Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20

Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Effectiveness of keyboard-based Englishvocabulary practice application on vocationalschool students

Zhenhua Wu & Feng-Kuang Chiang

To cite this article: Zhenhua Wu & Feng-Kuang Chiang (2021): Effectiveness of keyboard-based English vocabulary practice application on vocational school students, Interactive LearningEnvironments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1922461

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1922461

Published online: 05 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Effectiveness of keyboard-based English vocabulary practiceapplication on vocational school studentsZhenhua Wua and Feng-Kuang Chiang b

aCollege of Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; bDepartment ofEducational Technology, College of Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACTAlthough computer-assisted vocabulary acquisition tools have beenwidely applied to English as a foreign language learning, the kinestheticand tactile potential of such tools has not been fully utilized. Embodiedcognition suggested that the change of practice modality (fromhandwriting to keyboarding), involves different sensory-motorexperiences and arguably influences language learning result. Thepresent study is a quasi-experiment investigating the effect of usingkeyboard-based computer application on English vocabulary acquisitionin a naturalistic vocational school setting. Over the course of anacademic year, the experimental group (N = 35) used the application topractice English words, whereas the control group (N = 34) practicedwords through traditional approaches (listening, reading and writing).The results indicated that the participants using keyboardingapplication achieved significantly higher vocabulary learningperformance than the control group. The attitude questionnaires andinterview data also exhibited enhanced interest, motivation, andengagement for the experimental group participants.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 20 May 2020Accepted 21 April 2021

KEYWORDSEnglish vocabulary;application; embodiedcognition; vocational school;keyboard

Introduction

Vocabulary acquisition is critical to English as a foreign language (EFL) learning. Word knowledgelays foundation for general language comprehension and application, and closely associated withall four essential language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking (Schmitt, 2008). Duringthe past few decades, computer-aided learning tools have been continually explored to design ped-agogically informed tasks to facilitate vocabulary acquisition (Chen et al., 2019). Naturally, morerecent researches interested in technology-enhanced vocabulary learning feature the latest technol-ogies, as seen in the investigations of simulation games (Calvo-ferrer, 2017; Franciosi et al., 2016),social robotics (Alemi et al., 2015), mobile game application (Chen et al., 2019), and mixed realityenvironments (Lan et al., 2015; Palaigeorgiou et al., 2018).

Despite of the fact that the results of these investigations have been encouraging, such technol-ogy-enhanced vocabulary learning tools are more often explored in the limited scope of exper-iments rather than deployed in practical educational contexts. One reason is that the use of thesetools requires sophisticated technical capabilities and infrastructure, which may be difficult for tea-chers and educational institutions to obtain, and thus presents a hurdle to the adoption of thesetools in terms of return on educational investment (Calvo-ferrer, 2017). On the other hand, whiledesigned to immerse learners in communicative contexts and emphasize the application of thetarget language, which aligns with the current meaning-based EFL teaching paradigm, these tools

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Feng-Kuang Chiang fkchiang@shnu.edu.cn

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTShttps://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1922461

hardly addressed the task of establishing vocabulary form-meaning link. In fact, it is a vital step invocabulary acquisition and precisely the objective of vast vocabulary learning materials and activitiesin the classroom (Schmitt, 2008).

Schmitt (1998, 2008) proposed that vocabulary acquisition involves different stages, and instruc-tion should approach each stage accordingly. In the first place, an explicit method that aims to estab-lish the form–meaning association is most effective. Thus, intentional vocabulary learning withexplicit focus on the form often results in rapid gains, a better chance of retention, and productivelevels of mastery (Laufer, 2005), especially when it is coupled with communicative tasks.

Computer-assisted vocabulary drill tools are useful in practicing form-focused skills, such as spel-ling, pronunciation, and meaning. They are generally accepted to satisfy both visual and aural lear-ners, allow for flexibility of pacing, and enable incorporation of gamification design for interaction(Gilakjani, 2017; Palaigeorgiou et al., 2018). However, the full potential of computer-related toolsfor facilitating English vocabulary acquisition remains underutilized. As the theories of “embodiedcognition” have garnered increasing attention in the past years, technology-enhanced tools focus-ing on utilizing sensory-motor experience have been explored in EFL vocabulary acquisition toimprove learning effect (Palaigeorgiou et al., 2017; Palaigeorgiou et al., 2018). On the basis of embo-died cognition concept, Keyboard-based English vocabulary practice application, which involvesmultiple sensory-motor experiences (haptic, visual, audio), was developed and investigated. It wasreported that such a tool provided EFL learners with explicit benefits including improved motivation,interest and learning efficiency (Wu & Chiang, 2019).

However, there is a scarcity of research that examines the effect of Keyboard-based practice onvocabulary acquisition in terms of learning performance (Wu & Chiang, 2019). Further, there havebeen few of such studies situated in naturalistic classroom settings, which holds particular practicalimplications for EFL instruction. Thus, in order to fill the gap and contribute to the understanding ofembodied language learning, the present study aims to investigate the effect of keyboard-basedapplication on English vocabulary acquisition in an authentic school setting by incorporating key-board-based training into their regular English lessons over the course of one academic year (twosemesters). Another attempt for this study is to target the investigation at a group of academicallyless successful learners receiving vocational education. Although it is varied in different national situ-ations and educational contexts, vocational school students generally share some common charac-teristics in foreign language learning, such as lower academic level, inadequate motivation andunsatisfactory learning performance compared to their counterparts in academic track schools(Allen & Davies, 2009; Liu & Chen, 2015). In China, there are more than 13,000 vocational highschools providing education for half of the students at this age level (Wang & Han, 2017). Researchfindings revealed that a high percentage of these students are unhappy EFL learners and mightbecome easily frustrated in the confrontation of difficulties in traditional rote-featured EFL class-rooms (Wu, 2010). Therefore, it is urgently needed to employ technology-enhanced tools to facilitateEnglish acquisition in Chinese vocational schools. Besides, when considering deploying technology-assisted pedagogical approach in the classrooms, challenges facing Chinese vocational institutions,such as limited technology-enhanced learning environment and teachers’ lower digital literacy, alsomust be taken into account (Wang & Han, 2017).

On the basis of these considerations, the following research questions are formulated to guidethe present study: (1) What is the effect of keyboard-based application on English vocabulary learn-ing in the classroom setting for vocational school students? (2) What are the attitude and perceptionof vocational school students toward keyboard-based application for English vocabulary learning?

Literature review

Traditionally, cognition has been seen as a process of the brain that deals with symbolic codes.However, in recent decades, accumulated evidences, both from neuro-science and psychologyfields, began to support a different view: embodied cognition (Kiefer & Barsalou, 2011; Kiefer &

2 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

Pulvermüller, 2012). The connection and interaction between perception and motor action areessential elements of embodied cognition theories (Goldman, 2012; Ionescu & Vasc, 2014; Ziemke,2016). Following the embodied notion, it is contended that language learning should be groundedin our senses and depend on the interactions among mind, body and environment (Kiefer & Pulver-müller, 2012; Kiefer & Trumpp, 2012). Longcamp et al. (2005) proposed that the sensory experiencesinvolved in language acquisition are structured into linguistic representation and stored in theneural network, which are reactivated during recall. From the cognitive perspective, writing is abasic manual sensory-motor skill that is profoundly involved in general learning process, andlanguage acquisition in particular. Embodied theories, therefore, predict that practice modalities(for example, keyboarding vs. handwriting) potentially influence language learning results (Kiefer& Trumpp, 2012) because sensory motor experiences (visual, aural, haptic, etc.) of keyboarding isvastly different from that of handwriting.

Keyboarding involves a complex motor program. Typists need to form a “keypress schema” thatconverts the visual form of letters into finger movement specifications and must then execute themovement to produce the required characters. In contrast to handwriting, keyboarding usuallyengages both hands, enables faster practice, and involves more intricate coordination amongfingers and hands; however, it lacks the focus on the visual shape of characters (Cohen & Wickland,1990; Mangen & Velay, 2010). The perception and action involved in handwriting and keyboardingare vastly different, thus resulting in disparate learning experiences. However, with regard towhether keyboarding as a practice approach is beneficial to language acquisition, extant studieshave produced conflicting results.

Cunningham and Stanovich (1990) observed that handwriting practice resulted in increased spel-ling accuracy and enhanced letter recognition in first grade students. This finding was supported byKiefer et al. (2015), who repeated and extended the experiment in preschoolers. Subjects in thehandwriting group displayed increased reading and writing performance compared with thegroup who typed letters. The experiment conducted by Longcamp et al. (2005) achieved similarresults when four-year-old preschoolers who received handwriting training were discovered toremember significantly more letters than those who received typing training.

However, a number of other studies have either found that keyboarding was superior to handwriting(Calhoun, 1985; Gascoigne, 2000, 2006a, 2006b; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002) or observed no significantdifference in learning results from two practice modes (Hove et al., 2017; Sturm, 2006; Vaughn et al.,1992). Gascoigne (2000, 2006a, 2006b) explored a particular facet of language acquisition – diacriticalmarks – in Spanish and French and found that typing, with additional keystrokes, strengthened the appli-cation of accent marks. Gascoigne’s experiment was repeated by Sturm (2006); however, Sturm did notfind a significant difference between the handwriting and keyboarding groups. Hove et al. (2017) com-pared the effects of typing, writing, and completing multiple choice exercises on tablets on memoriza-tion, spelling, and use of diacritics of French vocabulary. The results revealed no significant differencebetween practicing vocabulary by typing and writing on a tablet.

The differences in typing technique have been considered playing a crucial role in the divergentexperiment results. In the investigations that suggested keyboarding had a less satisfactory learningeffect (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Kiefer et al., 2015; Longcamp et al., 2005), preschooler orelementary school student participants typically typed with single digit and pressed one key at atime. By contrast, in cases where keyboarding achieved better results (Gascoigne, 2000, 2006a,2006b), the subjects were college students with higher typing proficiency. Gascoigne (2000,2006a, 2006b) suggested that the extra psychomotor steps involved in typing practice led to theimproved use of diacritics. Sturm (2006) hypothesized the notion of “more movement, better learn-ing”, and argued that the richness of physical movement involved in handwriting or typing directlyaffected linguistic performance. He noted that the keyboarding act in the experiments of Gascoignewas more elaborate and skilled than handwriting, whereas in other experiments (Cunningham & Sta-novich, 1990; Kiefer et al., 2015; Longcamp et al., 2005), the handwriting tasks were more intricateand laborious for children than the simple tapping of keys.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

Built on the findings of previous researches, the keyboard-based English vocabulary practiceapplication was designed with an emphasis on typing skill training prior to vocabulary learn-ing. Learners must use skilled typing technique, which involves more elaborate hand-fingercoordination and presumably richer sensory-motor experience (Sturm, 2006), to obtain anenhanced learning effect. Wu and Chiang (2019) conducted a study, involving 107 participantsof various ages and grounds (preschoolers, primary school and college students, and adultlearners), to investigate experience and perception of keyboard-based vocabulary practiceapplication. The findings reported overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards the keyboard-based learning and significantly improved motivation, engagement and learning efficiencyresulted from the approach.

In summary, the reviewed literature suggests that from the embodied cognition perspective, thepractice mode influences language acquisition. The keyboard-based vocabulary applications havebeen found to increase learners’ attitudes and engagement. At the same time, more work isneeded to determine the influence of the keyboarding application on students’ vocabulary perform-ance. Thus, it is meaningful to quantitatively assess the effect of this embodied theory-based, com-puter-mediated vocabulary acquisition tool to further understanding in the related fields.

Methods

Design

The present study examined the effect of keyboard-based application on English vocabulary acqui-sition using a quasi-experimental method. The experimental group used computer application andkeyboard to practice English words, whereas the control group practiced these words through listen-ing, reading, and writing. English words tests were administered to assess vocabulary retention. Inaddition, the participants’ attitudes toward keyboard-based application were investigatedthrough questionnaires and interviews.

Experimental institution and participants

The study was conducted in a vocational high School in Shanghai, which provides vocational skilltraining and senior high school education for 3 years. The experimental institution is a typicalstate-run Chinese vocational high school, which is fully equipped with regular educational technol-ogy infrastructure including computers, projectors, whiteboards, and so on, but lack other noveldigital learning environments. Further, school administrations are cautious about introducingmobile devices into classroom, partly due to the fund constraint, and partly due to the concernthat students are more likely to be distracted by these electronic gadgets. Teachers in this vocationalinstitution have a high workload. They typically have 12–16 lessons per week, and are involved inmiscellaneous school duties. They seek ways to innovate their classroom, but, at the same time,are anxious about being overwhelmed by the extra workload arising from curriculum redesign. Inthe light of the experimental institution situation and teaching staff status, the keyboard-basedEnglish vocabulary practice application was considered a feasible classroom innovation attemptto facilitate students’ EFL learning.

This study employed a sample of 69 participants, consisting of two existing classes in thefirst grade. The experimental group comprised 35 participants (one participant missed thesecond vocabulary test and one missed the fourth vocabulary test, which resulted in 34 par-ticipants for these two vocabulary tests), and the control group had 34 participants. Becauseof the engineering nature of this school, an overwhelming majority of the participants weremale. The participants’ initial vocabulary performance was assessed through a vocabularypretest, and the result indicated no significant differences between the two groups beforethe intervention (Table 1).

4 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

Instruments

The study used a keyboard-based English vocabulary application running on Microsoft Windows as theinstrument. The application has two major functions: keyboard fingering training and English word prac-tice. Learners must practice their fingering to reach a certain typing proficiency before proceeding tovocabulary practice. The fingering training integrates gamification design and a progressive difficultylevel setup so that learners can improve their responsiveness and typing skill step by step.

The vocabulary practice function offers three training modes. The first is learning mode, wherethe application provides an English word, its pronunciation and Chinese meaning, learners musttype the English word accordingly. In memorization mode, the English word is omitted and learnerstype out the English word based on the presented Chinese meaning and English pronunciation.Finally, in the review mode, learners must type the English words according to its pronunciation.At the end of each practice session, the incorrectly typed words are pooled together for learnersto practice once again to reinforce memorization. The application is embedded with a game mech-anism. Learners’ typing speed, accuracy rate, and time spent to finish a task are used to create rank-ings to provide learners with a sense of competition and motivate them to improve performance(Figure 1).

Vocabulary test

A glossary of 356 words from the participants’ English textbook (the words to be learned during theexperiment), was produced to generate vocabulary quizzes to assess participants’ learning perform-ance (The sample of vocabulary list is presented in Figure 2). In the vocabulary quizzes, students weregiven a printed paper with information of Chinese meaning and part of speech, and were required towrite out the corresponding English version. The vocabulary pretest selected words from the wholeglossary that the participants had yet to learn, since these words were assumed, for the most part, tobe unknown to the participants. The result of the pretest was used to determine participants’ base-line vocabulary performance. The later vocabulary quizzes chose the words within the range of thelist that participants had learned and practiced so as to evaluate the vocabulary gain in the givenperiod of time. The vocabulary tests were administered four times, namely, at the middle and endof each semesters, in order to continually assess participants’ vocabulary acquisition throughoutthe course of experiment. To ensure the reliability of the tests, all the items in each assessmentwere randomly selected and varied per testing session. Each vocabulary test contained 30 words.

Figure 1. The interface of the keyboard-based English vocabulary practice application.

Table 1. Experimental and control group participants.

Group Number

Gender

Vocabulary Pretest Mean SD t Pmale female

Experimental Group 35 35 0 3.03 1.58 1.001 0.320Control Group 34 30 4 2.68 1.34

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

One point was awarded for every correctly spelled English word, which made the vocabulary testscore ranging from 0 to 30.

Attitude questionnaire

It is generally recognized that vocational school students’ lower motivation, interest and self-efficacycontribute to their unsatisfactory EFL learning results (Liu & Chen, 2015; Wu, 2010). In the presentstudy, an attitude questionnaire was developed and conducted three times (before, during, andat the end of the experiment) in order to precisely chart the evolution of participants’ attitudesover time with the adoption of keyboard-based application and the difference of attitudesbetween the two groups. The questionnaire consisted of three dimensions: learning interest withfive questions, self-efficacy with six questions, and achievement motivation with seven questions.The question items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All the items were derived and adapted from the relevantliterature (Costello, 1967; Mazer , 2013; Midgley et al., 1998; Zheng et al., 2017). The reliability of thequestionnaire was tested by determining the Cronbach’s α, which was .946.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the participants’ perceptions of usingkeyboarding for English vocabulary practice and its effect. The following interview questions weredeveloped by the research team:

Q1: Do you like the keyboard-based English vocabulary practice method? Describe the reason for your answer.

Q2: What do you think of the effect of keyboard-based vocabulary practice?

Q3: What are the problems with the keyboard-based vocabulary practice method, if any?

Q4: Do you have any additional comments to share?

Figure 2. The sample of the word list for vocabulary tests.

6 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

The experimental class was subdivided into three groups on the basis of their English semesterfinal exam scores, namely, high performance group, medium performance group, and poor perform-ance group. Four participants from each group were randomly selected and ended up 12 interviewsin total. The interviews were conducted by the research team and typically lasted 15–20 min. Audioof the interviews was recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Procedure

We intended to explore the utility of keyboard-based application applied in a practical educationalsetting, so that the experiment treatment was designed as an integral part of the participants’English class. The learning objective, content and material were identical for the experimental andcontrol group, and the English lessons were delivered by the same teacher. In order to measurethe difference in vocabulary acquisition between the two groups using different approaches, we iso-lated the vocabulary practice from their regular English class time, which focused on text, grammardrill and new vocabulary explanation, and the practice of new words were restricted to vocabularypractice sessions. Regular English class time aside, the vocabulary practice sessions took place fourtimes a week and lasted 20 min each time. The experimental group was assigned a computer lab topractice the words and the control group was situated in a regular classroom setting.

For the experimental group, the words involved in the experiment were imported into the appli-cation for practice. In practice sessions, they generally followed the pre-established learning path setup by the application: firstly, typed the English word according to the presented information includ-ing English word, Chinese meaning, part of speech and English pronunciation, secondly, typed theword with the prompt of Chinese meaning and English pronunciation, and finally, typed out theword according to the English pronunciation. The words were practiced in groups, and the com-pletion of one practice mode would allow the participants to move to the next phase. Althoughthe participant usually focused on the practice of words in the unit they were learning, they werefree to review the words in previous units as long as they finished the assigned task. At the sametime, the tasks for the control group included listening to the pronunciation of the words,reading aloud, and copying the words. The listening-reading-writing practice cycle was repeateduntil practice time was up. Students were also encouraged to review the words in previous unitswhen they finished the designated unit.

To guarantee that the participants’ vocabulary gain closely associated with the treatment, wemade sure that the control group did not have access to the vocabulary application, which wasinstalled exclusively in the computer laboratory open for the experiment alone. The experimentalgroup did not have access to the laboratory outside the practice sessions either. Furthermore, weinstructed both groups not to do any extra vocabulary learning by themselves after the practicinghours, and none reported doing so.

Data analysis

The quantitative data collected through vocabulary tests and attitude questionnaires were analyzedusing SPSS version 25. As there were two factors that may influence the students’ vocabulary per-formance, i.e. “practice condition” and “time”, a two-way mixed ANOVA was used to compare themean differences of vocabulary performance between the two groups to determine if there wasan interaction between the factors of treatment and time, and the effect of keyboard-based appli-cation on vocabulary gain in each time point.

The attitude questionnaires were administered three times, that is, before, in the middle of, andafter the treatment. However, there were no great differences between the means of the second andthe third questionnaires, so that we used the first and the last attitude test as pretest and posttest.We used a one-way ANCOVA to examine the attitudes posttest of the two groups using attitudepretest as a covariate. Furthermore, the interviews were coded and analyzed to reach a more

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

accurate conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the keyboard-based English vocabulary practiceapplication.

Results

Vocabulary learning performance

Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of four vocabulary quizzes scores. The mean scores for theexperimental group were consistently higher than those of the control group. In order to determinethe impact of keyboard-based application on participants’ English vocabulary performance, a two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted, with practice mode (keyboarding application vs traditionalapproach) as between-subjects variable and time (four testing times) as within-subjects variable(Table 3). The results showed that the main effect of group was significant (F (1, 66) = 72.493,p<.001; η2 = .523), suggesting a considerable difference in the effectiveness of the vocabulary prac-tice approach. The two-way mixed design ANOA also found both the main effect of time (F (3, 198) =19.678, p<.001; η2 = .230), and the interaction between group and learning time (F (3, 198) = 6.151,p<.001; η2 = .085) were statistically significant. The vocabulary test scores are presented in Figure 3,which displays varied patterns of vocabulary gain for the two groups. The experiment groupincreased significantly from the pretest to the third test (from 3.03–22.52), but declined considerablyin the last test (14.21). Whereas the control group achieved significant vocabulary gain in the first(4.68) and second (9.44) test, and then, their performance declined, though not much, in the third(8.97) and the fourth test (7.44). The results implies different effects of the practice mode on stu-dents’ vocabulary performance over time. To further identify the influence of keyboard-based appli-cation on vocabulary gain, a post-hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparison was conducted and theresults showed that the experimental group retained significant more words than the controlgroup in all vocabulary tests (Table 4).

Attitude questionnaire

An ANCOVA test was conducted to compare the attitude posttest whilst controlling for attitudepretest. The results revealed that there was no significant differences in interest (F (1, 64) = 0.001,p>.05; η2 = .000), self-efficacy (F (1, 64) = 0.144, p>.05; η2 = .002), and motivation (F (1, 64) = 1.044,p>.05; η2 = .016) (see Table 5). The results of the attitude questionnaires indicate that twodifferent English vocabulary practice methods did not influence participants’ English learning inter-est, self-efficacy and motivation.

Interviews

Twelve interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 11 qualitative software for coding and analy-sis. Most of the participants interviewed voiced their interest in using keyboard-based application topractice English vocabulary. Six of them exhibited strong interest, and four expressed moderateinterest. For them, the keyboarding practice method was more engaging and effective than

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the overall mean of the vocabulary test scores.

Experimental group (N = 35) Control group (N = 34)

Tests Mean SD Mean SD

Vocabulary Pretest 3.03 1.58 2.68 1.34First Vocabulary test 10.44 7.91 4.68 5.39Second Vocabulary test 15.03 6.61 9.44 5.70Third vocabulary test 22.52 6.10 8.97 7.04Fourth vocabulary test 14.21 8.50 7.44 5.46

8 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

traditional practice approaches. Two participants felt that the keyboard-based practice task was toodemanding, and their typing skill was not proficient enough, so they were interested in keyboardingat the beginning, but their enthusiasm diminished afterwards.

With regard to effectiveness, seven participants considered keyboarding application veryeffective and set forth their reasons: When the participants practiced English words on the keyboard-ing application, they were provided with the Chinese meaning on the screen and English pronuncia-tion through the headphone simultaneously as they typed the vocabulary. The combined visual,audio, and kinesthetic stimuli resulted in better memorization. The participants also typed wordsmuch faster than they could write them; therefore, more repetition could be achieved in each prac-tice session, which improved the practice efficiency and hence enhanced the learning effect. Two ofthem reported that with pronunciation information presented when they were typing the words,they paid more attention to vocabulary pronunciation and even made progress in listening compe-tency. On the other hand, five interviewers regarded keyboarding as not particularly effective. Somefelt that although the English words could be remembered quickly through keyboarding practice,they were also forgotten quickly. Therefore, a couple of participants concluded that the two trainingapproaches were not that different. Problems with the application such as unexpected crashes orunresponsiveness were also noted by the participants in the interviews.

Discussion

The results of vocabulary performance tests demonstrated that the experimental group significantlyoutperformed the control group in all the assessments without exception. It is in agreement with theassumption that language acquisition effect is presumably related to the elaboration of practicingmotor activity (Sturm, 2006). This finding builds upon the studies in which proficient typing

Table 3. Two-way (2 × 4) mixed ANOVA for vocabulary performance scores of the two groupsa.

Source SS df MS F p η2

Between-subjects Treatment (Exp/Ctrl) 4264.445 1 4264.445 72.493 .000*** .523Error (treatment) 3882.507 66 58.826Within-subjects Time (Four test time) 2350.070 3 783.357 19.678 .000*** .230Time*treatment 734.629 3 244.876 6.151 .001*** .085Error(time) 7882.051 198 39.808

SS, sum of squares; df, degree of freedom; MS, mean square. *** p <.001.aThe result of Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was not statistical significant (p >.05).

Figure 3. Means of the vocabulary performance test scores for the two groups.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

surpassed handwriting (Gascoigne, 2000, 2006a, 2006b) and handwriting outperformed unskilledtyping (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Kiefer et al., 2015; Longcamp et al., 2005). The legitimacyof the assumption was strengthened when the comparison was extended to practice modes thatinvolved even less laborious motoric acts such as tile arranging or drag-and-drop exercises usinga computer mouse (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Hove et al., 2017). These exercises achievedless satisfactory learning effectiveness than both handwriting and keyboarding. In line with thisreasoning, the application employed in the present study put an emphasis on the training oftyping skill so that the participants generally acquired relatively skilled typing technique for practice.More intricate hand and finger coordination is involved in the typing act than reading or handwritingact. Furthermore, the keyboarding application used in the current study provided Chinese meaningand English pronunciation information simultaneously during typing practice; thus, the combinedvisual, audio, and haptic stimuli created rich sensory motor memory traces, resulting in deeperand more elaborate processing of English vocabulary information and improved memorization.

The results of questionnaires did not show significant differences between the two groups. It wasprobably related to the relatively small sample of the study. However, the results of the interviewswere largely in favor of the keyboard-based application. Most of the interviewee displayed interestsin the keyboarding practice approach and believed that it was an effective approach to learn Englishvocabulary. Practicing English vocabulary through keyboarding application was considered moreengaging and innovative than listening, reading and writing by the participants. The finding is con-sistent with the results from the survey conducted by Wu and Chiang (2019). Therefore, it is reason-able to argue that the application may leads to enhanced interest, motivation, and positiveemotional experiences, which contribute to greater engagement and vocabulary performance(Skinner et al., 2008).

The results of the experiment indicated that the keyboard-based vocabulary practice applicationpromoted the English learning of vocational school students, which are characterized with relativelylower academic performance and self-perceived English proficiency (Liu & Chen, 2015). Wu (2010)proposed that the traditional learning activities, such as reading and writing should be carefullydesigned because it is possibly the least popular preference among vocational school students.

Table 4. Pairwise comparison of the simple main effect of treatment in four vocabulary tests.

Vocabulary test Subjects Mean Difference (E-C) Std Error p

First vocabulary test Experimental group 5.77 1.64 .001***Control group

Second vocabulary test Experimental group 5.59 1.50 .000***Control group

Third vocabulary test Experimental group 13.56 1.60 .000***Control group

Fourth vocabulary test Experimental group 6.77 1.73 .000***Control group

***p<0.001.

Table 5. Results of ANCOVA test on participants’ attitudes.

Source SS df MS F P η2

Interest Pre-interest(covariate) .732 1 .732 .872 .354 .013Group .001 1 .001 .001 .971 .000Error 53.710 64 .839

Self-efficacy Pre Self-efficacy(covariate) .584 1 .584 .652 .422 .010Group .129 1 .129 .144 .706 .002Error 57.262 64 .895

Motivation Pre-motivation(covariate) .072 1 .072 .090 .765 .001Group .831 1 .831 1.044 .311 .016Error 50.950 64 .796

SS, sum of squares; df, degree of freedom; MS, mean square.

10 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

Rather, vocational school EFL instructors should structure the learning content and process to bemore goal-oriented, and optimal learning results may be obtained through the activities combiningdiverse input including visual, auditory and kinesthetic stimuli (Wu, 2010). The participants’improved vocabulary acquisition performance was arguably relevant to the multimodal input andthe gamification design employed in the keyboarding application. The task-based learning activitydesign and built-in competition mechanism set a particular learning aim and presented the task in amotivating way. According to the interviews, apparently, the application spurred the participants ofthe experimental group to practice more than they otherwise would. Repetition is vital to memor-ization of English words; thus, an increase in the amount of practice resulting from the keyboardingapplication presumably contributed to the enhanced vocabulary learning performance of the exper-imental group. The keyboarding practice mode was perceived by the majority of the experimentalgroup as engaging and effective. It provided learners with more successful learning experiences andsignificantly improved their self-confidence and self-efficacy in English learning.

Interestingly, the average score on the final vocabulary test for the experimental group was sig-nificantly lower than that in the prior test. One explanation may be, as Gascoigne (2006b) suggested,the keyboarding was novel and exciting at the beginning compared with traditional approaches butpossibly lost its novelty as learners grew increasingly accustomed to the act of typing, flashingscreens, and other features of the computer applications. This explanation was supported by theresults of the interviews, in which two participants voiced their tiredness of keyboarding practice,and the sharp decline in vocabulary test score was an indication. Recognizing the stimulating andmotivational value of keyboarding practice is crucial, but educators should be watchful of thepoint at which the practice mode loses its novelty and effectiveness (Gascoigne, 2006b).

Conclusion

This study, to our knowledge, represents a first attempt to investigate the effectiveness of keyboard-ing application as an English vocabulary acquisition tool in a naturalistic classroom setting. Thefindings of the research indicated that, compared with traditional approaches (listening, readingand writing), the keyboarding application significantly improved participants’ vocabulary perform-ance as well as their EFL learning interest and motivation. The study contributes to the explorationof embodied language learning, and holds particular implications for vocational school EFL instruc-tion, the embodied theory-based, computer-mediated vocabulary practice application has thepotential to be a useful instrument for facilitating student EFL learning.

While the findings of the present study advanced the understanding of relevant fields, the limit-ations of the study should be noted. First, generalization of the findings should only be made withcaution as the participants of the study were vocational school students and overwhelmingly males.It may be of interest to researchers to replicate the experiment in the future with students ofdifferent backgrounds to verify the findings of this study. Second, because of the schedule con-straints of the experimental school and participants, the interviews were conducted before thefinal vocabulary performance test and thus failed to provide more informative perceptions aboutthe decline in the score for the final vocabulary test. Whether this decline was resulted from dimin-ution of the stimulating effect of new technology or other reasons existed remains unclear. Further-more, the study was limited due to the fact that the participants’ learning activities outside theclassroom could not be strictly controlled by the researchers. It is possible that members of bothexperimental and control group did not follow the instruction and did extra vocabulary practiceby themselves through reading or writing. It is also likely that the participants had other exposureto the words involved in the experiment, both of which could affect the results of their vocabularytest, though none reported doing so. Finally, although the elements and processes of this exper-iment – such as learning content, objective, English teacher, practice time, and requirements –were designed to be as comparable as possible between the two groups to ensure validity of thestudy, the groups’ practice processes differed in rigorousness. The keyboarding group followed

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

the pre-established learning path programmed by the application, which was more efficient andmotivating, whereas the traditional group practiced the words following the general instructionof the English teacher, but lacked the strict step-by-step guide and prompt feedback as in the key-boarding application, which presumably contributed to the variance in their vocabulary learningperformance. Future research may wish to strengthen the design of the practice process of thecontrol group to yield more valid results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by the Design, Implement, and Evaluation of Keyboard-based Innovative Language curricu-lum. This funding was supported by Shanghai MENG HONG management consultancy Ltd. [grant number 310-KW212-C-6135-18-010009].

Notes on contributors

Zhenhua Wu is an associate professor at college of education, Shanghai Normal University, China. His research interestsfocus on technology in language learning and STEM education. E-mail: bluskye@shnu.edu.cn

Dr Feng-kuang Chiang is a distinguished professor in the Department of Educational Technology at Shanghai NormalUniversity, China. His research focused on STEM education, learning space and integration of information technologyand curriculum. E-mail: Fkchiang@shnu.edu.cn

ORCID

Feng-Kuang Chiang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6010-6048

References

Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2015). The impact of Social Robotics on L2 Learners’ Anxiety and attitude inEnglish vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0286-y

Allen, F., & Davies, B. (2009). Vocational options: The impact of a vocational context on teaching and learning modernforeign languages at Key stage 4. The Language Learning Journal, 37(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730902717513

Calhoun, M. (1985). Typing contrasted with handwriting in language arts instruction for moderately mentally-retardedstudents. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20(1), 48–52.

Calvo-ferrer, J. R. (2017). Educational games as stand-alone learning tools and their motivational effect on L2 vocabularyacquisition and perceived learning gains. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12387

Chen, C., Liu, H., & Huang, H. (2019). Effects of a mobile game-based English vocabulary learning App on Learners’ per-ceptions and learning performance: A Case Study of Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL, 31(2), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344018000228

Cohen, M. R., & Wickland, D. A. (1990). Component abilities of spelling, memory, and motor skill in novices’ transcriptiontyping. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.70.1.19

Costello, C. G. (1967). Two Scales to measure Achievement motivation. The Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1967.10544901

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82(01), 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.159

Franciosi, S. J., Yagi, J., Tomoshige, Y., & Ye, S. (2016). The effect of a simple simulation game on long-term vocabularyretention. CALICO Journal, 33(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i2.26063

Gascoigne, C. (2000). The effect of keyboarding on the acquisition of diacritical marks in the foreign language classroom.French Review, 73((05|5)), 899–907.

12 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG

Gascoigne, C. (2006a). Toward an understanding of incidental input enhancement in computerized L2 environments.Calico Journal, 24(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i1.147-162

Gascoigne, C. (2006b). Explicit input enhancement: Effects on target and non-target aspects of second language acqui-sition. Foreign Language Annals, 04(39), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02275.x

Gilakjani, A. (2017). A review of the literature on the integration of technology into the learning and teaching of Englishlanguage skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n5p95

Goldman, A. I. (2012). A moderate approach to embodied Cognitive science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1),71–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0089-0

Hove, S. V., Vanderhoven, E., & Cornillie, F. (2017). The tablet for second language vocabulary learning: Keyboard, stylusor multiple choice. Comunicar, 50(5), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.3916/C50-2017-05

Ionescu, T., & Vasc, D. (2014). Embodied cognition: Challenges for Psychology and education. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 128, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.156.

Kiefer, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. InW. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Tutorials in action science (pp. 381–407). MIT Press.

Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, currentevidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006

Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, n. M., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence ofPen-or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances inCognitive Psychology, 11(4), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0178-7

Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in perception andaction. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.07.002

Lan, Y. J., Fang, S. Y., Legault, J., & Li, P. (2015). Second language acquisition of mandarin Chinese vocabulary: Context oflearning effects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(5), 671–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9380-y

Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.11lau

Liu, H., & Chen, C. (2015). A comparative study of foreign language Anxiety and motivation of academic- and vocational-Track high school students. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p193

Longcamp, M., Zerbatopoudou, M., & Velay, J. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschoolchildren: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019

Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. h. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances inhaptics (pp. 385–402). Intech.

Mazer, J. P., & Joseph, P. (2013). Validity of the student interest and engagement scales: Associations with student learn-ing outcomes. Communication Studies, 64(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.727943

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., & Roeser, R. W. (1998). The Developmentand validation of Scales assessing students’ Achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0965

Palaigeorgiou, G., Griva, E., Raftogianni, P. D., & Toronidou, M. (2018). Improving Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second/Foreign Language With a Mixed Reality Environment and a Drone. In ECEL 2018 17th European Conference on e-Learning (p. 447–455).

Palaigeorgiou, G., Politou, F., Tsirika, F., & Kotabasis, G. (2017). FingerDetectives: Affordable Augmented InteractiveMiniatures for Embodied Vocabulary Acquisition in Second Language Learning. In European Conference on GamesBased Learning (pp. 523–530). Acdemic confences International Limited.

Rogers, J., & Case-Smith, J. (2002). Relationships between handwriting and keyboarding performance of sixth-grade stu-dents. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.1.34

Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. LanguageLearning, 48(2), 281–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00042

Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3),329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchland, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of alarger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

Sturm, J. L. (2006). The effect of keyboarding and presentation format on the recall of accent marks in L2 learners ofFrench. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 6((02|2)), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v6i2.1546

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Gordon, J. (1992). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing really beat the computer? LearningDisability Quarterly, 15(03), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510245

Wang, Y., & Han, X. (2017). Institutional roles in blended learning implementation: A Case Study of Vocational Educationin China. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 16–32.

Wu, M. (2010). An exploratory study of the language-learning style preferences and language-learning motivation ofESL learners at a Vocational Education institute in Hong Kong. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 222–238.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Validating an instrument for Efl learners’ sources of self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy and the relation to English proficiency. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(06), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0352-3

Zhenhua, Wu, & Feng-Kuang, Chiang. ( 2019).Effect on keyboard-based English word acquisition. Interactive LearningEnvironments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636076

Ziemke, T. (2016). The body of knowledge: On the role of the living body in grounding embodied cognition. Biosystems,148, 4–11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2016.08.005.

14 Z. WU AND F.-K. CHIANG