European International Journal of Pedagogics
01
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
1-5
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
02 June 2025
ACCEPTED
03 July 2025
PUBLISHED
01 August 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue08 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Aural vs. Written
Vocabulary Instruction:
Effects on Listening
Comprehension in Second
Language Learning
Ali Rezaei
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Enghelab Sq.,
Tehran, Iran
Zahra Esfahani
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Enghelab Sq.,
Tehran, Iran
Abstract:
This study explores the effects of aural and
written vocabulary instruction on second language (L2)
listening
comprehension.
With
the
increasing
importance of listening comprehension in second
language acquisition, understanding the role of
vocabulary instruction in enhancing listening skills is
crucial. This study involved two groups of intermediate-
level L2 learners, one receiving aural vocabulary
instruction and the other receiving written vocabulary
instruction. Pre- and post-test measures of listening
comprehension were employed to assess the impact of
each instruction method. The results revealed that both
types of vocabulary instruction significantly improved
listening comprehension, with aural vocabulary
instruction showing slightly better outcomes. These
findings suggest that incorporating diverse vocabulary
instruction methods may lead to more effective
listening comprehension outcomes in L2 learning
contexts.
Keywords:
Aural vocabulary, written vocabulary,
second language, listening comprehension, vocabulary
instruction, language acquisition.
Introduction:
Listening comprehension is an essential
component of second language (L2) acquisition, as it
allows learners to interpret and understand spoken
language in real-life contexts. While various factors
contribute
to
the
development
of
listening
European International Journal of Pedagogics
2
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
comprehension skills, vocabulary knowledge plays a
crucial role. Research suggests that limited vocabulary
knowledge is often one of the primary barriers to
effective listening comprehension in L2 learners
(Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Consequently, vocabulary
instruction has gained prominence in second language
pedagogy.
Vocabulary instruction can take various forms, with the
most common being aural and written methods. Aural
vocabulary instruction involves the presentation of
words and phrases through listening activities, while
written vocabulary instruction focuses on visual
exposure to words through reading or written
exercises. Previous research has indicated that both
aural and written vocabulary instruction contribute to
language learning, yet little has been done to compare
their specific impacts on listening comprehension.
Given
the
importance
of
listening
in
L2
communication, it is essential to investigate whether
one method of vocabulary instruction leads to better
listening comprehension outcomes than the other.
This study aims to explore the effects of aural and
written vocabulary instruction on L2 listening
comprehension. By investigating the effectiveness of
both methods, the study seeks to contribute to the
broader understanding of how vocabulary instruction
can enhance L2 learners' ability to understand spoken
language.
METHODS
Participants
The participants of this study were 60 intermediate-
level adult learners of English as a second language
(ESL) enrolled in a language school in London. The
participants were divided into two groups: one group
received aural vocabulary instruction, and the other
received
written
vocabulary
instruction.
All
participants had been learning English for at least two
years, with a minimum of 150 hours of language
instruction, and were deemed to have an intermediate
proficiency level according to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Materials
The materials used in this study included vocabulary
lists, listening comprehension tasks, and written texts.
A list of 30 target vocabulary items was selected, based
on their frequency in spoken English and relevance to
the learners' daily life. These words covered a range of
topics, such as work, leisure, and technology.
For the aural vocabulary instruction group, audio
recordings of the vocabulary items were created.
These recordings included the words used in context,
as well as example sentences and dialogues. The
participants in the aural group were instructed to listen
to these recordings and practice the pronunciation,
meaning, and usage of the words.
For the written vocabulary instruction group, printed
materials with the vocabulary items and their
definitions were provided. In addition, example
sentences and contextual information were included,
but the focus was on visual exposure to the words
through reading and writing exercises. The participants
in this group were tasked with reading the materials and
completing vocabulary exercises, including fill-in-the-
blank and matching tasks.
Procedure
The study employed a pre-test and post-test design to
measure the effects of the vocabulary instruction on
listening comprehension. The pre-test, administered at
the beginning of the study, assessed participants'
baseline listening comprehension skills. It consisted of a
30-minute listening test in which participants listened to
a
series of
short dialogues
and
answered
comprehension questions based on what they had
heard.
Following the pre-test, the participants were divided
into two groups: the aural vocabulary instruction group
and the written vocabulary instruction group. Both
groups received a one-week vocabulary training session,
consisting of daily 45-minute lessons. The aural group
engaged in listening activities that involved listening to
vocabulary items in context, repeating them aloud, and
answering questions based on the content of the
recordings. The written group, on the other hand,
studied the vocabulary items using printed materials,
completing exercises focused on word meaning and
usage.
After one week of vocabulary instruction, the post-test
was administered. This test was identical to the pre-test
but contained a new set of listening passages.
Participants were again required to listen to dialogues
and answer comprehension questions.
Data Analysis
The data collected from the pre-test and post-test were
analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the changes in
listening comprehension scores within each group.
Additionally, an independent t-test was used to
compare the listening comprehension scores between
the aural and written vocabulary instruction groups
after the post-test. The effect size was calculated using
Cohen's d to assess the practical significance of any
observed differences.
RESULTS
The results of this study were analyzed in two phases: a
comparison of the changes in listening comprehension
European International Journal of Pedagogics
3
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
scores within each group from pre-test to post-test,
and a comparison of the post-test scores between the
two groups.
Improvement in Listening Comprehension within
Each Group
Both the aural and written vocabulary instruction
groups demonstrated significant improvements in
listening comprehension scores from the pre-test to
the post-test.
•
Aural Vocabulary Instruction Group: The aural
vocabulary instruction group showed a mean increase
of 12% in listening comprehension scores from pre-test
to post-test. The average pre-test score for this group
was 65%, while the average post-test score increased
to 77%. This increase was statistically significant, with
a paired t-test result of t(29) = 4.53, p < 0.01, indicating
that the improvement in listening comprehension was
unlikely to have occurred by chance. This suggests that
aural vocabulary instruction had a meaningful impact
on enhancing the learners’ ability to comprehend
spoken language.
•
Written
Vocabulary
Instruction
Group:
Similarly, the written vocabulary instruction group
showed a mean increase of 10% in listening
comprehension scores from pre-test to post-test. The
average pre-test score for this group was 63%, while
the average post-test score rose to 73%. A paired t-test
for this group yielded a result of t(29) = 3.87, p < 0.01,
confirming that the increase in scores was statistically
significant. Although the improvement was slightly less
than that of the aural group, it still suggests that
written vocabulary instruction contributed positively
to enhancing listening comprehension.
Comparison of Post-Test Performance Between
Groups
The next analysis focused on comparing the post-test
scores of the two groups. An independent t-test was
performed to assess whether there was a significant
difference between the listening comprehension
scores of the aural and written vocabulary instruction
groups after the vocabulary training.
•
Post-Test Scores: The post-test scores for the
aural vocabulary instruction group ranged from 70% to
85%, with a mean score of 77%. In contrast, the written
vocabulary instruction group’s post
-test scores ranged
from 65% to 80%, with a mean score of 73%. The
difference in mean post-test scores between the two
groups was statistically significant, with an
independent t-test result of t(58) = 2.11, p = 0.04. This
indicates that the aural vocabulary instruction group
performed significantly better on the listening
comprehension post-test compared to the written
vocabulary instruction group.
Effect Size Analysis
To assess the magnitude of the difference between the
groups, Cohen’s d was calculated. The effect size for the
difference in post-test scores between the aural and
written vocabulary groups was found to be 0.55, which
is considered a moderate effect size according to
conventional benchmarks. This suggests that the
difference between the two groups was not only
statistically significant but also practically meaningful.
Types of Listening Comprehension Tasks Affected
Further analysis revealed that the types of listening
comprehension tasks on the post-test were
differentially affected by the vocabulary instruction
methods. The post-test included three types of tasks:
multiple-choice questions based on dialogues, short-
answer questions about the content, and sentence-
completion exercises where learners had to identify
missing words from a dialogue.
•
Aural Vocabulary Instruction Group: The aural
vocabulary instruction group performed significantly
better on the multiple-choice questions (mean score:
81%) compared to the written vocabulary instruction
group (mean score: 74%). This suggests that exposure to
vocabulary through listening helped these learners
better identify and comprehend key information
presented in spoken form. Additionally, they scored
higher on the short-answer questions (mean score:
76%) than the written group (mean score: 70%). This
reinforces the idea that listening-based exposure to
vocabulary enhances learners' ability to extract meaning
from spoken language.
•
Written Vocabulary Instruction Group: The
written vocabulary instruction group showed stronger
performance on sentence-completion tasks (mean
score: 79%) compared to the aural vocabulary
instruction group (mean score: 74%). This indicates that
learners who had primarily engaged with written
materials had an advantage in tasks where they needed
to recognize and complete written words, possibly due
to the stronger visual association built through reading
and writing exercises.
The results suggest that aural vocabulary instruction
may be particularly effective for tasks requiring the
processing of spoken language, while written
vocabulary instruction may be more beneficial for tasks
involving visual word recognition or recall.
Error Patterns
Analysis of error patterns revealed that the aural
vocabulary instruction group made fewer errors related
to the pronunciation and meaning of vocabulary items
in spoken contexts. In contrast, the written vocabulary
European International Journal of Pedagogics
4
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
instruction group made more errors in comprehension
tasks involving spoken texts, particularly when the
vocabulary items were presented in unfamiliar spoken
contexts. These findings suggest that while both types
of
vocabulary
instruction
improve
listening
comprehension, aural instruction may be more
effective in enabling learners to process and
understand spoken language in real-time.
Summary of Key Findings:
1.
Both aural and written vocabulary instruction
led to significant improvements in listening
comprehension, with the aural group showing a
slightly higher improvement.
2.
The aural vocabulary instruction group
outperformed the written vocabulary instruction
group on the post-test, with a statistically significant
difference in listening comprehension scores.
3.
Aural vocabulary instruction was particularly
effective for comprehension tasks that required
processing spoken dialogues.
4.
Written vocabulary instruction led to stronger
performance on sentence-completion tasks, where
word recognition was essential.
5.
Error patterns indicated that aural vocabulary
instruction helped learners better understand spoken
language and reduced errors related to pronunciation
and spoken comprehension.
These results indicate that aural vocabulary instruction
can be especially beneficial for improving second
language listening comprehension, particularly for
tasks that involve real-time processing of spoken
language. However, written vocabulary instruction still
plays an important role in developing other aspects of
language proficiency, such as word recognition and
written recall.
The results indicated that both aural and written
vocabulary instruction led to significant improvements
in listening comprehension scores from pre-test to
post-test. The aural vocabulary instruction group
showed an average increase of 12% in listening
comprehension scores, while the written vocabulary
instruction group exhibited an average increase of
10%. This difference was statistically significant, with a
p-value of 0.02 (p < 0.05).
When comparing the two groups' post-test
performance, the aural vocabulary instruction group
outperformed the written vocabulary instruction
group, with a statistically significant difference in the
mean scores (t(58) = 2.11, p < 0.05). The effect size for
this comparison was calculated as Cohen’s d = 0.55,
indicating a moderate to large effect of the aural
instruction on listening comprehension.
Further analysis of the data suggested that the
improvements in the aural vocabulary instruction group
were most pronounced for comprehension questions
related to spoken dialogues that included the target
vocabulary. This finding supports the hypothesis that
aural exposure to vocabulary may be more effective in
enhancing the comprehension of spoken language.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study highlight the importance of
vocabulary instruction in enhancing second language
listening comprehension. Both aural and written
vocabulary instruction were shown to significantly
improve listening comprehension, which aligns with
previous studies that emphasize the centrality of
vocabulary knowledge in L2 listening (Sökmen, 2005).
However, the results also suggest that aural vocabulary
instruction may offer an additional advantage when it
comes to listening comprehension.
The greater improvement observed in the aural
vocabulary instruction group can be attributed to the
fact that listening comprehension is directly related to
auditory processing. By exposing learners to vocabulary
in context through listening activities, they are better
equipped to recognize and understand the words when
encountered in real-time spoken discourse. This is
consistent with research by Vandergrift and Goh (2012),
who found that listening practice with vocabulary
contextualized in authentic speech helps learners to
become more adept at processing spoken language.
In contrast, written vocabulary instruction primarily
engages learners visually and may not provide sufficient
practice for auditory processing, which is a crucial skill
for effective listening. While written vocabulary
exercises can be helpful for reinforcing word meaning
and form, they may not fully address the need for
learners to develop their ability to recognize and
comprehend words in spoken form. This suggests that
for optimal listening comprehension development, a
combination of aural and written vocabulary instruction
may be most effective, as it allows for both visual and
auditory reinforcement of new vocabulary.
It is important to note, however, that the study was
limited by its short duration and the relatively small
sample size. Future research could investigate the long-
term effects of aural and written vocabulary instruction
on listening comprehension, as well as explore other
factors that may influence the effectiveness of different
instructional methods, such as learner motivation and
prior language proficiency.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to our understanding of how
different vocabulary instruction methods affect second
European International Journal of Pedagogics
5
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
language listening comprehension. While both aural
and
written
vocabulary
instruction
led
to
improvements in listening comprehension, aural
vocabulary instruction proved to be more effective.
These findings highlight the importance of
incorporating auditory exposure to vocabulary in L2
instruction and suggest that a combination of aural and
written methods may lead to even greater
improvements. Future research should continue to
explore the optimal conditions for vocabulary
instruction and its impact on various aspects of
language acquisition.
REFERENCES
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test, 2: Test pack.
OUP Oxford.
Amirzai, G. A. (2021). Assessing the effects of teaching
vocabulary in developing receptive skills: A review
article. Journal of World Englishes and Educational
Practices,
3(3),
15
–
21.
https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep.2021.3.3.2
Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C.,
Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of
success
in
native
and
non-native
listening
comprehension: An individual differences approach.
Language
Learning,
62(s2),
49
–
78.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x
Babaei, S., Izadpanah, S., & Araújo, G. C. (2019).
Comparing the effects of different advance organizers
on EFL learners’ listening comprehension: Key
vocabularies, previewing comprehension questions,
and multimedia annotations. Cogent Education, 6(1),
1705666.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2019.1705666
Babayiğit, S., & Shapiro, L. (2019). Component skills
that underpin listening comprehension and reading
comprehension in learners with English as first and
additional language. Journal of Research in Reading,
43(1),
78
–
97.
Bian, X., & He, J. (2017). Morphological awareness and
advanced EFL learners’ listening comprehension [
Doctoral dissertation]. Seattle Pacific University.
http://digitalcommons.spu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a
rticle=1024&context=soe_etd(open in a new window)
Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the
development of EFL learners’ listening skill.
International Journal of Listening, 28(3), 149
–
161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.861303
Bozorgian, H., Yaqubi, B., & Muhammadpour, M.
(2020). Metacognitive intervention and awareness:
Listeners with low working memory capacity.
International Journal of Listening, 36(3), 221
–
234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2020.1857764
Cambridge, E. S. O. L. (2014). Cambridge Key English test
4 (KET practice tests). Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, J., & Matthews, J. (2016). The relationship
between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge
and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing, 35(1), 3
–
25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216676851
Creswell, J. W. (2022). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc. Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic
systems theory approach to development of listening
strategy use and listening performance. System, 63,
149
–
165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.10.004
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peadiv picture
vocabulary test (PPVT-4). Pearson Assessments.
Feng, Y. (2017). How does mode of input affect
incidental vocabulary learning [ [Master’s thesis].
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4794].
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4794(open in a new window)
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English
quick placement Test. Research Notes, 12, 8
–
10.
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/23127-
research-notes-12.pdf(open in a new window)
