CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Second Language Acquisition and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingMobile Learning in Education

Quizlet and podcasts: effects on vocabulary acquisition

Open access
Bueno-Alastuey, M Camino, Nemeth, Katalin·2022·Computer Assisted Language Learning
DOI 10.1080/09588221.2020.1802601
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To date, several studies have investigated the potential benefits of using Quizlet and podcasts for vocabulary development. However, they have mainly focused on the use of available material, and its effects on receptive vocabulary acquisition and students’ motivation. In contrast, relatively little has been done to study the effects of student-generated podcasts and Quizlet flashcards sets on second language vocabulary acquisition including productive skills. Hence, the present study seeks to analyze and compare how student-created podcasts and Quizlet flashcards affect vocabulary retention, taking into account both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Twenty-three adults, aged 18–61, participated in the study. The instruments used were vocabulary tests as pre-tests to check students’ prior knowledge, and as immediate post-tests to measure receptive and productive vocabulary acquisition, and a questionnaire to gauge students’ perceptions of the two methods. Results showed that although there was no significant difference between the two methods regarding receptive or productive vocabulary acquisition, and both techniques helped students to retain new vocabulary, participants expressed a greater preference for the Quizlet methodology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2020.1802601

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our findings contrast with earlier research which found that technology-based vocabulary instruction primarily benefited receptive knowledge rather than production.

    “Interestingly, our findings contrast with earlier research (e.g., Allal-Sumoto et al., 2024;Bueno-Alastuey & Nemeth, 2020), which found that technology-based vocabulary instruction primarily benefited receptive knowledge rather than production.”

    From Integrating ChatGPT for vocabulary learning and retention: A classroom-based study of Saudi EFL learners (2025) · cites this paper as Bueno-Alastuey & Nemeth, 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Farangi, M., Nejadghanbar, H., Askary, F., & Ghorbani, A. (2015). The effects of podcasting on EFL upper-intermediate learners' speaking skills. CALL-EJ, 16(2), 1-18.
  2. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL -Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 210-214). Dublin: Researchpublishing.net.
  3. Hashemi, M., & Pourgharib, B. (2013). The effect of visual instruction on new vocabularies learning. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research 2(6), 623-627.
  4. Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin, Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. (pp. 20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary: same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271.
  6. Son, J.B. (2001). CALL and vocabulary learning: A review. English Linguistic Science, 7, 27-35

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Nemeth, K.
Affiliations
  • I-COMMUNITAS - Institute for Advanced Social Research, Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
  • Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) (ES)
ORCID
Bueno-Alastuey, M Camino
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-08-14
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
1407-1436
ISSN
  • 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-3210
DOI
10.1080/09588221.2020.1802601
OpenAlex
W3049022620
Cited by
58
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7
FWCI
12.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • Academica-e (Universidad Pública de Navarra) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
Quizlet, podcasts, flashcards, vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary retention, receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, second language acquisition, student motivation, learner preferences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review