2019 | 19 | 2 | 21-43
Article title


Title variants
Languages of publication
Since vocabulary is a strong predictor of reading comprehension, vocabulary homework is seen as a way to improve reading comprehension. This study utilized an online learning platform to deliver vocabulary homework to students learning reading skills in the classroom and compare their scores with students given paper-based homework and those who did not receive any homework. The objective of the research was to determine the differences in reading achievement between students who were given either paper-based vocabulary homework or online vocabulary homework, in addition to classroom face-to-face interaction (experimental groups) and those who only participated in face-to-face interaction in the classroom (control group). Two experimental groups were instructed to complete vocabulary homework outside of the classroom. The selected vocabulary for homework consisted of 400 words common to the target academic texts. The data were collected by administering a reading comprehension pre-test and post-test, where five academic texts were used with approximately ten questions for each text. The results revealed a p-value of 0.047 for the paper-based homework group, 0.045 for the online vocabulary group, and 0.338 for the control group, which suggests that both experimental groups outperformed the control group in the post-test.
Physical description
  • Afshar, H. S., & Movassagh, H. (2016). EAP education in Iran: Where does the problem lie? Where are we heading? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 132-151. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.002
  • Aghlara, L., & Tamjid, N. H. (2011). The effect of digital games on Iranian children’s vocabulary retention in foreign language acquisition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 552-560.
  • American Classical League (1933). Methods in teaching Latin. Latin Notes, 10(5), 2-3.
  • Atai, M. R., & Nazari, O. (2011). Exploring reading comprehension needs of Iranian EAP students of health information management (HIM): A triangulated approach. System, 39(1), 30-43.
  • Balasubramanian, K., Jaykumar, V., & Fukey, L. N. (2014). A study on student preference towards the use of Edmodo as a learning platform to create responsible learning environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, 416-422.
  • Bataineh, R. F., & Mayyas, M. B. (2017). The utility of blended learning in EFL reading and grammar: A case for Moodle. Teaching English with Technology, 17(3), 35-49.
  • Bazo, P., Rodríguez, R., & Fumero, D. (2016). Vocabulary notebook: A digital solution to general and specific vocabulary learning problems in a CLIL context. In A. Pareja-Lora, C. Calle-Martínez, & P. Rodríguez- Arancón (Eds), New Perspectives on Teaching and Working with Languages in the Digital Era (pp. 269-279). Dublin:
  • Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1050-1071.
  • Bower, M., & Wittmann, M. (2011). A comparison of LAMS and Moodle as learning design technologies - teacher education students' perspective. Teaching English with Technology, 11(1), 62-80.
  • Brown, D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman.
  • Calvo, M. G., Estevez, A., & Dowens, M. G. (2003). Time course of elaborative inferences in reading as a function of prior vocabulary knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 611-631.
  • Chen, H., Cannon, A. R., & Taylor, M. C. (2017). Impact of homework assignment delivery systems on student learning outcomes in operations management courses. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 18, 201-212.
  • Choi, S. (2016). Effects of L1 and L2 glosses on incidental vocabulary acquisition and lexical representations. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 137-143.
  • Chun, E., Choi, S., & Kim, J. (2012). The effect of extensive reading and paired-associate learning on long-term vocabulary retention: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 521(2), 125-129.
  • Clift, R. T. (1991). Learning to teach English - maybe: A study of knowledge development. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 357-372.
  • Cole, R. S., & Todd, J. B. (2003). Effects of web-based multimedia homework with immediate rich feedback on student learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1338-1343.
  • Coolican, H. (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (6th Ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
  • Costa, M., Cardoso, A. P., Lacerda, C., Lopes, A., & Gomes, C. (2016). Homework in primary education from the perspective of teachers and pupils. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 139-148.
  • Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 541-551.
  • ETS. (2009). ETS International Principles for Fairness Review of Assessments: A Manual for Developing Locally Appropriate Fairness Review Guidelines in Various Countries. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2017). A person-centered approach to homework behavior: Students’ characteristics predict their homework learning type. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 1-15.
  • Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: Implications for construct validity. Language Testing, 10(2), 133-170.
  • Furqon, F. (2013). Correlation between students’ vocabulary mastery and their reading comprehension. Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 68-80.
  • Ghiglione, E., Aliberas, M. R., Vicent, L., & Dalziel, J. R. (2009). Using Moodle activities within LAMS. Teaching English with Technology, 9(2), 32-39.
  • Gear, J., & Gear, R. (1996). Cambridge Preparation for the TOEFL Test (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gill, B, P., & Schlossman, S, L. (2004). Villain or savior? The American discourse on homework, 1850-2003. Theory into Practice, 43(3), 174-181.
  • Gleeson, M., & Davison, C. (2016). A conflict between experience and professional learning: Subject teachers’ beliefs about teaching English language learners. RELC Journal, 47(1), 43-57.
  • Gómez, S. M. (2000). Homework in the learning process. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 1(1), 45–47.
  • Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Reading. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Graves, S. M. (2008). Student cheating habits: A predictor of workplace deviance. Journal of Diversity Management, 3(1), 15-22.
  • Haddad, R. H. (2016). Developing learner autonomy in vocabulary learning in classroom: How and why can it be fostered? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 784-791.
  • Hashemi, Z., & Hadavi, M. (2015). Investigation of vocabulary learning strategies among EFL Iranian medical sciences students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 629-637.
  • Hill, Y., & Liu, O. (2012). Is there any interaction between background knowledge and language proficiency that affects TOEFL iBT® Reading Performance? TOEFL IBT® Research Report, 18. Retrieved 8 April 2019 from
  • Hirschel, R., & Fritz, E. (2013). Learning vocabulary: CALL program versus vocabulary notebook. System, 41(3), 639-653.
  • Howatt, A. P. R., & Smith, R. (2014). The history of teaching English as a foreign language, from a British and European perspective. Language & History, 57(1), 75-95.
  • Huang, L. Li, & Lin, C. Cheng. (2014). Three approaches to glossing and their effects on vocabulary learning. System, 44(1), 127-136.
  • Hudson T (1996) Assessing Second Language Academic Reading from a Communicative Competence Perspective: Relevance for TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-4). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
  • Jonsdottir, A. H., Bjornsdottir, A., & Stefansson, G. (2017). Difference in learning among students doing pen-and-paper homework compared to web-based homework in an introductory statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(1), 12-20.
  • Kerfoot, J. F. (1965). Problems and research considerations in reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 18(4), 250-256.
  • Khezrlou, S. (in press). Form-focussed Instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC Journal.
  • Kheirzadeh, S., & Tavakoli, E. (2012). The causes of reading difficulty: The perception of Iranian EFL post-graduate and under-graduate students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1).
  • Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51.
  • Madarsara, A. (2015). Intentional vs. incidental vocabulary learning through games by young EFL Persian speakers. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(1), 23-34.
  • Mcgraw, I., Yoshimoto, B., & Seneff, S. (2009). Speech-enabled card games for incidental vocabulary acquisition in a foreign language. Speech Communication, 51(10), 1006-1023.
  • Mckeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3-18.
  • Mendicino, M., Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. T. (2009). A comparison of traditional homework to computer supported homework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 331-359.
  • Mikulecky, B. S. (2008). Teaching reading in a second language. Retrieved from Monograph.pdf
  • Mikulecky, B. S., & Jeffries, L. (2007). Advanced Reading Power. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. M. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257, 94-99.
  • Montelongo, J. A., & Hernández, A. C. (2007). Reinforcing expository reading and writing skills: A more versatile sentence completion task. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 538-546.
  • Mousavi, F., & Gholami, J. (2014). Effects of watching flash stories with or without subtitle and reading subtitles on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1273-1281.
  • Mustafa, F. (2018). How much do high schools contribute to improving students’ English proficiency? Seeking alumni’s perception in Indonesia. Asian EFL Journal, 20(2), 49-61.
  • Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5(1), 12-25.
  • Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.
  • Nation, P. (2013). Vocabulary acquisition in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Princeton, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
  • Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 6-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nikoopour, J., & Kazemi, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning through digitized & non-digitized flashcards delivery. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1366-1373.
  • Oakhill, J. (1993). Children’s difficulties in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 223-237.
  • Ono, L. (2002). A needs analysis of the English Language Institute reading program at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Unpublished manuscript, Honolulu, HI.
  • Orosz, G., Dombi, E., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., Jagodics, B., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). Academic cheating and time perspective: Cheaters live in the present instead of the future. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 39-45.
  • Park, E. J., Park, S., & Jang, I. S. (2013). Academic cheating among nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 33(4), 346-352.
  • Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp. 3-31). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Phillips, D. (2001). Longman Introductory Course for the TOEFL Test (2nd Ed). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Putra, T. M., Kasim, U., & Mustafa, F. (2017). Reading comprehension in PBT TOEFL: What sub-skills deserve more intensive training? In International Conference on the Teaching and Learning of Languages. Sarawak, Malaysia.
  • Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312.
  • Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
  • Richards-Babb, M., Drelick, J., Henry, Z., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 81-93.\r10.1021/ed081p441
  • Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235-257.
  • Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.
  • Sen, Y., & Kuleli, M. (2015). The effect of vocabulary size and vocabulary depth on reading in EFL context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 555-562.
  • Sentürk, B. (2016). Self-regulation strategies and vocabulary size of EFL Turkish University students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 90-97.
  • Shams, I. E. (2013). Hybrid learning and Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy in vocabulary learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1587-1592.
  • Shuaiwen, X., Xiaoming, W., & Song, L. (2012). On-line homework management system. Energy Procedia, 17, 690-693.
  • Sidek, H. M., & Rahim, H. A. (2015). The role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension: A cross-linguistic study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 50-56.
  • Smithrud, D. B., & Pinhas, A. R. (2015). Pencil-paper learning should be combined with online homework software. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(12), 1965-1970.
  • Smolira, J. C. (2008). Student perceptions of web-based homework in an introductory finance course. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 90-95.
  • Soler, J. (2017). The politics of the teaching of reading. Prospects, 1-11.
  • Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2009). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort? ELT Journal, 64(3), 253-260.
  • Stafford-Yilmaz, L., & Zwier, L. J. (2005). 400 Must-have Words for the TOEFL®. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.
  • Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72-110.
  • Stevens, E. A., Park, S., & Vaughn, S. (2018). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978–2016. Remedial and Special Education, 1-19.
  • Taie, M. (2015). Critical thinking and discovering the meaning of unfamiliar terms through the word part analysis strategy: A study of Iranian medical students. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 1-10.
  • Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 415-420.
  • Tarchi, C. (2015). Fostering reading comprehension of expository texts through the activation of readers’ prior knowledge and inference-making skills. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 80-88.
  • Teng, F. (2016). The effects of context and word exposure frequency on incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Language Learning Journal.
  • van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through L2 listening: A dimensions approach. System, 41(3), 609-624.
  • Vela, V., & Rushidi, J. (2016). The effect of keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition and learner autonomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 201-208.
  • Wang, Y. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning through extensive reading: A case of lower-level EFL Taiwanese learners. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(3), 59-80.
  • Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 130-163.
  • Williams, A. (2012). Online homework vs. traditional homework: Statistics anxiety and self-efficacy in an educational statistics course. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 6(1), 1-19.
  • Williams, J. P. (1986). Teaching children to identify the main idea of expository texts. Exceptional Children, 53(2), 163-168.
  • Woolley, G. (2011). Reading Comprehension: Assisting Children with Learning Difficulties. New York: Springer.
  • Wu, Q. (2015). Designing a smartphone app to teach English (L2) vocabulary. Computers and Education, 85, 170-179.
  • Yamamoto, Y. (2014). Multidimensional vocabulary acquisition through deliberate vocabulary list learning. System, 42(1), 232-243.
  • Yap, B. W., & Sim, C. H. (2011). Comparisons of various types of normality tests. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 81(12), 2141-2155.
  • Yussen, S. R., Rembold, K. L., & Mazor, A. (1989). Identifying main ideas in picture stories and written narratives. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10(3), 313-335.
  • Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 558-575.
  • Zhang, L. J., & Anual, S. Bin. (2008). The role of vocabulary in reading comprehension: The case of secondary school students learning English in Singapore. RELC Journal, 39(1), 51-76.
  • Zuhra. (2015). Senior high school students’ difficulties in reading comprehension. English Education Journal, 6(3), 430-441.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.