Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2926
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v13i3.2586
Effects of Anki-Based Spaced Repetition on Academic
Vocabulary Use in Writing
Efectos de la repetición espaciada basada en Anki sobre el uso de vocabulario académico en la
escritura
Miguel Pedro Cadena Espin
cadenam269@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5090-8714
Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo
Quevedo – Ecuador
Gabriela Jacqueline Galeas Arboleda
ggaleas@uteq.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9759-5474
Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo
Quevedo - Ecuador
Artículo recibido: 10 agosto 2026- Aceptado para publicación:16 septiembre 2026
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar.
ABSTRACT
Pre-service EFL teachers frequently struggle to use academic vocabulary in writing activities.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Anki-based spaced repetition in enhancing
the productive use of academic vocabulary in contextualized EFL writing tasks. The present study
employed a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with a sample of 40 B1 Ecuadorian pre-
service teachers, 31 women and 9 men. The intervention consisted of 8 sessions with 20 students
in an experimental group and 20 in a control group. The experimental group reviewed 35 B2
academic words through Anki flashcards, whereas the control group received regular classroom
instruction. Both groups completed the same writing tasks. To analyze the data, paired-samples
and independent-samples t-tests were conducted. The outcomes indicated that the experimental
group achieved higher post-test target vocabulary use (M = 2.70, SD = 1.895) than the control
group (M = 1.50, SD = 1.395). The between-group difference was statistically significant, with a
medium-to-large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.72). The findings suggest that combining spaced
repetition with contextualized writing practice may help translate vocabulary knowledge into
productive use. This study presents empirical evidence for integrating Anki-based spaced
repetition with writing practice to enhance academic vocabulary development in EFL contexts.
Keywords: spaced repetition, Anki, productive vocabulary, pre-service teachers, EFL
writing, vocabulary development
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2927
RESUMEN
Los futuros docentes de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) suelen tener dificultades para
utilizar vocabulario académico en actividades de escritura. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo
investigar la efectividad de la repetición espaciada basada en Anki para mejorar el uso productivo
del vocabulario académico en tareas contextualizadas de escritura en contextos de inglés como
lengua extranjera. Se empleó un diseño cuasi-experimental con pretest y postest en una muestra
de 40 futuros docentes ecuatorianos de inglés con nivel B1 (31 mujeres y 9 hombres). La
intervención consistió en 8 sesiones, con 20 estudiantes en el grupo experimental y 20 en el grupo
de control. El grupo experimental estudió 35 palabras académicas de nivel B2 mediante tarjetas
de Anki, mientras que el grupo de control recibió instrucción regular en el aula. Los datos se
analizaron mediante pruebas t para muestras relacionadas y muestras independientes. Los
resultados mostraron que el grupo experimental alcanzó un mayor uso del vocabulario objetivo
en el postest (M = 2.70, DE = 1.895) que el grupo de control (M = 1.50, DE = 1.395). La diferencia
entre grupos fue estadísticamente significativa con un tamaño del efecto de moderado a grande
(d de Cohen = 0,72). Los resultados sugieren que combinar la repetición espaciada con escritura
contextualizada puede mejorar el uso productivo del vocabulario en inglés. Este estudio aporta
evidencia empírica para integrar la repetición espaciada basada en Anki con la práctica de
escritura y fortalecer el desarrollo del vocabulario académico en contextos de inglés como lengua
extranjera.
Palabras clave: repetición espaciada, Anki, vocabulario productivo, futuros docentes,
escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
RESUMEN
Los futuros docentes de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) suelen tener dificultades para
utilizar vocabulario académico en actividades de escritura. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo
investigar la efectividad de la repetición espaciada basada en Anki para mejorar el uso productivo
del vocabulario académico en tareas contextualizadas de escritura en contextos de inglés como
lengua extranjera. Se empleó un diseño cuasi-experimental con pretest y postest en una muestra
de 40 futuros docentes ecuatorianos de inglés con nivel B1 (31 mujeres y 9 hombres). La
intervención consistió en 8 sesiones, con 20 estudiantes en el grupo experimental y 20 en el grupo
de control. El grupo experimental estudió 35 palabras académicas de nivel B2 mediante tarjetas
de Anki, mientras que el grupo de control recibió instrucción regular en el aula. Los datos se
analizaron mediante pruebas t para muestras relacionadas y muestras independientes. Los
resultados mostraron que el grupo experimental alcanzó un mayor uso del vocabulario objetivo
en el postest (M = 2.70, DE = 1.895) que el grupo de control (M = 1.50, DE = 1.395). La diferencia
entre grupos fue estadísticamente significativa con un tamaño del efecto de moderado a grande
(d de Cohen = 0,72). Los resultados sugieren que combinar la repetición espaciada con escritura
contextualizada puede mejorar el uso productivo del vocabulario en inglés. Este estudio aporta
evidencia empírica para integrar la repetición espaciada basada en Anki con la práctica de
escritura y fortalecer el desarrollo del vocabulario académico en contextos de inglés como lengua
extranjera.
Palabras clave: repetición espaciada, Anki, vocabulario productivo, futuros docentes,
escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2928
INTRODUCTION
Learning English continues to be a fundamental pillar for individuals who seek to advance
academically and professionally in the 21st century. In the Ecuadorian context, higher English
proficiency has been correlated with an increase in job prospects and opportunities for
professional growth (Aguilar Villarroel & Córdova Calderón, 2024). In the same vein, English
mastery is associated with greater remuneration and international mobility opportunities (Smith,
2025). Among the four core English skills (speaking, listening, writing, reading), many students
often consider writing the most cognitively demanding ability. As Flower and Hayes (1981)
explained in their writing model, writing is a multifaceted and recursive process that involves
planning, translating, and reviewing. When writing, not only do students have to process language
at different levels, such as lexical, syntactic, and semantic, but they also must take into account
the audience, purpose, and overall coherence of the text (Khudaverdiyeva, 2025). For EFL
teachers, academic writing is essential for engaging with pedagogical literature, conducting
research projects, designing functional teaching materials, and communicating professionally in
educational settings.
Previous studies indicate that EFL learners regularly experience a multitude of difficulties
when using vocabulary appropriately in written texts. These mistakes often result in word choice
errors and a significant gap between receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge (Ahmed et
al., 2025; Isma et al., 2023; Yılmaz & Kavanoz, 2025). To promote accurate vocabulary use,
spaced repetition applications like Anki have become a popular topic of recent EFL research due
to their algorithms and long-term retention benefits (Honarzad & Soyoof, 2023; Nguyen et al.,
2025). However, a limitation in previous work is that these digital flashcard systems often show
more significant results in receptive rather than productive knowledge (Mohammadi et al., 2024).
Furthermore, studies on spaced repetition for productive vocabulary use in contextualized writing
tasks remain scarce (Lei & Reynolds, 2022). Specifically, limited evidence is available about its
effect on productive academic vocabulary in writing tasks among Ecuadorian pre-service
teachers.
To address this issue, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of Anki-based
spaced repetition on target academic vocabulary use in writing. This study contributes to the field
by evaluating an intervention that combines spaced repetition with targeted writing tasks to
support the transition from vocabulary learning to productive lexical use. This investigation
addressed the following research questions:
● How does the use of target academic vocabulary in students’ writing change before and
after the intervention?
● To what extent is Anki-based spaced repetition more effective than regular classroom
instruction in increasing the use of target academic vocabulary in students’ writing?
INTRODUCTION
Learning English continues to be a fundamental pillar for individuals who seek to advance
academically and professionally in the 21st century. In the Ecuadorian context, higher English
proficiency has been correlated with an increase in job prospects and opportunities for
professional growth (Aguilar Villarroel & Córdova Calderón, 2024). In the same vein, English
mastery is associated with greater remuneration and international mobility opportunities (Smith,
2025). Among the four core English skills (speaking, listening, writing, reading), many students
often consider writing the most cognitively demanding ability. As Flower and Hayes (1981)
explained in their writing model, writing is a multifaceted and recursive process that involves
planning, translating, and reviewing. When writing, not only do students have to process language
at different levels, such as lexical, syntactic, and semantic, but they also must take into account
the audience, purpose, and overall coherence of the text (Khudaverdiyeva, 2025). For EFL
teachers, academic writing is essential for engaging with pedagogical literature, conducting
research projects, designing functional teaching materials, and communicating professionally in
educational settings.
Previous studies indicate that EFL learners regularly experience a multitude of difficulties
when using vocabulary appropriately in written texts. These mistakes often result in word choice
errors and a significant gap between receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge (Ahmed et
al., 2025; Isma et al., 2023; Yılmaz & Kavanoz, 2025). To promote accurate vocabulary use,
spaced repetition applications like Anki have become a popular topic of recent EFL research due
to their algorithms and long-term retention benefits (Honarzad & Soyoof, 2023; Nguyen et al.,
2025). However, a limitation in previous work is that these digital flashcard systems often show
more significant results in receptive rather than productive knowledge (Mohammadi et al., 2024).
Furthermore, studies on spaced repetition for productive vocabulary use in contextualized writing
tasks remain scarce (Lei & Reynolds, 2022). Specifically, limited evidence is available about its
effect on productive academic vocabulary in writing tasks among Ecuadorian pre-service
teachers.
To address this issue, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of Anki-based
spaced repetition on target academic vocabulary use in writing. This study contributes to the field
by evaluating an intervention that combines spaced repetition with targeted writing tasks to
support the transition from vocabulary learning to productive lexical use. This investigation
addressed the following research questions:
● How does the use of target academic vocabulary in students’ writing change before and
after the intervention?
● To what extent is Anki-based spaced repetition more effective than regular classroom
instruction in increasing the use of target academic vocabulary in students’ writing?
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2929
Literature review
Academic Vocabulary Development in EFL Writing
Several authors have made significant contributions to the understanding of the role of
academic vocabulary in academic writing. In terms of its definition, academic vocabulary is
considered an umbrella term that encompasses general cross-disciplinary words and domain-
specific terms (Coxhead, 2024). A well-accepted list of academic vocabulary is the Academic
Word List (AWL), developed by Coxhead (2000), which comprises 570 word families considered
high-frequency across diverse disciplines. In recent applied linguistics research, some
researchers have relied on large databases to extract vocabulary lists, such as the BNC/COCA
wordlist, to best capture the shifts in modern discourse and meet contemporary linguistic needs
(Ha, 2022). However, the ultimate success of vocabulary lists is intertwined with the ability of
instructors to adapt the words based on students’ proficiency and pedagogical needs (Qureshi &
Malik, 2025). The importance of these words becomes significant in undergraduate programs
where students are required to produce a variety of academic texts, such as essays, reports, and
research papers. Moreover, having a strong command of academic vocabulary is crucial as it
contributes to the overall quality of the written composition (Maamuujav, 2021). Hence,
leveraging such words may support academic comprehension and better engagement with
academic writing.
Notwithstanding the relevance of academic vocabulary, English learners regularly face a
myriad of difficulties. Maamuujav (2021) stated that the use of academic vocabulary in academic
contexts poses a substantial hurdle for learners who are still developing their language
proficiency. Such difficulties are reflected in recent findings. Isma et al. (2023) analyzed
university students’ writing assignments and found that errors in word form, inappropriate word
choice, and wrong English collocations were among the most prominent writing mistakes. They
suggested that expanding learners’ vocabulary repertoire can reduce the likelihood of these errors.
Similarly, a Saudi Arabian study conducted by Ahmed et al. (2025) concluded that L1 negative
transfer, limited vocabulary, and ineffective learning strategies are some of the reasons why EFL
undergraduates tend to struggle with wrong word choice in writing. Taken together, these studies
demonstrate that mistakes in academic vocabulary use are associated with a lack of lexical
knowledge and insufficient awareness of context-appropriate word usage.
Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Writing Quality
Vocabulary knowledge has consistently been identified as an important predictor of
writing quality in EFL contexts. Mujtaba et al. (2021), through written picture descriptions and
vocabulary assessments, found a positive correlation between vocabulary size and writing
performance. In terms of vocabulary complexity, Peng et al. (2023) found that a more complex
vocabulary was closely linked to EFL learners’ writing quality. Overall, these findings indicate
Literature review
Academic Vocabulary Development in EFL Writing
Several authors have made significant contributions to the understanding of the role of
academic vocabulary in academic writing. In terms of its definition, academic vocabulary is
considered an umbrella term that encompasses general cross-disciplinary words and domain-
specific terms (Coxhead, 2024). A well-accepted list of academic vocabulary is the Academic
Word List (AWL), developed by Coxhead (2000), which comprises 570 word families considered
high-frequency across diverse disciplines. In recent applied linguistics research, some
researchers have relied on large databases to extract vocabulary lists, such as the BNC/COCA
wordlist, to best capture the shifts in modern discourse and meet contemporary linguistic needs
(Ha, 2022). However, the ultimate success of vocabulary lists is intertwined with the ability of
instructors to adapt the words based on students’ proficiency and pedagogical needs (Qureshi &
Malik, 2025). The importance of these words becomes significant in undergraduate programs
where students are required to produce a variety of academic texts, such as essays, reports, and
research papers. Moreover, having a strong command of academic vocabulary is crucial as it
contributes to the overall quality of the written composition (Maamuujav, 2021). Hence,
leveraging such words may support academic comprehension and better engagement with
academic writing.
Notwithstanding the relevance of academic vocabulary, English learners regularly face a
myriad of difficulties. Maamuujav (2021) stated that the use of academic vocabulary in academic
contexts poses a substantial hurdle for learners who are still developing their language
proficiency. Such difficulties are reflected in recent findings. Isma et al. (2023) analyzed
university students’ writing assignments and found that errors in word form, inappropriate word
choice, and wrong English collocations were among the most prominent writing mistakes. They
suggested that expanding learners’ vocabulary repertoire can reduce the likelihood of these errors.
Similarly, a Saudi Arabian study conducted by Ahmed et al. (2025) concluded that L1 negative
transfer, limited vocabulary, and ineffective learning strategies are some of the reasons why EFL
undergraduates tend to struggle with wrong word choice in writing. Taken together, these studies
demonstrate that mistakes in academic vocabulary use are associated with a lack of lexical
knowledge and insufficient awareness of context-appropriate word usage.
Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Writing Quality
Vocabulary knowledge has consistently been identified as an important predictor of
writing quality in EFL contexts. Mujtaba et al. (2021), through written picture descriptions and
vocabulary assessments, found a positive correlation between vocabulary size and writing
performance. In terms of vocabulary complexity, Peng et al. (2023) found that a more complex
vocabulary was closely linked to EFL learners’ writing quality. Overall, these findings indicate
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2930
that several dimensions of vocabulary knowledge play a significant role in enhancing the quality
of written production.
Nevertheless, possessing vocabulary knowledge does not necessarily ensure its
successful use in writing. Lee (2025) identified that there is indeed a gap between active and
passive vocabulary among different English levels, but it narrows as learners achieve a higher
level of language proficiency. By contrast, findings from Yılmaz and Kavanoz (2025) indicate
that the disparity may actually become more pronounced at B1 level. Moreover, they found no
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and writing scores, and writing tasks were suggested
as a way to bridge the gap. In order to use words actively, Evans et al. (2025) stressed that learners
need a deeper level of lexical knowledge to integrate them into messages within appropriate
contextual and grammatical frameworks. However, effective productive vocabulary use also
depends on the ability to retain vocabulary.
Spaced Repetition and the Forgetting Curve
Spaced Repetition (SR) has been widely studied in educational research. SR is a learning
technique that involves strategically reviewing information at intervals distributed over time
(Burel et al., 2025). Spaced reviews are believed to expand memory retention more than massed
practice, even if the study time is identical in both methods (Kang, 2016). Review timing is often
categorized as uniform when intervals remain the same, expanding when intervals steadily
increase over time, and contracting when intervals decrease over time. A less fixed spacing
schedule is called “adaptive reviewing” and refers to spacing systems that adjust the review timing
based on learners’ performance and practice history. This approach allows review schedules to
be tailored to individual learning needs (Choffin et al., 2021). Ebbinghaus (1885, as cited in Abbas
et al., 2023, pp. 3–4) pioneered the study of forgetting, identifying that newly learned information
is rapidly forgotten if not periodically reviewed. This concept is known as the forgetting curve, a
pattern of memory loss that demonstrates that retention declines as time passes after initial
learning. Furthermore, he suggested that repeated, spaced reviews strengthen memory retention
and slow the rate of forgetting, and that techniques that utilize active recall methods can
counteract the natural forgetting pattern (Abbas et al., 2023, p. 4).
Digital Vocabulary Learning Tools
The integration of mobile technology has substantially reshaped the landscape of modern
foreign language education. According to Burston and Giannakou (2022), Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) refers to the use of mobile applications with built-in functions such
as audio/video recording or taking pictures and notes for the purpose of language teaching and
learning within educational settings. A four-month study by Boroughani et al. (2023) found that
university students who utilized a mobile application (Quizlet) significantly outperformed those
who used traditional paper materials, with very large effect sizes in vocabulary retention. This
finding aligns with Burston and Giannakou's meta-analysis that revealed large learning effects of
that several dimensions of vocabulary knowledge play a significant role in enhancing the quality
of written production.
Nevertheless, possessing vocabulary knowledge does not necessarily ensure its
successful use in writing. Lee (2025) identified that there is indeed a gap between active and
passive vocabulary among different English levels, but it narrows as learners achieve a higher
level of language proficiency. By contrast, findings from Yılmaz and Kavanoz (2025) indicate
that the disparity may actually become more pronounced at B1 level. Moreover, they found no
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and writing scores, and writing tasks were suggested
as a way to bridge the gap. In order to use words actively, Evans et al. (2025) stressed that learners
need a deeper level of lexical knowledge to integrate them into messages within appropriate
contextual and grammatical frameworks. However, effective productive vocabulary use also
depends on the ability to retain vocabulary.
Spaced Repetition and the Forgetting Curve
Spaced Repetition (SR) has been widely studied in educational research. SR is a learning
technique that involves strategically reviewing information at intervals distributed over time
(Burel et al., 2025). Spaced reviews are believed to expand memory retention more than massed
practice, even if the study time is identical in both methods (Kang, 2016). Review timing is often
categorized as uniform when intervals remain the same, expanding when intervals steadily
increase over time, and contracting when intervals decrease over time. A less fixed spacing
schedule is called “adaptive reviewing” and refers to spacing systems that adjust the review timing
based on learners’ performance and practice history. This approach allows review schedules to
be tailored to individual learning needs (Choffin et al., 2021). Ebbinghaus (1885, as cited in Abbas
et al., 2023, pp. 3–4) pioneered the study of forgetting, identifying that newly learned information
is rapidly forgotten if not periodically reviewed. This concept is known as the forgetting curve, a
pattern of memory loss that demonstrates that retention declines as time passes after initial
learning. Furthermore, he suggested that repeated, spaced reviews strengthen memory retention
and slow the rate of forgetting, and that techniques that utilize active recall methods can
counteract the natural forgetting pattern (Abbas et al., 2023, p. 4).
Digital Vocabulary Learning Tools
The integration of mobile technology has substantially reshaped the landscape of modern
foreign language education. According to Burston and Giannakou (2022), Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) refers to the use of mobile applications with built-in functions such
as audio/video recording or taking pictures and notes for the purpose of language teaching and
learning within educational settings. A four-month study by Boroughani et al. (2023) found that
university students who utilized a mobile application (Quizlet) significantly outperformed those
who used traditional paper materials, with very large effect sizes in vocabulary retention. This
finding aligns with Burston and Giannakou's meta-analysis that revealed large learning effects of
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2931
the use of smartphones in vocabulary acquisition. These positive outcomes could be explained
by the unique characteristics of mobile devices. Mobile language-learning applications increase
students’ engagement, promote autonomy, and provide access to information, and often include
SR algorithms (Teymouri, 2024). Ultimately, these findings build upon the extensive literature
about how mobile tools assist vocabulary acquisition and promote flexible, independent study.
Among the wide range of MALL applications available, digital flashcard systems have
received considerable attention. Research conducted by Mohammadi et al. (2024) compared
mobile-based flashcards (Anki app), paper-based flashcards, and traditional vocabulary lists.
Results showed that digital flashcards are superior to traditional teaching methods or vocabulary
lists for vocabulary learning. Likewise, Honarzad and Soyoof (2023) and Nguyen et al. (2025)
compared paper and digital flashcards and observed that although both yielded improvements in
word retention, the digital flashcard app (Anki) was more effective in increasing L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Reinforcing this, Najafi Karimi and Kheradmandi Amiri (2025) demonstrated, by
employing a delayed posttest, that Anki provided superior long-term retention compared to both
printed flashcards and traditional word lists. A contrasting finding was from Trinh Quoc et al.
(2026), who reported no statistically significant difference in vocabulary learning between the
experimental group using a flashcard system (Quizlet) and the control group receiving traditional
instruction. They concluded that utilizing flashcard software in isolation may not be sufficient to
promote vocabulary development. This highlights the importance of implementing opportunities
for vocabulary use as a complement to flashcards.
Anki is a learning tool that has become a popular topic of recent EFL research due to its
powerful spaced-repetition algorithm and customization features. It is an open-source program
that incorporates adaptive review scheduling and retrieval practice. Its algorithm schedules review
intervals based on users’ ratings of recall difficulty for each card, with easier flashcards appearing
less often and difficult ones being shown more frequently (Anki, 2025). This mechanism increases
efficiency as students focus on the words they struggle to remember instead of studying
everything uniformly. Moreover, it integrates retrieval practice, a studying technique that has been
found to strengthen long-term memory more effectively than passively restudying material
(Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Furthermore, it offers the possibility to include images, text, video,
and audio. Such multimodal options allow for vocabulary to be presented through diverse formats,
which could enhance retention and users’ experience.
Empirical Studies on Spaced Repetition in EFL Contexts
Although extensive research has examined the effects of spaced repetition on vocabulary
development, there is little evidence of its impact on productive academic vocabulary use in
writing tasks. Previous research by Honarzad and Soyoof (2023) and Nguyen et al. (2025)
reported that Anki flashcards promoted more long-term vocabulary retention than paper
flashcards. However, they did not measure productive vocabulary gains. Mohammadi et al.
the use of smartphones in vocabulary acquisition. These positive outcomes could be explained
by the unique characteristics of mobile devices. Mobile language-learning applications increase
students’ engagement, promote autonomy, and provide access to information, and often include
SR algorithms (Teymouri, 2024). Ultimately, these findings build upon the extensive literature
about how mobile tools assist vocabulary acquisition and promote flexible, independent study.
Among the wide range of MALL applications available, digital flashcard systems have
received considerable attention. Research conducted by Mohammadi et al. (2024) compared
mobile-based flashcards (Anki app), paper-based flashcards, and traditional vocabulary lists.
Results showed that digital flashcards are superior to traditional teaching methods or vocabulary
lists for vocabulary learning. Likewise, Honarzad and Soyoof (2023) and Nguyen et al. (2025)
compared paper and digital flashcards and observed that although both yielded improvements in
word retention, the digital flashcard app (Anki) was more effective in increasing L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Reinforcing this, Najafi Karimi and Kheradmandi Amiri (2025) demonstrated, by
employing a delayed posttest, that Anki provided superior long-term retention compared to both
printed flashcards and traditional word lists. A contrasting finding was from Trinh Quoc et al.
(2026), who reported no statistically significant difference in vocabulary learning between the
experimental group using a flashcard system (Quizlet) and the control group receiving traditional
instruction. They concluded that utilizing flashcard software in isolation may not be sufficient to
promote vocabulary development. This highlights the importance of implementing opportunities
for vocabulary use as a complement to flashcards.
Anki is a learning tool that has become a popular topic of recent EFL research due to its
powerful spaced-repetition algorithm and customization features. It is an open-source program
that incorporates adaptive review scheduling and retrieval practice. Its algorithm schedules review
intervals based on users’ ratings of recall difficulty for each card, with easier flashcards appearing
less often and difficult ones being shown more frequently (Anki, 2025). This mechanism increases
efficiency as students focus on the words they struggle to remember instead of studying
everything uniformly. Moreover, it integrates retrieval practice, a studying technique that has been
found to strengthen long-term memory more effectively than passively restudying material
(Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Furthermore, it offers the possibility to include images, text, video,
and audio. Such multimodal options allow for vocabulary to be presented through diverse formats,
which could enhance retention and users’ experience.
Empirical Studies on Spaced Repetition in EFL Contexts
Although extensive research has examined the effects of spaced repetition on vocabulary
development, there is little evidence of its impact on productive academic vocabulary use in
writing tasks. Previous research by Honarzad and Soyoof (2023) and Nguyen et al. (2025)
reported that Anki flashcards promoted more long-term vocabulary retention than paper
flashcards. However, they did not measure productive vocabulary gains. Mohammadi et al.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2932
(2024), on the other hand, studied both productive and receptive vocabulary learning and found
that the group using Anki outperformed paper-based flashcard and vocabulary list groups in both
aspects. Despite this promising result, productive lexical gains were measured through sentence-
completion exercises. The paucity of empirical studies that have examined the effects of spaced
repetition on productive vocabulary use has already been identified in research synthesis by Lei
and Reynolds (2022). All of these findings emphasize the need for studies employing spaced
repetition that focus on measuring productive vocabulary, especially in contextualized writing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
This study follows a quasi-experimental research design, employing a quantitative
research approach to investigate the effects of Anki-based spaced repetition on academic
vocabulary use in EFL writing. The quantitative approach was deemed appropriate for this study
because it sought to determine the effectiveness of an instructional intervention through the
collection and analysis of numerical data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, pp. 22, 35). A quasi-
experimental design was adopted, as data were collected from a real EFL classroom where
random assignment was not feasible. In educational settings, using pre-existing groups is
considered a characteristic of quasi-experimental research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 146).
The study involved both an experimental and a control group. To address the research questions,
pre- and post-tests were administered to both groups to measure changes in academic vocabulary
use subsequent to the intervention. The experimental group received 8 sessions in which Anki
was used as a tool for reviewing the target academic words. Conversely, the control group
received regular classroom instruction without the use of Anki.
Participants and Context
This study involved a total sample of 40 EFL students who were in the second year of an
English teaching degree by the time of the intervention. This research was conducted at a public
university in Ecuador. A convenience sampling technique was employed as participants were
readily accessible and enrolled in a pre-existing writing subject where the intervention could be
best implemented. The participants’ English proficiency was approximately at the B1 level, as
determined by the program curriculum. The experimental and control groups each comprised 20
students who reported that they had never used Anki or any other spaced-repetition tool before.
The groups belonged to pre-existing classes. Most participants in both groups were between 19
and 22, with only two students from the experimental group being 27 and 33 years old.
Initially, there were 47 students who agreed to participate in the study. However, the
number of participants was reduced to 40 after the following criteria were applied. Inclusion
criteria were created to determine the participants whose paragraphs were going to be analyzed.
Students' paragraphs had to meet the following points: (1) the text addressed the prompt, (2) the
(2024), on the other hand, studied both productive and receptive vocabulary learning and found
that the group using Anki outperformed paper-based flashcard and vocabulary list groups in both
aspects. Despite this promising result, productive lexical gains were measured through sentence-
completion exercises. The paucity of empirical studies that have examined the effects of spaced
repetition on productive vocabulary use has already been identified in research synthesis by Lei
and Reynolds (2022). All of these findings emphasize the need for studies employing spaced
repetition that focus on measuring productive vocabulary, especially in contextualized writing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
This study follows a quasi-experimental research design, employing a quantitative
research approach to investigate the effects of Anki-based spaced repetition on academic
vocabulary use in EFL writing. The quantitative approach was deemed appropriate for this study
because it sought to determine the effectiveness of an instructional intervention through the
collection and analysis of numerical data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, pp. 22, 35). A quasi-
experimental design was adopted, as data were collected from a real EFL classroom where
random assignment was not feasible. In educational settings, using pre-existing groups is
considered a characteristic of quasi-experimental research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 146).
The study involved both an experimental and a control group. To address the research questions,
pre- and post-tests were administered to both groups to measure changes in academic vocabulary
use subsequent to the intervention. The experimental group received 8 sessions in which Anki
was used as a tool for reviewing the target academic words. Conversely, the control group
received regular classroom instruction without the use of Anki.
Participants and Context
This study involved a total sample of 40 EFL students who were in the second year of an
English teaching degree by the time of the intervention. This research was conducted at a public
university in Ecuador. A convenience sampling technique was employed as participants were
readily accessible and enrolled in a pre-existing writing subject where the intervention could be
best implemented. The participants’ English proficiency was approximately at the B1 level, as
determined by the program curriculum. The experimental and control groups each comprised 20
students who reported that they had never used Anki or any other spaced-repetition tool before.
The groups belonged to pre-existing classes. Most participants in both groups were between 19
and 22, with only two students from the experimental group being 27 and 33 years old.
Initially, there were 47 students who agreed to participate in the study. However, the
number of participants was reduced to 40 after the following criteria were applied. Inclusion
criteria were created to determine the participants whose paragraphs were going to be analyzed.
Students' paragraphs had to meet the following points: (1) the text addressed the prompt, (2) the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2933
writing contained a minimum of 130 words, (3) the text was understandable enough although
errors were present. Students were also excluded from the analysis process if they attended fewer
than 6 sessions.
Participants voluntarily agreed to take part in the study by signing an informed consent
form before the intervention was conducted. Prior to signing, they were informed about the
structure of the sessions, potential advantages of using Anki, and their right to withdraw at any
moment with no academic repercussions. Additionally, the researcher ensured all data collected
would be confidential, with access being restricted only to the researcher and the researcher's
supervisor.
Instruments
The research questions were answered using paragraph writing tasks that constituted the
pre-test and post-test. The purpose of this instrument was to obtain quantitative data on the
number of target academic vocabulary items in written output before and after the intervention.
Both paragraphs consisted of the same prompt to ensure adequate comparison between the
writings. The prompt was “Write a paragraph between 130 and 150 words discussing the role of
technology in education. Include: 1) Advantages of technology in education, 2) Disadvantages or
problems caused by technology, 3) Your personal opinion.” Students were given 40 minutes to
complete the paragraphs, which should be between 130 and 150 words. Both tests were developed
under strict supervision, limiting access to any external help.
The students' written output was analyzed by the researcher and scored as follows. Each
correctly used target word was awarded one point. Repeated target words were counted only once,
whereas misspelled words or target words used incorrectly in context were not counted.
Inflectional forms of the target words were accepted provided that they retained the same part of
speech. The total number of correctly used target vocabulary items comprised each participant's
score.
Intervention
The intervention for the experimental group involved the use of Anki-based spaced
repetition supported by writing practice to improve students’ productive target vocabulary use in
writing. In contrast, the control group followed the regular classroom instruction without any
dedicated vocabulary-review activities. Despite this difference, both groups completed the same
writing practice activities during the intervention.
The experimental intervention consisted of eight sessions conducted over the course of
four weeks, with two weekly sessions. Each session was developed in alignment with the subject’s
academic objectives. The overarching goal of the course was to develop students’ ability to write
in the target language for academic purposes. Each intervention session had a duration of 60
minutes and was structured as follows. During the first 20 minutes, students completed reviews
using Anki while the instructor clarified their doubts. Anki was set to show a maximum of five
writing contained a minimum of 130 words, (3) the text was understandable enough although
errors were present. Students were also excluded from the analysis process if they attended fewer
than 6 sessions.
Participants voluntarily agreed to take part in the study by signing an informed consent
form before the intervention was conducted. Prior to signing, they were informed about the
structure of the sessions, potential advantages of using Anki, and their right to withdraw at any
moment with no academic repercussions. Additionally, the researcher ensured all data collected
would be confidential, with access being restricted only to the researcher and the researcher's
supervisor.
Instruments
The research questions were answered using paragraph writing tasks that constituted the
pre-test and post-test. The purpose of this instrument was to obtain quantitative data on the
number of target academic vocabulary items in written output before and after the intervention.
Both paragraphs consisted of the same prompt to ensure adequate comparison between the
writings. The prompt was “Write a paragraph between 130 and 150 words discussing the role of
technology in education. Include: 1) Advantages of technology in education, 2) Disadvantages or
problems caused by technology, 3) Your personal opinion.” Students were given 40 minutes to
complete the paragraphs, which should be between 130 and 150 words. Both tests were developed
under strict supervision, limiting access to any external help.
The students' written output was analyzed by the researcher and scored as follows. Each
correctly used target word was awarded one point. Repeated target words were counted only once,
whereas misspelled words or target words used incorrectly in context were not counted.
Inflectional forms of the target words were accepted provided that they retained the same part of
speech. The total number of correctly used target vocabulary items comprised each participant's
score.
Intervention
The intervention for the experimental group involved the use of Anki-based spaced
repetition supported by writing practice to improve students’ productive target vocabulary use in
writing. In contrast, the control group followed the regular classroom instruction without any
dedicated vocabulary-review activities. Despite this difference, both groups completed the same
writing practice activities during the intervention.
The experimental intervention consisted of eight sessions conducted over the course of
four weeks, with two weekly sessions. Each session was developed in alignment with the subject’s
academic objectives. The overarching goal of the course was to develop students’ ability to write
in the target language for academic purposes. Each intervention session had a duration of 60
minutes and was structured as follows. During the first 20 minutes, students completed reviews
using Anki while the instructor clarified their doubts. Anki was set to show a maximum of five
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2934
new academic words per day. Previously learned vocabulary was reviewed according to Anki’s
spaced repetition algorithm. After the review time, students were given 10 minutes to analyze the
prompt and brainstorm ideas, as writing is not a linear but a recursive process (Flower & Hayes,
1981). In the last 30 minutes, students were required to write a paragraph incorporating the target
vocabulary items they could remember from the review. This writing practice was considered
crucial as research by Lavigne et al. (2022) demonstrates that simply increasing vocabulary
breadth does not independently improve writing quality. Instead, students must actively apply
new words in context. The researcher provided the paragraph prompts, which naturally triggered
the use of the new words. Students were encouraged to complete daily reviews outside the
classroom. Table 1 presents a summarized description of how each session was structured.
Table 1.
Intervention Procedure
Time Activity
20 min Flashcard review of pending and new academic words.
10 min Reading the prompt and brainstorming ideas
30 min Completion of a paragraph integrating the target vocabulary.
Flashcard format
The type of flashcard used in the deck is called “type the answer”. With that format,
students could input their responses and verify the answer alongside the spelling. With respect to
the content of the flashcards, Figure 1 illustrates the format and its components. The front part
incorporates a visual aid, the meaning, and a sentence example with a blank space that indicates
the word that needs to be typed. Once students typed the answer, they could access the rest of the
flashcard, which was composed of the correct word and spelling, the audio pronunciation
accompanied by its phonetic transcription, another sentence example, the part of speech, common
collocations, and the Spanish translation. Definitions, audio pronunciations, phonetic
transcriptions, and parts of speech were obtained from the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries.
The remaining content was adapted by the researcher, with assistance from ChatGPT. Each
section was selected to give students a comprehensive understanding of the word use in authentic
contexts as well as to ensure accurate pronunciation.
new academic words per day. Previously learned vocabulary was reviewed according to Anki’s
spaced repetition algorithm. After the review time, students were given 10 minutes to analyze the
prompt and brainstorm ideas, as writing is not a linear but a recursive process (Flower & Hayes,
1981). In the last 30 minutes, students were required to write a paragraph incorporating the target
vocabulary items they could remember from the review. This writing practice was considered
crucial as research by Lavigne et al. (2022) demonstrates that simply increasing vocabulary
breadth does not independently improve writing quality. Instead, students must actively apply
new words in context. The researcher provided the paragraph prompts, which naturally triggered
the use of the new words. Students were encouraged to complete daily reviews outside the
classroom. Table 1 presents a summarized description of how each session was structured.
Table 1.
Intervention Procedure
Time Activity
20 min Flashcard review of pending and new academic words.
10 min Reading the prompt and brainstorming ideas
30 min Completion of a paragraph integrating the target vocabulary.
Flashcard format
The type of flashcard used in the deck is called “type the answer”. With that format,
students could input their responses and verify the answer alongside the spelling. With respect to
the content of the flashcards, Figure 1 illustrates the format and its components. The front part
incorporates a visual aid, the meaning, and a sentence example with a blank space that indicates
the word that needs to be typed. Once students typed the answer, they could access the rest of the
flashcard, which was composed of the correct word and spelling, the audio pronunciation
accompanied by its phonetic transcription, another sentence example, the part of speech, common
collocations, and the Spanish translation. Definitions, audio pronunciations, phonetic
transcriptions, and parts of speech were obtained from the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries.
The remaining content was adapted by the researcher, with assistance from ChatGPT. Each
section was selected to give students a comprehensive understanding of the word use in authentic
contexts as well as to ensure accurate pronunciation.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2935
Figure 1
Flashcard format and content
Academic Target Words
The target vocabulary was organized in an Anki deck, which contained 35 words as
shown in Table 2. All flashcards were created by the researcher. Each word was selected in
accordance with the following three criteria: A) Relevance to the lesson topic. B) At least 5
occurrences per million words in the subcategory “academic” from the Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA). C) The word level must be B2 according to the English Vocabulary
Profile. Although the participants were at a B1 proficiency level, B2 target words were selected
because future English teachers in Ecuador are expected to reach a B2 level by the end of their
undergraduate studies (Presidencia de la República del Ecuador, 2023). Before creating the
flashcards, words were revised and validated by a professor with experience teaching B1 English
learners.
Table 2
Target words per session
Sessions Target Vocabulary
Session 1 struggle, lack, concern, setting, crucial
Session 2 transform, contemporary, rapid, significant, while
Session 3 approach, primary, effective, resource, furthermore
Session 4 impact, consequence, virtual, instant, as a result
Session 5 educational, access, benefit, enable, contribute
Session 6 responsible, substantial, increase, moreover, consequently
Session 7 diverse, whereas, in contrast, on the one hand... on the other hand, considerable.
Session 8 Review of pending words
Figure 1
Flashcard format and content
Academic Target Words
The target vocabulary was organized in an Anki deck, which contained 35 words as
shown in Table 2. All flashcards were created by the researcher. Each word was selected in
accordance with the following three criteria: A) Relevance to the lesson topic. B) At least 5
occurrences per million words in the subcategory “academic” from the Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA). C) The word level must be B2 according to the English Vocabulary
Profile. Although the participants were at a B1 proficiency level, B2 target words were selected
because future English teachers in Ecuador are expected to reach a B2 level by the end of their
undergraduate studies (Presidencia de la República del Ecuador, 2023). Before creating the
flashcards, words were revised and validated by a professor with experience teaching B1 English
learners.
Table 2
Target words per session
Sessions Target Vocabulary
Session 1 struggle, lack, concern, setting, crucial
Session 2 transform, contemporary, rapid, significant, while
Session 3 approach, primary, effective, resource, furthermore
Session 4 impact, consequence, virtual, instant, as a result
Session 5 educational, access, benefit, enable, contribute
Session 6 responsible, substantial, increase, moreover, consequently
Session 7 diverse, whereas, in contrast, on the one hand... on the other hand, considerable.
Session 8 Review of pending words
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2936
Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected at different stages of the study. In Week 0, informed consent was
obtained, and the pre-test paragraph was administered. Additionally, participants from the
experimental group received instruction on how to use the mobile application. During Weeks 1
to 4, they engaged in two weekly sessions incorporating Anki-based vocabulary practice and
writing practice. In Week 5, a post-test paragraph was administered using the same writing prompt
as the pre-test. Table 3 summarizes the data collection timeline.
Table 3
Data Collection Timeline
Week Activity
0 Obtain consent, instruction on Anki use, and Pre-test.
1–4 Anki practice and short writing tasks.
5 Post-test Paragraph
Data Analysis
A two-step analysis was conducted on the writing samples to determine the number of
the target academic vocabulary. Firstly, the paragraphs were submitted to the AntWordProfiler
program (Anthony, 2026) along with the word list containing the target academic vocabulary and
its inflectional forms. This step was done to extract the number of target words students used in
their writings. Then, the researcher manually reviewed the words flagged by the program to
discard forced and unnatural vocabulary use.
Subsequently, the data obtained from the previous process were analyzed using a paired-
samples t-test to examine differences in target vocabulary scores within each group. Additionally,
an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare post-test scores between the
experimental and control groups. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27,
with significance level set at p < .05. The use of this dual approach provides a clear description
of changes within groups and a fair comparison between groups.
RESULTS
This study aimed to analyze the effects of Anki-based spaced repetition on target
academic vocabulary use in writing. This section presents the results according to the two research
questions. The first research question was answered through a paired-samples t-test which
examined changes in target academic vocabulary use within each group from pre-test to post-test.
The results of the second research question were obtained from an independent-samples t-test,
which evaluated the effectiveness of the Anki-based spaced repetition intervention from the post-
test performance of the experimental and control groups.
Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected at different stages of the study. In Week 0, informed consent was
obtained, and the pre-test paragraph was administered. Additionally, participants from the
experimental group received instruction on how to use the mobile application. During Weeks 1
to 4, they engaged in two weekly sessions incorporating Anki-based vocabulary practice and
writing practice. In Week 5, a post-test paragraph was administered using the same writing prompt
as the pre-test. Table 3 summarizes the data collection timeline.
Table 3
Data Collection Timeline
Week Activity
0 Obtain consent, instruction on Anki use, and Pre-test.
1–4 Anki practice and short writing tasks.
5 Post-test Paragraph
Data Analysis
A two-step analysis was conducted on the writing samples to determine the number of
the target academic vocabulary. Firstly, the paragraphs were submitted to the AntWordProfiler
program (Anthony, 2026) along with the word list containing the target academic vocabulary and
its inflectional forms. This step was done to extract the number of target words students used in
their writings. Then, the researcher manually reviewed the words flagged by the program to
discard forced and unnatural vocabulary use.
Subsequently, the data obtained from the previous process were analyzed using a paired-
samples t-test to examine differences in target vocabulary scores within each group. Additionally,
an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare post-test scores between the
experimental and control groups. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27,
with significance level set at p < .05. The use of this dual approach provides a clear description
of changes within groups and a fair comparison between groups.
RESULTS
This study aimed to analyze the effects of Anki-based spaced repetition on target
academic vocabulary use in writing. This section presents the results according to the two research
questions. The first research question was answered through a paired-samples t-test which
examined changes in target academic vocabulary use within each group from pre-test to post-test.
The results of the second research question were obtained from an independent-samples t-test,
which evaluated the effectiveness of the Anki-based spaced repetition intervention from the post-
test performance of the experimental and control groups.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2937
Within-Group Changes
Table 4 presents the results of the paired-samples t-tests for the experimental and control
groups. The experimental group showed an increase in the mean number of correctly used
academic words from 1.05 (SD = 1.538) on the pre-test to 2.70 (SD = 1.895) on the post-test,
representing a mean gain of 1.65 points. This increase was statistically significant, t(19) = -4.067,
p = .001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.90). In contrast, the control group showed only a
minimal increase in mean scores from 1.40 (SD = 1.429) on the pre-test to 1.50 (SD = 1.395) on
the post-test, yielding a negligible mean gain of 0.10 points. The analysis confirmed that this
difference was not statistically significant, t(19) = -0.384, p = .705, with a small effect size
(Cohen's d = 0.08).
Table 4
Paired-Samples T-Test Results
Group N Pre-test M
(SD)
Post-test M
(SD)
Mean
Gain t df p Cohen's d
Experimental 20 1.05 (1.538) 2.70 (1.895) +1.65 -4.067 19 .001 0.90
Control 20 1.40 (1.429) 1.50 (1.395) +0.10 -0.384 19 .705 0.08
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; Cohen's d = standardized mean difference.
Between-Group Differences
An independent-samples t-test was conducted (See Table 5) to compare the performance
of the experimental and control groups. Before the analysis, Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances was run to verify that the two groups had similar variability in their scores. The
assumption of homogeneity of variance was met in the pre-test (F = 0.259, p = .614) and post-test
(F = 1.516, p = .226). This confirmed that equal variances could be assumed and a standard
independent-samples t-test was conducted. As shown in Table 5, there was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups on the pre-test, t(38) = -0.746, p = .461, indicating
that the groups were comparable before the intervention. However, a statistically significant
difference was found on the post-test, t(38) = 2.281, p = .028. The experimental group (M = 2.70,
SD = 1.895) obtained higher post-test scores than the control group (M = 1.50, SD = 1.395). The
effect size was medium to large (Cohen's d = 0.72).
Table 5
Independent Samples T-test Results
Comparison Experimental M (SD) Control M (SD) t df p Cohen's d
Pre-test 1.05 (1.538) 1.40 (1.429) -0.746 38 .461 0.23
Post-test 2.70 (1.895) 1.50 (1.395) 2.281 38 .028 0.72
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; Cohen's d = standardized mean difference.
Within-Group Changes
Table 4 presents the results of the paired-samples t-tests for the experimental and control
groups. The experimental group showed an increase in the mean number of correctly used
academic words from 1.05 (SD = 1.538) on the pre-test to 2.70 (SD = 1.895) on the post-test,
representing a mean gain of 1.65 points. This increase was statistically significant, t(19) = -4.067,
p = .001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.90). In contrast, the control group showed only a
minimal increase in mean scores from 1.40 (SD = 1.429) on the pre-test to 1.50 (SD = 1.395) on
the post-test, yielding a negligible mean gain of 0.10 points. The analysis confirmed that this
difference was not statistically significant, t(19) = -0.384, p = .705, with a small effect size
(Cohen's d = 0.08).
Table 4
Paired-Samples T-Test Results
Group N Pre-test M
(SD)
Post-test M
(SD)
Mean
Gain t df p Cohen's d
Experimental 20 1.05 (1.538) 2.70 (1.895) +1.65 -4.067 19 .001 0.90
Control 20 1.40 (1.429) 1.50 (1.395) +0.10 -0.384 19 .705 0.08
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; Cohen's d = standardized mean difference.
Between-Group Differences
An independent-samples t-test was conducted (See Table 5) to compare the performance
of the experimental and control groups. Before the analysis, Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances was run to verify that the two groups had similar variability in their scores. The
assumption of homogeneity of variance was met in the pre-test (F = 0.259, p = .614) and post-test
(F = 1.516, p = .226). This confirmed that equal variances could be assumed and a standard
independent-samples t-test was conducted. As shown in Table 5, there was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups on the pre-test, t(38) = -0.746, p = .461, indicating
that the groups were comparable before the intervention. However, a statistically significant
difference was found on the post-test, t(38) = 2.281, p = .028. The experimental group (M = 2.70,
SD = 1.895) obtained higher post-test scores than the control group (M = 1.50, SD = 1.395). The
effect size was medium to large (Cohen's d = 0.72).
Table 5
Independent Samples T-test Results
Comparison Experimental M (SD) Control M (SD) t df p Cohen's d
Pre-test 1.05 (1.538) 1.40 (1.429) -0.746 38 .461 0.23
Post-test 2.70 (1.895) 1.50 (1.395) 2.281 38 .028 0.72
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; Cohen's d = standardized mean difference.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2938
DISCUSSION
This paper sought to test whether Anki-based spaced repetition could increase target
academic vocabulary use in writing among pre-service EFL teachers. The results were positive,
as the students who utilized Anki produced more target academic vocabulary in the post-test
paragraph compared to the control group. This difference in post-test scores was statistically
significant, indicating that Anki-based spaced repetition helped students learn and use more target
academic vocabulary than regular classroom instruction.
RQ1: Changes in productive target academic vocabulary use
The increase in the number of target academic vocabulary items used by the experimental
group can be explained by two key features of the Anki-based intervention: adaptive review
scheduling and retrieval practice. According to Ebbinghaus (1885, as cited in Abbas et al., 2023),
information is gradually forgotten if not reviewed at key intervals. Anki applies this principle by
adjusting reviews before significant forgetting occurs based on learners’ ratings of recall difficulty
(Anki, 2025). As a result, students could focus more on reviewing challenging vocabulary items
instead of words that they had already mastered. Another distinctive factor was the retrieval
practice. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) argued that actively retrieving information strengthens
memory more significantly than passive restudying. In the present study, repeated retrieval of the
target vocabulary may have strengthened students’ ability to access these words when completing
the post-test writing task. However, while Anki strengthened memory through retrieval practice,
the targeted writing tasks were also important because they created opportunities to apply the
vocabulary in meaningful contexts. This aligns with Lavigne et al. (2022), who highlighted that
increasing vocabulary knowledge alone does not necessarily improve writing performance unless
learners actively apply new words in meaningful contexts. Therefore, retrieval practice and
adaptive review scheduling may have helped students access the target vocabulary more readily,
while writing tasks provided a timely opportunity to use the target vocabulary in writing.
RQ2: Comparison with regular instruction
This study found that the group using Anki-based spaced repetition attained a larger
increase in the use of target academic vocabulary in writing from the pre-test to the post-test than
the control group, which used regular classroom instruction. These findings corroborate past
studies which reported that spaced repetition systems outperform conventional learning
approaches (Honarzad & Soyoof, 2023; Najafi Karimi & Kheradmandi Amiri, 2025; Nguyen et
al., 2025). In terms of productive vocabulary development, the present findings align with those
of Mohammadi et al. (2024), who found that learners using SR through Anki exhibited gains in
productive academic vocabulary. Additionally, while Mohammadi et al. stressed that the group
that used Anki yielded smaller gains in productive knowledge than in receptive recall, the present
DISCUSSION
This paper sought to test whether Anki-based spaced repetition could increase target
academic vocabulary use in writing among pre-service EFL teachers. The results were positive,
as the students who utilized Anki produced more target academic vocabulary in the post-test
paragraph compared to the control group. This difference in post-test scores was statistically
significant, indicating that Anki-based spaced repetition helped students learn and use more target
academic vocabulary than regular classroom instruction.
RQ1: Changes in productive target academic vocabulary use
The increase in the number of target academic vocabulary items used by the experimental
group can be explained by two key features of the Anki-based intervention: adaptive review
scheduling and retrieval practice. According to Ebbinghaus (1885, as cited in Abbas et al., 2023),
information is gradually forgotten if not reviewed at key intervals. Anki applies this principle by
adjusting reviews before significant forgetting occurs based on learners’ ratings of recall difficulty
(Anki, 2025). As a result, students could focus more on reviewing challenging vocabulary items
instead of words that they had already mastered. Another distinctive factor was the retrieval
practice. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) argued that actively retrieving information strengthens
memory more significantly than passive restudying. In the present study, repeated retrieval of the
target vocabulary may have strengthened students’ ability to access these words when completing
the post-test writing task. However, while Anki strengthened memory through retrieval practice,
the targeted writing tasks were also important because they created opportunities to apply the
vocabulary in meaningful contexts. This aligns with Lavigne et al. (2022), who highlighted that
increasing vocabulary knowledge alone does not necessarily improve writing performance unless
learners actively apply new words in meaningful contexts. Therefore, retrieval practice and
adaptive review scheduling may have helped students access the target vocabulary more readily,
while writing tasks provided a timely opportunity to use the target vocabulary in writing.
RQ2: Comparison with regular instruction
This study found that the group using Anki-based spaced repetition attained a larger
increase in the use of target academic vocabulary in writing from the pre-test to the post-test than
the control group, which used regular classroom instruction. These findings corroborate past
studies which reported that spaced repetition systems outperform conventional learning
approaches (Honarzad & Soyoof, 2023; Najafi Karimi & Kheradmandi Amiri, 2025; Nguyen et
al., 2025). In terms of productive vocabulary development, the present findings align with those
of Mohammadi et al. (2024), who found that learners using SR through Anki exhibited gains in
productive academic vocabulary. Additionally, while Mohammadi et al. stressed that the group
that used Anki yielded smaller gains in productive knowledge than in receptive recall, the present
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2939
study suggests that combining Anki with targeted writing tasks can facilitate the transfer of
vocabulary knowledge to active use.
The contribution of this study is significant when considering the typical scope in EFL
research employing SR for vocabulary learning. As observed in the literature, most studies focus
primarily on investigating how SR improves vocabulary learning and retention. Albeit useful, the
lack of studies assessing its impact on productive vocabulary use raised the question of whether
SR's benefits could extend to active vocabulary use in contextualized writing. Considering the
studies reviewed, only Mohammadi et al. (2024) examined the effects of SR on productive
vocabulary. However, the present study extends their work by measuring vocabulary production
through contextualized writing activities instead of sentence completion exercises. This focus
addresses the scarcity of research on the use of SR for productive vocabulary, a gap that had been
previously identified by Lei and Reynolds (2022). The present findings suggest that Anki-based
spaced repetition facilitates academic vocabulary use in contextualized writing tasks.
CONCLUSION
Past studies have shown that spaced repetition is particularly effective at increasing
students’ vocabulary recognition. Likewise, spaced repetition through Anki has helped learners
use academic vocabulary in sentence completion exercises. Nonetheless, it remained unclear
whether the use of Anki-based spaced repetition could promote productive academic vocabulary
use in contextualized writing tasks. The findings provide evidence that Anki-based spaced
repetition successfully facilitated productive academic vocabulary use in contextualized writing.
The increase in the number of target academic vocabulary items in the post-test achieved by the
experimental group was found to be statistically significant. Conversely, the control group did not
exhibit a significant change. Similarly, the experimental group outperformed the control group
on the post-test with a medium-to-large effect size. These results suggest that Anki-based spaced
repetition with contextualized writing practice is more effective than regular classroom
instruction for promoting productive academic vocabulary. Importantly, these findings extend
previous work that has examined vocabulary production through isolated exercises by
demonstrating that Anki can support the transition from reviewing words to applying them in
written communication.
This study identifies three primary implications for EFL teaching. First, it is fundamental
to combine spaced repetition systems with opportunities for language production such as writing
to help students use the vocabulary in meaningful contexts. Moreover, using MALL tools such as
Anki can promote vocabulary practice outside the classroom because of its adaptive review
schedule. Furthermore, ELT programs should select target vocabulary according to learners’
proficiency levels and relevance to the learning objectives as opposed to general vocabulary lists.
study suggests that combining Anki with targeted writing tasks can facilitate the transfer of
vocabulary knowledge to active use.
The contribution of this study is significant when considering the typical scope in EFL
research employing SR for vocabulary learning. As observed in the literature, most studies focus
primarily on investigating how SR improves vocabulary learning and retention. Albeit useful, the
lack of studies assessing its impact on productive vocabulary use raised the question of whether
SR's benefits could extend to active vocabulary use in contextualized writing. Considering the
studies reviewed, only Mohammadi et al. (2024) examined the effects of SR on productive
vocabulary. However, the present study extends their work by measuring vocabulary production
through contextualized writing activities instead of sentence completion exercises. This focus
addresses the scarcity of research on the use of SR for productive vocabulary, a gap that had been
previously identified by Lei and Reynolds (2022). The present findings suggest that Anki-based
spaced repetition facilitates academic vocabulary use in contextualized writing tasks.
CONCLUSION
Past studies have shown that spaced repetition is particularly effective at increasing
students’ vocabulary recognition. Likewise, spaced repetition through Anki has helped learners
use academic vocabulary in sentence completion exercises. Nonetheless, it remained unclear
whether the use of Anki-based spaced repetition could promote productive academic vocabulary
use in contextualized writing tasks. The findings provide evidence that Anki-based spaced
repetition successfully facilitated productive academic vocabulary use in contextualized writing.
The increase in the number of target academic vocabulary items in the post-test achieved by the
experimental group was found to be statistically significant. Conversely, the control group did not
exhibit a significant change. Similarly, the experimental group outperformed the control group
on the post-test with a medium-to-large effect size. These results suggest that Anki-based spaced
repetition with contextualized writing practice is more effective than regular classroom
instruction for promoting productive academic vocabulary. Importantly, these findings extend
previous work that has examined vocabulary production through isolated exercises by
demonstrating that Anki can support the transition from reviewing words to applying them in
written communication.
This study identifies three primary implications for EFL teaching. First, it is fundamental
to combine spaced repetition systems with opportunities for language production such as writing
to help students use the vocabulary in meaningful contexts. Moreover, using MALL tools such as
Anki can promote vocabulary practice outside the classroom because of its adaptive review
schedule. Furthermore, ELT programs should select target vocabulary according to learners’
proficiency levels and relevance to the learning objectives as opposed to general vocabulary lists.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2940
Despite these promising results, this study presents several limitations. The first
limitation concerns the small sample size, which was obtained from one university in Ecuador.
Although the findings provide evidence of the benefits of the intervention, the participation of 40
students limits the generalizability of the results to other populations. Another limitation was that
the study measured exclusively productive vocabulary gains and not receptive knowledge. Hence,
the study could not report whether the intervention also produced gains in receptive knowledge.
Finally, this study did not implement a delayed post-test. As a result, it is unknown for how long
the observed gains can be maintained over time.
Therefore, this paper recommends the following directions for future research. Future
research should implement this methodology with other populations, such as high-school
students, or with larger samples to evaluate its effectiveness in different educational settings.
Additionally, researchers should measure both productive and receptive vocabulary learning to
fully understand how effective the intervention is at increasing both types of lexical knowledge.
Likewise, a delayed post-test should be administered in future studies to determine whether the
intervention leads to long-term retention of productive vocabulary use.
Despite these promising results, this study presents several limitations. The first
limitation concerns the small sample size, which was obtained from one university in Ecuador.
Although the findings provide evidence of the benefits of the intervention, the participation of 40
students limits the generalizability of the results to other populations. Another limitation was that
the study measured exclusively productive vocabulary gains and not receptive knowledge. Hence,
the study could not report whether the intervention also produced gains in receptive knowledge.
Finally, this study did not implement a delayed post-test. As a result, it is unknown for how long
the observed gains can be maintained over time.
Therefore, this paper recommends the following directions for future research. Future
research should implement this methodology with other populations, such as high-school
students, or with larger samples to evaluate its effectiveness in different educational settings.
Additionally, researchers should measure both productive and receptive vocabulary learning to
fully understand how effective the intervention is at increasing both types of lexical knowledge.
Likewise, a delayed post-test should be administered in future studies to determine whether the
intervention leads to long-term retention of productive vocabulary use.
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2941
REFERENCES
Abbas, A. M., Hamid, T., Iwendi, C., Morrissey, F., & Garg, A. (2023). Improving learning
effectiveness by leveraging spaced repetition (SR). In N. Venkataraman, L. Wang, X.
Fernando, & A. F. Zobaa (Eds.), Big data and cloud computing (Vol. 1021). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1051-9_10
Aguilar Villarroel, E. A., & Córdova Calderón, A. V. (2024). Influencia de la competencia en el
idioma inglés en la percepción de empleabilidad de graduados de administración de
empresas en una universidad pública del Ecuador [Proyecto integrador]. ESPOL FCSH.
http://www.dspace.espol.edu.ec/handle/123456789/65555
Ahmed, F. E. Y., Abdallah, N. M. M., Hamed, S. O. E., & Hamed, F. M. A. (2025). Word choice
errors in EFL undergraduates’ written language. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
11(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.11107
Anki. (2025). Background. Retrieved June 29, 2026, from
https://docs.ankiweb.net/background.html
Anthony, L. (2026). AntWordProfiler (Version 2.3.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University.
https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/
Boroughani, T., Behshad, N., & Xodabande, I. (2023). Mobile-assisted academic vocabulary
learning with digital flashcards: Exploring the impacts on university students’ self-
regulatory capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1112429.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112429
Burel, J., Trost, O., Demeyere, M., Rives, N., Estour, F., Ladner, J., Crampon, F., Deneuve, S., &
Maquet, C. (2025). Spaced repetition and other key factors influencing medical school
entrance exam success: Insights from a French survey. BMC Medical Education, 25,
1036. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07605-w
Burston, J., & Giannakou, K. (2022). MALL language learning outcomes: A comprehensive
meta-analysis 1994–2019. ReCALL, 34(2), 147–168.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344021000240
Choffin, B., Popineau, F., & Bourda, Y. (2021). Extending adaptive spacing heuristics to multi-
skill items. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 13(3), 69–102.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5634220
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
Coxhead, A. (2024). Current issues and future research on teaching and learning of academic
vocabulary in EMI contexts. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(2), 105–108.
https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20240207
REFERENCES
Abbas, A. M., Hamid, T., Iwendi, C., Morrissey, F., & Garg, A. (2023). Improving learning
effectiveness by leveraging spaced repetition (SR). In N. Venkataraman, L. Wang, X.
Fernando, & A. F. Zobaa (Eds.), Big data and cloud computing (Vol. 1021). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1051-9_10
Aguilar Villarroel, E. A., & Córdova Calderón, A. V. (2024). Influencia de la competencia en el
idioma inglés en la percepción de empleabilidad de graduados de administración de
empresas en una universidad pública del Ecuador [Proyecto integrador]. ESPOL FCSH.
http://www.dspace.espol.edu.ec/handle/123456789/65555
Ahmed, F. E. Y., Abdallah, N. M. M., Hamed, S. O. E., & Hamed, F. M. A. (2025). Word choice
errors in EFL undergraduates’ written language. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
11(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.11107
Anki. (2025). Background. Retrieved June 29, 2026, from
https://docs.ankiweb.net/background.html
Anthony, L. (2026). AntWordProfiler (Version 2.3.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University.
https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/
Boroughani, T., Behshad, N., & Xodabande, I. (2023). Mobile-assisted academic vocabulary
learning with digital flashcards: Exploring the impacts on university students’ self-
regulatory capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1112429.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112429
Burel, J., Trost, O., Demeyere, M., Rives, N., Estour, F., Ladner, J., Crampon, F., Deneuve, S., &
Maquet, C. (2025). Spaced repetition and other key factors influencing medical school
entrance exam success: Insights from a French survey. BMC Medical Education, 25,
1036. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07605-w
Burston, J., & Giannakou, K. (2022). MALL language learning outcomes: A comprehensive
meta-analysis 1994–2019. ReCALL, 34(2), 147–168.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344021000240
Choffin, B., Popineau, F., & Bourda, Y. (2021). Extending adaptive spacing heuristics to multi-
skill items. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 13(3), 69–102.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5634220
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
Coxhead, A. (2024). Current issues and future research on teaching and learning of academic
vocabulary in EMI contexts. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(2), 105–108.
https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20240207
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2942
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Evans, L., Lund, E. A., & Werfel, K. L. (2025). Is knowing words enough? Assessing vocabulary
in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 56(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-24-00046
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Ha, H. T. (2022). Vocabulary demands of informal spoken English revisited: What does it take
to understand movies, TV programs, and soap operas? Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
831684. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831684
Honarzad, R., & Soyoof, A. (2023). Two vocabulary learning tools used by Iranian EFL learners:
Physical flashcards versus a mobile app. Computer Assisted Language Learning
Electronic Journal, 24(1), 160–178.
Isma, A., Rasmin, L. O., & Samsudin, S. (2023). Decoding the challenges: A study of English
writing errors among EFL students. GLENS: Global English Insights Journal, 1(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.61220/glens.v1i1.2023a1
Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning: Policy
implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1),
12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708
Khudaverdiyeva, T. (2025). The importance of writing in language acquisition: A cognitive,
communicative, and pedagogical perspective. Global Spectrum of Research and
Humanities, 2(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.0203025014
Lavigne, C. S., Tremblay, K. A., & Binder, K. S. (2022). It’s in the way that you use it: How
vocabulary knowledge and usage predict writing quality among adult basic education
learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(5), 1023–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09877-5
Lee, S. (2025). The relationship between receptive and productive knowledge of L2 English
collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35, 109–133.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12605
Lei, Y., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Learning English vocabulary from word cards: A research
synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 984211.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.984211
Maamuujav, U. (2021). Examining lexical features and academic vocabulary use in adolescent
L2 students' text-based analytical essays. Assessing Writing, 49, Article 100540.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100540
Mohammadi, M., Zohdi Jalal, P., Valizadeh, M., & Xodabande, I. (2024). University students'
academic vocabulary development through mobile-assisted learning: Exploring the
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Evans, L., Lund, E. A., & Werfel, K. L. (2025). Is knowing words enough? Assessing vocabulary
in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 56(2), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-24-00046
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Ha, H. T. (2022). Vocabulary demands of informal spoken English revisited: What does it take
to understand movies, TV programs, and soap operas? Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
831684. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831684
Honarzad, R., & Soyoof, A. (2023). Two vocabulary learning tools used by Iranian EFL learners:
Physical flashcards versus a mobile app. Computer Assisted Language Learning
Electronic Journal, 24(1), 160–178.
Isma, A., Rasmin, L. O., & Samsudin, S. (2023). Decoding the challenges: A study of English
writing errors among EFL students. GLENS: Global English Insights Journal, 1(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.61220/glens.v1i1.2023a1
Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning: Policy
implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1),
12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708
Khudaverdiyeva, T. (2025). The importance of writing in language acquisition: A cognitive,
communicative, and pedagogical perspective. Global Spectrum of Research and
Humanities, 2(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.0203025014
Lavigne, C. S., Tremblay, K. A., & Binder, K. S. (2022). It’s in the way that you use it: How
vocabulary knowledge and usage predict writing quality among adult basic education
learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(5), 1023–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09877-5
Lee, S. (2025). The relationship between receptive and productive knowledge of L2 English
collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35, 109–133.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12605
Lei, Y., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Learning English vocabulary from word cards: A research
synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 984211.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.984211
Maamuujav, U. (2021). Examining lexical features and academic vocabulary use in adolescent
L2 students' text-based analytical essays. Assessing Writing, 49, Article 100540.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100540
Mohammadi, M., Zohdi Jalal, P., Valizadeh, M., & Xodabande, I. (2024). University students'
academic vocabulary development through mobile-assisted learning: Exploring the
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2943
impacts on receptive and productive knowledge. Heliyon, 10(6), Article e28103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28103
Mujtaba, S. M., Kamyabi Gol, A., & Parkash, R. (2021). A study on the relationship between
language aptitude, vocabulary size, working memory and L2 writing accuracy. Foreign
Language Annals, 54, 1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12584
Najafi Karimi, S., & Kheradmandi Amiri, R. (2025). The effects of using digital flashcards versus
paper flashcards on vocabulary learning and retention of Iranian intermediate EFL
learners. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2548353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548353
Nguyen, T. M. H., Nguyen, M. N., & Luong, H. P. (2025). Utilizing Anki to enhance vocabulary
acquisition among first-year students at a university in Hanoi. Proceedings of the
AsiaCALL International Conference, 7, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2574
Peng, Y., Sun, J., Quan, J., Wang, Y., Lü, C., & Zhang, S. H. (2023). Predicting Chinese EFL
learners’ human-rated writing quality in argumentative writing through multidimensional
computational indices of lexical complexity. Assessing Writing, 56, Article 100722.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100722
Presidencia de la República del Ecuador. (2023, February 22). Reglamento general a la Ley
Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 675). Segundo Suplemento
del Registro Oficial No. 254. https://www.gob.ec/regulaciones/reglamento-general-ley-
organica-educacion-intercultural-0
Qureshi, M. A., & Malik, N. (2025). Academic word lists: A comprehensive review. Vocabulary
Learning and Instruction, 14(2), Article 103079.
https://doi.org/10.29140/vli.v14n2.103079
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests
improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Smith, O. (2025). El inglés como mejora para la carrera profesional y empresarial local e
internacional. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(5), 5038–5056.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.19839
Teymouri, R. (2024). Recent developments in mobile-assisted vocabulary learning: A mini
review of published studies focusing on digital flashcards. Frontiers in Education, 9,
Article 1496578. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1496578
Trinh Quoc, L., To Thai, N. D., Le Cong, T., Ngo Huynh, H. N., & Le Thanh, T. (2026). The use
of Quizlet to enhance English as a foreign language learners' lexical study and retention.
Journal of Educators Online, 23(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2026.23.1.2
Yılmaz, S., & Kavanoz, S. (2025). Measuring the effect of receptive and productive vocabulary
size on foreign language skills. Porta Linguarum: An International Journal of Foreign
impacts on receptive and productive knowledge. Heliyon, 10(6), Article e28103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28103
Mujtaba, S. M., Kamyabi Gol, A., & Parkash, R. (2021). A study on the relationship between
language aptitude, vocabulary size, working memory and L2 writing accuracy. Foreign
Language Annals, 54, 1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12584
Najafi Karimi, S., & Kheradmandi Amiri, R. (2025). The effects of using digital flashcards versus
paper flashcards on vocabulary learning and retention of Iranian intermediate EFL
learners. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2548353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548353
Nguyen, T. M. H., Nguyen, M. N., & Luong, H. P. (2025). Utilizing Anki to enhance vocabulary
acquisition among first-year students at a university in Hanoi. Proceedings of the
AsiaCALL International Conference, 7, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.54855/paic.2574
Peng, Y., Sun, J., Quan, J., Wang, Y., Lü, C., & Zhang, S. H. (2023). Predicting Chinese EFL
learners’ human-rated writing quality in argumentative writing through multidimensional
computational indices of lexical complexity. Assessing Writing, 56, Article 100722.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100722
Presidencia de la República del Ecuador. (2023, February 22). Reglamento general a la Ley
Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 675). Segundo Suplemento
del Registro Oficial No. 254. https://www.gob.ec/regulaciones/reglamento-general-ley-
organica-educacion-intercultural-0
Qureshi, M. A., & Malik, N. (2025). Academic word lists: A comprehensive review. Vocabulary
Learning and Instruction, 14(2), Article 103079.
https://doi.org/10.29140/vli.v14n2.103079
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests
improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Smith, O. (2025). El inglés como mejora para la carrera profesional y empresarial local e
internacional. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(5), 5038–5056.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.19839
Teymouri, R. (2024). Recent developments in mobile-assisted vocabulary learning: A mini
review of published studies focusing on digital flashcards. Frontiers in Education, 9,
Article 1496578. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1496578
Trinh Quoc, L., To Thai, N. D., Le Cong, T., Ngo Huynh, H. N., & Le Thanh, T. (2026). The use
of Quizlet to enhance English as a foreign language learners' lexical study and retention.
Journal of Educators Online, 23(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2026.23.1.2
Yılmaz, S., & Kavanoz, S. (2025). Measuring the effect of receptive and productive vocabulary
size on foreign language skills. Porta Linguarum: An International Journal of Foreign
Vol. 13/ Núm. 3 2026 pág. 2944
Language Teaching and Learning, (44), 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi44.31870
Language Teaching and Learning, (44), 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi44.31870