Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
16
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This study explores the effectiveness of traditional and technological methods in vocabulary acquisition among
intermediate-level English learners. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining quantitative data from pre-tests,
weekly exams, and post-tests with qualitative insights gathered from surveys and interviews. Over a six-week period,
30 students participated in lessons utilizing both traditional teacher-led instruction and technological tools such as
mobile apps and digital flashcards. The results revealed that while the traditional group showed steady but moderate
improvement, the technological group experienced more rapid and significant gains in vocabulary retention.
Interviews with participants highlighted the strengths and challenges of both methods, emphasizing the need for a
blended learning approach. This study suggests that combining traditional and technological methods can offer a
more comprehensive and effective learning experience, catering to diverse learner preferences and enhancing overall
vocabulary retention.
KEYWORDS
Vocabulary acquisition, traditional methods, technological tools, blended learning, Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning (MALL), intermediate-level English learners, spaced repetition, digital flashcards, language education, mixed-
methods study.
Research Article
BALANCING TRADITION AND TECHNOLOGY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
ON VOCABULARY ACQUISITION IN INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH LEARNERS
Submission Date:
Sep 28, 2024,
Accepted Date:
Oct 03, 2024,
Published Date:
Oct 08, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajsshr/Volume04Issue10-03
Ergashev Rasulbek Sohib o‘g‘li
Professor and independent researcher of English linguistics at Turan International University, Uzbekistan
Bustanov Khurshidbek
A master’s degree student at Dong
-A university in English language and Literature, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajsshr
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
17
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
INTRODUCTION
Vocabulary acquisition has long been a crucial element
in language education, traditionally relying on methods
such as repetition, memorization, and teacher-led
instruction. While these approaches have laid the
foundation for structured language learning, they
often lack the flexibility required to engage learners in
a more dynamic and interactive manner. Over the
years, technological advancements have introduced
new tools that complement traditional methods,
particularly through blended learning models, which
combine face-to-face instruction with online resources.
This blended approach enhances the learning
experience by offering flexibility and interactivity, thus
catering to the needs of diverse learners (Alammary et
al., 2014).
Blended learning offers students the opportunity to
personalize their learning experiences, allowing them
to interact with material at their own pace and
according to their individual preferences (Tosun, 2015).
In the context of vocabulary acquisition, such
personalization can be highly effective, as mobile-
assisted tools enable learners to practice vocabulary
both inside and outside the classroom. Zhang et al.
(2011) note that students using mobile tools
demonstrate greater short-term
retention
of
vocabulary compared to those relying on traditional,
paper-based methods. This indicates that technology
not only enhances learning but also complements
traditional teaching strategies, contributing to
improved outcomes.
However, while technology-based approaches provide
numerous benefits, the role of traditional face-to-face
instruction remains indispensable. Graham et al. (2013)
stress that while blended learning offers flexibility, in-
person teaching is critical for immediate feedback and
fostering a collaborative learning environment.
Similarly, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) emphasize that
online tools should enhance, rather than replace, face-
to-face
interactions,
creating
a
balanced,
pedagogically sound learning environment.
Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) has been
particularly effective in improving both the retention
and comprehension of vocabulary through varied and
flexible practice (Khazaei & Dastjerdi, 2011). These
tools allow students to engage with vocabulary in
diverse
contexts,
thereby
deepening
their
understanding of how words function in real-life
situations. As blended learning continues to expand,
educators are encouraged to redesign courses that
seamlessly integrate both traditional and digital
methods to form a cohesive learning experience
(Oliver & Trigwell, 2005).
Research indicates that incorporating digital tools into
traditional teaching methods enhances student
motivation and engagement, resulting in more
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
18
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
effective language learning (Pazio, 2010). This is
especially true for vocabulary learning, where
interactive tools can provide additional opportunities
for practice and engagement. However, the key
challenge remains finding the right balance between
traditional and technological methods. As both
approaches offer unique advantages, it is crucial to use
them in a complementary manner to support learners'
overall progress (Tosun, 2015).
This study seeks to explore how intermediate-level
English learners can benefit from both traditional and
technological methods in vocabulary acquisition. By
examining the effectiveness of these approaches, the
research aims to contribute to the growing discourse
on blended learning in language education, focusing
on how the integration of these methods can optimize
student outcomes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on vocabulary learning highlights the
roles of both traditional and technological methods,
emphasizing their individual strengths and the growing
importance of blended learning approaches.
Traditional Methods in Vocabulary Learning
Traditional vocabulary learning methods, such as
repetition, memorization, and teacher-led instruction,
have long been central to language education. These
strategies create structured environments where
learners systematically acquire vocabulary, reinforced
by techniques like drilling and dictation. Teachers play
a pivotal role in guiding this process, ensuring repeated
exposure to vocabulary, which, as Harmer (2007)
notes, strengthens cognitive links between new words
and their meanings. Such rote learning is particularly
effective for beginners. Additionally, traditional
methods allow for immediate feedback from teachers
on pronunciation and word usage, as noted by Graham
et al. (2013). However, these methods often lack
flexibility and may not engage learners who prefer
more interactive or autonomous approaches, as
highlighted by Bielawski and Metcalf (2003).
Additionally,
while
repetition
aids
short-term
retention, traditional methods may not foster long-
term retention or real-world application of vocabulary
(Thornbury, 2002). As education shifts towards more
active, technology-driven models, scholars argue for
integrating traditional methods with technology,
particularly mobile-assisted learning, to provide a more
comprehensive learning experience (Graham &
Roberts, 2007; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008).
Technological Tools in Vocabulary Learning
Technological tools have transformed vocabulary
learning,
providing
flexible,
interactive,
and
personalized opportunities. Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning (MALL), via apps like Duolingo and Quizlet,
allows learners to engage with vocabulary anywhere,
enhancing retention through multimodal activities
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
19
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
(Pazio, 2010). These apps support spaced repetition, a
proven method for long-term retention (Nation, 2013).
Learning Management Systems (LMS), such as
Moodle, also offer vocabulary quizzes and multimedia
tasks, enabling self-paced learning and review
(Dudeney & Hockly, 2012). Computer-Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) programs like Rosetta
Stone incorporate gamified exercises, while digital
flashcards such as Anki integrate spaced repetition
algorithms to enhance retention (Mayer, 2009).
Multimedia resources like YouTube and podcasts
provide real-world exposure to vocabulary, improving
understanding
and
application
(Kim,
2012).
Additionally, tools like speech recognition apps offer
real-time feedback on pronunciation (Chapelle, 2009),
and collaborative tools like wikis and blogs encourage
peer interaction, fostering authentic use of vocabulary
(Warschauer, 2010). In sum, technological tools offer a
personalized, interactive approach that, when
combined with traditional methods, provides a
balanced
and
effective
vocabulary
learning
experience.
Blended Learning Approaches
Blended learning combines traditional face-to-face
instruction with technological tools, offering a dynamic
and flexible approach to vocabulary acquisition. This
model caters to diverse learning styles, allowing
learners to engage with vocabulary through various
modalities
—
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic
—
while
promoting frequent practice and retention (Pazio,
2010). Blended learning also integrates various learning
theories, such as constructivism and behaviorism,
through interactive digital tools and repetitive online
exercises (Vygotsky, 1978; Marsh, 2012). Research
shows that students using both traditional and mobile
learning tools outperform those relying solely on
traditional methods, as mobile tools enable more
frequent and flexible practice (Khazaei & Dastjerdi,
2011; Zhang, Song, & Burston, 2011). However, Marsh
(2012) cautions that technology should complement,
not replace, traditional teacher guidance. In
conclusion, blended learning enhances vocabulary
retention and promotes learner autonomy by
combining the strengths of traditional methods with
the flexibility of technology, making it an effective
approach for modern language education.
METHODOLOGY
The research employed a mixed-method approach to
investigate the effectiveness of traditional and
technological methods for vocabulary acquisition
among intermediate-level English learners. This
approach combined quantitative methods, which
measured vocabulary progress through pre-tests,
weekly exams, and post-tests, and qualitative
methods, which explored student perceptions through
surveys and interviews. The goal was to gain a
comprehensive understanding of how these two
teaching methods impacted vocabulary learning.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
20
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Quantitative data were gathered through a pre-test,
which provided baseline knowledge of students'
vocabulary proficiency, followed by weekly exams to
monitor progress during the study, and a post-test to
evaluate overall improvement. The study also involved
a paper-based survey that explored the participants'
perceptions
of
traditional
and
technological
vocabulary
learning
methods.
Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with five participants to
gain deeper insights into the key themes revealed by
the survey.
The study participants included 30 students from
diverse academic backgrounds and ages, ranging from
16 to over 26 years. Half of the participants were
undergraduate students, while the other half were
postgraduates. Their English proficiency levels varied
from pre-intermediate to upper-intermediate, with
most being at the intermediate level. The group was
predominantly female, with 26 females and 4 males.
This demographic distribution allowed the study to
capture a broad range of perspectives on vocabulary
learning.
A variety of instruments were used to collect data.
These included pre-tests and post-tests to assess initial
vocabulary knowledge and improvements, weekly
exams to track progress, a survey to gather student
perceptions, and interviews to explore these
perceptions in greater detail.
The study was conducted over six weeks, with
students attending three vocabulary lessons per week.
The lessons were split between traditional methods,
like teacher-led discussions and physical flashcards,
and technological methods, such as mobile apps,
digital flashcards, and online quizzes. Students’
progress was measured through the weekly exams,
and at the end of the study, participants completed the
survey to evaluate the methods they experienced.
Follow-up interviews with selected participants
allowed for a more in-depth understanding of their
experiences.
The data analysis involved both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Descriptive statistics were used
to analyze the pre-test, post-test, and weekly exam
scores, while the survey data were processed to
identify trends in participants' perceptions. The
interview data were analyzed through thematic
analysis, identifying key themes such as learner
autonomy and engagement, which were cross-
referenced with the survey results to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the students'
experiences with different vocabulary learning
methods.
RESULTS
The
traditional
vocabulary
learning
group
demonstrated steady improvement over the six-week
period, with pre-test scores ranging from 50% to 75%
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
21
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
and post-test results between 50% and 85%. On
average, students in this group improved by 15% to 20%,
with the highest performers, such as M.Z., F.I., and
K.X., showing strong progress, ending with post-test
scores of 85%. Students like A.H. and N.J. also saw
substantial gains, starting at 65% and finishing at 80%.
However, some students, like F.M. and M.O., showed
little improvement, highlighting potential limitations in
the traditional methods for certain learners. Weekly
gains were moderate, typically 3-5%, with the most
significant improvements occurring between Weeks 3
and 5.
In contrast, the technological vocabulary learning
group experienced more rapid and significant
improvements. Pre-test scores ranged from 45% to 85%,
with post-test results improving to between 60% and
100%. Notable performers, such as J.I., achieved perfect
scores by Week 6, while O.Z. and P.S. saw significant
improvements from 65-70% to 90-95%. Overall, the
technological group showed faster weekly gains,
particularly between Weeks 3 and 5, with many
students improving by 10-15% per week.
When comparing both groups, the technological group
exhibited faster and more pronounced progress in
vocabulary acquisition. While the traditional group saw
steady improvement, their progress was generally
slower, indicating that digital tools provide a more
engaging and flexible learning environment. However,
both groups showed improvement, suggesting that
both methods can be effective, though the
technological tools appeared to better cater to
students who required more dynamic learning
resources.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
22
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
H.A.
I.F.
I.D.
J.M.
J.N.
K.X.
M.Z.
M.F.
M.O‘.
M.M.
M.S. M.Mu. M.D.
N.D.
E.M.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Traditional Method Group Results
Pre-Test results
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Post-test results
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
A.A.
E.D.
H.M.
I.M.
J.I.
O.Z.
P.Sh.
J.E.
A.S
A.M.
A.Mu.
A.I.
A.Sh.
D.U.
D.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Technological Method Group Results
Pre-Test results
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Post-test results
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
23
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
To gain deeper insights into the effectiveness of
traditional and technological methods for vocabulary
acquisition,
semi-structured
interviews
were
conducted with five students who actively participated
in the study. These interviews provided valuable
personal
perspectives,
reflecting
individual
experiences, challenges, and preferences for the
methods used.
1. Student A.A. (Technological Group)
A.A. was one of the students who showed
considerable improvement, increasing from 55% on the
pre-test to 80% on the post-test. In the interview, A.A.
emphasized the convenience of digital tools,
particularly the ability to practice vocabulary on a
mobile app during free time. She noted that “the
flexibility of using apps at home or while commuting
made it easy to stay consistent with practice, and the
interactive quizzes helped a lot in remembering new
words.” However, she also mentioned that
occasionally, “technical issues with the app would
interrupt s
tudy time,” which was a minor drawback.
Despite these challenges, A.A. preferred the
technological approach over traditional methods,
primarily due to the personalized feedback and varied
activities.
2. Student F.M. (Traditional Group)
F.M., who only showed a slight improvement from 55%
to 65%, expressed mixed feelings about the traditional
method. She appreciated the structured classroom
setting and the ability to ask the teacher questions
directly, saying, “Having the teacher there made it
easier to understand difficult words because I could
get instant explanations.” However, she found the
repetition exercises somewhat monotonous and
admitted to struggling with retaining vocabulary after
class. F.M. explained, “I would memorize the words
during class, but after a few days, I would forget them
because we didn’t use them much in real
conversations.” This highlights a limitation of the
traditional method for F.M., as she felt it lacked real-
world application.
3. Student J.I. (Technological Group)
J.I., who achieved a perfect score of 100% by the end of
the study, shared that digital flashcards and spaced
repetition techniques were key to his success. He
remarked, “Using apps like Quizlet really helped me
because I could review the words frequently and in
different formats
—
like matching games, fill-in-the-
blank exercises, and audio recordings.” J.I. also
appreciated the instant feedback from the app, which
helped him correct mistakes immediately. He did
mention, though, that “sometimes I missed the
interaction w
ith a real teacher,” but felt that the
technological tools were more than sufficient for self-
paced learning. His high scores suggest that
technological methods are particularly effective for
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
24
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
students who enjoy autonomy and frequent,
interactive practice.
4. Student N.J. (Traditional Group)
N.J., who improved from 65% to 80%, valued the
traditional approach for the discipline and structure it
provided. She said, “I liked the classroom setting
because it forced me to focus, and the teacher made
sure everyone
stayed on track.” N.J. also mentioned
that teacher-led discussions helped her better
understand the nuances of new vocabulary. However,
she acknowledged that the method was not as flexible
as she would have liked. “If I missed a class, it was hard
to catc
h up,” she said, noting that more independent
practice could have supplemented her learning.
Despite these concerns, she appreciated the routine
and consistency offered by traditional teaching.
5. Student M.O. (Traditional Group)
M.O. was one of the students who showed no
improvement, remaining at 50% throughout the study.
During the interview, he revealed that he struggled to
keep up with the pace of the traditional lessons. “I felt
like the vocabulary exercises were too repetitive, and I
wasn’t interested
in just memorizing words without
using them in real situations,” he said. M.O. admitted
that he would have benefited from more interactive
activities and possibly technological tools that could
engage him outside of class. His experience highlights
the need for more dynamic approaches for students
who do not thrive in structured, teacher-led
environments.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide valuable insights into
the effectiveness of traditional and technological
methods of vocabulary acquisition for intermediate-
level English learners. The findings, supported by both
quantitative data and personal accounts from
interviews, reveal important trends that have practical
implications for language teaching, particularly in
designing more effective vocabulary learning
programs.
Traditional
Methods:
Steady
but
Gradual
Improvement
Students in the traditional vocabulary learning group
exhibited steady but moderate progress throughout
the six-week period. Their improvement ranged from
an average of 15% to 20%, with the most significant
gains occurring between Weeks 3 and 5. This indicates
that
traditional
methods
—
characterized
by
structured, teacher-led instruction and repetition
exercises
—
are effective in fostering incremental
progress. For learners like M.Z., F.I., and K.X., who
performed at higher levels, the structured nature of
traditional teaching provided a solid foundation for
mastering vocabulary.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
25
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
However, the relatively slower pace of improvement,
compared to the technological group, raises questions
about the long-term sustainability of traditional
methods, especially for students who may not benefit
from rigid instruction. The interviews revealed that
students such as F.M. and M.O., who showed minimal
improvement, struggled with engagement and
retention in traditional settings. These students noted
that while teacher support was beneficial, the
repetitive nature of vocabulary drills did not encourage
meaningful learning or real-world application. This
highlights one of the limitations of traditional
methods: their inability to cater to more dynamic or
autonomous learners who need a variety of stimuli to
stay engaged.
The implications of these findings suggest that while
traditional methods continue to play a significant role
in language education, they may need to be
supplemented with more interactive elements to meet
the needs of all learners. Educators using traditional
approaches should consider incorporating activities
that allow for more active, real-world vocabulary use,
such as role-plays, games, or discussion-based
exercises, to engage students who struggle with
passive memorization techniques.
Technological Methods: Faster and More Pronounced
Improvement
In contrast, students in the technological vocabulary
learning group showed rapid and significant
improvements, with weekly gains often ranging from
10% to 15%. By the end of the study, post-test results for
this group ranged from 60% to 100%, with standout
performers like J.I. achieving perfect scores. The
flexibility and interactive nature of digital tools, such as
mobile apps and digital flashcards, appear to have
played a key role in this success. Students like A.A. and
J.I. attributed their improvement to the convenience of
being able to study on their own time and the engaging
features of the apps, such as spaced repetition,
quizzes, and immediate feedback.
However, even with the advantages of technological
tools, some challenges were identified. For example,
A.A. mentioned occasional technical issues with the
apps, and J.I. noted missing the interaction with a
teacher for real-time clarification. These insights
suggest that while technological tools are highly
effective in promoting vocabulary retention and
engagement, they are not without limitations. The lack
of human interaction can be a drawback for students
who need more guidance or who benefit from the
personalized feedback that a teacher can provide.
The implications here are clear: technological tools
should be integrated into vocabulary learning
programs as a complementary resource rather than a
standalone solution. For learners who thrive on
autonomy and frequent practice, digital tools provide
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
26
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
a dynamic and flexible environment that fosters
consistent improvement. However, teachers should be
available to offer additional support and address gaps
that technology may not fully cover, such as complex
explanations or context-specific usage.
Comparison and the Case for Blended Learning
The comparison between the traditional and
technological groups highlights the strengths and
limitations of each approach. The technological group
outperformed the traditional group in terms of speed
and scale of improvement, suggesting that digital tools
are more effective in providing immediate, engaging,
and flexible learning opportunities. However, the
structured environment and teacher support offered
by traditional methods remained valuable, particularly
for students like N.J., who needed routine and
discipline to focus on learning.
Given these findings, the case for a blended learning
approach becomes evident. A combination of
traditional methods and technological tools could
provide a more holistic and effective learning
experience, catering to the diverse needs of all
students. For example, technological tools can be used
for independent practice and reinforcement of
vocabulary, while traditional classroom instruction can
focus on deeper explanations, discussions, and real-
world application. This balance would allow learners to
benefit from both the structure and discipline of
traditional methods and the engagement and flexibility
of technological tools.
Addressing Diverse Learning Styles
The results of this study also underline the importance
of recognizing and addressing the diverse learning
styles present in any classroom. While some students,
like J.I. and A.A., excelled with technological tools,
others, such as M.O., struggled with the rigid structure
of traditional methods. To accommodate these
differences, educators should consider offering
multiple pathways for vocabulary acquisition. This
might involve providing students with a choice of
resources
—
both
digital
and
traditional
—
or
incorporating a variety of teaching techniques within
the same lesson to engage different types of learners.
For instance, teachers could use a digital platform like
Quizlet or Memrise for homework assignments, while
using traditional in-class discussions and flashcard
activities for group learning. This multimodal approach
ensures that students can engage with vocabulary in
ways that suit their learning preferences, whether they
are visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners.
CONCLUSION
The findings from this study demonstrate the distinct
advantages and limitations of both traditional and
technological methods for vocabulary acquisition
among intermediate-level English learners. The
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
27
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
traditional vocabulary learning group showed steady,
yet moderate progress over the six-week period, with
students achieving improvements of 15-20% on
average. This suggests that traditional, structured
approaches such as teacher-led instruction and
repetition exercises are effective in fostering gradual
vocabulary acquisition. However, for some students,
these methods lacked the engagement and real-world
application necessary to enhance long-term retention
and meaningful use of vocabulary. The structured
nature of traditional methods, while beneficial for
students seeking routine and direct feedback, may not
cater to learners who require more dynamic or
personalized approaches.
On the other hand, the technological vocabulary
learning group displayed rapid and more pronounced
improvements, with weekly gains of 10-15%, and post-
test scores reaching as high as 100%. The flexibility and
interactivity provided by digital tools like mobile apps
and digital flashcards appeared to significantly
contribute to students' engagement and retention.
These tools allowed learners to practice vocabulary on
their own time, often using engaging features such as
spaced repetition, quizzes, and immediate feedback.
While these methods proved highly effective for
learners who thrived in autonomous, technology-
driven environments, some students noted occasional
technical issues and a lack of real-time teacher
interaction.
The comparison between these two groups
underscores the unique strengths and weaknesses of
each approach. While technological tools provided a
faster and more engaging learning experience,
traditional methods offered valuable structure,
teacher support, and discipline that some students
found crucial for their learning. Consequently, this
study highlights the potential of a blended learning
model, combining the best aspects of both traditional
and technological approaches. A balanced approach
—
using digital tools for independent practice and
traditional instruction for deeper exploration and real-
world application
—
could address the diverse needs of
learners and optimize vocabulary acquisition.
Furthermore, the findings emphasize the importance
of accommodating different learning styles within the
classroom. While some students excelled with the
flexibility of technological tools, others struggled with
the rigid repetition of traditional methods. Offering a
variety of learning pathways, including both digital and
traditional resources, can help cater to these varying
preferences. Educators should therefore aim to create
a multimodal learning environment that incorporates
multiple strategies to engage students with different
preferences, whether they are visual, auditory, or
kinesthetic learners.
In conclusion, this study illustrates that both traditional
and technological methods have valuable roles to play
in vocabulary acquisition. By integrating these
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
28
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
approaches into a cohesive, blended learning model,
educators can provide a more comprehensive,
effective, and flexible learning experience that
accommodates the diverse needs of learners. This
blended approach not only fosters better vocabulary
retention and engagement but also equips students
with the tools and strategies they need to apply their
knowledge in real-world contexts, ensuring long-term
success in language learning.
REFERENCES
1.
Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014).
Blended learning in higher education: Three
different design approaches. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440-454.
2.
Bielawski, L., & Metcalf, D. (2003). Blended
eLearning: Integrating knowledge, performance
support, and online learning. HRD Press.
3.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between
second language acquisition theory and computer-
assisted language learning. Modern Language
Journal, 93(S1), 741-753.
4.
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2012). How to teach
English with technology. Pearson Education.
5.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended
learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7(2), 95-105.
6.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended
learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
7.
Graham, C. R., & Roberts, G. (2007). Technology-
enhanced language learning: Shaping the future of
teaching and learning. In C. R. Graham (Ed.),
Blended learning systems (pp. 1-23). John Wiley &
Sons.
8.
Наркулова, И. Р. К. (2023). Профессионально
-
ориентированное обучение русскому языку
курсантов юридического профиля на основе
интерактивной
программы.
Science
and
Education, 4(2), 1348-1352.
9.
Graham, C. R. (2012). Emerging practice and
research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 333-350).
Routledge.
10.
угли Наркулов, А. К. (2022). Патрулирование
-
основа обеспечения общественного порядка.
Science and Education, 3(11), 1334-1339.
11.
Ёкубова И. Р. Формирование профессиональной
компетентности тюркоязычных студентов при
обучении русскому языку как иностранному (на
примере авторской интерактивной программы
«Русский язык для военных юристов») //II
Международный конгресс «Языковая политика
стран Содружества Независимых Государств
(СНГ)». –
2021.
–
С. 207
-209.
12.
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B.
(2013). A framework for institutional adoption and
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
29
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
16-29
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
implementation of blended learning in higher
education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18,
4-14.
13.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language
teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
14.
Khazaei, S., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2011). The effect of
SMS-based instruction on the acquisition of English
vocabulary among Iranian high school students.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5),
1111-1115.
15.
Kim, H. K. (2012). Using authentic videos to
improve EFL students’ listening comprehension.
Digital Education Review, 21, 40-45.
16.
ў
ғ
ли
Наркулов
,
А
.
К
. (2023).
Алгоритмизация
как
эффективный
метод
оптимизации
патрулирования
. Science and Education, 4(1),
1165-1168.
17.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An
overview of mobile assisted language learning:
From content delivery to supported collaboration
and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.
18.
Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning: Creating
learning opportunities for language learners.
Cambridge University Press.
19.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
20.
Muratovich, M. R., & Abdurahmonovich, Q. A.
(2021). Children's and Girls' Community Learning
and
Raising
Their
Children's
Community.
Academicia Globe, 2(10), 92-98.
21.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in
another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
22.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended
learning’ be redeemed? E
-learning and Digital
Media, 2(1), 17-26.
23.
Pazio, M. (2010). Blended learning and its potential
in expanding vocabulary knowledge: A case study
of Polish students of English. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 2(4), 483-499.
24.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary.
Pearson Education.
25.
Tosun, S. (2015). The effects of blended learning on
EFL students’ vocabulary enhancement. Procedia
-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 641-647.
26.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
27.
Warschauer, M. (2010). New tools for teaching
writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 3-
8.
28.
Zhang, H., Song, W., & Burston, J. (2011).
Reexamining the effectiveness of vocabulary
learning via mobile phones. Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 10(3), 203-214.
