iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12423-y
The design of technology-enhanced vocabulary learning: A systematic review | Education and Information Technologies Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The design of technology-enhanced vocabulary learning: A systematic review

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some meta-analyses have confirmed the efficacy of technology-enhanced vocabulary learning. However, they have not delved into the specific ways in which technology-based activities facilitate vocabulary acquisition, or into first-language vocabulary learning. We conducted a systematic review that retrieved 1,221 journal articles published between 2011 and 2023, of which 40 met our inclusion criteria. Most of the sampled studies focused on teaching receptive vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary breadth. All utilized cognitive strategies. Their common design features included noticing and receptive or productive retrieval, and most implicitly drew upon dual-coding theory. Our findings highlight the need for a balanced approach to vocabulary learning, encompassing both vocabulary breadth and depth, as well as receptive and productive knowledge. They also suggest that affective and social learning strategies should be promoted alongside the cognitive ones that are currently dominant. Additionally, our identification of commonly and rarely used design features can guide curriculum designers to develop more effective tools. Lastly, we argue that the design of technology-enhanced learning should be theory-driven.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

This review article does not contain any new data as it is a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of existing literature. The findings and conclusions presented in this review are based on the analysis and interpretation of publicly available information, including published articles, books, and other documented sources. All the references cited in this review are provided to ensure transparency and enable readers to access the relevant sources for further exploration. No additional datasets were generated or analyzed during the completion of this review.

References

(Note: References preceded by an asterisk are the articles included in this review)

  • *Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Stanger, C., Preston, A. I., & Kemp-Inman, A. (2016). Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. The Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915622140

  • *Alesi, M., Rappo, G., & Pepi, A. (2016). Investigating the improvement of decoding abilities and working memory in children with incremental or entity personal conceptions of intelligence: Two case reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01939

  • *Amendum, S. J., Bratsch‐Hines, M., & Vernon‐Feagans, L. (2018). Investigating the efficacy of a web‐based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.188

  • *Amorim, A. N., Jeon, L., Abel, Y., Felisberto, E. F., Barbosa, L. N., & Dias, N. M. (2020). Using Escribo Play video games to improve phonological awareness, early reading, and writing in preschool. Educational Researcher, 49(3), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20909824

  • *Aravena, S., Snellings, P., Tijms, J., & van der Molen, M. W. (2013). A lab-controlled simulation of a letter-speech sound binding deficit in dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(4), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.009

  • *Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. D. (2015). Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9. Computers & Education, 81, 154–168.

  • Bodily, R., Leary, H., & West, R. E. (2019). Research trends in instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 64–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan, M. N., & Reich, S. M. (2018). Are educational preschool apps designed to teach? An analysis of the app market. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1498355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Caron, J., Light, J., Holyfield, C., & McNaughton, D. (2018). Effects of dynamic text in an AAC app on sight word reading for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1457715

  • *Cazzell, S., Skinner, C. H., Ciancio, D., Aspiranti, K., Watson, T., Taylor, K., McCurdy, M., & Skinner, A. (2017). Evaluating a computer flash-card sight-word recognition intervention with self-determined response intervals in elementary students with intellectual disability. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000172

  • Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2018). Vocabulary learning strategies outside the classroom context: What adults learn in a technology-based learner-centred environment. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1503135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M.-M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00203.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. N., Chen, S. C., Chen, S. H. E., & Wey, S. C. (2013). The effects of extensive reading via e-books on tertiary level EFL students’ reading attitude, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(2), 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. H., Tseng, W. T., & Hsiao, T. Y. (2018). The effectiveness of digital game-based vocabulary learning: A framework-based view of meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, R. W., & Chan, K. K. (2019). Using augmented reality flashcards to learn vocabulary in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1812–1831.

  • Chiu, Y.-H. (2013). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary instruction: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01342.x

  • *Coleman, M., Hurley, K., & Cihak, D. (2012). Comparing teacher-directed and computer-assisted constant time delay for teaching functional sight words to students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(3), 280–292

  • Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cullen, J., Keesey, S., & Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2013). The effects of computer-assisted instruction using Kurzweil 3000 on sight word acquisition for students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(2), 87–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42900201

  • *Dennis, L. R. (2016). The effects of a multi-component intervention on preschool children’s literacy skills. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112141557739

  • *Douglas, K. H., Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2015). Comparing self-management strategies delivered via an iPhone to promote grocery shopping and literacy. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(4), 446–465.

  • *DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., & Hoffman, J. A. (2016). Parent-administered computer-assisted tutoring targeting letter-sound knowledge: Evaluation via multiple-baseline across three preschool students. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 39–53.

  • *Ecalle, J., Kleinsz, N., & Magnan, A. (2013). Computer-assisted learning in young poor readers: The effect of grapho-syllabic training on the development of word reading and reading comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1368–1376.

  • *Everhart, J. M., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Park, J. H. (2011). Effects of computer-based practice on the acquisition and maintenance of basic academic skills for children with moderate to intensive educational needs. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(4), 556–564.

  • Fageeh, A. A. I. (2013). Effects of MALL applications on vocabulary acquisition and motivation. Arab World English Journal, 4(4), 420–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fehr, C. N., Davison, M. L., Graves, M. F., Sales, G. C., Seipel, B., & Sekhran-Sharma, S. (2012). The effects of individualized, online vocabulary instruction on picture vocabulary scores: An efficacy study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 87–102.

  • *Forbes, B. E., Skinner, C. H., Black, M. P., Yaw, J., Booher, J., & Delisle, J. (2013). Learning rates and known‐to‐unknown flash‐card ratios: Comparing effectiveness while holding instructional time constant. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(4), 832–837.

  • Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2008). For the love of words: Fostering word consciousness in young readers. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadi, H. U. R., & Guo, X. (2020). A survey of beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies adopted by EFL learners at Shaikh Zayed University. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1829803. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1829803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, S. M., Edwards, L. M., Christ, T. J., & Thayer, A. J. (2019). Leveraging technology: A multi-component personalized system of instruction to teach sight words. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.005

  • Hao, T., Wang, Z., & Ardasheva, Y. (2021). Technology-assisted vocabulary learning for EFL learners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(3), 645–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1917028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hilte, M., & Reitsma, P. (2011). Effects of explicit rules in learning to spell open-and closed- syllable words. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.10.002

  • Hirschel, R., & Fritz, E. (2013). Learning vocabulary: CALL program versus vocabulary notebook. System, 41(3), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Plass, J. L., Letourneau, S. M., Hoffman, D., Bromley, M., & Kornak, Y. (2014). Moved to learn: The effects of interactivity in a Kinect-based literacy game for beginning readers. Computers & Education, 74, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.007

  • *Huang, S. (2015). Mixed-method research on learning vocabulary through technology reveals vocabulary growth in second-grade students. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 1–30.

  • Huang, X., Lin, J., & Demner-Fushman, D. (2006). Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2006, 359. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1839740/

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, W. Y., Shadiev, R., Hsu, J. L., Huang, Y. M., Hsu, G. L., & Lin, Y. C. (2016). Effects of storytelling to facilitate EFL speaking using Web-based multimedia system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.927367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jere-Folotiya, J., Chansa-Kabali, T., Munachaka, J. C., Sampa, F., Yalukanda, C., Westerholm, J., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). The effect of using a mobile literacy game to improve literacy levels of grade one students in Zambian schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 417–436.

  • Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., & Ruan, M. (2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject. Computers & Education, 58(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafipour, R., & Naveh, M. H. (2011). Vocabulary learning strategies and their contribution to reading comprehension of EFL undergraduate students in Kerman province. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 626–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kelley, E. S., & Kinney, K. (2017). Word learning and story comprehension from digital storybooks: Does interaction make a difference? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116669811

  • *Kennedy, M. J., Deshler, D. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2015). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487406

  • Kim, J., Gilbert, J., Yu, Q., & Gale, C. (2021). Measures matter: a meta-analysis of the effects of educational apps on preschool to grade 3 children’s literacy and math skills. Aera Open, 7, 23328584211004183.

  • Koh, P. W., Ku, Y. M., & Chen, X. (2020). Examining Chinese vocabulary knowledge in Taiwanese first-and second graders using confirmatory factor analysis. Reading and Writing, 33(2), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09960-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Korat, O., & Shneor, D. (2019). Can e-books support low SES parental mediation to enrich children’s vocabulary? First Language, 39(3), 344–364.

  • *Kory Westlund, J. M., Dickens, L., Jeong, S., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., & Breazeal, C. L. (2017). Children use non-verbal cues to learn new words from robots as well as people. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.04.001

  • *Leacox, L., & Jackson, C. W. (2014). Spanish vocabulary-bridging technology-enhanced instruction for young English language learners’ word learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798412458518

  • *Lee, S. H. (2017). Learning vocabulary through e-book reading of young children with various reading abilities. Reading and Writing, 30(7), 1595–1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9740-6

  • Li, J. (2009). The evolution of vocabulary learning strategies in a computer-mediated reading environment. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 118–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. C., Hsiao, H. S., Tseng, S. P., & Chan, H. J. (2014). Learning English vocabulary collaboratively in a technology-supported classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(1), 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-H., Zhou, K., Yang, S., & Sun, Z. (2022). Developing an evaluation framework for vocabulary-learning apps. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2068037

  • Lin, C.-H., Zhou, K., & Yang, S. (2018). A survey of mobile apps for learning Chinese vocabulary. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 9(2), 98–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z. (2002). Discovering EFL learners’ perception of prior knowledge and its role in reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdi, H. S. (2018). Effectiveness of mobile devices on vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117698826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(3), 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mize, M. K., Park, Y., & Moore, T. (2018). Computer-assisted vocabulary instruction for students with disabilities: Evidence from an effect size analysis of single-subject experimental design studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2016). Twitter-based EFL pronunciation instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 20(1), 166–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, S., Hu, X., Kuo, L. J., Jouhar, M., Xu, Z., & Lee, S. (2018). Vocabulary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and practice. Education Sciences, 8(4), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, C. M., & Jacobsen, N. D. (2016). A comparison of the effectiveness of EFL students’ use of dictionaries and an online corpus for the enhancement of revision skills. ReCALL, 28(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344015000142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Musti-Rao, S., Lo, Y. Y., & Plati, E. (2015). Using an iPad app to improve sight word reading fluency for at-risk first graders. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514541485

  • Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (2014). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Psychology Press.

  • Nam, C. W. (2017). The effects of digital storytelling on student achievement, social presence, and attitude in online collaborative learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1135173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Heinle ELT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Nielen, T. M., Smith, G. G., Sikkema-de Jong, M. T., Drobisz, J., van Horne, B., & Bus, A. G. (2018). Digital guidance for susceptible readers: Effects on fifth graders’ reading motivation and incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117708283

  • Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R. L. (1990). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: connections for language learning. In T. S. Parry, & C. W. Standsfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 67–125). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

  • *Rivera, C. J., Hudson, M. E., Weiss, S. L., & Zambone, A. (2017). Using a multicomponent multimedia shared story intervention with an iPad to teach content picture vocabulary to students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(3), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0014

  • Roskos, K. A., Sullivan, S., Simpson, D., & Zuzolo, N. (2016). E-books in the early literacy environment: Is there added value for vocabulary development? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1143895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sarı, B., Başal, H. A., Takacs, Z. K., & Bus, A. G. (2019). A randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of digital enhancements of storybooks in support of narrative comprehension and word learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.006

  • Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In D. N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In J. Baumann & E. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: From research to practice (pp. 201–217). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Seok, S., DaCosta, B., & Yu, B. M. (2015). Spelling practice intervention: A comparison of tablet PC and picture cards as spelling practice methods for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 84–94.

  • *Smeets, D. J., Van Dijken, M. J., & Bus, A. G. (2014). Using electronic storybooks to support word learning in children with severe language impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 435–449.

  • Spencer, S., Clegg, J., Stackhouse, J., & Rush, R. (2017). Contribution of spoken language and socio-economic background to adolescents’ educational achievement at age 16 years. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52(2), 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13(2), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897672376469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tomita, K. (2016). Interaction of a vocabulary quiz with cognitive instructional strategies in first language learning among Japanese undergraduates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 25(1), 75–100.

  • *Vatalaro, A., Culp, A. M., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Barnes, A. C. (2018). A quasi-experiment examining expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge of preschool head start children using mobile media apps. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(4), 451–466.

  • Wang, S., & Wang, D. (2018). Reform of college students’ foreign language vocabulary teaching and effectiveness analysis of students’ vocabulary competence based on corpus teaching method. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.6.257

  • Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, L.-H., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Liu, M. (2016). Seamlessly learning Chinese: Contextual meaning making and vocabulary growth in a seamless Chinese as a second language learning environment. Instructional Science, 44(5), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9383-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wood, C. L., Mustian, A. L., & Cooke, N. L. (2012). Comparing whole-word and morphograph instruction during computer-assisted peer tutoring on students’ acquisition and generalization of vocabulary. Remedial and Special Education, 33(1), 39–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24827503

  • Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Xu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2021). Adaptation to emergency remote teaching: An ESOL course for older Chinese learners. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1967116

  • Yang, S., & Walker, V. (2015). A pedagogical framework for technology integration in ESL classrooms: The promises and challenges of integration. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(2), 179–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X., Kuo, L. J., Ji, X., & McTigue, E. (2018). A critical examination of the relationship among research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction. Computers & Education, 125, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A., & Trainin, G. (2022). A meta-analysis examining technology-assisted L2 vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 34(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344021000239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Lin, C.-H., Zhang, D., & Choi, Y. (2017). Motivation and learning strategy in foreign language vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research syntheses. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Room 615, Meng Wah Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, 999077, Hong Kong

    Keyi Zhou, Fangzhou Jin, Zicong Song & Chin-Hsi Lin

  2. Nanjing Zhongying Middle School, Nanjing, China

    Weiwei Li

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Xianhan Huang

Authors
  1. Keyi Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fangzhou Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weiwei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zicong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xianhan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chin-Hsi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chin-Hsi Lin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Implications for Practice

What is already known about this topic:

• Vocabulary knowledge is essential for language learning and reading comprehension.

• Technology-enhanced vocabulary learning has been proven effective.

What this paper adds:

• Most studies focus on teaching receptive vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary breadth.

• Cognitive strategies were used in all studies.

• Noticing and receptive or productive retrieval were common design features.

Implications for theory, policy, or practice:

• Teachers should balance the focus on vocabulary breadth and depth, and receptive and productive knowledge.

• Affective, social, and metacognitive strategies should be promoted.

• Stakeholders can use the identified design features to choose the most appropriate tools for their needs.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, K., Jin, F., Li, W. et al. The design of technology-enhanced vocabulary learning: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol 29, 14875–14897 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12423-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12423-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation