skip to main content
10.1145/3441000.3441056acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Usability Testing of VLASTWA: A Vocabulary and Strategy Teaching Web App

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 February 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

While vocabulary learning is one of the challenging tasks of language learning, it is considered indispensable for language mastery. Vocabulary learning presents similar challenges for professionals who need to master new terminology and definitions. The use of technology has been seen to effectively support learners in the vocabulary learning challenges. In this paper, the usability and learnability of a bespoke web app, VLASTWA, is assessed in terms of usability, effectiveness and pedagogical efficacy. VLASTWA was designed and implemented utilizing effective and extensively researched vocabulary learning technique, the keyword method. In this experimental study, participants (n=160, age = 18-60) learned to use the keyword method and employed it in new vocabulary learning (Persian-English) using VLASTWA. VLASTWA experimental web app performed well in a usability study using System Usability Scale with a rating of 91.5%. Results demonstrated the web app as a usable and efficient instrument in acquiring new vocabulary and future research will investigate the inherent use of the designed web app for different population, other languages and sets of words and emerging technologies such as augment reality and virtual reality and electroencephalogram.

References

  1. Muljani, D., Koda, K. and Moates, D.R., 1998. The development of word recognition in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(1), pp.99-113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Nation, I., 2011. Teaching Vocabulary. Boston, Mass: Heinle.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richards, J. 1976. The Role of Vocabulary Teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 10, 1 (1976), 77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hamada, M. and Koda, K., 2008. Influence of first language orthographic experience on second language decoding and word learning. Language Learning, 58(1), pp.1-31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Folse, K.S., 2004. Myths about teaching and learning second language vocabulary: What recent research says. TESL reporter, 37(2), pp.1-13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Poulisse, N., 1991. Oxford, Rebecca. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers, 1989. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(2), pp.374-376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lee, H.W., Lim, K.Y. and Grabowski, B.L., 2010. Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), pp.629-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lawson, M.J. and Hogben, D., 1996. The vocabulary‐learning strategies of foreign‐language students. Language learning, 46(1), pp.101-135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mergel, B., 1998. Instructional design and learning theory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Delaney, P.F. and Verkoeijen, P.P., 2009. Rehearsal strategies can enlarge or diminish the spacing effect: Pure versus mixed lists and encoding strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), p.1148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dunlosky, J. and Hertzog, C., 2000. Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and aging, 15(3), p.462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J. and Thompson, L., 2003. Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of educational psychology, 95(2), p.393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ott, C.E., Butler, D.C., Blake, R.S. and Ball, J.P., 1973. The effect of interactive‐image elaboration on the acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Language Learning, 23(2), pp.197-206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Atkinson, R.C. and Raugh, M.R., 1975. An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of experimental psychology: Human learning and memory, 1(2), p.126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Atkinson, R.C. and Raugh, M.R., 1974. An Application of the Mnemonic Keyword Method to the Acquisition of a Russian Vocabulary. Psychology and Education Series, Technical Report No. 237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin, C.H., Warschauer, M. and Blake, R., 2016. Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), pp.124-147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2009. Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(2), pp.157-165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Culbertson, G., Shen, S., Andersen, E. and Jung, M., 2017, February. Have your cake and eat it too: Foreign language learning with a crowdsourced video captioning system. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 286-296).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Warschauer, M. and Healey, D., 1998. Computers and language learning: An overview. Language teaching, 31(2), pp.57-71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jung, H.J., 2003. Overview of computer assisted language learning research with second language acquisition perspectives. Teaching English with Technology, 3(3), pp.3-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellis, N.C. and Bogart, P.S., 2007. Speech and Language Technology in Education: the perspective from SLA research and practice. In Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Eskenazi, M., 2009. An overview of spoken language technology for education. Speech Communication, 51(10), pp.832-844.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Edge, D., Searle, E., Chiu, K., Zhao, J. and Landay, J.A., 2011, May. MicroMandarin: mobile language learning in context. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3169-3178).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dearman, D. and Truong, K., 2012, May. Evaluating the implicit acquisition of second language vocabulary using a live wallpaper. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1391-1400).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Head, A., Xu, Y. and Wang, J., 2014, June. Tonewars: Connecting language learners and native speakers through collaborative mobile games. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 368-377). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cai, C.J., Guo, P.J., Glass, J. and Miller, R.C., 2014. Wait-learning: leveraging conversational dead time for second language education. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2239-2244).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sommer, S., and Gruneberg, M. 2002. The use of Linkword Language Computer Courses in a classroom situation: a case study at Rugby School. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 48-53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Godwin-Jones, R. 2010. Emerging technologies from memory places to spaces algorithms: Approaches to second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Affairs, A., 2018. System Usability Scale (SUS) | Usability.Gov. [online] Usability.gov. Available at: <https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html>[Accessed 22 February 2020].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M. and Ellis, N., 1995. Retention of foreign vocabulary learned using the keyword method: A ten-year follow-up. Second Language Research, 11(2), pp.112-120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Lawson, M.J. and Hogben, D., 1998. Learning and recall of foreign-language vocabulary: Effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), pp.179-194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Pressley, M. 1977. Children's use of the keyword method to learn simple Spanish vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(5), 465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Pressley, M., and Dennis-Rounds, J. 1980. Transfer of a mnemonic keyword strategy at two age levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 575.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Kuiper, N. A., Bryant, S. L., and Michener, S. 1982. Mnemonic versus non-mnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies: Additional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., and McCormick, C. B. 1980. Young children's learning of foreign language vocabulary: A sentence variation of the keyword method. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5(1), 22-29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., and Miller, G. E. 1981a. How does the keyword method affect vocabulary comprehension and usage? Reading Research Quarterly, 213-226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., and Miller, G. E. 1981b. The keyword method and children's learning of foreign vocabulary with abstract meanings. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 35(3), 283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Wyra, M., Lawson, M.J. and Hungi, N., 2007. The mnemonic keyword method: The effects of bidirectional retrieval training and of ability to image on foreign language vocabulary recall. Learning and instruction, 17(3), pp.360-371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Mirzaei, S., Wilkinson, B., and Wyra, M. 2018. Usability Testing of VLASTA: A Vocabulary Learning and Strategy Teaching App. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (Dec. 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Taguchi, K. 2006. Should the keyword method be introduced in tertiary foreign language classrooms. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 22-38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Wyra, M., 2019. 14 Problem solving using the keyword method and mental imagery during vocabulary recall. Problem Solving for Teaching and Learning: A Festschrift for Emeritus Professor Mike Lawson, p.1917.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Nielsen, J. 1994. Usability engineering Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Harrison, R., Flood, D., and Duce, D. 2013. Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. Journal of Interaction Science, 1(1), 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Norman, D., 2016. The Definition of User Experience (UX). Nielsen Norman Group. Recuperado de: https://www. nngroup. com/articles/definition-userexperience/, consultado el, 15(12), p.2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Garrett, J. J. 2010. The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web and beyond. Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Valoris, M. 2015. Mixed-methods analysis of best practices for land-grant university mobile applications from a user experience design perspective, A. 2000-2019-CSU Theses and Dissertations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Hell, J. G., and Mahn, A. C. 1997. Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learners. Language Learning, 47(3), 507-546.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Brooke, J. 1996. "SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale." Usability evaluation in industry 189(194): 4 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis, J.R., Utesch, B.S. and Maher, D.E., 2015. Measuring perceived usability: The SUS, UMUX-LITE, and AltUsability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(8), pp.496-505.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Mirzaei, S. 2016. Evaluating Efficacy and Usability of Mobile Devices for Learning New Vocabulary Items. Dissertation, Flinders University, School of Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis, J.R., 2018. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), pp.577-590.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., and Miller, J. 2009. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4(3), 114-123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Derakhshan, A. and Khodabakhshzadeh, H., 2011. Why CALL Why Not MALL: An In-depth Review of Text-message Vocabulary Learning. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 1(9).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Hartson, R., 2003. Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & information technology, 22(5), pp.315-338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    OzCHI '20: Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
    December 2020
    764 pages

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 February 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)28
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format