Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary




L2 vocabulary, flashcards, computer-assisted language learning, EFL


Several researchers have compared the efficacy of digital flashcards (DFs) versus paper flashcards (PFs) to improve L2 vocabulary and have concluded that using DFs is more effective (Azabdaftari & Mozaheb, 2012; Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Kiliçkaya & Krajka, 2010). However, these studies did not utilize vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) as a way to support the vocabulary development of those using PFs. This is significant because DFs often offer a range of features to promote vocabulary development, whereas PFs are much more basic; thus, learners who study via paper materials are at a disadvantage compared with those who use DFs. Given the success that VLSs have had in fostering L2 vocabulary enhancement (e.g., Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009), their incorporation could have influenced the previous studies. Therefore, one of the primary aims of this study was to find if there were significant differences in receptive and productive L2 vocabulary improvements between students who used PFs in conjunction with 3 VLSs – dropping, association, and oral rehearsal – and those who used the DF tools Quizlet and Cram. Additionally, the researchers examined the learners’ opinions to see if there was a preference for either study method. A total of 52 EFL students at two Japanese universities participated in the 12-week study. Pre- and post-tests were administered to measure the vocabulary gains in the PF group (n = 26) and the DF group (n = 26). Results from a paired t-test revealed that both groups made significant improvements in receptive and productive vocabulary. However, the difference between the gains was not significant, which contrasts with past comparison studies of DFs and PFs and highlights the importance of VLSs. A 10-item survey with closed and Likert-scale questions was also administered to determine the participants’ opinions towards the study methods. Higher levels of agreement were found in the experimental group, indicating that the students viewed DFs more favorably than PFs.


Download data is not yet available.


Azabdaftari, B., & Mozaheb, A. M. (2012). Comparing vocabulary learning of EFL learning by using two different strategies: mobile learning vs. flashcards. The EUROCALL Review, 20(2), 48-59. Retrieved from

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

Bateson, G., & Daniels, P. (2012 ). Diversity in technologies. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Diversity in Research and Practice (pp. 127 -146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Browne, C. (2013). The new general service list: Celebrating 60 years of vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher, 37(4), 13-16.

Burger, A., Chong, I. (2011). Receptive vocabulary. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development (pp. 1231 -1231). New York, NY: Springer.

Cram. (2016). About Retrieved August 25, 2016 from

Fan, M. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal, 31(1), 105–119. doi:

Jackson III, D. B (2015). A targeted role for L1 in L2 vocabulary acquisition with mobile learning technology. Perspectives, 23(1), 6-11.

Kiliçkaya, F., & Krajka, J. (2010). Comparative usefulness of online and traditional vocabulary learning. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 55-63. Retrieved from

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). Optimizing self-regulated study: The benefits – and costs – of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16(2), 125-136. doi:

Laufer, Batia. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271. doi:

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51. doi: 10.1177/026553229901600103

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365–391. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00046

Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 6(2), 150-154. Retrieved from

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

Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.

Nikoopour, J., & Kazemi, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning through digitized & non-digitized flashcards delivery. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in ELT, 98, 1366-1373. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.554

Quizlet. (2016). About Quizlet | Quizlet. Retrieved August 25, 2016 from

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.

Stoeckel T., & Bennett, P. (2015). A test of the new General Service List. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 1-8. doi: 10.7820/vli.v04.1.stoeckel.bennett

Webb, Stuart. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 79-95. doi:Â

Webb, Stuart. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary - learning the effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52. doi:ÂÂ

West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, UK: Longman, Green.






Research papers