We also did not provide context for cues in the achievement tests to
avoid the effect of context on guessing the answers and to reduce the
similarity between the achievement tests and the tasks (Webb, 2007). For
example, in test C, question 1 contained just the word Skull followed by
the Persian alternatives in multiple-choice format. Moreover, we asked
the participants to leave each completed test under their chairs before
answering the next test. By doing so, they could not return to the previ-
ous tests for clues.
Each test contained ten questions, and each correct answer was scored
1. The achievement tests measured the productive and receptive know-
ledge of the aspects and the scopes.
A. productive knowledge of orthography: In this test, each target word
was pronounced twice. The participants had 10 seconds to write it down.
An accurate version of the word dictated was scored 1.
B. receptive knowledge of orthography: The participants had to select
the appropriate spelling of a word in this test, for example:
1930 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

a) dreap b) drape c) drepa d) derap

C. receptive knowledge of meaning and form (recognition): In a mul-

tiple-choice test, the participants had to select a correct Persian definition
for each target word. For example, for the word Skull, option A was the
correct answer:
a) ‫ﺟﻤﺠﻤﻪ‬ b) ‫ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ‬c) ‫ ﺫﺭﻩ ﺑﯿﻦ‬d) ‫ﺯﻧﺠﯿﺮ‬

D. receptive knowledge of meaning and form (recall): In this test, partic-

ipants had to write a Persian definition for each target word. They
needed to recall the definitions.
E. productive knowledge of meaning and form (recognition): In a mul-
tiple-choice test, participants had to select a correct English form for a
Persian definition. All alternatives were selected from the walkthrough.
For example, for the word ‫ﭖﺭﺩﻩ‬, the correct English form was B:
a) Chain b) Drape c) Curtain d) Fence

F. productive knowledge of meaning and form (recall): The participants

had to translate the Persian words into English. The participants needed
to recall the English forms based on their Persian definition. In this test,
an appropriate spelling was not considered important.
G. receptive knowledge of association: In this test, the participants had
to cross out a word that had no association with other words.
Alternatives were also selected from the walkthrough. For example, in
this question, the word sky was irrelevant:
a) Glove b) Rubber c) Sky d) Fingers

H. productive knowledge of association: Although Webb (2007) differ-

entiated between syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations, they were
put in one category in this study. In this test, the participants had to
write words they thought had associations with each target word. For
instance, for the word debris, they could write either dry, autumn (syn-
tagmatic association) or leaves, tree (paradigmatic). They were scored
correct if their answers had even a loose association with the target
words in each question. Moreover, in this test, an appropriate spelling
was not considered important.

3.4. Procedure
First, to comply with the research ethics, we explained participants’
rights in this study. Also, we asked them to fill in a letter of consent that
had to be signed by them and by their parents. The day after, they sat
the Oxford proficiency test, and also the vocabulary checklist test in a
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1931

60-minute session. Then they were randomly assigned to either the

experimental group or the control group.
In a computer lab, at the beginning of the treatment session, we
loaded the 5th chapter of the game to teach the experimental group par-
ticipants how to play the digital game for almost 6 minutes. Next, the
participants had to complete their DGBVL tasks by playing the digital
game on 31 PCs in pairs. They were asked to do the tasks in pairs
because “such tasks are an integral part of second language learning and
are ubiquitous in language learning classrooms” (Cohen, 1987, p. 90).
They had to read the walkthrough and follow its instructions for solving
problems in the first chapter of the game (the DGBVL task). Moreover,
the participants could use an online dictionary2 to look up unknown
words, even the target words. It should be noted that pairs often took
turns randomly to play the game by asking their pairs to pass them the
mouse to check their ideas for solving problems in the game. Since the
first chapter of the game included unskippable video cut-scenes and puz-
zle mini-games for immersive entertainment, the whole gameplay session
lasted for almost 60 minutes, and we were on-site during their gameplay
to help with unexpected technical issues.
We also checked with the control group participants to see whether they
knew exactly how to complete their RVLT at the beginning of the session.
Control group participants were also busy with their RVLT in pairs on the
same day in another room of the laboratory. Each pair had to fill in the
blanks for completing ten sentences by selecting proper nouns from a list
above the sentences. The list included the ten target words, and also two
extra words as distractors. They could also use the same online dictionary
to look for unknown words in their RVLT. Their session lasted almost
40 minutes. We also checked with them frequently to help them with any
questions about the process. It is worth mentioning that the participants in
both groups were exposed to the target words only once in their tasks.
Lastly, all participants sat for the achievement tests in the same labora-
tory three weeks later because “a delayed posttest of three weeks should
be indicative of learning which is stable and durable” (Schmitt, 2010, p.
157). All participants sat for the achievement test at the same time.
There was no time limit for completing both the tasks and the tests. We
were present there to facilitate the process, and we collected the com-
pleted tests from the students’ chairs.

4. Results
As the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the test scores were not
normally distributed (Table 5), the nonparametric Mann Whitney U test,
1932 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Table 5. The results of the normality test.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
W df Sig.
Receptive (Orthography) .218 124 .000
Productive (Orthography) .156 124 .000
Productive. Meaning (Recognition) .197 124 .000
Productive. Meaning (Recall) .180 124 .000
Receptive. Meaning (Recognition) .209 124 .000
Receptive. Meaning (Recall) .192 124 .000
Receptive (Association) .189 124 .000
Productive (Association) .149 124 .000
Receptive (Total) .184 124 .000
Productive (Total) .138 124 .000

Friedman Test, Wilcoxon and Bonferroni post hoc tests, and Spearman
rho correlation (Hall, 2015) tests were used to analyze the data.

4.1. Does a DGBVL task make a significant difference in the acquisition of

aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the word knowledge framework in
comparison with a RVLT?
The first objective, which is the central core of the study, was an attempt
to find whether the DGBVL task made any contributions to the acquisi-
tion of components of the word knowledge framework. To do this, the
mean ranks of the experimental group performance in achievement tests
were compared with the mean ranks of the control group performance
in the 2 independent samples Mann Whitney U test (Table 6).
The results of the Mann Whitney tests indicate that the experimental
group participants outperformed in all achievement tests. In other words,
the results showed that the experimental group participants acquired
both receptive and productive knowledge of different aspects and scopes
of the target words more efficiently than their control group counterparts
did. Moreover, the differences between their mean ranks at P  0.05 were
significant. Hence, the DGBVL task apparently has contributed to the
acquisition of components of the word knowledge framework more effi-
ciently than the RVLT did.

4.2. Which aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the word knowledge

framework are acquired significantly more efficiently?
This question aimed to find which aspects, dimensions, and scopes of
the word knowledge framework are acquired more efficiently through
each task. Therefore, the mean ranks in each achievement test were com-
pared with each other by the Friedman test followed by a Wilcoxon and
Bonferroni posthoc test (Tables 7 and 8).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1933

Table 6. Independent samples Mann Whitney U test results.

Group N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Sig.
Receptive (Orthography) Exp 62 79.79 4947.00 850.0 0.00
Con 62 45.21 2803.00
Total 124
Productive (Orthography) Exp 62 70.94 4398.50 1398.5 0.008
Con 62 54.06 3351.50
Total 124
Productive. Meaning (Recognition) Exp 62 91.99 5703.50 93.50 0.00
Con 62 33.01 2046.50
Total 124
Productive. Meaning (Recall) Exp 62 78.62 4874.50 922.5 0.00
Con 62 46.38 2875.50
Total 124
Receptive. Meaning (Recognition) Exp 62 86.32 5352.00 445.0 0.00
Con 62 38.68 2398.00
Total 124
Receptive. Meaning (Recall) Exp 62 73.44 4553.50 1243.5 0.00
Con 62 51.56 3196.50
Total 124
Receptive (Association) Exp 62 79.76 4945.00 852.0 0.00
Con 62 45.24 2805.00
Total 124
Productive (Association) Exp 62 76.01 4712.50 1084.5 0.00
Con 62 48.99 3037.50
Total 124
Receptive (Total) Exp 62 82.10 5090.50 706.5 0.00
Con 62 42.90 2659.50
Total 124
Productive (Total) Exp 62 81.23 5036.00 761.0 0.00
Con 62 43.77 2714.00
Total 124
Note: Exp ¼ Experimental Group Con ¼ Control Group level of Significance ¼ P  0.05

Table 7. Friedman test results (experimental group).

Mean Rank N Chi-Square df sig
Productive (Total) 9.53 62 400.268 9 .000
Receptive (Total) 9.42
Productive. Meaning (Recognition) 6.36
Receptive. Meaning (Recognition) 5.55
Receptive (Association) 5.45
Receptive (Orthography) 4.32
Productive (Orthography) 3.74
Productive. Meaning (Recall) 3.74
Productive (Association) 3.61
Receptive. Meaning (Recall) 3.27

The results show that, in general, the experimental group participants’

performances in both receptive (total) and productive (total) tests are
not significantly different. However, in particular their performance in
the productive-recognition of form-meaning, at p  0.05, is significantly
different from their performances in the receptive-recognition of form-
meaning and most of the other tests. In other words, the DGBVL task
enhanced the acquisition of productive-recognition of form-meaning
effectively.
 1934

Table 8. Wilcoxon and Bonferroni correction post hoc tests results (Experimental Group).
Meaning Meaning Meaning Meaning
Orthography Orthography (Productive (Productive (Receptive (Receptive Association Association Productive Receptive
(Receptive) (Productive) Recognition) Recall) Recognition) Recall) (Receptive) (productive) (total) (Total)
Orthography (Receptive) Z 2.531 6.453 1.327 2.957 -.107 5.715 -.075 9.666 9.674
Sig. 0.511 0.000 8.297 0.140 41.176 0.005 42.298 0.000 0.000
Orthography (Productive) Z 2.531 3.679 4.822 -.631 3.107 3.530 3.845 9.669 9.670
Sig. 0.511 0.010 0.000 23.752 0.085 0.019 0.005 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Productive Recognition) Z 6.453 3.679 7.163 5.550 5.709 2.250 5.881 9.671 9.653
Sig. 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.012 0.005 1.099 0.000 0.000 0.000
A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Meaning (Productive Recall) Z 1.327 4.822 7.163 5.734 2.169 7.555 2.150 9.668 9.670
Sig. 8.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.353 0.000 1.420 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Receptive Recognition) Z 2.957 -.631 5.550 5.734 3.086 4.536 3.243 9.667 9.669
Sig. 0.140 23.752 0.012 0.000 0.091 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Receptive Recall) Z -.107 3.107 5.709 2.169 3.086 6.417 -.315 9.667 9.673
Sig. 41.176 0.085 0.005 1.353 0.091 0.000 33.889 0.000 0.000
Association (Receptive) Z 5.715 3.530 2.250 7.555 4.536 6.417 6.592 9.667 9.670
Sig. 0.005 0.019 1.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Association (productive) Z -.075 3.845 5.881 2.150 3.243 -.315 6.592 9.669 9.669
Sig. 42.298 0.005 0.000 1.420 0.053 33.889 0.000 0.000 0.000
Productive (total) Z 9.666 9.669 9.671 9.668 9.667 9.667 9.667 9.669 1.204
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.292
Receptive (total) Z 9.674 9.670 9.653 9.670 9.669 9.673 9.670 9.669 1.204
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.292
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1935

Table 9. Friedman test results (control group).

Mean Rank N Chi-Square df sig
Receptive (TOTAL) 9.58 62 335.688 9 .000
Productive (TOTAL) 9.42
Receptive (Association) 5.90
Productive (Orthography) 5.29
Productive. Meaning (Recognition) 4.94
Receptive. Meaning (Recall) 4.43
Receptive. Meaning (Recognition) 4.15
Receptive (Orthography) 4.12
Productive (Association) 3.96
Productive. Meaning (Recall) 3.21

For ensuring the efficiency of the DGBVL task in enhancing the acqui-
sition of the productive dimension of form-meaning recognition, the
control group’s performances in each achievement test had to be com-
pared (Tables 9 and 10).
The results show that, in general, the control group participants’ per-
formances in both receptive (total) and productive (total) tests are not
significantly different. However, in particular, their performance in the
receptive knowledge of association, at p  0.05, is significantly different
from their performances in the productive knowledge of association and
most of the other tests. In other words, the RVLT enhanced the acquisi-
tion of receptive knowledge of association effectively.
Overall, it seems that the type of vocabulary learning task can play a
significant role in the acquisition of dimensions, aspects, and compo-
nents of word knowledge. Moreover, depending on the type of task, the
weight of the effect can vary on the different aspects and scopes of the
word knowledge framework.

4.3. To what extent are learned word knowledge framework components

correlated to one another?
In theory, the components of the word knowledge framework are associ-
ated and may either support or hinder the acquisition of each other
(Schmitt, 1998; Schmitt & Meara, 1997). We investigated the support for
this theory by the Spearman rho correlation (Table 11).
The results of the Spearman correlation analysis showed positive sig-
nificant () associations among nearly all components of the word know-
ledge framework. However, the results revealed that, at p  0.05, the
receptive knowledge of orthography is not in association with the pro-
ductive recognition knowledge of meaning. Moreover, at p  0.05, the
highest positive correlation was found between the productive recall
knowledge of the meaning and the productive knowledge of orthography
(Table 12).
 1936

Table 10. Wilcoxon and Bonferroni correction post hoc tests results (Control Group).
Meaning Meaning Meaning Meaning
Orthography Orthography (Productive (Productive (Receptive (Receptive Association Association Receptive Productive
(Receptive) (Productive) Recognition) Recall) Recognition) Recall) (Receptive) (productive) (Total) (total)
Orthography (Receptive) Z 3.322 2.237 2.514 -.477 -.700 4.041 -.328 6.863 6.850
Sig. 0.040 1.138 0.536 28.496 21.763 0.002 33.436 0.000 0.000
Orthography (Productive) Z 3.322 1.562 4.822 3.281 2.851 -.794 3.655 6.865 6.856
Sig. 0.040 5.326 0.000 0.046 0.196 19.218 0.011 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Productive Recognition) Z 2.237 1.562 4.550 2.887 1.302 2.564 1.945 6.855 6.855
Sig. 1.138 5.326 0.000 0.174 8.674 0.465 2.332 0.000 0.000
A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Meaning (Productive Recall) Z 2.514 4.822 4.550 2.985 3.900 5.914 2.525 6.861 6.852
Sig. 0.536 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.004 0.000 0.521 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Receptive Recognition) Z -.477 3.281 2.887 2.985 1.701 4.627 -.441 6.860 6.852
Sig. 28.496 0.046 0.174 0.127 3.999 0.000 29.656 0.000 0.000
Meaning (Receptive Recall) Z -.700 2.851 1.302 3.900 1.701 3.938 -.985 6.860 6.852
Sig. 21.763 0.196 8.674 0.004 3.999 0.003 14.606 0.000 0.000
Association (Receptive) Z 4.041 -.794 2.564 5.914 4.627 3.938 4.501 6.862 6.851
Sig. 0.002 19.218 0.465 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
Association (productive) Z -.328 3.655 1.945 2.525 -.441 -.985 4.501 6.860 6.860
Sig. 33.436 0.011 2.332 0.521 29.656 14.606 0.000 0.000 0.000
Receptive (total) Z 6.863 6.865 6.855 6.861 6.860 6.860 6.862 6.860 -.623
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.002
Productive (total) Z 6.850 6.856 6.855 6.852 6.852 6.852 6.851 6.860 -.623
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.002
Table 11. Results of Spearman correlation (experimental group).
Meaning Meaning Meaning
Orthography Orthography (Productive Meaning (Receptive (Receptive Association Association
(Receptive) (Productive) Recognition) (Productive Recall) Recognition) Recall) (Receptive) (productive)
Orthography (Receptive) Correlation Coefficient .532 .074 .532 .505 .545 .526 .565
Sig. .000 .567 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Orthography (Productive) Correlation Coefficient .532 .426 0.993 .908 .947 .893 .983
Sig. .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Meaning (Productive Recognition) Correlation Coefficient .074 .426 .426 .458 .432 .442 .397
Sig. .567 .001 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001
Meaning (Productive Recall) Correlation Coefficient .532 0.993 .426 .908 .947 .893 .983
Sig. .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
Meaning (Receptive Recognition) Correlation Coefficient .505 .908 .458 .908 .877 .991 .897
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Meaning (Receptive Recall) Correlation Coefficient .545 .947 .432 .947 .877 .865 .933
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Association (Receptive) Correlation Coefficient .526 .893 .442 .893 .991 .865 .907
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Association (productive) Correlation Coefficient .565 .983 .397 .983 .897 .933 .907
Sig. .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000

¼ significant; the sample size (N ¼ 62).
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
1937
 1938

Table 12. Results of Spearman correlation (control group).

Meaning Meaning Meaning
Orthography Orthography (Productive Meaning (Receptive (Receptive Association Association
(Receptive) (Productive) Recognition) (Productive Recall) Recognition) Recall) (Receptive) (productive)
Orthography (Receptive) Correlation Coefficient .489 .172 .095 .217 .126 .192 .313
Sig. .000 .180 .463 .090 .328 .135 .013
Orthography (Productive) Correlation Coefficient .489 .380 .422 .375 .548 .251 .643
Sig. .000 .002 .001 .003 .000 .049 .000
Meaning (Productive Recognition) Correlation Coefficient .172 .380 .460 .399 .215 .223 .331
A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Sig. .180 .002 .000 .001 .093 .082 .009

Meaning (Productive Recall) Correlation Coefficient .095 .422 .460 .568 .541 .308 .375
Sig. .463 .001 .000 .000 .000 .015 .003
Meaning (Receptive Recognition) Correlation Coefficient .217 .375 .399 .568 .440 .107 .342
Sig. .090 .003 .001 .000 .000 .408 .006
Meaning (Receptive Recall) Correlation Coefficient .126 .548 .215 .541 .440 .334 .375
Sig. .328 .000 .093 .000 .000 .008 .003
Association (Receptive) Correlation Coefficient .192 .251 .223 .308 .107 .334 .371
Sig. .135 .049 .082 .015 .408 .008 .003
Association (productive) Correlation Coefficient .313 .643 .331 .375 .342 .375 .371
Sig. .013 .000 .009 .003 .006 .003 .003

¼significant; the sample size (N ¼ 62).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1939

In the control group analysis, the results of the Spearman correlation

showed weak positive significant associations just among some compo-
nents of the word knowledge framework. Moreover, at p  0.05, the
highest positive correlation was found between the productive knowledge
of association and the productive knowledge of orthography.
Overall, the DGBVL task not only has enhanced the acquisition of the
components, but it also has contributed to both forming and strengthen-
ing the associations among them.

5. Discussion
This study investigated the effect of a DGBVL task on the acquisition of
word knowledge. The outcomes supported the previous findings in the
DGBVL literature that had reported on the positive effect of DGBVL
tasks (Janebi Enayat & Haghighatpasand, 2019; Sundqvist, 2019).
Further, this study adds that a DGBVL task may enhance the acquisition
of aspects, dimensions, and scopes of the word knowledge such as recep-
tive, productive, recognition, and recall knowledge of orthography,
meaning, and association. A good explanation for this positive effect can
be the role of context. According to Webb (2007), contextualized
vocabulary items can be acquired effectively due to surrounding contexts.
Digital games provide a rich multimedia context, in which textual, pic-
torial, and auditory information are easily accessible for gamers (Janebi
Enayat & Haghighatpasand, 2019). In such contexts the richness of input
can support effective word knowledge acquisition. This idea is tenable by
referring to the dual coding theory, which suggests that a simultaneous
provision of visual and textual inputs leads to their long-term retention
(Nation, 2001). Hence the experimental group participants during the
game experienced the target words multidimensionally. In other words,
they saw the textual forms and pictures and heard the pronunciations of
the target words simultaneously. Thus, they would have stored combina-
tions of rich information about every target word containing knowledge
of the aspects, dimensions, and scopes and their associations, in
their lexicon.
In the second question, we tried to find which aspects, dimensions,
and scopes of the word knowledge framework are acquired more effect-
ively. The results showed that the experimental group participants
acquired the productive-recognition of form-meaning more effectively;
however, the control group participants acquired the receptive knowledge
of association more effectively. Considering the experimental group par-
ticipants’ performance, the precedence of form-meaning and recognition
knowledge over other aspects and scopes is not a peculiar and
1940 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

uncommon finding; besides, it supports the previous literature (Mondria

& Wiersma, 2004; Webb, 2005). However, the precedence of productive
knowledge over receptive knowledge of form-meaning recognition is rare
in both vocabulary acquisition and DGBVL literature (De La Fuente,
2002; Sundqvist, 2019; Webb, 2005). Mondria and Wiersma (2004, p. 82)
explain that “equivalence of type of learning and type of test [ … ]
yield[s] better results than non-equivalence of learning and testing”.
Besides, in psychology, the transfer-appropriate processing hypothesis
“emphasizes that the value of particular acquisition activities must be
defined relative to particular goals and purposes. Furthermore, assump-
tions about the quality and durability of the resulting memory traces can
only be determined relative to the appropriateness of testing situations”
(Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977, p. 528).
Therefore, it can be inferred that the DGBVL task may be considered
a productive rather than a receptive vocabulary acquisition task in nature
because, concerning the transfer-appropriate processing, the participants
had better performance in the productive-recognition of form-meaning
test. This idea is tenable by drawing an analogy to the study by De La
Fuente (2002). In her study, the participants who had the chance of
negotiation plus production acquired productive knowledge of ten
Spanish target words more effectively. She discussed how having the
opportunity for talking about the target words might have enhanced the
productive knowledge acquisition because the participants needed to use
the target words productively. Similarly, the experimental group partici-
pants played in pairs, and they might have a chance to talk with each
other about the target words and to produce them. Therefore, it might
have provided them an opportunity to practice the target words product-
ively, which was more beneficial for efficient vocabulary acquisition
(Webb, 2007). Thus, the DGBVL task in this study might have been a
productive vocabulary acquisition task.
In this case, we can speculate that the experimental group participants
might have invested more of their attention to the forms rather than to
the meaning. Duly they outperformed in the productive-recognition of
form-meaning test. However, despite having a chance to complete the
RVLT in pairs and the opportunity for talking, why the control group
participants acquired receptive knowledge of association more effectively
should be explored in the future by replicating this study and by com-
paring the opportunities and hindrances that each task may provide.
However, by referring to the transfer-appropriate processing hypothesis,
the efficient acquisition of receptive knowledge of association, by the
control group participants, might be explainable. In their task, they
needed to select a proper noun among 12 alternatives to complete each
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1941

sentence. Therefore, they were always comparing the nouns and their
definitions to each other. Duly, they outperformed in the test of receptive
knowledge of association.
Eventually, it should be noted that although we tried to avoid the
effect of earlier tests on answering the later tests strictly, testing 10 target
words eight times might have helped the participants to learn some
words from the earlier tests and affected the answers. Hence, it can be
speculated that, for example, if the DGBVL task encouraged the partici-
pants in investing most of their attentional sources in the forms, the par-
ticipants might have also focused on the forms during their tests and
picked some clues about the forms from earlier tests and used them to
answer the forthcoming tests.
Finally, we found that although components of the word knowledge
framework can be associated, and gains in one component can elevate
gains in other associated components (Schmitt, 1998; Schmitt & Meara,
1997), these associations are highly susceptible to the type and the struc-
ture of vocabulary acquisition tasks. In this study, unlike with the RVLT,
the DGBVL task helped the participants generate strong and positive
associations among most components of the word knowledge framework.
Schmitt and Meara (1997) and Schmitt (1998) have found that there are
particular and strong associations between meaning and other compo-
nents of the word knowledge framework. Hence, the DGBVL task might
have enhanced the acquisition of meaning senses and developed the
form-meaning links efficiently. The acquisition of other associated com-
ponents was duly enhanced efficiently. Moreover, by comparing the
amount and strength of the associations formed among the components
by the DGBVL task with those formed by the RVLT, it can be realized
that the nature of DGBVL task inputs is different from the regular
paper-based vocabulary learning tasks. Also, it can be inferred that the
richness and the distinctive nature of the DGBVL task inputs might have
led to the efficient acquisition of the components and the strong links
among the associated components.

6. Conclusion
This study has three major limitations. Firstly, the target words were
selected among concrete nouns only. Therefore, the findings of this study
may not extend to adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. Second, although tests
sequencing and administration were done carefully, participants might
have learned some words from the earlier tests and that could have
affected the answers. Third, having only concrete nouns did not allow
the effect of the DGBVL task on the other aspects such as grammar,
1942 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

register, etc. to be investigated, and they should be considered in

future studies.
Finally, the findings of this study illustrated how complex vocabulary
acquisition is and how difficult it is to overcome such complexity. Based
on the findings of this study, it seems that digital games can overcome
the complexity of vocabulary acquisition to a remarkable degree.
Therefore, we can conclude that language teachers can probably trust
DGBVL tasks for teaching vocabulary because they can enhance the
acquisition of most components of the word knowledge framework.

Notes
1. The information about the frequency profiles and the range of the nouns were
obtained from https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/.
2. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/

acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Mr. Ismael Farrokhian for his precious comments on
this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Amin Rasti-Behbahani is a postdoctoral researcher at University of Jyvaskyla. His
research interests are digital-game-based learning, and vocabulary acquisition.
Maryam Shahbazi is a master graduate from Jyv€askyl€a University of Applied Sciences
and her research interest is digital-game-based learning.

ORCID
Amin Rasti-Behbahani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1507-6986

References
Bahari, A. (2020). Game-based collaborative vocabulary learning in blended and dis-
tance L2 learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
1–22. doi:10.1080/02680513.2020.1814229
Chen, H. J. H., & Hsu, H. L. (2019). The impact of a serious game on vocabulary and
content learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–22. doi:10.1080/09588221.
2019.1593197
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1943

Chen, M. H., Tseng, W. T., & Hsiao, T. Y. (2018). The effectiveness of digital game-
based vocabulary learning: A framework-based view of meta-analysis. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 49(1), 69–77. doi:10.1111/bjet.12526
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C.
Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Multilingual matters, No. 30. Introspection in second lan-
guage research (pp. 82–95). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
De La Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles
of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 81–112. doi:10.1017/S0272263102001043
deHaan, J., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music
video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology,
14(2), 74–94.
Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2017). Readers, players, and watchers: Short and long-
term vocabulary retention through digital video games. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 6(4), 52–62. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.52
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research
Notes, 12, 8–10.
Hall, J. L. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and
R. New York: Routledge.
Janebi Enayat, M., & Haghighatpasand, M. (2019). Exploiting adventure video games for
second language vocabulary recall: A mixed-methods study. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 61–75.
Jasso, P. R. (2012). A non-academic computer video game: Its effect on vocabulary
acquisition in the EFL classroom (Published master’s thesis). New York: Syracuse
University.
Kirriemuir, J. (2002). The relevance of video games and gaming consoles to the higher
and further education learning experience. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0201.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for
the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. doi:10.2307/326879
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and
computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436. doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.
2004.00260.x
Lee, J. S. (2019). Informal digital learning of English and second language vocabulary
outcomes: Can quantity conquer quality?. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(2), 767–778. doi:10.1111/bjet.12599
Meara, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy
(pp. 109–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondria, J. A., & Wiersma, B. (2004). Receptive, productive, and receptive þ productive
L2 vocabulary learning: What difference does it make. Vocabulary in a Second
Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing, 15(1), 79–100.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus trans-
fer appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 16(5), 519–533.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pivec, M., Dziabenko, O., & Schinnerl, I. (2003, July). Aspects of game-based learning. In
3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz, Austria (pp.
216–225).
1944 A. RASTI-BEHBAHANI AND M. SHAHBAZI

Rabu, S. N. A., & Talib, Z. (2017). The effects of digital game-based learning on primary
school students’ English vocabulary achievement and acceptance. Innovative Teaching
and Learning Journal (ITLJ), 1(1), 61–74.
Rasti-Behbahani, A. (2017, March). The effect of video games on learning lexical word
classes. Presented at Nordic Educational Research Association Conference, Aalborg
University, Denmark.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77–89.
doi:10.2307/3585941
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning (Vol. 34).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A
longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281–317. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00042
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmilan.
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge
framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19(1), 17–36. doi:10.1017/S0272263197001022
Sundqvist, P. (2019). Commercial-off-the-shelf games in the digital wild and L2 learner
vocabulary. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 87–113. https://doi.org/10125/44674.
Sundqvist, P., & Wikstr€om, P. (2015). Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2
english vocabulary outcomes. System, 51, 65–76.
Vahdat, S., & Rasti-Behbahani, A. (2013). The effect of video games on Iranian EFL
learners’ vocabulary learning. The Reading Matrix, 13(1), 61–71.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading
and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(01),
33–52. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050023
Webb, S. (2007). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effects of a single con-
text on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 63–81. doi:10.1177/
1362168806072463
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2019). Digital game-based vocabulary learning: Where
are we and where are we going? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27. doi:10.
1080/09588221.2019.1640745

Appendix A. Fill in the sentences by using the following words in

the list.

Debris Tag Skeleton

Drape Glove Projector
Embers Latch Shack
Skull Dossier Matches

By using an x-ray, the human’s … … … … structure is vividly visible.

Can I put a price … … on these products too?
Dr. West said the force of the blow had fractured Lewis’ … … … … … … .
I wish you were at the … … … … … . with me last night
It is a good idea to take off the grating occasionally and clean out any … … … .
She searched her brains, staring into the glowing … … … … … … of the fire.
There was a big wooden door with a giant … … . on it to keep the door closed.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 1945

There’s a slide … … … … … … . at the back of the hall which I can control from
the front.
When she heard or saw nothing more, she dropped the net … … … . back into
place, to disappear once more into the darkness of her house.
When you wash dishes, wear … … … . To protect your skin.