Learning vocabulary with the help of flashcard apps. A critical analysis of selected apps regarding vocabulary retention

Masterarbeit , 2023 , 81 Seiten , Note: 2,3

Amerikanistik - Linguistik

Since the use of flashcards and word lists to study vocabulary is common among language learners, this paper will briefly discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each.

However, research indicates that utilizing paper flashcards is one of the most effective methods for deliberately studying a language. Therefore, this paper mainly discusses how deliberate vocabulary learning using flashcards can aid students in systematically studying words according to a schedule. Leitner's Lernkartei is an example of a systematic approach to traditional vocabulary learning. Since the exponential growth of computer technology, systematic flashcard study has become more widespread, as evidenced by the emergence of digital flashcards such as Quizlet and Anki.

Some studies claim that using computer-based flashcards may enable students to learn more efficiently than paper-based flashcards since the former offer advantages that the latter do not, e.g., different order of items. With that said, the present thesis investigates the following research questions: How can flashcard applications facilitate learning and retention, and how has empirical research been implemented?

This paper provides a general overview of language learning and vocabulary acquisition to address this research question. Nation's framework illustrates several aspects of word knowledge that students should be familiar with. This paper solely addresses the form-meaning aspect of word knowledge and how or if flashcard applications can enhance learning and retention.

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

List of Figures

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Language Learning
2.2 Vocabulary Learning
2.3 Memory and Forgetting
2.4 Flashcards
2.5 Frameworks for Technology Integration
2.5.1 Evaluating SAMR and TPACK

3 Empirical evidence regarding flashcard learning
3.1 Retrieval
3.1.1 Testing Effect & Dropout
3.1.2 Retrieval Practice Effect
3.1.3 Retrieval Effort Hypothesis
3.1.4 Retrieval Frequency
3.2 Spacediearning
3.2.1 Absolute vs. Relative Spacing
3.2.2 Block Size
3.2.3 Distributed-Practice Effect
3.2.4 Within-Session-Spacing
3.2.5 Between-Session Spacing
3.3 Feedback

4 Flashcard App Analysis
4.1 How to select the appropriate App?
4.2 Criteria for Evaluating Flashcard Apps
4.3 Anki
4.3.1 Anki’s decks and flashcard creation
4.3.2 Anki’s daily limits
4.3.3 Anki’s deck overview
4.3.4 Anki’s learning phase regarding within-session-spacing
4.3.5 Anki’s learning phase regarding retrieval and retrieval frequency
4.3.6 Anki’s learning phase regarding between-session spacing
4.4 Quizlet
4.4.1 Quizlet’s flashcard creation
4.4.2 Quizlet’s study modes - Flashcard mode
4.4.3 Quizlet’s study modes - Learn mode
4.5 Comparing Anki and Quizlet regarding SAMR and TPACK

5 Conclusion

6 Bibliography

List of Abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of the two apps based on Nakata’s criteria

List of Figures

Figure 1: Nation’s Framework of Word Knowledge (Nation, 2019, pp. 16-17)

Figure 2: Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve (Baddeley, 1990, p. 236)

Figure 3: Leitner’s Lernkartei (Leitner, 1972, p. 65)

Figure 4: Puentedura’s (2006) SAMR model (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 434)

Figure 5: The TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63)

Figure 6: Posttest Results (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008, p. 967)

Figure 7: Posttest Results (Karpicke & Bauernschmidt, 2011, p. 1254)

Figure 8: Posttest Results (Kang et al., 2014, p. 1548)

Figure 9: Posttest Results (Cepeda et al., 2009, p. 242)

Figure 10: ISI, Rl relationship (Nakata, 2013, p. 187)

Figure 11: Rl and Feedback Relationship (Metcalfe et al., 2009, p. 1078)

Figure 12: Posttest Results (Metcalfe et al., 2009, p. 1082)

Figure 13: Anki's decks

Figure 14: Anki's flashcard creation

Figure 15: Anki's deck settings - card limit

Figure 16: Anki's deck overview

Figure 17: Sample set and Anki's labeling

Figure 18: Anki's study interface

Figure 19: Anki's rating options

Figure 20: Anki's mistake highlighting

Figure 21 : Anki's advanced interval values

Figure 22: Quizlet's flashcard creation

Figure 23: Quizlet's settings in flashcard mode

Figure 24: Quizlet's flashcard mode interface

Figure 25: Quizlet's review message

Figure 26: Quizlet's settings in learn mode

Figure 27: Quizlet's multiple-choice

Figure 28: Quizlet's progress summary

1 Introduction

Students are expected to master substantial quantities of information beginning in their youngest years of learning across all subjects taught at school. However, students have limited time and energy to learn essential knowledge (Pyc & Rawson, 2008, p. 1917). Therefore, students must manage their workload properly to learn and retain all course contents. Consequently, the ability to efficiently manage one’s workload becomes more and more vital (Pyc & Rawson, 2008, p. 1917). That is especially noticeable in language learning, where students have to retain vocabulary knowledge for the long rather than the short term. At the end of grade 10, students are supposed to reach proficiency level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in English (Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2022, p. 32). Although the CEFR does not specify a vocabulary list or quantify for each level, linguists supply estimations. Overall, for the B1 level, around 2000-word families are required (One, 2022).

However, students spend limited time in their L2 classes each week and need to be exposed to extensive L2 language input more often outside of class to acquire a sufficient vocabulary. If not, students may not be exposed to words frequently enough and their vocabulary knowledge may decline. While it is far more common to come across high-frequency words in class, it is more unlikely to encounter low-frequency words sufficiently to acquire the meaning of those words. As a result, learners must repeat low-frequency words more often than high-frequency words. Therefore, incidental vocabulary acquisition may not suffice and students should deliberately study vocabulary to acquire an adequate vocabulary foundation.

Furthermore, students do not appear to review previously taught information consistently. It is evident from students’ replies that their study schedules are determined mainly by emergencies, such as an imminent midterm test, rather than by methodical decision-making (Kornell & Bjork, 2007, p. 222). Therefore, it is essential to develop optimal learning procedures so that students will create long-lasting memories for the vast quantity of material they are supposed to learn (Pyc & Rawson, 2011, p. 1).

Since the use of flashcards and word lists to study vocabulary is common among language learners, this paper will briefly discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each. However, research indicates that utilizing paper flashcards is one of the most effective methods for deliberately studying a language (Nakata, 2015a, p. 15). Therefore, this paper will mainly discuss how deliberate vocabulary learning using flashcards can aid students in systematically studying words according to a schedule. Leitner'sLernkarteiIs an example of a systematic approach to traditional vocabulary learning. Since the exponential growth of computer technology, systematic flashcard study has become more widespread, as evidenced by the emergence of digital flashcards such as Quizlet and Anki (Ashcroft et al., 2018, p. 14). Some studies claim that using computer-based flashcards may enable students to learn more efficiently than paper­based flashcards since the former offer advantages that the latter do not (Nakata, 2011, p. 18), e.g., different order of items. With that said, the present thesis investigates the following research questions:How can flashcard applications facilitate learning and retention and how has empirical research been implemented?This paper will provide a general overview of language learning and vocabulary acquisition to address this research question. Nation's framework illustrates several aspects of word knowledge that students should be familiar with (Nation, 2013). However, it would be beyond the scope of this research paper to address every aspect of Nation's framework of vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, this paper will solely address the form-meaning aspect of word knowledge and how or if flashcard applications can enhance learning and retention.

First, this paper will address a problem that makes vocabulary learning difficult for many students: The rapid forgetting of previously learned material. This paper will demonstrate the findings of Ebbinghaus and his forgetting curve to show the nature of human forgetting Ebbinghaus (1885). This paper illustrates how traditional approaches, such as Leitner'sLernkartei Leitner (1972),attempt to counteract forgetting as represented by the forgetting curve. Leitner's method will be contrasted with digital flashcard apps and how they attempt to accomplish this throughout this paper.

Second, many educators do not always receive training in technology integration. This paper will introduce two frameworks for technology integration that can assist teachers in making the right decision, as using the right app is the first step to enhancing learning and retention. Later, these frameworks will be used to compare the apps Anki and Quizlet and illustrate how they can be utilized.

Third, this paper will discuss research regarding effective learning and retention of flashcards. Several fundamental principles that facilitate learning with flashcards have been identified. For instance, the testing and spacing effects are the most influential learning and retention principles. This paper investigates whether and how findings about effective flashcard learning have been incorporated into popular flashcard applications such as Anki and Quizlet.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Language Learning

According to Nation (2013), a well-balanced language course should consist of four major strands: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development. This principle states that an equal amount of time must be devoted to each of the four strands (Nation & Webb, 2011, p. 1). Approximately 25% of a language course's learning time should be devoted to each strand (Nation, 2013, p. 3).

The first strand is that of meaning-focused input, which means learners should have the opportunity to learn new language items through listening and reading activities in which the primary focus is on the content they are listening to or reading about (Nation, 2013, p. 2). It is advantageous that the learners are very familiar with most of the words in this strand. Nation (2013) states that as much as 98% of the running words should be known, or learning from language-focused input cannot occur.

The second strand is that of meaning-focused output. This strand suggests that learners should have the opportunity to develop their language skills through speaking and writing activities in which the primary focus is on the information being conveyed (Nation, 2013, p. 2). In terms of vocabulary, these productive activities can aid in the knowledge of previously encountered words. In addition, speaking and writing are beneficial for vocabulary development because students can focus on words in ways they cannot while listening and reading (Nation, 2013, p. 2).

The third strand is the strand of language-focused learning. This strand suggests that language learning is enhanced if there is a sufficient quantity of deliberate instruction and learning of language items (Nation, 2013, p. 2). In terms of vocabulary, this implies that a language course should include both direct teaching and direct study of vocabulary. The progressive, accumulative process of learning a word might be given a significant boost by the direct study of particular characteristics (Nation, 2013, p. 2). The last stand is the fluency development stand. During the implementation of this strand, students do not work with activities using new language items. Instead, they become increasingly proficient with the items they already know (Nation, 2013, p. 3).

In summary, a comprehensive English course should ideally include all four strands. There is no doubt that direct learning is highly effective and long-lasting for certain types of knowledge (Nation, 2013, p. 444). Therefore, direct vocabulary acquisition should be viewed as fitting within the 25% of language learning dedicated to language-focused learning. The three other strands should comprise 75% of the vocabulary development program (Nation, 2013, p. 2). The underlying idea is to improve each strand in a language course as much as possible. As mentioned earlier, the present thesis will mainly focus on one of the four strands: language-focused learning. The main focus is on principles implemented in vocabulary-learning apps that enhance language-focused learning.

2.2 Vocabulary Learning

The English language includes perhaps the most extensive number of words of any major language making it challenging to acquire an adequate vocabulary (Schmitt, 2007, p. 827). In several other languages, new words are formed through compounding or adding affixes. English employs comparable techniques to a certain extent, but learners must learn a significant number of words that are not systematically clear (Schmitt, 2007, p. 827). Therefore, most of the vocabulary has to be learned. Even educated native speakers will only know a small portion of the approximately 54.000-word families, probably as few as 20.000-word families (Schmitt, 2007, p. 828). As described above, learners trying to achieve the B1 level of the CEFR in English need to know around 2.000-word families to reach that level and even more when trying to achieve an even higher level. Since time is the most critical factor in every classroom and due to the number of words there are, the daunting challenge of teaching in an English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom will manifest when the teacher must determine which vocabulary to teach (Schmitt, 2007, p. 828). The best criterion available for selecting target words is the frequency of occurrence. Frequent English words are often the most helpful and the first to be learned by students (Schmitt, 2007, p. 828). The question is how to acquire this vocabulary as effectively as possible. In general, we may differentiate between two forms of vocabulary acquisition: Incidental and intentional. Incidental vocabulary happens as a by-product during language use without the intention to learn specific linguistic features, for example, when reading a book for pleasure. (Schmitt, 2010, p. 29).

Vocabulary learning is considered intentional when goal is to learn vocabulary but “with an explicit focus” (Schmitt, 2008, p. 341). Research comparing incidental learning to intentional vocabulary learning has demonstrated that intentional learning results in significantly more learning in a given time than incidental learning (Nation, 2013, p. 444). As stated above, effectiveness is the primary reason for an intentional focus on vocabulary. It almost always results in more significant and more rapid gains, with a greater likelihood of retention and development of productive levels of mastery (Schmitt, 2008, p. 341) and because it is a very successful way of learning it should be present and implemented in the most efficient manner (Nation & Webb, 2011, p. 30). However, in a language course both principles should be viewed as complementary; neither is superior to the other and both have their purposes.

Additionally, one must consider what it means to know a word. Is learning a word’s translation sufficient? Does it suffice to know the pronunciation and the spelling of a word? According to Nation (2019), knowing a word requires knowledge of different aspects and necessitates familiarity with several factors of word knowledge. Nation (2019) provides the following description of proper word knowledge (p. 16-17):

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Nation’s Framework of Word Knowledge (Nation, 2019, pp. 16-17)

Nation’s word knowledge aspects framework consists of 18 questions divided into three categories(form, meaning, and use).Each class includes both receptive and productive aspects of word knowledge. The categoryformcontainsspoken, written,andword parts.The components of the category meaning areform and meaning, concept and referents,andassociations.The final class consists ofgrammatical functions, collocations,and theuse of constraints.Basically, the more elements of a word’s meaning learners know, the more probable it is that learners will be able to utilize them appropriately in the proper contexts (Schmitt, 2007, p. 830).

The primary reason for a teacher’s interest in what it means to know a word is to guarantee a language course that promotes the development of all aspects of vocabulary knowledge (Nation, 2019, p. 15). Nevertheless, it is only possible to acquire some of the mentioned types of word knowledge concurrently because of the incremental nature of vocabulary acquisition (Schmitt, 2007, p. 830).

The incremental nature of vocabulary learning relates to the underlying mechanism of vocabulary acquisition itself. Therefore, certain types of vocabulary knowledge are acquired at different points in language learning, and various types are learned before others (Schmitt, 2007, p. 830). For instance, learners may understand the essential meaning of a word but not necessarily all of its other senses. According to Schmitt (2007), even a seemingly elementary skill like spelling is likely to be acquired incrementally. For example, learners might not know the spelling at first, then learn some letters, might learn the word phonologically, and finally, achieve the complete spelling of a word (p. 831 ).

Additionally, any word knowledge type can be receptively or productively known regardless of the degree of mastery of the others (Schmitt, 2007, p. 831).“Receptivecarries the idea that we receive language input from others through listening or reading and try to comprehend it,” andproductivecarries the idea that we produce language forms by speaking and writing to convey messages to others (Nation, 2013, pp. 46-47). Yet, Nation (2013) considers these phrases to be suboptimal. The labels receptive and productive are unsatisfactory since there are also productive elements in receptive abilities because meaning is created by reading and listening. He distinguishes the individual terms:meaning recognition, meaning recall, form recognition,andform recall.Fundamentally, receptive vocabulary use entails recognizing the form of a word while listening or reading (pp. 46-47).

In contrast, productive vocabulary use requires the desire to express meaning through speaking or writing, and retrieving and producing the appropriate spoken or written word form (Nation, 2013, p. 47). In vocabulary learning, it has been demonstrated that in order to gain receptive knowledge, it is best to study words receptively, while to gain productive knowledge it is best to learn words productively (Webb, 2009, p. 370). Therefore, practicing both receptively and productively is essential. However, if only one method is used learning words productively may be the most effective way (Webb, 2009, p. 370).

In sum, word learning seems to be a complicated and incremental process (Schmitt, 2007, p. 831). The terms receptive and productive apply to the different aspects of Nation’s framework and are part of the incremental word learning process. Furthermore, findings indicate that learners must practice words both productively and receptively in order to acquire adequate word knowledge in both contexts.

2.3 Memory and Forgetting

The preceding section illustrates the number of aspects of word knowledge a student must gain to become a credible English speaker. While students attend school and get English input from various sources, their word knowledge increases with time. However, all students encounter difficulty in language learning; human nature tends to quickly forget previously acquired knowledge making vocabulary learning a dire task. Leitner (1972) describes it as:“Denn das Kernstück, dieHauptmühe, dieSchwerarbeit des Lernens ist nicht (wasallenfalls spielerisch erledigt werden kann) die erste Besichtigung des Lernstoffs, sondern der unermüdliche Kampf gegen menschliche Vergesslichkeit“(p. 47). In light of this, it is essential to seek solutions to this human phenomenon, which will be discussed in the following chapters.

Since vocabulary learning involves learning and remembering words, it makes sense to investigate how long people retain information or how quickly people forget. Baddeley (1990) describes the human memory as follows: “The time at which we are most aware of our memory is when it fails” (p. 235). Since the groundbreaking work of Ebbinghaus (1885), scientists have investigated human learning and memory. Hermann Ebbinghaus was the first individual to methodically plot what is now known as the forgetting curve (Baddeley, 1990, p. 235). He was interested in how well and for how long information memorized remains stored in memory, so in his study he aimed to determine the relationship between retention and time since learning (Murre & Dros, 2015, p. 1).

In his experiment, Ebbinghaus used only himself as a subject (Ebbinghaus, 1885, p. VI). To answer his research question, Ebbinghaus memorized sequences of meaningless syllables. These syllable sequences contained three letters containing two consonants and a vowel in the middle (Ebbinghaus, 1885, p. 30). Ebbinghaus picked nonsensical syllable sequences for his experiment because they provided specific benefits. By utilizing the meaningless content, no unintended associations were created, such as might occur when using specific verses in poetry. These would be more easily recalled because of particular associations one makes, which might skew the outcomes (Ebbinghaus, 1885, pp. 31-32). In brief, by employing this strategy Ebbinghaus attempted to be as objective as possible in his study. He then repeated lists of 13 syllables until he was able to recite them without mistakes on two consecutive learning sessions (Baddeley, 1990, p. 235). All of his created lists and syllables were completely randomized (Ebbinghaus, 1885, p. 30). Ebbinghaus recorded the number of times he required to go through a list on each try. After a predetermined amount of time, such as 20 minutes, 31 days, etc., the list was retrieved. He consistently saw an imperfect recall on the initial memory test, indicating that forgetting had occurred (Baddeley, 1990, p. 235). He then recorded the number of attempts required before the list could be recalled again. Ebbinghaus referred to the variance in the number of learning passes as savings (Murre & Dros, 2015, p. 3). “Savings is defined as the relative amount of time saved on the second learning trial as a result of having had the first” (Murre & Dros, 2015, p. 3). For instance, assume that 25 repetitions of a list are required to achieve twice-perfect recall and that 20 repetitions are required to relearn it after one day. That is five rehearsals less than the original 25; 20% were saved compared to the initial 25 rehearsals by relearning. If it takes the same amount of time to relearn the list as It did first to learn it, then there the saving is zero. If the list is fully remembered during the second trial (i.e., no forgetting), then the savings is 1 or 100 percent (Murre & Dros, 2015, p. 3). This proportion of savings can now be shown on a graph, which depicts Ebblnghaus’s forgetting curve.

illustration are not included in the reading sample

Figure 2:Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve (Baddeley, 1990, p. 236)

As seen in Figure 2, forgetting resembles a logarithmic curve. Initially, forgetting occurs quite rapidly, but as time passes the rate of forgetting decreases (Baddeley, 1990, p. 236). Although the curve depicts the link between time saved and information retained over time, which indicates that forgetting has occurred, it can be generalized how much forgetting happens overtime (Leitner, 1972, p. 61). The forgetting curve of Ebbinghaus shows that after twenty minutes (1/3 hour, as shown in Figure 2), roughly sixty percent of learned information can be recalled. After sixty minutes, only 45%, after twenty-four hours, 34%, and after six days, around 25%.

Based on Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve, It Is evident that the majority of forgetting happens Immediately after learning and that as time passes, the rate of forgetting slows. It Is evident from this Information that learners must repeat their vocabulary.

2.4 Flashcards

Using wordlists and flashcards Is one of the most widespread ways of learning vocabulary (Nakata, 2008, pp. 3-4). Especially for homework, learners very often utilize flashcards for memorization (Kornell & Bjork, 2008, p. 125). A word list Is a piece of paper that contains L2 terms along with their L1 meanings or translations. Flashcards on the other hand, are a deck of cards with the L2 word on one side and its L1 translation or definition on the other (Nakata, 2008, p. 4). Learners frequently use flashcards to remember course content, by which they attempt to recall information from a question on one side of the card and then confirm the proper response on the other (Pyc & Rawson, 2008, p. 1918). For example, recalling an L2 term by viewing its L1 counterpart or vice versa. Focused, deliberate learning with word cards is an efficient method for rapidly expanding vocabulary size (Nation, 2013, p. 445). That may explain why flashcards are such a prevalent and well-liked learning tool. Word lists may also aid in efficient vocabulary development, but it carries a few drawbacks that word cards do not. List learning is not desirable if the list's order cannot be altered easily (Nation, 2013, p. 437). When things are given in a series, the first and last few items are often recalled better than the ones in the middle, a phenomenon known as the serial position effect (Nakata, 2015c, p. 423). Furthermore, learners may have no trouble recalling the item when it is offered within the list, but they have difficulty when it is presented outside the list (Nakata, 2008, pp. 6-7).

Learning vocabulary using flashcards has greater benefits than learning with lists. Since this paper is about digital flashcard learning in apps, the emphasis will be on working with flashcards. Therefore, the following chapters will mainly discuss vocabulary learning and retention regarding flashcard learning.

Regarding Ebbingshaus' forgetting curve, forgetting remains an issue irrespective of which learning technique is more effective. Therefore, the challenge lies not only in how to learn most effectively but also how to prevent forgetting in the most logical and time-efficient manner (Leitner, 1972, pp. 54-55). The forgetting curve shows that after a more extended period, only about twenty percent of the learned material remains intact (Leitner, 1972, p. 62). Even though Ebbinghaus worked with meaningless syllables, this also applies to meaningful information. Important information is lost as quickly as the non-sense syllables of Ebbinghaus (Leitner, 1972, p. 62). Leitner (1972) demonstrates the following issue: When an adult is faced with the challenge of retaking theAbitur,which he accomplished decades ago, he is likely to recall only a little more than 20% of the content he learned at the time (p. 62). If you knew which 20% of newly acquired information is retained, you could dedicate the remaining time to the remaining 80% that is not kept (Leitner, 1972, p. 63). Since it is impossible to predict which 20% of the knowledge will stay in the memory after a more extended amount of time, and it is illogical to wait for a longer time to find out, a method must be devised (Leitner, 1972, p. 63). Leitner proposes a technique in which not all learning material must be continuously repeated. The time-consuming process of identifying the material that remains in the memory after a long period is also solved (p. 63). As previously stated, forgetting occurs quite quickly at first, but the rate of forgetting decreases over time. Based on this information, Leitner (1972) says that information has to be revised more frequently initially and much less as time passes (p. 64). Furthermore, repeating all the information over and over is still avoided by using this method. Only poorly remembered information is repeated regularly (Leitner, 1972, p. 64). Leitner refers to the system that enables this as theLernkartei.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: Leitner's Lernkartei (Leitner, 1972, p. 65)

In this method, as in usual flashcard learning, learners study a deck of cards containing L2 words while attempting to recall their meaning. If it cannot be remembered, the student flips the card over and looks at the translation (Nation, 2001, pp. 467-468). That is how Leitner (1972) explains his method to work: After creating 30 to 40 flashcards, learners place them in the first tray. They now glance at the front of the flashcard and attempt to recall the translation, as you would when traditionally using flashcards. If you know the answer the card is placed in the second tray; if you do not know the answer, the card is placed at the back of the stack (pp. 65-67). This strategy separates the flashcards you have memorized from those you must review. Then, only the cards that learners still remember are put into tray two. All remaining flashcards in tray one must be repeated (Leitner, 1972, p. 67). That’s the advantage of this method; the difficult-to-remember words must be repeated multiple times before they may be transferred to tray two, and the easy words are separated early on (Leitner, 1972, p. 68). The learner continues this procedure by studying the flashcards from tray one and creating additional flashcards learned in tray one. Eventually, students will have studied so many cards that tray two will be filled (Leitner, 1972, p. 68). The cards in tray two were not repeated for a while, and according to the research of Ebbinghaus, the process of forgetting continues for an extended period. Even though the cards were initially easy to learn and were transferred to tray two, many of these cards will be forgotten (Leitner, 1972, pp. 68- 69). That is why compartment two is only two centimeters wide. Not too much time should pass before the cards are repeated since initial forgetting is relatively high (Leitner, 1972, p. 69). The cards the learner remembers will now be placed in tray three, while the other cards the learner could not recall will be returned to tray one; these cards are considered new (Leitner, 1972, p. 69). In general, all words one knows for sure transfer to the next tray, while all vocabulary that one does not know or does not know with absolute certainty remains in tray one or must be returned there (Leitner, 1972, p. 70). According to Leitner (1972), flashcards should be firmly maintained and not easily forgotten after passing through tray five (p. 71).

With his flashcard approach, Leitner has established a system that can counteract the problem of forgetting. Not only has he ensured that unfamiliar vocabulary is repeated regularly, but he has also established a mechanism for repeating vocabulary at increasingly longer intervals. That is because learning material is easier to remember and simpler to retain when repetitions are spaced out over a more extended period of time (Nation, 2001, p. 114). With his method, Leitner discusses additional benefits that only a computer could otherwise provide. He adds that the flashcard is incredibly inexpensive while the computer is quite costly (Leitner, 1972, p. 73). In addition, one may carry the flashcard at all times and, for instance, use it to pass the time in the waiting room that would otherwise be lost (Leitner, 1972, p. p. 104). That might have been the case when the book was published in 1972, but this has changed since the exponential growth and development of computer technology. Computers have become a fundamental component of our life. Almost everyone today possesses a computer in the form of a smartphone, with which all the benefits Leitner outlined can be utilized, in addition to other benefits that will be discussed throughout this paper. The introduction of digital flashcards is one way that technology has impacted the field of L2 vocabulary acquisition (Ashcroft et al., 2018, p. 14). Most educators instinctively realize the benefits of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and attempt to incorporate these technological advancements into their teaching techniques (Ashcroft et al., 2018, p. 14). However, due to the quick rate of technological advancement, relevant research and associated pedagogy sometimes lag behind. Consequently, instructors may not have access to a theoretical framework (Ashcroft et al., 2018, p. 14).

2.5 Frameworks for Technology Integration

Since numerous digital flashcard applications are currently available (Nakata, 2011), and “digital technologies are ever-changing, not always predictable, and can take on many forms” (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 433), deciding which application to use in class can be a challenging task. TPACK and SAMR are two distinct implementation methods for technology. They aid educators in determining which software is most
beneficial for classroom integration, especially since instructors frequently receive inadequate training. Unfortunately, many teachers' professional development methods take a one-size-fits-all approach to technology integration, despite the reality that instructors work in varied teaching and learning environments (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 62). As a result, there is not one best way to integrate technology into the classroom. Instead, integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter in specific classroom settings (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 62). In order to improve L2 vocabulary learning and retention, it is necessary to choose a flashcard application that incorporates the majority of the empirical findings surrounding flashcard learning that will be reviewed in this study.

SAMR is a taxonomy developed by Puentedura (2006). The SAMR model, depicted as a ladder, is a four-level framework for selecting, using, and evaluating technology (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 434). According to Puentedura, the framework enables educators to advance from lower to higher levels of teaching with technology, which leads to improved teaching and learning (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 434). Figure 4 depicts the four stages of the SAMR model: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. While the lower stages are improved by technology integration, the higher stages transform tasks in ways that would be impossible without technology integration (Wilke, 2016).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 4: Puentedura’s (2006) SAMR model (Hamiltonet al., 2016, p. 434)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 5: The TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63)

Besides theSAMRmodel, theTechnological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK)can also be utilized as guidance for technology integration in class (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This framework contains three key knowledge components that must be implemented to improve technology-based instruction and learning: content, pedagogy, and technology. The connections between and among these bodies of knowledge are represented byPCK(pedagogical content knowledge),TCK(technological content knowledge) andTPK(technological pedagogical knowledge). The interaction of content knowledge, technology, and pedagogy is described asTPACK. TPACKdefines “truly meaningful and deeply skilled teaching with technology” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 66), or in other words: How can technology be utilized effectively in the classroom, and in what subject can the use of technology enhance teaching (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 66)?

2.5.1 Evaluating SAMR and TPACK

Both the SAMR and the TPACK framework can help educators to facilitate the use of technology in the classroom. Still, some important distinctions and limitations should be considered while employing either framework. In their review, Hamilton et al. (2016) discuss three shortcomings of the SAMR model: the absence of context, its hierarchical structure, and the emphasis placed on product over process. The SAMR model's lack of context stands out when comparing the two frameworks, represented by the dashed lines in the TPACK model. Models that do not account for context can overgeneralize their recommendations and disregard the complex school environments in which technology integration occurs (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 436). For instance, an activity may rank higher on the SAMR ladder, but it may not be practically and educationally feasible if the teaching environment is not considered (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 436).

That leads to the next issue that Hamilton et al. (2016) address in their review. In the SAMR framework, the emphasis remains on the stages of technology use that educators should align themselves with to progress along the SAMR ladder (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 437). As a taxonomy, the SAMR model supports the idea that educators utilize technology more successfully when they use modification or redefinition instead of substitution or augmentation (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 437). These hierarchical representations might lead to the notion that the upper levels are perceived as more desirable than the lower ones (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 438). Consequently, a taxonomy such as the SAMR model is predictable because of its linearity and starkly contrasts with the dynamic processes they aim to depict (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 438).

Finally, the last issue raised relates to product over process. SAMR highlights technologies educators should use to progress further on the hierarchical continuum, giving technology precedence over good teaching (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 439). Consequently, even though technology integration appears to occur at a higher level, the process of student learning may not be enhanced and may even be hindered by the emphasis on a technology-based product (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 438). Therefore, incorporating technology should focus on enhancing and supporting student learning instead of employing specific tools (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 438).

In contrast to the SAMR framework, which appears to be more prescriptive and disregards the complexity of the classroom environment, the TPACK framework is more descriptive regarding technology integration. Both models can assist educators in determining what and how to integrate technology into their classrooms. Despite the limits of the SAMR model, the SAMR model can still be used as a reference, whereas TPACK attempts to consider all significant aspects of teaching. Therefore, both frameworks should be regarded as complementary, as no one framework fits all situations.

[...]

• Hochschule: Universität Siegen
• Note: 2,3
• Autor: J. San (Autor:in)
• Erscheinungsjahr: 2023
• Seiten: 81
• Katalognummer: V1376399
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346912138
• Sprache: Englisch
• Schlagworte: Anki, Quizlet, Vocabulary, Retention, Spaced Repetition, Retrieval, Vokabellernen, Digitales Vokabellernen, Schule, Englischunterricht, Englischvokabeln, Karteikartensystem, Vokabeln, Digitale Medien im Unterricht, SAMR, TPACK, Vokabelheft, Spaced Learning, Fremdsprachenunterricht, Vokabellernen im Unterricht