An Assessment of Two Computerized Vocabulary Games Reveals That Players Improve as a Result of Review

Abstract

Two commercially available, computerized vocabulary games were assessed for their teaching benefits to users. The games were independently tested against three criteria, not against each other. The Matching Game used a rehearsal teaching strategy and required participants to match words to their meanings. The Analogy Game used a semantic strategy and required participants to determine the relationship between the meanings of three words. Game scores were used as the dependent measure because they reflected the accuracy of the participants' responses and their knowledge of the word meanings. The assessment revealed three points of interest about the games. First, participants improved game scores when they reviewed the meanings of words presented in the games. Second, participants did not improve their ability to determine the meaning of new words that were presented in either game. Third, participants with low verbal skills prior to playing the Matching Game demonstrated greater improvement in game scores than the participants with initial high verbal skills.