Cited by 5Educational Games and GamificationSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

L2 vocabulary learning through a COTS adventure game: individual vs. paired gameplay and the influence of word exposure frequency, word level, and word salience

Kyle Lai, Kuo-Wei, Howard Chen, Hao-Jan·2025·Computers & Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105343

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kyle Lai, K.-W., & Howard Chen, H.-J.
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
234
Pages
105343
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409799548
Cited by
5
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
FWCI
10.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
L2 vocabulary learning, commercial off-the-shelf games, adventure games, collaborative gameplay, word frequency, expressive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary, EFL learners, technology acceptance, student attitudes, peer interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review