Editor

JLLT edited by Thomas Tinnefeld
Showing posts with label 81 Hawes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 81 Hawes. Show all posts
Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 10 (2019) Issue 1, pp. 29-43



English Vocabulary Apps for Classroom Use?
Results of an Empirical Survey

Danijela Ikonic & Thomas Hawes (both Munich, Germany)

Abstract
Mobile apps (applications) are currently taking over as our most frequently used tools in many situations. As teachers we need to consider whether they ought to be employed in the language classroom, allowed in tests, or referred to for homework. This paper focuses on an experiment in a German vocational school to answer these questions by gauging, firstly, students’ performance in a vocabulary test, with and without access to an app named Quizlet and, secondly, their attitudes to the use of apps for English vocabulary learning via two questionnaires. Responses to the latter showed that every single pupil in the survey uses a mobile phone daily and that a clear majority in every class except one think it would make sense to use their mobile phones to help them with school subjects, primarily because these may be enjoyably employed anywhere, anytime. They feel that apps on their mobile phones motivate better than traditional paper-based classroom materials, especially when there is a game-like element. As for the test, the general improvement in results obtained with the app suggests that it could at the very least be used more extensively in schools. In the test, curiously, the youngest pupils failed to improve their results with Quizlet, but almost every other student category did benefit considerably and there is reason to believe that it would be worth exploiting such apps for vocabulary learning, testing and perhaps for other school subjects in the future.
Keywords: Apps, vocabulary learning, mobile, English


1 Introduction
The use of apps by students is arguably an issue which has not yet received sufficient attention. For while “there is a plethora of available computer assisted vocabulary programs and mobile assisted vocabulary learning apps” (Cojocnean 2015: 148), “there is a paucity of research on mobile platforms that enhance learning” (Deng & Trainin, 2015: 49). With each passing day, it seems, there are new apps that offer to help with learning vocabulary in a foreign language, often with push notifications, gamified motivational techniques, and bots that help you practise without being judgemental (Ekstein 2017). This begs the question whether teachers ought not to consider making use of them in the classroom without further ado, lest we miss an excellent opportunity to motivate our students and improve their knowledge of the subject(s). Although much of the effort involved in producing and improving these apps will inevitably be aimed at making money out of this new phenomenon, there is huge excitement at the possibilities, especially amongst young people. What would we therefore ideally like to see develop in the world of teaching apps?
Our intuitional suggestions based on classroom experience as to what might constitute an ‘ideal’ language learning app would include at least the following properties: they should be 1. fun, 2. practical, 3. provide choice (e.g. to go at your own pace), 4. ‘cool’ (certainly something more attractive than traditional vocabulary sheets), 5. allow for social contact, 6. be free of charge, 7. include game-like elements (e.g. points won or lost depending on whether your answer is correct), 8. include the possibility of pronunciation practise (not just definitions), 9. leave you in peace to learn without constantly pressuring you to upgrade to a payable version, 10. employ useful rather than random language (e.g. colloquial, if needed), 11. be presented in context and 12. involve grammar (and how it is employed to put chunks of language together, instead of isolated words, as typically presented in vocabulary lists), as well as further aspects of language.
In this paper, we concentrate on vocabulary because so many linguists have demonstrated its importance in foreign language acquisition (e.g. McCarthy & O’Dell 2017, Hoey 2005, Carter 1998). Endless opportunities for improving one’s vocabulary are being or will be provided by mobile devices in conjunction with apps that can be downloaded to them. But the situation is a challenge for teachers generally more familiar with conventional methods. Many doubtless avoid engaging with the issue altogether, either not feeling comfortable with the technology or harbouring doubts as to whether it is appropriate for school. They may, for instance, assume that when pupils engage with their mobile devices, it is purely for entertainment, to escape from school-type activities rather than to indulge in them. After all, most language teachers could probably endorse an impression that learning vocabulary is not exactly one of their students’ favourite activities.
Nevertheless, we undertook the experiment with Quizlet, optimistic that its game-like exercises, carried out on mobile phones (which at the time of writing, in 2019, could almost be referred to as extensions of students’ arms) would inspire our participants to engage more readily with vocabulary learning. Confirmation or disconfirmation would be in the students’ test scores and stated opinions. Our nominal assumption was that there would be no significant difference between the test results achieved by students with access to Quizlet and without it. In other words, we began with the null hypothesis that no significant differences in performance would be found. Our research questions were the following:
  1. Does access to an app such as Quizlet have any effect on students performance in a vocabulary test in English in 10th and 11th grades and, if so, are the results better with or without it?
  2. What correlations are there, if any, among students’ results and a) their genders, b) their ages, c) their chosen professions and d) their ethnic backgrounds?
  3. If there are differences in results, depending on whether or not students use Quizlet, what conclusions can be drawn, if any, for the teaching of vocabulary, taking into account the pupils’ feedback?

2 Background and Theory
There are many ways of learning vocabulary. Well-known teaching methodology books, such as Hartmann (2014), Thaler (2012), Hedge (2000) and Ur (1996) distinguish Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) from Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), which is our topic here:
Using a vocabulary learning app could be either a cognitive or a metacognitive strategy. If the learner uses it to learn vocabulary, then it is a cognitive strategy, but if the learner uses it independently only to improve the knowledge he/she has of some words, then it is a metacognitive strategy. (Cojocnean, 2015:145)
In practice, this may be in line with Krashen’s (1982) distinction between learning and acquisition, the first of his “Five Hypotheses About Second Language Acquisition”, generally accepted in the world of applied linguistics today. More specifically, Krashen’s first hypothesis posits that acquisition (the development of language competence through the need to communicate, in a natural, implicit or informal manner, without any instruction per se) is more likely to be successful than learning (formal instruction in explicit rules, typical of most traditional classrooms), which is apt to be unnatural, unenjoyable and inauthentic, leading to blockages of all sorts in the learner.
More recently Deng & Trainin (2015) discuss the relative efficacy of intentional versus incidental learning and suggest that, because of the sheer size of the available English vocabulary, intentional learning can at best scratch the surface:
In all likelihood, language instructors are able to teach only a small fraction of expected words in class and the rest need to be learned through exposure to language experiences outside the classroom” (Deng & Trainin 2015: 51)
This appears to confirm Krashen’s theory that acquisition trumps learning. On the other hand, Cojocnean found in her Romanian students
a certain reluctance for using personal handheld devices for educational purposes, [and] perception of handheld devices and computers as content delivery tools rather than potential metacognitive tools (Cojocnean 2015:149)
Would this reluctance be mirrored in the present study with German pupils? Another vital question for us was which app we should use to test these claims? Therefore a brief review of a few of the better known apps follows, in alphabetical order:
Babbel (2017) is one of the most popular language apps, usefully providing courses in certain less sought-after languages, as well as the typical list, and not requiring the internet. Courses are said to be produced by a team of professional linguists. Unfortunately, this means the app is not free, costing around $10 per month, but it also means that the user has no annoying adverts or suggestions that you ‘upgrade’. Babbel’s plan of action is based on oral communication, with grammar tutorials as support. New language is introduced in real-world contexts while, for the highly motivated, there are ‘Babbel challenges’, or intensive language learning activities with a time limit.
Busuu (2015) claims to have scores of millions of users. It provides courses in twelve languages (all Indo-European, except for Chinese and Japanese), with exercises in the four language skills, plus pronunciation. It was rated “best app of 2015” by Google. Busuu describes itself as “the language-learning equivalent of pen pals” (busuu.com) because it is social-oriented. Native speakers correct your language attempts and you then return the favour for people learning your own first language. Unfortunately, the user is constantly bombarded with irritating prompts suggesting he or she subscribe to a ‘premium’ version.
Drops (2018) is marketed as an app for short attention spans, as the user is expected to devote only five minutes per day to learning a language. There are 31+ languages to choose from and the material is free of charge, in the form of short word games, with vocabulary items linked to pictures. It is designed to make language learning fun and not to feel like classroom teaching. Its 2600-word list, divided into 120 ‘word buckets’ is said to cover 90% of the lexis employed in everyday communication. Feedback is provided, telling the learner how well he or she is progressing.
Duolingo (2013) is an attractively packaged, free app for young people, with a cute owl as mascot, again employing modern game-like methods that make it extremely popular. It is, however, criticised for its robot-like voice, restricted list of languages and inflexible choice of ‘correct’ answers which cannot recognise synonymous alternatives. Moreover, it appears to be built around grammatical categories like phrasal verbs, rather than communication-based. On the plus-side, there is a competitive element, if one learns the language concurrently with school friends or family, in that people’s progress can be compared through Facebook.
Memrise (2013) claims to be based on science, fun and community. Its scientific credentials are that its experts employ the latest neurological research findings to provide ‘mems’ to jog the memory (linking new lexical items to the known, through mnemonics, pictures etc), motivating tests and timed planning. This app relies on game-like elements to make learning fun and there is a Memrise community so that people can help each other and need not learn in isolation.
Mondly (2017) similarly describes itself as a virtual language learning teacher, based on game-like activities and chat-bot technology. Like Memrise, it employs SRAs (spaced repetition algorithms), suggesting it also relies on the latest neurological research relevant to language learning. Mondly used to pride itself on its particularly clear, professional native speakers, but has recently begun to use a computer voice instead. Major criticisms of the app include the fact that it attempts to teach (e.g. French) nouns without their gender and that mistakes have been made by the app with the various parts of speech. Users’ feedback does not sound encouraging.
By now, the reader may feel that the vocabulary apps reviewed are beginning to resemble each other in the claims they make and their weaknesses. With Krashen’s point that acquisition trumps learning in mind, messenger-apps like WhatsApp and Signal could be more effective for improving your English if used to communicate with Anglophones of other nationalities (Rau 2018). Nevertheless, the app we chose for the experiment was Quizlet. We did so for the following reasons. Quizlet:
  • can be used free of charge and has none of the typical adverts for supposedly superior paying versions.
  • is simple and unpretentious, not requiring international contacts nor training for our participants before the research could start.
  • appears to be relatively little known, so should not be burdened by pre-formed opinions that might bias the participants’ responses.

3 Methodology

In the course of her regular teaching and testing duties at the Vocational School (official German name: Berufschule für Fertigungstechnik), Munich, in 2018, one author performed a mixed methods experiment with respect to the Quizlet vocabulary learning app. The quantitative part comprised an English vocabulary test in two stages with students allowed to use Quizlet in the first of these but not in the second, while the qualitative part was covered by two questionnaires. Help with learning the vocabulary for the test in Quizlet took the form of pairs of flash cards imported into Quizlet from Schäfer (2013).
Our test participants were 140 10th and 11th grade students between the ages of 15 and 28, 133 of whom filled in the questionnaires. The most common age was 17 (32 students), followed by 16 (27 students), 18 (18) and 19 (16). All students were apprentices in the German Dual System, i.e. they alternately attended school and a workplace, their main chosen professions being mechanical fitters (55 students), industrial mechanics (44), precision mechanics (16) and production mechanics (12). About a quarter (33) of all participants classified themselves as migrants.
After receiving permission from the Upper Bavarian Government to enlist the vocational school students as participants – a sensitive issue in view of recent data protection legislation –, we developed two questionnaires (see Appendices). The first of these questionnaires asked for students’ personal details such as age, class and intended profession, while the second one sought their opinions of Quizlet. Ethical considerations were met by students’ signing a Statement of Agreement on our information sheet and by anonymising all participants with a complex code. The next task was to produce vocabulary sets, pairing lexical items in the two languages. To create these sets we had to register for a Quizlet account, whereas access to use them, as the students would do in the experiment, was uncomplicated (itinerary: google-search-set-teacher’s name).
Based on the sets we entered into Quizlet, several tests of approximately 50 words each were created for each profession, adapted to specific workplace needs and complying with the Ministry’s syllabus guidelines. For example, one group of mechanical fitters (mechatronics students) in the 10th grade, for whom English is compulsory, used the sets ‘General Workshop’ and ‘Measuring & Gauging’, while another had ‘Maintenance’ and ‘Assembly’. Test types varied, including a) writing the English translation for a German word, b) multiple choice (choosing the correct word from four possibilities) and c) true / false (pairs of German and English words, where the students had to decide whether an English word was a correct translation of a German lexical item. Despite the apparent complexity of the testing, the sole issue was in each case whether the participants obtained a higher percentage mark with or without having access to Quizlet. In the second test they would not be allowed access to Quizlet. Variations in the precise test type and content are beyond the scope of this study.

4 Results
Our first research question - whether access to Quizlet would have any effect on students performance in the vocabulary test and, if so, whether results would be better with or without it - can be answered immediately in the affirmative. Test results were different, depending on whether access to the app was permitted. A small majority, 52.6% of the participants, performed better with the help of Quizlet, 27.1% performed worse, and for 20.3% the scores were unchanged. Therefore, where access to the app had any effect on test scores, it helped in roughly two out of three cases. The broad effects of access to Quizlet are outlined in Table 1 below:
Figure 1: Effect of Quizlet on Test Scores
Research Question 2 sought possible correlations among students’ results and various descriptors. To begin with gender, amongst male pupils thanks to Quizlet the test results improved, as opposed to deteriorated, in a ratio of nearly 2:1 (63 vs 36), the scores of 25 pupils remaining the same. Unfortunately the number of female participants was too small to be significant, at just 9, though their improvement rate with Quizlet (7/9 bettering their scores, not a single one deteriorating) was such as to spark curiosity on this point.
Our participants’ ages ranged from 15 to 28. Altogether there were 13 different age groups, of which 10 improved their results with Quizlet, two obtained inferior results, and one group saw no change. Most interestingly, the one group that obtained uniformly worse results (7 out of 7) using Quizlet was the youngest group of all, viz. the 15-year olds. This seems counter-intuitive, given that we might assume the youngest should be the most comfortable using such technology. Therefore confirming or disconfirming this specific result could potentially be a priority in any follow-up research. It would be a set-back if a similar trend were to be found.
Figure 2: Results by Age

Remembering that the study was undertaken in a German vocational school, the question of whether the app favours pupils destined to practise certain professions over others has obvious importance. Unfortunately, there was an in-built imbalance amongst the various categories, mechanical fitters, the largest group, comprising 40 pupils, while the tool-maker category comprised just a single individual and is thus omitted from the charts. Nevertheless, findings are indicative, 77.5% of the mechanical fitters obtaining improved results with the app and 64.7% of the second biggest group, industrial mechanics, also faring better with Quizlet. In all, three out of six professional groups were helped by Quizlet, two obtaining the same results.
Figure 3: Results by Profession
A couple of the categories we started with proved uninteresting in terms of their results with or without Quizlet, namely a pupil’s school year and the number of years he or she had previously studied English. On the other hand, the success or failure of pupils with an immigration background, i.e. born outside Germany or having non-German parents, is currently a ‘hot’ topic, especially when related to politics and the large-scale immigration into Germany of 2015. Therefore it was interesting to note that out of 33 participants who stated they had such a background, 18 (54.5%) improved their results thanks to Quizlet, while only 7 (21.2%) saw their scores deteriorate, 8 (24.2%) seeing no change. Pupils with an immigration background thus improved their results with the app in a ratio of more than 2.6 : 1. In other words, the app helped them more often, relatively, than it did for all pupils in general. This is a result well worth following up on, given the political urgency inherent in the issue:
Figure 4: Results by Ethnicity

5 Discussion

The findings of this study are based, firstly, on the results of the vocabulary test, addressed above and, secondly, on the responses to our questionnaires. We will now discuss the latter in light of the test results. To begin with, it is important to realise that every single one of the 133 respondents claimed they used their mobile phone on a daily basis. The average time spent using it varied from one class to another, ranging from a class average of 2.4 to 4.4 hours per day, all pupils stating that it was longer at weekends. Taking all participants together, the average individual time spent on a mobile phone was nearly three and a half hours per day. Time spent with a computer, on the other hand, was considerably less, at not quite one and a half hours per day. This reconfirms that the mobile phone has replaced the computer as the young people’s medium of choice, with 33.1% of all pupils saying they no longer use a PC at all.
84.2% of respondents had never heard of Quizlet before taking part in the experiment, suggesting that education professionals should not assume there is nothing we can teach the young generation about the new media. Only 9.8% of pupils stated that they use any other apps for studying, either. Thus it appears young people simply do not associate apps with education, though various language apps were mentioned once each and four students employed an app to help them learn the meaning of road signs for the German driving test.
Nevertheless 66.2% of the participants considered it would make sense to employ apps for their school work and would, therefore, presumably welcome the use of apps in class. This may mean that they simply need to be informed of the possibilities, to be introduced to particular apps and encouraged to try them out in school. However, 20.3% were unsure about the use of apps in class and 13.5% stated that it was not a good idea, often producing reasonable arguments, for instance that they might be distracted from school work by incoming WhatsApp messages. This is in fact the leading objection, mentioned by 15.8% of the respondents. Other disadvantages included the feeling that mobile phones can lead to compulsive habits or already take up too much of pupils’ time (3.0%). Some participants (5.3%) considered that they could study more efficiently using traditional vocabulary lists or that they preferred noting lexis down by hand to reinforce their memorizing. One participant explained that he was simply unused to studying with apps.
There was also criticism specific to Quizlet, in particular that it is inflexible, recognizing only one answer as the ‘correct’ lexical item when, in fact, there are perfectly acceptable synonyms, or that if the correct answer is entered, but misspelled, the app records this as an incorrect answer. Quizlet unnecessarily penalises minor variations such as the presence or absence of a hyphen where the answer would otherwise be correct. One participant sensibly proposed that
symbols and typos should not be decisive [as to whether an answer is correct]. With verbs the English to should not be counted [in the answer]1
Since the caps lock is permanently on, moreover, students do not learn when to use capitals and when not – a point in which English differs from German. Finally, there may sometimes be technical problems. For instance, although users are supposed to be able to click on ‘next’ for additional practice, this function apparently does not always work.
Having said all that, the reasons given in favour of employing Quizlet in school appear to carry more weight. The most common argument, mentioned by 57.1% of all participants, is that it is easy and practical. Pupils have their mobile phones with them at all times so why not harness them for their education, instead of just having fun. Mobile phones being relatively small and light, they easily fit into pockets and can be used for revising school work, for instance while commuting on public transport. Possibly the best point in favour, cited in various forms by 19.5% of pupils, is that studying with language apps is simply more fun than using traditional methods.
Asked whether they would use Quizlet in future to help with vocabulary, 60.9% of the participants said they would, and a further 5.3% said that they might. Asked if they would consider employing Quizlet to help them with other school subjects, 47.4% of the participants said that they would. Subsequently asked which functions of Quizlet they found especially useful, the most frequent response (12.0%) was to cite the test function generally. For example, 6.0% of pupils mentioned it in connection with learning formulae which they used in their jobs, 4.5% with translating technical terms for tools and gadgets. A further 6.0% were interested in Quizlet for learning additional foreign languages.
As to the important question of how they thought Quizlet affected their motivation, 74.4% of the participants replied that their motivation improved, as against a mere 1.5% who considered that Quizlet demotivated. On the positive side, several pupils mentioned Quizlet’s game-like qualities, one explaining “everyone likes playing games”2. Another said that the app would be even better if students could see how well their school friends, or potential opponents, were scoring, suggesting that it should be expanded into a competitive quiz-event. One particular comment was specific on this point:
[Quizlet] motivates very well because it has similarities with a quiz game and you don’t get the feeling that you are being forced to learn3.
However, it is difficult to gauge how far it is the game-like aspects and how far the challenge itself that is motivating. The latter is underlined by the comment
[my motivation was] good [because] there is an encouraging comment at the end of each round4.
which can be linked to Quizlet’s providing a reward system for successful mastery of the learning task. One comment read
the app shows which tasks have been completed successfully5.
Additional comments stated that Quizlet “encourages you more to learn”6, “[is more motivating] than learning from a book”7, is “more fun than vocabulary cards”8, is “uncomplicated”,9 “especially effective because the word is tested in multiple ways”10, and “does not stress you out”11. Another opinion was that it is easier to learn this way than having to read long texts so if, as most teachers claim, pupils are reading less and less these days, this may be significant. One participant summed up appropriately with the comment:
Quizlet is a simple and playful way to learn for pupils who find it hard to remember vocabulary items12.
A last positive comment: “Rarely have I learned such a lot by heart with so much pleasure and motivation”13.
A few respondents considered that Quizlet neither really helped nor hindered, assessing the app as having both advantages and disadvantages. Some are just not terribly interested in school subjects. Memorable comments include:
on a mobile phone you don’t take things too seriously14..
and
hardly anyone is motivated to learn [for school]15.
Surprisingly, on the other hand, book worms do still exist! Statements include:
But books are also quite good if you wish to learn the language in your free time16.
On a final cautionary note:
[the motivational benefits of Quizlet are] initially great but … in the long run it won’t be any better than other learning methods17.

6 Conclusion

This study has provided a small but tangible piece of evidence that access to an app such as Quizlet can help students with learning vocabulary, since most participants’ grades improved with it. To now respond to our third and final research question as to what further conclusions may be drawn, students were, firstly, enthusiastic about the employment of mobile apps in the classroom, seeing them as a motivational factor. While Quizlet itself was suitable for our research purposes, it was criticised for numerous weaknesses, suggesting that the enthusiasm was not addressed at the particular app but, rather, at what students saw as an appropriate up-to-date methodology. This stance can probably be summed up fairly in the words of one participant, “we are living in a digital age, so shouldn’t we also be studying in [a digital age]?!”18 It is moreover endorsed by current pedagogical theory, of which the following comment by Hockly is representative:
The future is increasingly mobile, and it behooves us to reflect this in our teaching practice. (Hockly 2013: 83)
Secondly, respondents provided a salutary reminder that their studies should be enjoyable and that this is key to fostering positive motivation, perhaps too easily forgotten in the face of grade pressure and time constraints. It should come as no surprise that students were underwhelmed by traditional methods involving paper vocabulary lists, evidenced by such comments as “learning vocabulary items from a sheet is not popular”19. Using an app, on the other hand, was perceived as fun – “yes, [with the app] it makes sense because it is fun”20.
Thirdly, pupils made it clear that fun for them does not necessarily mean non-work activities, though we as teachers might often get this impression. Rather, they stressed potential gaming aspects of learning. On the one hand, they evoked as enjoyable the notion of a challenge in learning, as in striving to improve themselves and their test scores. Naturally, this should be accompanied by positive feedback (“motivation through praise”21) from the app and the teacher, and of course students should not be overtaxed. On the other hand, they cited the fun in competing against school friends, as in an on-going quiz game. So in this sense, the frequent obsession with grades could be channelled into useful motivation.
As for the apps themselves, they need to be improved so that all buttons function correctly. They should be capable of recognising synonyms of lexical items, of distinguishing between entirely wrong answers and correct ones with relatively trivial omissions such as hyphens and, ideally, to allow competing school friends access to each others’ results. These weaknesses aside, few reservations were cited by respondents, though a couple did state that they preferred traditional methods. In fact the general tenor of our questionnaire data suggest that the more mobiles and apps could be employed, the better. Representative comments include: “I would [like to] use Quizlet in all my school subjects, because it is helpful and can be employed any time”22 and “I feel that mobile phones should be used more often in the classroom”23
One final word goes to a pupil’s very reasonable remark – “I think the best thing would be to combine the app with traditional ways of studying”24.

References
Byram, M. (2004). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Cojocnean, D. (2015). High school students’ use of digital tools for learning English vocabulary in an EFL context. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 144-149). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi. org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000324.
Deng, Q. and Trainin, G. (2015). Learning Vocabulary with Apps: From Theory to Practice. The Nebraska Educator 29. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebeducator/29 (26-03-2019).
Duffy, J. (2018). The Best Free Language-Learning Apps of 2019. PCMag UK. https://uk.pcmag.com/education/116058/the-best-free-language-learning-apps (27-04-2019).
Ekstein, N. (2017). Here is the best language learning app for you. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-21/five-language-learning-apps-tested-and-reviewed (26-03-2019).
Fitzpatrick, A. (2017). Letter of Recommendation: Duolingo. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/magazine/letter-of-recommendation-duolingo.html (27-04-2019).
Gangaiamaran, R. and Pasupathi, M. (2017). Review on Use of Mobile Apps for Language Learning. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. India. 12(21), 11242-11251.
Hartmann, A. & Dithfurt, M. (2014). Introduction to English Language Teaching. 1st ed. Stuttgart: Klett.
Haß, F. (2006). Fachdidaktik Englisch: Tradition, Innovation, Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hellstern, R. (2019). Meine Erfahrungen mit Babbel – Test 2019. Auswandern Handbuch.de https://www.auswandern-handbuch.de/sprachen-lernen-mit-babbel/ (27-04-2019).
Hockly, N. (2013). Mobile learning. ELT Journal, Vol. 67, 80-84.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
McCarthy, M. & O’Dell, F. (2017). English Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rau, F. (2018). Apps zum Lehren und Lernen im Unterricht. In Pädagogik, Vol. 10(18), 50-52.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2018). Can you learn a language with an app? What the research says. The Conversation.com (UK). http://theconversation.com/can-you-learn-a-language-with-an-app-what-the-research-says-96307 (27-04-2019).
Schäfer, W. (2013). Metal Milestones: Englisch für Metallberufe. Ernst Klett Verlag.
Seave, A. (2016). In The Battle Of Online Language Learning Programs, Who Is Winning? Forbes Media & Entertainment.                                                                      https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2016/09/23/in-the-battle-of-online-language-learning-programs-who-is-winning/#7e86f8ea578b (26-03-2019).
Thaler, E. (2012). Englisch Unterrichten. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Tobies, V. (2019). 8 Best Alternatives to Busuu. Alternative.me. https://alternative.me/busuu (26-03-2019).
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Authors:
Danijela Ikonic
Städtische Berufschule für Fertigungstechnik
Deroystraße 1
80335 München
Germany


Dr. Thomas Hawes
Fremdspracheninstitut der Landeshauptstadt München
Amalienstraße 36
80799 München
Germany
_______________________________

1German original: “Sonderzeichen und Tippfehler sollten nicht ausschlaggebend sein. Bei Verben 






sollte das to im Englischen nicht gewertet werden.”


2German original: “Alle wollen gerne spielen.“


3German original: “Motiviert sehr, da es Ähnlichkeit mit Quizspielen hat und man nicht das 









Gefühl  hat, gezwungen zu sein zum Lernen.“


4German original: “Gut, am Ende jeder ‚Runde‘ kommt ein motivierender Spruch.“.


5German original: “Man sieht die erreichten Ziele in der App angezeigt.“


6German original: “regt mehr an zu lernen.“


7German original: “höher als aus dem Buch zu lernen.“


8German original: “macht mehr Spaß als Karteikarten.“


9German original: “unkompliziert“


10German original: “besonders effektiv, da das Wort mehrmals auf verschiedene Weise abgefragt 








wird.”


11German original: “Man wird nicht überfordert.“


12German original: “Für Schüler, die sich beim Merken der Vokabeln schwer tun, ist Quizlet eine 








einfache und spielerische Möglichkeit zu lernen.“


13German original: “ich habe selten so gerne / viel und motiviert auswendig gelernt.“


14German original: “Im Handy nimmt man alles nicht so ernst.“


15German original: “Motivation fürs Lernen hat fast niemand.“


16German orginal: “Jedoch sind Bücher auch ganz gut, wenn man in seiner Freizeit die Sprache 








lernen will.“


17German orginal: “hoch (anfangs) aber ... auf lange Sicht ist diese nicht höher wie (sic!) bei 








anderen Lernmethoden.“


18German original: “Wir leben im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung, also wieso nicht auch beim Lernen!“


19German original: “Die Vokabeln auf nem Blatt zu lernen, ist nicht der Hit.“


20German original: “Ja, es ist sinnvoll, da es Spaß macht.“


21German original: “Motivation durch Lob”


22German original: “Quizlet würde ich für jeden Fach anwenden, da es hilfreich ist und jede Zeit 








benutzbar ist.“


23German original: “Ich finde, dass das Handy im Unterricht öfter benutzt werden sollte.“


24German original: “Ich finde es am Besten, wenn man die App mit dem herkömmlichen Lernen 








kombiniert.”