ISSN 1799-2591

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 2365-2373, November 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1211.17

Computer-Based Vocabulary Learning in the

English Language: A Systematic Review
D. Regina
Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, VIT University, Vellore, India

Anitha Devi. V
Department of English, School of Social Sciences and Languages, VIT University, Vellore, India

Abstract—The goal of this article is to assess the efficiency of computer-based vocabulary instruction in
English language classrooms and evaluate research on the usefulness of computer-based vocabulary
acquisition, particularly in English language classes. The articles for the systematic review were selected from
open-access databases. The present study adopts the systematic literature review (SLR) method to evaluate
studies from 2010 to 2020. A total of one hundred and fifty sources were selected and analysed. Finally, forty
articles were carefully chosen, focusing on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Computer-based, multimedia
and game-based vocabulary learning in English classrooms were the subjects of the study to address the
research questions. The findings indicate that computer-based vocabulary learning is a frequent and effective
approach to developing retention and learning new words. The study hopes that the suggestion is useful for
researchers involved in English vocabulary learning and that, for further research, well-designed experimental
studies can develop new options in learning vocabulary with the computer.

Index Terms—computer-based learning, technology, vocabulary learning, language learning, systematic

review

I. INTRODUCTION
The advancement of computers and smart technologies has widely influenced English language teaching and learning
in the last few decades. In the English language classrooms, instructors integrate computers, mobile phones and the
internet to teach all the skills. Numerous software and applications of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
are available online to enhance language learning. The increasing growth of CALL introduced approaches to English
vocabulary learning. Al-Jarf (2007) explained a few methods for teaching vocabulary using semantic mapping, reading
aloud, dramatizing, and teaching learners how to use online dictionaries and computers. CALL has been immensely
utilized in a virtual environment and holds the greatest potential for use in the field of education. Computer applications
are also widely used in the fields of psychology, medicine, science, games, and so on. In education, smart technologies
and computers are creating an impact among teachers to become more familiar with terms like the internet, satellites,
multimedia, educational games, electronic networks, virtual libraries, graphic information, science, and technology.
This systematic literature review aims to analyze the articles that particularly focus on CALL in teaching and learning
English vocabulary.
A. Literature Review
Computer-Based Learning (CBL) is used for educational purposes, and the computer hardware, software, peripherals,
and input devices are crucial components of the educational environment when using computers for language learning.
With the use of CBL, learners can learn informational representations to achieve their educational goals. Wilkins (1972)
states that "without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed” (p.111-112).
Learning vocabulary is a crucial part of learning a language. Learning new words helps students become better speakers,
writers, readers, and listeners. It also increases the learning comprehension and pronunciation of the learners. Without
knowing the correct pronunciation of the words, the learners assume the wrong pronunciation or think words have
incorrect meanings. The main issue in learning the target language is a lack of vocabulary because words in the
language convey meaning (Krashen, 1989). Assuming the wrong meaning or pronunciation of words is the biggest
mistake every language learner makes. To overcome this misconception, numerous studies on a variety of topics have
been carried out in language courses. Learning strategies have been implemented by language instructors and
researchers in the classrooms to develop the vocabulary of the students.
According to Davis (2006), technology has been incorporated into the language courses' curriculum. Since the end of
the 20th century, language learning has changed as a result of computer-mediated communication (CMC). With the
benefits of a computer, language classrooms are being used more for communication than for imparting information
(Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In the 21st century, using a computer to learn a second or foreign language has several
benefits. CALL supports autonomous language learning, where learners can learn independently. Technology, software,

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2366 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

and computer programmers empower students to work independently at any time or place with their learning materials
(Salaberry, 1999; Rost, 2013).
B. Research Question
The following research questions serve as a basis for this review:
RQ1. What is the educational context of the learners mentioned in the articles?
RQ2. Which computer software is most frequently used in the selected articles?
C. Objective
The primary goal of this article is to review publications on computer-based vocabulary learning that were published
from 2010–2020. It will also provide information about the specialists in computer-based vocabulary and activities used
in teaching vocabulary.

II. METHOD

A. Guidelines for Conducting Systematic Review

The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the research to conduct the systematic review (Liberati et al., 2009).
PRISMA helps the authors to conduct a proper review and to produce a systematic literature report of the study.
Eligibility criteria are vital in assessing the validity and applicability of articles in the review. Selected articles have
been processed under two criteria, criteria for inclusion and criteria for exclusion. Inclusion criteria have the
characteristics of the paper that must be included in the study. Exclusion criteria have the characteristics of excluding
the paper that must not be included in the study.
B. Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria (IC) 1: The paper has the following terms in the title:
Vocabulary Learning (or)
Computer (or)
Multimedia (or)
Online Game;
IC2: Conference proceedings (or)
Book chapters (or)
Journal articles;
IC3: The paper must be for language learners.
C. Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria (EC) 1: The paper is not open-source (not available online);
EC2: There is no emphasis in the paper on teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign
Language (EFL).
EC3: The paper makes no mention of vocabulary learning.
EC4: Reviews, reports, and theses were not considered for systematic review.
D. Search Strategy
According to the search strategy, the data was collected from open-access databases and journals. The collection of
articles started with three main aspects: "Vocabulary Learning" AND "Second Language Learning" AND "Foreign
Language Learning.” However, to make a high-quality study, a more comprehensive search has been made in searching
the articles with the synonyms and words with the following search string.
"Vocabulary Learning" OR "Vocabulary Instruction" OR "Computer-Assisted" OR "Computer Instructed" OR
"Multimedia" OR "Online Games" AND "English as Second Language Learning" OR "English as a Foreign Language."
All the related research papers were collected using the year limits. The papers published from 2010–2020 were
selected and used in the writing of this systematic literature review article.
E. Quality Assessment
In the review process, journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers were included. Review articles, theses,
and reports were excluded from the process. To avoid duplication, the papers were checked keenly for duplications.
Moreover, the abstract, instrument used in the study, and conclusion were screened down to check the available records.
Even references and citations were checked.
F. Study Selection
In the eligibility criteria for every paper, the title, abstract, and keywords were recovered. In this phase, every paper is
involved in the process of reading in a standardized manner. If the paper does not have content, it was involved in the
phase of text analysis. The main variables of the study are summarised in the table.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2367

Figure 1 PRISMA Table for Data Collection

G. Data Synthesis
The papers were analysed to extract information about the activities and the year of publication. At first, a total of
one hundred and fifty articles were identified in the open-access databases and no articles were identified from
registered databases. After the identification process, the duplicate article was removed (n = 10) and none of the
automation tools identified the articles as ineligible. Records deleted for further causes are (n = 5). In a second phase (n
= 130), articles were screened but thirty articles were excluded based on title, source, and method used in the articles.
Later, an (n = 1) article report was not retrieved, and one hundred and two articles were assessed for eligibility. A last
manual search was conducted in several databases and journal sites to identify the articles. Finally, the search resulted
in forty articles for conducting the systematic review.
H. Data Collection Process
Considering a systematic literature review, related papers were retrieved from the databases. The considered
variables were the data, year of publication, and activities used in the article. The activities in the papers were analysed
to check whether they were computer-related or non-computer-related. Articles for the study were registered if used in
computer programs, computer software, or multimedia in the classrooms. In this review, important variables were
collected under the platform that the studies were conducted on, which was online software, computer applications, or
game applications. If the study does not involve computer-related things like mobile-assisted, robot-assisted, or other
research articles related to technology, it is rejected from this study. The following information was collected from the
articles: title of the article, year of publication, author’s name, CALL software or activities used in the study, and
conclusion of the study.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2368 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TABLE 1
STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Study Population CALL activities/ software used Outcome
in the study
Fatemeh Shoaei & Mohammad Alavi (2016) N=62 Multimedia annotations: CAL is an effective method of
Pre intermediate dictionary definitions and learning vocabulary.
translations- story reading along
with the audio.
Zuraina Ali et al. (2011) N=123 Fill- in- the-blanks and multiple- Dictionary strategy, contextual clues,
UG choice questions (vocabulary) and CALL increased long-term
retention.
Elke Peters (2019) N=142 Watching the video with On-screen imagery and on-screen text
Secondary subtitles increased word recognition and recall.
Arzu Mutlu & Eroz- Tuga (2013) N=48 E-learning diary, yack pack STG (Strategy Training Group)
intermediate (writing and discussion forum) students learned words better than
NSTG (Non-Strategy Training Group)
students.
Dr. Levent Cetinkaya & Dr. Sutcu (2019) N=112 WhatsApp Successful learning with multimedia
Secondary annotations.
Marlin Steffi Marpaung (2020) Multimedia tools: Instagram Learned vocabulary faster with
High school posts and PowerPoint retention.
presentations
Marc Ericson C. Santos et al. (2016) N=31 AR application and non- AR Using AR resulted in better retention
UG application among the students.
Daesang Kim & Dong-Joong Kim (2012) N=135 Small screen- iPod, medium The large screen multimedia
Middle school screen- smartphone, and large instruction helped the students to learn
screen- kindle words.
Bahman Gorjian et al. (2011) N=50 CDs and dictionaries Low achievers gained vocabulary in
Intermediate and retention but could not keep the recall
Pre-intermediate abilities.
Omer Esit (2011) N=42 Computer laboratory with YVZ Reading activities with YVZ (Your
Intermediate (Your Verbal Zone) Verbal Zone) have a positive effect on
learners’ vocabulary.
Raniah Kabooha & Tariq Elyas (2018) N=100 YouTube YouTube improved students’
intermediate vocabulary achievement
Elham Mahmoudi et al. (2012) N=30 Multiple-choice questions High attitude towards learning
PG vocabulary.
Somjai, Soontornwipast (2020) N=45 Vocabulary ability exercise Effectiveness in the instruction of
10th grade vocabulary learning.
Madhubala Bava Harji et al. (2010) N=92 Audio and video subtitles Subtitles resulted in better vocabulary
degree learning.
Huifen Lin (2015) N=100 “Trade Ruler” is a web-based Decreased cognitive load and
UG simulation game improved vocabulary recall.
Abdullah S. Aldera & Mohammed Ali N=50 Watching the animation with Annotations did not significantly
Mohsen (2013) UG annotation improve listening comprehension and
recall over time.
Abbas Ali Zarei & Mahboubeh Gilanian N=52 Video with audio and captions There are no significant differences
(2013) UG among the multimedia combinations
in L2 vocabulary.
Ninger Zhou & Aman Yadav (2017) N=72 Multimedia story reading, and Media has a strong interaction with
Preschool paper story reading. the target vocabulary.
Nasrin Ramezanali & Farahnaz Faez (2019) N=132 Glossed Words It provided insights into vocabulary
intermediate learning.
Takeshi Sato & Akio Suzuki (2010) N=24 Dictionaries 3D images developed from learners’
vocabulary.
Lu-Fang Lin (2010) N=82 Five English video lessons from Video increased incidental acquisition.
UG the 2006 CNN news archive
Merak Rahimi & Atefeh Allahyari (2019) Photostory 3 by Microsoft Impact on memory and cognitive
N=40 strategies.

Chih -cheng Lin & Yi-fang Tseng (2012) N=88 Moodle site Videos provide visual context for
High school difficult target words.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2369
Yavuz Samur (2012) N=22 ANT (animation + narration + Developed redundancy in learning.
UG text) and AN (animation +
narration) without on-screen text
Burcu Varola & Gülcan Erçetin (2016) N=90 Multiple-choice questions Reading had positive effects on incidental
vocabulary learning.
Michelle Mi-hee Choi (2011) N=300 JCross, JQuiz, JMix, JCloze, Increased memory
Preschool, middle, JMatch, JM
and high school
Xue Shi (2017) UG Multimedia based learning Better retention
materials
Mohammed Ali Mohsen (2016) N=43 YouTube Better retention
UG
lham Mahmoudia et al. (2012) N= 30 Websites Go4English.com, Promoted attitude in vocabulary learning.
PG Englishvocabularyexercises.com
and Englishlearner.com
Idée Edalati Shams (2013) N=10 Weblog Learners' autonomy knowledge increased.
Emine Turk & Gulcan Erçetin (2012) N=82 Website ‘‘what is up with the Reduced cognitive load and increased
High school weather?’’ learning.
Yagmur Ersoy Ozer & Zeynep Koçoglu N= 89 Quizlet Flashcard Maker Vocabulary learning and retention are
(2017) High school effective.
Jing Shao (2012) N=80 I Love English Vocabulary Attitudes toward multimedia software are
UG (ILEV) Software favorable.
Parviz Maftoon et al. (2012) N=40 VTS.S software Learners learned better through e-
Intermediate feedback and computerized dictionaries.
Nilüfer Bekleyen & N=9 Jing (computer program) Positivity towards vocabulary learning.
Adnan Yilmaz (2012) UG
Tomonori Ono (2017) N=26 Memrise Spaced Repetition Word length had an impact on memory
UG Software (SRS) retention.
Fatemeh Enayati & N=61
Gilakjani (2020) High school Tell Me More (TMM) software, Learners used words in different contexts
intermediate
Ebrahim Nejati et al. (2018) N=40 CAVI software, vocaboly Developed retention
Intermediate and
pre-intermediate
Jafar Eizadpanah & Mehdi Ghaedrahmat N=61 CAVL software, word wazir Developed learners' word knowledge
(2014) Intermediate
Franciosi (2017) N=84 Quizlet and the game energy Improved transferability of vocabulary
UG city

III. RESULTS

A. Distribution on a Year Base

The graph shows the number of studies conducted from 2010 to 2020. The total number of papers collected from
open-access databases and journals is shown in the graph. The year 2012 is at the top of the list with nine research
papers on computer-based vocabulary learning. The results show that the pedagogy of English language teaching has
improved due to the development of computer technology. The year 2017 has six papers, and the years 2013, 2016, and
2017 have the same five publications each year. The years 2010, 2018, and 2020 have three publications per year. The
less focused years for computer learning are 2014 and 2015, with two publications in each year. The year 2018 has the
highest number of publications in 2014, whereas 2015 has the lowest number of publications.

Figure 2. Distribution of Year of the Selected Papers

B. Educational Level of the Learners

The titles and abstracts of the articles were screened properly to determine the number of learners and the educational
level of the learners used in the study. Figure 3, mentioned below, provides the educational segment mentioned in the

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2370 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

articles. The educational levels mentioned in the articles are undergraduates (35%), school (22%), intermediate level
students (20%), postgraduate (5%), intermediate (5%), pre-intermediate (5%) and (8%) unclear educational levels
mentioned in the articles. In a few articles, there is no specification of the educational level, qualifications, or the total
number of students. The important point to be noted is that, in the American context, middle school or high school are
mentioned as sub-levels. While outside the American context, secondary education covers the entire post-elementary
level.

Figure 3. Educational Level of the Learners in the Selected Papers

C. Software Used in the Articles

The major trend found in assessing the articles on vocabulary learning and teaching is computer software, multimedia,
and other instructions. The final sample included forty studies. The studies related to this subject published before 2010
or after 2020 were not included in this study. Of the total forty articles, the majority of nineteen were based on learning
vocabulary with computer software. The participants of the studies were from middle school to postgraduate learners.
Playschool students were not involved in learning with computer software. The words included in the software were
mostly taken from the learners’ syllabus or academic word lists. The learners were given prior information about the
software before using it. This made the students learn new words using the computers. Numerous studies have been
conducted in the areas of vocabulary acquisition and computers. Duolingo and rosette stone are computer-based
software widely used in the process of teaching and learning. This systematic literature review gives insight into the
computer software used in the articles to teach vocabulary. Among the nineteen articles (47%), two articles deal with
the same computer software known as Quizlet. A digital flashcard, Quizlet, is used to teach second language vocabulary
to lower-level students. According to Ashcroft et al. (2016), "The effect of using digital flashcards on L2 vocabulary
learning compared to using paper flashcards at different levels of English proficiency” (p.14). Students with lower
levels of proficiency outperformed intermediate students. This proves that digital flashcards are more beneficial than
paper flashcards (Ozer & Zeynep Kocoglu, 2017). Quizlet is an online learning tool with game features. Using this
game-based method in his experimental study, Franciosi (2017) proves that computers in foreign language classrooms
benefit learners by learning vocabulary with transferability.
Multiple computer programs were used in the process of learning vocabulary. The researchers’ interest in gaining
knowledge through computer programs made them use a computer to learn new or unknown vocabulary. The software
in the articles contained new words, synonyms, antonyms, definitions, and examples of the vocabulary. These articles
were examined concerning the characteristics of the studies for meaningful processes and the practice of future research.
In the criteria of multimedia in vocabulary learning, seventeen articles (43%) were selected. Learning with multimedia
is learning words with text, animation, narration, and video. The multimedia study included reading stories, listening to
the audio, writing on the computer or manual, and recording the audio spoken by the learners. Among the total number
of articles, four (10%) were included in the website criteria. These articles were based on the vocabulary learned from
the website and weblog. "What’s up with the weather?" is an application of nine hundred and eighty words chosen from
a website (Turk & Gulcan Ercetin, 2012), or a weblog to post comments and write reflective essays (Shams, 2013).

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2371

Figure 4: Types of Papers Used in the Study

IV. DATA ANALYSIS

The researcher analysed the data to show the mean differences between the numbers of selected articles. To provide
details about the studies conducted in the field of computer-based English language teaching, data were presented in a
tabular column. The experimental and control groups of the study were examined to find the mean difference. The value
difference is listed in Table 2 to demonstrate the benefit of computers in English-speaking classrooms.
TABLE 2
DATA ANALYSIS
Study Participants Mean Standard Mean Standard Standard
(CG) deviation (EG) deviation error
(CG) (EG) differences
Enayati, F., & Gilakjani, (2020) 61 42.16 7.448 37.47 6.642 0.806
Kabooha & Elyas (2018) 100 31.3 9.2 46.5 8.6 0.6
Sato, T., & Suzuki, A. (2010) 24 0.504 0.067 0.519 0.057 0.01
Samur (2012) 22 4.00 1.000 6.91 1.514 -0.514
Jafar &Ghaedrahmat (2014) 61 11.3846 1.84015 16.2037 2.02987 -0.18972
Marpaung & Situmeang (2020) 30 73.80 17.697 70.83 16.968 0.729
Nejati, E., et al. (2018) 40 30.0667 3.69298 35.4667 3.13657 0.55641

V. DISCUSSION

A. Finding
This study has provided a systematic literature review of computer-based vocabulary learning at different educational
levels. This research emphasizes vocabulary learning in a computer environment, knowing the depth of computer
programs and their importance in academics. This can benefit the instructors who implement these strategies in schools,
colleges, and for academic purposes. Overall, the results suggest that computer-based vocabulary instruction benefits
students' growth in memory and greater performance at different educational levels. These findings provide evidence
that learning with a computer could be an effective educational tool. This study concludes that most of the studies have
post-tests and delayed post-tests to teach vocabulary among learners. Vocabulary learning is necessary for learning a
second language and a foreign language (Coady & Huckin, 1997; Harley, 1996; Nation, 2001). Learning vocabulary is
the biggest obstacle in learning the language. In language, words are used to convey meaning, and considering the
importance of words, it is gaining attention in the field of research (Krashen, 1989). The results of this research also
highlight that academic performance is high when CALL software and activities of vocabulary are implemented in
language learning. By using the computer, learners become more engaged and participatory than in the traditional
classroom.
B. Limitations
The research is limited to the selected articles from 2010-2020. The article’s content analysis is limited to two
research questions. Using multiple databases to collect the articles managed to gain sustainable results in finding the
articles. The area covered in the articles does not cover all languages, all fields of computer use, or all journals. It is
limited to the English language and computer-based vocabulary learning. Hence, the study has limitations in finding
comprehensive article searching procedures and analysis in writing this systematic literature review.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

2372 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

VI. CONCLUSION
The study highlights the benefits of computers in English-language classrooms. The research has implications for
future studies and analysis in English language learning. The study identifies the numerous computer tools and activities
that are successful in a teaching environment. However, the use of computers is crucial for creating a successful
learning atmosphere. The research explains the benefits of using computer-based activities and tools in English
vocabulary learning. Based on the data analysis of the papers, this article suggests that vocabulary learning is more
effective with the use of computers in English language classrooms.

REFERENCES
[1] Aldera, A. S., & Mohsen, M. A. (2013). Annotations in captioned animation: Effects on vocabulary learning and listening skills.
Computers & Education, 68, 60-75.
[2] Ali Mohsen, M. (2016). The use of computer-based simulation to aid comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(6), 863-884.
[3] Ali, Z., et al. (2011). The effectiveness of using contextual clues, dictionary strategy, and computer-assisted language learning
(call) in learning vocabulary. International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), 1(1), 136-152.
[4] Al-Jarf, R. (2007). Teaching vocabulary to EFL college students online. Call-EJ Online, 8(2), 1-13.
[5] Ashcroft, R. J., et al. (2016). Digital Flashcard L2 Vocabulary Learning Out-Performs Traditional Flashcards at Lower
Proficiency Levels: A Mixed-Methods Study of 139 Japanese University Students. The Euro CALL Review, 26(1), 14-28.
[6] Bekleyen, N. (2012). The impact of computer-assisted language learning on vocabulary teaching: JING and instant messaging.
Education Sciences, 7(1), 419-425.
[7] Cetinkaya, L., & Sutcu, S. S. (2019). Students’ success in English vocabulary acquisition through multimedia annotations sent
via WhatsApp. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 85-98.
[8] Choi, M. M. H. (2011). Effectiveness of Multimedia Program in Computer-assisted Vocabulary Learning. Journal of Digital
Contents Society, 12(1), 123-131.
[9] Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Davis, R. (2006). Utopia or chaos?: The impact of technology on language teaching. Teaching English with Technology, 6(4).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/DavisImpactOfTechnology.html.
[11] Eizadpanah., et al. (2014). Teaching vocabulary electronically: Does it work for Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Research
Journal of English Language and Literature, 2(4), 16-28.
[12] Enayati, F., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2020). The impact of computer assisted language learning (call) on improving intermediate efl
learners’ vocabulary learning. International Journal of Language Education, 4(2), 96-112.
[13] Ersoy ozer Y., & Kocoglu, Z. (2017). The use of quizlet flashcard software and its effects on vocabulary recall. In INTED2015
Proceedings, 61- 81.
[14] Esit, O. (2011). “Your verbal zone: an intelligent computer-assisted language learning program in support of Turkish learners'
vocabulary learning.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 211-232.
[15] Franciosi, S. J. (2017). The effect of computer game-based learning on FL vocabulary transferability. J. Educ. Technol. Soc.,
20(1), 123-133.
[16] Gorjian, B., et al. (2011). The impact of asynchronous computer-assisted language learning approaches on English as a foreign
language high and low achievers' vocabulary retention and recall. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 383-391.
[17] Harji, M. B., et al. (2010). The effect of viewing subtitled videos on vocabulary learning. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning (TLC), 7(9), 37-42.
[18] Harley, B. (1996). Introduction: vocabulary learning and teaching in a second language. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 53(1), 3-11.
[19] Kabooha, R., & Elyas, T. (2018). The Effects of YouTube in Multimedia Instruction for Vocabulary Learning: Perceptions of
EFL Students and Teachers. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 72-81.
[20] Kim, D., & Kim, D. J. (2012). Effect of screen size on multimedia vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(1), 62-70.
[21] Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern
Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. “Doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781. 1989.tb05325.x”
[22] Liberati, A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 6: e1000100. “Doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100”
[23] Lin, L. F. (2010). English learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition in the video-based CALL program. The Asian EFL
Journal, 12(4), 51-66.
[24] Lin, H. (2015). Effectiveness of interactivity in a web-based simulation game on foreign language vocabulary learning.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 313-317.
[25] Lin, C. C., & Tseng, Y. F. (2012). Videos and Animations for Vocabulary Learning: A Study on Difficult Words. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4), 346-355.
[26] Maftoon, P., et al. (2015). The effects of CALL on vocabulary learning: A case of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Broad
Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(4), 19-30.
[27] Mahmoudi, E., & Razak, N. Z. B. A. (2012). Attitude and students’ performance in computer-assisted English language
learning (CAELL) for learning vocabulary. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 489-498.
[28] Marpaung, M. S., & Situmeang, H. J. P. (2020). Enhancing Students’ Vocabulary through Authentic Materials and Multimedia.
Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 5(2), 85-101.
[29] Mutlu, A., & Eroz-Tuga, B. (2013). The role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in promoting learner autonomy.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 107-122.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 2373

[30] Nation, I. S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[31] Nejati, E., et al. (2018). The Effect of Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on Iranian EFL Learners'
Vocabulary Learning: An Experimental Study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(2), 351-362.
[32] Ono, Tomonori (2017). Vocabulary Learning Through Computer Assisted Language Learning. Hitotsubashi journal of arts and
sciences, 58(1), 67-72.
[33] Peters, E. (2019). The effect of imagery and on‐screen text on foreign language vocabulary learning from audiovisual input.
Tesol Quarterly, 53(4), 1008-1032.
[34] Rahimi, M., & Allahyari, A. (2019). Effects of multimedia learning combined with strategy-based instruction on vocabulary
learning and strategy use. SAGE Open, 9(2). “https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019844081”
[35] Ramezanali, N., & Faez, F. (2019). Vocabulary learning and retention through multimedia glossing. Language Learning &
Technology, 23(2), 105-124.
[36] Rost, M. (2013). Teaching and researching: Listening. Routledge.
[37] Santos, M. E. C., et al. (2016). Augmented reality as multimedia: the case for situated vocabulary learning. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 1-23.
[38] Salaberry, R. (1999) CALL in the year 2000: still developing the research agenda, Language Learning and Technology, 3(1),
104-107.
[39] Samur, Y. (2012). Redundancy effect on retention of vocabulary words using multimedia presentation. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(6), 166-170.
[40] Sato, T., & Suzuki, A. (2010). Do multimedia-oriented visual glosses really facilitate EFL vocabulary learning? A comparison
of planar images with three-dimensional images. Asian EFL Journal, 12(4), 160-172.
[41] Shams, I. E. (2013). Hybrid learning and Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy in vocabulary learning. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1587-1592.
[42] Shi, X. (2017). Application of Multimedia Technology in Vocabulary Learning for Engineering Students. International Journal
of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(1), 21-31.
[43] Shoaei, F., & Alavi, M. (2016). The Impact of computer-assisted language learning applications on incidental vocabulary recall
and retention. Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 85, 1674-1686.
[44] Shao, J. (2012). A Study of Multimedia Application-Based Vocabulary Acquisition. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 202-
207.
[45] Somjai, S., & Soontornwipast, K. (2020). The Integration of Implicit and Explicit Vocabulary Instruction, Project-Based
Learning, Multimedia, and Experiential Learning to Improve Thai EFL Senior High School Students’ Vocabulary Ability. Arab
World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (6), 171-190.
[46] Turk, E., & Ercetin, G. (2014). Effects of interactive versus simultaneous display of multimedia glosses on L2 reading
comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 1-25.
[47] Varol, B., & Ercetin, G. (2016). Effects of working memory and gloss type on L2 text comprehension and incidental
vocabulary learning in computer-based reading. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 759-76.
[48] Wang, X. (2016). Discussion on application of multimedia teaching in college English vocabulary teaching. Open Journal of
Modern Linguistics, 6(3), 177-181.
[49] Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language teaching, 31(2), 57-71.
[50] Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. Australia: Edward Arnold.
[51] Zarei, A. A., & Gilanian, M. (2013). The effect of multimedia modes on L2 vocabulary learning. International Journal of
Management and Humanity Sciences, 2(5), 1011-1020.
[52] Zhou, N., & Yadav, A. (2017). Effects of multimedia story reading and questioning on preschoolers’ vocabulary learning, story
comprehension and reading engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1523-1545.

D Regina is a PhD. Research Scholar of the English Department of Vellore Institute of Technology, India. She earned her MA
and MPhil in English from Thiruvalluvar University, India. Her research interests are in the areas of CALL, Multimedia, Vocabulary,
and English Language Teaching.

Anitha Devi V, Associate Professor, Department of English, SSL, Vellore Institute of Technology has successfully developed the
English Language Laboratories, and a two-credit lab course in the MTech program at VIT, Vellore. She completed her PhD in
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) from Anna University, India. Her research interests are in the areas of Web 2.0,
Culture, Literature, and CALL for journals are her recent fortes.

© 2022 ACADEMY PUBLICATION