The Effects of Online Applications in English Vocabulary Learning: Quizlet Application

Year 2024, Volume: 32 Issue: 3, 435 - 447, 31.07.2024

İlknur Çaparlar Eyup Yünkül

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1525351

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the Quizlet application, a computer-aided vocabulary learning tool widely recognized as an online flashcard application, on the development and retention of English vocabulary among students learning English as a foreign language.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The data were obtained from 34 fifth-grade students studying English as a foreign language during 2019-2020 academic year at Yediiklim Secondary School in Karesi district of Balıkesir province. The research was conducted using a quantitative research method within quasi-experimental design without pre-test post-test control group. Quantitative data was collected through pre and post vocabulary achievement tests, retention test and scale. While word tests aim to measure students’ vocabulary acquisition, the retention test aims to measure students’ retention of vocabulary. The Quizlet Attitude Scale was also used to obtain opinions about Quizlet. Quantitative data were analyzed statistically in SPSS Statistics.
Findings: As a result of the analysis, the findings show that there is a significant difference between Quizlet and test scores. According to the results of the survey, it is concluded that the students developed positive perceptions about the use of the Quizlet program.
Highlights: In the light of these findings, it is recommended to use computer-based vocabulary learning tools as a student-centered and effective teaching technique in foreign language teaching and to expand their use.

Keywords

Vocabulary Learning, Digital Flashcard Tool, Ouizlet

References

• Abraham, L.B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199–226.
• Aydın, A. (2003). Gelişim ve öğrenme psikolojisi (4.baskı). İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
• Barr, B. (2016). Checking the Effectiveness of Quizlet® as a Tool for Vocabulary Learning. Japan: Tamagawa University.
• Başöz, T. (2013). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction on vocabulary achievement. Unpublished Master’s Thesis., The Institute of Social Sciences, İzmir.
• Blake R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
• Boyce, D. A. (2016). The effect of the video game quizlet on the acquisition of science vocabulary for children with learning disabilities. New Jersey: Rowan University.
• Brown, C. and Pallitt, N. (2015). CILT position paper: personal mobile devices and laptops as learning tools. CILT: University of Cape Town.
• Burns, A. (1972). History of Nigeria (18.baskı). London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Constantinescu, L., Kim, J., Chan, C. and Feng D. (2007). Automatic Mobile Device Synchronization and Remote Control System for HighPerformance Medical Applications. 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2799-2802, Lyon.
• Crandell, E. R. (2017). Quizlet flashcards for the first 500 words of the academic vocabulary list. USA: Brigham Young Univesity.
• Çelik, S. and Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategies of Turkish EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 62-71.
• Francis. M. A. and Simpson, M. L. (2009). Vocabulary development. R. F. Flippo, D.C. Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. New York: Routledge.
• Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L. and Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.
• Göçer, A. (2009). Türkçe eğitiminde öğrencilerin söz varlığını geliştirme etkinlikleri ve sözlük kullanımı. Electronic Turkish Studies, 4(4), 1025-1055.
• Granito, M. and Chernobilsky, E. (2012). The effect of technology on a student's motivation and knowledge retention. NERA Conference Proceedings, 4(11), 1- 22
• Graves, M.F. and Watts-Taffe, S.M. (2002). The place of word consciousness in a research-based vocabulary program. In A.E. Farstrup, S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, third edition (pp. 140- 165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Gu, P.Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7 (2), 325-336.
• Güney, N. and Aytan, T. (2014). Aktif kelime hazinesini geliştirmeye yönelik bir etkinlik önerisi: tabu. ASOS Journal Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(5), 617- 628.
• Hu, H. P. and Deng, L. J. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition in multimedia environment. US-China Foreign Language, 5(8), 55-59.
• Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. and Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (19. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kassim, H. and Ali, Z. (2007). The use of ICT in the implementation of student- centered learning (SCL). Internet Journal of e-Language Learning & Teaching, 1(4), 15- 31.
• Kawauchi, C. (2008). Proficiency differences in CALL based vocabulary learning: The effectiveness of using “Power Words”. Fleat, 5, 55-65.
• Kern, R. (2006). Perpectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterley, 40(1), 183-210.
• Ko, M. H. and Goranson, J. (2014). Technology-assisted vocabulary learning and student learning outcomes: A case study. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 11- 33.
• Koehler, M. J. and Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131- 152
• Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587.
• Laufer, B., Meara, P. and Nation, P. (2005). Ten best ideas for teaching vocabulary. The Language Teacher, 29(7), 3-6.
• Lees, D. (2013). A Brief Comparison Of Digital- And Self-Made Word Cards For Vocabulary Learning. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review 18,63- 64.
• Ma, Q. and Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 15-45.
• Marion, T. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorization by young children. John Benjamins Publishing, 8 (2), 219-235.
• Martins, C., Steil, A. V. and Todesco, J. L. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers & Education, 42(4), 353-374.
• Maximo, R. (2000). Effects if rote, context, keyword, and context/ keyword method on retention of vocabulary in EFL classroom. Language Learning, 50(2), 385- 412.
• McLean, S., Hogg, N. and Rush, T. W. (2013). Vocabulary learning through an online computerized flashcard site. JALT CALL Journal, 9(1), 79-98.
• Mizumoto, O. and Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 4(13), 425-449.
• Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, P. (2002). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. R. C. Richards, W. Renandya (Eds) In Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 267-272). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.
• Neuman, S.B. and Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k. The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384-392.
• Oblinger, D. G. (2008). Growing up with Google: What it means to education. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 3, 11-29.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Quizlet LLC. (2021). Quizlet hakkında. https://quizlet.com/ tr/mission.
• Ramos, F.D.R. (2015). Incidental vocabulary learning in second language acquisition: A literature review. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 17(1), 157- 166.
• Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossing, J.P., Miller, W, Cecil, A.K. and Stamper, S.E. (2012).
• Siriwan, M. (2007). English vocabulary learning strategies employed by rajabhat university students. Tayland. Suranaree Teknoloji Üniversitesi.
• Susanto, A. and Fazlinda, A, (2016). English vocabulary acquisition through vocabulary learning strategy and socio-educational Factors: A review. Applied Science and Technolog, 1(1), 166-173.
• Takač, V. P. and Singleton, D. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Canada: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary, UK: Longman Türk Dil Kurumu (2021). Sözlükler. https://sozluk.gov.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 23.07.2021).
• Wang, A.Y., Thomas, M.H., Inzana, C.M. and Primicerio, L.J. (1993). Long-term retention under conditions of intentional learning and the keyword mnemonic. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(6), 545-547.
• Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal, 40(3), 360-376.
• Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold.Wilkinson, D. (2017). EFL Vocabulary Acquisition through Word Cards: Student Perceptions and Strategies. TESL-EJ, 3(21), 1-11.
• Wright, B. A. (2016). Transforming vocabulary learning with Quizlet. P. Clements, A. Krause, H. Brown (Eds), Transformation in language education (pp. 436- 440). Tokyo. JALT.
• Yağcı, E., Katrancı, M., Erdoğan, Ö. and Uygun, M. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kelime öğretiminde karşılaştıkları sorunlar ve kullandıkları yöntem teknikler. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2(4), 1-12.