Business English Learning With Mobile Phones

46 International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46-63, April-June 2014
Business English Vocabulary

Learning With Mobile Phone:
A Chinese Students Perspective
Haisen Zhang, School of International Studies, University of International Business and

Economics, Beijing, China
Wei Song, School of Finance, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Ronghuai Huang, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the use of mobile technology could better enhance students
business English vocabulary learning than the employment of traditional print material. A group of sophomores
(N=43) from a Chinese university in North China were randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental
group (N=23), who worked on a given list of business vocabulary via SMS, and the control group (N=20),
who studied the same list of vocabulary via paper print material. The results of the posttest reveal that the
experimental group did significantly better than the control group. However, the results of the delayed test
show that the two groups were not significantly different from each other in term of vocabulary retention
rates. The study concludes that a blended use of mobile technology such as SMS and paper print material
could better give rise to students business English vocabulary learning. The limitations and suggestions for
future research are also discussed.
Keywords:
Business English, Mobile phones, SMS, Testing, Vocabulary learning
1. INTRODUCTION
The number of mobile phones in China exceeded
the number of landlines in 2004 (BBC News,
2004). China boasts both the largest mobile
phone users and the near-ubiquitous SMS users
in the world, with the number of mobile phones
hitting 680 million by the end of May 2009
(Shen & Feng, 2009) and the number of SMS
messages reaching 195.89 billion by the end of
November 2009 (Feng, 2009). With such nearubiquitous market penetration, media providers
and learning technology solution providers push

the ride of learners mobile technology adoption
for a novel way of learning. Mobile learning in
China is also beginning to gain ground. People
who travel on the subway train, on the bus, or
in the air are often found reading e-books and
daily mobile news delivered by China Mobile
as well as watching movies and listening to
aural materials on their mobile devices. For
the younger generation, especially the digital
natives, mobile devices such as mobile phones
have become something within their reach on
DOI: 10.4018/IJCALLT.2014040104
Copyright 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46-63, April-June 2014 47
a daily basis. These devices have become part

of their everyday life and a thing that they live
with 24 hours around the clock.
Moreover, the number of English language learners in Chinas formal education
system reached 175 million in 2007 and it is
estimated that the number will amount to 2
billion by 2010 (Adams & Hirsch, 2007). So
far in China, there are more than 400 million
people who are learning the language (Zhan,
Sun, Yao, Li, Meng, Duan, et al., 2010). Apparently, China has become the largest country
in terms of the substantial number of English
language learners in mainstream educational
institutions. The learners range from students
at elementary schools to those at universities. It
has become a phenomenon that Chinese foreign
language learners use their mobile devices,
such as mobile phones, PDAs, MP4 players,
etc. not only as a tool for communication and
for entertainment like game playing but also as
one for language learning. Specifically, these
devices are employed to improve their English
reading and vocabulary building by reading
English news on the phone and to enhance
their listening skills by watching movie clips
and listening to digital media in English while
they are on the go. However, the field of inquiry
on mobile language learning still remains a
burgeoning area of research. Although there
has been research on how mobile devices can
be utilized to enhance vocabulary learning (e.g.,
Lu, 2008), there is relatively little literature on
whether and how such devices can be better
pedagogically utilized to enhance business
English vocabulary learning in the Chinese
context of foreign language learning.
The goal of this study was to examine the
effectiveness of technology-based (SMS) and
traditionally paper-based business English
vocabulary learning, in the hope of informing
the existing body of related literature as well as
offering pedagogical implications for practitioners in the field of mobile language learning.
To better fulfill this research goal, the following
questions were addressed to guide this inquiry:
1. Is technology-based business English

vocabulary learning more effective than
traditional paper-based learning?
2. How is the effectiveness of technologybased learning related to students metacognitive strategies in terms of time management, effort regulation, and monitoring?
3. What are the students perceived advantages and disadvantages of learning with
the mobile technology?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Business English Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the words we know and use
to communicate with others (Diller, 2007, p.
140). Generally speaking, there are two kinds
of vocabulary: oral and written. Oral vocabulary is comprised of speaking and listening
vocabulary while written vocabulary consists
of reading and writing vocabulary (p. 140).
Such a classification is made mainly based on
where vocabulary appears, namely, orally or
in print. When we look at it from the point of
view of areas of specialization, vocabulary can
be also classified into the other two categories:
general vocabulary and specialist vocabulary.
General vocabulary refers to words that
are common to a wide range of academic texts
and are not as common in nonacademic texts
(Scarcella & Zimmerman, 2005, p. 126). In
contrast, specialist vocabulary is an umbrella
term, which refers to language or words that are
specifically used in a specific profession or field
of industry for formal communication, such as
in banking, trade, finance, management, law,
marketing, medicine, telecommunication, etc.,
just to name a few. It is one of the main differences between teaching English for General
Purposes and English for Specific Purposes
(IMO, 2000, p. 87) owing to its specific nature
of the same word, which takes different meanings in different fields or professions.
In English for business purposes/business English (Dudley-Evans & John, 1998),
specialist vocabulary is referred to as business
vocabulary or business English vocabulary,

which is often seen as an integral part of business English (Osborne, p. 106). It is composed
of words used more commonly in business than
elsewhere. The words so used are the common
property of the English language (Aurner,
1950, p. 152). Business English vocabulary is
identical with general English vocabulary in
terms of form. However, with regard to meaning,
they are vastly different because the former is
used in particular kinds of communication in
a specific context (Ellis & Johnson, 1994, p.
3) while the later in a daily non-business communication context. Both kinds of vocabulary
are spelled and pronounced the same way, but
they mean differently. For instance, the word
quotation in a general English context means
something that is quoted (Random House,
2009). In business or commerce, it means the
statement of the current or market price of a
commodity or security (Random House, 2009).
Another example is market share. Market
and share are two different words in general
English. However, when these two words go
together in a business context, they become
a business vocabulary word, which refers to
the specific percentage of total industry sales
of a particular product achieved by a single
company in a given period of time (Random
House, 2009).
2.2. The Role of Mobile

Technologies in
Language Learning
Mobile learning has been believed to be the
future of learning (Keegan, 2002). It can benefit
not only the underprivileged learners outside of
the formal educational system but also those who
are lucky to be able to learn in formal educational
environments. Mobile technologies enable both
types of learners to learn at any time and in
any location, especially, when they are on the
move. Moreover, these emerging technologies
can extend classroom-based learning beyond
the four physical walls and make learning take
place on learners own appropriate time, in their
own preferred location, at their own pace, and

for their own learning purposes.
The value of mobile technologies in language teaching and learning has been recognized by many researchers (e.g., Bibby, 2011;
Chinnery, 2006; Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008;
Saricaa & Cavus, 2009; Shih, 2005; Sweeney &
Moore, 2012; Zhao, 2005). According to Chinnery (2006), mobile devices are less expensive
than computers and, therefore, affordable for
most learners. Also, they are of a pocket size,
which makes it portable and convenient for
learners. Such affordability, portability and
convenience (Song, 2008) enable learners to
take advantage of segmented times for them to
learn anytime and anywhere. Nah, White, and
Sussex (2008) made an investigation into the
use of mobile phone for listening learning in the
Korean context. They argue that such applications are conducive to student learning due to
the students positive attitudes toward learning
tasks and their capability of continuing to learn
anytime and anywhere beyond the classroom
setting. Such a technology affords the students
for collaborative problem solving thanks to
the availability of the technology features of
mobility and easy accessibility.
Moreover, educational affordances of
mobile technologies have also attracted the
attention of both researchers and educators.
First, ownership (Jone, Issroff & Scanlon, 2006)
gives learners a sense of a personal belonging
of the device and allows them to use it in an
exhaustive manner. In other words, ownership
allows learners to use it in whatever way they
like to and eventually lends itself to an effective
adoption of such technology in their learning.
Second, the affordances of portability, social
interactivity, context sensitivity, connectivity
and individuality, as identified by Klopfer,
Squire, and Jenkins (2002), not only extend
learners temporal and spatial boundaries of
learning but also make learning more effective
outside of the classroom setting. Portability
enables learners to be easily accessible to the
technology in their hands or pockets, which
can lead to the effective use of fragmented
times for learning. Connectivity and social
interactivity can offer more opportunities for

learner collaboration through information sharing and problem solving. Context sensitivity
can help engage learners in situated learning
and individuality allows for individualized and
self-paced learning. Lai, Yang, Chen, Ho and
Chan (2007) identified two other educational
affordances of mobile technologies that can
facilitate experiential learning: delivery and
multimedia creation. Mobile technologies can
deliver real-time information, which is specially needed by learners. Such an affordance
is important for collaboration and learning flow.
Multimedia creation, such as photo taking as
well as sound and video recording, serve[s] to
aid in retention when [learners are] out of the
learning environment (p. 328).
of metacognitive strategies than those with a

smaller vocabulary size. Rasekh and Ranjbarys
(2003) study of metacognitive strategies use
in vocabulary learning also revealed that the
group with metacgnitive strategy training
outperformed the control group without the
training in a vocabulary achievement test.
Cubukcu (2008) also evidenced that metacognitive strategies can lend support to learners
vocabulary development. Craik and Lockhart
(1972) found that when learners have more of
the metacognitive processes involved in the
learning of a word, they tend to have higher
retention and recall rates.
2.3. Meta-Cognitive Strategies

and Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary learning for foreign language learners basically involves learning of both form
and meaning of a word. The form refers to
pronunciation, spelling, the part of speech, and
collocation while the meaning refers to meanings of a word in a learners native language
in a given linguistic context. Over the past few
years, there have been an increasing number of
studies (e.g., Levy & Kennedy, 2005; Lu, 2008;
Song, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005; Zhang,
Song, & Burston, 2011) that have specifically
focused on the use of mobile phones to enhance
vocabulary learning. For example, Baolu and
Akdemir (2010) conducted a comparative study
of vocabulary learning with mobile phones and
with paper flashcards. The experimental group
used the vocabulary program on the phones to
study the target words for six weeks in their
extracurricular hours while the control group
worked on the identical words on paper flashcards during the same time span. Their findings
reveal that vocabulary learning programs
running on mobile phones improved students
acquisition of English vocabulary more than
traditional vocabulary learning tool, flash cards
(p. 6). The findings of all of these empirical
studies reveal that mobile phones can be used
as an effective educational tool for enhancing
vocabulary learning. The effectiveness may be
due to the following reasons:
Metacognitive strategies refer to higher order

executive skills that may entail planning for,
monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p.
44). They involve such processes as planning,
prioritizing, setting goals and self-management
(Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 150) and a
conscious overview of the learning process and
making decisions about planning, monitoring,
or evaluating the best ways to study (p. 205).
These strategies are used to oversee, regulate
or self-direct language learning (p. 150) and
to monitor and adjust the way we process
information (Bromley, 2002, p. 13).
Metacognitive strategies are crucially important for vocabulary learning. Even though
there has been no the so-called best strategy
identified for vocabulary learning thus far (Gu
& Johnson, 1996), the application of metacognitive strategies can make a difference in terms of
vocabulary learning outcomes (Nacera, 2010).
According to Nacera (2010), the frequency of
metacognitive strategies use can determine the
differences in learners vocabulary size, the
finding of which is also supported by elik and
Topta (2010) study, revealing that learners
with a larger vocabulary size tend to use more
2.4. Effectiveness of Vocabulary

Learning via Mobile Phones
First, mobile phones can provide students

with spaced repetition. Students worked on
chunks of vocabulary that they received through
mobile phone, especially via mobile Short
Message Service (SMS). For example, in Lus
(2008) study, one group of the students received
vocabulary items via SMS at timed intervals and
then worked on them in their desired way. The
other group learned the same vocabulary items
on print paper material in a similar way. The
finding is in line with Nations (2001) study,
revealing that students who learned vocabulary
at a spaced repetition can achieve better than
massed repetition.
Second, students generally have a positive attitude toward the use of mobile phone
for vocabulary learning. As positive attitudes
usually lead to improved performance, this is
also true when students use mobile phone for
vocabulary learning. According to the theory
of technology acceptance (Davis, 1993), when
students have a positive attitude toward the use
of mobile phone for vocabulary learning, it can
exert a positive influence on their learning behavior, which can result in enhanced learning.
The results of a questionnaire survey as well
as interview on students attitudes toward the
technology in Thornton and Housers (2005)
study and others (e.g., Lu, 2008; Song, 2008)
all exhibit a positive attitude toward the application of the adopted mobile technology
in vocabulary learning. More specifically, in
Thornton and Housers (2005) study, students
often used mobile phones to send and receive
mobile e-mail and they like to use the same
functionality for class-related purposes. Also,
Japanese students thought favorably about the
size of the mobile screen and the size of the
fonts. Learning vocabulary via mobile phones
is motivating and can be fun for them.
Third, the educational affordances of the
mobile technology enable students to use it to
their advantage. According to the theory of affordances, which was originally proposed by
Gibson (1977), the perceived properties of the
mobile technology determine how a student
will act upon it in diverse learning situations.
In vocabulary learning, some of the salient
affordances such as ownership, portability,

accessibility/ubiquity, and convenience are
innovatively used when learning takes place in
a classroom setting or beyond. This has been
evidenced by Lus (2008) study.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Participants
The participants (N=43) were sophomores of
two intact advanced business English reading
classes in the 2010-2011 academic year from a
university in a metropolitan city in North China.
They were randomly assigned to two treatment
conditions for business English vocabulary
learning: the experimental group, who worked
on a given list of vocabulary through SMS
(hence called the SMSG for short) (N=23) and
the control group (called the paper group or PG
for short) (N=20), who studied the same list of
vocabulary via paper print material. There were
72.1% of female students, with the rest 27.9%
being male students. Their age ranged from 1922 years old (M=20.42, SD=.823). Most of them
(91.80%) majored in business-related subjects
such as trade, finance, marketing, accounting,
e-commerce, etc. while the rest (8.20%) were
language majors. All of them worked on the
vocabulary as required by the course instructor
as they would be tested on the vocabulary at
the-end-of-the-course examination.
3.2. Instruments
3.2.1. Business English Vocabulary
All the participants were students of a required
course titled Advanced Business English Reading. They met once a week for this reading
class and worked on a textbook for advanced
business English students at this university. The
business English terms (N=119) were selected
by the researcher who taught this reading course.
They were covered in the five units of the textbook that the students were expected to work on
throughout the entire semester. The following
vocabulary selection criteria were observed:
1. All the vocabulary words should be the English terms covered in a business context;
2. All the business terms should be included
in the units of the business English textbook that the students are expected to learn
throughout the semester.
3. Also included are all the business terms that
were covered in the previous achievement
tests of this course.
The business English vocabulary was listed
on two columns. One column was business
English vocabulary and the other was their
corresponding translations in Chinese. Some
of the sample vocabulary words were given as
follows in Box 1.
3.2.2. Vocabulary Test

The vocabulary test was made by the researcher,
who also acted as an instructor of the business
English reading course, through a random
selection of 50 terms out of the 119-word list.
Business English terms were given on the left
column and the participants were required to
provide the corresponding translations of the
terms on the right column next to the English
terms.
3.2.3. Questionnaire
A questionnaire was adapted from Lu, Zhou,
and Wang (2009) by the researcher and was intended to unveil the effectiveness of vocabulary
learning with the mobile technology behind the

test results. The questionnaire was composed
of the following two sections.
Section One was used to collect demographic information of the participants,
including gender, age, and academic major.
Section Two was used to collect the data in
relation to their experience of using mobile
phone for business vocabulary learning. This
section was designed to use a 7-point Likertscale, where 1 represents not at all true of
me and 7 represents very true of me. It
covered 12 constructs: behavioral attitude, motivation, reminder, usefulness, when to learn,
how to learn, blended learning, convenience,
meta-cognition, effort regulation, monitoring,
and behavioral intention. Each construct had
three short statements. For example, the three
7-point Likert-scale statements in relation to
behavioral attitude go as follows:
1. Using SMS is a good idea for vocabulary
learning.
2. I like using SMS for vocabulary learning.
3. It is fun for me to learn vocabulary via
SMS.
3.2.4. Semi-Structured Interview

The semi-structured interview was developed
for our purpose of this research. The interview
was divided into four parts: In the first part,
the interviewer started with the purpose of this
Box 1.
Business Terms
Corresponding translations in Chinese
management expertise
competitive pricing
mergers and acquisitions
market access
consumer market
electronic commerce
venture capital
junk bonds
research and interview by explaining to the interviewees what the research aimed to achieve (an
investigation of how mobile technology can be
better utilized for business English vocabulary
learning), why it was of interest that they were
interviewed (because they had experience and
did pretty well in the posttest), how long the interviewing process would last (15-20 minutes),
and how confidentiality would be respected for
research purposes only, as well as by asking
them whether they would like to participate in
the interview and mind being recorded when
they were being interviewed. The second part
was concerned with their planning for vocabulary learning. The third part was related to their
perceived effective learning methods. The last
part addressed the advantages and disadvantages
of vocabulary learning with the technology as
well as their future intentions of using mobile
phone for vocabulary learning.
3.3. Data Collection Procedures

The students from the two intact advanced
reading classes were randomly assigned to two
treatment conditions: One group of students
(the SMS group) used mobile phone SMS as
the medium of vocabulary delivery and a tool
for vocabulary learning; the other group (the
paper group) used traditional paper material
both as a delivery medium and a tool for the
same purpose.
Before the experiment kicked off, a pretest
was administered to the two groups. Then,
SMS vocabulary messages were delivered
via the China Mobiles Fetion Systema free
MSN-like text chat system, which provides free
mobile phone SMS services. The SMS group
received five business terms at pre-designated
time early in the afternoon on a daily basis.
The same number of the business terms was
also distributed face-to-face to the paper group
proximately at the same time each day. All the
participants were told to take a test on all the
vocabulary items after 3 weeks. They were
expected to work on the task according to their
own schedule at extracurricular times and in
their own effective way as well as to complete
the task in terms of memorizing the terms and

their corresponding translations before the
posttest was given.
On the fourth week, a posttest was administered to the two groups in the reading class
following the three-week experiment and a
questionnaire survey was given to the experimental group. There were 17 participants who
responded to the questionnaire and data were
processed for later analysis. The participants
from the SMSG, who did well in the posttest,
were selected to be interviewed in the same
week. On the fifth week, namely, two weeks after
the experiment, a delayed test was administered
to the two groups to identify the differences in
vocabulary retention rates.
4. RESULTS
4.1. Results of the Pretest
in the Two Groups
To establish the homogeneity of the two groups
in terms of their initial vocabulary level, an
independent-samples t-test was conducted on
the vocabulary test (which was taken as a pretest)
to examine the difference in the performance
of the two groups before the experiment was
carried out. Based on the group statistics, the
SMSG (M=27.13, SD=6.370) did better than
the PG (M=26.90, SD=7.297) in the pretest.
However, the result of t-test on the pretest of
the two groups did not show that the two groups
were significantly different from each other
in terms of their existing business vocabulary
knowledge (t(41)= .111, p>.05, (2-tailed)),
revealing that the two groups had the same
vocabulary proficiency level before the intervention was made (Table 1).
4.2. Effectiveness of Vocabulary

Learning After the Treatment
To find out whether the mobile technology can
effectively help enhance student vocabulary
learning, or in other words, whether the experimental group can do better than the control
group in terms of their performance after the
Table 1. Results of the independent-samples t test in vocabulary pretest

Group
Pretest
Posttest
Delayed test
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
SMS
23
27.13
6.370
1.328
Paper
20
26.90
7.297
1.632
SMS
23
41.39
5.237
1.092
Paper
20
37.60
6.336
1.417
SMS
23
41.96
6.131
1.278
Paper
20
43.60
5.154
1.153
experiment, an independent-samples t-test was

conducted on the posttest. Results show that the
SMSG (M=41.39, SD=5.237) outperformed the
PG (M=37.60, SD=6.336) in the posttest. This
revealed that there was a significant difference
in the performance of the two groups (t(41)=
2.148, p<.05, (2-tailed)). The result reveals that
technology-based business vocabulary learning
was more effective than traditional paper-based
learning. In other words, the use of technology
can make a difference in the performance of
students vocabulary learning. However, when
taken from the result of the delayed test, the
SMSG (M=41.96, SD=6.131) was not significantly different (t(41)= -.943, p>.05, (2-tailed))
from the PG (M=43.60, SD=5.154). This demonstrates that the use of the technology cannot
help students to maintain higher retention rates
in the long-term (Table 2).
4.3. Correlations Between

Metacogntive Strategies and
Results of the Posttest
Results showed that there was a significant
positive correlation of the students posttest
scores with time management (r=.636, p<.01)
and effort regulation (r=.568, p<.05). However, no significant correlation was found
with monitoring (r=.478, p>.05). These results
Table 2. Independent samples test

Levenes
Test for
Equality of
Variances
Pre-test
EVA
Sig.
.322
.574
EVNA
Post-test
EVA
.182
.672
EVNA
Delayed
test
EVA
EVNA
.606
.441
t-test for Equality of Means
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Upper
Lower
.111
41
.912
.230
2.084
-3.978
4.439
.110
38.080
.913
.230
2.104
-4.029
4.489
2.148
41
.038
3.791
1.765
.227
7.356
2.119
37.003
.041
3.791
1.789
.167
7.416
-.943
41
.351
-1.643
1.743
-5.163
1.876
-.955
40.963
.345
-1.643
1.721
-5.120
1.833
EVA=Equal variances assumed; EVNA=Equal variances not assumed
indicated that such metacognitive strategies as

time management and effort regulation were
crucially important to the effectiveness of student learning because when students had better
time management and effort regulation, they
were more likely to achieve better academic
performance (Table 3).
4.4. Students Attitudes Toward

the Adoption of Mobile Phone
for Vocabulary Learning
Students attitudes toward the use of SMS in
vocabulary learning were measured through
students behavioral attitude, motivation and
attitude toward usefulness as well as behavioral
intention. The average score on the Likert scale
from 1 to 7 was 4.0 points. All of the scores
including the constructs and statement items
were significantly positive (One-Sample 2
tailed t-test comparing each statement and the
construct with an expected mean of 4.0, with
p<.05 for both each statement and construct).
The survey (presented in Box 2) results revealed
that students were quite positive about the use
of the technology, which is proven to be further
evidence of the previous studies.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. Effectiveness of Business
Vocabulary Learning with
Mobile Technologies
As the results of the independent-samples t-test
on the posttest scores of the two groups have
revealed, mobile technology-based vocabulary

learning is more effective than traditional paperbased learning. Such effectiveness may be due
to an array of reasons as follows:
To begin with, the students are generally positive about the use of mobile phone
in language learning. According to the theory
of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975),
a persons action is dependent upon ones
behavioral intention on the basis of ones behavioral attitude and subjective norm. When
students have a positive attitude toward the
use of technology and meanwhile perceive
positively the consequences of adopting it
in terms of what their peers may view them,
they are more likely to take advantage of the
technology effectively. For the learners in this
study, this way of learning is their first-time
experience and they all think favorably about
it. Such an attitude toward mobile learning is
in line with that of the students in some of the
most recent studies (see Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009;
Nah, White, & Sussex, 2008; Song, 2008). As
attitudes can affect learning performance (Call,
2003; OToole. 2007), namely, positive attitudes
usually result in better performance of learning and vice versa, students positive attitudes
toward mobile technology-based learning can
therefore give rise to enhanced learning. In
the scenario of the current study, the learners positive attitudes toward mobile learning
lead to motivationally explorative use of the
technology for vocabulary learning. With such
motivation, vocabulary learning can be better
facilitated (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). This has
also been evidenced by Garretts (1992) study of
Table 3. Correlations of the constructs with the posttest score

1
Time management
Effort regulation
.780(**)
Monitoring
.319
.423
Posttest
.636(**)
.568(*)
.478
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Box 2. Descriptive statistics

Constructs and question items
Mean
Behavioral attitude
6.12
1.071
A. Using SMS is a good idea for vocabulary learning.
6.18
1.131
B. I like using SMS for vocabulary learning.
6.06
1.029
C. It is fun for me to learn vocabulary via SMS.
6.12
1.054
Motivation
5.16
1.158
A. When I received words, I was motivated to learn them as much as I could.
5.00
1.225
B. Vocabulary SMS made me focus my attention on the vocabulary tasks.
5.82
0.883
C. I was pushed to complete the vocabulary tasks when I got vocabulary messages.
4.65
1.367
Attitude toward usefulness
5.90
0.925
A. SMS is useful to me for vocabulary learning.
6.29
0.849
B. SMS allows me to access target words easily.
5.82
1.131
C. SMS improves my efficiency of learning vocabulary.
5.88
0.781
D. SMS allows me to easily memorize new words.
5.59
0.939
Behavioral intention
6.35
0.784
A. I will continue to use SMS for vocabulary learning if there is such a chance again.
6.41
0.795
B. I will recommend others to use SMS for vocabulary learning if such a chance is made
available.
6.29
0.772
C. I will participate in such a vocabulary learning activity when there is an opportunity of this
kind.
6.35
0.786
the relationship between positive attitudes and

vocabulary learning performance, showing that
a positive attitude, along with high motivation
and high achievement, corresponded to high
vocabulary learning performance.
Besides, vocabulary learning via SMS
enables students to reduce cognitive load.
When learning via SMS, students are usually
exposed to chunks of information, which appear
on the screen and can be easily processed in
short-term memory (Ryu & Kim, 2006; Zimmerman & Yohon, 2009) due to the nature of the
words being delivered and presented piece by
piece and in a well-structured sequence. Such
cognitive-friendly chunks of information, according to the theory of cognitive load (Sweller,
Van Merrinboer, & Paas, 1998), can be easily
organized in the students short-term memory.
Accordingly, the words memorized can be easily
stored in the memory. One of the interviewees
commented on this way of learning as follows:
SD
The words delivered via SMS every day come

to me just like the way rain moistens things.
This way of learning takes a very fragmented
approach that enables me to memorize the
words imperceptibly. Each time I have five
words available to me and I can gradually
memorize them effectively. (Natasha, interview
on January 7, 2010)
However, when such processing is suspended or discontinued, words in the short-term
memory can slip away easily because they are
processed in a limited processing capacity and
have not entered the long-term memory. That
may be one of the reasons why the experimental
group cannot perform better than the control
group in the delayed test.
Moreover, this novel way of learning
helps students develop effective autonomous
vocabulary learning strategies. Students learning via SMS depends on a continual reception
of words delivered to them. Beyond the use

of mobile phone for socially communicative
purposes, the phone ringtones could be a regular
reminder of their time for vocabulary learning.
As the terms are delivered at a relatively fixed
time on a regular basis, they are usually mentally prepared for receiving the new terms at a
particular time during the day and schedule the
daily tasks for memorizing the words. As one
of the interviewees says, I think its good to
learn in this way because it is very convenient
and that it prompts me to learn the right thing
at the right time and in the right place. Another
interviewee also echoes, As the messages are
delivered very day and on a regular basis, Im
always expecting to memorize the words during
such a period of time. Meanwhile, in order to
effectively memorize the words, students have
generally developed their own perceived way of
effective learning. For example, some of them
copy down difficult terms in a notebook while
others place newly received words in a newly
created file on the phone for later memorization
or revision. Some memorize the words by simply
reading the messages on the phone while others
by writing the words on a piece of paper when
reading them on the phone at the same time.
Some prefer to memorize vocabulary by making
good use of segmented times when they are on
the way to classroom buildings and in the bed
before going to sleep while others prefer to do
it while they are in the washroom or feel tired
during their academic studies. Thus, it can be
seen that business English vocabulary learning
with mobile phones has exerted some impact
on learner autonomy, which reveals a sharp
contrast to Walters and Bozkurts (2009) studies. However, the findings of the development
of viable vocabulary learning strategies lend
another empirical support to the findings that
strategy use can be conducive to vocabulary
learning in the existing body of literature (see
Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007; Gu & Johnson, 1996;
Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009; Schmitt, 1997;
Wen, 2010)
Furthermore, learning via mobile phone
offers the students an opportunity of efficient
use of segmented times. Mobile learning is believed to be a kind of learning that truly makes
learning take place anytime and anywhere

(Chen, Chang, & Wang, 2008; KukulskaHulme, 2008; Motiwalla, 2007). Thanks to
the affordances of mobile technologies such
as mobile phones, students are able to make
most of such segmented times as waiting for
and traveling on the subway train, commuting
between home and school as well as between
dorms and classrooms, and being in bed before
sleeping even after communal dorm room lights
are off (Door room electricity is officially cut
off after 11 oclock pm in every dorm building
on campus). They can be repeatedly exposed
to the target words whenever time is available
to them. As a result, such repeated exposures
help enhance vocabulary retention (Elley, 1989;
Laufer, 2009; Rott, 1999; Schmitt, 2008).
Finally, learning with SMS makes the students stress-free. As words are delivered in the
form of chunks and with a limited number on
a daily basis, the students usually do not have
an overwhelming feeling about the vocabulary
tasks, even though they have nearly 150 words
to memorize. They generally have less anxiety
about the task because the huge task has been
split up into mini-tasks, which are psychologically less challenging and cognitively favorable
for being processed in the short-term memory.
When students work on these mini-tasks, learning becomes less stressful and more motivating.
One of the students made the following comments when she was interviewed:
We have only five words each day. I feel comfortable with the number of the words and dont
have a pressure when Im learning. If I learn the
same thing from a vocabulary book with a long
list of words, I will feel frustrated when I open
the book to find so many words to memorize.
(Jasmine, interview on January 8, 2010)
5.2. Perceived Advantages and

Disadvantages of Vocabulary
Learning via Mobile Phone
As an old saying goes, a coin has two sides. Also
evident are the advantages and disadvantages
in vocabulary learning via mobile phone. On
the one hand, there are dozens of advantages
of using mobile phone for vocabulary learning.

First, convenience is one of the most widely
recognized affordances of this technology
for vocabulary learning (see Cheung & Hew,
2009; Frohbergm, Gth, & Schwabe, 2009;
Joseph,2009; Song, 2008; Stockwell, 2008).
It has also been recognized by the participants
in this study as shown from some of the interviewees comments as follows:
We all have a mobile phone and I keep it in my
pocket. Its convenient to take it out and read.
Also, I can memorize the words anytime and
anywhere. (Jane, interview on January 8, 2010)
I think its a good way to learn business vocabulary. Everyone has a mobile phone with
them every day. When a message comes, we can
read it immediately. Its very efficient to learn
when I have nothing to do while traveling on
the bus or the subway train. (Leslie, interview
on January 7, 2010)
Second, this way of learning is motivational. As revealed by a large multitude of
studies (see Clment, Gardner, & Smythe,
1977; Clment & Kruidenier, 1985; Coleman &
Furnborough, 2010; Csizer & Drnyei, 2005;
Drnyei & Csizer, 2002; Elley, 1989; Ely, 1986;
Gardner, 1985; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991;
Lukmani, 1972; Noels, Clment, & Pelletier,
1999; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tremblay &
Gardner, 1995; Vujisic, 2009), motivation has
been widely embraced by both practitioners and
researchers as a critical determinant of success
in language learning (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008,
p. 358). There is no exception of the effects
of motivation on vocabulary learning (Taka,
2008; Xing, 2009). The ringtones are taken as a
good reminder, which can motivate the students
to learn. Such a motivational affordance has
also been echoed by Lu (2008). The following
is one of the comments on the advantages made
by an interviewee:
When an SMS message has not been read, Im
always reminded by a ringtone. The same is also
true for vocabulary learning. When there is a
vocabulary message that I fail to read, Im also

reminded. Thats fairly cool. (Carol, interview
on January 8, 2010)
Third, learning with mobile phone affords spaced learning. Based on a literature
study, Druckman and Swets (1988) argue that
long-term memory can be greatly increased by
repeating the material under optimal spacing
conditions rather than present it once or under
massed conditions (p. 54). Crozier (1997)
also argues that learning performance can be
enhanced when learning intervals are shorter
and spaced. Vocabulary learning with SMS is
different from traditional paper-based learning
in at least one sense that students can access
only a limited number of new words each time
and on a regular basis due to the affordances
of portability and convenience. Students repeat
memorizing the same number of the words at
some intervals each day and every day. Even
when they have dozens of words to memorize,
their attention is only given to those hard-toremember ones at some intervals. Such a kind
of spaced learning is believed to be beneficial
to vocabulary learning (Taka, 2008) and has
been evidenced by one of the interviewees
comments in the following:
I used to try to crack lists of vocabulary at the
end of the semester when the exam date was
only a few weeks away, but the efficiency was
low. When Im using SMS, I memorize a few
each day and repeat working on them during
the day. Also, the receiving of the messages
is more like a reminder for me and I like the
dynamics. I think such spaced learning is more
effective for me to memorize the words. (Edwin,
interview on January 7, 2010)
On the other hand, there are also some
weaknesses of vocabulary learning with mobile
phone. First, like what was found by Liu (2009),
the size of mobile phone memory is insufficient.
Such insufficiency leads to the studentsfrequent
and intentional deletion of messages. Due to
the small screen size, vocabulary messages
are deleted by mistake from time to time. As
messages for vocabulary learning are mixed

with those for other purposes, the former are
sometimes mistakenly deleted and cannot be
retrieved, especially for the students who are
socially active and are likely to have dozens of
more messages on a daily basis. This could be
problematic because they cannot memorize an
equal number of words as their peers do, due
to their mistaken behavior. Second, there is
no easy access to previously received words.
Words delivered via SMS each day accumulate
as time passes by. Locating a particular word
could be cumbersome when tens of messages
are loaded on the phone. Third, no marking
can be made. Words can be better memorized
when multiple senses are deployed. Most of
the students prefer to memorize words by reading and meanwhile scribbling or writing them
down on a piece of paper or in a notebook. In
such a way, they think that they are better able
to memorize them. Because words delivered
via SMS cannot be marked or underlined on
the mobile phone, such a pitfall becomes a big
obstacle to effective use for vocabulary learning
as revealed from the interviews. Fourth, deep
processing of vocabulary is minimal. Because
individual business vocabulary items are learned
independently of situational contexts, what
learners can do is only to repetitively and mechanically learn the items by heart. Such a lack
of contexts, which are proven to be crucially
important to vocabulary learning (Onaha, 2005),
makes them unable to conduct deep processing
of what they are memorizing. They may just
familiarize themselves with the form of the
vocabulary words that they have memorized
but fail to put them to effective use in realistic
contexts. The processing of vocabulary items
remains shallow and thus long-term retention
remains low.
6. CONCLUSION
This study has made several findings, some of
which are our experiences and lessons as well.
First, business vocabulary learning with mobile
phone as a medium of delivery and a mobile
learning tool is advantageous over traditional
paper-based vocabulary learning. This finding

is in line with a number of most recent studies (e.g., Baolu & Akdemir, 2010; Levy &
Kennedy, 2005; Lu, 2008; Thornton & Houser,
2005). This technology-enhanced learning can
enable learners to reduce their cognitive load,
develop their autonomous learning skills, and
effectively use their segmented times. Also, it
can enable them to enlarge their vocabulary
knowledge in a more convenient, highly motivated, as well as spaced manner.
Second, the time of vocabulary delivery
via SMS needs to be worked out with the students. Just because each student has their own
learning schedules, they may feel disturbed by
receiving unexpected messages while they are
concentrating on their school work.
Third, the maximum number of vocabulary
items delivered each time needs to be confined
to four or five items. Students try to memorize
as many words as they can receive on a weekly
basis. As a result, within a few days, they may
find that the list of words is not only long but
also messy, for other kinds of messages such
as those for greeting purposes from friends are
messed with vocabulary messages.
Fourth, vocabulary in context can be more
effectively memorized. When students are
working on vocabulary independent of context,
they give more attention to linguistic form than
meaning. More importantly, they do not know
how a vocabulary word is used in a specific
context. It is therefore difficult for what they
have memorized to become part of their own
linguistic system. As a consequence, they can
only see a tree without noticing the forest and
find that what is in their mind can slip their
mind easily.
Finally, effective mobile technologyenhanced vocabulary learning can be achieved
by innovatively blending it with print-based
learning, preferably involving noticing, repetition, retrieval and generative use (Nation, 2001)
with context-bound cues. It is evident that the
effectiveness is not determined by the technology per se but by learners creative use of it
through offsetting the technologys weaknesses.
It is paramount to develop their metacognitive
ability as well as effective learning strategies

before learning of this kind kicks off.
A number of limitations of this study need
to be mentioned, some of which offer opportunities for future research. First, the study has a
small sample size. Although the size is comparable with many other similar studies (e.g., Lu,
2008), it is considered small. Generalization of
the findings to a larger sample should be made
with caution. Future studies may expand sample
size so that relevant findings are more likely to
be better able to enrich the existing literature.
Second, the study has not fully controlled the
effect of frequency of exposure to vocabulary
items on retention rates. As exposure frequency
is positively correlated to vocabulary gains
(Rott, 1999), future research may find out a
better way to appropriately quantify the frequency as well as include it as a variable when
investigation of the effectiveness is conducted.
Third, the study mainly focused on the effect
of SMS on business English vocabulary learning by pushing out groups of vocabulary to
the students for them to learn. However, if the
students can pull out the terms that they need
on the phone when completing a task or in a
particular language context, that will be helpful
to their autonomous learning. Finally, learning
strategies are not considered in this study. It is
evident that different learning strategies may
result in variant vocabulary gains and retention.
An investigation of the effect of learning strategies in such a scenario is also worth the effort.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to extend our thanks to the anonymous reviewer for his/her thorough review and
constructive suggestions for improvements.
This study is supported by Renmin University
of Chinas International Humanities and Social
Sciences Journal Paper Publishing Promotion
Program (NO. 12XNK001).
REFERENCES
Adams, J., & Hirsch, M. (2007). Hitting the books: In
China alone, 175 million people now study English.
Newsweek. Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://
www.newsweek.com/id/32295
Atay, D., & Ozbulgan, C. (2007). Memory strategy
instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabulary
recall. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 3951.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.01.002
Aurner, R. R. (1950). Effective communication in
business (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Baolu, E. B., & Akdemir, . (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students English vocabulary
learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
9(3), 17.
Bibby, S. (2011). Do students wish to go mobile?: An
investigation into student use of PCs and cell phones.
[IJCALLT]. International Journal of ComputerAssisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2),
4354. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2011040104
Bromley, K. (2002). Stretching studentsvocabulary.
New York, NY: Scholastic.
Call, N., & Featherstone, S. (2003). The thinking
child: Brain-based learning for the foundation stage.
Stafford, ST: Network Educational Press.
Cavus, C., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An
experiment in using SMS to support learning new
English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 7891. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00801.x
elik, S., & Topta, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning
strategy use of Turkish EFL learners. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 6271. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2010.07.013
Chen, G. D., Chang, C. K., & Wang, C. Y. (2008).
Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by
mobile devices with information-aware techniques.
Computers & Education, 50(1), 7790. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2006.03.004
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2009). A review of
research methodologies used in studies on mobile
handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 153183.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies going to the mall: Mobile assisted language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 916.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clment, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977).

Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A study of francophones learning English.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9(2),
123133. doi:10.1037/h0081614
Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition through

listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly,
24(2), 174187. doi:10.2307/747863
Clment, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language
proficiency: A test of Cments model. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, 4(1), 2137.
doi:10.1177/0261927X8500400102
Coleman, J. A., & Furnborough, C. (2010). Learner
characteristics and learning outcomes on a distance
Spanish course for beginners. System, 38(1), 1429.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.002
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of
processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6),
671684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Crozier, W. R. (1997). Individual learners: Personality differences in education. London, UK: Routledge.
Csizr, K., & Drnyei, Z. (2005). The internal
structure of language learning motivation and its
relationship with language choice and learning
effort. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 1936.
doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x
Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research,
18(1), 111.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information
technology: System characteristics, user perceptions
and behavior impacts. International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475487. doi:10.1006/
imms.1993.1022
Diller, D. (2007). Making the most of small groups:
differentiation for all. Markham, Canada: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Drnyei, Z., & Csizr, K. (2002). Motivational dynamics in second language acquisition: Results of a
longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics,
23, 421462. doi:10.1093/applin/23.4.421
Druckman, D., & Swets, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business

English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation: A
descriptive and causal analysis. Modern Language
Journal, 70(1), 2835. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.
tb05240.x
Feng, X. F. (2009, December 21), 200 billion SMS
messages were delivered in the first 11 months nationwide [Qian 11 Ge Yue Quan Guo Shou Ji Duan
Xin Fa Song Liang Jin 2000 Yi Tiao]. Retrieved
January 1, 26, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/
it/2004-12/22/content_2365818.htm
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude,
intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory
and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frohbergm, D., Gth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009).
Mobile Learning projects a critical analysis of
the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(4), 307331. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2009.00315.x
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second
language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isnt
effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
26(01), 5772. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009724
Garrett, S. L. (1992). The effects of perceptual
preference and motivation on vocabulary and attitude scores among selected high school students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La
Verne, La Verne, CA.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In
R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), perceiving, acting
and knowing (pp. 6782). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary
learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643679.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01355.x
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2000).
Maritime English. London, UK: International Maritime Organization.
Jones, A., Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2006). What is

mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in
mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope network of excellence mobile learning initiative. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.
Joseph, S. R. H., & Uther, M. (2009). Mobile devices
for language learning: Multimedia approaches. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(1), 732. doi:10.1142/S179320680900060X
Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring

Chinese user acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology
acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers
in Human Behavior, 25(1), 2939. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.06.002
Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and
language proficiency. Language Learning, 22(2),
261273. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1972.tb00087.x
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From

e-learning to m-learning (No. ZIFF Papiere 119).
Hagen Zentrales Institute fur Fernstudienforschung:
FernUniversitat. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from
http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/ZP_119.pdf
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining

the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary
learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 425449.
doi:10.1177/1362168809341511
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002).

Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window
into a virtual simulated world. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and
Mobile Technologies in Education. doi:10.1109/
WMTE.2002.1039227
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3),
581596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From
content delivery to supported collaboration and
interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271289. doi:10.1017/
S0958344008000335
Lai, C.-H., Yang, J.-C., Chen, F.-C., Ho, C.-W., &
Chan, T.-W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay
of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326337.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00237.x
Laufer, B. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused
activities. Language Teaching, 42(3), 341354.
doi:10.1017/S0261444809005771
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via
mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme, & J. Traxler
(Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators
and trainers (pp. 7683). London, UK: Routledge.
Liu, T.-Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6),
515527. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00329.x
Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 515525. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2008.00289.x
Nacera, A. (2010). Languages learning strategies

and the vocabulary size. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 40214025. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2010.03.634
Nah, K. C., White, P., & Sussex, R. (2008). The potential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet
for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean
context. ReCALL, 20(3), 331347. doi:10.1017/
S0958344008000633
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in
another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524759
News, B. B. C. (2004). China mobiles outstrip landlines. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3374893.stm
Noels, K. A., Clment, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999).
Perceptions of teachers communicative style and
students intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern
Language Journal, 83(1), 2334. doi:10.1111/00267902.00003
OMalley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524490
OToole, G. (2007). Can assessment of student attitudes assist both the teaching and learning process
as well as ultimate performance in professional
practice. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teaching and learning through assessment: Deriving an
appropriate model (pp. 468475). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Onaha, H. (2005). Effect of context in EFL vocabulary

learning. Ryudai Review of Euro-American Studies,
49, 2336.
Osborne, P. (2005). Teaching English one to one:
How to teach one to one classes - for the professional
English language teacher. London, UK: Modern
English Publishing.
Random House. (2009). Quotation. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/quotation
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive
strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ,
2(2), 115.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on
intermediate language learnersincidental vocabulary
acquisition and retention through reading. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 589619.
doi:10.1017/S0272263199004039
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on
intermediate language learnersincidental vocabulary
acquisition and retention through reading. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 589619.
doi:10.1017/S0272263199004039
Ryu, J., & Kim, M. (2006). Effective design for
decreasing cognitive load on the small screen of
PDA. In ReevesT.YamashitaS. (Eds.), Proceedings
of World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education
2006 (pp. 2323-2328). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Saricaa, G. N., & Cavus, N. (2009). New trends in
21st century English learning. Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 439445. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2009.01.079
Scarcella, R. C., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2005). Cognates, cognition, and writing: An investigation of
the use of cognates by university second-language
learners. In A. E. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D.
Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and
discourse perspectives on language and language
learning (pp. 123136). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation,
strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign
language learning. In Z. Drnyei, & R. Schmidt
(Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition
(pp. 313359). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii,
Second Language Teaching Center.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In
N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199227).
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In

N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199228).
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary. Learning. Language Teaching Research,
12(3), 329363. doi:10.1177/1362168808089921
Shih, Y. E. (2005, July 5-8). Language in action:
Applying mobile classroom in foreign language
learning. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 548-549). doi:10.1109/
ICALT.2005.188
Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learning for mobile Audiences. Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2(1), 8198. doi:10.1504/
IJMLO.2008.018719
Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learning for mobile audiences. International Journal of
Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2(1), 8198.
doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2008.018719
Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner
preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile
learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 253270. doi:10.1017/
S0958344008000232
Sweeney, P., & Moore, C. (2012). Mobile apps
for learning vocabulary: Categories, evaluation
and design criteria for teachers and developers.
[IJCALLT]. International Journal of ComputerAssisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(4),
116. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2012100101
Sweller, J., Van Merrinboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998).
Cognitive architecture and instructional design.
Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251296.
doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
Taka, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies
and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile
phones in English education in Japan. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217228.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x
Tremblay, P., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505518.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05451.x
Tseng, W., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model
of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 58(2),
357400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x
Vujisic, Z. (2009). The role of achievement motivation

on the interlanguage fossilization of middle-aged
English-as-a-second-language learners. Munich,
Germany: Lincom Europa.
Walters, J., & Bozkurt, N. (2009). The effect of
keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 403423.
doi:10.1177/1362168809341509
Wen, X. (2010). An empirical study on vocabulary
learning strategies among business English majors.
Foreign Language and Literature, 26(5), 134145.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for
language teachers: a social constructive approach.
Xing, P. (2009). Chinese learners and the lexis
learning rainbow. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Yu, S. F., & Feng, Y. Q. (2009, July 22). Zhong Guo
Yi Dong Dian Hua Yong Hu Shu Da Dao 6.8 Yi [The
number of mobile users in China has reached 680
million]. Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/
internet/2009-07/23/content_11758516.htm
Zhan, D. B., Sun, X. P., Yao, M., Li, Y. L., Meng,

Y., Duan, C. C., et al. (2010, March 4). Shu Yi Xue
Xi Zhe Bei Zhi Feng Kuang Quan Min Ying Yu Re
Zhe Mo Dong Ya [East Asia is tortured by English
language learning with hundreds of millions of crazy
language learners]. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from
http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-03/744066.html
Zhang, H., Song, W., & Burston, J. (2011). Reexamining the effectiveness of vocabulary learning via
mobile phones. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 203214.
Zhao, Y. (2005). The future of research in technology
and second language education. In Y. Zhao (Ed.),
Research in technology and second language learning: developments and directions (pp. 445457).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, D., & Yohon, T. (2009, 19-22 July).
Small-screen interface design: Where are we?
Where do we go? Paper presented at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.
doi:doi:10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208667 doi:10.1109/
IPCC.2009.5208667
Haisen Zhang is an associate professor of English in the School of International Studies at the
University of International Business and Economics. He earns his doctoral degree in educational
technology, with an emphasis on CALL from Beijing Normal University in China. His areas of
research interest cover CALL, mobile language learning, virtual environments, language pedagogy, and faculty professional development.
Wei Song is an associate professor of finance in the School of Finance at Renmin University of
China. Her research interests include financial theory and policy, banking management, and
English for finance.
Ronghuai Huang is a professor in the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University. He
is a prominent Chinese expert in the fields of educational technology and knowledge engineering. Over the past decade, he has been a frequent presenter at both national and international
conferences and published widely in the field of educational technology, knowledge engineering,
e-learning, and e-curriculum design.

Business English Learning With Mobile Phones

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Business English Learning With Mobile Phones

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

46 International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46-63, April-June 2014

Business English Vocabulary

Haisen Zhang, School of International Studies, University of International Business and

Business English, Mobile phones, SMS, Testing, Vocabulary learning

and learning technology solution providers push

a daily basis. These devices have become part

1. Is technology-based business English

vocabulary or business English vocabulary,

2.2. The Role of Mobile

own preferred location, at their own pace, and

interactivity can offer more opportunities for

of metacognitive strategies than those with a

2.3. Meta-Cognitive Strategies

Metacognitive strategies refer to higher order

2.4. Effectiveness of Vocabulary

First, mobile phones can provide students

affordances such as ownership, portability,

3.2.2. Vocabulary Test

learning with the mobile technology behind the

3.2.4. Semi-Structured Interview

Corresponding translations in Chinese

mergers and acquisitions

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

the task in terms of memorizing the terms and

4.2. Effectiveness of Vocabulary

Table 1. Results of the independent-samples t test in vocabulary pretest

Std. Error Mean

experiment, an independent-samples t-test was

4.3. Correlations Between

Table 2. Independent samples test

t-test for Equality of Means

EVA=Equal variances assumed; EVNA=Equal variances not assumed

indicated that such metacognitive strategies as

4.4. Students Attitudes Toward

revealed, mobile technology-based vocabulary

Table 3. Correlations of the constructs with the posttest score

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Box 2. Descriptive statistics

A. Using SMS is a good idea for vocabulary learning.

B. I like using SMS for vocabulary learning.

C. It is fun for me to learn vocabulary via SMS.

A. When I received words, I was motivated to learn them as much as I could.

B. Vocabulary SMS made me focus my attention on the vocabulary tasks.

Attitude toward usefulness

A. SMS is useful to me for vocabulary learning.

B. SMS allows me to access target words easily.

C. SMS improves my efficiency of learning vocabulary.

D. SMS allows me to easily memorize new words.

the relationship between positive attitudes and

The words delivered via SMS every day come

of words delivered to them. Beyond the use

learning take place anytime and anywhere

5.2. Perceived Advantages and

of using mobile phone for vocabulary learning.

vocabulary message that I fail to read, Im also

messages for vocabulary learning are mixed

paper-based vocabulary learning. This finding

ability as well as effective learning strategies

Clment, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977).

Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition through

Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business

Jones, A., Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2006). What is

Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring