mobile assisted language learning - review of literature

Mobile Assisted Language Learning 1

Running head: MOBILE ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

Mobile Assisted Language Learning: Education on the Move. A Review of Literature.

Juan M. Garcia. Student. ETEC613

17-April-2012 Dr. Larysa V. Lysenko

Department of Education Concordia University


Abstract

This paper presents a review of literature of the field of Mobile Assisted Language

Learning, or MALL, a subset and intersection of both, Computer Assisted Learning and Mobile

Learning (also known as M-learning). The paper aims to present a general picture of the nature

and amount of research on the field as published in peer-reviewed journals. The paper is

structured around the concept of descriptive mapping and doesn’t aim to be a profound critical

analysis of methodologies and results of existing studies but rather to depict the state of research

in MALL, thus serving as a stepping-stone for further research. The research presented a picture

of high penetration and growth of mobile device usage and generally positive attitudes towards

mobile learning while discovering big gaps and troublesome issues on the topics, methodologies

and results obtained by the researchers of the published articles.

Keywords: Computer Assisted Language Learning, Mobile Assisted Language Learning,

L2, M-learning, literature review, descriptive mapping, systematic review.


1. Introduction and justification

1.1 A mobile world: Usage of mobile phones in North America

In 2010 the Pew Internet & American Life Project, a project of the Pew Research Center,

published a report on the wireless habits of US residents: 59% of adults go online wirelessly.

Two in five use their mobile phones to access the Internet (Smith, 2010). Considering data of the

2010 US census, which places the population of the US at 308.7 millions (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2011), it means that 123.48 million of its habitants access Internet on their phones.

That represents roughly more than 3.5 times the total population of Canada and more than 38

times that of Quebec (“Census,” n.d.). But Canada with its lower population doesn’t fall behind,

the Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Industry Association reports over 25 million of

mobile subscribers (“Facts & Figures,” 2011) in a country of less that 34 million inhabitants

(“Census,” n.d.). And in 2011 the Mexican government reported 84.2 mobile subscriptions per

100 habitants, up from 21.6 in 2001 and 0.2 in 1991 (Comision Federal de Telecomunicaciones,

2012). The parade of statistics showing the penetration of mobile phones across the world could

continue, but a picture would emerge: mobile phone use has exploded in the last few years and it

has reached high levels of penetration, even in developing countries. And mobile phones are only

one of many mobile devices; personal media players, tablets, personal digital assistants,

connected appliances, smart watches, and whatever new devices we might see appearing in the

market in the next few years.

The growth of mobile telephones and mobile Internet access along with a ecosystem of

varying mobile connected devices has been accompanied of a growth in research regarding the

potential of using mobile devices for learning: M-learning. A cursory search would reveal the

wealth of literature on the topic. There are within this body of knowledge particular niches that


reflect particular uses or issues regarding M-learning. One of them is Mobile Assisted Language

Learning (MALL).

As the world becomes connected and countries and cultures, and people, across the world

connect, communicating in a foreign language becomes a key issue. Can mobile devices help

promote second language learning? Given the huge reach of mobile device it would be fool not

to explore the possibility; enlisting mobile devices at the service of second language learning, if

it is feasible, is an enticing proposition. Thus, the question of relevance and importance of the

subject becomes evident as the potential of mobile to improve access to education and to

generate new knowledge is demonstrated in numbers, what lies beyond potential, the realities,

become subject of research.

The use of mobile devices to enhance or promote the learning of second languages is the

main subject of this paper. A coherent and well-structured question around which this research

centers will be presented shortly.

2. The importance and nature of a literature review

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre or EPPI-

Centre, a member of the Social Science Research Center, itself part of the Institute of Education

of the University of London defines descriptive mapping as the practice of describing and

analyzing studies in order to “understand the scope of current research activity” (“Mapping and

refining the review’s scope,” n.d.). The process allows identifying areas of opportunity for future

research and gaps on the current body of research. The nature of such a systematic review has

one more advantage: “By simply describing, rather than scrutinising in-depth and critically

appraising the research, reviewers can address a much broader field of research than is possible


when conducting a narrower synthesis of research findings” (“Mapping and refining the review’s

scope,” n.d.).

The nature of this research favors the use descriptive mapping. The lack of previous

experience dealing with the field of Mobile Assisted Language Learning or MALL, and the

unawareness of the topics in the field make the use of the aforementioned technique suitable. It

will eventually facilitate giving direction to new research one the field.

Furthermore, descriptive mapping is suitable to the scope and nature of the present

research; as it is a starting point for future research and it is constrained in its nature by time and

limitations in extension.

3. …that is the question.

3.1 Defining a research question

Having defined the nature of the present research the substantive question is presented:

q What is the state of MALL research as defined by the following sub-questions:

§ How extensive is the body of literature available MALL?

§ What is the dominant nature of the existing research in MALL (Qualitative or

Quantitative)?

§ What methodologies have been used in said research?

§ What have been the findings of current MALL research?

Since descriptive mapping “is achieved by an analysis of the keywording results in terms

of variables such as language, population focus, study design and key characteristics related to

the review topic” (“Mapping and refining the review’s scope,” n.d.) another valid and relevant

question arises:


q What studies present the defined keyword, synonym or equivalent keywords (such as

those present in database’s own glossaries)?

Keywords defining studies by some of the characteristics have been established:

o MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning.

o Combinations of terms expressing mobile learning and second language learning (m-

learning, mobile learning, technology assisted learning for the former and L2, second

language learning/teaching/acquisition, foreign language).

o Peer-reviewed (For the nature of the studies).

o Published (For the nature of the studies).

o Journal (Also limiting the scope of publications allowed).

The initial set of keywords allowed for an initial overview of a field unknown to the

researcher. A two-stage review could allow for a narrowing of the scope. However the step was

not necessary as the literature on the field responding to the criteria greatly limited the size of the

body of literature available for study (a great deal of research exist, just not published in peer-

reviewed journals). The decision not too limit further the scope by defining keywords relating to

methodologies, targeted L2, nature of studies and quality of results or experimental groups sizes

proved adequate since it would have reduced greatly the available literature.

3.2 A caveat

As it will be discussed towards the end of the paper, it would seem that the vertiginous

speed by which mobile technology evolves and transforms itself has directed the field of MALL

to be heavily reliant on conferences and other non-peer-reviewed, or at least not peer-reviewed

journal, publications. That has hugely limited the available literature for review, therefore, the

researcher believes that the initial limitations established: “The review should include only


empirical research, based on qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods” (Lysenko, 2012) should

allow a certain degree of flexibility in this case. A few publications, just two, that are not

empirical research but that due to the fact that they make reference to empirical research are

mentioned. This represents a compromise between having to renounce to research a topic of

importance and relevance, as expressed on the introduction, and having to allow research non-

published in academic journals (another interdiction established beforehand), or reducing the

body of works presented. Without further comment in said regard the review of literature

continues.

4. The body of literature

4.1 Introduction to the body of literature

As the publications started to accumulate a trend started to appear: research responding to

the research questions and the criteria established originates mostly in Asia. Studies from Japan,

Singapore, India, Iran, Philippines, Mongolia, and China were discovered. And, out of these

studies the division between two target L2 languages emerged: English and Chinese were the

dominating target languages. In function of this emerging trend the body of literature is

presented as a factor of geographical region and target language. Asian studies focusing on

Chinese as a target language are presented first, then Asian studies focusing on English as target

L2. Finally, European studies focusing on French, and then on English, just to conclude with

studies that do not fit on the organizing schema but that for reasons that will be explained later

(including fitting the search parameters) have also been selected for this research.

4.2Existing research

Over the next few pages the evidence is integrated: interpretation, synthesis, analysis and

evaluation are conducted. First on individual publications and then as a whole body of research


where patterns, topics and gaps appear. The study is not extensive and rather limited by space

and time constrains. To facilitate the understanding, and extend the quality of the content of the

presented research a chart outlining the objectives of the researchers and research questions—

explicit or implicit—along with a more detailed description of the methodology and results is

provided and it is recommended that it be read, and used, along with the text of this research.

4.2.1 Teaching Chinese in Asia

Two studies originating in Singapore analyzed the use of mobile technologies as tools for

the teaching/learning of Chinese. Of the two studies covered “Vocabulary learning by mobile-

assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making: two case studies” (Wong & Looi,

2010) focuses on two case studies while “Students' Personal and Social Meaning Making in a

Chinese Idiom Mobile Learning Environment” (Lung-Hsiang Wong, Chee-Kuen Chin, Chee-

Lay Tan, & May Liu, 2010) takes one of the case studies from “Vocabulary learning by mobile-

assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making: two case studies” (Wong & Looi,

2010) and analyzes it in more depth.

4.2.1.1 Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social

meaning-making: two case studies (Singapore/L2 Chinese).

In “Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social

meaning-making: two case studies” Wong & Looi (2010) analyze two case studies in which

mobile devices were used by students to create contextualized meanings and generate a social

learning experience. Wong & Looi (2010) argue that “the focus of MALL research has gradually

shifted from content-based (delivery of learning content through mobile devices) to design

oriented (authentic and/or social mobile learning activities)”. Along with this perspective they


present a strong belief on the potential of using mobile devices to create contextually relevant

learning that is socially engaging.

The researchers created two experiments. Both involving the use of mobile devices to

facilitate students’ creation of imagery, and text, describing concepts previously learned in class

and generating discussion after the fact. Both case studies explored groups of 40 elementary

students (8 years old for case study 1 and 11 years old for case study 2). Two large differences

emerge between the studies; case study one takes place solely within the confines of the school

while case study 2 extends learning beyond class by inviting students to take the devices with

them everywhere they go and creating images representing the concepts (in this case idioms)

they learned. The level of the concepts studied is also different as case study 1 deals with

prepositions and case study 2 deals with idioms. Study 2 provided students with materials online

(videos depicting the idioms) and a wiki to upload photos, a phrase related to the photo using the

idiom and class discussion of each photo.

The researchers found out that tasks performed in groups generated more engagement

than individual tasks in both case studies. In-class discussions generated a higher level of

discussion than the online forum (online discussion was a feature of study 2). Also, researchers

found that student’s use of the mobiles differed from their expectations, as the standard deviation

on the average production of artifacts is quite large (25.9) (Wong & Looi, 2010). Furthermore

parents limited the use of mobiles, kids couldn’t engage in a fully seamless learning experience.

Furthermore, when the students engaged in taking pictures the activity was “almost

purely for resource collection” (Wong & Looi, 2010), meaning they didn’t used the mobile to

associate phrases to the pictures.


The study starts to show a what will become emerging trends that will repeat themselves

over the next studies: students didn’t use the mobile with the frequency intended. While there are

positive attitudes toward the use of mobile, and connected technologies, engagement with said

technology doesn’t always correspond to the positive opinions. In this case this last comment is

exemplified with the higher engagement with classroom discussions versus online discussion, as

well as the artifact production rates.

The lack of post-tests, control groups, and the small sample sizes (another trend that will

emerge) make it more difficult to evaluate the question of whether there was measurable learning

taking place. Although the researchers do not doubt that this kind of activity leads to learning

based on the existing literature and theories. They succeeded in creating an environment that was

conductive to learning, from their perspective.

4.2.1.2 Students' Personal and Social Meaning Making in a Chinese Idiom Mobile Learning

Environment (Singapore/L2 Chinese).

In “Students’ Personal and Social Meaning Making in a Chinese Idiom Mobile Learning

Environment” Lung-Hsiang Wong, Chee-Kuen Chin, Chee-Lay Tan, and May Liu (2010)

analyzed in a more extensive manner the results of the case study 2 of “Vocabulary learning by

mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making: two case studies” (Wong

& Looi, 2010). Students were given instruction in class, using among other elements comic

animations illustrating idioms, the animations were made available online. Students were then

given a mobile device (smartphone) and were expected to use it to take pictures and then upload

them to a class wiki along with a phrase related to the photo using an idiom, thus the photo must

provide an example of an idiom. A discussion was to take place on both the wiki and in class,

helping students correct each other and learn from each other.


The researchers aimed to further investigate the “cognitive process and learning strategies

during the course of content creation” (Lung-Hsiang Wong et al., 2010). In this context the

results showed ,as mentioned earlier, that picture taking was not always simultaneous to the

language learning activity—as designed—since students collected resources (Lung-Hsiang

Wong et al., 2010) and later assigned them a meaning. Furthermore students engaged more fully

in class than outside of it. The small group in-class discussion lead the researchers to think that

online discussions might be better served if also done in small groups. Learning did not take

place as researches designed initially, the mobile phone served more as a camera than as a

smartphone and online discussions generated low engagement. The disconnect between designed

use, based in particular learning theories, and actual use started to emerge as a pattern.

One of the most interesting features of requiring a multimodal presentation, enabled by

the mobile devices picture taking and the phrase creating feature, was the ability for the

instructor and other students to visualize erroneous concepts that might escape the eye in

seemingly correct sentences but erroneous photo/idiom pairing, yet this feature does not seem to

relate particularly to the use of mobile, as other forms of representation: enactments, drawings,

and so on might have lead to the same results.

A limitation to the study came in the form of parents attitudes: the parents’ prohibition of

children’s usage of mobile phone outside the home “ defeated the purpose of 24x7 seamless

learning and narrowed the context that the students could associate the idioms with” (Lung-

Hsiang Wong et al., 2010). This further skewed the rates of production of artifacts in favor of

students allowed to use the system outside of home. Does this signify another form of digital

divide to be considered? Attitudes not only within the student but also around him might prove a

pressing issue.


The researchers concluded that the evidence showed “indicators of seamless language

learning that has the potential of transforming language learning into an authentic learning

experience” (Lung-Hsiang Wong et al., 2010). However it must be said that given the actual

engagement and use of mobile devices demonstrate that there are still issues to be researched

further.

4.2.2 Teaching English in Asia

The teaching of English as L2 dominated the literature, surprisingly even in the UK. The

majority of the research originated in Asia. The two facts together mean that the following

section represents the larger section of the existing body of research. One issue that must be

highlighted for consideration in future studies: while using Asia as a whole served organizational

purposes, attitudes and usage of mobile devices differ greatly by country and culture. A future

grouping of nations or cultures based on their perception and uses of mobile devices might prove

useful to identify geo-cultural issues.

4.2.2.1 A Mobile Device and Online System with Contextual Familiarity and its Effects on

English Learning on Campus (China/L2 English).

In their study Cheng, Hwang, Sheng-Yi Wu, Shadiev, and Xie (2010) posited that as

“most people have a mobile device, most often a phone, in both developed and developing

countries” and since “English is often taught using uninteresting topics” (Cheng, Hwang, Sheng-

Yi Wu, Shadiev, & Xie, 2010) a system that presented relevant and geographically contextual

information could allow students to enhance their motivation, learn useful English and support

communication among students.

The researchers created a system that used a GPS enabled phone with Internet access in

order to provide students with relevant information about the campus, comment and give


suggestions to other users. The students could create photos, videos, and conversations. Said

system was available also via web on the computer. The system was meant to allow students to

practice English in a relevant context and the researchers to gauge the perception of such a

system, their learning effects and the usage of mobile and non-mobile devices in relationship to

participation and engagement. The system was designed with “rules derived from existing

human interface research” (Cheng et al., 2010).

The sample size was rather small, 10 graduate students (6 males, 4 females).

Questionnaires were provided to students after the 6 months the project test lasted. No test were

given to measure effect sizes, which was expected since the researchers desired to measure

attitudes and usage rather effects. Te particular disconnect between usage and effects merits

further research since finding out that students have positive attitudes and are willing to use

systems that in the end don’t work is not productive. However since that (effects) was not the

aim of the study it is not a critique of this particular piece of research but of the body of research

available.

The students had very positive opinions about the system but preferred to use the

computer interface. Such a trend emerged in many of the studies, but not all. The smart phones

used in many of the studies, including this, are mostly Windows Mobile phone based. It would

be interesting to see if newer interfaces and user interface guidelines provided by mobile

operating systems would see a change. Apple’s iOS, Android and even Windows own newer

Windows Phone 7 redefine the user interface of mobile platforms. Furthermore, connections are

now faster. Do the attitudes differ in other contexts? As we will find out, yes. There is a need to

do research across cultures; does the same system would generate the same usage in Japan, in the

US, in Africa? Most likely not, as we will see.


4.2.2.2 Using mobile phones in English education in Japan (Japan/L2 English).

This article was placed intentionally in this order as it contrasts with the previous study:

If Japanese students do prefer the use of mobile phones over desktop computers it might set an

interesting conversation and gap/opportunity in research. Thornton and Houser (2005) set out to

find the landscape of mobile phone use in Japan, the attitudes of students towards the usage of

mobile phones and how they engaged multimodal content in mobile devices (mail and

multimedia in phones and PDAs). Their study focused not on effect sizes, although they did find

larger gains in post-tests of mobile learners.

After surveying 333 university students they confirmed high rates of mobile phone

ownership, and usage, particularly email, and availability and use of Internet on the phones.

Students manifested sending an average of 200 mails from their phones each week as compared

to two on their computers (Thornton & Houser ,2005).

From their initial sample the researchers created two experiments, one comprised of 44

female Japanese students who were sent 3 daily emails to help them increase their English

vocabulary, the first mail in the morning defined the word, the second one provided an

opportunity for rehearsal and the third one rehearsal in a narrative. Their attitudes and the effects

of the experiment on test scores were measured. The second experiment focused on attitudes and

allowed students (31 sophomores) to access multimedia content in mobile devices along with

quizzes (Thornton & Houser ,2005).

Both experiments showed that students engaged and favored the use of the technology

they were accustomed to use: email in the phone. The rates of mobile use are quite different of

those of the previous study with students engaging on the mobile phone and 89% of them

expressing their desire to continue to learn using their mobile (Thornton & Houser ,2005). The


case of Japan breaks the pattern that many other studies created since in this case positive

attitudes toward mobile learning were reflected in usage.

The researchers concluded that “Japanese students may have unique attitudes towards

learning and towards mobile technology, unique access to technology, and unique patterns of

using mobile technology” (Thornton & Houser, 2005) and they continue to invite to replicate and

compare studies across cultures (Thornton & Houser, 2005). Their statement is very insightful

and researchers must consider that the accelerated adoption of mobile technologies (information

is readily available from different sources: trade associations, polling organizations,

governmental organizations) might mean that younger generation might have different patterns

of usage, even a few years of difference between studies might start to show more Japan-like

patterns in countries other than Japan.

4.2.2.3 Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone (China/L2 English).

The study presents what some researchers have called “content based” (Wong & Looi,

2010) and represents an attempt to use the limited capabilities of a highly distributed device.

They focus on how students can learn vocabulary from SMS (Short Messaging Service, used to

refer to a message sent used such system). The study, as it has become the trend, evaluates

attitudes and opinions from the users, although the objective was to “examine the effectiveness

of SMS vocabulary lessons of limited lexical information on the small screen of mobile phones”

(Lu, 2008). One can notice the difference not only in teaching approaches but subject between

this experiment and “Students' Personal and Social Meaning Making in a Chinese Idiom Mobile

Learning Environment” as idioms are different in nature because their meaning is different to the

sum of the meaning of its components.


In the experiment Lu (2008) implemented a system that would send out two text

messages per day to each student, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. The experiment

lasted to weeks and 31 vocational high school students were the subjects of the study. The

researchers wondered if such a system would be more effective than paper-based learning and

what would be the students’ perception of the system.

The results are not surprising, as mentioned before there is a trend emerging, opinions

about the system and the possibility of mobile learning were positive, 3.7/5 in a Likert scale(Lu,

2008), mobile learners presented vocabulary gains and system use differed from the one

encouraged by teachers (Lu, 2008). The findings further establish the positive attitudes of young

learners toward mobile, however as Thornton and Houser (2005) showed this might be a cultural

attitude and further research in other countries is needed. Up to this point mobile learning has

been showing to produce positive learning outcomes when such variable is measured.

The other commonality between this study’s findings and other studies is the gap

between intended use and actual use. In this case students did not read the SMS as they were

received but rather at later times. Simultaneously, the students favored the convenience of the

system over the quality of the content. Since attitudes favor convenience, could delay reading of

materials be a function of said convenience? Further research is needed but the continuous

mention of convenience in the measurements of attitudes across studies and the students

establishing their own patters of use as opposed to following instructions seem to indicate that a

connection exists.

4.2.2.4 Personalized Intelligent Mobile Learning System for Supporting Effective English

Learning (China/L2 English).


In a study comprised of 15 university students, 3rd year, enrolled on the English

department the researchers developed a system to select news texts and deliver them to the

students, then use the student feedback—incorporated on the mobile system—and delivery more

news articles that are suitable to their level of English and conductive to students improving their

level of English by using principles established by Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal

Development.

The researchers analyzed the attitudes of students toward the system (Chen & Hsu,

2008). At this point it will come as no surprise, given the emerging trend, that attitudes were

positive and that on the issue of effects on learning one can observe a positive difference

between pre and post-tests, along with students own higher self assessed reading skills.

Students engaged with the mobile devices, however two issues that arose might help

better understand why students behave the way they behave towards mobile devices and their

lack of use of the devices: students received a two hours training class on how to use the device

and ranked the system as friendly. Have other projects failed to take into account the level of

familiarity of a user with a system? It would seem so. Can the training received by students

change the way they perceive the usefulness of a system? That is an interesting topic for study

and a future consideration. The other aspect that might help shed light on other studies is the

students reported perception of the use of the system as extraneous to their learning activities;

they viewed it as something different to their learning process, an additional activity, not integral

to L2 acquisition and mastery.

The trends in results and objectives of the studies solidify: the study looked for pre and

post test difference, and they appeared. The researchers collected data regarding attitudes, and

they were positive: usability scored high on the scale. A few differences proved key: training and


explanation of the system and the use of an interface suitable to mobile, such features are not

present in every research, but helped better understand probable areas for inquiry.

4.2.2.5 The role of electronic pocket dictionaries as an English learning tool among Chinese

students (China/L2 English).

In their research of the motivations of students to use electronic dictionaries Jian,

Sandnes, Law, Huang, and Huang (2009) analyzed the use of electronic dictionaries and their

perceptions in China. As mobile phones become more advanced some of the findings of the

researchers may help designers of smartphone-based dictionaries. Feedback in the form of

questionnaires was collected from 104 engineering students—out of which 38 were graduates

and the rest undergraduates—and 88 humanities—with 20 students being graduate students and

the rest undergraduates (Jian, Sandnes, Law, Huang, & Huang, 2009).

The study highlights cultural differences, just as the study conducted by (Thornton &

Houser, 2005). Cultural differences among students don’t need to be country based; humanities

students and engineering students had different attitudes toward mobile dictionary usage.

Engineering students favored portability and Humanities students favored usability (Jian,

Sandnes, Law, Huang, & Huang, 2009). The differences among students in the same university,

in the same country show how different attitudes can be toward MALL devices. One should also

add that as the authors put it “electronic dictionaries are uncommon in most other parts of the

world, such as Europe, Africa and America” (Jian et al., 2009).

The study also found that access to dictionaries in mobile phone and access to multimedia

content was not highly desired by the students (Jian, Sandnes, Law, Huang, & Huang, 2009).

The electronic dictionaries, as compared to the phone, were faster and allowed the use of a full

keyboard. There seems to be a leaning towards devices and interfaces that are easier to use, one


could even consider portability one such feature also since it makes is accessible. Mobile and

convenience seem to go hand in hand: when students are asked to use cumbersome methods or

unresponsive interfaces they shy away from use, regardless of possible learning benefits. When

the mobile system is convenient and more accessible than other methods then students seem to

move towards mobile. Why use a small phone keyboard when a full keyboard is available? Why

access the content on a tiny screen when I don’t need it now and I can access it at home? Why

wait until I get home to read the news if I can read them during my commute? Convenience

trumps everything else in mobile, or the research would seem to show that.

4.2.2.6 Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based

vocabulary tutor (Japan/L2 English).

In his experiment Stockwell (2007) created a internet based system in which students

could access small lessons and then do activities such a multiple option questions. The system

was created in such a way that the presentation layer was independent of the content layer

(Stockwell, 2007) making it easy to display on mobile phones by adapting to the device. The

research aimed to investigate the differences in use and student performance between both

presentations. The system would store data regarding how often the students used the system, on

which platform and for how long. The experimental group (no control group existed) consisted

of 11 third and fourth year university students, out of which only 5 used the mobile system

(Stockwell, 2007) (although all of them where encouraged to use it).

Independently of the low usage (only one student used the system on a mobile device

more times than on a computer (Stockwell, 2007)) students gave favorable opinions about the

use of mobile learning, although they ranked the computer higher than the mobile. The study

would seem to contrast with that of Thornton and Houser (2005), however the nature of the task


was different. The other aspect that is present on this study is the fact that the sample was very

small, the difference between the two studies might be due to statistical issues when dealing with

such a small sample. And that criticism is not exclusive to Stockwell (2007) but to the whole

field as a whole since study after study used small samples and/or no control groups.

The other discrepancy that arose between this study and that of Thornton and Houser

(2005) is that in Stockwell (2007) saw mobile users scoring slightly lower on the tasks as

compared to the higher scores of the non-mobile learners.

4.2.2.7 Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence

from Asia (Philippines, Mongolia and India/L2 English).

In their study Valk, Rashid, and Elder (2010) aimed to examine “the extent to which

mobile phones helped improve educational outcomes in two specific ways: 1) in improving

access to education, and 2) in promoting new learning”. Theirs is an analysis of experiment

obeying the criteria of: demonstrating the use of mobile phones, and addressing lower and lower-

middle classes in the Asia-Pacific region. Having clearly documented results was the final

criteria. Out of the 6 projects that fitted the criteria only three addressed to MALL.

In the Philippines an English teaching program paired CD and workbooks with quizzes

via SMS to improve access to education since as Samrajiva and Zainudeen (2008) as quoted by

Valk, Rashid, and Elder (2010) mention: “mobile phone ownership is increasingly more common

in the lower socio-economic segments of society”. The project didn’t required complex

engagement with the phone but also didn’t provide much content in mobile form either, that

might be the reason why mobile phone users scored only “marginally higher” (Valk, Rashid, &

Elder, 2010).


The Mongolia experiment was similar in that SMS was used to test students. Students did

not complete the tests in immediate fashion but instead waited and did them last minute, which,

as we have seen, is common behavior; students don’t engage with content on the mobile instantly

but rather accommodate to their own time and convenience.

The last of the projects resembles more the first case study mentioned in “Vocabulary

learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social meaning-making: two case

studies” since it took place in the confines of a school but using mobile devices. The study found

that stronger students benefited more from the self-directed activities of mobile while weaker

students benefited more from teacher-led activities, the results indicate that different activities,

mobile or not, might be better suited to stronger or weaker learners. “The role of electronic

pocket dictionaries as an English learning tool among Chinese students” by dictionaries Jian,

Sandnes, Law, Huang, and Huang (2009) also found differences in uses and attitudes toward a

mobile device, in this case electronic dictionaries, depending on level of proficiency.

The results of the 3 studies showed that while there is “evidence of mobile phones

facilitating increased access, much less evidence exists as to how mobiles promote new learning”

(Valk, Rashid, & Elder, 2010). They studies showed that students also perceived benefits on

mobile learning which agrees with previous studies and further makes the case for the need of

continued research. Students do accept mobile learning, but what has to be done to make such

learning productive and efficient? That is a less researched question that needs to be addressed.

4.2.2 Teaching Language in Europe.

4.2.2.1 Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via mobile

phone and interactive television (UK/L2 English).


Fallahkhair, Pemberton, and Griffiths (2007) created a project that aimed to bring the

functionalities and features of interactive TV, or iTV, and mobile phones to the service of

language learning. Their project consisted on creating a multiplatform service that would allow

television viewers to receive additional content while watching TV. “Programmes such as news,

soap operas and documentaries have the potential to enhance language learners’ experience by

showing the target language, culture and context of use” (Fallahkhair et al., 2007) while the

mobile system served for “learning the new recommended language items and as tool for

managing personal knowledge” (Fallahkhair et al., 2007).

The study aimed to measure attitudes and to obtain feedback for the design of the system

(since the iTV component was a simulation with an operator in another room and not a full

functioning system). The sample was composed of 14 paid volunteers, all university staff or

students between the ages of 21 and 39. They experienced the system in a laboratory

environment, which simulated a living room, for an hour and a half and were give an hour to

complete a questionnaire. The perception of the system was positive but the participants found it

slow and confusing (Fallahkhair et al., 2007). The dichotomy between positive opinion of the

system and its evaluation as slow and confusing appears as just one more example of the

disconnect between positive attitudes on the user side and the actual implementation of the

system and the users use. The fact that the participants were paid to experience the system in a

laboratory setting makes it harder to gauge what would de the real use learners would give to the

system.

The authors very cleverly assert that for a system such as theirs a certain level of

automation has to be achieved and that there is a need for “algorithms for selection and

segmentation of learning materials from the broadcast television” (Fallahkhair et al., 2007),


specially since this system does not depend on content created specifically for it but rather feeds

from broadcast television.

4.2.2.2 M-Learning: An Experiment in Using SMS to Support Learning New

English Language Words (Cyprus/L2 English).

The research conducted by Cavus & Ibrahim (2009) tested a Mobile Learning Tool

(MOLT) with 45 college students. The students used the system and then a survey of uses and

attitudes was collected. Pre and post-test were also carried out. The system spaced the sending of

message with the aim of improving learning. Users however did not always engaged the content

as it was received and attended it on their own time and terms. The finding helps corroborate

finding from other researchers where users disregard teacher’s instructions and consume content

on their own terms, furthering the case for mobile as student-centered medium.

Student self-assessed that they could remember the words more easily, such belief was

reflected in the improvements in post-test results, as compared to the pre-test results (Cavus &

Ibrahim, 2009). The attitudes towards the system proved positive since students ranked highly

statements such as ‘I found the MOLT system enjoyable’(Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009). When asked

what other features they would like to see, images and animation dominated (Cavus & Ibrahim,

2009). It would be interesting to know if such preference for image and video would be reflected

in actual use since some of the research of the field has showed discrepancies between opinions

and usage.

The scope of the study mimics what other studies have done to “find out the potential of

using mobile devices” (Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009) for teaching purposes. Up to this point the

literature has dealt more with potential than large-scale implementation or establishing

frameworks for developing MALL. One could theorize that the developers of MALL are either


few, or they create materials or systems based on their own beliefs without supporting evidence

or they use the guidance of m-learning and CALL research to create a sort of Ad-hoc franken-

literature.

4.2.2.3 On the Spot: Using Mobile Devices for Listening and Speaking Practice on a French

Language Programme (UK/L2 French).

The project carried out in the Open University of UK aimed to research how students

could use their own mobile devices to practice listening and speaking French. With 35 students

enrolled during a 6-weeks course the experimenters, Demouy & Kukulska-Hulme (2010)

provided access to learning materials in two mode: on the personal media player (PMP) students

could download and listen to French pronunciation while mobile phone users could call a

number and record and review their pronunciation by over the phone (Demouy & Kukulska-

Hulme, 2010).

Users of both systems adapted the use of the system to their needs and uses of

technology: PMP users took advantage of their commutes to listen to the materials while phone

users waited to be at home or in another ideal environment since their system usability was

affected by noise and the complicated and limiting interface (it required users to punch numbers

on the phone while getting no visual feedback and provided no easy navigation of materials).

The students manifested wanting to have quizzes relating to the recorded materials,

which comes as no surprise since other studies have showed that users appreciate immediate

feedback (Valk et al., 2010). Users seem to enjoy the affordances that mobile offers in the way of

shortening not only distances but also time between actions and feedback, while simultaneously

managing time on their own side of the communication on their own terms and by their own

timelines.


User centered learning emerges once more as a feature not necessarily of the design of

the learning system (this system carefully timed messages for students) but rather as a function

of the nature and the attitudes of users towards mobile.

On the aspect of MALL’s potential for teaching and learning the post-test results prove

again that results can be comparable to those of traditional education.

4.2.3 Teaching second languages across the world: Identifying trends.

The inclusion of the following articles responds to two issues. First, they correspond to

the keywording defined as part of the descriptive mapping and the criteria established in this

review of literature, although they may run counter to the initial guidelines provided (as

mentioned in “A Caveat”). The size of existing literature that fits the criteria is quite small and

makes it almost necessary to include them. But most importantly, when trying to evaluate the

existing literature through descriptive mapping the aim is to paint a picture of the field, to find

out what exists, what is missing and direct further research. These articles help better understand

the state of MALL research and paint a more complete picture; it is for this reason that they have

been included.

4.2.3.1 Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating

Innovation (USA).

The article barely makes reference to learning through mobile devices by mentioning that

“much of CALL uses general consumer communication tools and applications for which we

would no longer use the term ‘pedagogical software’, such as mobile communication devices and

tools for texting, audio conferencing, videoconferencing, podcasting and so on” (Garrett, 2009).

The author makes no mention of mobile learning as a distinct category and seems to include it

with every other web-based or communication tool, however the studies presented previously


have demonstrated different uses by students themselves and the failure to engage students in

mobile devices when materials are not designed to their use of mobile. Is this the reason why the

body of literature is so rachitic? Is there a tendency of ignoring mobile and lumping it with

every other web-based learning? If so, the affordances, and the actual use students give to mobile

are being ignored and great disservice to the learning and research community is taking place.

4.2.3.2 Editorial: From Courseware to Coursewear? (N/A).

This editorial for the journal “Computer Assisted Language Learning” proposes that in

MALL there has been no hype; a fact that one could interpret also from the small size of the

literature. The author argues that this might indicate that MALL is in a state of amateur

development and that the hype will increase “as soon as tools become available allowing

teachers and researchers their own mobile applications and tools” (Colpaert, 2004). This position

presents an interesting point regarding MALL research, it may well be that research has lagged

since the penetration of mobile devices is high but production of MALL software and tools is

limited. The author expresses the need for a “framework which integrates a sound pedagogical

approach based on the mobile language learner in a sociocollaborative context” (Colpaert, 2004).

Certainly the literature shows that no such framework is available.

4.2.3.3 Novel Technologies, Engines and Mobiles in Language Learning (India).

Marginally connected with MALL, the article presents some of the aspects that reflect the

“aspects of CALL as these relate to teaching and learning English in India” (Kirubahar, Santhi,

& Subashini, 2010). While mobile devices are just an element of the whole CALL environment

the author indicates that “M-learning not only breaks barriers but also presents new challenges in

the educational area” (Kirubahar et al., 2010). The author’s overview and case for M-Learning

further proves the need for more studies around MALL in order to better understand how to


reach the potential mentioned. Studies support some of the issues presented by the researcher and

help define a picture of positive attitudes towards mobile learning, but there is a lack of peer-

reviewed published research.

4.2.3.4 Mobile Phones: Just a Phone or a Language Learning Device? (Iran).

In what amounts to little less than a brief review of literature, Bahrani (2011) presents an

argument for the use of mobile devices in language learning and presents a few guidelines to

design materials that are suited to use on mobile devices. The article is brief and introduces

nothing in the way results from experiments. However, it fitted the selection criteria and helps

establish the case for the need of more research. Academics have started to manifest interest and

Bahrani’s article shows how even the most basic overview of the field can garner interest and

provide scarce resource for people trying to understand the field.

5. Further analysis and discussion

While the present study conducted an analysis on individual articles, including

connecting them to other studies as a whole body of research there is space for further analysis.

Studies seem to demonstrate that students have positive attitudes towards mobile learning and

the statistics seem to demonstrate that mobile has a huge reach, however there is big disconnect

when it comes to L2 or MALL. Studies and experiments have been small in size, limited, non-

conclusive, in general they present very little in the way of a large picture. This is worrisome,

specially considering the opportunity presented by the marriage of availability and positive

attitudes.

The other disconnect seems to be between the way users interact with mobile devices and

the way researchers intend them to do so, a posteriori it is not unexpected; researchers can quote

literature supporting the use of mobiles for learning, however they would be hard pressed to


describe uses of mobile devices and attitudes outside of those found by their studies. How do

people use their phones? Is there level of emotional attachment with the devices that might

prevent them from fully using a loaned test device the same way they would use theirs? What are

the dominant and emerging technologies, not just from a technical perspective but on the

marketplace? Thornton and Houser's (2005) more thorough understanding of mobile use in

Japan, the practices favored by users might be one of the factors why they didn’t see a huge

discrepancy between reported attitudes and the use of the system they designed. They also used

the largest sample sizes with 333 students polled and 44 used for one of their experiments. Other

researches would be well advised to follow their example.

In a mobile society where commerce and travel across borders is a reality it is surprising

to see so little research, the attitudes of Chinese and other Asian researchers towards improving

their use of MALL is commendable and the scarcity of such research in the western world is

worrisome.

Taken together, the research also seems to show that mobile learning tends to become

learner centered; even a seemingly content-based approach, when conducted in mobile, has

affordances for self-directed learning.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Answering the research questions

The present review of literature was structured around well-defined research questions

and structured coherently on the fundamentals of a descriptive map, a methodical analysis of

evidence. As such, the conclusions for the research come in form of answers to those questions.

6.1.2 Extent


The evidence shows that the available body of literature is small in size when only

published, peer-reviewed journals are contemplated. However there are vast amounts of

publications in the form of conference papers and non-peer reviewed publications. This might

obey to the ever-changing nature of mobile devices and the time frames required to create and

publish research that obeys to the strict guidelines of academic publishing.

6.1.2 Nature of the Research and Methodologies

The nature of the research is for the most part qualitative and has focused heavily on

discovering attitudes and behaviors around the use of mobile devices for language learning.

Although quantitative studies exist and suggest that mobile learning is no inferior on its effects to

traditional learning they represent a minority of the studies and their sample sizes are small (in

certain cases as little as 10 students become an experimental group with no control group). There

is also a common practice of implementing a sample/pilot program and have students participate

to observe their use of the system, identify their attitudes with the intention of adapting such

systems for further investigation.

6.1.3 Findings

One of the interesting findings on the research has been a disconnect between positive

attitudes and actual engagement and use of the mobile system, furthermore the use of the systems

responds to users preferences commonly ignoring teachers instructions of suggestions, which

means that students high ranking of convenience as a factor or a characteristic of mobile is not

surprising. It would seem that students see mobile devices as devices of convenience and as such

they don’t adapt themselves to new uses but use the mobile to adapt content to their own needs

and convenience. This is a particularly interesting topic that should be further investigated and

implemented in the design of future systems.


6.1.4 Conclusion: What is the state of MALL research?

Overall the research published in peer reviewed journals has not been able to catch up

with the technology, there are no studies about the effects of using tactile interfaces, of systems

using newer devices and most importantly the newer user interfaces and affordances of mobiles.

Research in North America has tremendously lagged behind. For example, Apple Inc.,

manufacturer of the iPhone and iPad, has made strong attempts to introduce its mobile devices to

the educational market; little has been done to investigate their potential (or that of similar

devices) in language learning.

Yes, the body of literature regarding m-learning is vast, rich and vibrant. But the community

of second language learners and teachers has been greatly unattended.

A far fetched, but nonetheless valid, question also rises: Is this lack of research a function

of cultural hegemony? Of disregard for foreign cultures (foreign to western/English speaking

countries)? No example could be found of actual research in the USA, and only two in the UK,

yet the majority of the studies focus on the teaching and learning of English (even one of the two

published in the UK). Take the example of China, were current research has explored how

students can use mobile to learn English: no equivalent exists in the US, regardless of the size of

the Chinese community in USA and the amount of trade and commerce established between the

two countries. What role do culture, power, hegemony, and other issues play on the research

stage? The question remains open.

Finally, it was established the great potential that mobile has, if at the beginning only by its

high penetration, but later on by the widespread acceptability and positive attitudes of

users/learners towards mobile learning. The research community would do a great disservice, to

those hoping to teach or learn a second language, if they do not increase the amount and quality


of research being done. The research community has then almost a moral obligation to catch up

with the reality of mobile in the world.


References

Bahrani, T. (2011). Mobile Phones: Just a Phone or a Language Learning Device? Cross-Cultural

Communication, 7(2), 244–248.

Boyinbode, O., Bagula, A., & Ngambi, D. (2011). An Opencast Mobile learning Framework for

Enhancing Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of U- & E-Service, Science &

Technology, 4(3), 11–18.

Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). M-Learning: An Experiment in Using SMS to Support Learning

New English Language Words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 78–91.

Census. (n.d.).Statistics Canada. Government. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/index-eng.cfm

Chen, C.-M., & Hsu, S.-H. (2008). Personalized Intelligent Mobile Learning System for Supporting

Effective English Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 153–180.

Cheng, S.-C., Hwang, W.-Y., Sheng-Yi Wu, Shadiev, R., & Xie, C.-H. (2010). A Mobile Device and

Online System with Contextual Familiarity and its Effects on English Learning on Campus.

Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 93–109.

Colpaert, J. (2004). Editorial: From Courseware to Coursewear? Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 17(3-4), 261–266.

Comision Federal de Telecomunicaciones. (2012). APÉNDICE ESTADÍSTICO EJECUTIVO DEL

SECTOR TELECOMUNICACIONES (Appendix). Retrieved from

http://siemt.cft.gob.mx/SIEM/uploads/fd8dca_apacndice-ejecutivo-marzo-2012pdf.pdf

Demouy, V., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). On the Spot: Using Mobile Devices for Listening and

Speaking Practice on a French Language Programme. Open Learning, 25(3), 217–232.


Facts & Figures. (2011).Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. Chart. Retrieved from

http://cwta.ca/about-cwta/

Fallahkhair, S., Pemberton, L., & Griffiths, R. (2007). Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous

language learning service via mobile phone and interactive television. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 23(4), 312–325.

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating

Innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 719–740.

Jian, H.-L., Sandnes, F. E., Law, K. M. Y., Huang, Y.-P., & Huang, Y.-M. (2009). The role of

electronic pocket dictionaries as an English learning tool among Chinese students. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 503–514.

Kirubahar, J. S., Santhi, V. J., & Subashini, A. (2010). Novel Technologies, Engines and Mobiles in

Language Learning. Language in India, 10(2), 160–169.

Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 24(6), 515–525.

Mapping and refining the review’s scope. (n.d.).The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information

and Co-ordinating Centre. Retrieved from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=175

Smith, A. (2010). Mobile Access 2010. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010/Summary-of-Findings.aspx

Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based

vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365–383.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228.


U.S. Department of Commerce. (2011). Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010 (Brief).

Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

Valk, J.-H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational

Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in Open &

Distance Learning, 11(1), 117–140.

Wong, L. -H., & Looi, C.-K. (2010). Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content

creation and social meaning-making: two case studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

26(5), 421–433.

Wong, Lung-Hsiang, Chin, C.-K., Tan, C.-L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students’ Personal and Social

Meaning Making in a Chinese Idiom Mobile Learning Environment. Journal of Educational

Technology & Society, 13(4), 15–26.


Appendix 1: Search Strategy

Database: PsycINFO.

Keyboards searched: Mobile Assisted Language Learning, L2, second language, M-learning,

mobile learning, mobile, learning, language acquisition, mobile phone

Suggested words/thesaurus/related topics: verbal learning, foreign language learning, cellular

phones, m-learning, distance education

Additional criteria: peer reviewed journal, years 2000 to 2012, and full text available.

Database: ERIC.

Keyboards searched: Mobile Assisted Language Learning, L2, second language, M-learning,

mobile learning, mobile, learning, language acquisition, mobile phone

Suggested words/thesaurus/related topics: ubiquitous language learning, computer assisted

teaching, computer assisted learning

Additional criteria: peer reviewed journal, years 2000 to 2012, and full text available.

Comments:

Results often presented a huge quantity of ‘noise’: irrelevant results appeared, no

standardized term existed in the databases for Mobile Assisted Language Learning while the

term was used frequently on the literature. A great deal of what could be called ‘weeding’ took

place, thus relevant information regarding the number of results becomes useless. For example

ERIC showed only one result for peer reviewed articles under the keywording ‘Mobile Assisted

Language Learning while in many other cases variables and keywords entered where nowhere to

be found on the results produced.


Appendix 2: Chart of Studies

For a digital version consult the file: mallResearchXLS.xls

mobile assisted language learning - review of literature

Documents