Using a CEFR-Aligned Online System to Enhance Low-Proficiency EFL Learners' Vocabulary Knowledge and Retention

Tipawan   Chansri-ngam

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e297237

Authors

Tipawan Chansri-ngam Uttaradit Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2906-6081

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e297237

Keywords:

CEFR, Online Vocabulary Learning, Low-proficiency EFL Learners, Multimodal Learning, Learning Retention

Abstract

Background and Aims: Despite decades of instruction, vocabulary limitations persistently obstruct low-proficiency EFL learners from proficiency and communicative competence. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a CEFR-aligned online vocabulary strengthening system designed to enhance the lexical knowledge of low-proficiency learners at the A1-A2 levels.

Methodology: The designed platform integrates 349 words in nine categories with multimodal input, including word forms, pronunciation, illustrations, parts of speech, definitions, usage in context, and self-assessment exercises. A mixed-methods approach employing a one-group pretest-posttest design was implemented. The participants were 32 (N=32) first-year university students with low English placement scores. Data were collected through pre- and post-tests, a retention test, and user feedback forms.

Results: The results indicated that the posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores (p < .05) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.09), indicating a substantial enhancement in vocabulary knowledge. The system also demonstrated high learning efficiency (E = 1.79) and a strong short-term retention rate (92.16%). Qualitatively, user feedback indicated high satisfaction with the platform's ease of use and visual content. However, the small sample size and the lack of a control group may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that the CEFR-aligned online system serves as an effective pedagogical tool for bridging the lexical gap for low-proficiency learners in higher education contexts.

References

Ali, S. (2023). Bridging the gap between lexical knowledge and communicative competence in EFL contexts. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 19(1), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.123456

Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). The Agricultural Co-operative Federation of Thailand.

Bunnak, A. (2019). English language learning problems of Thai university students (Master’s thesis, Srinakharinwirot University).

Burston, J. (2015). A quantitative analysis of MALL vocabulary application integration. ReCALL, 27(2), 164–177.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.

Dokchandra, D. (2019). Exploring Thai university students’ receptive and productive knowledge of collocations across four academic faculties. PASAA, 57, 107–136.

EF Education First. (2023). EF English Proficiency Index. https://www.ef.com/epi/

Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. University of Michigan Press.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Contextualizing vocabulary learning in the second language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 1–19.

Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (2005). Teaching practice handbook: A handbook for teachers in training. Macmillan Education.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.

Kanchai, T. (2019). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints towards the impacts of the CEFR on their English language curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24(35), 23–47.

Klungthong, D., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2024). Effects of dynamic assessment to improve academic vocabulary knowledge of Thai EFL low-proficiency university students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 599–631.

Kosa, K. (2023). Speaking English problem of Thai student of junior high school students at Hadsaithong School. Teaching English and Language Learning English Journal (TELLE), 3(2), 123–132.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Language Teaching Publications.

Li, L., & Li, X. (2024). Effect of vocabulary learning strategies on students’ vocabulary knowledge achievement and motivation: The case of grade 11 high school students. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1399350. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1399350

Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

McGuigan, F. J. (1960). Experimental psychology: A methodological approach. Prentice-Hall.

Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Ngonkum, S., & Deerajviset, P. (2024). Thai EFL university learners' engagement with CEFR: Perceived proficiency, awareness, and skill development. Journal of Mekong Societies, 20(3), 185–211.

Panmei, B., & Waluyo, B. (2023). The pedagogical use of gamification in English vocabulary training and learning in higher education. Education Sciences, 13(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010024

Sangkhaphan, J. (2015). Factors affecting the English speaking ability of Thai university students (Master’s thesis, Thammasat University).

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Srimongkontip, S., & Wiriyakarun, P. (2014). Measuring vocabulary size and vocabulary depth of secondary education students in a Thai-English bilingual school. Journal of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchathani University, 10(2), 181–209.

Stockwell, G. (2022). Mobile-assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts, and challenges. Cambridge University Press.

Stockwell, G., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts and challenges. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108309828

Tachom, K. (2021). The use of task-based language teaching and storytelling to promote the English speaking ability of Thai undergraduate students. Journal of Basic Educational Studies, 2(1), 35–48.

Teymouri, E. (2024). The impact of mobile-assisted language learning on vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 11(2), 45–60.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Longman.

Udomkiattisakul, P. (2016). Problems of English speaking of Thai employees in international companies (Independent study, Thammasat University).

Waluyo, B. (2019). Examining Thai first-year university students’ English proficiency on CEFR levels. The New English Teacher, 13(2), 51–71.

Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 46–65.

Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Edward Arnold.

Yowaboot, C., & Sukying, A. (2022). Using digital flashcards to enhance Thai EFL primary school students’ vocabulary knowledge. English Language Teaching, 15(8), 68–80.