智慧型手機遊戲APP在英語學習的成效研究：以英語動名搭配詞學習為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論. 文. Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 智慧型手機遊戲 APP 在英語學習的成效研究：以英語動名搭配詞學習為例 A study on the effectiveness of a smart phone gaming application on foreign language learning: A case of English verb-noun collocation learning.. 指導教授：陳浩然 Advisor: Dr. Hao-Jan Chen 研究生：江盈潔. 中華民國一○二年六月 June, 2013.

(2) 摘要本研究使用 Android 手機遊戲以實踐無所不在的遊戲式學習。現在越來越多的高中學生擁有智慧型手機，遊戲類的手機應用程式在學生族群當中不僅容易取得也越來越受歡迎。文獻當中已有實證研究更指出使用電動遊戲、線上遊戲、或網頁動畫遊戲對學習英文單字的有幫助的。但是，少有研究針對使用智慧型手機遊戲學習英文進行探究。本研究旨在了解智慧型手機遊戲 APP 是否能促成課堂外的學習，以及是否對學習有實質的幫助。本研究設計一搭配詞學習的遊戲 APP。為了瞭解使用該遊戲學習搭配是否有效，本研究由 23 位高中、職學生組成遊戲組，32 位高中學生組成傳統組。遊戲組使用該遊戲 APP 進行 10 天的搭配詞學習。傳統組則透過背誦搭配詞表、閱讀例句和寫練習題學習相同的搭配詞，並定期於課堂進行小考。遊戲組和對傳統組皆接受相同的前測和後測。遊戲組施以問卷調查，以了解他們對使用 APP 遊戲學習搭配詞的感受。研究結果顯示遊戲組在前後測成績有顯著差異，使用 APP 遊戲學習搭配詞是有效的。研究更進一步發現使用遊戲的總時間量和進步分數有適度相關，而遊戲使用的關卡量和進步分數並無相關。傳統組的後測成績也明顯高於前測成績，經獨立樣本分析比較遊戲組和傳統組的後測成績，發現兩組的後測成績並無顯著差異。遊戲組對該學習經驗的整體感受以及手機為平台使用遊戲進行學習皆為滿意；表示會期待更多英文學習的 APP 遊戲。在學習後，遊戲組亦對搭配詞學習的重要性產生正面的態度。遊戲組認為使用手機 APP 遊戲學習搭配詞的好處是：隨時隨地都能學習、玩遊戲時不容易受到所處環境的影響而分心。而缺點是：如果只是為了學到內容，使用 APP 遊戲學習有些缺乏效率；遊戲設計重遊戲技巧多於搭配詞知識；遊戲缺乏整體的複習系統。學習者也提出改善遊戲的建議：改用直接的遊戲方式；增加不同關卡的變化性；已過關的搭配詞列表呈現、方便複習。 i.

(3) 關鍵字：遊戲式學習、智慧型手機遊戲 APP，搭配詞學習. ii.

(4) Abstract This study used Android mobile phones to embody game-based learning that can be carried out at anytime and anywhere. While previous studies have shown the effectiveness of using video games, online games or web-based flash games to learn English vocabulary, very few study examined the effectiveness of using smart phone games, which are portable and usually of casual designs, on English learning. Smart phone gaming applications are becoming increasingly accessible and popular among high school students. The study aimed to understand whether this uprising of smart phone gaming applications offer opportunities of encouraging students to carry out informal learning and whether playing smart phones English learning games results in actual learning. Students’ perception of learning via smart phone games was also explored to better understand the limitations and opportunities of learning via playing smart phone games. A smart phone collocation game was designed for this study. To understand the effectiveness of using the collocation game, a group of 23 high school students were recruited to form gaming group which played the collocation game for ten days. Another 32 high school students were recruited to form a traditional group. They studied the same collocations via memorizing collocation lists, reading example sentences and taking regular quizzes. Both groups took a pretest and a post-test. The gaming group’s experiences and perception of learning via playing the smart phone were explored by questionnaires. The results showed that the gaming group achieved significantly higher scores in post-tests. This study further shows that there is a moderate correlation between the total amount of time spent on the game and the improvement scores. The number of levels played, however, was not associated with the improvement scores in this study. iii.

(5) The traditional group was found to improve significantly, too. A comparison between the two groups’ post-test scores showed no significant differences. The study found the gaming group was satisfied with the overall learning experiences and the physical condition of playing the collocation game on smart phones. They also showed positive attitudes toward collocation learning after the game play. The learners perceived advantages of learning via playing the smart phone game as quick plays/learning at anytime and anywhere and quick immersion of playing/learning in different contexts. They also pointed out disadvantages of using the collocation game to learn collocations and suggested directions for improving the game.. Keywords: game-based leaning, smart phone gaming APP, collocation learning. iv.

(6) Acknowledgements My thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and assistance from many people. First, I would like to give my deepest thankfulness to my advisor, Dr. Howard, Chen. Without his encouragement, I would not have carried out the project at the outset. His patient instruction and generous support throughout the process enabled me to complete this thesis. My sincere thankfulness also goes to my committee members, Dr. Ming-pu Chen and Dr. Jie-qi Yang, for their critical comments and valuable suggestions on my study. This study could not have been complete without the help of the students who volunteered to help me out. I here express my deepest gratefulness for their kindest help. My thankfulness also goes to their teachers, Ava Li, Alison, and Luka Chen, for they kindly encouraged their students to participate this study. I am also grateful to my programmer, Jun-zhe, and illustrator, Yu-jun. Without them, the gaming application would not have been possible. I’d like to show my thankfulness to my friends, especially Will and Tammy, and other classmates. They have been so supportive, always trying to help me out. Without them, I can hardly continue the study to the end. Finally, I would like to express my greatest thanks to my mother, father, and sister for their endless support and encouragement. This thesis is gratefully dedicated to all of them.. v.

(7) Table of Contents 摘要................................................................................................................................. i Abstract....................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ vi Chapter One Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statements of Problems ..................................................................................... 4 1.3 Purposes of the Study......................................................................................... 6 1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 6 1.5 Research scope and limitations ......................................................................... 7 1.6 Organization of the Thesis ................................................................................. 8 Chapter Two Literature Review................................................................................. 9 2.1 Game-based learning ......................................................................................... 9 2.2 Game-mediated Language Learning .............................................................. 14 2.3 The characteristics and importance of collocations ...................................... 24 2.4 Learners’ insufficient knowledge and misuse of collocations ...................... 25 2.5 Empirical studies on collocation instructions ................................................ 32 Chapter Three Methodology ..................................................................................... 36 3.1 Participants ....................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Research design ................................................................................................ 36 3.3 Instruments ....................................................................................................... 42 3.4 Target collocation selection ............................................................................. 43 3.5 Procedure .......................................................................................................... 49 3.6 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 50 Chapter Four Results ................................................................................................ 52 Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................ 63 vi.

(8) 5.1 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 63 5.2 A summary of research findings ..................................................................... 70 5.3 Pedagogical implications.................................................................................. 71 5.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research ...................... 73 References ................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 82 Appendix B ................................................................................................................. 86. vii.

(9) List of Tables Table 1. Possible benefits brought by specific game elements proposed by Vandercruysse, Vandewaetere and Clarebout (2012)………….....…….........10 Table 2. The simple verbs confused by at least two learners in Nesselhauf (2005)……...…………………………………………………….…..............27 Table 3. A description of casual games proposed by Juul (2010)..…….…….............37 Table 4. A comparison between gaming group and traditional group……….……….41 Table 5. The target collocations………………………………....………………....…45 Table 6. The results of a paired-sample t test for the gaming group’s pretest scores and post-test scores………………………..……………………….….....….…..52 Table 7. The results of a paired-sample t test for the traditional group’s pretest scores and post-test scores………………………………………………..…...…….55 Table 8. The results of the independent t test for the gaming group and the traditional group’s pretest scores……………………………………………….….……55 Table 9. The results of the independent t test for the gaming group and the traditional group’s post-test scores………………………………………..………….…56 Table 10. The gaming group’s overall satisfaction at playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations………………………………………………………………….56 Table 11. The gaming group’s satisfaction at the physical condition for playing the game on smart phones………………………………………………………57 Table 12. The gaming group’s perception while playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations…………………………………………………………….…....58 Table13. The gaming group’s perception of learning content and collocation learning……………………………………………………………………...60. viii.

(10) List of Figures Figure 1. Experiential gaming model (Kiili, 2004, p.18). ..............................……….13 Figure 2. The welcoming page of the SpinPenguin……………………………….…38 Figure 3. The outline of the game world……………………………………………..39 Figure 4. A screenshot of level one consisting of 10 sublevels………………………39 Figure 5. A screenshot of level 1-1……………………………………………...……40 Figure 6. Screenshots of successful attempt and an unsuccessful attempt………...…41 Figure 7. The average amount of time (minutes) spent by the students achieving different learning gains………………………………………………..……53 Figure 8. The distribution of different numbers of levels played by the students……53 Figure 9. The average numbers of levels played by the students with particular learning gains………………………………...…………………………….54. ix.

(11) Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Background Mobile devices have become an indispensable part of many people’s life. Among the various mobile devices, mobile phones have mostly penetrated into teenage students’ life, becoming a basic equipment they carry around at almost all times. In the literature, mobile phones have been one of the common platforms for embodying informal leaning or learning anytime and anywhere. It is so mainly because of its pervasiveness among students and its portability. Traditional mobile devices, such as traditional cell phones, PDAs, or electronic dictionaries, usually feature single function. For example, traditional cell phones are used for making phone calls or sending messages. Previous research has focused on using traditional phones to deliver language content through text messages. It has been reported that learners experience “psychological barriers” when using traditional cell phones for the purposes of language learning (Stockwell, 2010). Unlike traditional mobile devices, smart phones enable users to download or remove various applications easily, and therefore are naturally multiple functioned. In other words, people are no longer view cell phones as a device only for making phone calls or sending messages. Smart phones’ natures of being feature phones, portability and high penetration rate among high school students have made it a promising platform for carrying out learning at anytime and anywhere. Studies have been explored the use of podcasts or self-tutoring systems via smart phones. This study is interested in the potential of using smart phone games to learn a foreign language. It is so because playing games in a form of downloadable applications are now penetrating into many smart phone users’ everyday life. In fact, smart phones like iPhone and Androids are becoming a popular platform for playing games. According 1.

(12) to App Store, among the top ten most frequently downloaded applications, nine belonged to games. A survey conducted by Nielson has also shown that the top one application most frequently downloaded goes to games. A survey conducted by APP01 (http://www.app01.com.tw/index.php), a local application community platform, also showed that using gaming applications is the most common activity among local smart phone users in Taiwan. On the other hand, game-based learning was supported by several reasons. First, game-based learning integrates learning content and game, which can provide a more enjoyable and engaging informal learning experiences. Second, playing games are often goal-driven. The desire to achieve the goals in a game motivates learners to spend time, and make efforts and repetitive attempts. In other words, games support learning by arousing willing and prolonged involvement from students. As noted by Prensky (2005), “Students certainly don’t have short attention spans for their games, movies, music, or Internet surfing” (p.64). On the other hand, when looking at the needs and preferences of the students today, game-based learning seems to become a trend. Prensky (2001) depicted the characteristics of digital native learners. For example, they like to mix work and play, using their leisure time for effortful pursuit. They expect immediate feedback and “payoff” for their efforts as the ones that can be found in games. The prefer fantasy contexts and have difficulties with environments lack of technology. In other words, students today might not satisfy with traditional teaching context anymore. They want an education that is not only relevant but also engaging, exciting and encouraging active participation (Prensky, 2005; Rosen, 2010; Wellert, 2008). Game-based learning seems, therefore, a possible way to catch the preference and interest of the students grown up in this generation. As recommended by Greeno (2005), games are tools, which are creating new and possibly even more powerful methods of educating 2.

(13) a generation of students that have grown accustomed to technology. They can be used to enhance learning by developing learning scenarios, previously not possible, and using them to promote active learning. Some studies have focused on exploring the potentials of using video games, massive multiplayer online role-play games (e.g. World of Warcraft, Ever Quest ), or simulation games (e.g. The Sims, Second life) for learning or teaching English as a foreign language. These games were thought as having educational benefits for different reasons. For example, they provide natural environments where learners are immersed in an English language environment, and this is thought conducive to learning. As for on-line multiplayer games, they provide genuine opportunities for communicating with real players and often for achieving a common goal in games. Besides video games, simulation, and online multiple-player games, there are games that are often categorized as casual games. Classic examples of casual games can be Windows Solitaire, which can be seen as the first casual game when it was embedded in Windows in 1990. Bejeweled and Wii Sports are also examples of casual games (Trefry, 2010). They are characterized by its ability to “get players started quickly, keep it casual … and maintain the rich complexity of gameplay experience” (Klopfer, Sheldon, Perry and Chen, 2012, p. 466) and a “bite-sized chunk of play” which can easily fit into players’ everyday schedule (Trefry, 2010). Casual game players can finish a game within three to five minutes and they can restart a new game whenever they feel upset. This casual form of gameplay has become a force within the game industry. According to the Casual Games Association, more than 200 million people play casual games on the Internet. What’s more, casual games are one of the growing sectors of the game industry (Trefry, 2010). Many games played on smart phone tend to be of this type of game. This study, therefore, designed a learning game with a casual design. 3.

(14) 1.2 Statements of Problems Previous game-based language learning mainly explored computer games, such as video games, simulation games and online role-play games. Although these games can benefits language learning in various ways, playing computer games usually takes a least one or two hours to achieve any satisfied progress. Therefore, playing traditional computer games may not easily fit into students’ everyday schedule. What’s more, it is difficult for teachers or educators to produce games of these types. Games with casual designs may compensate for the limitations. They usually do not require much previous gaming experience to achieve fluent gameplay. Casual games tend to be games for everyone. On the other hand, from the perspectives of educators, developing gaming applications is much more economic than video games. A group of three or four people can make their applications downloadable for smart phone users (Trefry, 2010). Possible strengths of game-based language learning in the form of smart phone gaming applications are listed below: 1. Players can have a quick play anytime anywhere 2. Playing casual games easily fits into players’ everyday schedule. 3. Short, burst of gameplay increases the number of times players engaged with the game. 4. Casual game need no sophisticated gaming experiences to achieve success. It is still not clear, however, whether and how playing a smart phone game with casual designs can seriously contribute to learning in authentic informal learning environment. On the other hand, not much is known about foreign language learners’ perception of using smart phone games to learn a foreign language. The present study, therefore, aims to add knowledge to the literature of game-based language learning by exploring the use of a gaming application on smart phones. The smart phone game used in this study is designed for learning English 4.

(15) collocations. It has been recognized that collocation knowledge forms an important part of vocabulary knowledge. Researchers have generally agreed that learning collocation is a necessary component of second-language lexical competence because they improve the quality and fluency of spoken and written language. Mastery of this dimension of language makes learners more proficient and fluent (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006). Researchers also suggested strategies for collocation instruction. Training learners to locate correct word combinations from concordance lines extracted from corpus was one of the strategies received most attention. Using concordancers can enhance learners’ awareness of collocations and encouraging autonomous collocation learning. Analyzing concordance lines, however, seems can overwhelm less proficient learners. It is also not always easy for teachers to locate native corpus whose language level is suitable for their students. Other than using concrodancers, teachers can also make learners being aware of collocations by pointing out collocations when they occur in reading or listening practices. It is also observed that teachers occasionally provide relevant collocations when they teach vocabulary. These strategies, however, tend to have learners take on a passive role in learning. Learners are not involved in making attempts to produce word combinations or reflecting on their production of word combinations. Studies have suggested that learners tend to produce miscollocations, and providing correct collocations may not help learners recognize their own miscollocations (Nesselhauf, 2005). What’s more, supplementary materials are often perceived as irrelevant by students since they are not often reviewed in class. Therefore, this study designed a collocation smart phone game hoping to encourage active learning and repetitive encounters of materials at anytime and anywhere.. 5.

(16) 1.3 Purposes of the Study In sum, the purposes of the present study are as follows: 1.. To develop a collocation learning game with casual design in a format of a smart phone application.. 2.. To understand how would learners make use of the smart phone game to learn collocations and relationships between participation and learning game.. 3.. To explore learners’ perception and experiences of learning via playing the smart phone game.. 4.. To determine the learning outcomes after playing the smart phone game.. 5.. To look at the impacts the smart phone game had provided on learning and to discover the implications for game-based language learning.. 1.4 Research Questions To achieve the purposes, a quasi-experimental pretest and post-test design was adopted. A traditional group was asked to receive collocation practices as assignments. An gaming group was asked to learn the same collocations by playing the smart phone game. Questionnaires were used to gather information about the gaming groups’ learning experiences, attitudes and perceptions. The current study aims to answer the following questions: 1.. Are the gaming group’s pretest scores and post-test scores significantly different?. 2.. Does the degree of participation correlate to the degree of improvement?. 3.. Are the gaming group and traditional group’s post-test scores significantly different?. 4.. What are the gaming group’s perception of the learning experiences and suggestions for the directions of improvement?. 6.

(17) 1.5 Research scope and limitations Various types of games and underpinning rationales for using games to learn/ teach foreign languages were adopted by previous studies of game-based language learning. According to Reindardt and Sykes (2012), a distinction can be made between game-enhanced language learning and game-based language learning. Game-based refers to “the use of games and game-inclusive synthetic immersive environments that are designed intentionally for L2 learning and pedagogy.” This study belonged to the latter type of investigations. A smart phone game was designed for learning English verb-noun collocations. The game used in this study focused on “stand-alone” gaming experiences. By the mobility provided by smart phones a casual design of game, it is presumed that players can carry out playing/learning at anytime and anywhere. It should be noted that although the smart phone game used in this study was portable, it was not designed to encourage context-based mobile learning. This study not only aims to see the effects of playing the smart phone learning game but also the potentials of encourage informal learning at anytime and anywhere via providing students with a smart phone learning game in realistic situations. Therefore, participants of this study were provided with the game and given ten days to explore the game as they wish. Nevertheless, some intervention from the researcher was necessary in order to make sure the participants can finish all the game levels in the given period of time. It was also observed that some of the participants were not allowed to use their phones at school or carry their phones to school. Therefore, their perceptions of the benefits provided by the mobility of a smart phone game may be affected. The game allowed players to connect to a server. When connected, the players’ progress was updated. They can also see top players on a gaming rank. Nevertheless, it was found 7.

(18) that many of the participants lacked easy or free access to Internet with their smart phone. Any effects of social connection provided by the game may be reduced. 1.6 Organization of the Thesis This study explored the use of a smart phone game with a casual design and its effects on learning English collocations. Chapter one points out the background of recent growing attention towards game-based language learning and the uprising of playing casual games, the scarcity of research on this particular type of game and the research purposes and research questions as well. Chapter two covers a review of the characteristics of games and game-based learning, as well as relevant studies, including studies on entertaining video games, online role-play games, and games especially designed for foreign language learning are also reviewed. Studies on learners’ errors of collocations were also reviewed for a purpose of designing the material used in the casual game. Chapter three describes the experiment and the design feature and rationale of the casual game used in this study. Chapter four presents the results, including learning outcomes and data collective via questionnaires. Chapter five concludes the study by relating the findings of the present study to previous study and discussing the implications for game-based language learning.. 8.

(19) Chapter Two Literature Review In this section, general benefits of game-based learning proposed by researchers and design principles were firstly reviewed. Empirical studies investigating the use of commercial games for the purposes of vocabulary learning and games especially designed for vocabulary learning were examined. Literature on EFL learners’ insufficient collocation knowledge and common errors were reviewed to inform the design of collocation tests and item selection and to highlight the important role of explicit instruction in collocation learning. Empirical studies on collocation instruction were examined to understand the current strategies used for teaching collocations in the literature. 2.1 Game-based learning Wright, Betteridge and Buckby (2006) defined a game as “an activity which is entertaining and engaging, often challenging and an activity in which the learners play, and usually interact with others” (p.1). As noted by Prensky (2001), games are engaging and draw people in not only because they are a form of fun and play but also because they are “organized play.” He pointed out six structural elements that make “fun and play” a game. These six structural elements are: 1. Rules. Games have rules; otherwise they are “free play.” Rules give limits to the possible ways of achieving goals. Players can not do whatever they want. They follow rules. 2. Goals. Playing games is a goal-driven activity. Common goals can be, for example, gaining the highest scores, reaching the end, beating down the big boss. Goals presenting to players can be an important element motivating players. 9.

(20) 3. Outcomes and feedback. Outcomes arouse strong emotional involvement from players. Feedback takes various forms. It keeps players know what they have done is positive or negative in a game and how do they progress in terms of moving toward their goals. 4. Conflict, completion, challenge and opposition. Games present obstacles to impede players’ progress. 5. Interaction. This presents the social aspect of a game. 6. Representation. This means a game is about something. Game-based learning takes place, according to Presnky (2001), via the mechanics of feedback. Feedbacks are often provided when players give responses or take certain actions. It is this feature that makes games potentially resulting learning. Vandercruysse, Vandewaetere and Clarebout (2012), based on a systematic review of game-based learning, discovered seven similar game elements, including enjoyment, rules, goals, interaction, outcomes and feedback, problem solving/ competition/ challenge, and representation/story/fantasy/context. With a purpose of looking into the interaction between game and learning, they further examined how these game elements may contribute to learning. Their results are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Possible benefits brought by specific game elements proposed by Vandercruysse, Vandewaetere and Clarebout (2012). Game element. Presupposed benefits. fun or enjoyment. enjoyment, pleasure, motivation. rules. structure. 10.

(21) (Table 1. continues) Game element. Presupposed benefits. goals and objectives. motivation. stimulation. interactive/ interaction. being interactive, interact with others. outcomes and feedback. learning, information about progress. problem solving/ competition/ challenge. adrenaline, excitement, creativity. representation/story/fantasy/ context. emotion (enthusiasm), stimulation. Similar to Presnky (2001), they believed that it is via feedback that a game can results in learning. During game play, players often experiences changes in emotions. While challenges may frustrate players, the researchers believed that the challenges in game environments can lead to tension and focused attention which may benefit learning. Other researchers discussed how a game environment in general relates to learning process. Pivec, Dziabenko & Schinnerl (2003) noted that several aspects of learning processes are actually supported by games. First, a game triggers active participation. When playing a game, learners are combining knowledge from different areas to choose/generate a solution or to make a decision; in other words, a game motivate learners to actively retrieve their knowledge and recombine it to reach a solution or decision in face with a problem. Second, learners are encouraged to test the outcomes of their decisions and actions because a game provides an unthreatened environment for learners to do such trials. Learners are also encouraged to do negotiation and discussion with other players when playing a game. Although negotiation and discussion seem only possibly occur in multi-player games or online games, discussion and interaction as a result of game do not confine to multiple-player games or online games. They can be stimulated by a game but occur outside of the game environment. For example, a 11.

(22) group of learners playing the same single-player game may still discuss their progress, strategies of advancing the game, or obstacles they can not overcome. This can also form a game community. Some researchers examined the design strategies used in commercially available games aiming for entertainment, believing they probably have implications for the design for educational learning games. This is so mainly because entertaining games have been observed as successfully involving players and keeping players actively engaged. The underlying designs of popular games have attracted Dickey’s (2005) attention. In his study, he analyzed the strategies and tactics used by game designers in popular commercial entertaining games. By comparing these strategies with elements of engaged learning, Dickey (2005) firstly found that there are similarities between the two. For example, both game design and engaged learning emphasize the importance of focused goals and challenges. An analysis of game design further reveals the specific strategies to create environment that supports focused goals and challenges. For example, challenging tasks are reinforced by the use of hooks or choices that users must continually make within the gameplay environment. In other words, the analysis reveals the game design strategies embedded in entertaining games can be possible methods to design a learning activity or learning environment (e.g. learning games) that supports meaningful and engaged learning. Kiili (2004) made the first attempt to propose a model which relates educational theory to game design. His model drew upon experiential learning theory and flow theory. Flow theory explains the deep engagement or the flow experiences generated while playing games, while experiential learning model serves as a basis for combining gameplay with learning (defined as “construction of cognitive structure through action or practice in a game word.”). The model was comprised of an ideation 12.

(23) loop, an experience loop, and a challenge bank, as shown in Figure 1.. Figure 1. Experiential gaming model. (Kiili, 2004, p.18) According to this model, appropriate challenges are like blood, pumped by the heart to maintain motivation and engagement of a player. In order to overcome the challenges, players generate solutions in the ideation loop. The process could be firstly unstructured and later refined by taking the constraints and resources of a game into consideration. After solutions are generated, the players test the solutions in the experience loop and observe the outcomes. According to this model, a game should provide clears goals and feedback so that flow experience can be enhanced. Reflective observation may result in the construction of schemata. As the players’ skills improved, the challenge should be also increasingly difficult to keep players in a flow state. Based on this model, Kiili (2004) also pointed out aspects to be considered when designing educational games. 1. Story telling. Almost every game has a story, though the story could be complex or simple. But, even the story is simple, it sets the background for a game and “its’ meaning in immersing and engaging the player is extremely important.” 13.

(24) 2. Game balance. This refers to two things. First, the main factor determining the success of a game should be players’ skill level. A better player should perform better in the long run; however, the game should also support not-so-good players in some way. Second, the challenge level should be balanced, and not increase spike irregularly or decrease before the game is completed. 3. Optimizing cognitive load. This entails appropriate instructional design which reduces the amount of extraneous cognitive load, cognitive processing irrelevant to knowledge construction, imposed to players while gaming. 2.2 Game-mediated Language Learning Several. investigations. have. been. made. of. second/foreign. language. learning/teaching by using games. Early research has made use of text-based game-like environments, such as MOOs and MUD (e.g. Neville, Shelton, & McInnis, 2009). Some researchers examined the use of video games (e.g. DeHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010; Chen & Yang, 2012). More recently, 3D virtual world such as Second life (e.g. Ranalli, 2008; Liou, 2012; Peterson, 2010; Wehner, Gump & Downey, 2011; Zheng, Young, Brewer, &Wagner, 2010; Jauregi, Canto, Graaff, Koenraad & Moonen, 2011; Liang, 2012) and network-based role-playing games (e.g. Thorne, 2008; Reinders & Wattana, 2012; Zheng, Newgarden, & Young, 2012; Peterson, 2012; Suh, Kim, & Kim, 2010) have received growing attention. The aspects of language learning under investigation are various. Some took a socialcultural perspective and investigated how learners interact when playing multiplayer role-play games (e.g. Peterson, 2012; Zheng, Mewgarden & Young, 2012) and carry out tasks in simulation games (e.g. Liang, 2012). In addition, learners’ motivation and enjoyment, or attitude and perception toward learning language in game environments were often explored (Peterson, 2010; Peterson, 2012; Reinders & Wattana, 2012; Wehner, Gump & Downey, 2011). Some other researchers looked into 14.

(25) how to design interactive tasks in game environment (e.g. Deutschmann, Panichi, & MolkaDanielsen, 2009; Jauergi, Canto, Graaff, Koenraad & Moonen, 2011) or integrate commercially available entertaining games into classroom instruction (e.g. Reinders & Wattana, 2012; Liou, 2012). Some research was designed specifically to investigate the actual learning outcomes of using entertaining games on learning specific target linguistic features, such as vocabulary. Reduplicating Miller and Hegelheimer's (2006) study, Ranalli (2008) explored the possibility of vocabulary learning after playing a popular computer simulation game Sims. The study was designed to investigate the impact of using supplementary materials to facilitate the learning in the game environment. The supplementary materials (i.e. treatments) were presented in a separate website, and three conditions of supplementary supports include (a) vocabulary information and quizzes, culture notes and gaming; (b) a link to an online dictionary and culture notes; (c) gaming instructions. Nine undergraduate ESL students formed pairs of controller and manager. Each pair experienced the three conditions and each individual took turns to be a controller and a manager. The results show a significant increase in mean scores between pretest and post-test, which confirms the findings of Miller and Hegelheimer's (2006). The study also found that among the three conditions, the one provided vocabulary information and quizzes, culture notes and gaming result in the highest learning gain, which is significantly higher than those of other two conditions. Although the results suggest that playing simulation games such as Sims, while supported by extra materials and practices of vocabulary items can yield positive learning outcomes, the researcher noted that it may not be practical to use simulation games when the main purposes is to learn or teach specific vocabulary items. This is so because “teachers and developers will be hard-pressed to anticipate every potential 15.

(26) avenue to these goals and the linguistic forms that learners will be exposed to in the process unless they are prepared to give very detailed, narrow instructions that could affect the game’s appeal.” The impracticalness can also be inferred from the participants’ response to the question “I saw many the words form the resource materials and weekly quizzes while playing The Sims.” This item received the lowest mean scores of 2.6 out of five, while receiving the highest SD, reflecting a higher degree of difference in the participants’ responses. It is possible that the experience of encountering specific items differ from one learner to another while navigating the game environment. DeHaan, Reed and Kuwada (2010) used Parappa the Rapper 2, a commercially available music video game, to investigate whether the “physical interactivity” required by the video game causes extraneous cognitive load or germane load in terms of vocabulary learning. The study involved 40 pairs of undergraduate EFL learners. Each participant in each pair was designated as a watcher or a player. While the player played the game, the watcher watched the player’s gaming process form another TV screen. There are no interaction between the player and the watcher. The participants played/ watched the game for 20 minutes where the same game level was repeated for five times. The post-test was a cloze test of the game lyrics. The study found that the watchers can recall significantly more words than the players in the post-test. The watcher, though they still remember more number of target words, regressed to a larger degree than the players did in the delayed post-test. The study also found a significant effect of interactivity on the post-test scores. The researcher concluded that the type of interactivity of Parappa the Rapper 2 was extraneous cognitive load, distracting player learners from learning the words. It is likely that the design of the game naturally did not allow or require the players to pay attention to the language of the raps in order to progress in the game. 16.

(27) Chen and Yang (2012) used a commercially available adventure video game called BONE, where players solve different tasks to precede the storyline of the game. Learner players read/listen to narratives or dialogues in order to understand their task at hand, to make decisions and to solve problems. In other words, it has the potential to “foster deeper consideration of language.” The study was designed to examine whether learners could incidentally acquire specific words appeared in the game. The participants were divided into two groups. One group was not allowed do note-taking, and the other group was encouraged to do so. A pretest and post-test design was adopted. The results show that both groups provided L1 translation for more target English words in the post-test and the differences between pretest and post-test were statistically significant. Interestingly, the group allowed to take notes did not obtain significantly better learning outcomes than the other group. Although it was not the focus of the study, it is not clear whether the video game environment results in better learning outcomes. It seems that games can provide an immersive environment conducive for vocabulary acquisition. The above studies all indicated positive learning outcomes. What’s more, the participants in Ranalli (2008) and Chen and Yang (2012) showed positive attitudes toward the games and enjoyed using games to learn English. In Ranalli’s (2008) study, the participants were highly motivated by the game and the interaction between managers and controllers outside the game word was perceived as one of the favorite part by many of the students. In Chen and Yang (2012), the appearance of vocabulary items was thought highly contextualized. These studies also highlighted two things to be considered while choosing or using entertaining games for the purpose of learning/teaching vocabulary. First, extra support may be necessary to draw learners’ attention to specific items if learning specific linguistic items was desired. Second, the deep consideration of language 17.

(28) should be required if player are to learn language from playing games. A game like Parappa the Rapper 2 certainly may not be a good choice. Nevertheless, it is not always effective to use entertaining games for specific learning/teaching goals, as pointed out by Ranalli’s (2008). It may be difficult to find the right type of games with design and content that were appropriate for L2 learners and that match the desired learning outcomes. One possible solution is to develop a game that is specifically designed for language learning. According to Reindardt and Sykes (2012), a distinction can be made between game-enhanced language learning and game-based language learning. Game-based refers to “the use of games and game-inclusive synthetic immersive environments that are designed intentionally for L2 learning and pedagogy.” The purposes of research on this type of game-mediated language learning, according to Reindardt and Sykes (2012), usually are to provide information to the evaluation or the design of these games. Research on game-based language learning has been scarce. Neville, Shelton, and McInnis (2009) may be one of the few studies that investigate actual learning outcomes of game-based language learning. They developed a text-based interactive game for learning German language. In the game, American learners of German assume the persona of an American foreign exchange student living in Germany. They have to navigate a fictional train station while preparing for a trip and interact with NPCs and the narrative to advance the game. The study investigated whether the engagement in the world would enhance a sense of immersion in German culture and if it results in better vocabulary retention. The control group read a story in class while the experimental group played an interactive fiction game which covers the same scenario as in the story and use of the same vocabulary. After the class, both groups were asked to complete homework exercises on the items in the text and the game. On the next day, they were tested on 18.

(29) the vocabulary items practiced in the homework exercises. Questionnaires were used to explore their sense of immersion in the German culture, enjoyment, task difficulty and the extent to which they were kept attentive during the game. The results show that print-based group indicate higher level of effectives and relevance of task, and higher confidence in mastering German language and they feel more satisfied with the approach than the IF game group. The IF group, however, performed better in vocabulary retention measurement. In the second part of the study, an in-class German lesson on train station and in-class debriefing, where learners shared experiences and teachers detect issues learners encountered in the game, were added. According the researchers, the IF group did worse than the print-based group in the vocabulary retention. It is surprising that the prolonged exposure and interaction with the game did not help vocabulary retention. The unsatisfied results may be related to the text-based natural of the game. First, it seems less authentic because people usually expect games full of appealing images and graphics. Second, it is possible that a text-based game can frustrate foreign language learners since TL words and sentences are the only clue they have. However, due to amount of resources needed to develop a sophisticated and appealing video game or multiplayer online game, games especially designed for language learning by researchers or educators often takes a form of casual games. Corbeil’s (2007) study was an example of investigating the effectiveness of using a casual game intentionally designed for language learning. Although the study did not mainly focused on learning games, it revealed some useful insights about using games in teach/learn a second/foreign language. The researcher designed a multi-media package, French Tutor, for learners of French to learn two French past tenses. The package includes various exercises and a 19.

(30) game. The study adopted a pretest and post-test design, and compare the learning gains obtained by two groups of students, one uses French Tutor and the other use textbooks. The results show that the group using the multi-media package performed better. Although the study was not intentionally concern with game-based learning, the survey questionnaire data reveals that on third of the student reports that the feature they like the most is the game and one fourth of students who displayed a good mastery of the verb tenses thought the game helped them to better understand the tenses. What’s more, they reported to see a greater selection of games. The researcher suggested that “games can indeed serve as a powerful learning tool and should not be dismissed as frivolous activities." A similar vein was made by Florence and Alvin (2006). They investigated the effectiveness of using two vocabulary websites, Professional Word Web and University Word Web, to learn vocabulary. The websites introduced words by providing explanation of a word’s meaning, pronunciation and example sentences. Vocabulary games are also included. The games available on the websites included, for example, crossword puzzles, which require no particular skills other than players’ vocabulary knowledge, and ones that good motor skills were requires to succeed, such as a shooting game. The study adopted a pretest and post-test design. The participants used three weeks to learn the vocabulary covered by the designed topics or levels in the two vocabulary websites. Their learning was measured by answering 30 fill-in-the-blank questions. Their feedback on the design and effectiveness of the website in helping them learn vocabulary were explored by questionnaires and interviews. The study found that the experimental group’s post-test mean score was significantly higher than the control group’s post-test mean score. The improvements, however, were not 20.

(31) impressive (experimental group: 8.02 in the pretest and 11.78 in the post-test). It should be noted that the post-test was not conducted until three weeks after the last treatment. The feedback from the students indicates that they generally hold a positive attitude toward the games, but they were less satisfied with the game interface and less agreed that their interest in learning vocabulary was enhanced. They also provided feedback on the design of online learning games: interaction with other players, comparison of scores with other players, audio-visual effects, sounds and music, a clear background scenario and continuous motivation (challenging tasks and variety). The above two studies revealed that learners could learn via playing language learning casual games and they are happy with this mode of learning. It is not clear, however, what kind of contribution the game made in terms of learning outcomes or whether the learning gains can be contributed to the games since the game only serves as a small part of the multimedia package in Corbeil’s (2007) study. It is not clear whether learners did actually use the games to learn in Florence and Alvin’s (2006) study since the websites were not intentionally designed to foster learning through games. In light of the peripheral use of the growing available number of vocabulary learning applications available on iPhones, Cobb and Horst (2011) explored the effectiveness of playing vocabulary casual games on portable devices. They used a game called Word Coach, which contained 14 levels with a total of 14000 most frequent words. It included two games that are form-focused and four games that are meaning-focused. At the beginning of using the game, learners were tested until they were assigned an appropriate frequency zone to work in and then they began playing the games. The words played with in the games were randomly selected from the 21.

(32) frequency zone and recycled at least five times. The learners were advanced to meet words of lower frequency as learning criteria were met. The students played Word Coach via Nintendo and no restriction on the use was made. . They study used two groups of grade 6 ESL learners, who take turns to receive the treatment. While one group of students were receiving treatment during the first two months, the other group served as a control group and received only regular school courses. After two months the two groups reversed their role. Vocabulary recognition tests and production tests were administered to both groups at three points of time: pretest, immediately after the group 1 treatment and immediately after the group 2 treatment. The results show that after the gameplay, learners in both groups acquired new words belonging to the first five frequency levels. The second group showed a significant increase of the number of meaning recognized of 224 words. The first group, however, only improved 99 words immediately after the gameplay, but showed an improvement of 405 words in the post-test conducted after two months. The delayed growth of vocabulary, according to the researchers, can be possible since the words the learners encountered in gameplay are often encountered again outside of the game word and thus being consolidated. Compared with studies of playing website games or video games, it seems that playing a game designed for building vocabulary and playing it anytime and anywhere could result in a greater number of words learned. The Vocabprofile-BNC analysis was used to analyze the learners’ oral description of a wordless story. The results revealed that the stories were composed overwhelmingly of first-1,000 level words, and that the pattern did not change across the period of the experiment. It seems that the words learned via the game were not ready for production. It is, however, possible that learners used some newly learned 22.

(33) words within the first 1000 words in the production and did not captured by the analysis. There are some limitations in this study worth pointing out. First, the vocabulary test used in the study was Nation and Beglar's (2007) Vocabulary Size Test. The test items are not the same as the items encountered while playing the game and the same items were only incidentally possible. Therefore, the test did not necessary include all the words encountered by the learners in the game and the test may contain words not met by the learners in the game. This was done probably because of the great difficulty of producing and administering a vocabulary test that contains the items met by each individual learner. What’s more, the same test was distributed to each individual learners three times. There is a good chance of practice effects. Although there are many vocabulary learning casual games available on websites or smart phones. Collocation learning games are little. A few English learning websites do provide collocation exercises or games. For example, learners can found collocation exercises on a4esl, better-English, and speakspeak. These exercises are in a fill-in-the-blank format, and learners need to select one of the choices provide. a4esl also provides collocation games. Wu, Franken, Witten (2012) probably was the only one study concerning collocation learning via games in the literature. They designed a set of corpus-based collocation game. The game can be automatically generated by user teachers or learners who were allowed to set different parameters. It is meaningful since teachers can create games which meet their pedagogical purposes and needs of a particular group of students without much complex skills. The corpus used for creating games was Google n-gram collection. The study, however, primarily focused on evaluating the number and quality of collocation generated for players to work with in games. It is not clear if the game helps students 23.

(34) learn collocations in a more effective way and what are learners’ views on learning collocations via games. 2.3 The characteristics and importance of collocations There seems no fixed definition of collocation in the literature. Nation (2001) viewed collocation as a term covers most multiword units, such as idioms and fixed expressions. Some other researchers defined collocations as a type of multiword expressions. For example, Howarth (1996) and Nesselhauf (2005) viewed collocations as a special type of recurring lexical combinations. Their definition of collocations were grounded on Cowie’s (1981, 1998a, 1998b) phraseological approach of view (Barfield & Gyllstad, 2009). Cowie’s (1981, 1998a, 1998b) divided word combinations into two broad categories, “composite” and “formulae.” The category of “composite” represents a continuum composed of four types of word combinations depending on the level of semantic transparency and the acceptable level of element substitution. Restricted collocations (e.g. perform a task) are characterized by possible but limited substitution of elements. In terms of meaning, the meaning of a restricted collocation is transparent and can be largely inferred from its components. Laufer and Waldman (2011) also explained that collocations are characterized by a “restricted co-occurrence of elements” and “relative transparency of meaning.” The former distinguish collocations (e.g. make decisions) from free combinations (e.g. make sandwiches) where the elements can be replaced only if they follow the rule of grammar. The latter makes a distinction between collocations and idioms. A collocation’s meaning can be inferred from the elements that compose it while an idiom’s meaning can not be understood from their individual words. Collocations are also distinct from lexical bundles or n-grams. While both terms refer to co-occurring combinations, collocations do not include all types 24.

(35) co-occurrences, they refer to “specific types of word combinations. ...generally syntactically regular in that they follow syntactic combinations (e.g. adjective + noun collocations)”(Crossley & Salsbury, 2011, p.3) Lexical bundles (e.g. kind of, I mean ), on the other hand, are determined by the frequency of co-occurrence and syntactic structure do not usually used to identify them. The importance of collocations was highlighted by Altenberg (1993), “they tend to form the communicative core of utterances where the most important information is placed”( as cited in Nesselhauf, 2005, p.9). Wray (2000) noted that a good command of collocations can develop learners’ fluency and improve accuracy. For language learners, collocations are usually less salient in input than other forms of multiword expressions like idioms. This is so probably because they are usually semantically transparent (e.g., submit an application, quit a job, face a challenge), composed by frequent individual words and do not cause difficulty in comprehension. Hence, learners or teachers they may not notice them when they are encountered in input. On the other hand, learners may neglect the restrictions on acceptable substitutions of collocations when these restrictions are not pointed out or made salient to the learners. Many studies have documented that learners tend to produce deviant collocations. 2.4 Learners’ insufficient knowledge and misuse of collocations Empirical evidence is available that shows that EFL learners possess insufficient knowledge of collocations. They had a difficulty in producing acceptable collocations and often produce deviant collocations. Research also suggests that verb-noun collocations are especially problematic for EFL learners. (Bahns and Eldaw, 1993; Liu, 2002; Nesselhauf, 2005; Chen 2002; Lin 2010; Laufer & Waldman, 2011).. As early as two decays ago, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) conducted a study in responding to claims that says explicit instruction collocations is not needed since 25.

(36) learners will pick up collocations along with the acquisition of vocabulary. He recruited 58 advanced EFL learners, who had been learning for English for seven to nine years. A total of 15 verb-noun collocations were used to understand the participants’ collocation knowledge. Thirty-two participants were asked to do translation task and the other 24 participants did a cloze test. The results were graded by three native speakers. The researcher counted the total number of correctly and incorrectly translated lexical words produced for the translation task. He found that of the 2662 words, 2214 were correctly translated. Among the 448 incorrectly translated lexical words, almost half was found to be verbs in collocations. In terms of the translation of the target collocation items, half of the total number of items was not acceptably translated because of wrong collocates or semantically unacceptable paraphrases. He calculated the numbers of correctly chose items on the cloze test and showed that half of the items were incorrectly answered. The study concludes that the advanced EFL learners had an insufficient knowledge of collocation and it is not comparable to their vocabulary knowledge, suggesting that collocations may not be necessary acquired along with the vocabulary. A further analysis of the paraphrase of collocations attempted by the learners who took the translation task showed that some of the collocation items were not correctly translated even when the participants could avoid using the verb-noun combination by paraphrasing the meaning, indicating the necessity of collocation knowledge. Items such as do damage, keep diary, reject proposal, achieve perfection seem less amenable to paraphrasing than other items. Nesselhauf’s (2005) investigated around 2,000 verb-noun collocations produced by advanced German EFL learners in their essays. The collocations were manually extracted from the data of the German subcorpus of International Corpus of Lerner English (ICLE). Acceptability of learners’ collocations was determined by collocation 26.

(37) dictionaries, BNC corpus and native speakers’ judgments. The result showed that about one third of all the verb-noun collocations examined were unacceptable or questionable. What’s more these miscollocations were produced by 183 out of 207 learners and each did not produce more than 16 miscollocations. The high proportion of miscollocations can not be only a result of a few learners’ large amount of miscollocations. The study confirmed that verb-noun collocations cause problems for advanced learners. Her. study. also. analyzed. the. components. which. caused. verb-noun. miscollocations; namely, the verb, noun, determiner, structure or the whole collocation. The results showed a clear pattern that verb is the most frequent deviant elements. The researcher thought the result can be explained by that verbs are generally one of the most difficult elements to master for L2 learners and the verbs used in the verb-noun collocations (e.g. take a step but not do a step) are arbitrary restricted. The German EFL learners particularly misuse certain verbs. Nesselhauf’s (2005) summarized the simple verbs confused by at least two learners in her study. The table is duplicated in Table 2. The misuse of light verbs were especially noticeable Table 2. The simple verbs confused by at least two learners in Nesselhauf (2005) verb used. acquire. consume. disturb. do. do. appropriate verb. develop. take. disrupt. take. perform get. pursue. verb used. gain. get. give. give. have. make. make. appropriate verb. have. have. make. provide. gain. have. take. verb used. mount. raise. reach. reject. solve. take. undertake. appropriate verb. get. increase. achieve. oppose. end. make. take. 27. find. follow.

(38) According to Nesselhauf’s (2005), learners’ misuse of these high-frequency light verbs was well documented in the literature. Not only German-speaking learners, speakers of Swedish, Spanish, Polish, French and Chinese were observed to confuse these verb pairs as well. The study found 18 verbs that were most frequently inappropriately used by at least three learners, including make, give, take, have, get, disturb, reach, do, destroy, gain, solve, find, consume, establish, acquire, follow, tell, and kill. Nesselhauf’s (2005) further examined sources of producing inappropriate collocations, namely, elements from L2, learners’ L1 and factors other than these two. For elements from L2, the study noted that semantically similar verbs or near synonyms may cause confusion, resulting inappropriate collocations. Examples were destroy –ruin, give-provide, tell-say, do-perform, raise-increase. A formal link between deviant verbs and appropriate verbs was also noted. The study identified cases of phonological link, such as take for make (e.g. take changes) and grow for go (go out of fashion) and morphological links, for example, solve for resolve and undertake for take. Nevertheless, the study found that formal links were more frequent observed in the cases of deviant nouns than deviant verbs. Another element of L2 that were displayed in learners’ miscollocations was blends of related L2 material. Learners seem take parts of different expressions and recombine them to create collocations. The study highlighted a considerable influence of L1 on the learners’ production of collocations. It was found that among the 748 deviant collocations, 379 cases were possibly induced by learners’ L1. The exhibition of L1 influence on producing verb-noun combination was especially strong in verb choices. Based on her study, Nesselhauf’s (2005) believed that the number of years that learners study English do not necessary enhance learners’ collocation use and the 28.

(39) length of exposure only has a light positive impact. Thus, she proposed that the most essential purpose of collocation teaching is to make learners aware of this language phenomenon. Teachers were recommended to use consciousness-raising activities. Added to that, is explicit teaching of collocations. She thought explicit instruction was necessary in improving learners’ use of collocations. Some principles for teaching collocations were suggested. 1. Be systematic. Teaching should focus on collocations or elements that learners often confused. Contrast appears useful. Teachers should contrast collocations that are similar in form or meaning or both (e.g catch a glance-catch a glimpse), stretch verb constructions and simple verbs (e.g. have a look-look ) and verbs or nouns that are often confused (e.g. meet-fulfill-satisfy). Another strategy is to teach various collocations with one certain verb simultaneously. For example, when teaching reach a conclusion, collocations using reach in a similar sense should also be taught (e.g. reach a decision, an agreement, a goal). 2. A mere focus on form is not sufficient. Teacher should also present the exact meaning and the usage of collocations. Exercises based on concordance lines were recommended. 3. Contrasting L2 collocations with L1 collocations. This principle is especially important when the non-congruence is likely to cause miscollocations and when common L1 collocations do not have English correspondents. The researcher explained the importance of this principle with the following example. Teaching only have an experience or achieve an aim will not prevent German EFL learners from producing make an experience or reach an aim, “unless it is explicitly pointed out to them that the equivalents to the German expression can not be used on English (p.271).” Laufer and Waldman (2011) also focused on verb-noun collocations. They 29.

(40) compiled a learner corpus consisting of free writing products of advanced, intermediate and beginner Israeli learners of English (the corpus size was around 300,000 words). A comparison of verb-noun collocations used in the learner corpus and a native corpus (LOCNESS) was made. The researchers extracted 220 most frequent nouns and their verb-noun collocations. Learners’ incorrect collocations were identified by consulting native speaker judgments, dictionaries of collocation and BNC corpus. The results revealed that all three levels of learners produced much fewer verb-noun collocations and almost one third of the investigated collocations the learner attempted to generate were problematic. The study also observed that a significant growth in the occurrence of verb-noun collocations appears only in advanced learners’ subcorpus, though still less frequent than native speakers. Wang & Shaw (2008) investigated the verb-noun collocations used in 200 English essays written by Chinese and Swedish learners of English. The researchers selected the most 20 frequent verbs and manually extract noun collocates of the verbs by analyzing concordance lines. Among the frequent verbs, have, do, make, and take were chosen to be further analyzed. The findings indicate that the most frequent error type in the attempt to produce verb-noun collocation was wrong choice of verbs. They further point out that the use of do and make (e.g. make damage / do a great effort) were especially problematic for both groups of learners. The findings suggested that high-frequency verbs are repeatedly used incorrectly by advanced learners. Therefore, these verbs should not be neglected in instruction and especially highlighted in collocation teaching. The suggestion seems to be further supported by Altenberg and Granger’s (2001) study examining French and Swedish advanced learners’ use the high-frequency verb make, though not specifically concerning collocation use. The learner corpus was the 30.

(41) subcorpora of International Corpus of Learner Englsih (ICLE). They found that the most frequent type of use of make was its delexical uses. Compared with a native corpus (LOCNESS), it was observed that while native speakers tend to use make to collocate with nouns expressing speech actions (e.g. comment, claim, remark, statement), learners tend to underuse this type of usage. What’s more, learners often misused the verb make as a delexical verb, resulting collocation errors like make a balance, make a poll, make research. Liu (2002) investigated Taiwan EFL learners’ use of verb-noun miscollocations in their compositions which is extracted from a tagged corpus, English Twain Learner Corpus (ETLC). The researcher used the tags such as “word choice,” “problematic usage” and “wrong verb/word” to search for miscollocations. They study found that among the 265 miscollocations identified, 233 were verb-noun miscollocations. What’s more, verb errors occurred in these verb-noun miscollocations were more common than noun errors. The study further analyzed learners’ verb-noun miscollocations by identifying the semantic relationship between the wrong verbs used by learners and the corresponding appropriate verbs which should be used to express their intended meaning. He categorized the relationships into synonym (e.g. acquire/ gain), troponym and hypernym (e.g. create/ compose). The results showed that one third of the errors can be caused by misuse of synonyms. But, the study also found that almost a half of the wrong choice of verbs can not be classified as caused by synonym, troponym, or hypernym and can probably be better explained by L1 influences or word-for-word translation. Focusing on Taiwanese and Chinese EFL learners’ error in verb-noun collocations, Lin (2010) built two learner corpora and collected the learners’ possible miscollocations that occurred at least three times in the same corpus via 31.

(42) semi-automatic extraction procedure. Manual check was done to further determine real miscollocations. The study found 210 different verb-noun miscollocations (1041 tokens) produced by Taiwanese learners and 268 different verb-noun miscollocations (2707 tokens) by Chinese learners. The study generated a complete list of these frequent miscollocations. The researcher reported that a few collocations were identical to those found in other studies examining Chinese learners’ miscollocations, namely, get knowledge, learn knowledge, study knowledge, teach knowledge etc. The study also categorized the errors into ten types. It was found that around half of the miscollocations produced by both two groups of learners involved wrong choices of verbs and around ten percent of the miscollocations involved misuses of de-lexical verbs. The study again showed that the verb elements pose great difficulties for EFL learners to produce appropriate verb-non collocations. Possible causes of errors were also explored in Lin’s (2010) study. She classified the errors as induced by 11 types of possibilities. The results showed that around 50 percent of errors produced by both groups of learners could be induced by L1 transfer. Above studies provide evidence showing that learners’ knowledge in collocations is insufficient. What’s more, due to limited collocation knowledge, learners tend to use deviant combination, resulting in awkward expressions. These studies also highlight the need of explicit collocation instruction. In the following section some empirical investigations on teaching collocations are examined. 2.5 Empirical studies on collocation instructions Some empirical findings suggest that explicit collocation instruction is effective in promoting EFL learners' collocation knowledge. Among the explicit teaching methods under investigation, the use of web concordancer in classroom instructions received much attention (Sun & Wang, 2003; Chan & Liu, 2005). Some studies examined the effect of different tasks or learning conditions on collocation learning 32.

智慧型手機遊戲APP在英語學習的成效研究： 以英語動名搭配詞學習為例

智慧型手機遊戲APP在英語學習的成效研究：以英語動名搭配詞學習為例