Digital Support of P. Nation’s Three-Stage Model in Teaching Construction Terminology in English: a Quasi-Experiment

Purpose. To assess the effectiveness of integrating digital tools into the three-stage model of professional vocabulary acquisition (noticing – retrieval – creative use) for engineering students, and to determine whether the systematic matching of each tool to the cognitive task of a stage offers an advantage over traditional instruction. Professional foreign-language competence is critical for engineers, yet a large share of terminology remains in the passive vocabulary, and the fragmentary use of digital tools does not solve this problem.
Materials and methods. A quasi-experiment with non-equivalent groups was conducted with the second-year students of construction specialties (71 persons: control group – 35, experimental group – 36) as part of an English course for professional purposes. The material was the “Building materials” module of an author-developed textbook: 50 key terms across 7 texts, 32 academic hours. The amount of study time and content were identical across groups; only the way of organizing activities differed. In the experimental group each stage of Nation’s model was supported by digital tools: noticing – corpus services (SKELL, Ludwig.guru) and artificial-intelligence platforms (Qwen, GigaChat); retrieval – spaced repetition and gamification (Quizlet, Wordwall, JeopardyLabs); creative use – the textbook’s productive tasks supported by Perplexity and Twee, as well as final situational games (digital quest in PowerPoint and role-playing game in Genially). Receptive vocabulary gain, productive use (lexical density and collocation accuracy), four-week retention, and motivation were measured. Data were analyzed with a normality check (Shapiro–Wilk test), Student’s t-test, and effect size; qualitative data were processed through thematic analysis; instrument reliability was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha and Cohen’s kappa coefficient.
Results. The experimental group showed a receptive vocabulary gain 1.4 times higher than the control group (15.3 vs 11.3 points; p < 0.01; effect size 0.84). On the four-week delayed test, knowledge loss was 14.3% versus 22.8% in the control group, indicating more durable retention. Productive use of terminology was significantly higher: lexical density by 47%, collocation accuracy - 69.5% versus 58.6%. Experimental-group students rated the course positively (3.8 out of 5.0), with the highest score given to the situational games of the creative-use stage (4.1) and the lowest to the autonomy scale (3.5).
Conclusion. Integrating digital tools into Nation’s three-stage model improves professional vocabulary acquisition across all measured parameters – receptive knowledge, retention, and productive use. The key success factor is the systematic matching of each tool to the cognitive task of a specific stage, rather than the fragmentary use of technology. The model is reproducible, relies on tools available in Russia, and is transferable to other subject areas of professional foreign-language education.

1. Nation I. S. P. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.

2. Laufer B., Paribakht T. S. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies. Applied Linguistics. 1998; 19; 2: 255–271.

3. Luckin R., Holmes W., Griffiths M., Forcier L.B. Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI as a Tool for Learning. London: Pearson; 2016.

4. Fitria T. N. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology in OpenAI ChatGPT application. ELT Forum. 2023; 12; 1: 44–58.

5. Schmidt R. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 1990; 11; 2: 129–158.

6. Karpicke J. D., Roediger H. L. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008; 319; 5865: 966–968. DOI: 10.1126/science.1152408.

7. Wittrock M. C. Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist. 1974; 11; 2: 87–95.

8. Nation I. S. P. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

9. Boulton A. Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning. 2010; 60; 3: 534–572.

10. Cobb T. From corpus to CALL. Formulaic Sequences / ed. N. Schmitt. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2017.

11. Nakata T. Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning in a paired-associate paradigm. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2011; 24; 1: 17–38.

12. Dehghanzadeh H., Fardanesh H., Hatami J., Talaee E., Noroozi O. Using gamification to support learning English as a second language: a systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2021; 34; 7: 934–957. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1648298.

13. Kohnke L., Moorhouse B. L., Zou D. ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal. 2023; 54; 2: 537–550. DOI: 10.1177/00336882231162868.

14. Dudley-Evans T., St John M. J. Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

15. Coxhead A. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly. 2000; 34; 2: 213–238.

16. Schmitt N. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

17. Chapelle C. A. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

18. Titova S. V. Tsifrovyye tekhnologii v obuchenii inostrannym yazykam: teoriya i praktika = Digital Technologies in Teaching Foreign Languages: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Editus; 2017. (In Russ.)

19. Gradaleva Ye. A., Polukhina M. O., Yurina M. V. Contemporary Architecture & Design: Developing Motivation in English Language Study Using Traditional Methods and Information Technology = Contemporary Architecture & Design: Developing Motivation in English Language Study Using Traditional Methods and Information Technology. Samara: Samara State Technical University; 2025. 212 p. (In Russ.)

20. Karpicke J. D. Metacognitive control and strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2009; 138; 4: 469–486.

21. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.

22. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3; 2: 77–101.

23. Dizon G. Quizlet in the EFL classroom. Teaching English with Technology. 2016; 16; 2: 40–56.