In today’s society the importance of English for non-native English speakers around the globe is undeniable. English as a language plays a key role internationally and over multiple domains, such as, the scientific community, technology, the media and many more (Dewey, 2007). It is clear that English has become the lingua franca among people who do not share their native language. Specifically, in Europe, English has become a significant part of the working and social life with its appearance in the environment of many European countries, for example, in advertisements or shop windows (De Wilde et al., 2017). This prominent position of English in modern society also impacts the young and therefore, since 1986 English is a mandatory subject in the (pen)ultimate years of Dutch primary schools (Unsworth et al., 2014).
However, nowadays children do not only gain English input through their educational program in school, instead, out-of-school second language (L2) learning has grown increasingly common, due to informal media exposure, such as, television, music and computer games (Kuppens, 2010). In a study done by Peters (2018) with Dutch-speaking teenagers the effect of out-of-school exposure explained a larger portion of the variance in L2 vocabulary knowledge than length of educational instruction did, respectively 13% for out-of-school exposure versus 7% for educational instruction length. These out-of-school activities are mostly chosen by children themselves and therefore it is likely that children are motivated to perform well in these activities. It is widely agreed upon, that motivation is a necessity for successful second language acquisition (Dörnyei, 2001). Out-of-school learning or informal learning occurs spontaneous and children are intrinsically motivated, in contrast to, the extrinsically motivated formal learner (Eshach, 2007). It appears that out-of-school learning mainly relies on incidental or contextual learning, which is defined as, the process of learning without any intention of learning (Muñoz, Cadierno & Casas, 2018). Furthermore, contextual vocabulary learning, wherein, a vocabulary is learned as a by-product of any activity not specifically aimed to vocabulary learning, may occur during gaming (Hulstijn, 2001). Following the former perspective of Hulstijn, a distinction should be made between learning to play versus playing to learn, in terms of computer games. As the order of words state there is an important difference in the goal-means relationship. Regarding to playing to learn, the emphasis is on learning as opposed to learning to play, where the emphasis is on the activity of playing and learning is rather a by-product of the gaming activity. This is important since edutainment programs mostly are boring and repetitive wherein children might lose motivation as opposed to playing games with a learning to play philosophy (Arnseth, 2006). During this type of gameplay, contextual vocabulary learning may occur, for example, when the child has a desire to understand the game or wants to communicate with other players (Sundqvist et al., 2015). As the default language of interaction and communication in most games is English, it is not unlikely to assume that children who do not have English as their native language acquire some English L2 vocabulary through gaming (Sylvén et al, 2012). Interestingly, multiple studies have shown a positive effect of gaming on L2 vocabulary (De Wilde et al., 2017; De Wilde et al., 2019; Sundqvist et al., 2015; Sylvén et al., 2012).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The apparent effect of gaming might be explained by means of external factors, since it may dictate the quantitative and qualitative capacity of L2 Input. However, adjacent to external factors also internal factors should be taken into account, since, both child-internal and child-external factors determine individual differences between children, which proposedly accounts for differences in learning rate and level of L2 vocabulary (Paradis, 2011). Child-internal factors relate to the following: cognitive maturity characterized by age, language aptitude, and transfer of categories from the first language to the second, for instance, vocabular transfer (Nicolay et al., 2013; Paradis, 2011). Child external factors relate to the quantity and the quality of the input received, concerning the language to be learned (Paradis, 2011). Following the external and internal factors, Tomasello’s Usage-Based (UB) theory suggests that, external factors, such as overall length of exposure or quality of the input, tend to be of high predictive value and should play a prominent role in explaining individual differences (Paradis, 2011). However, in spite of robust research in favour of the role of input properties on second language acquisition, UB theory, also assumes that more domain-general or cognitive-mechanisms play a significant role during second language acquisition (Ellis, 2008). For example, working memory, response inhibition and cognitive flexibility are cognitive mechanisms associated with language and vocabulary in particular (Nicolay et al., 2013). In terms of memory, both phonological short-term memory and working memory have been found to make independent contributions to vocabulary learning. Multiple studies have shown that variation in phonological short-term memory, correlates with children’s vocabulary development and it is also considered to be an effective marker for specific language impairment (Conti-Ramsden et al., 2001; Gathercole et al., 1992; Nicolay et al., 2013; Service, 1992). The positive correlations found between phonological short-term memory, measured through non-word repetition, and L2 vocabulary tend to be moderate, respectively between .33-.45. (Martin & Ellis, 2012). In the same regression study, the separate effect of phonological short-term memory accounted for 14% of the total variance in second language vocabulary scores, and working memory for another independent 10%. It has been proposed that phonological short-term memory helps to consolidate phonological representations in the long-term memory (Jones et al., 2007). Working memory has been proposed to help maintain relevant information to allow processing during complex tasks, acting as an attentional control. (Mackey et al., 2002). Next to phonological short-term memory also phonological awareness has been suggested as an important factor contributing to the variance of L2 vocabulary, since, it has been shown to explain a significant part of children’s variance in L1 vocabulary (Bowey, 2001). In a longitudinal study done by Hu (2003), phonological awareness measured in L1 explained a significant portion of the variance in L2 vocabulary, but only at a later stage, suggesting that L1 phonological awareness only has an effect when the holistic shape of the word to be learned already has been established. It is proposed that second language acquisition relies on the cognitive architecture associated with the first language. This view argues that second language learning is mediated by similar linguistic capacities and similar neurocircuitry as the first language (Frost et al., 2013). Indeed, it has been shown that L2 neurocircuitry shares more neurocircuitry with L1 when proficiency of the second language increases (Abutalebi et al., 2001). Moreover, linguistic capacities in the first language, such as, vocabulary, effectively predicts success in second language acquisition (Ganschow et al., 1998). Children’s knowledge of L1 vocabulary is likely to reflect the level of children’s conceptual development, which in turn reflects level of L2 vocabulary acquisition (Nicolay et al., 2013). An essential difference between first and second language acquisition is the influence from the first language on second language acquisition. This effect, known as, language transfer, may occur in any domain of language, also in vocabulary (Ellis, 2008). Especially, in highly related languages Another cognitive ability linked to second language acquisition is executive functioning, specifically, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility have been suggested as potential predictors of successful second language acquisition (Nicolay et al., 2013). As proposed by Bialystok (2011), children learning a second language should be able to separate the target language from the nontarget language in a dual context. In order to achieve context-appropriate duality, children must ignore the interference coming from the nontarget language (inhibition) and switch between languages in order to build upon the appropriate language (cognitive flexibility). However, following multiple studies it has been shown that inhibitory control, measured through the Simon task, did not correlate with L2 vocabulary, and therefore will not be considered a predictor of interest (Poarch et al., 2012; Nicolay et al., 2013). On the other hand, cognitive flexibility has been found as a significant predictor of L2 vocabulary, uniquely contributing to 10% of the found variation in second language vocabulary (Nicolay et al., 2013). Thereby, showing a significant role of cognitive flexibility in the development of L2 vocabulary as opposed to inhibitory control.
In terms of external factors, variation in quantity of the input could be due to overall exposure time, or differences in length of exposure in school, the community, and at home (Paradis, 2011). Variation in quality of the input could be due to differences in input from native speakers, input gained from reading, and having conversations with experienced speakers. Both external factors have been shown to contribute to differences in children’s development and second language vocabulary (Paradis, 2011). Moreover, both external factors are mediated by playing games, since the time spent gaming and the richness of the English environment inside the game, both contribute to the quantitative and qualitative capacity of L2 input, however in this research there will be made no distinction between the subfactors and gaming will be treated as a singular external factor.
All of the abovementioned researches, show that cognitive mechanisms, internal and external factors relate to L2 vocabulary. However, in earlier gaming research internal factors and cognitive mechanisms are not accounted for (De Wilde et al., 2017; De Wilde et al., 2019; Sundqvist et al., 2015; Sylvén et al., 2012). Thus, to gain better insight in the unique contribution of gaming on the variance of L2 vocabulary and the predictive capacity of this behaviour, the internal factors and cognitive mechanisms should be controlled for.
Based on earlier research, it is hypothesized that children who game relatively more will have better L2 vocabulary knowledge than children who game relatively less. This is plausibly due to having more exposure to L2 input when playing games. This frequency of exposure and contact with the second language is beneficial for building a L2 vocabulary (Ellis, 2002; Paradis, 2011). On the other hand, all of the internal factors also have been shown to have an independent effect on L2 vocabulary, therefore the question remains whether gaming is a successful predictor of L2 vocabulary after controlling for the predictive capacity of these cognitive mechanisms and internal factors.
Hence, in this study the independent effect of gaming will be examined, by conducting a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with English vocabulary as the dependent variable and gaming as the independent variable while controlling for, respectively, non-verbal intelligence, working memory, cognitive flexibility, Dutch phonological awareness, Dutch phonological memory, Dutch vocabulary, English phonological awareness and English phonological memory. The variables entering the regression will follow a plausible chronological order. Starting with the control and consecutively predictors will be introduced from the lowest order (cognitive mechanisms), to the higher orders (internal factors), and finally to the highest order (the external factor). In terms of the internal factors, the Dutch predictors will be introduced before the English variant since, Dutch is the first language and therefore of lower order than English.
Stuck on your essay?
