Perceptions of legal english major first year students towards mobile assistance in english vocabulary acquisition

HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF LAW
FACULTY OF LEGAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES



HỒ THỊ MINH TRANG

PERCEPTIONS OF LEGAL ENGLISH MAJOR
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS TOWARDS MOBILE
ASSISTANCE IN ENGLISH VOCABULARY
ACQUISITION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in English Studies

HỒ CHÍ MINH, 2023


HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF LAW
FACULTY OF LEGAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES

GRADUATION PAPER

PERCEPTIONS OF LEGAL ENGLISH FIRST-YEAR
STUDENTS TOWARDS MOBILE ASSISTANCE IN
ENGLISH VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in English Studies

Student: Hồ Thị Minh Trang
Student ID: 1952202010073
Class: 112- LE44(B)

Supervisor: Hà Nhật Linh, M.A.

HỒ CHÍ MINH, 2023



DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the study titled “Perceptions of Legal English first-year
students towards mobile assistance in English vocabulary acquisition” was bona
fide research work accomplished by me from March to June, 2023 and conducted
under the supervisor of M.A. Hà Nhật Linh, an instructor at Department of General
English, Ho Chi Minh City University of Law.
This graduation paper is not submitted to any other university or institution for the
award of any degree, diploma or published any time before.
HO THI MINH TRANG


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Mrs.Ha Nhat Linh, who has supported
me much in conducting the thesis. Her contribution to the study plays a significant
role in the success of my research.
I also appreciate Legal English freshmen in the course 47 at Ho Chi Minh City
University of Law, who completed the survey and shared many useful suggestions
for questionnaire alterations.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents as well as my best friends, who encouraged
me and supported in terms of mental health, technical issues, and valuable
knowlegde to fulfill the bachelor’s thesis on time.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. IV
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. V
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Definition of Terms.....................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................................3
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................4
1.6 Organization of the Study .....................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 5
2.1 English language learning and vocabulary knowledge ..................................................5
2.2 Vocabulary Acquisition ...........................................................................................................................7
2.3 Mobile- Assisted Language Learning (MALL) ....................................................................8


2.3.5 MALL in Vietnam ......................................................................................... 12
2.4 Previous Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Students’ mobile vocabulary learning practices ......................................... 12
2.4.2 Students’ perceptions towards MALL .......................................................... 14
2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 17
3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Research Instrument .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.1 Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 18
3.3.Research Participants ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Procedure of data collection ............................................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 Pilot Study .................................................................................................... 21

3.4.2 The questionnaire survey ............................................................................. 21
3.5 Method of data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.6 Reliability and Validity Test............................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 26
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 26
4.2.1 Ways of using mobile devices for vocabulary learning ............................... 26
4.2.2 Students’ perceptions towards MAVL ......................................................... 29
4.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 33
4.3.1 Ways of integrating MAVL .......................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Students’ perceptions regarding MAVL ...................................................... 35


CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 37
5.1 Recapitulation .............................................................................................................................................. 37
5.2. Implications .................................................................................................................................................. 38
5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 38
5.4. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 40
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 46


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MALL: Mobile- Assisted Language Learning
MAVL: Mobile- Assisted Vocabulary Learning
EFL: English as Foreign Language
CALL: Computer- Assisted Language Learning
DET: Determination
COG: Cognitive
MET: Meta- cognitive

SOC: Social
MEM: Memory
VLS: Vocabulary Learning Strategies


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.1 : Vocabulary knowledge description (Nation, 2001, p. 27)
Table 3.3 : Key Demographic Information of the Questionnaire Respondents
Table 3.6a. MAVL advantages reliability test
Table 3.6b: MAVL disadvantages reliability test
Table 4.2.1a: MAVL implementation
Table 4.2.1b: MAVL for new vocabulary
Table 4.2.1c: MAVL practices
Table 4.2.2a: Descriptive statistics of MAVL advantages
Table 4.2.2b: Descriptive statistics of MAVL disadvantages


ABSTRACT
The study concerns the perceptions of Legal English freshmen in a Vietnamese
university towards MALL implementation in learning vocabulary. Based on the
quantitative data collected from the questionnaire results, 100 out of 110 students
express positive feelings on the impact of Mobile-Assisted Vocabulary Learning (
MAVL) and do not struggle with solving or controlling technological challenges.
Besides, the most frequent usage of MAVL, in the form of percent, is looking up
dictionaries. Additionally, most of the lexical practices are engaged with cognitivebased tasks and generate productive lexicon as a result. Due to the fact that students are
likely to adapt two types of learning during vocabulary acquisition: intentional and
incidental, teachers and educational institutions must provide direct-oriented
instructions

to

improve

technical

literacy

and

academic

motivation.


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In the university environment, the popular usage of mobile devices is served for reading, taking
notes, preparing for exams, using online dictionaries, and searching for information besides
entertainment and personal purposes (Nikolopoulou, 2021). However, a common language
barrier prevents students from making progress in vocabulary acquisition. Learning
vocabularies are sophisticated and difficult because they place more of an emphasis on
acquiring certain vocabulary in learning ESP since the English language in educational settings
tends to be academic English or English majors ( Rafiq et al., 2021). With the advancement of
the 4.0 technology era, the journey of learning a new language is becoming much more
comfortable with the assistance of mobile devices in terms of convenience, flexibility, and
popularity. The effectiveness of mobile devices for vocabulary learning is expressed through
vocabulary learning programs on mobile phones which improved students’ acquisition of
English vocabulary more than conventional vocabulary learning tools (Basoglu, E. B., &
Akdemir, O, 2010).
Nonetheless, technology's benefits and limits are indisputable, therefore using mobile

devices wisely and efficiently for university students, particularly for language acquisition,
demands more attention. Using such spontaneous, informal, contextual, portable, ubiquitous,
and personalized MALL points, mobile devices can be used not only as supplementary
resources in teacher-directed instruction in the classroom but also as efficiently oriented tools
that allow students to more informal and personal learning outside of a traditional classroom
(Chinnery, 2006). When applied methodically and fully, mobile-assisted language learning
(MALL) can improve students' English proficiency by providing novel and easily adaptable
learning methodologies (Alkhudair, 2020).
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The topic that this study tackles is how first-year Legal English students EFL have been
studying English using mobile aid, as well as their thoughts on mobile learning. In fact, EFL
learners usually struggle to find and recall vocabulary sources since they lack the skills of native
speakers, and this might vary depending on each individual's mental capabilities. Despite the
1


widespread use of mobile devices, students can benefit from
ubiquitousfunctionalities,particularly vocabulary apps, to improve their vocabulary knowledge
depending on individual needs. However, if students do not comprehend legitimate applications
or appropriate learning methodologies, they are likely to become bored and rapidly absorbed in
non-academic activities. To explore the impact of mobile learning tools through students’
practices, the current study employs the survey questionnaire to collect quantitative data on 110
freshmen of the Legal English Faculty. The questionnaire answers are then displayed in the
form of bar charts and descriptive analysis. The findings are supposed to evaluate the
effectiveness and obstacles of mobile devices in learning languages and practicing vocabularies,
which eventually expose the efficient usage of MAVL or students as well as facilitate teachers’
role of assisting students much better.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Several students these days have been familiar with cell phones, which have become an
integral part of young people's lives for recreational and educational purposes.The effectiveness

of mobile educational devices as a method of acquiring vocabulary among university students
should be further investigated. As a result, the current study sought to assess the efficacy of
mobile users through the acquisition of vocabulary among Legal English students at Ho Chi
Minh City University of Law to identify their educational requirements and satisfaction with
MALL, which could aid in the process of MALL-based teaching and learning. This inquiry was
also carried out by examining learners' viewpoints on their usage of mobile devices in learning
new words, with an emphasis on the benefits and downsides of mobile functions.
1.3 Definition of Terms
The study is going to explore the role of mobile assistance in learning English in general
and learning English vocabulary in particular. In this part, the meaning of MALL and MAVL
are emphasized for later analysis.
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL): an approach in which mobile is used to
support and enhance the acquisition of languages ( AbuSa'aleek, 2014).
2


In the MALL environment, there is no need for learners to sit in a classroom or in front of a
computer to study. In reality, MALL can be viewed as an ideal solution to language learning
barriers in terms of time and place ( Diána, 2020).
Mobile-Assisted Vocabulary Learning ( MAVL): using mobile devices or mobile assistance
to find lexical resources and vocabulary difficulties.
Although Mobile-Assisted Language Learning in the 4.0 technology era has been already
familiar to language learners, the usage of mobile devices for vocabulary learning is not deeply
focused, besides the limitation of studies on the topic of MAVL. Hence, the study about
Mobile-Assisted Vocabulary Learning ( MAVL), which relates to ways of making use of
mobile features such as using social media, learning apps, websites, and any technological
tools,…., should have gained better popularity and awareness.
Perception: In common terminology, perception is defined by the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English as:
a) the way you think about something and your idea of what it is like

b) the way that you notice things with your senses of sight, hearing, etc…,
c) the natural ability to understand or notice things quickly

1.4 Research Questions
1. In what ways do Legal English students use mobile devices to develop English vocabulary
learning?
2. What are students’ attitudes towards Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) for
English vocabulary acquisition?

3


1.5 Significance of the Study
Theoretically, the study investigated several sorts of vocabulary learning among students
when utilizing mobile devices; even everyday routines or schedules might be considered as a
technique for acquiring vocabulary. Furthermore, vocabulary learning using mobile devices
needed a significant amount of effort because participants were EFL students, particularly those
with diverse majors. Simply expressed, mobile learning activities varied according to the
demands of the students and the academic program.
Practically, the use of mobile devices for successful vocabulary acquisition has gotten less
attention, and there are no specific instructions or programs for pupils. Thus, the current study
findings might be utilized to evaluate how students use mobile devices for English vocabulary
acquisition. Along with this, mobile devices have been extensively employed due to their ease
and practicability; hence, this study was established to determine how the benefits and hurdles
in mobile vocabulary acquisition have been viewed. As a result, the study revealed
recommendations for teachers on the use of mobile learning in the teaching process.
1.6 Organization of the Study
Chapter I introduces the topic
Chapter II synthesizes the previous studies and finds the gap between the previous research
and the current study

Chapter III discusses how this study is going to answer research questions and the
procedures of data collection,
Chapter IV reports the results of the data analysis
Chapter V concludes with the discussion of the study’s findings, implications for teacher
practice, the limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.

4


CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, I will first review the current development of mobile learning, especially
for vocabulary learning purposes. Then I will introduce the recent trend in researching
vocabulary learning and discuss vocabulary studies via mobile devices in detail.
2.1 English language learning and vocabulary knowledge
2.1.1 Vocabulary knowledge
When discussing vocabulary understanding, it was customarily necessary to distinguish
between vocabulary width (the number of known terms) and vocabulary depth (how well those
words were known) (Schmitt, 2014). The correlation between these two parameters, according
to Schmitt, was interconnected and influenced by several variables, including the learner's
lexicon size, the assessed frequency level of the target words, and the learner's native language.
Nonetheless, there was frequently a difference between size and depth in the case of lower
frequency of terms and greater vocabulary sizes, as depth measures lagged behind size
measures. The concept of vocabulary size or breadth refers to the number of words that an
individual can recognize based on vocabulary knowledge criteria. On the other hand,
vocabulary depth was concerned with the extent to which learners could connect the form of a
word with its meaning ( Milton, 2017). Individual vocabulary acquisition required a thorough
understanding of words, including their origins, forms, meanings, and usage. This entailed
encountering and utilizing words in diverse contexts, as well as developing knowledge of their
spelling, pronunciation, semantic relationships, grammatical patterns, and in relation to other
types of words such as synonyms, antonyms, transitions, or collocations,…. (Avellaneda,

2022).
Aside from breadth and depth, there was an intensive attention given to another lexical
element that had been integrated into vocabulary frameworks. This element related to the speed
of processing, which referred to how quickly learners were able to detect and retrieve
knowledge that was stored in their mental lexicon (Meara, 2005). The automaticity, efficiency,
and fluency of lexical entry and retrieval, also known as processing speed elements, were
5


thought to be key attributes in L2 competency and the use of terminology in daily
circumstances (Van Moere, 2012). This was especially true for hearing and speaking, which
needed online processing (Schmitt, 2010). Therefore, learners with weaker vocabulary
knowledge, on the one hand, were unable to locate relevant words or take longer to seek for
words during the formulation stage, resulting in decreasing speed fluency ( Nation, 2019).
However, there were no certain definitions or standards to recognize and distinguish
vocabulary knowledge ( Webb, 2013). As a matter of fact, the categorization table of Nation
(2001) was widely used as a reference to describe elements of vocabulary knowledge, as below:

Table 2.1.1 : Vocabulary knowledge description (Nation, 2001, p. 27)
Note: R= receptive vocabulary, P= productive vocabulary

From Table 2.1.1, vocabulary knowledge was briefly sorted into 2 main types: receptive
vocabulary and productive vocabulary. These two terms were then detailedly described by
Maskor and Baharudin (2016). The former term, receptive lexicon, referred to words which were
6


known and understood when reading or listening, or indicated the ability to identify a word from
texts or speeches through the auditory or visual senses. Besides, those words could empower
learners to understand the text they had read but was not integrated into speaking and writing.

Meanwhile, the productive vocabulary process was assumed as the words were understood and
could be pronounced by the learners. In contrast to receptive vocabulary, learners could use these
words in speech and writing well in a passive way ( Bai, 2018). Thus, productive vocabulary
could be regarded as a process of active words because learners were able to generate words to
express their thoughts and feelings which were understood by others. Correspondingly, events of
productive vocabulary took place when various aspects of a word were recalled (e.g., the word’s
meanings, collocations, frequency, appropriateness, usage) and then adapted into speaking and
writing (Avellaneda, 2022).
Although there were differences between the two terms, the relationship between them was
interactional when spelling the word correctly (productive vocabulary in written forms ) or using
the right words with grammar (productive existence in grammatical function) before the meaning
of the word was understood (receptive vocabulary knowledge in forms and meanings).
2.2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Stratton (2022) classified the process for developing vocabulary into two types: accidental
process and purposeful process. Intentional learning happened when students learned terms for an
exam from a vocabulary list, and the words were absorbed as a direct outcome of the learner's
goal. On the contrary, accidental learning meant learning without the goal of doing so. For
example, as a byproduct of other cognitive tasks involving mental understanding, such as reading
or listening (Gass, 1999). However, when it came to learning new words or trying to remember
them for as long as possible, the terms in question were not essential in explaining people's
performance in vocabulary acquisition. These two items were also recognized by Brown (1993)
as two fundamental factors in acquiring vocabulary: the number of times learners interacted with
a word and its importance or value of it.
2.2.1 Intentional Vocabulary Learning

7


According to Ahmad (2012), intentional vocabulary learning was regarded as the process of
learning something with prearranged plans or intentions. This process also happened throughout

the activity of guessing the meaning of words from the decontextualized clues. Indeed, this
process was recognized in a wide range of activities: reading texts, using dictionaries to find
words, trying to connect new words with old ones, and learning the lexical meaning by heart,….
Additionally, students were more prone to rote learning, deliberate vocabulary learning was
based on synonyms, antonyms, word substitution, multiple choices, scrambled words, and
crossword puzzles were less successful regardless of context. This factor partially contributed
to the existence of intentional vocabulary learning, which facilitated learners to use the
information for the successful completion of upcoming tests where students tended to cram
words rather than meet the vocabulary demands of individuals ( Hulstijin, 2001). In other
words, learners got intentional vocabulary with the explicit intention to commit new
information to the memory.
2.2.2.Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Contrary to intentional vocabulary learning, the incidental process happened as a
consequence of acquiring a different word instead of the target one. Most lexical knowledge
was generated when learners practiced on the lexical items, not the primary
intention, specifically completing tasks not relevant to vocabulary such as watching English
movies, listening to music, making chats, or reading books, etc, …. ( Ahmad, 2012). In other
words, incidental vocabulary acquisition was deeply focused on the autonomy of
learners. Hence, this process was more individualized, and learner-centered and the meaning of
a new word was obtained completely unconsciously.
2.3 Mobile- Assisted Language Learning (MALL)
2.3.1 Definition of MALL
Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL), referred to using personal, portable devices
such as mobile phones, MP3/MP4 players, PDAs, smartphones, and tablet computers, which was
a specialism within m-learning, and has been separated from computer-assisted language learning
(Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008) and defined as the use of “mobile technologies in language
8


learning, especially in situations where device portability offered specific advantages”

(Kukulska-Hulme, 2013: 3701).
Besides that, the prompt alteration of technology has expanded Computer-Assisted
Language Learning ( CALL) to a broader area: Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL),
which was a branch of Mobile Learning. In short, MALL was the subtype of mobile learning of
languages (CALL) (Caudill, 2008). However, it was noteworthy to view that there were no
particular definitions of MALL (YYkselir, 2017) so it was often regarded to be a sub-area of mlearning, which was known as the process of language learning utilizing mobile devices.
Briefly, MALL might be defined as the personal and public process of learning via
inquiry and discourse across numerous platforms and settings, supported by individuals' usage of
interactive technology (Seraj et al., 2021).
2.3.2 History of MALL
As a response to satisfy the demand for movement in humans, the usage of Mobile Learning
or MALL has increased in different spheres of social life since the turn of the twenty-first century.
It was established that universities were paying much more attention to mobile-assisted learning of
the increased amount of scientific publications and international scientific conferences (e.g.,
mLearn, IMCL), scientific journals, and books (Brandl, 2002; Valarmathi, 2011).
Mobile Learning, according to European Guild for Electronic Learning referred to any
activities, which allowed people to be more productive in consuming, interacting, or creating
information by compact digital devices, provided that an individual engaged in these activities
consistently, maintained a reliable connection, and the device could be conveniently stored in a
pocket or purse (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler 2005). Therefore, Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning (MALL) itself was defined as the technology of language learning with the implication
of the aforementioned mobile (portable) technological devices.
2.3.3 MALL and Language Learning
In addition to covering all features of CALL, MALL was expressed for non-native speakers,
who used a variety of mobile devices to access and/or communicate information on an
anywhere/anytime basis and for a range of social and/or academic purposes in a foreign language
9


( Jarvis and Achilleos, 2013). The notable features or characteristics of MALL were described

and discussed by Hashim et al.(2017) in five aspects, which were:
•

Portability: mobile devices allowed movability

•

Social interactivity: the mobile devices facilitated and enhanced the communication
between users

•

Context sensitivity: the mobile devices provided real data in learners’ location,
environment, and time

•

Connectivity: the devices could be connected/ accessed to each other or a shared network

•

Individuality: the devices allowed individual/ personal/self-learning

Using mobile devices for academic purposes was assumed to boost the language skills of
learners, especially vocabulary knowledge due to a nearly unlimited number of websites dealing
with different aspects of language learning (Govindasamy et al., 2019). The research of Sung et
al.(2015) confirmed that using the portability feature of mobile devices facilitated multiplecontext learning and created a seamless learning environment that offered learners distributed,
continuous, and intensive opportunities for improving their language skills or knowledge.
Nevertheless, the mobility did not produce an overall positive effect when the researchers tried to
use mobile devices for learning languages outdoors solely, which might induce temporary

feelings of novelty but did not maintain the same impact in the long run.
2.3.4 MALL and Vocabulary Learning
Numerous studies attempted to discover the usage of MALL in English Language Learning
as well as the ways that students applied mobile assistance for English learning development.
The vocabulary learning design underpinned this mode to take advantage of the unique features
of mobile devices: portability and connectivity, which assisted learners to get access to the
learning contents rapidly not only in classrooms but also out of schools.
According to Xodabande and Hashemi (2023), students surfed websites as an effective way
of learning a specific section of language such as vocabulary because internet sources were
searchable or browsable at any point of time. With the help of online dictionaries, it was
possible to provide students with a deeper knowledge of the terms by providing a list of words
together with information about their origins, the year that they were first used, and even a real10


life colored image.The findings marked the same as those of Mohd and Supian (2017), where
the participants expressed that online dictionary websites were convenient to get access, and
useful for learning not only new words, but also new meanings of words that they had already
known. They also felt that learning the antonyms and synonyms of words was more effective
through these sites, as these items were placed side-by-side on the page, or visually and vividly
connected.
Aside from those factors, Deris and Shukor (2019) determined that the game's aspect was
the most favored function to employ in vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, the activities were
shown in an appealing and dynamic manner, which served to stimulate and trigger the pupils to
acquire terminology more thoroughly. According to Hu (2013), nearly all adult learners favored
vocabulary acquisition via mobile phones owing to the ease provided by the portability and
availability of mobile phones. The study also mentioned the presence of regular and prompt
vocabulary SMS messages, which might serve as a beneficial reminder to mature students to
practice independent vocabulary acquisition. According to Mohd and Supian (2017), learners
might establish vocabulary sources by commenting not only on social networking sites such as
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter... but also on articles written appearing on news platforms or

blogs related to topics of interest. To avoid misunderstandings, the students attempted to write
in full and accurate grammatical phrases as much as possible. Cooking blogs, news portals, and
video game reviews were among the websites reviewed.
Along with the findings of Saidouni and Bahloul (2016), the majority of responses
demonstrated participants' use of mobile devices for listening to English songs (63%), as well as
81,3% of respondents using online dictionaries and 60% using educational applications for
vocabulary development and searching the meaning. According to the survey, the most
preferred instructional function for developing vocabulary was using handheld devices as a
dictionary. According to Clark (2013)'s findings, employing a different tool, the iPad (tablet),
alone did not promote vocabulary growth; rather, a mix of technology and explicit teaching
aided in enhancing vocabulary knowledge and retention.

11


2.3.5 MALL in Vietnam
In the Van (2022) study, the majority of Vietnamese students regarded MALL as a
successful learning aid, praising its efficacy in developing the four fundamental English skills
(reading, listening, writing, and speaking) and emphasizing its effectiveness in developing
vocabulary and pronunciation ability. In terms of the influence of MALL on students'
language learning, it was stated that all participants believed it was a good idea to use mobile
devices to enhance their reading, vocabulary, grammar, listening, speaking, and writing
abilities. However, learners disagreed with the concept that utilizing mobile devices improved
their language abilities in hearing, speaking, and writing, albeit at lower rates than the relevant
agreement levels (Thuy and Yukawa, 2021). The barrier was also demonstrated in the Quyen
(2022) study, which revealed that 35.5% of those surveyed had an unfavorable opinion of
mobile apps because they considered it took too long to learn the vocabulary alongside mobile
apps, as well as more than half (55.5%) of the participants believed that making use of the
mobile app for the purpose of learning vocabulary required a high-level comprehension on
mobile devices, particularly appropriate functions

2.4 Previous Studies
2.4.1 Students’ mobile vocabulary learning practices
Related studies ( e.g., Deris and Shukor,2019; Tran Quoc Thao, 2020; Hoang et al., 2021;
Duong et al., 2021; Yang, 2012; and Yolcu and Mirioglu, 2020) put concentration on the usage
of mobile devices for learning vocabulary and the extent that MAVL could influence students'
intentions as well as learning performances. Tran Quoc Thao ( 2020), study highlighted the
implementation of vocabulary learning strategies ( VLS) by gathering data from 200 nonEnglish- major second-year students. By analyzing mixed-method results in terms of 5 different
strategies ( referenced from Schmitt, 2000), Determination ( DET) was the most frequently used
with using bilingual dictionaries compared to metacognitive ( MET), social ( SOC), cognitive (
COG), and memory ( MEM) ones, respectively. More noticeably, there was also a discrepancy
in VLS among the 2 genders: female students tended SOC, DET, MEM, and MET while male
12


learners preferred the COG, with the mean score as proof. Similar VLS strategies among nonEnglish major students were also the research topic of Duong et al. (2021). The authors
collected study information from 240 participants at first-year and second-year academic levels,
with 120 individuals at each level. By implementing mixed methods, the main results of the
questionnaire shed light on two objectives: students’ usage of MALL tools and differences in
usage at an academic level. The former issue, generally students, reflected the frequency of
using mobile devices at a “ sometimes” level, even though students often practiced SOC, MET,
MEM, and COG rarely. Notwithstanding the distribution of VLS, 2 groups of students proved
that they practiced differently in which sophomores made use of technology learning tools more
often than freshmen did. The most implemented VLS was MEM, with activities such as playing
online games, watching movies, and listening to music. The importance level and utilization of
VLS research were conducted in Turkey, where 445 learners participated in 2 phases:
questionnaire and focus-group interviews. In the last finding, COG strategies were recognized
as the most important and most frequently used among students. For instance, verbal repetition,
vocabulary notebook, and taking notes in class as the most actions while the least was listening
to recordings and CDs of word lists for COG usage. Other strategies ranked following the order:

DET, MET, MEM, and SOC.
Another way to interpret the usage of English language learners, the Technology
Acceptance Model (David, 1985) was used as the conceptual framework for Pham Thu Tra
(2020) and Hoang et al. (2021) on the topic of the impact of subjective and objective factors on
learners' MALL usage, which consisted of three main components: Cognitive, Affective, and
Behavioral. The former author, who performed a mixed-methods study to investigate university
students' impressions of MALL in the classroom, gained unanimous agreement on the use of
MALL. Regardless, several specific worries were documented, such as being worried about
distraction or hard implementation, which resulted in future hurdles, such as distraction, lack of
internet access, unreliable connectivity, and unclear teachers' directions. For the purpose to
investigate the influence of variables, Hoang et al. (2021) not only updated David's original
basis but also extended extensively on the UTAUT model of Venkatesh et al. (2003). By
concentrating on more sub-factors: Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE),
Social Influence (SI), Facilitating Conditions (FC), Perceived Playfulness (PP), and Affective
13


Responses (ATT). 617 youths assisted the authors in determining the association between those
characteristics using qualitative and quantitative data. Overall, all factors associated with BI and
FC showed the lowest association with the others. While FC and EE had no impact on learners'
MALL intention, ATT was the most influential, followed by SI in second place and PP and PE
in last place. Regarding other factors such as gender, online learning experience, and living
area, female students' usage intention was higher than males', students with prior online learning
experiences adapted to MALL more than inexperienced, and there were no differences between
school or university students, as well as students in rural or urban areas. MALL was one notable
exposure, which was more successful in usage for listening, reading, and speaking than writing,
as stated by students and may be enhanced further with instructors' aid.
2.4.2 Students’ perceptions towards MALL
With regard to the attitudes of students towards MALL and MAVL, numerous studies
displayed different expressions as well as expectations in mobile development for academic

purposes. Basically, there were two matters to evaluate the extent of students’ expressions
towards the implementation of MALL: benefits and obstacles of mobile assistance.Initially, the
quantitative technique was utilized in Nuareni at al. (2020) study to explore students'
perspectives and obstacles in English mobile learning, but only 70 responses were received.
Although the findings revealed that the majority of students had favorable sentiments regarding
MAVL, they also revealed the least preferred quality of MALL, which was its inability to
establish a comfortable interactive learning environment. Positive thoughts may lead to a strong
idea that utilizing a mobile phone as a means of instruction would help pupils broaden their
learning flexibility both inside and outside of the classroom. However, there was broad
agreement on the impediments to mobile learning, with internet access and non-academic goals
being the most significant.
Hu (2013) employed a questionnaire to demonstrate that participants primarily
demonstrated a favorable response to mobile help in terms of portability and accessibility when
it came to the perceptions of MAVL of 24 adult learners in China. The mobile help also aided
vocabulary development since it provided extra learning chances that could not be provided by
14