Download pdf - Business English Learning with mobile phones

46 International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46-63, April-June 2014

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to explore whether the use of mobile technology could better enhance students’ business English vocabulary learning than the employment of traditional print material. A group of sophomores (N=43) from a Chinese university in North China were randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental group (N=23), who worked on a given list of business vocabulary via SMS, and the control group (N=20), who studied the same list of vocabulary via paper print material. The results of the posttest reveal that the experimental group did significantly better than the control group. However, the results of the delayed test show that the two groups were not significantly different from each other in term of vocabulary retention rates. The study concludes that a blended use of mobile technology such as SMS and paper print material could better give rise to students’ business English vocabulary learning. The limitations and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Business English Vocabulary Learning With Mobile Phone:

A Chinese Students’ PerspectiveHaisen Zhang, School of International Studies, University of International Business and

Economics, Beijing, China

Wei Song, School of Finance, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Ronghuai Huang, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Keywords: Business English, Mobile phones, SMS, Testing, Vocabulary learning

1. INTRODUCTION

The number of mobile phones in China exceeded the number of landlines in 2004 (BBC News, 2004). China boasts both the largest mobile phone users and the near-ubiquitous SMS users in the world, with the number of mobile phones hitting 680 million by the end of May 2009 (Shen & Feng, 2009) and the number of SMS messages reaching 195.89 billion by the end of November 2009 (Feng, 2009). With such near-ubiquitous market penetration, media providers

and learning technology solution providers push the ride of learners’ mobile technology adoption for a novel way of learning. Mobile learning in China is also beginning to gain ground. People who travel on the subway train, on the bus, or in the air are often found reading e-books and daily mobile news delivered by China Mobile as well as watching movies and listening to aural materials on their mobile devices. For the younger generation, especially the “digital natives,” mobile devices such as mobile phones have become something within their reach on

DOI: 10.4018/IJCALLT.2014040104


International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46-63, April-June 2014 47

a daily basis. These devices have become part of their everyday life and a thing that they live with 24 hours around the clock.

Moreover, the number of English lan-guage learners in China’s formal education system reached 175 million in 2007 and it is estimated that the number will amount to 2 billion by 2010 (Adams & Hirsch, 2007). So far in China, there are more than 400 million people who are learning the language (Zhan, Sun, Yao, Li, Meng, Duan, et al., 2010). Ap-parently, China has become the largest country in terms of the substantial number of English language learners in mainstream educational institutions. The learners range from students at elementary schools to those at universities. It has become a phenomenon that Chinese foreign language learners use their mobile devices, such as mobile phones, PDA’s, MP4 players, etc. not only as a tool for communication and for entertainment like game playing but also as one for language learning. Specifically, these devices are employed to improve their English reading and vocabulary building by reading English news on the phone and to enhance their listening skills by watching movie clips and listening to digital media in English while they are on the go. However, the field of inquiry on mobile language learning still remains a burgeoning area of research. Although there has been research on how mobile devices can be utilized to enhance vocabulary learning (e.g., Lu, 2008), there is relatively little literature on whether and how such devices can be better pedagogically utilized to enhance business English vocabulary learning in the Chinese context of foreign language learning.

The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness of technology-based (SMS) and traditionally paper-based business English vocabulary learning, in the hope of informing the existing body of related literature as well as offering pedagogical implications for practitio-ners in the field of mobile language learning. To better fulfill this research goal, the following questions were addressed to guide this inquiry:

1. Is technology-based business English vocabulary learning more effective than traditional paper-based learning?

2. How is the effectiveness of technology-based learning related to students’ meta-cognitive strategies in terms of time man-agement, effort regulation, and monitoring?

3. What are the students’ perceived advan-tages and disadvantages of learning with the mobile technology?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Business English Vocabulary

Vocabulary is “the words we know and use to communicate with others” (Diller, 2007, p. 140). Generally speaking, there are two kinds of vocabulary: oral and written. Oral vocabu-lary is comprised of “speaking and listening vocabulary” while written vocabulary consists of “reading and writing vocabulary” (p. 140). Such a classification is made mainly based on where vocabulary appears, namely, orally or in print. When we look at it from the point of view of areas of specialization, vocabulary can be also classified into the other two categories: general vocabulary and specialist vocabulary.

General vocabulary refers to “words that are common to a wide range of academic texts and are not as common in nonacademic texts” (Scarcella & Zimmerman, 2005, p. 126). In contrast, specialist vocabulary is an umbrella term, which refers to language or words that are specifically used in a specific profession or field of industry for formal communication, such as in banking, trade, finance, management, law, marketing, medicine, telecommunication, etc., just to name a few. It is “one of the main dif-ferences between teaching English for General Purposes and English for Specific Purposes” (IMO, 2000, p. 87) owing to its specific nature of the same word, which takes different mean-ings in different fields or professions.

In English for business purposes/busi-ness English (Dudley-Evans & John, 1998), specialist vocabulary is referred to as business



vocabulary or business English vocabulary, which is “often seen as an integral part of busi-ness English” (Osborne, p. 106). It “is composed of words used more commonly in business than elsewhere. The words so used are the common property of the English language” (Aurner, 1950, p. 152). Business English vocabulary is identical with general English vocabulary in terms of form. However, with regard to meaning, they are vastly different because the former is used in “particular kinds of communication in a specific context” (Ellis & Johnson, 1994, p. 3) while the later in a daily non-business com-munication context. Both kinds of vocabulary are spelled and pronounced the same way, but they mean differently. For instance, the word “quotation” in a general English context means “something that is quoted” (Random House, 2009). In business or commerce, it means “the statement of the current or market price of a commodity or security” (Random House, 2009). Another example is “market share.” “Market” and “share” are two different words in general English. However, when these two words go together in a business context, they become a business vocabulary word, which refers to “the specific percentage of total industry sales of a particular product achieved by a single company in a given period of time” (Random House, 2009).

2.2. The Role of Mobile Technologies in Language Learning

Mobile learning has been believed to be the future of learning (Keegan, 2002). It can benefit not only the underprivileged learners outside of the formal educational system but also those who are lucky to be able to learn in formal educational environments. Mobile technologies enable both types of learners to learn at any time and in any location, especially, when they are on the move. Moreover, these emerging technologies can extend classroom-based learning beyond the four physical walls and make learning take place on learners’ own appropriate time, in their

own preferred location, at their own pace, and for their own learning purposes.

The value of mobile technologies in lan-guage teaching and learning has been recog-nized by many researchers (e.g., Bibby, 2011; Chinnery, 2006; Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008; Saricaa & Cavus, 2009; Shih, 2005; Sweeney & Moore, 2012; Zhao, 2005). According to Chin-nery (2006), mobile devices are less expensive than computers and, therefore, affordable for most learners. Also, they are of a pocket size, which makes it portable and convenient for learners. Such affordability, portability and convenience (Song, 2008) enable learners to take advantage of segmented times for them to learn anytime and anywhere. Nah, White, and Sussex (2008) made an investigation into the use of mobile phone for listening learning in the Korean context. They argue that such applica-tions are conducive to student learning due to the students’ positive attitudes toward learning tasks and their capability of continuing to learn anytime and anywhere beyond the classroom setting. Such a technology affords the students for collaborative problem solving thanks to the availability of the technology features of mobility and easy accessibility.

Moreover, educational affordances of mobile technologies have also attracted the attention of both researchers and educators. First, ownership (Jone, Issroff & Scanlon, 2006) gives learners a sense of a personal belonging of the device and allows them to use it in an exhaustive manner. In other words, ownership allows learners to use it in whatever way they like to and eventually lends itself to an effective adoption of such technology in their learning. Second, the affordances of portability, social interactivity, context sensitivity, connectivity and individuality, as identified by Klopfer, Squire, and Jenkins (2002), not only extend learners’ temporal and spatial boundaries of learning but also make learning more effective outside of the classroom setting. Portability enables learners to be easily accessible to the technology in their hands or pockets, which can lead to the effective use of fragmented times for learning. Connectivity and social



interactivity can offer more opportunities for learner collaboration through information shar-ing and problem solving. Context sensitivity can help engage learners in situated learning and individuality allows for individualized and self-paced learning. Lai, Yang, Chen, Ho and Chan (2007) identified two other educational affordances of mobile technologies that can facilitate experiential learning: delivery and multimedia creation. Mobile technologies can deliver real-time information, which is spe-cially needed by learners. Such an affordance is important for collaboration and learning flow. Multimedia creation, such as photo taking as well as sound and video recording, “serve[s] to aid in retention when [learners are] out of the learning environment” (p. 328).

2.3. Meta-Cognitive Strategies and Vocabulary Learning

Metacognitive strategies refer to “higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learn-ing activity” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 44). They “involve such processes as planning, prioritizing, setting goals and self-management” (Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 150) and “a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best ways to study” (p. 205). These strategies are used to “oversee, regulate or self-direct language learning” (p. 150) and “to monitor and adjust the way we process information” (Bromley, 2002, p. 13).

Metacognitive strategies are crucially im-portant for vocabulary learning. Even though there has been no the so-called “best strategy” identified for vocabulary learning thus far (Gu & Johnson, 1996), the application of metacogni-tive strategies can make a difference in terms of vocabulary learning outcomes (Nacera, 2010). According to Nacera (2010), the frequency of metacognitive strategies use can determine the differences in learners’ vocabulary size, the finding of which is also supported by Çelik and Toptaş’ (2010) study, revealing that learners with a larger vocabulary size tend to use more

of metacognitive strategies than those with a smaller vocabulary size. Rasekh and Ranjbary’s (2003) study of metacognitive strategies use in vocabulary learning also revealed that the group with metacgnitive strategy training outperformed the control group without the training in a vocabulary achievement test. Cubukcu (2008) also evidenced that metacog-nitive strategies can lend support to learners’ vocabulary development. Craik and Lockhart (1972) found that when learners have more of the metacognitive processes involved in the learning of a word, they tend to have higher retention and recall rates.

2.4. Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phones

Vocabulary learning for foreign language learn-ers basically involves learning of both form and meaning of a word. The form refers to pronunciation, spelling, the part of speech, and collocation while the meaning refers to mean-ings of a word in a learner’s native language in a given linguistic context. Over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of studies (e.g., Levy & Kennedy, 2005; Lu, 2008; Song, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005; Zhang, Song, & Burston, 2011) that have specifically focused on the use of mobile phones to enhance vocabulary learning. For example, Başoğlu and Akdemir (2010) conducted a comparative study of vocabulary learning with mobile phones and with paper flashcards. The experimental group used the vocabulary program on the phones to study the target words for six weeks in their extracurricular hours while the control group worked on the identical words on paper flash-cards during the same time span. Their findings reveal that “vocabulary learning programs running on mobile phones improved students’ acquisition of English vocabulary more than traditional vocabulary learning tool, flash cards” (p. 6). The findings of all of these empirical studies reveal that mobile phones can be used as an effective educational tool for enhancing vocabulary learning. The effectiveness may be due to the following reasons:



First, mobile phones can provide students with spaced repetition. Students worked on chunks of vocabulary that they received through mobile phone, especially via mobile Short Message Service (SMS). For example, in Lu’s (2008) study, one group of the students received vocabulary items via SMS at timed intervals and then worked on them in their desired way. The other group learned the same vocabulary items on print paper material in a similar way. The finding is in line with Nation’s (2001) study, revealing that students who learned vocabulary at a spaced repetition can achieve better than massed repetition.

Second, students generally have a posi-tive attitude toward the use of mobile phone for vocabulary learning. As positive attitudes usually lead to improved performance, this is also true when students use mobile phone for vocabulary learning. According to the theory of technology acceptance (Davis, 1993), when students have a positive attitude toward the use of mobile phone for vocabulary learning, it can exert a positive influence on their learning be-havior, which can result in enhanced learning. The results of a questionnaire survey as well as interview on students’ attitudes toward the technology in Thornton and Houser’s (2005) study and others’ (e.g., Lu, 2008; Song, 2008) all exhibit a positive attitude toward the ap-plication of the adopted mobile technology in vocabulary learning. More specifically, in Thornton and Houser’s (2005) study, students often used mobile phones to send and receive mobile e-mail and they like to use the same functionality for class-related purposes. Also, Japanese students thought favorably about the size of the mobile screen and the size of the fonts. Learning vocabulary via mobile phones is motivating and can be fun for them.

Third, the educational affordances of the mobile technology enable students to use it to their advantage. According to the theory of af-fordances, which was originally proposed by Gibson (1977), the perceived properties of the mobile technology determine how a student will act upon it in diverse learning situations. In vocabulary learning, some of the salient

affordances such as ownership, portability, accessibility/ubiquity, and convenience are innovatively used when learning takes place in a classroom setting or beyond. This has been evidenced by Lu’s (2008) study.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants

The participants (N=43) were sophomores of two intact advanced business English reading classes in the 2010-2011 academic year from a university in a metropolitan city in North China. They were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions for business English vocabulary learning: the experimental group, who worked on a given list of vocabulary through SMS (hence called the SMSG for short) (N=23) and the control group (called the paper group or PG for short) (N=20), who studied the same list of vocabulary via paper print material. There were 72.1% of female students, with the rest 27.9% being male students. Their age ranged from 19-22 years old (M=20.42, SD=.823). Most of them (91.80%) majored in business-related subjects such as trade, finance, marketing, accounting, e-commerce, etc. while the rest (8.20%) were language majors. All of them worked on the vocabulary as required by the course instructor as they would be tested on the vocabulary at the-end-of-the-course examination.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Business English Vocabulary

All the participants were students of a required course titled “Advanced Business English Read-ing.” They met once a week for this reading class and worked on a textbook for advanced business English students at this university. The business English terms (N=119) were selected by the researcher who taught this reading course. They were covered in the five units of the text-book that the students were expected to work on throughout the entire semester. The following vocabulary selection criteria were observed:



1. All the vocabulary words should be the Eng-lish terms covered in a business context;

2. All the business terms should be included in the units of the business English text-book that the students are expected to learn throughout the semester.

3. Also included are all the business terms that were covered in the previous achievement tests of this course.

The business English vocabulary was listed on two columns. One column was business English vocabulary and the other was their corresponding translations in Chinese. Some of the sample vocabulary words were given as follows in Box 1.

3.2.2. Vocabulary Test

The vocabulary test was made by the researcher, who also acted as an instructor of the business English reading course, through a random selection of 50 terms out of the 119-word list. Business English terms were given on the left column and the participants were required to provide the corresponding translations of the terms on the right column next to the English terms.

3.2.3. Questionnaire

A questionnaire was adapted from Lu, Zhou, and Wang (2009) by the researcher and was in-tended to unveil the effectiveness of vocabulary

learning with the mobile technology behind the test results. The questionnaire was composed of the following two sections.

Section One was used to collect de-mographic information of the participants, including gender, age, and academic major. Section Two was used to collect the data in relation to their experience of using mobile phone for business vocabulary learning. This section was designed to use a 7-point Likert-scale, where “1” represents “not at all true of me” and “7” represents “very true of me.” It covered 12 constructs: behavioral attitude, mo-tivation, reminder, usefulness, when to learn, how to learn, blended learning, convenience, meta-cognition, effort regulation, monitoring, and behavioral intention. Each construct had three short statements. For example, the three 7-point Likert-scale statements in relation to “behavioral attitude” go as follows:

1. Using SMS is a good idea for vocabulary learning.

2. I like using SMS for vocabulary learning.3. It is fun for me to learn vocabulary via

SMS.

3.2.4. Semi-Structured Interview

The semi-structured interview was developed for our purpose of this research. The interview was divided into four parts: In the first part, the interviewer started with the purpose of this

Box 1.

Business Terms Corresponding translations in Chinese

management expertise 管理知识

competitive pricing 有竞争力的价格/定价

mergers and acquisitions 兼并与收购,并购

market access 市场准入

consumer market 消费市场

electronic commerce 电子商务

venture capital 风险资本

junk bonds 垃圾债券



research and interview by explaining to the inter-viewees what the research aimed to achieve (an investigation of how mobile technology can be better utilized for business English vocabulary learning), why it was of interest that they were interviewed (because they had experience and did pretty well in the posttest), how long the in-terviewing process would last (15-20 minutes), and how confidentiality would be respected for research purposes only, as well as by asking them whether they would like to participate in the interview and mind being recorded when they were being interviewed. The second part was concerned with their planning for vocabu-lary learning. The third part was related to their perceived effective learning methods. The last part addressed the advantages and disadvantages of vocabulary learning with the technology as well as their future intentions of using mobile phone for vocabulary learning.

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

The students from the two intact advanced reading classes were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions: One group of students (the SMS group) used mobile phone SMS as the medium of vocabulary delivery and a tool for vocabulary learning; the other group (the paper group) used traditional paper material both as a delivery medium and a tool for the same purpose.

Before the experiment kicked off, a pretest was administered to the two groups. Then, SMS vocabulary messages were delivered via the China Mobile’s Fetion System—a free MSN-like text chat system, which provides free mobile phone SMS services. The SMS group received five business terms at pre-designated time early in the afternoon on a daily basis. The same number of the business terms was also distributed face-to-face to the paper group proximately at the same time each day. All the participants were told to take a test on all the vocabulary items after 3 weeks. They were expected to work on the task according to their own schedule at extracurricular times and in their own effective way as well as to complete

the task in terms of memorizing the terms and their corresponding translations before the posttest was given.

On the fourth week, a posttest was admin-istered to the two groups in the reading class following the three-week experiment and a questionnaire survey was given to the experi-mental group. There were 17 participants who responded to the questionnaire and data were processed for later analysis. The participants from the SMSG, who did well in the posttest, were selected to be interviewed in the same week. On the fifth week, namely, two weeks after the experiment, a delayed test was administered to the two groups to identify the differences in vocabulary retention rates.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Results of the Pretest in the Two Groups

To establish the homogeneity of the two groups in terms of their initial vocabulary level, an independent-samples t-test was conducted on the vocabulary test (which was taken as a pretest) to examine the difference in the performance of the two groups before the experiment was carried out. Based on the group statistics, the SMSG (M=27.13, SD=6.370) did better than the PG (M=26.90, SD=7.297) in the pretest. However, the result of t-test on the pretest of the two groups did not show that the two groups were significantly different from each other in terms of their existing business vocabulary knowledge (t(41)= .111, p>.05, (2-tailed)), revealing that the two groups had the same vocabulary proficiency level before the inter-vention was made (Table 1).

4.2. Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning After the Treatment

To find out whether the mobile technology can effectively help enhance student vocabulary learning, or in other words, whether the ex-perimental group can do better than the control group in terms of their performance after the



experiment, an independent-samples t-test was conducted on the posttest. Results show that the SMSG (M=41.39, SD=5.237) outperformed the PG (M=37.60, SD=6.336) in the posttest. This revealed that there was a significant difference in the performance of the two groups (t(41)= 2.148, p<.05, (2-tailed)). The result reveals that technology-based business vocabulary learning was more effective than traditional paper-based learning. In other words, the use of technology can make a difference in the performance of students’ vocabulary learning. However, when taken from the result of the delayed test, the SMSG (M=41.96, SD=6.131) was not signifi-cantly different (t(41)= -.943, p>.05, (2-tailed))

from the PG (M=43.60, SD=5.154). This dem-onstrates that the use of the technology cannot help students to maintain higher retention rates in the long-term (Table 2).

4.3. Correlations Between Metacogntive Strategies and Results of the Posttest

Results showed that there was a significant positive correlation of the students’ posttest scores with time management (r=.636, p<.01) and effort regulation (r=.568, p<.05). How-ever, no significant correlation was found with monitoring (r=.478, p>.05). These results

Table 2. Independent samples test

Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Upper Lower

Pre-test EVA .322 .574 .111 41 .912 .230 2.084 -3.978 4.439

EVNA .110 38.080 .913 .230 2.104 -4.029 4.489

Post-test EVA .182 .672 2.148 41 .038 3.791 1.765 .227 7.356

EVNA 2.119 37.003 .041 3.791 1.789 .167 7.416

Delayed test

EVA .606 .441 -.943 41 .351 -1.643 1.743 -5.163 1.876

EVNA -.955 40.963 .345 -1.643 1.721 -5.120 1.833

EVA=Equal variances assumed; EVNA=Equal variances not assumed

Table 1. Results of the independent-samples t test in vocabulary pretest

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pretest SMS 23 27.13 6.370 1.328

Paper 20 26.90 7.297 1.632

Posttest SMS 23 41.39 5.237 1.092

Paper 20 37.60 6.336 1.417

Delayed test SMS 23 41.96 6.131 1.278

Paper 20 43.60 5.154 1.153



indicated that such metacognitive strategies as time management and effort regulation were crucially important to the effectiveness of stu-dent learning because when students had better time management and effort regulation, they were more likely to achieve better academic performance (Table 3).

4.4. Students’ Attitudes Toward the Adoption of Mobile Phone for Vocabulary Learning

Students’ attitudes toward the use of SMS in vocabulary learning were measured through students’ behavioral attitude, motivation and attitude toward usefulness as well as behavioral intention. The average score on the Likert scale from 1 to 7 was 4.0 points. All of the scores including the constructs and statement items were significantly positive (One-Sample 2 tailed t-test comparing each statement and the construct with an expected mean of 4.0, with p<.05 for both each statement and construct). The survey (presented in Box 2) results revealed that students were quite positive about the use of the technology, which is proven to be further evidence of the previous studies.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. Effectiveness of Business Vocabulary Learning with Mobile Technologies

As the results of the independent-samples t-test on the posttest scores of the two groups have

revealed, mobile technology-based vocabulary learning is more effective than traditional paper-based learning. Such effectiveness may be due to an array of reasons as follows:

To begin with, the students are gener-ally positive about the use of mobile phone in language learning. According to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), a person’s action is dependent upon one’s behavioral intention on the basis of one’s be-havioral attitude and subjective norm. When students have a positive attitude toward the use of technology and meanwhile perceive positively the consequences of adopting it in terms of what their peers may view them, they are more likely to take advantage of the technology effectively. For the learners in this study, this way of learning is their first-time experience and they all think favorably about it. Such an attitude toward mobile learning is in line with that of the students in some of the most recent studies (see Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009; Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008; Song, 2008). As attitudes can affect learning performance (Call, 2003; O’Toole. 2007), namely, positive attitudes usually result in better performance of learn-ing and vice versa, students’ positive attitudes toward mobile technology-based learning can therefore give rise to enhanced learning. In the scenario of the current study, the learn-ers’ positive attitudes toward mobile learning lead to motivationally explorative use of the technology for vocabulary learning. With such motivation, vocabulary learning can be better facilitated (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). This has also been evidenced by Garrett’s (1992) study of

Table 3. Correlations of the constructs with the posttest score

1 2 3 4

Time management 1

Effort regulation .780(**) 1

Monitoring .319 .423 1

Posttest .636(**) .568(*) .478 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).



the relationship between positive attitudes and vocabulary learning performance, showing that a positive attitude, along with high motivation and high achievement, corresponded to high vocabulary learning performance.

Besides, vocabulary learning via SMS enables students to reduce cognitive load. When learning via SMS, students are usually exposed to chunks of information, which appear on the screen and can be easily processed in short-term memory (Ryu & Kim, 2006; Zim-merman & Yohon, 2009) due to the nature of the words being delivered and presented piece by piece and in a well-structured sequence. Such cognitive-friendly chunks of information, ac-cording to the theory of cognitive load (Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998), can be easily organized in the students’ short-term memory. Accordingly, the words memorized can be easily stored in the memory. One of the interviewees commented on this way of learning as follows:

The words delivered via SMS every day come to me just like the way rain moistens things. This way of learning takes a very fragmented approach that enables me to memorize the words imperceptibly. Each time I have five words available to me and I can gradually memorize them effectively. (Natasha, interview on January 7, 2010)

However, when such processing is sus-pended or discontinued, words in the short-term memory can slip away easily because they are processed in a limited processing capacity and have not entered the long-term memory. That may be one of the reasons why the experimental group cannot perform better than the control group in the delayed test.

Moreover, this novel way of learning helps students develop effective autonomous vocabulary learning strategies. Students’ learn-ing via SMS depends on a continual reception

Box 2. Descriptive statistics

Constructs and question items Mean SD

Behavioral attitude 6.12 1.071

A. Using SMS is a good idea for vocabulary learning. 6.18 1.131

B. I like using SMS for vocabulary learning. 6.06 1.029

C. It is fun for me to learn vocabulary via SMS. 6.12 1.054

Motivation 5.16 1.158

A. When I received words, I was motivated to learn them as much as I could. 5.00 1.225

B. Vocabulary SMS made me focus my attention on the vocabulary tasks. 5.82 0.883

C. I was pushed to complete the vocabulary tasks when I got vocabulary messages. 4.65 1.367

Attitude toward usefulness 5.90 0.925

A. SMS is useful to me for vocabulary learning. 6.29 0.849

B. SMS allows me to access target words easily. 5.82 1.131

C. SMS improves my efficiency of learning vocabulary. 5.88 0.781

D. SMS allows me to easily memorize new words. 5.59 0.939

Behavioral intention 6.35 0.784

A. I will continue to use SMS for vocabulary learning if there is such a chance again. 6.41 0.795

B. I will recommend others to use SMS for vocabulary learning if such a chance is made available.

6.29 0.772

C. I will participate in such a vocabulary learning activity when there is an opportunity of this kind.

6.35 0.786



of words delivered to them. Beyond the use of mobile phone for socially communicative purposes, the phone ringtones could be a regular reminder of their time for vocabulary learning. As the terms are delivered at a relatively fixed time on a regular basis, they are usually men-tally prepared for receiving the new terms at a particular time during the day and schedule the daily tasks for memorizing the words. As one of the interviewees says, “I think it’s good to learn in this way because it is very convenient and that it prompts me to learn the right thing at the right time and in the right place.” Another interviewee also echoes, “As the messages are delivered very day and on a regular basis, I’m always expecting to memorize the words during such a period of time.” Meanwhile, in order to effectively memorize the words, students have generally developed their own perceived way of effective learning. For example, some of them copy down difficult terms in a notebook while others place newly received words in a newly created file on the phone for later memorization or revision. Some memorize the words by simply reading the messages on the phone while others by writing the words on a piece of paper when reading them on the phone at the same time. Some prefer to memorize vocabulary by making good use of segmented times when they are on the way to classroom buildings and in the bed before going to sleep while others prefer to do it while they are in the washroom or feel tired during their academic studies. Thus, it can be seen that business English vocabulary learning with mobile phones has exerted some impact on learner autonomy, which reveals a sharp contrast to Walters and Bozkurt’s (2009) stud-ies. However, the findings of the development of viable vocabulary learning strategies lend another empirical support to the findings that strategy use can be conducive to vocabulary learning in the existing body of literature (see Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009; Schmitt, 1997; Wen, 2010)

Furthermore, learning via mobile phone offers the students an opportunity of efficient use of segmented times. Mobile learning is be-lieved to be a kind of learning that truly makes

learning take place anytime and anywhere (Chen, Chang, & Wang, 2008; Kukulska-Hulme, 2008; Motiwalla, 2007). Thanks to the affordances of mobile technologies such as mobile phones, students are able to make most of such segmented times as waiting for and traveling on the subway train, commuting between home and school as well as between dorms and classrooms, and being in bed before sleeping even after communal dorm room lights are off (Door room electricity is officially cut off after 11 o’clock pm in every dorm building on campus). They can be repeatedly exposed to the target words whenever time is available to them. As a result, such repeated exposures help enhance vocabulary retention (Elley, 1989; Laufer, 2009; Rott, 1999; Schmitt, 2008).

Finally, learning with SMS makes the stu-dents stress-free. As words are delivered in the form of chunks and with a limited number on a daily basis, the students usually do not have an overwhelming feeling about the vocabulary tasks, even though they have nearly 150 words to memorize. They generally have less anxiety about the task because the huge task has been split up into mini-tasks, which are psychologi-cally less challenging and cognitively favorable for being processed in the short-term memory. When students work on these mini-tasks, learn-ing becomes less stressful and more motivating. One of the students made the following com-ments when she was interviewed:

We have only five words each day. I feel com-fortable with the number of the words and don’t have a pressure when I’m learning. If I learn the same thing from a vocabulary book with a long list of words, I will feel frustrated when I open the book to find so many words to memorize. (Jasmine, interview on January 8, 2010)

5.2. Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phone

As an old saying goes, a coin has two sides. Also evident are the advantages and disadvantages in vocabulary learning via mobile phone. On the one hand, there are dozens of advantages



of using mobile phone for vocabulary learning. First, convenience is one of the most widely recognized affordances of this technology for vocabulary learning (see Cheung & Hew, 2009; Frohbergm, Göth, & Schwabe, 2009; Joseph,2009; Song, 2008; Stockwell, 2008). It has also been recognized by the participants in this study as shown from some of the inter-viewees’ comments as follows:

We all have a mobile phone and I keep it in my pocket. It’s convenient to take it out and read. Also, I can memorize the words anytime and anywhere. (Jane, interview on January 8, 2010)

I think it’s a good way to learn business vo-cabulary. Everyone has a mobile phone with them every day. When a message comes, we can read it immediately. It’s very efficient to learn when I have nothing to do while traveling on the bus or the subway train. (Leslie, interview on January 7, 2010)

Second, this way of learning is motiva-tional. As revealed by a large multitude of studies (see Clément, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977; Clément & Kruidenier, 1985; Coleman & Furnborough, 2010; Csiz´er & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Csiz´er, 2002; Elley, 1989; Ely, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Lukmani, 1972; Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, 1999; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Vujisic, 2009), “motivation has been widely embraced by both practitioners and researchers as a critical determinant of success in language learning” (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008, p. 358). There is no exception of the effects of motivation on vocabulary learning (Takač, 2008; Xing, 2009). The ringtones are taken as a good reminder, which can motivate the students to learn. Such a motivational affordance has also been echoed by Lu (2008). The following is one of the comments on the advantages made by an interviewee:

When an SMS message has not been read, I’m always reminded by a ringtone. The same is also true for vocabulary learning. When there is a

vocabulary message that I fail to read, I’m also reminded. That’s fairly cool. (Carol, interview on January 8, 2010)

Third, learning with mobile phone af-fords spaced learning. Based on a literature study, Druckman and Swets (1988) argue that “long-term memory can be greatly increased by repeating the material under optimal spacing conditions rather than present it once or under massed conditions” (p. 54). Crozier (1997) also argues that learning performance can be enhanced when learning intervals are shorter and spaced. Vocabulary learning with SMS is different from traditional paper-based learning in at least one sense that students can access only a limited number of new words each time and on a regular basis due to the affordances of portability and convenience. Students repeat memorizing the same number of the words at some intervals each day and every day. Even when they have dozens of words to memorize, their attention is only given to those hard-to-remember ones at some intervals. Such a kind of spaced learning is believed to be beneficial to vocabulary learning (Takač, 2008) and has been evidenced by one of the interviewee’s comments in the following:

I used to try to crack lists of vocabulary at the end of the semester when the exam date was only a few weeks away, but the efficiency was low. When I’m using SMS, I memorize a few each day and repeat working on them during the day. Also, the receiving of the messages is more like a reminder for me and I like the dynamics. I think such spaced learning is more effective for me to memorize the words. (Edwin, interview on January 7, 2010)

On the other hand, there are also some weaknesses of vocabulary learning with mobile phone. First, like what was found by Liu (2009), the size of mobile phone memory is insufficient. Such insufficiency leads to the students’ frequent and intentional deletion of messages. Due to the small screen size, vocabulary messages are deleted by mistake from time to time. As



messages for vocabulary learning are mixed with those for other purposes, the former are sometimes mistakenly deleted and cannot be retrieved, especially for the students who are socially active and are likely to have dozens of more messages on a daily basis. This could be problematic because they cannot memorize an equal number of words as their peers do, due to their mistaken behavior. Second, there is no easy access to previously received words. Words delivered via SMS each day accumulate as time passes by. Locating a particular word could be cumbersome when tens of messages are loaded on the phone. Third, no marking can be made. Words can be better memorized when multiple senses are deployed. Most of the students prefer to memorize words by read-ing and meanwhile scribbling or writing them down on a piece of paper or in a notebook. In such a way, they think that they are better able to memorize them. Because words delivered via SMS cannot be marked or underlined on the mobile phone, such a pitfall becomes a big obstacle to effective use for vocabulary learning as revealed from the interviews. Fourth, deep processing of vocabulary is minimal. Because individual business vocabulary items are learned independently of situational contexts, what learners can do is only to repetitively and me-chanically learn the items by heart. Such a lack of contexts, which are proven to be crucially important to vocabulary learning (Onaha, 2005), makes them unable to conduct deep processing of what they are memorizing. They may just familiarize themselves with the form of the vocabulary words that they have memorized but fail to put them to effective use in realistic contexts. The processing of vocabulary items remains shallow and thus long-term retention remains low.

6. CONCLUSION

This study has made several findings, some of which are our experiences and lessons as well. First, business vocabulary learning with mobile phone as a medium of delivery and a mobile learning tool is advantageous over traditional

paper-based vocabulary learning. This finding is in line with a number of most recent stud-ies (e.g., Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Levy & Kennedy, 2005; Lu, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005). This technology-enhanced learning can enable learners to reduce their cognitive load, develop their autonomous learning skills, and effectively use their segmented times. Also, it can enable them to enlarge their vocabulary knowledge in a more convenient, highly moti-vated, as well as spaced manner.

Second, the time of vocabulary delivery via SMS needs to be worked out with the stu-dents. Just because each student has their own learning schedules, they may feel disturbed by receiving unexpected messages while they are concentrating on their school work.

Third, the maximum number of vocabulary items delivered each time needs to be confined to four or five items. Students try to memorize as many words as they can receive on a weekly basis. As a result, within a few days, they may find that the list of words is not only long but also messy, for other kinds of messages such as those for greeting purposes from friends are messed with vocabulary messages.

Fourth, vocabulary in context can be more effectively memorized. When students are working on vocabulary independent of context, they give more attention to linguistic form than meaning. More importantly, they do not know how a vocabulary word is used in a specific context. It is therefore difficult for what they have memorized to become part of their own linguistic system. As a consequence, they can only see a tree without noticing the forest and find that what is in their mind can slip their mind easily.

Finally, effective mobile technology-enhanced vocabulary learning can be achieved by innovatively blending it with print-based learning, preferably involving noticing, repeti-tion, retrieval and generative use (Nation, 2001) with context-bound cues. It is evident that the effectiveness is not determined by the technol-ogy per se but by learners’ creative use of it through offsetting the technology’s weaknesses. It is paramount to develop their metacognitive



ability as well as effective learning strategies before learning of this kind kicks off.

A number of limitations of this study need to be mentioned, some of which offer opportu-nities for future research. First, the study has a small sample size. Although the size is compa-rable with many other similar studies (e.g., Lu, 2008), it is considered small. Generalization of the findings to a larger sample should be made with caution. Future studies may expand sample size so that relevant findings are more likely to be better able to enrich the existing literature. Second, the study has not fully controlled the effect of frequency of exposure to vocabulary items on retention rates. As exposure frequency is positively correlated to vocabulary gains (Rott, 1999), future research may find out a better way to appropriately quantify the fre-quency as well as include it as a variable when investigation of the effectiveness is conducted. Third, the study mainly focused on the effect of SMS on business English vocabulary learn-ing by ‘pushing out’ groups of vocabulary to the students for them to learn. However, if the students can ‘pull out’ the terms that they need on the phone when completing a task or in a particular language context, that will be helpful to their autonomous learning. Finally, learning strategies are not considered in this study. It is evident that different learning strategies may result in variant vocabulary gains and retention. An investigation of the effect of learning strate-gies in such a scenario is also worth the effort.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to extend our thanks to the anony-mous reviewer for his/her thorough review and constructive suggestions for improvements. This study is supported by Renmin University of China’s International Humanities and Social Sciences Journal Paper Publishing Promotion Program (NO. 12XNK001).

REFERENCES

Adams, J., & Hirsch, M. (2007). Hitting the books: In China alone, 175 million people now study English. Newsweek. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/32295

Atay, D., & Ozbulgan, C. (2007). Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabulary recall. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 39–51. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.01.002

Aurner, R. R. (1950). Effective communication in business (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Başoğlu, E. B., & Akdemir, Ö. (2010). A compari-son of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1–7.

Bibby, S. (2011). Do students wish to ’go mobile’?: An investigation into student use of PCs and cell phones. [IJCALLT]. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 43–54. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2011040104

Bromley, K. (2002). Stretching students’ vocabulary. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Call, N., & Featherstone, S. (2003). The thinking child: Brain-based learning for the foundation stage. Stafford, ST: Network Educational Press.

Cavus, C., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educa-tional Technology, 40(1), 78–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x

Çelik, S., & Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategy use of Turkish EFL learners. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.013

Chen, G. D., Chang, C. K., & Wang, C. Y. (2008). Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77–90. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004

Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2009). A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education set-tings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technol-ogy, 25(2), 153–183.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32295

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32295

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.01.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2011040104

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.013


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004




Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies go-ing to the mall: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9–16.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in second language acquisi-tion: A study of francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9(2), 123–133. doi:10.1037/h0081614

Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Apti-tude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Cément’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(1), 21–37. doi:10.1177/0261927X8500400102

Coleman, J. A., & Furnborough, C. (2010). Learner characteristics and learning outcomes on a distance Spanish course for beginners. System, 38(1), 14–29. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.002

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Jour-nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Crozier, W. R. (1997). Individual learners: Personal-ity differences in education. London, UK: Routledge.

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19–36. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x

Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary develop-ment and reading comprehension through metacog-nitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1–11.

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavior impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022

Diller, D. (2007). Making the most of small groups: differentiation for all. Markham, Canada: Stenhouse Publishers.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Motivational dy-namics in second language acquisition: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462. doi:10.1093/applin/23.4.421

Druckman, D., & Swets, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhanc-ing human performance: Issues, theories, and tech-niques. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Devel-opments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 174–187. doi:10.2307/747863

Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation: A descriptive and causal analysis. Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 28–35. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05240.x

Feng, X. F. (2009, December 21), 200 billion SMS messages were delivered in the first 11 months na-tionwide [Qian 11 Ge Yue Quan Guo Shou Ji Duan Xin Fa Song Liang Jin 2000 Yi Tiao]. Retrieved January 1, 26, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/it/2004-12/22/content_2365818.htm

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Frohbergm, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile Learning projects – a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 307–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motiva-tion. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instru-mental motivation in language study: Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(01), 57–72. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009724

Garrett, S. L. (1992). The effects of perceptual preference and motivation on vocabulary and at-titude scores among selected high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning out-comes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01355.x

International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2000). Maritime English. London, UK: International Mari-time Organization.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0081614

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8500400102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.4.421

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747863

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05240.x


http://news.xinhuanet.com/it/2004-12/22/content_2365818.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/it/2004-12/22/content_2365818.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009724




Jones, A., Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2006). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the kalei-doscope network of excellence mobile learning initia-tive. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.

Joseph, S. R. H., & Uther, M. (2009). Mobile devices for language learning: Multimedia approaches. Re-search and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learn-ing, 4(1), 7–32. doi:10.1142/S179320680900060X

Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From e-learning to m-learning (No. ZIFF Papiere 119). Hagen Zentrales Institute fur Fernstudienforschung: FernUniversitat. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZP_119.pdf

Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. doi:10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039227

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An over-view of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289. doi:10.1017/S0958344008000335

Lai, C.-H., Yang, J.-C., Chen, F.-C., Ho, C.-W., & Chan, T.-W. (2007). Affordances of mobile tech-nologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326–337. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00237.x

Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary ac-quisition from language input and from form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42(3), 341–354. doi:10.1017/S0261444809005771

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme, & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 76–83). London, UK: Routledge.

Liu, T.-Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learn-ing environment for language listening and speak-ing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 515–527. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00329.x

Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learn-ing via mobile phone. Journal of Computer As-sisted Learning, 24(6), 515–525. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00289.x

Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese user’ acceptance of instant messaging us-ing the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 29–39. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.002

Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22(2), 261–273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00087.x

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university stu-dents. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 425–449. doi:10.1177/1362168809341511

Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A frame-work and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011

Nacera, A. (2010). Languages learning strategies and the vocabulary size. Procedia: Social and Be-havioral Sciences, 2(2), 4021–4025. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.634

Nah, K. C., White, P., & Sussex, R. (2008). The po-tential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean context. ReCALL, 20(3), 331–347. doi:10.1017/S0958344008000633

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524759

News, B. B. C. (2004). China mobiles outstrip land-lines. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3374893.stm

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00003

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learn-ing strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524490

O’Toole, G. (2007). Can assessment of student at-titudes assist both the teaching and learning process as well as ultimate performance in professional practice. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teach-ing and learning through assessment: Deriving an appropriate model (pp. 468–475). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S179320680900060X

http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZP_119.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039227

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039227

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00237.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809005771

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00329.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00289.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00289.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.002


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341511




http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000633

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000633

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3374893.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3374893.stm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490



Onaha, H. (2005). Effect of context in EFL vocabulary learning. Ryudai Review of Euro-American Studies, 49, 23–36.

Osborne, P. (2005). Teaching English one to one: How to teach one to one classes - for the professional English language teacher. London, UK: Modern English Publishing.

Random House. (2009). Quotation. Retrieved Janu-ary 15, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quotation

Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 2(2), 1–15.

Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 589–619. doi:10.1017/S0272263199004039

Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 589–619. doi:10.1017/S0272263199004039

Ryu, J., & Kim, M. (2006). Effective design for decreasing cognitive load on the small screen of PDA. In ReevesT.YamashitaS. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 2323-2328). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Saricaa, G. N., & Cavus, N. (2009). New trends in 21st century English learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 439–445. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.079

Scarcella, R. C., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2005). Cog-nates, cognition, and writing: An investigation of the use of cognates by university second-language learners. In A. E. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 123–136). Washington, DC: George-town University Press.

Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 313–359). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching Center.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: De-scription, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: De-scription, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vo-cabulary. Learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. doi:10.1177/1362168808089921

Shih, Y. E. (2005, July 5-8). Language in action: Applying mobile classroom in foreign language learning. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 548-549). doi:10.1109/ICALT.2005.188

Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learn-ing for mobile Audiences. Int. J. Mobile Learn-ing and Organisation, 2(1), 81–98. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2008.018719

Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learn-ing for mobile audiences. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2(1), 81–98. doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2008.018719

Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 253–270. doi:10.1017/S0958344008000232

Sweeney, P., & Moore, C. (2012). Mobile apps for learning vocabulary: Categories, evaluation and design criteria for teachers and developers. [IJCALLT]. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(4), 1–16. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2012100101

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205

Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x

Tremblay, P., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expand-ing the motivation construct in language learn-ing. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505–518. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05451.x

Tseng, W., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equa-tion modeling approach. Language Learning, 58(2), 357–400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quotation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quotation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004039

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004039



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2005.188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2005.188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2008.018719



http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000232

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000232

http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2012100101

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x



Vujisic, Z. (2009). The role of achievement motivation on the interlanguage fossilization of middle-aged English-as-a-second-language learners. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.

Walters, J., & Bozkurt, N. (2009). The effect of keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisi-tion. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 403–423. doi:10.1177/1362168809341509

Wen, X. (2010). An empirical study on vocabulary learning strategies among business English majors. Foreign Language and Literature, 26(5), 134–145.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: a social constructive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Xing, P. (2009). Chinese learners and the lexis learning rainbow. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Yu, S. F., & Feng, Y. Q. (2009, July 22). Zhong Guo Yi Dong Dian Hua Yong Hu Shu Da Dao 6.8 Yi [The number of mobile users in China has reached 680 million]. Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/internet/2009-07/23/content_11758516.htm

Zhan, D. B., Sun, X. P., Yao, M., Li, Y. L., Meng, Y., Duan, C. C., et al. (2010, March 4). Shu Yi Xue Xi Zhe Bei Zhi Feng Kuang “Quan Min Ying Yu Re” Zhe Mo Dong Ya [East Asia is tortured by English language learning with hundreds of millions of crazy language learners]. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-03/744066.html

Zhang, H., Song, W., & Burston, J. (2011). Reex-amining the effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phones. Turkish Online Journal of Educa-tional Technology, 10(3), 203–214.

Zhao, Y. (2005). The future of research in technology and second language education. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learn-ing: developments and directions (pp. 445–457). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Zimmerman, D., & Yohon, T. (2009, 19-22 July). Small-screen interface design: Where are we? Where do we go? Paper presented at the IEEE Inter-national Professional Communication Conference. doi:doi:10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667 doi:10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667

Haisen Zhang is an associate professor of English in the School of International Studies at the University of International Business and Economics. He earns his doctoral degree in educational technology, with an emphasis on CALL from Beijing Normal University in China. His areas of research interest cover CALL, mobile language learning, virtual environments, language peda-gogy, and faculty professional development.

Wei Song is an associate professor of finance in the School of Finance at Renmin University of China. Her research interests include financial theory and policy, banking management, and English for finance.

Ronghuai Huang is a professor in the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University. He is a prominent Chinese expert in the fields of educational technology and knowledge engineer-ing. Over the past decade, he has been a frequent presenter at both national and international conferences and published widely in the field of educational technology, knowledge engineering, e-learning, and e-curriculum design.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341509

http://news.xinhuanet.com/internet/2009-07/23/content_11758516.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/internet/2009-07/23/content_11758516.htm

http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-03/744066.html

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667