Using a Digital Flashcard Application to Improve Vocabulary Mastery among Elementary EFL Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v9i3.31555Keywords:
EnglishCard, digital flashcard, vocabulary mastery, English for young learnersAbstract
Vocabulary instruction at the elementary level in Indonesia often remains decontextualized and insufficiently aligned with learners’ cognitive and affective needs, resulting in low engagement and limited vocabulary comprehension. To address this issue, this study investigated the effectiveness of the Englishcard digital flashcard application in enhancing fourth-grade students’ vocabulary mastery. It explored students’ perspectives on its use in vocabulary learning at a private primary school. This study employed a quasi-experimental design with a mixed-methods approach. Forty-four fourth-grade students were selected through purposive sampling and divided into an experimental group (n = 20) that received vocabulary instruction using the Englishcard application and a control group (n = 20) that received conventional instruction using English textbooks. The treatment was conducted over eight instructional meetings. Quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-tests and analyzed using SPSS 26, including tests of normality, homogeneity, and independent-samples t-tests. Qualitative data were obtained through open-ended interviews with students in the experimental group and analyzed using content analysis to examine perceived opportunities and challenges of the application. The quantitative findings revealed a significant improvement in vocabulary mastery among students taught using the Englishcard application, with a Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.000 (< 0.05), indicating that the application was practical in improving students’ vocabulary achievement. Qualitative findings further showed that students perceived Englishcard as supporting personalized learning, engagement, flexible access, and diverse learning styles. Nevertheless, challenges related to repetitive activities, motivation, and technical barriers, such as internet connectivity, were also identified. the findings suggest that the Englishcard application is an effective supplementary tool for vocabulary instruction when supported by appropriate teacher guidance and infrastructure, offering pedagogical implications for elementary EFL vocabulary learning in similar contexts.
References
Adelson, J. L., McCoach, D. B., Rogers, H. J., Adelson, J. A., & Sauer, T. M. (2017). Developing and applying the propensity score to make causal inferences: variable selection and stratification. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01413
Andriani, M., Sunardi, N., & Drajati, N. A. (2024). Looking for a fun way to learn English vocabulary? Discover the magic of gamification with digital flashcards. Voices of English Language Education Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v8i2.26810
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. -J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., De Boeck, P., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C., . . . Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Castellano-Risco, I., Alejo-González, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. M. (2020). The development of receptive vocabulary in CLIL vs EFL: Is the learning context the main variable? System, 91, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102263
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Cham, H., Lee, H., & Migunov, I. (2024). Quasi-experimental designs for causal inference: an overview. Asia Pacific Education Review, 25(3), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-09981-2
Chen, R. W., & Chan, K. K. (2019). Using augmented reality flashcards to learn vocabulary in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1812–1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854028
Cheng, J., & Matthews, J. (2016). The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing, 35(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216676851
Cornesse, C., Blom, A. G., Dutwin, D., Krosnick, J. A., De Leeuw, E. D., Legleye, S., Pasek, J., Pennay, D., Phillips, B., Sakshaug, J. W., Struminskaya, B., & Wenz, A. (2019). A review of conceptual approaches and empirical evidence on probability and nonprobability sample survey research. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(1), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz041
Criado, R. (2023). Patterns of textbook use in EFL: Adaptation techniques and their effects on form-focused and meaning-focused instruction. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 13(06), 924–972. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2023.136054
Dizon, G., & Tang, D. (2017). Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary. The EuroCALL Review, 25(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.6964
Dubiner, D. (2017). Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching. ELT Journal, 71(4), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx008
Ebadi, S., & Bashiri, S. (2018). Investigating EFL learners’ perspectives on vocabulary learning experiences through smartphone applications. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 126–151.
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fadhilawati, D., Ulum, B., & Rachmawati, D. L. (2022). Implanting vocabulary for long terms memory through memrise and quizlet applications. JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia), 11(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v11i1.29504
Gentles, S., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2373
Geoghegan, L. (2023). The effect of CLIL on productive thematic vocabulary. International Gentles, S., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2373
Gläser-Zikuda, M., Hagenauer, G., & Stephan, M. (2019). The potential of qualitative content analysis for empirical educational research. Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.1.3443
González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2018). Word Knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy057
Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., & Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20903302
Guerrettaz, A. M., Engman, M. M., & Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12691
Guerrettaz, A. M., Mathieu, C. S., Lee, S., & Berwick, A. (2022). Materials use in language classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 55(4), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444821000021
Halamish, V., & Elias, D. (2022). Digital versus paper-based foreign-language vocabulary learning and testing: A study-test medium congruency effect. Computers & Education, 190, 104606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104606
Hanusz, Z., & Tarasińska, J. (2015). Normalization of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality. Biometrical Letters, 52(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/bile-2015-0008
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2014). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736
Jafarigohar, M., Divsar, H., & Etemad, P. (2022). The effect of CLIL context on the primary education EFL receptive and productive lexical growth. Language Teaching Research, 29(3), 1114–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221078997
Khan, R. M. I. (2022). The use of Flashcards in teaching EFL vocabulary in online learning. Register Journal, 15(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v15i1.109-125
Kilic, M. (2019). Vocabulary knowledge as a predictor of performance in writing and speaking: A case of Turkish EFL learners. PASAA, 57(1), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.57.1.6
Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. a. J., Argamon, S. E., Baguley, T., Becker, R. B., Benning, S. D., Bradford, D. E., Buchanan, E. M., Caldwell, A. R., Van Calster, B., Carlsson, R., Chen, S., Chung, B., Colling, L. J., Collins, G. S., Crook, Z., . . . Zwaan, R. A. (2018). Justify your alpha. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0311-x
Lange, K., & Matthews, J. (2020). Exploring the relationships between L2 vocabulary knowledge, lexical segmentation, and L2 listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 723–749. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.4
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2024). What factors contribute to the proficiency of young EFL learners in primary school? Assessing the role of CLIL intensity, extramural English, non-verbal intelligence and socioeconomic status. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241292277
Li, Z., & Li, H. (2021). Making materials use in language classrooms visible: Evidence from two university English teachers in China. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1870802
Lin, C., & Yu, Y. (2016). Effects of presentation modes on mobile-assisted vocabulary learning and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1155160
Maher, K., & King, J. (2023). Language anxiety and learner silence in the classroom from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190523000077
Masrai, A. (2019). Vocabulary and reading Comprehension revisited: Evidence for High-, Mid-, and Low-Frequency Vocabulary knowledge. SAGE Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019845182
Matović, N., & Ovesni, K. (2021). Interaction of quantitative and qualitative methodology in mixed methods research: integration and/or combination. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1964857
McKim, C. (2023). Meaningful Member-Checking: A Structured Approach to Member-Checking. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(2), 41-52.
McKim, C. A. (2015). The value of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 677–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263114000825
Nakata, T., & Elgort, I. (2020). Effects of spacing on contextual vocabulary learning: Spacing facilitates the acquisition of explicit, but not tacit, vocabulary knowledge. Second Language Research, 37(2), 233–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320927764
Namaziandost, E., Sawalmeh, M. H. M., & Soltanabadi, M. I. (2020). The effects of spaced versus massed distribution instruction on EFL learners’ vocabulary recall and retention. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1792261
Nicmanis, M. (2024). Reflexive Content analysis: an approach to qualitative data analysis, reduction, and description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236603
Nicmanis, M. (2024b). Reflexive Content analysis: an approach to qualitative data analysis, reduction, and description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236603
Özden, M. (2024). Content and thematic analysis techniques in qualitative research: purpose, process and features. Qualitative Inquiry in Education Theory & Practice, 2(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.59455/qietp.20
Rathert, S., & Cağaroğlu, N. (2022). Theorising textbook adaptation in English language teaching. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1287
Ratnasari, A. G. (2020). EFL Students’ challenges in learning speaking Skills: A case study in Mechanical Engineering Department. Journal of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.5145
Rofiq, N. A. (2023). Pictures as media to teach English language for young learners. Leksikon Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Sastra Dan Budaya, 1(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.59632/leksikon.v1i1.139
Setiawan, M. R., & Wiedarti, P. (2020). The effectiveness of Quizlet application towards students’ motivation in learning vocabulary. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i1.15359
Şi̇mşek, A. S. (2023). The power and type I error of Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Welch’s t, and student’s t tests for Likert-type data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1183622
Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Yang, J. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001
Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and Pitfalls of multimedia and Interactive features in Technology-Enhanced Storybooks. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989
Tanaka, M. (2017). Examining EFL vocabulary learning motivation in a demotivating learning environment. System, 65, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.010
Tembe, J., & Reed, Y. (2016). Languaging in and about Lunyole: African Storybook materials as a catalyst for re-imagining literacy teaching and learning in two Ugandan primary schools. Reading & Writing, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v7i2.115
Teng, M. F. (2022). Incidental L2 vocabulary learning from viewing captioned videos: Effects of learner-related factors. System, 105, 102736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102736
Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, L., Nuñez, O., Singh, A., & Schulze, L. (2015). “That sounds so cooool”: entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.236
Tsai, Y., & Tsai, C. (2018). Digital game-based second-language vocabulary learning and conditions of research designs: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education, 125, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.020
Van Parys, A., De Wilde, V., Macken, L., & Perez, M. M. (2024). Vocabulary of reading materials in English and French L2 textbooks: A cross-lingual corpus study. System, 124, 103396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103396
Waluyo, B., & Bucol, J. L. (2021). The impact of gamified vocabulary learning using Quizlet on low-proficiency students. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 22, 164-185.
Wiśniowski, A., Sakshaug, J. W., Ruiz, D. a. P., & Blom, A. G. (2019). Integrating probability and nonprobability samples for survey inference. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(1), 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz051
Wu, Q. (2015). Designing a smartphone app to teach English (L2) vocabulary. Computers & Education, 85, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.013
Yakubu, F. M., & Obafemi, K. E. (2023). Systematic review of multiliteracies skills, multimodal tools to facilitate learning in early childhood classroom. Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi Pendidikan, 10(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.21831/jitp.v10i4.66343
Yowaboot, C., & Sukying, A. (2022). Using digital flashcards to enhance Thai EFL primary school students’ vocabulary knowledge. English Language Teaching, 15(7), 61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n7p61
Zhao, T., & Macaro, E. (2014). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: teachers’L1 use orL2‐only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12080
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Haryati Haryati, Muhammad Zacky Al Faraby
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with VELES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citations of published work.
VELES is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
