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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
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.”
3German
original: “Motiviert sehr, da es Ähnlichkeit mit Quizspielen hat
und man nicht das
Gefühl hat, gezwungen zu sein zum Lernen.“
10German
original: “besonders effektiv, da das Wort mehrmals auf
verschiedene Weise abgefragt
wird.”
wird.”
12German
original: “Für Schüler, die sich beim Merken der Vokabeln schwer
tun, ist Quizlet eine
einfache und spielerische Möglichkeit zu lernen.“
einfache und spielerische Möglichkeit zu lernen.“
16German
orginal: “Jedoch sind Bücher auch ganz gut, wenn man in seiner
Freizeit die Sprache
lernen will.“
lernen will.“
17German
orginal: “hoch (anfangs) aber ... auf lange Sicht ist diese nicht
höher wie (sic!) bei
anderen Lernmethoden.“
anderen Lernmethoden.“
22German
original: “Quizlet würde ich für jeden Fach anwenden, da es
hilfreich ist und jede Zeit
benutzbar ist.“
benutzbar ist.“
24German
original: “Ich finde es am Besten, wenn man die App mit dem
herkömmlichen Lernen
kombiniert.”
kombiniert.”