- -

Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary

Show simple item record

Files in this item

dc.contributor.author Dizon, Gilbert es_ES
dc.contributor.author Tang, Daniel es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2017-07-04T10:35:40Z
dc.date.available 2017-07-04T10:35:40Z
dc.date.issued 2017-04-28
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/84411
dc.description.abstract [EN] Several researchers have compared the efficacy of digital flashcards (DFs) versus paper flashcards (PFs) to improve L2 vocabulary and have concluded that using DFs is more effective (Azabdaftari & Mozaheb, 2012; Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Kiliçkaya & Krajka, 2010). However, these studies did not utilize vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) as a way to support the vocabulary development of those using PFs. This is significant because DFs often offer a range of features to promote vocabulary development, whereas PFs are much more basic; thus, learners who study via paper materials are at a disadvantage compared with those who use DFs. Given the success that VLSs have had in fostering L2 vocabulary enhancement (e.g., Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009), their incorporation could have influenced the previous studies. Therefore, one of the primary aims of this study was to find if there were significant differences in receptive and productive L2 vocabulary improvements between students who used PFs in conjunction with 3 VLSs – dropping, association, and oral rehearsal – and those who used the DF tools Quizlet and Cram. Additionally, the researchers examined the learners’ opinions to see if there was a preference for either study method. A total of 52 EFL students at two Japanese universities participated in the 12-week study. Pre- and post-tests were administered to measure the vocabulary gains in the PF group (n = 26) and the DF group (n = 26). Results from a paired t-test revealed that both groups made significant improvements in receptive and productive vocabulary. However, the difference between the gains was not significant, which contrasts with past comparison studies of DFs and PFs and highlights the importance of VLSs. A 10-item survey with closed and Likert-scale questions was also administered to determine the participants’ opinions towards the study methods. Higher levels of agreement were found in the experimental group, indicating that the students viewed DFs more favorably than PFs. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Universitat Politècnica de València
dc.relation.ispartof The EuroCALL Review
dc.rights Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) es_ES
dc.subject L2 vocabulary es_ES
dc.subject Flashcards es_ES
dc.subject Computer-assisted language learning es_ES
dc.subject EFL es_ES
dc.title Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.date.updated 2017-07-04T10:29:41Z
dc.identifier.doi 10.4995/eurocall.2017.6964
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Dizon, G.; Tang, D. (2017). Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary. The EuroCALL Review. 25(1):3-15. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.6964 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod SWORD es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.6964 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 3 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 15 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 25
dc.description.issue 1
dc.identifier.eissn 1695-2618


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record