extfieldsofstudy: Psychology Medicine

text:
Collaborative learning in small groups in an online course – a case study

Background The ability to learn collaboratively and work in teams is an essential competency in both educational and healthcare settings, and collaborative student activities are acknowledged as being an important part of the pedagogical approach in higher education and teaching. The course that was the focus of this research, a 15-ECTS-credit online course in philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods, was offered online as part of 11 master’s-level health programmes at a university in Norway. Collaborative learning in combination with digital teaching tools was the preferred pedagogical approach in the online course. The aim of the study was to describe, explore and discuss how the students collaborated in small groups in an online course to learn. Methods We performed six focus groups and 13 individual interviews from February 2018 to May 2019, conducting a qualitative case study with a content analysis of the data collected. The participants were master students in the same faculty at a university in Norway. All the included participants had fulfilled the 15 ECTS credit course. Results Our study revealed that the collaboration in small groups resulted in three different working processes, depending on the students’ ability to be flexible and take responsibility for their own and common learning. The three different working processes that emerged from our data were 1. joint responsibility – flexible organization; 2. individual responsibility – flexible organization; and 3. individual responsibility – unorganized. None of the groups changed their working process during their course, even though some experienced their strategy as inadequate. Conclusions Our study showed that despite similar factors such as context, assignments and student autonomy, the students chose different collaboration strategies to accomplish the online course learning objectives. Each group chose their own working process, but only the strategy 1. joint responsibility – flexible organization seemed to promote collaboration, discussion, and team work to complete the complex assignments in the online course. The result from our study may be helpful in designing and planning future online courses; hence online learning requires a focus on how students collaborate and learn online, to gain knowledge and understanding through group discussion.

reducing dropout rates is to have a mix of online and face-to-face courses in study programmes [9].
Collaborative learning (CL) and teamwork skills developed through working in groups are important competencies for healthcare workers [10]. Group work is therefore a pedagogical method that is widely used in health and social science education (e.g., problembased learning (PBL), team-based learning (TBL) and simulation training), and much research has been carried out into these pedagogical methods [11]. Collaborative learning is defined as teaching or learning activities that promote an individual's own learning and that of others in small groups (two to five students) or collaboration (cooperation) to achieve common goals [12,13]. In CL, learning is a dynamic process involving interaction between individual students' drive to learn and a social activity in a specific context [14][15][16]. While students in CL are mutually dependent on one another, to be able to discuss and reflect and thus achieve a deeper understanding of the subject matter, they learn from one another through reflection in the situation and on the situation [17][18][19][20].
Research has shown which design and group working process factors that can positively influence collaboration within groups. Design factors include group size (three-five), group composition and the nature of the assignments [20]. Positive interdependence and individual accountability are important factors for group working processes [20,21]. In Norway, two reports [22,23] have concluded that students' learning depends on how digital tools are implemented and how these tools are used within the pedagogical situation. It is therefore important to look at which factors are important for CL to achieve discussion and reflection, thereby facilitating in-depth learning and collaboration, when students complete assignments. An understanding of the factors that facilitate students' collaboration is critical to understanding how this approach to learning can be used more effectively in online courses in higher education.
The aim of the study was to describe, explore, and discuss how students undertaking an online course collaborated in small groups. Our research question was therefore: How did the students collaborate in small groups to achieve learning online?
We adopted a social-constructivist approach to learning in this study. This approach emphasizes that understanding CL and the various roles students have in the learning process requires examining the interaction that is taking place and the context of this interaction [16,[24][25][26][27]. In this approach learning is seen as a dynamic social process where increased knowledge is considered a consequence of social interaction.
When the study was conducted, all master's students at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, had completed an online course in the philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods (MaMet).
Each programme of study created in MaMet its own assignments, making them relevant to their specific professions/programmes and ensuring an appropriate level of difficulty for all students. The courses were run at different time periods for each programme and by teacher associated with that specific programme. In some programmes, this was the only online course, others programmes had several online courses. A key learning method in this course was CL in small groups, through written assignments and peer reviewing of fellow students' assignments.

Description of MaMet
The online course in philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods was completed in 11 master's programmes, and each study programme was responsible for administering the course by facilitating, guiding and following the students over the course of this module in their master's programme. The number of students enrolled in each programme differed, ranging from 12 to 90. MaMet is grounded on a small-scale online course, where there is planned discussion and feedback among teachers and students throughout the whole course. Student activity and CL are a cornerstone in the pedagogical and didactical thinking in MaMet, and work in small groups, with assignments, is the most prominent methodology in implementation of the course. By completing every problem-based assignment in the course, students gain the knowledge and skills to be able to design their own study protocol. The digital resources in MaMet include design focusing on learning outcomes, enabling students to develop the ability to understand and perform research projects.
Each small group in the study consisted of the same students throughout the whole course and included three to five students. Group members were responsible for the work processes of the group, how task problems were solved, when and how the group members met and the collaborative structure within the group. Group composition and the content of assignments were defined by the master's programme. The groups did not have supervisors for small-group collaboration.

Methods
This case study involved individual and focus group interviews with master's students in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, to gain feedback about their experience of collaborative online learning in small groups in an online course. By conducting a qualitative case study, we were able to generate an in-depth understanding of a complex issue in a real-life context [28,29].
The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD 60336) and the academic institution. All the participants gave written consent after receiving written and oral information about the study and were given the option to withdraw from the study if they wanted to. All data were anonymized and kept confidential, in compliance with the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
We conducted both focus-group and individual interviews because some participants felt that taking part in focus groups with their fellow students would be difficult as their experiences were connected to collaboration with peers. Differentiation of focus-group or individual interviews was done in collaboration with the participants, and with a focus on including students from all the master's programmes who had completed the online course in philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods. Given that the participants completed the 15-ECTS programme at different points during the year, it was not possible to combine students from different programmes in the focus group interview.

Participants and settings
Participants for the individual and focus group interviews were selected by means of purposeful sampling. This sampling method enabled us to include participants who could contribute information relevant to the aim of the study [28,29]. Participants were master's students who had participated in the 15-ECTS-credit online course in philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods. A total of 260 students completed the course, split into 65 small groups, and these students received a written invitation (via the online course) to participate in the study and an oral invitation (when attending lectures on campus). Thirty students from all 11 master's programmes expressed an interest in taking part, and all 30 were included. We conducted six focus group meetings and 13 individual interviews. The 30 participants represented 25 different groups. Two of 30 participants were males, which reflects the overall gender distribution in the programmes. Each focus group consisted of between two and six students.

Data collection
The same person (MJH) moderated all individual and focus group interviews, and IR co-moderated the focus group interviews conducted between February 2018 and May 2019. MJH had not been involved in development of the online course and had never met the students before. The focus group interviews were conducted face to face. Some individual interviews were conducted over the phone if that best suited the students. We conducted focus group interviews since our understanding is that students will be influenced by and have an influence on others present, providing a collection of rich and meaningful data [30,31]. We believe that interaction through focus groups can inspire students to reflect and talk about the challenges associated with the topic. To facilitate this interaction, we conducted the focus group interviews in settings free of disturbance, on campus. The interviewer made all the arrangements regarding time and place, in agreement with the students.
The data collection was conducted within 2 months of the course ending. In this way, the students would still be able to remember their experiences while, at the same time, having a certain amount of distance from them. The themes in the semi-structured interview guide were as follows: a typical day (what activities/ events took place and when); use of resources; motivation for online learning; collaboration in students' respective small groups; and collaboration with teachers and fellow students. If any theme was not mentioned by the students during the conversation, the interviewer asked about it. The interviews lasted from 30 to 75 min, until data saturation occurred [31,32]. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by MJH and KAA and approved by all the authors, ensuring that no essential information was lost during the transcription process.

Data analysis
We used content analysis to analyse the data [30,33], starting with all three authors reading and re-reading the interviews to get an overall impression of the data. Two of the researchers (MJH and KAA) worked separately and divided the text into units of meaning. They then grouped and coded these. This was done for each interview. We compared and discussed the codes across the interviews, before identifying categories. All interviews were then analysed again, with a focus on codes extracted to form categories. At the end of the analysis process, we created a condensed narrative with quotes, to illustrate what appeared in the categories. Relevant subthemes were identified to highlight key similarities and differences in the three main themes, based on what we found in the data. All three researchers discussed the sub-categories and further abstracted and reorganized these into themes and subthemes. Table 1 gives examples of the abstraction process from meaning units, code, and themes to subthemes. The condensed narrative formed the basis for the results presented.

Subthemes
"By collaborating online, we had to have strict rules within the group, so we didn't spend time interrupting each other. We met on a regular basis since none of the group members lived in the same city, and it was great starting at times that matched our schedule. It made the work flexible. We solved all the assignments in collaboration, and all the members had a common responsibility for the assignments. " Interview 8 "We tried to distribute the task so that those who felt that they had not understood an area so well had to take on responsibility for that part of the task. We agreed that we had to do this for the sake of learning. Then we met again when we had worked on the task and discussed [it] and tried to put everything together. If there was anyone who disagreed with something, we changed it together. " Interview 16 "I experienced that I learned more by participating in discussions with my peers and solving tasks together than spending time alone with my books. You have to participate and take responsibility for your own learning to be able to contribute. " Interview 13 "We think it has been very educational, to be able to discuss with our fellow students the different tasks.

Results
Our analytical process revealed themes and subthemes underpinning experiences essential to understanding how students collaborated in small groups in an online course. We found that when students were collaborating online in a group, the groups developed different strategies to solve the course assignments. All groups had the same goal for their work but used different working processes to reach that goal. Figure 1 summarizes the three different working processes that emerged: 1. joint responsibility -flexible organization; 2. individual responsibility -flexible organization; and 3. individual responsibility -unorganized. The different working processes reflected the main characteristics of the group. We found seven subthemes that characterized the work process: understanding of the tasks, expectation of the group members, responsibility for the group work, preparedness for the group meetings, organization of the group work, group loyalty, and responsibility for fellow students' learning. Each group seemed to maintain its working process throughout the online course, even if students told us that they experienced, as the work progressed, that there could be other and more appropriate ways of collaborating to complete the various assignments. The students' explanation for not attempting to change their working process, was that they wanted to avoid conflicts and damage the atmosphere in the group. There is no point in complaining, it will not solve the problem, only cause unpleasant feelings. " Interview 13.
Regardless of which working processes the students engaged in, the students reported that group assignments were important for learning philosophy and methods relevant to science, and that problem-based assignments enabled them to use all the learning resources in the online course as the assignments were so closely linked to the learning resources. Furthermore, the students stated that it was important to continue the collaboration with the same students throughout the whole course. The topics were complex and difficult to understand, and by having the same group members, the working process was more predictable. The students also thought that the group sizes were appropriate.

Joint responsibility -flexible organization
These students reported that they were prepared and informed about the assignments ahead of them. The work was characterized by joint responsibility and had a clear structure and framework to promote collaboration. The structure was such that there was still some flexibility, and it could be adjusted during the working process to suit the needs of the groups. There was a loyalty in relation to the work process to be carried out, and group members' level of participation was high. This working process was characterized by discussion and reflection on the assignments and an understanding that learning was promoted through the group working process. The groups worked independently, with less need for input from the teachers.
"By collaborating online, we had to have strict rules within the group, so we didn't spend time interrupting each other. We met on a regular basis since none of the group members lived in the same city, and it was great starting at times that matched our schedule. It made the work flexible. We solved all the assignments in collaboration, and all the members had a common responsibility for the assignments. " Interview 8.
We found that with this model (joint responsibilityflexible organization), the groups collaborated in different ways to solve the assigned problem. In some of the groups, the students started the work together, distributing the work among group members, and then came together to discuss progress, distributing further work within the group as required. The work was characterized by short meetings to clarify a common understanding and to distribute responsibilities. Other groups spent a long time on the working processes and did all the work together online, focusing on common understanding.
"We met every day at 10. Sometimes we discussed in a videoconference, sometimes just chatting, or emailing. We divided the task and had individual responsibility. But at the same tame we gave both written and orally feedback on fellow students work. So, we had an individual part, but were involved in the whole task" Interview 13 Despite some differences in working processes, the main characteristic of collaboration was that the groups had a mutual aim (i.e., that all students in the group had a common understanding of the task in hand and respective contributions), and they consequently took responsibility for their own and fellow students' learning.

Individual responsibility -flexible organization
In this working process, the rationale for the online course and how the assignments would contribute to the students becoming qualified professionals was less clear to the students. Consequently, the group members had varying degrees of preparedness, and use of the digital learning resources was more fragmented and limited to the assignments that the group had to complete.

"I don't understand why I need philosophy and method in my profession. I am not going to be a scientist, I am supposed to be [an anaesthetic nurse, operating room nurse, intensive care nurse]. I really don't see the point. I believe only those who actually want to do a master thesis should do this. " Interview 7.
When these students met for the first time, they were not prepared. They organized the work by dividing the assignments into smaller sections, and they completed different sections of the overall assignment separately, bringing their respective contributions together to assemble an answer at the end. In this collaboration process, work was also distributed within groups differently. Assignments were tackled either by distributing an entire task to each of the members or by dividing the relevant task into smaller units so that each student contributed to each task. In both approaches, individuals had responsibility for completing part of the overall task.
"We organized the group by delegating one assignment to two group members at a time. Meaning that two students had the main responsibility for one assignment, and the other members gave some comments on the work. This gave us a greater flexibility and not so much work. But I don't have so much knowledge and control over the themes that I didn't have responsibility over. " Interview 10. In this working model (individual responsibility -flexible organization), there was less focus on meeting one another to discuss the work in progress, but rather, a greater focus on delivering a product -the assignment. Discussion about the product was characterized by whether the assignment contained what it needed for it to be approved, and there was less discussion of the group members' understanding of the task. Group members' input tended to be presented to the group individually, rather than during group discussion, which could result in a situation with two conflicting inputs. It was thus up to the person responsible for delivering the assignment to assess which input should be considered or whether the input should be considered at all.
"I wanted the answer to be the best possible. Everyone did their part and pasted it into the document. And then almost nothing happened. We were left with a fragmented answer with many yellow boxes and comments on the page. I had to take responsibility for the last bit to put [it all] together and make it a whole. Students stopped contributing when they felt they had finished with their part Often I had the impression that they did not care and that the focus was elsewhere. " Interview 12

Individual responsibility -unorganized
This working process had no group structure because how the work was organized depended on individuals taking responsibility on behalf of the group. The main characteristic of this working process was that the student(s) who took responsibility were the same throughout the online course, and these students were highly motivated. They recognized the importance of learning and therefore knew how to go about solving the assignment. This working process lacked structure and organization, and there was an absence of cooperation and discussion. Most of the group members gave their input only when the product was available.
"It became an extra workload on my account, because I felt that I had to do the assignments so that we could deliver a product. You depend on those who are supposed to participate to take responsibility for their own learning. There is no point in complaining, it will not solve the problem, only cause unpleasant feelings. " Interview 13. In this working process, one or two students in each group were responsible for the work. Group members who did not take any responsibility only attended group meetings when these did not conflict with their own needs or priorities. Group dynamics existed to a limited extent because the groups were characterized by an absence of participation, discussion and flexibility among group members. Those individuals who took responsibility had little opportunity to assume responsibility for anything other than their own learning and understanding, but they expressed the desire for a community where they could share knowledge through discussion and reflection and thus enable everyone to gain greater knowledge.
"It gave an unpleasant feeling -the responsibility of doing the assignments on your own. I didn't feel we were a group who could share and help each other.
We didn't share common responsibility, and therefore we lost the possibility for discussions and reflection. I believe we could have had more; we could have achieved better learning if we had worked differently. " Interview 14.

Discussion
The aim of the study was to describe, explore, and discuss how students undertaking an online course collaborated in small groups. Overall, students reported a positive experience of studying the philosophy of science and methods in an online context, and most of the students reported that working in small groups was essential for learning complex aspects of this subject. The participants in our study reported that group size (three-five) was a significant characteristic for the work process, along with a reciprocal blend of digital resources and assignments. These characteristics and continuity of group members throughout the online course made it possible to complete and deliver complex assignments. Our findings are in line with factors identified by Scager [20] as being important when working together. By working in small groups, the students experienced a level of support and understanding among their fellow students, and the fact that all assignments in the online course were groupbased forced them to collaborate to achieve the learning outcomes.
Even though the students thought that CL was essential for their learning, not all reflected on the relationship between the working processes within the group and their learning. We found that the different working processes adopted during the online course could be differentiated into three main group working processes. These processes were not all focused on collaborative learning. Rather, some focused more on the students' own learning and competencies. These findings are in line with those of Johnson et al. [13], who also found variations in smallgroup working. The three main working processes were consistent throughout the whole online course. Although some students felt that the work process could have been better, and that they therefore had to do additional work, they resisted changing the process in fear of ruining the atmosphere in the group.
Among the groups using working process number 1, two approaches to the organization of work could be observed, meaning that the students often had meetings, but how they met and collaborated was different. Some groups met and distributed the work, clarifying assignments, discussing different opinions and interpretations, and coming to an agreement and common understanding. They worked on their specific set of tasks and then met again to finalize the work and complete the assignment. The other approach was to have a discussion and work together towards completion of the assignment, changing the campus group to an online group, focusing on collaborating in real time. Students in groups using both forms worked together and discussed all parts of the tasks as a team to complete different aspects of the complex assignments As some students expressed; "I experienced that I learned more by participating in discussions with my peers and solving tasks together than spending time alone with my books" Interview 13. They involved themselves and their fellow students and were committed to working as a team and to the subject matter [20,34].
In working process number 2 (individual responsibility, with flexible organization), students acted more as individual contributors than as team members. The students' started their collaboration by dividing the assignment into different sub-assignments, with students taking individual responsibility for their task. Groups used a "stapler" (as described by Scager [20]), i.e., a group member who was responsible for integrating each student's work into a group paper. The groups did not seek to establish common knowledge or a shared understanding of the topic, and each student had individual responsibility for seeking out the necessary knowledge to complete his or her contribution to the assignment. Due to a lack of continuity in their interaction and collaboration, these groups might have lost the potential learning effect of collaboration. Johnson and Johnson [35] have called this behaviour "pseudo learning". Although a sense of team cohesiveness is maintained through equal contributions from each member and by agreeing on distribution of the workload, this method of organizing work does not ensure that students perceive their work as an activity which facilitates learning; rather, they see it more as a way to "get the job done".
Students adopting working process number 3 (individual responsibility, with unorganized groups) were organized as a group but did not act as a group, and the groups did not organize themselves. Only one or a few students took responsibility and got involved in the work, while the other group members did not participate in smallgroup collaboration. The students who took responsibility worked and collaborated in many of the ways that the students in working process 1 did, taking responsibility, using available resources and completing the assignments. As stated in one of the interviews -"we were two who took responsibility, and we sent documents and discussions back and forth between the two of us. That worked very well, but the rest of the group were absent, and that felt wrong" Interview 11.
Bliss and Lawrence [36] claim that one of the biggest obstacles to group learning is students who do not participate. Our findings demonstrate that this can indeed be a problem. The students who became involved were deprived of the benefits that could be achieved through discussion. This has also been reported by Bliss and Lawrence [36] and Liu and Tsai [37]. On the other hand, these students became well acquainted with the subject matter and were able to complete the assignments.
Our findings suggest that how students perceive the subject they are studying is related to the importance of the subject. Another key factor affecting adoption of collaborative work practices is having a common understanding of the subject and students' expectations regarding their own level of participation in the subject. The students who organized their work using working process number 1 had a common understanding of the collaboration within the group. This made the members aware of what to do and their expectations of one another. It is uncertain whether all members fully recognized the meaning of the objectives of the online course, but how the group organized the work could have led to a common understanding. There was a random composition of the groups, and how all members within one group perceived the objectives of the course is uncertain. It may have been the case that members in groups focusing on individual responsibility could initially have had the same opinions as those working with joint responsibility. It seems that how the group organized (or did not organize) the work affected the students' understanding of the course in philosophy and science, and this understanding could have changed because of the different working processes. Lave and Wenger [26] stated that active participation in the social context creates what they do as a group. It is more likely that the working processes arose due to a lack of understanding of the consequences of different group working processes for both individual members' and fellow students' learning, and the strategies used by the group at the outset persisted throughout the whole online course. The students who used working process number 3 had also not clarified the working process in advance, and this way of organizing the group seemed to leave the responsibility to a few members and not the entire group.
All three working processes identified seem to be in line with the definition of collaborative learning that emphasizes collaboration (cooperation) to achieve common goals [12,13]. It is uncertain whether all working processes facilitate an individual's own learning and that of others in small groups equally well. When learning is understood as a dynamic social process where knowledge is considered a response to social interaction, and a prerequisite is discussion and reflection on everyone's contributions, it seems that not all of the three working processes identified in our study can be understood as CL.
The working process joint responsibility and flexible organization encouraged discussion and reflection, with all group members developing an understanding of the assignments. Many studies have found that in-depth learning is achieved through discussion and reflection with peers [17][18][19][20][21][22], and we found that students working with joint responsibility acted in line with this definition of in-depth learning. In this working process, the students had shared responsibility for assignments and a common understanding of the work, with all participants acquiring greater knowledge and understanding of all parts of the tasks. Through sharing responsibility, group discussions and feedback, the students not only acted as a group but more like a team. Bang and Midelfart [38] define a team as a group that has a task for which the group members are collectively responsible and where they are interdependent.
The three different collaboration processes adopted during the online course that we studied do not differ significantly from how students collaborate in in-person courses as shown in the literature [13,[19][20][21][22]. It seems that students adopt the same patterns and structures independently from the context they operate in. This could indicate that students collaborate and are influenced by the same factors regardless of where the collaboration takes place.

Strengths and limitations
This case study gave us the opportunity to explore, in depth and over time, students' experience of collaborative learning in small groups in online courses. Since there is little research (to the best of our knowledge) on how students learn in online subjects that are part of an otherwise campus-based education, it was important for us to gain an insight into different approaches to collaboration. This study was based on semi-structured interviews with students in relation to one case. We have described the case thoroughly so that readers can understand and recognize the parameters and relate them to their own situation [20,39]. In this way, the findings may be useful in designing and implementing similar online courses. The small number of students in some of the focus groups and the fact that the students came from the same programme could be a limitation of the study. Students from the same programme may have been too self-conscious to reveal certain aspects of group work in front of their peers. Some students mentioned this, so we conducted individual interviews. However, there may have been students who also felt the same without saying so. Having only two to five students in each group did not enable the full benefits of the group processes to be revealed in such groups [32]. Author IR was present during the focus groups interviews as a co-moderator. If the students knew that he was one of the course designers and the person who solved their technical problems this may have influenced the participants' responses.
Another strength, yet also a possible weakness, of the study is that KAA and IR were the ones who developed the online course. This gave them an understanding of the challenges and strengths of the course, but at the same time, they had to work to maintain an analytical distance from the data. The third researcher was not directly involved in development of the course and could therefore view the data impartially.

Conclusions
This study contributes to knowledge of how students working in groups approach learning and identifies important factors about collaborative learning during online courses. This knowledge may be useful for educators designing and facilitating online courses and for instructors supervising groups. This study shows that even if design factors are the same (e.g., group size, challenging and relevant assignments, and student autonomy in terms of being able to organize group working processes), the working process that each group chooses can differ.
Although the identified working processes were found to promote collaboration only one working process promoted group discussion of all parts of the tasks, working as a team completing different aspects of complex assignments. Future online teaching might require an even stronger focus on students' internal motivation for learning and the importance of teacher presence and teachers' ability to facilitate online education.
Abbreviations CL: Collaborative learning; MaMet: Online course in the philosophy of science and methods; ECTS credits: European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System.


The Impacts of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on Freshmen’s Vocabulary Acquisition and Their Perspectives

This action research aims to explore the impacts of Mobile–Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on freshmen’s vocabulary acquisition as well as their perspectives towards this learning approach. Twenty-six students at Thanh Dong University, Hai Duong province, Vietnam, participated in the eight-week intervention in semester 2, the academic year 2020 – 2021. The researchers employed pre-test, post-test as well as delayed post-test, attitudinal questionnaire and semi-structured interview to triangulate the collected data. T-test and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were calculated via SPSS 25 to determine the validity and internal consistency reliability of the research. The findings indicated that the MALL-integrated classrooms not only provided a significantly enriched vocabulary achievement among participants but also promoted their motivation towards the use of MALL to enhance their lexical knowledge. Some pedagogical implications have been additionally recommended for educators in teaching vocabulary and in future research on the development of a MALL-enhanced framework for vocabulary acquisition.

INTRODUCTION
Over a decade has passed since the introduction of smartphones, and researchers have been looking at the use of cellphones in the classroom and for learning purposes; ever then, researchers discovered that both instructors and students think cellphones are a useful learning tool. Thus, they conducted in-depth investigations into how smartphones might be used to improve education in the classroom ( [20](Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). A positive response has been obtained by the production of vocabulary apps and the combination of such applications on Android or iOS smartphones resulting in the development of many programs for installation on Android smartphones as well as iOS smartphones. Mobile devices make it easy to acquire knowledge while on the move for the majority of educational activities, including foreign language acquisition. Among the merits of mobile devices in language learning, according to [28] Nguyen (2016), are the ability for learners to become more engaged in learning materials and to choose activities that are most suited to their individual needs. By expanding the number of individuals who use mobile devices for language learning, it is probable that new environments for language learning will develop. As a result, further study on MALL should be conducted to enhance the teaching and learning process. While conducting the study, the researchers would like to get insight into not only the impacts of MALL but also the attitudes of students about it when they utilize mobile devices to learn English at Thanh Dong University (TDU).

Vocabulary
The terminology "vocabulary" has many meanings based on its features, functions, and situations. [35] Soltani (2011) claims vocabulary is the essential factor connecting the four language skills in EFL. Having a good vocabulary helps you to understand what you hear, read, and write. [4] Brown (2000) defines vocabulary as a list or collection of terms that a language's speakers may employ. [3] Benettayeb (2010) defines vocabulary as the total number of words in a language. The learner would be unable to use and understand the target language without it. [22] Lewis (1993) asserts that "lexis is the heart of language" (p. 89). [33] Schmitt (2020) agrees that lexical items play such a crucial role when learners communicate that no messages are definitely produced or delivered without grammar or linguistics. Also, vocabulary is indicated as language's words, both singular and plural. The vocabulary definition seems to be more thorough and updated for this research.
According to [11] Day and Bamford (2005), vocabulary is an aspect connecting language abilities in EFL that learners are required to successfully listen, speak, read, and write. A lexical unit is a set of words that are used together to form a sentence. Researchers have created an outline of vocabulary concepts using the following definitions. Thus, instructors must help children discover and develop a lexical foundation with the aim to succeed in language acquisition and reading in particular.

Vocabulary's functional role in foreign language teaching and learning
Vocabulary is the smallest unit of a language. Communication is impossible without words. "Without grammar, very little can be conveyed," writes [41] Wilkins (1972, p.ll). This implies the importance of vocabulary. With just a few words in their head, individuals cannot express themselves or comprehend printed materials. Linguistic development requires vocabulary learning. To comprehend the target language's written and spoken forms, learners must have specific vocabulary knowledge. Lack of knowledge of the target language's lexis prevents second language learners from understanding and communicating in it. Students with big vocabularies comprehend under layered concepts at a faster speed than ones with little vocabularies ( [18] Khachai, 2016).
The lowest unit of every language, according to [30] Pigada and Schmitt (2006), is the vocabulary. Thus, vocabulary is essential and plays a crucial function. The ability to communicate successfully with others depends on excellent vocabulary. To produce English in both spoken and written performance, learners must acquire a particular vocabulary. Vocabulary is the most important component of EFL since it connects the four skills. [25] Meara (1994) claims two methods of vocabulary acquisition regarding incidental and intentional learning. While instructors guide students in purposeful learning, accidental learning happens without their knowledge.

Incidental and intentional vocabulary learning
Linguists define incidental vocabulary acquisition. Incidental vocabulary acquisition is described as an essential technique in vocabulary learning ( [27] Nation, 1983). Reading, for example, may increase vocabulary knowledge unconsciously.
[25] Meara (1994) categorizes vocabulary acquisition. Intentional or conscious learning is distinguished from accidental learning. Incidental learning, he says. In his view, accidental learning is not like purposeful learning, which is planned by instructors or students. That is, as students engage in activities like reading, speaking, doing, and engaging with others, they learn vocabulary. Incidental learning is described as learning something without trying to do so ( [31] Richards & Lockhart, 1994). It may also be described as a technique of learning either receptive or productive language skills to language usage while focusing on sections or texts. This approach involves considerable reading, listening to tales, viewing English movies, or participating in discussion outside or within classes, according to [30] Pigada and Schmitt (2006).
Intentional vocabulary acquisition is a popular and conventional technique of teaching vocabulary. [21] Kweon & Kim (2008) term it the planned approach, which uses activities to extract forms chosen by instructors. It takes too long and is too difficult for learners to acquire language this way. Furthermore, purposeful vocabulary education involves bringing students' attention directly to the form and meaning of words via then, they use dictionaries or are provided with vocabulary lists, or even get teachers' explanations instantly. Intentional learning is fast and favored; yet, it has drawbacks. Many students encounter language in isolation and are unable to use it properly in context. [15] Joseph (2011) cited student mistakes. As an example, they confused "live" and "stay" with "we lived in a hotel for a week" since they only studied forms and their

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621
Chinese counterparts, not collocation and connection between words. Hence, they misused language. This shows students depend on memory and ignore semantics.

Key concepts
Terminologies for mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) are always evolving. A lot of people disagree on what "mobility" means. For certain ideas in mobile learning, scholars have been looking for a complete, universal, and satisfying description.
The word "mobility" connotes a lot of different things. On the other hand, according to [20] Kukulska-Hulme (2009), the phrase "mobile learning" has two distinct meanings. For example, "mobile technologies" are portable and available at any time. It is also possible to define "mobility" as "mobility of the learner," i.e., the learner accessing knowledge from various locations and times. To define mobility, [ Mobile learning is a rapidly evolving area with many devices and apps. Mobile learning devices include basic single-purpose devices like music players, as well as multi-purpose high-tech gadgets like mobile phones and personal digital assistants, according to [39] Trinder (2005). This author suggests using mobile devices such as phones and GPS devices, and laptop computers to store and play MP3s or MP4s. Despite efforts to utilize these devices in artificial learning environments for experimental reasons, MALL has rapidly been taken many advantages when being used as excellent language learning materials.
An analysis in a recent [14] International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2009) study pointed out that cellphones are the most commonly possessed and utilized mobile learning instruments, with about 4.6 billion subscribers worldwide. This number has been rapidly rising due to advances in the rapid growth of the mobile market. Mobile phones are used globally due to a few reasons. First, even the simplest phones include SMS (Short Message Service) functions, alarm clocks, and calendars to  Thornton and Houser (2005), students with MALL lessons could achieve new words more successfully than ones in a traditional classroom. According to [24] Lu (2008), the cellphone is a more effective lexical learning aid than conventional methods. But he emphasizes the value of involvement in the learning process. The same research found that students who read vocabulary messages often performed better on post-tests than students who viewed vocabulary messages seldom. In recent research, [7] Chinnery (2006) utilized mobile phones to access the Internet for educational reasons. They found that students were encouraged and stimulated to learn on WAP sites and had favorable views about utilizing those high-tech devices for MALL.
According to the aforementioned researches, mobile phones are used for education due to their access, low expenses, convenience and practicality. To better understand the benefits of utilizing MALL as a supplement, it is helpful to look at the benefits of using various MALL devices individually. For starters, mobile phones liberate students from location and time constraints, which is extremely encouraging. Students are more motivated to study when they may choose when and where they learn. Smartphones allow students to connect to the internet and access information at any time and place. [26] Nah, White, and Sussex (2008) showed that WAP sites were beneficial for EFL listening skills improvement and functioned as excellent supplemental learning methods to be utilized frequently outside the classroom. Other benefits of utilizing mobile phones as additional MALL devices include their low cost, large bandwidth ( [14] ITU, 2009) of GSM servers and integration of many sophisticated capabilities in one device.

Challenges
Despite its many benefits, MALL may be harmful to both instructors and students. Studies performed thus far have shown both good and negative results, indicating that MALL is not as successful as previously believed. The challenges of utilizing MALL in education have also been noted ( One of the most used MALL devices, mobile phones, have been criticized for their small screens and one-finger data input ([17] Chinnery, 2006). These characteristics make mobile devices unsuitable for developing writing abilities. They also say that mobile phones are not appropriate devices for learning new material but may be used for reviewing and practice. From PC email users to mobile email users to face-to-face speaking learners, [19] Kiernan and Aizawa (2004) compared students' foreign language accomplishments across three categories. The students in the "mobile phone e-mail user group" were unable to finish the narrative assignments on time, while all the other students were successful. This inability to finish the narrative assignments on time may be due to one-finger data input and may indicate that MALL does not always improve all abilities in foreign language acquisition. Users' outcomes are increasingly recognized with visual products rather than verbal communication, which results in a failure in oral interaction.

Theoretical framework
The literature provides many definitions of attitudes, each depending on the research's viewpoint on attitudes. The primary framework for MALL attitude still has three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The first component -Cognitive, deals with students' views of both the usefulness and simplicity of the use of mobile devices to learn English. It focuses on students' pleasure, enthusiasm, and fear while utilizing mobile devices to study. Behavioral offers information on the students' future decisions regarding employing mobile devices to study, whether or not they require assistance. Besides, the affective component indicates students' feelings and emotions towards using mobile in English learning.

Attitude towards MALL
Most academics believe that the majority of study on vocabulary acquisition through mobile devices focuses on effectiveness and attitude, typically via sending SMS to students ([43] Yang, 2012). [37] Thornton & Houser's (2005) research is an early example. The authors compared the efficacy of vocabulary acquisition through email, mobile phones, and paper. Three times a day for two weeks, students were given vocabulary lessons. Five target words each week were defined, used in a variety of situations, reviewed, and incorporated into narrative episodes. In the first experiment, students were split into two groups of 13. They looked at two texts. Each set taught 10 words over 2 weeks. The first group received the messaging three times daily through Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621 email, whereas the second was strongly advised to study the identical material on a mobile website. Students who got lessons through email on their phones acquired more vocabulary than those who received lessons online, by 75% and 35%, respectively. A second experiment split students into two groups. This time, 43 individuals learned the language on paper, while 25 others learned it through email delivered via mobile phones. The group taught through email outperformed the group taught via paper and pen in this second trial, confirming Thornton & Houser's initial experiment ( [37] Thornton & Houser 2005). The Paper group averaged 3.8 while the Mail group averaged 6.4. The two studies performed by [37] Thornton & Houser (2005) showed that students acquired more vocabulary when taught through email. The students' views about using a website that included explanations, quizzes, and videos about English idioms were also examined. This website was rated by 31 students who stated their preference of using the website and judging on their scores.
[24] Lu (2008) examined the efficacy of vocabulary acquisition through mobile phones with Taiwanese EFL students. The research included 30 people. Their English proficiency was moderate. The participants were split into two groups, a control and an experimental group, based on their class ranks in the S-shape distribution. Her study included providing one group vocabulary lessons through SMS and the other using print materials. After two weeks of testing, both groups had improved from pre-test to post-test. The experimental group outperformed the control group in the delayed posttest, although the trend remained the same. For the delayed posttest, none of the improvements were statistically significant. To acquire vocabulary through mobile phones, [24] Lu (2008) interviewed learners. They were asked to rank affirmations from 1 to 5 on a scale. Overall, participants considered the mobile approach appealing and handy. They also felt that mobile phones helped them acquire language. They said they liked learning through mobile phones and wanted to keep doing so.
[28] Nguyen (2016) conducted a survey on student preparedness in the context of language instruction in Vietnam. The findings show that most participants had cellphones and that 67% of them utilized them to study a language. The poll findings indicate that students like MALL. 35 % of participants thought the courses were extremely efficient, and 45 % said they were efficient with mobile learning. [28] Nguyen (2016) concluded from his survey that mobile learning might be used to teach and learn the Vietnamese language. [12] Do (2020) studied participants' views towards MALL.
The study's objectives were accomplished using a mixed-method research design using a survey questionnaire as the primary data collecting instrument. Both qualitative and quantitative statistics show that participants had favorable views about MALL in the classroom and MALL in general.
English language education and learning should embrace MALL as a new method.
The majority of the empirical overseas and domestic researches cited above demonstrate the use of mobile technology for language learning. Most of the studies employed the experimental design, mixedmethod design or survey design. In the Vietnam teaching context, there has been a shortage of research articles investigating the application of MALL in classroom settings, especially utilizing action research design. Therefore, the authors decided to conduct a project serving the aims of exploring the effects of MALL on vocabulary development and students' perspectives towards this technologyassisted teaching in the way of action research. [9] Cresswell (2014) delves into the fundamental characteristics of action research. To begin with, researchers undertake action research to examine practical problems and attempt to resolve an urgent, real-world problem. Moreover, action research enables educators to get a greater understanding of and improvement in their educational methods. Another feature of action research is that it entails the involvement of many people and organizations, with responsibilities that may change and be negotiated. In addition, action research is a "spiral of actions" that includes constant reflection on the issue, data gathering, and action. Finally, an action research's outcome may be readily communicated and implemented instantly among teachers, school staff, parent organizations, and other stakeholders.

Research design
After weighing the aforementioned features, the researchers chose action research as the research method for this study in order to evaluate their own practices in teaching and learning vocabulary and to identify suitable techniques to enhance their students' vocabulary knowledge.

Research questions
This study aims to explore the influences of MALL on students' vocabulary acquisition and their perceptions towards this technology-based teaching approach at TDU. Therefore, the researchers

Setting and participants
The research included twenty-six first-year students from 1A11-QTKD and 1A11-CNTT at Thanh Dong University, Hai Duong province, Vietnam. Prior to starting the MALL study, the teacher-researchers solicited volunteers from students in the class. The teacher-researchers made it very apparent to them that participating in this study or not would have no effect on their class grades, and all twenty-six students were eager to participate. The class is comprised of 26 students from the Departments of Business Administration and Information Technology. Table 1 shows details about participants' age and gender distribution.
The participants consisted of 73.08% females and 25.92% males with an average age of 20.0 years old. They hail from several regions in Northern Vietnam. Some of them spent seven years in high school learning English. Some have learned in as little as three years. As a result, their English proficiency was varied. However, they had only completed the first term at the time of the research, and their English proficiency was expected to be the relatively elementary level of proficiency.

Pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test
Pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test was used to assess the impact of MALL on freshmen's vocabulary acquisition. In order to prevent students from using memory methods to recall words, the same test content with different order was performed without their knowledge. The quantitative data gathered from those tests was to assess the treatment's impact. To ensure the test's dependability, students were also told that the findings would not influence their grades.
The vocabulary test was assessed using [13] Horst's (2005) vocabulary self-report checklist. The test consisted of 150 words, with three options: YES (I know what this word means), NS (not sure -I have an idea what this word means, but I am not sure) and NO (I do not know what this term means). The NS option allows learners to record incomplete word knowledge. It was also meant to promote honesty because students would be less likely to over-or underestimate their word knowledge if they weren't forced to pick between YES or NO. To enhance test reliability, students were asked to define the term in either English or Vietnamese if they chose YES. According to [13] Horst (2005), the exam is simple to create, administer, and score. The words in the test were chosen based on the Cambridge A2 Key Vocabulary list.

Questionnaire
At the conclusion of the study, participants were given a questionnaire about the MALL program. Some questions were modified from [12] Do (2020), which also seeks to assess participants' views. The researchers utilized both positive and negative items to prevent bias. All products directly answered the study's second research question. The Likert scale was used to easily quantify and evaluate the answers.
Respondents were asked to rate the ten items by selecting one of five options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. For this reason, students received a multilingual questionnaire in the final week of the study period.
So that the questionnaire would be legitimate and reliable, it was presented to a group of English instructors with a Master's Degree for feedback and modification at TDU and UNETI.
Indicators were measured correctly. The internal consistency of a multi-item questionnaire is evaluated by the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Between .00 and 1.0 is the typical range. Because the Cronbach's alpha value was above 0.80, the reliability findings indicated that all questions were designed similarly.

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621
In short, the questionnaire was valid and reliable. Table 2 shows a Cronbach's alpha of 0.88. [10] Dahlberg & McCaig (2010) argue that semistructured interviews allow researchers to get a better understanding of participants' sentiments and emotions regarding a specific subject of interest. The researchers conducted individual interviews in Vietnamese with individuals to better understand their feelings and perspectives. The interview was comprised of open-ended questions designed to corroborate and validate the questionnaire's findings. As a result, poor notes and a lack of rapport between interviewer and interviewee may result from this data collection tool. As a consequence, [34] Seliger & Shohamy (1989) advise using a tape recorder during interviews for subsequent transcription and analysis. The discussion was radio-recorded and transcribed for analysis, then given to students for review before completing the study.

The impacts of MALL on students' vocabulary acquisition
This section talks about how participants' vocabulary improved between pre-and post-tests. A new procedure using independent t-tests examines test results to measure the importance of word-form and word-meaning improvements. Such tests typically study the evolution of word use as a group across time. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of the scores that students achieved on the vocabulary tests.
To evaluate learning improvements, the researchers compared the number of terms that scored YES (I understand the meaning of this word) with the correct meaning on the pre-and immediate post-tests. At the conclusion of the six-week study, all participants scored higher on the 15-word exam than they did at the start. The pre-and post-tests confirmed that the terms scored YES in the pre-test were likewise rated YES in the post-tests. Additionally, almost all YES-marked words with incorrect meaning at the start were likewise marked YES in the post-test with the correct meaning. Students' immediate post-test scores (M = 98.57, SD = 16.34) are higher than their pre-test scores (M = 59.46, SD = 5.70), as shown in Table 2. Particularly, there was a 39.11 point increase between the pre-and immediate post-test. The pre-and immediate post-test standard deviations were 5.70 and 16.34, respectively, significantly less than the averages. This implies that participants improved their vocabulary scores by an average of nearly 39 points on the immediate post-test. The averages and standard deviations indicated that the student's vocabulary knowledge had improved.
A paired-sample t-test was used to assess if the difference in means between these two tests is significant at p < 0.05. The findings indicated that the crucial value of p was 25 for a two-tailed test with one degree of freedom. The difference in averages between the pre-and immediate post-tests is examined, t = -12.70, p =.000 (< 0.05). The pairedsample t-test findings showed that the difference between pre-and immediate post-test reached a statistically significant level. It demonstrates that students' vocabulary acquisition improves when they utilize mobile-assisted technology in class. In other Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621 words, the MALL initiative seemed to be successful in terms of assisting students in developing their vocabulary. Table 2 also indicates there was no statistically significant difference between immediate post-test and delayed post-test findings. According to the table, the mean score in the post-test reached 98.57 (out of 150) and significantly decreased to 89.11 in the delayed post-test. It was straightforward to determine that the mean score decreased by just 9.46 points between the immediate and delayed posttests, with a 95 percent confidence range spanning from 6.93 to 11.98. This indicates that students maintained a high number of vocabulary and kept them for an extended length of time.
Additionally, the paired-sample t-test result indicated that the critical value of p for a two-tailed test with the degree of freedom was 25 and that there was a statistically significant difference between the immediate and delayed post-test findings with a pvalue of .000, less than 0.05.
In summary, the aforementioned results indicated a modest variation in performance between immediate and delayed post-test. In other words, four weeks after therapy, there was a reduction in vocabulary acquisition.
The means of pre-test, immediate and delayed post-test can be illustrated in the chart as follows: Figure 1: The mean score of pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test As shown in the above image, the learners' performance in the post-test after the MALL project was, on average, higher than in the pre-test (98.57 in the immediate post-test in comparison with 59.46 in the pre-test). Moreover, the delayed post-test result was somewhat lower than the immediate post-test result, at 89.11 and 98.57, respectively. However, the delayed post-test result was still much greater than the pre-test result. As a result, it can be stated that mobile-mediated technology may assist students in increasing their vocabulary knowledge and that the words acquired while performing technology-assisted activities were maintained without substantial attrition two weeks later.

Students' perspectives towards using MALL to learn vocabulary
For data analysis from the questionnaire, two remarks should be made in relation to the Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621 findings in Table 3. To begin, the scores for certain negatively phrased questions are inverted to provide the same direction of opinion as to the other positive statements. Second, the mean score for each statement group is computed using the means of the items that comprise the group. Higher scores indicate more optimistic outlooks.
After the study is completed, an overall comparison of students' answers to attitudinal statements is made. The mean scores for each statement and groupings of statements are shown in Table 3 below.

(*) Items with reversed score
When mean ratings for individual items are examined in Table 3, it becomes clear that item 10 got the highest rating, with a mean score of 4.50. Additionally, SD is a tiny value of 0.51. This graph demonstrates that the majority of students had a highly positive scale. In other words, they firmly think that MALL intervention increased their vocabulary. As with item 10, item 9 got a very high rating, with a mean score of 4.73 and a standard deviation of 0.45. It can be concluded that the students liked utilizing mobile devices in-class activities and were happy with their progress in learning English. As shown in Table 3, all items got high ratings, with a mean score ranging from 3.38 to 4.50 and SD values ranging from 0.45 to 0.84. Furthermore, the mean scores for three aspects of attitude, namely cognitive, emotional, and future behavior, are 4.28, 4.43, and 4.11, respectively. The findings show that students had a positive opinion about MALL as a means of vocabulary acquisition. MALL usage in the classroom was found to be the most preferred method by participants in semistructured interviews. It was shown that participants' general attitudes about MALL usage for learning were positive, while this was not the case for the previous learning period. Despite this, many respondents expressed reservations regarding the appropriateness of certain uses: the worry of being distracted, difficulty in using, and dread. Additionally, participants suggested many ways to improve MALL's usage in the classroom: "There should be no testing on mobile devices," "The teacher should be able to supervise the class," and "Mobile devices are suitable for group work." As they responded to the question regarding the challenges associated with MALL use, the majority of respondents said that learning inside the classroom was hampered by a variety of factors. Additionally, participants were asked to justify their answers by considering these points. Firstly, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621 participants indicated possible phone activities such as social media use, gaming, and so on, all of which caused a distraction. The second restraint is the lack of wifi connection on the campus. Finally, the participants were forced to rely on their 3G/4G connections, which they described as often inconsistent and unreliable.
Participants described their learning activities as perplexing since they required them to be completed in class using their phones, which was a new experience for many of them. However, some teachers' instructions were ambiguous, often leaving students puzzled.
Regarding students' overall feelings towards the implementation of MALL inside the classroom, the majority of participants had positive attitudes about MALL usage in schools. Participants' final responses were favorable when they had both positive ideas and feelings regarding MALL. As a consequence, participants expressed positive attitudes about smartphone use in the classroom. Several interviews were performed to get a more accurate picture of students' attitudes about MALL and to validate the findings. The following examples demonstrate how cognitive, emotional, and behavioral perspectives may be expressed.
In terms of cognitive components, students 1, 3 and 14 predicted that using mobile phones by teachers to distribute assignments would result in more motivated learners. Besides, students 4, 8, 11, 13, 21 shared a similar view on the merits of MALL in making the learning process more efficient and simpler. Moreover, students 7,9,15,19,24,25 commented the amount of information given by MALL is enormous. Rather than buying a large number of books, a mobile phone with an Internet connection may be more cost-effective stuff, especially for EFL learners.
Regarding effective attitude, students 2, 6, 16, 26 responded that they got excited when they played Quizizz, Nearpod and Kahoot! on their phone; students 12, 14 and 17 stated they were all overjoyed when they were allowed to use their phones in class to accomplish tasks assigned by the instructors.
Concerning students' behavior, the majority of participants agreed to use mobile devices more to study at school. Even with the above findings, however, the research also found that students had little digital literacy and were prone to distraction. Student 1,3,8,9,10,15,19 and 23 reported that they had never been allowed to utilize this unique teaching method in any of their prior classes, and they were even prohibited from taking their phones to class; no matter what the cause was. Several interviewees said their experience with mobile learning was confusing and unsettling while they were in university, for instance, "Because I have never use those apps before, it is tough for me to use on my cell phone" or "It was comfortable and inconvenient when I got a message while I was performing tasks on my phone".

DISCUSSION
This study aims to determine whether or not students' vocabulary knowledge increased as a consequence of their use of MALL. Following the session, it is clear that word knowledge increased significantly. This finding is consistent with the students' vocabulary development in [ Do (2020). When MALL was utilized in class for eight weeks, YES marks were only used on terms that had their definitions in the pre-test. However, in the post-test, students were able to answer YES to a much larger number of words and give correct definitions. Following the session, the authors conducted a follow-up evaluation with students to ascertain their vocabulary objectives. Although vocabulary acquisition decreased somewhat between the immediate and delayed post-test, the results showed an overall increase in that area. Despite this, the percentage rise over the prior test shows that students retained more vocabulary after a two-week break. While the changes were modest, it is possible that students' word memory may deteriorate if they do not practice with MALL for an extended period of time. MALLs, moreover, have some attraction for students. According to the study, all informants own mobile devices. While MALL is less expensive and more easy to use than other computer systems, it also has a higher level of dependability. When utilized appropriately, these devices may be beneficial teaching tools. This result aligns with [12] Do (2020)'s confirmation of the MALL importance when she investigated higher education students' preferences towards mobile device use inside the classroom.
In general, the research found that MALL employment improved students' receptive language comprehension and vocabulary size when the test results indicated a statistically significant improvement. Perhaps it was because the children engaged in learning activities that were either too brief or did not fully use MALL's benefits. In particular, sometimes students found it challenging to learn with MALL due to their varying levels of digital literacy and attentiveness. Furthermore, in the Vietnamese educational context, implementing mobile devices as learning tools for teacher instruction is relatively new. Indeed, some school policies ban students from using mobile phones in the Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 621 classroom. The majority of students enter university with minimal prior understanding of the subject.
According to the researchers, students' views and attitudes about MALL changed significantly during the intervention, particularly in terms of their cognitive, emotional, and future actions. Almost twothirds of students said that MALL increased their participation in-class activities as a consequence of the cognitive component. Students that took part in the MALL research stated that they enjoyed classroom activities, were not tired, and found studying English to be more enjoyable. However, if the children's worries are addressed, their anxieties may subside. Students are worried that their mobile devices will divert their attention away from the lesson. Besides, mobile devices provide a range of leisure options, including social networking, texting, and gaming. As a result, it's simple to see why this worry exists. This problem must be resolved via the use of a plan or instructional method. Additionally, students expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which their teacher gave instructions. When teachers use mobile devices, one of the challenges they face in adapting their teaching approach to incorporate MALL. Both the students and the teachers are unfamiliar with MALL. Teaching children how to use their cell phone for different activities is a problem that may be seen when they give instructions. As a result, a teacher training course should be offered to educate students on how to maximize their learning time. According to [23] Liu and Cain (2016), teachers may have opted not to use mobile devices in their courses due to the difficulties associated with MALL adoption. As a result, teacher training in pedagogy is critical for maximizing the benefits of MALL.

CONCLUSION
Technological advances have had a profound effect on education, altering almost every aspect of it. While considerable emphasis is placed on technology-mediated teaching and learning, MALL is a sector that has shown benefits and is growing. Particularly, smart phones have grown in popularity. The author decided to perform this action research to examine the impact of MALL on twentysix student vocabulary acquisition and attitudes about MALL after they had an awareness of MALL's critical function in language learning. Pre-test, immediate and delayed post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews were used to elicit information on the usage of MALL. The statistical test indicated a significant difference in pre-and two post-test scores. This shows how MALL aided in the development of students' vocabularies. Additionally, students expressed positive preferences about the utilization of mobile devices in class. MALL was deemed beneficial and easy to use by the majority. Additionally, students developed an enthusiasm for classroom learning with mobile devices. As a result, it's simple to understand why their future behavior in MALL will be positive.
It is evident that more subjects need to be recruited to participate in different locations to be of value to the study. This may assist in generalizing the results. In addition to the current study, a comparison of the perceptions of learners and educators may be conducted. Therefore, MALL attitudes may be better understood and explained. In addition, lessening worries may lead to an even stronger personal stance. If teachers or instructors create teaching methods or schemes to counter distractions, this goal may be met. Additionally, improved Wi-Fi connectivity within the classroom will help boost MALL usage. Surprising as it may seem, instructors should be trained in the art of giving instructions. Clarity and conciseness in teachers' instructions may help cut down on the time it takes to learn. The professors may also arrange a seminar at the beginning of the term to provide students an introduction to MALL in the classroom.
According to the study, a fresh strategy should be taken to teaching and learning English. MALL is beneficial in an academic setting when utilized correctly, since it aids in the language learning process. Language learners who utilize portable devices may enhance their learning potential via the usage of apps. Additionally, the increased usage of mobile devices and student data necessitates the adoption of mobile learning activities. As such, instructors must use caution while implementing MALL. The integration of information technology and sciences, especially MALL, has changed classroom instruction and student autonomy. Even yet, some instructors and students may struggle to adjust. Teachers were considered necessary by students. Due to their lack of access to contemporary technology, their training requirements were much greater. It is recommended that students get a brief introduction to technology at the start of the course.