Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-

Learning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

Using mobile applications for self-directed

learning of academic vocabulary among university
students

Ismail Xodabande & Mahmood Reza Atai

To cite this article: Ismail Xodabande & Mahmood Reza Atai (2020): Using mobile applications
for self-directed learning of academic vocabulary among university students, Open Learning: The
Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2020.1847061

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1847061

Published online: 12 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=copl20
OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1847061

Using mobile applications for self-directed learning of

academic vocabulary among university students
Ismail Xodabande and Mahmood Reza Atai
Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study investigated the contribution of a mobile appli­ MALL; CALL; academic
cation for self-directed and autonomous learning of academic voca­ vocabulary; self-directed
bulary among English as a Foreign language (EFL) university learning; mobile
applications; e-learning
students. Furthermore, we examined the long-term impacts of
mobile-assisted vocabulary learning, by using a pre-, post-, and
delayed post-test design. The participants were 38 third-
and fourth-year university students in experimental (N = 20) and
control (N = 18) groups, selected based on convenience sampling
procedures. During a semester, students in the experimental group
used a mobile application (i.e. AWL builder), while the control group
used traditional materials. The participants’ receptive vocabulary
knowledge was tested three times. The findings revealed that both
groups improved their vocabulary knowledge (Sig. < 0.000).
Nonetheless, the participants in the experimental group attained
better results in both post- and delayed post-test, and the observed
mean differences were statistically significant (Sig. < 0.000, Partial
Eta Squared = 0.356). Moreover, a significant effect for time was
found for mobile-assisted vocabulary learning (Sig. < 0.000, Partial
Eta Squared = 0.907). The results highlight the potential offered by
mobile applications for self-directed learning of academic vocabu­
lary and promise implications for EFL vocabulary learning.

Introduction
Given the importance of vocabulary in developing second language knowledge in gen­
eral, the field of applied linguistics has long been concerned with identifying the most
useful words for language learners at different stages of learning. To this end, English
vocabulary has been divided into four categories: (1) high-frequency or general service
vocabulary, (2) academic vocabulary, (3) technical vocabulary and (4) low-frequency
vocabulary (Coxhead & Nation, 2001). Nation and Waring (1997) argued that beginner
English language learners should focus on the first 2000 most frequent word families of
English in the General Service List (GSL) (West, 1953). However, for students on English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, a major source of difficulty is the mastering of aca­
demic vocabulary (E. S.-L. Li & Pemberton, 1994). Farrell (1990), viewed academic or semi-
technical vocabulary as ‘formal, context-independent words with a high frequency and/or

CONTACT Ismail Xodabande ismail.kh.tefl@gmail.com Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University,

Tehran 15614, Iran
© 2020 The Open University
2 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

wide range of occurrence across scientific disciplines, not usually found in basic general
English courses; words with high frequency across scientific disciplines’ (p. 11). Previous
research has indicated that learning this type of vocabulary is very important for university
students as it provides a coverage from 10% (Coxhead, 2000) to 14% (Gardner & Davies,
2014) of most academic texts.
Nowadays, most university students and researchers in English as a Foreign lan­
guage (EFL) contexts need to read and publish their research articles in international
journals in English (Flowerdew, 2015; Martínez et al., 2009; Valipouri & Nassaji, 2013).
Based on this consistent need, Academic Word List (AWL) (Coxhead, 2000) which
contains 570 word families, has been employed extensively in instructional pro­
grammes (Coxhead, 2011), and has remained as a benchmark for materials develop­
ments in EAP (Huntley, 2006; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2005, 2011; Wells, 2007). In this regard,
the value of the AWL has long been acknowledged as a great resource for learners and
instructors (Eldridge, 2008), which makes it possible to set vocabulary learning goals by
focusing on the most useful vocabulary items that university students need (Coxhead,
2011). Nevertheless, it has been widely acknowledged that the practice of publishing in
English is still associated with serious linguistic barriers for non-native English speakers
(Corcoran, 2017; Y. Li & Flowerdew, 2020), and insufficient vocabulary knowledge has
remained as an important factor in their inability to read and write in English, which
further prevents them from full participation in scientific communities (Bazerman et al.,
2012).
In recent years, the phenomenal growth in digital technologies has provided new
opportunities for helping university students to overcome such problems. In this regard,
communication and connectivity options made available by smartphones alongside other
features in those devices (such as listening to music, watching videos, GPS, high quality
cameras, note taking, etc.) have created an increased interest in mobile assisted language
learning (MALL) (Demouy & Kukulska-Hulme, 2010; Godwin-Jones, 2017; Grigoryan, 2020;
Lai, 2016; Nazari & Xodabande, 2020; Wrigglesworth & Harvor, 2018), and mobile phones
and associated applications are finding their ways into educational practices in university
courses (Papadakis et al., 2018a, 2018b). The results of previous studies investigating the
impacts of mobile technologies in language learning and teaching indicate that the use of
mobile devices contributed significantly to language development in general
(AbuSa’aleek, 2014; Burston, 2013, 2014; Chwo et al., 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2011;
Golonka et al., 2014; Stockwell, 2013; Sung et al., 2015; Wong & Looi, 2011; Xodabande,
2017), and learning second/foreign language vocabulary in particular (J.-J. Lin & Lin, 2019).
Within this line of inquiry, a growing number of MALL studies examined the use of
different tools and technologies (such as SMS, MMS, and applications) for learning ESL/
EFL vocabulary (Burston, 2013; Chwo et al., 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2017; J.-J. Lin & Lin, 2019;
Stockwell, 2013). Nonetheless, the use of mobile devices and associated technologies
such as mobile applications for learning academic vocabulary received scant attention. In
this regard, the current study sets out to investigate the contribution of mobile devices
and vocabulary learning applications in self-directed learning of academic vocabulary
among university students. The study contributes to the existing body of literature in
mobile-assisted vocabulary learning, and aims to shed light on affordances provided by
mobile devices for learning academic vocabulary.
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 3

Review of the related literature

Based on the delivery and presentation modes of the target words, second/foreign
language mobile assisted vocabulary studies have been classified into two broad strands
(J.-J. Lin & Lin, 2019). In this regard, one strand of the related studies examined the use of
different mobile applications (Agca & Özdemir, 2013; Castañeda & Cho, 2016; Chen &
Chung, 2008; Chen & Li, 2010; Hwang & Chen, 2013; Ono et al., 2015; Rachels & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2018; Sandberg et al., 2011, 2014; Thornton & Houser, 2005; Wu, 2014, 2015a,
2015b), and another strand investigated the impacts of short message service (SMS) or
multimedia message service (MMS) modes of delivery on vocabulary learning (Alemi et al.,
2012; Anaraki, 2009; Derakhshan & Kaivanpanah, 2011; Khazaie & Ketabi, 2011; C.-C. Lin &
Yu, 2017; Motallebzadeh & Ganjali, 2011; Song & Fox, 2005; Suwantarathip &
Orawiwatnakul, 2015; Tabatabaei & Goojani, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011). This section
provides a general overview of the relevant studies, and highlights the gaps in the
existing body of knowledge that the current study aims to address.
A number of studies in the literature examined the impacts of using context-
aware, gaming, and learning applications on vocabulary learning. In this regard, Chen
and Li (2010) investigated a personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system
(PCULS) for learning English vocabulary using PDAs in the school environment in
Taiwan. The participants of this study included 18 high school students in experi­
mental and control groups. The study used a pre-, post-test design and lasted for
two weeks. The results indicated that the experimental group who used the PCULS
outperformed the control group which used the system without context-awareness.
Hwang and Chen (2013) also studied the impacts of using a context-aware applica­
tion designed for EFL learners’ speaking and listening abilities using PDAs. The
participants were 60 fifth-grade elementary school students in Taiwan. The multi­
media materials for English vocabularies, phrases, and sentences about food were
presented to the participants in the experimental group during the lunch break, and
those in the control group received identical content on paper, food posters, and
flashcards without the real context support. The results of the pre- and post-test
revealed a significant correlation between vocabulary learning and multimedia con­
tent delivered on PDAs for the experimental group. Sandberg et al. (2011) also
investigated the added value of context-aware mobile technology in learning
English as a second language for primary school students in the Netherlands. In
this study which also used a pre- and post-test design, three groups of students
received lessons in the classroom in English about zoo animals, however, one group
used the mobile applications designed for PDAs in a public zoo, and the second
group was allowed to have PDAs for two weeks after working with the application in
the zoo. The results indicated that the third group outperformed other groups in
vocabulary post-test, and the differences between the first and the second group
were not significant. These studies highlighted the potential of mobile applications in
helping students to learn English vocabulary.
In a series of studies, Wu (2014, 2015a, 2015b) examined the impacts of different
applications designed for smartphones for English language vocabulary learning. Wu
(2014) divided 50 Chinese ESL students equally into experimental and control groups,
and studied the impacts of a mobile application designed by the researcher to help
4 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

students learn 852 English words over a semester. The participants in the experimental
group used the application, and the findings revealed that they outperformed those in
the control group who used traditional materials for learning the same vocabulary items.
In another study of the same kind, Wu (2015a) investigated the use of a similar mobile
application containing 1,274 English words, designed for Android devices. The partici­
pants of this study were 70 fourth-year college students in China in experimental and
control groups. Using a pre- and post-test design, this study reported positive results for
using smartphone applications in English vocabulary learning and concluded that the use
of the mobile application contributed significantly to vocabulary gains attained by
participants in the experimental group. Wu (2015b) also investigated the impacts of
a smartphone application containing 3,402 English words, with each word containing
spelling, pronunciation, and Chinese definitions features for vocabulary learning among
200 Chinese university students in three experimental and three control groups. The
study aimed to facilitate ESL students’ self-directed learning of English vocabulary and
compared the impacts of using mobile applications by experimental groups to those
using traditional materials in the control groups. The results of the pre- and the post-test
revealed that the participants in experimental groups outperformed those in control
groups and scored on average 8.49% higher in the post-test. The cumulative results
attained by these studies indicate that the use of mobile applications for learning different
word lists is beneficial for language learners, and their integration into self-directed
vocabulary learning programs contributes significantly to students’ vocabulary knowl­
edge development.
As for the use of SMS for mobile-assisted vocabulary learning, two studies
investigated the impacts of this mode of delivery on learning academic vocabulary.
In this regard, Derakhshan and Kaivanpanah (2011) investigated the effectiveness of
text-message vocabulary learning on Iranian EFL learners. The participants included
43 university students, who received academic vocabulary training in the classroom
and worked in small groups to practice newly learned vocabulary items. The
researchers divided the participants into experimental and control groups based
on their language proficiency and asked those in the experimental group to send
the researcher and three predetermined peers a text message containing an origi­
nal sentence for each of the words covered in the course. The control group
followed the same procedures but without using the text massaging function of
mobile phones. The results obtained in the post-test and delayed post-test revealed
no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of their initial
vocabulary learning and the retention of the vocabulary over time. In another
study, Alemi et al. (2012) examined the effectiveness of SMS on 45 Iranian uni­
versity students’ vocabulary learning and retention during a semester. The partici­
pants were divided into experimental and control groups, and those in the
experimental group were taught 320 headwords from the Academic Word List
(Coxhead, 2000) using SMS. The participants in the control group received instruc­
tion on the same target words through traditional materials. The results of this
study indicated that the vocabulary knowledge of both groups improved from pre-
test to post-test, nonetheless, on delayed post-test, the experimental group out­
performed the control group in long-term vocabulary retention.
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 5

Regarding the use of SMS/MMS technologies in mobile-assisted vocabulary learning in

general, the findings of previous studies indicate that the use of the aforementioned modes
of delivery facilitates the learning and retention of the target words, and provides better
outcomes in comparison to traditional learning materials such as paper-based vocabulary
lists and regular flashcards (J.-J. Lin & Lin, 2019). Nonetheless, the use of SMS/MMS for
vocabulary learning has been criticised recently. In this regard, Wu (2015a) for example,
identified three problems concerning the use of SMS in mobile assisted vocabulary learning:
(1) the short and limited size of the messages, (2) the difficulty of initiating anywhere and
anytime learning experience, and (3) giving no choice for learners in deciding the content of
learning. Furthermore, in light of the recent developments in mobile technologies (such as
Internet connection, big screen size, location detection, and powerful processors), it has
been argued that MALL studies should be mainly application based as these platforms
provide better options and choices for language learners and teachers (Godwin-Jones, 2011).
In sum, although the available literature on mobile-assisted vocabulary learning
indicates that the use of SMS/MMS and mobile applications results in improvements
in ESL/EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge, some gaps in this line of research
demand further empirical investigation. First, the majority of studies discussed
above were conducted in relatively short time periods (Agca & Özdemir, 2013;
Castañeda & Cho, 2016; Chen & Chung, 2008; Chen & Li, 2010; Hwang & Chen,
2013), which makes it difficult to better acknowledge and fully understand the
impacts of mobile devices and associated technologies on vocabulary learning inter­
ventions. In this regard, the current study aims to investigate mobile-assisted voca­
bulary learning over a period of six months, which seems to be relatively long and
sufficient to see anticipated outcomes. Second the common research design
employed by the majority of studies is pre- and post-test measurement of vocabulary
learning that provides an incomplete picture of the long-term impacts of different
treatments. To this end, a repeated measures design (with pre-, post-, and delayed
post-test) was used to see if the learning outcomes attained by participants of this
study were persistent over time. Third, in the existing literature different measure­
ment scales were used for testing the vocabulary achievements, and only a few
studies used standardised tests (J.-J. Lin & Lin, 2019). In order to deal with this
problem, as indicated in the method section, in the current study we used
a standard and validated test of vocabulary knowledge. Finally, the use of mobile
applications for self-directed learning of academic vocabulary has largely remained
unexplored. Given the importance of academic vocabulary for academic success
(Gardner & Davies, 2014), such an undertaking is important for various stakeholders
in EAP instruction. In order to fill part of this void, the current study investigated the
effects of a mobile vocabulary learning application (i.e. AWL builder) on learning AWL
items by Iranian university students. The following research questions were
addressed:

(1) Does using mobile applications for self-directed learning of academic vocabulary
result in improved vocabulary knowledge among EFL learners?
(2) Does using mobile applications for vocabulary learning result in long-term voca­
bulary retention among EFL learners?
6 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Method
Participants
The participants of the current study included 38 Iranian university students (21 males and
17 females, mean age 23) selected based on convenience sampling procedures. The
participants were third- or fourth-year students of Psychology and none of them were
receiving English language education during the participation in this study. Regarding
previous language learning experience, all participants had studied English as a foreign
language, in junior high school, high school, and university, and their proficiency levels
ranged from pre-intermediate to upper-intermediate. Based on participants’ preferences
for studying academic vocabulary using mobile applications or traditional materials, they
were divided into experimental (N = 20) and control (N = 18) groups. The participants
were fully informed regarding the nature of the study, and all agreed to give their contact
information to the researchers. All the participants in the experimental group had smart­
phone devices that supported installing and using mobile applications for vocabulary
learning.

Instruments
Participants in the control group used traditional materials for learning academic voca­
bulary. To this end, they were given a free copy of ‘Focus on Vocabulary 2: Mastering the
Academic Word List’ (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2011). However, participants in the experimental
group used the AWL Builder Multilingual application (EFL Technologies, n.d.) designed for
Android and iOS devices. The AWL builder application is freely available at Google play
store or iPhone app store, and uses an intelligent flashcards technology to help the
learning of 570 vocabulary items in the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000). The
application keeps detailed records of progress made in studying selected vocabulary
items, with the possibility of emailing the results for the learner or teacher. Moreover, the
application uses simple English for definitions, shows part of speech, and the pronuncia­
tion of each word from the AWL.
The following screenshots show the main menu and options available in the applica­
tion for setting up study plans. As represented in Figure 1, the first screenshot (from left)
shows the starting page. In the study tools section, learners can choose target words,
study selected items, and change the settings for showing words or definitions in
flashcards. After selecting the ‘choose your words’ option, learners can decide to study
all 570 AWL items, or start from intermediate (25% skipped), high intermediate (50%
skipped), or advanced (75% skipped) levels. After selecting any of these options, the
application directs learners to the next screen where they can choose specific words from
different bands. This feature enables learners to skip the vocabulary items they already
know in different bands.
Figure 2 provides further information regarding vocabulary learning options available
in the AWL builder application. As shown, the application provides grammatical informa­
tion for a given word and learners can hear its pronunciation. The ‘tap hear for answer’
function shows the definition for the target item in simple English. Learners then evaluate
their knowledge of the given word by selecting one of the right or wrong functions.
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 7

Figure 1. Main features and set up options for the AWL builder application.

Figure 2. AWL builder flashcard.

8 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Finally, in order to assess the participants’ knowledge of the AWL (Coxhead, 2000), part
six of the new vocabulary levels test (NVLT) (McLean & Kramer, 2015) was used in pre-,
post-, and delayed tests. The employed scale contains 30 multiple choice items, and
measures receptive knowledge of academic words. In order to minimise the possible
effects of learning from taking the test among the participants, first, after completing the
test of academic vocabulary, participants were asked to complete parts three and four of
the NVLT, and second, the tests were administered with four and two months’ intervals.
According to test developers, the selection of test items and distractors followed prin­
cipled specifications, which ensures the validity and reliability of the test (for more
information on development and validation of the test, see McLean and Kramer (2015)).

Procedures
Before starting the intervention in the form of mobile-assisted vocabulary learning, the
participants in both experimental and control groups were tested at the start of the academic
semester. After completing the pre-test, all participants attended a short session (30 minutes)
held by the first author, where they learned about vocabulary learning strategies for auton­
omous learning of English vocabulary (Webb & Nation, 2017), and the importance of the AWL
in academic texts. At the end of the session, the participants in the control group were given
a free copy of the assigned book for mastering the AWL items (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2011), and
those in the experimental group received required instructions for downloading, installing,
and using the AWL builder application on their smartphones.
As the focus of the study was on self-directed and out-of-the-classroom vocabulary
learning, the participants were asked to use the given materials for a semester on their
own. Nonetheless, in order to keep contact with the participants, a broadcasting channel
was created in a locally popular social media network (i.e. Telegram®), and they were
asked to join the channel through scanning a QR code. This made it possible for the
researchers to send weekly study reminders to encourage the participants to study, and
inform them regarding upcoming tests. At the end of the semester, participants com­
pleted a post-test, and in order to further investigate the long term effects of mobile-
assisted vocabulary learning, they were tested again two months later.

Data analysis
The obtained data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. To this
end, IBM SPSS software version 25 was used. Descriptive statistics including mean values,
standard deviations, standard error of means were calculated for scores on pre-, post-, and
delayed post-tests. In order to see if the observed differences were statistically significant,
the experimental and control groups’ performance in the pre-test was compared using
independent samples t-test, and repeated measures of ANOVA were performed to analyse
the scores obtained by participants at the three times.

Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the experimental and control groups’ perfor­
mances in pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests. According to the results, the mean values
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 9

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pre-test CON 18 12.33 2.425 .572 11.13 13.54
EXP 20 13.50 3.204 .716 12.00 15.00
Total 38 12.95 2.885 .468 12.00 13.90
Post-test CON 18 19.33 2.910 .686 17.89 20.78
EXP 20 23.40 2.371 .530 22.29 24.51
Total 38 21.47 3.319 .538 20.38 22.56
Delayed post-test CON 18 19.31 2.990 .705 17.85 20.82
EXP 20 21.15 2.134 .477 20.15 22.15
Total 38 20.29 2.700 .438 19.40 21.18

for participants’ scores on pre-test (before the treatment) were 12.33 (SD = 2.43) for the
control group, and 13.50 (SD = 3.20) for the experimental group. After using the assigned
materials for learning academic vocabulary for a semester, these values as assessed by the
post-test raised to 19.33 (SD = 2.91) for the control group, and 23.40 (SD = 2.37) for the
experimental group, indicating a considerable improvement in the knowledge of aca­
demic vocabulary for both groups. Nonetheless, participants in the experimental group
obtained higher scores compared to those in the control group (mean difference about 4).
The results of the delayed post-test which was administered two months later, revealed
a slight change in the mean value for the scores obtained by participants in the control
group (M = 19.31, SD = 2.99), however, the participants in the experimental group
obtained lower scores compared to post-test (M = 21.15, SD = 2.13).
Scores obtained by participants in the experimental group on average were higher
than those obtained by the control group on pre-test. In order to see if the observed
difference was statistically significant, an independent samples t-test was conducted to
compare the scores, and the results indicated that there was no significant difference in
pre-test scores for the control (M = 12.33, SD = 2.43) and the experimental (M = 13.50,
SD = 3.20; t (36) = −1.25, p =.218, two-tailed) groups (Table 2). As a result, there was no
significant difference in participants’ receptive knowledge of vocabulary items in the AWL
prior to the treatment.
The following figure (Figure 3) is a visual representation of participants’ performances
over time, and gives an overview of the changes in scores on pre-, post- and delayed tests
for the participants in the experimental and control groups. As represented in the plot, the
mean score obtained at the three different times indicates different patterns for the
experimental and control groups. In this regard, while there was no significant difference
in scores obtained in the pre-test, after the treatment, both groups scored considerably

Table 2. Independent samples t-test for comparing scores on pre-test.

Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper
Pre-test 3.471 .071 −1.254 36 .218 −1.167 .930 −3.053 .720
10 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Figure 3. Plot representing results obtained by participants at three times.

higher on the post-test. Nonetheless, from post-test to delayed post-test, the scores
obtained by participants in the control group did not change much, but the scores for
participants in the experimental group (red line) indicated a slight decrease.
In order to compare the two groups’ performances at three times (pre-, post- and
delayed post-test), a one way reaped measures of ANOVA was performed. Before con­
ducting the ANOVA test, the assumption of normality (Box’s M Test) and sphericity
(Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity) were checked and no serious violation was observed. The
results of the tests of between-subjects effects (Tables 3 and 4) revealed significant
differences between the groups as a whole on their performances on pre-, post-, and
delayed post-test (p < .000). The effect size for the differences was also very large based
on the criteria proposed by Cohen (1988) (partial eta squared = .356).
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare scores at Time 1
(pre-test), Time 2 (post-test) and Time 3 (delayed post-test). The results (Table 5) indicated
a significant effect of time for the experimental (Wilks’ Lambda = .093, F (2, 18) = 87.31,
p < .000, multivariate partial eta squared = .907), and the control (Wilks’ Lambda = .157,
F (2, 16) = 42.82, p = .000, multivariate partial eta squared = .843) groups.

Table 3. Tests of between-subjects effects.

Measure: VK
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Intercept 37,553.376 1 37,553.376 4766.161 .000 .993
Group 156.955 1 156.955 19.920 .000 .356
Error 283.650 36 7.879
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 11

Table 4. Pairwise comparisons.

Measure: VK
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
b
(I) Group (J) Group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control Experimental −2.350* .527 .000 −3.418 −1.282
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Table 5. Multivariate tests (Wilks’ lambda).

Group Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Control .157 42.827a 2.000 16.000 .000 .843
Experimental .093 87.318a 2.000 18.000 .000 .907
Each F tests the multivariate effect of TIME. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons
among the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic

Table 6. Pairwise comparisons.

Measure: VK
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
b
Group (I) TIME (J) TIME Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 1 2 −7.000* .915 .000 −9.428 −4.572
3 −7.000* .859 .000 −9.282 −4.718
2 1 7.000* .915 .000 4.572 9.428
3 .020 .993 1.000 −2.638 2.638
3 1 7.000* .859 .000 4.718 9.282
2 −.020 .993 1.000 −2.638 2.638
Experimental 1 2 −9.900* .736 .000 −11.832 −7.968
3 −7.650* .865 .000 −9.922 −5.378
2 1 9.900* .736 .000 7.968 11.832
3 2.250* .774 .027 .218 4.282
3 1 7.650* .865 .000 5.378 9.922
2 −2.250* .774 .027 −4.282 −.218
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Pairwise comparisons of obtained scores by participants in the experimental and

control groups were conducted and the results are provided in Table 6. The results
indicated that the differences in the control group’s performances in both post-, and
delayed tests are statistically significant (p < .000) from the results obtained on pre-test
(mean differences 7.00). The results also revealed that there was no significant change in
scores from post-test to delayed post-test for the control group. The results of pairwise
comparisons for the experimental group revealed significant differences among scores
obtained at three times. In this regard, the obtained scores on post- and delayed post-test
were significantly higher than scores obtained on pre-test (mean differences 9.90 and 7.65
respectively, p < .000). Moreover, the decrease in participants’ scores from post-test to
delayed post-test was also statistically significant (mean differences = 2.25, p < .027).
12 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Discussion
The first research question was concerned with the contribution of a flashcard mobile
application (i.e. AWL builder) in developing the knowledge of academic vocabulary in self-
directed and mobile assisted language learning among the university students. The
results of the pre-test revealed that there was no significant difference in experimental
and control groups’ receptive vocabulary knowledge before the treatment. Nonetheless,
after using different materials during a semester, both groups developed their knowledge
of academic vocabulary and their gains were statistically significant. The results also
indicated that the participants in the experimental group who used the AWL builder
application on their smartphones gained better results compared to the control group
which used traditional materials. These findings are in line with previous studies that
reported positive results for using mobile applications in learning English vocabulary in
general (Agca & Özdemir, 2013; Castañeda & Cho, 2016; Chen & Chung, 2008; Chen & Li,
2010; Hwang & Chen, 2013; Ono et al., 2015; Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018;
Sandberg et al., 2011, 2014; Thornton & Houser, 2005; Wu, 2014, 2015a, 2015b), and
academic vocabulary in particular (Alemi et al., 2012). However, findings of the current
study are in contrast with Derakhshan and Kaivanpanah (2011) who reported no statisti­
cally significant difference for learning academic vocabulary using mobile devices. It
should be highlighted here that the use of mobile applications for vocabulary learning
provided the participants with a more motivating and facilitative environment compared
to the use of SMS in the aforementioned study. The findings of the current study also
pointed to the potential of mobile applications for self-directed and outside the classroom
vocabulary learning, that provide language learners with more opportunities for devel­
oping their vocabulary knowledge (Wu, 2015a, 2015b).
The second research question investigated the long-term impacts of mobile assisted
vocabulary learning. In this regard, the findings revealed that there is a significant effect
for time in mobile-assisted vocabulary learning. Similar to the results reported by Alemi
et al. (2012), this study also found that both groups that used different materials for
learning academic vocabulary benefited from the intervention. Nonetheless, those using
mobile applications attained better results in both post- and delayed post-tests. It should
also be highlighted that the difference in experimental and control groups’ scores in post-
test and delayed post-test was statistically significant. This means that the use of mobile
applications for vocabulary learning is effective in both short and long-term interventions
compared to traditional materials, and leads to better results and more vocabulary gains.
However, the findings of the current study revealed that the participants in the experi­
mental group scored lower in delayed post-test compared to post-test, and the difference
in scores for these two times was statistically significant. In other words, although the
participants in the experimental group improved their receptive knowledge of academic
vocabulary considerably and significantly from pre-test to post-test (mean difference
9.90), their scores decreased 2.25 on average from post-test to delayed post-test, which
was also statistically significant. The control group also performed better in both post-
and delayed post-test compared to pre-test, but their scores indicated a very slight
change from post-test to delayed post-test. There might be several reasons for this
observation. First, it is possible to interpret these differences in light of the inherent
motivational effects of new technologies for language learning (Stockwell, 2013).
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 13

According to this perspective, the introduction of new technologies for language learning
results in enhanced motivation among learners, however this motivation gradually
declines as the learners lose their initial enthusiasm. As for the participants of the current
study, the use of mobile phones created a more motivating environment for language
learning that resulted in higher levels of vocabulary learning, but the impacts faded away
gradually. Second, it seems that the use of traditional materials contributed to effective
and long-term learning of vocabulary items, as this was the way participants in the control
group used to study English and other subjects in the past. In this regard, although
participants in the control group had lower scores on post- and delayed post-test
compared to the experimental group, their performances were similar in these two
tests, indicating negligible loss of learned items over time. This might be the result of
their employed strategies and learning style (such as note taking), which seems to be
effective.
The current study has some implications for teaching/learning of (academic) vocabu­
lary in EFL contexts. First, as the results indicated, the use of mobile devices and vocabu­
lary learning applications lead to better results compared to traditional materials in terms
of learning academic vocabulary. In this regard, materials developers, educators, and
language learners should consider integrating these technologies into English language
teaching programmes to facilitate foreign language vocabulary learning. Webb and
Nation (2017) believe that certain conditions are needed for effective vocabulary learning
including meaningful repetition and significant encounters with target words. The use of
vocabulary learning applications can provide learners with ample opportunities in this
respect. Second, it has been argued that the acquisition of foreign language vocabulary is
a continuous and long-term process taking place both inside and outside the classroom
(Nation, 2001, 2013). The current study indicated that the use of mobile devices resulted
in the learning a considerable amount of academic vocabulary in self-directed learning
within a four-month period. Given the fact that academic vocabulary poses a major
challenge for university students (Farrell, 1990; Gardner & Davies, 2014; Nation &
Waring, 1997), the use of mobile applications for learning this vocabulary helps language
learners to shortcut the process of vocabulary learning and master important vocabulary
in a short time. This is especially helpful for EFL learners as their incomplete knowledge of
essential vocabulary in English (Webb & Chang, 2012; Webb & Nation, 2017) creates
further problems in understanding and using academic English.

Conclusion
The current study investigated the contribution of a mobile application (i.e. AWL
builder) on Iranian university students’ academic vocabulary development. The findings
provided empirical evidence for the potential of mobile devices and vocabulary learning
applications in developing EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge in mobile-assisted and
self-directed language learning. The results also indicated that there are long-term
effects for mobile assisted learning of academic vocabulary. The current study had
some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, convenience sampling procedures
were employed to assign the participants to experimental and control groups, which
pose some limitations on the obtained outcomes and the generalisability of the find­
ings. Second, although none of the participants were receiving English language
14 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

education during the participation in the study, we were unable to control their possible
exposure to English language through media and various digital and electronic tech­
nologies (Xodabande, 2018). Given the fact that the study lasted for six months, this
factor should be accounted for in interpreting the obtained results. And finally, the
study was concerned with only receptive knowledge of academic words (as the parti­
cipants of the current study needed to study and consult English sources during their
study without a major need to write or speak in English), and we did not measure
participants’ productive vocabulary knowledge. It could be argued that the use of
different materials for vocabulary learning (including mobile devices and associated
applications) may result in different gains in participants’ productive vocabulary knowl­
edge. Future studies could investigate the affordances of various mobile technologies to
study receptive and productive vocabulary developments, as well as other aspects of
vocabulary knowledge including pronunciation, collocations, and associations (Nation,
2013).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Ismail Xodabande is a PhD candidate of Applied Linguistics at Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran. He
is interested in conducting research on the application of various educational technologies in
foreign language education, Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), and corpus-based study
of vocabulary in ESP. He has published in these areas in Cogent Education, Computer Assisted
Language Learning, and MEXTESOL journal.
Mahmood Reza Atai is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran. He is
editor of the Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics and has been a member of the editorial board for
some international journals. Furthermore, he has served as a member of the scientific committee of
some international conferences. His publications include five co/authored EAP textbooks for uni­
versity students and several articles on ESP/EAP themes including needs analysis, genre analysis,
course design, teacher education, and programme evaluation. His recent articles appear in English
for Specific Purposes, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, System, RELC Journal, and Teacher
Development.

ORCID
Ismail Xodabande http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5599-8582
Mahmood Reza Atai http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0656-212X

References
AbuSa’aleek, A. O. (2014). A review of emerging technologies: Mobile assisted language learning
(MALL). Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 2(6), 469–475.
Agca, R. K., & Özdemir, S. (2013). Foreign language vocabulary learning with mobile technologies.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 781–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.
147
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 15

Alemi, M., Anani Sarab, M. R., & Lari, Z. (2012). Successful learning of academic word list via MALL:
Mobile assisted language learning. International Education Studies, 5(6), 99–109. https://doi.org/
10.5539/ies.v5n6p99
Anaraki, F. B. (2009). A flash-based mobile learning system for learning English as second language.
2009 International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, 1, 400–404. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICCET.2009.183
Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Prudencio, F. E. (2012). Facilitated immersion at a distance in second
language scientific writing. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in
academic societies (pp. 235–248). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780523873_014
Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of imple­
mentation studies 1994–2012. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 157–225.http://dx.doi.org/
10125/44344
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4),
344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.914539
Castañeda, D. A., & Cho, M.-H. (2016). Use of a game-like application on a mobile device to improve
accuracy in conjugating Spanish verbs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7), 1195–1204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1197950
Chen, C.-M., & Chung, C.-J. (2008). Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on
item response theory and learning memory cycle. Computers & Education, 51(2), 624–645. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.011
Chen, C.-M., & Li, Y.-L. (2010). Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting
effective English vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 341–364. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10494820802602329
Chwo, G. S. M., Marek, M. W., & Wu, W.-C. V. (2018). Meta-analysis of MALL research and design.
System, 74, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.009
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Corcoran, J. (2017). The potential and limitations of an intensive English for research publication
purposes course for Mexican scholars. In M. J. Curry & T. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing:
Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 217–232). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.
21832/9781783099245-021
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3587951
Coxhead, A. (2011). The Academic Word List 10 years on: Research and teaching implications. TESOL
Quarterly, 45(2), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.254528
Coxhead, A., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). The specialised vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In
J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.
252–267). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.020
Demouy, V., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). On the spot: Using mobile devices for listening and
speaking practice on a French language programme. Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance and e-Learning, 25(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2010.511955
Derakhshan, A., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2011). The impact of text-messaging on EFL freshmen’s voca­
bulary learning. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 39, 47–56.
EFL Technologies. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2020, from http://efltechnologies.com/
Eldridge, J. (2008). “No, there isn’t an ‘academic vocabulary,’ but . . . ”: A reader responds to K. Hyland
and P. Tse’s “Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’?”. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 109–113. https://doi.org/
10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00210.x
Farrell, P. (1990). Vocabulary in ESP: A lexical analysis of the English of electronics and a study of
semi-technical vocabulary (No. 25; CLCS Occasional Paper).
Flowerdew, J. (2015). Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and
related issues. Language Teaching, 48(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444812000523
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015
16 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2),
2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44244
Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21
(2), 3–17. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44607
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for
foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Grigoryan, T. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of iPad based language learning in the UAE
context. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02680513.2020.1718488
Huntley, H. (2006). Essential academic vocabulary: Mastering the complete academic word list.
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hwang, W.-Y., & Chen, H. S. L. (2013). Users’ familiar situational contexts facilitate the practice of EFL
in elementary schools with mobile devices. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 101–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.639783
Khazaie, S., & Ketabi, S. (2011). Contribution to vocabulary learning via mobiles. English Language
Teaching, 4(1), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p174
Lai, A. (2016). Mobile immersion: An experiment using mobile instant messenger to support
second-language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10494820.2015.1113706
Li, E. S.-L., & Pemberton, R. (1994). An investigation of students’ knowledge of academic and
subtechnical vocabulary. Proceedings of Joint Seminar on Corpus Linguistics and Lexicology,
Guangzhou and Hong Kong (Language Centre, HKUST, Hong Kong, 1994) (pp. 183–196).
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2020). Teaching English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP): A review of
language teachers’ pedagogical initiatives. English for Specific Purposes, 59, 29–41. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002
Lin, -C.-C., & Yu, Y.-C. (2017). Effects of presentation modes on mobile-assisted vocabulary learning
and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2016.1155160
Lin, -J.-J., & Lin, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 878–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588221.2018.1541359
Martínez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles:
A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.
2009.04.003
McLean, S., & Kramer, B. (2015). The creation of a new vocabulary levels test. Shiken, 19(2), 1–11.
http://teval.jalt.org/sites/teval.jalt.org/files/19-02-1_McLean_Kramer.pdf
Motallebzadeh, K., & Ganjali, R. (2011). SMS: Tool for L2 vocabulary retention and reading compre­
hension ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1111–1115. https://doi.org/10.
4304/jltr.2.5.1111-1115
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656
Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt &
M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge
University Press.
Nazari, M., & Xodabande, I. (2020). L2 teachers’ mobile-related beliefs and practices: Contributions of
a professional development initiative. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799825
Ono, Y., Ishihara, M., & Yamashiro, M. (2015). Blended instruction utilizing mobile tools in English
teaching at colleges of technology. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 192(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eej.22717
 OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 17

Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Sifaki, E., & Vidakis, N. (2018a). Evaluating moodle use via smart
mobile phones. A case study in a Greek university. EAI (European Alliance for Innovation) Endorsed
Transactions on Creative Technologies, 5(16), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.10-4-2018.156382
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Sifaki, E., & Vidakis, N. (2018b). Access moodle using smart mobile
phones. A case study in a Greek university. In A. L. Brooks, E. Brooks, & N. Vidakis (Eds.),
Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and innovation (pp. 376–385). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76908-0_36
Rachels, J. R., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2018). The effects of a mobile gamification app on
elementary students’ Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 31(1–2), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1382536
Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & de Geus, K. (2011). Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with
fifth graders. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1334–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.
01.015
Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & Hoogendoorn, P. (2014). The added value of a gaming context and
intelligent adaptation for a mobile learning application for vocabulary learning. Computers &
Education, 76, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.006
Schmitt, D., & Schmitt, N. (2005). Focus on vocabulary: Mastering the academic word list. Longman.
Schmitt, D., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Focus on vocabulary 2: Mastering the academic word list. Pearson
Education.
song, Y., & Fox, R. (2005). Integrating m-technology into web-based ESL vocabulary learning for
working adult learners. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in
Education (WMTE’05), Tokushima, Japan (pp. 155–163). https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2005.38
Stockwell, G. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, &
M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 201–216).
Bloomsbury Academic.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Yang, J.-M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language
learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.09.001
Suwantarathip, O., & Orawiwatnakul, W. (2015). Using mobile-assisted exercises to support students’
vocabulary skill development. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 179–187.
Tabatabaei, O., & Goojani, A. H. (2012). The impact of text-messaging on vocabulary learning of
Iranian EFL learners. Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(2), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.
1923670020120802.1689
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x
Valipouri, L., & Nassaji, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry research
articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.
2013.07.001
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C.-S. (2012). Second language vocabulary growth. RELC Journal, 43(1),
113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439367
Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.
Wells, L. (2007). Vocabulary mastery 1: Using and learning the academic word list. University of
Michigan Press.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. Longman, Green & Co.
Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning?
A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2011.06.007
Wrigglesworth, J., & Harvor, F. (2018). Making their own landscape: Smartphones and student
designed language learning environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(4),
437–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1412986
Wu, Q. (2014). Learning ESL vocabulary with smartphones. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
143, 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.409
Wu, Q. (2015a). Designing a smartphone app to teach English (L2) vocabulary. Computers &
Education, 85, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.013
18 I. XODABANDE AND M. R. ATAI

Wu, Q. (2015b). Pulling mobile assisted language learning (MALL) into the mainstream: MALL in
broad practice. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0128762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128762
Xodabande, I. (2017). The effectiveness of social media network telegram in teaching English
language pronunciation to Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1347081. https://doi.
org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1347081
Xodabande, I. (2018). Iranian EFL Learners’ preferences of different digital technologies for language
learning beyond the classroom. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), 20–31.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.20
Zhang, H., Song, W., & Burston, J. (2011). Reexamining the effectiveness of vocabulary learning via
mobile phones. Turkish Online Journal on Educational Technology, 10(3), 203–214.