Content uploaded by Heyoung Kim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heyoung Kim on Mar 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Heyoung Kim
(
Chung-Ang University
)
Yeonhee Kwon (Chung-Ang University)
Kim, Heyoung & Kwon, Yeonhee. (2012). Exploring smartphone applications for
effective mobile-assisted language learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language
Learning, 15(1), 31-57.
The widespread use of smartphones has brought numerous mobile applications
to L2 learners, but discussion about its effectiveness has not been settled yet
within the field. This study attempts to broaden this discussion by reporting the
findings of an in-depth review of 87 ESL mobile apps. Two research questions
are addressed to explore this issue: 1) What are the common and distinctive
features of smartphone applications? 2) What are the strengths and weaknesses
in utilizing present smartphone applications for effective mobile-assisted
language learning (MALL)? This study first suggests evaluation criteria
designed for mobile-based ESL software. Next, overall features and functions of
the selected applications are analyzed in the three categories: ‘content and
design’, ‘L2 approaches’ and ‘technology’. The details of the findings are sorted
and explained by target language skills. Finally, this study concludes that the
ESL apps seem effective in that they provide a personal and learner-centered
learning opportunity with ubiquitously accessible and flexible practices.
However, they need to be improved by realizing mobility as a more situated,
field-dependent, and collaborative form of learning. The effective design and use
of ESL mobile applications should continue to be studied in order to suggest the
right direction to effective MALL.
32
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
I. INTRODUCTION
The popularity of mobile devices has changed the way we learn, communicate, and
live. New technologies such as social networking, podcasting, or speech recognition
embedded in mobile applications accelerate the changes occurring in Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) environments by extending learning opportunities and
reshaping learning styles. The widespread use of smartphones has brought millions of
mobile applications to L2 learners. Some questions, however, still need to be fully
discussed: “Are they effective from L2 perspectives?” “What is an effective design like for
MALL?”
Some researchers (Chinnery, 2006; Kukulska-Hulme, 2009; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield,
2008) have researched and discussed MALL, but, only incidentally, as a part of large
studies looking at Computer-Assisted Language Learning, but some unique features
distinguish MALL from other types of computer-based learning (Kukulska-Hulme &
Shield, 2008). The success of MALL depends on whether or not MALL curriculum and
material developers understand the nature of mobile learning and make the most effective
use of MALL technology.
The purpose of this study is to deepen this discussion with extensive, updated
information regarding currently available ESL mobile applications (apps). This study
reviews over a hundred smartphone apps that were designed for ESL learners; 87 of these
were then selected for further in-depth analysis. This study adapted the work Hubbard
(1988, 2006, 2011) did in his study “Integrated Framework for CALL Courseware
Evaluation,” (Hubbard, 1988, 2006, 2011), to provide an analytical framework to look at
design and evaluation criteria for mobile based ESL software.
From both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data, this study presents 1) the
overall patterns of common and distinctive features of ESL mobile apps; 2) the details of
these features and functions were then examined as their effectiveness on specific
language skills. Finally, this study discusses the strengths and weaknesses of current ESL
learning apps from a pedagogical and technological perspective and suggests the directions
which might lead toward effective development of future MALL.
The research questions that guided this investigation are:
1. What are the common and distinctive features of smartphone applications appeared
from analysis?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses in utilizing present smartphone applications
for effective MALL ?
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
33
II. BACKGROUND
1. What is Effective MALL?
1) The Concept of Mobile Learning
The popularity of mobile devices has been rapidly changing learning, communicating,
even our very life styles. Use of mobile technologies remarkably extends learning
opportunities, needs, goals, and have profound effect on many learning activities and
learning styles. Despite this ubiquitous presence, there is yet no agreed-upon definition of
‘mobile learning’ or ‘m-learning’. Many researchers have emphasized “mobility” of mobile
learning (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007; 2009; Sharples, 2006; Traxler, 2007). Mobility needs to be
understood not only in terms of spatial movement, but also the ways in which such
movement may enable time-shifting and boundary-crossing (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009, pp.
158-159). Kloper, Squire, and Jenkins (2002) attend to five unique educational properties of
mobile devices which precisely describe mobility aspects of m-learning: portability, social
interactivity, context sensitivity, connectivity.
El-Hussein and Cronje (2010) succinctly define the concept of mobility in three
significant areas: mobility of technology, mobility of learning, and mobility of learner. In
mobility of technology, mobile technology includes smartphones, digital cameras, hand-held
computers (e.g.table PC, PDA), global positioning system (GPS) devices or other mobile
devices that are furnished with wireless application protocol (WAP), or Wi-Fi. These
technologies deliver content and instruction through the Internet or satellites, that can
enable learners to learn anywhere, anytime. Mobile technology also enables users to
perform many different kinds of social-interactive functions including communication
(phone, SMS, SNS, email), organization (memos, address or calendars, other utilities),
applications (e-books, database, tools, and office), information (webs, references) or
relaxation (camera, music, movies, or games) (Trinder, 2005).
Mobility of learning also generates new modes of educational delivery: personalized,
learner-centered, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous, and lifelong learning (Sharples, Taylor
& Vavloula, 2005). The mobile learners can have very personal and unique experiences
within the context they are situated. There is neither limitation nor privilege with regard
to age, place, time or duration. The learners can easily connect with each other for their
own purposes and interests. The way they construct, organize and reconstruct knowledge
is based mainly on social trust (Globeck, 2006, 2009) in the context of the social process.
Finally, mobile learning enhances the mobility of individual learners. Learners usually
34
Exploring Smartphone Appli cations for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
take the advantage of their learning to facilitate productivity and effectiveness, allowing
them to be more flexible, accessible, and to personalize their learning activities.
Environments for new learning modes should engage them in their ongoing learning
activities and enhance their productivity and effectiveness. Learning advantages such as
more flexible, accessible, and personalized learning activities provide this engaging
encouragement (Ting, 2005). The mobile learners can develop sense of individuality,
community, and ubiquitousness in learning, which might bring them the enjoyment of
having a certain amount of freedom and independence. Figure 1 shows the concept of
mobile learning in higher education summarized in the previous studies.
[Figure 1] The Concept of Mobile Learning in Three Areas
2) Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Since the term mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) was first coined by
Chinnery (2006), the use of mobile devices to support language learning has increased
exponentially. Although, in general, MALL has been considered as a subset of both mobile
learning and computer-assisted language learning, Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) note
that MALL differs from CALL “in its use of personal, portable devices that enable new
ways of learning, emphasizing continuity or spontaneity of access and interaction across
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
35
different contexts of use” (p. 273).
The literature summarizes the benefits of using MALL as follows. First, MALL
enables students to more easily and more promptly access language learning materials and
communicate with people at anytime, from anywhere. Second, the nature of digital
technology facilitates students’ participation in both collaborative and individualized
language learning activities synchronously and/or asynchronously allowing rapid
development of speaking, listening, reading, and writing, skills. Third, mobile technology
provides various resources and tools for language learning that encourage learners to be
more motivated, autonomous, situated (site-specific), and socially interactive.
Numerous studies have reported on the use of mobile devices being used to develop
language skills in the last few decades. Thornton and Houser (2005) used mobile phones
for English vocabulary lessons and asserted that, compared with paper, and
computer-based lessons, mobile-learners perceived more and preferred learning with
mobile phones. Levy and Kennedy (2005) also implemented short message service (SMS)
for Italian vocabulary instruction to send word knowledges and to request feedback. 94.4%
students responded positively to the project. Kiernan and Aizawa (2004) explored using
mobile phones for task-based language learning and concluded that incorporating tasks
can promote L2 acquisition and make learners focus on meaning. Cho (2009) and Lee
(2010) indicate that smartphones enable the combination of multimedia and the web and
heighten the learners’ autonomy and collaboration.
2. Mobile Application Services for MALL
1) Mobile Social Networking/ Mobile Social Software (MoSoSo)
Most of Social Network Service (SNS) applications, such as Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, or Flicker, were introduced with compact designs but with almost identical
functions in mobile platforms/ These were often lumped into a category which we now
refer to as mobile social networking or mobile social software (MoSoSo). MoSoSo extends
social networking to the mobile environment.1) Lugano (2007, 2008) indicates that the
marriage of computer and mobile networks provides opportunities for a synergy among
SNS and MoSoSo, supporting social networking activity anytime and anywhere. In this
context, MoSoSo upgraded the original mobile services from interpersonal to network
interactions through the many-to-many communication paradigm and diversified purposes
and needs for mobile communication making it possible to integrate and coordinate them
1) Kakao talk, Dodgeball or Foursquare are a few selected examples of numerous MoSoSo.
36
Exploring Smartphone Appli cations for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
into everyday life.
Previous studies of SNS regarding L2 learning attend to interaction and collaboration
in SNS (Lomicka and Lord, 2009; Kim, 2010; Kim, Park, & Baek, 2011). For example, Kim
(2010) investigated three EFL teachers’ use of Twitter for their instruction for three
weeks and found that three teachers had built extended interaction and rapport with their
students, but their interaction patterns were different by teachers’ L2 beliefs. Kim, Park,
and Baek (2011) explored the uses of microblogging among three different EFL student
groups (Grade 5, 7, and 11) and reported that the use of Twitter boosts learners’ output
and encourage relationships with other users. Some negative results were also reported in
SNS-integrated class such as some ontological conflict between the instructor and
students, reduced achievement, and a lesser sense of belonging and recognition (Cho,
2009).
2) Mobile Podcasting/ Mobilecast
A mobilecast is “a podcast designed to be downloaded or streamed to a mobile phon
e”2). Most of the recent smart phones contain audio and video devices, web 2.0 technology
and huge storage capacity, so podcasting services can be run on the portable devices as
easily as on a PC. These kinds of devices, however, tend to lend themselves better to
more brief information, such as news headlines or short movie reviews due to the limits
of speed and screen size. Since mobilecast is more prompt and more hands-on than
PC-based podcasting, it can be a powerful multimedia learning tool, again, because it is
“ready-to-use anytime and anywhere”.
Ideas of integrating podcasting into language learning have been reviewed by many
researchers. Cho (2006), O’Bryan & Hegelheimer (2007), Stanley (2006), and Thorne and
Payne (2005) found that podcast provides authentic materials, so it is an effective
supplement to textbooks. Cho (2007) also presents that podcasting enhances learners’
intrinsic motivation and facilitates their collaborative learning process through meaning
negotiation.
3) Course Management Service (CMS)
Course management service is software designed to create online courses within which
learners and teachers can converse with each other and be engaged in collaborative
construction of content. Houser and Thornton (2005) proposes Poodle, a
2) quoted from Wikepedi a, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilecast
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
37
course-management system designed to facilitate deploying education materials to mobile
phones. Poodle is an important step towards the standardization of mobile phones in
education, in that it supports ubiquitous polls, quizzes, wikis, forums, and flash cards.
Milovanović, Minović, Štavljanin, and Starčević (2008) suggest enabling students to access
Moodle CMS on the go. Their research developed Moodle extension for mobile users.
They found clear advantages of using core Moodle functions via mobile devices, Shen,
Wang, and Pan (2008) assert that CMS helps to create a student-centered learning
environment in which students can participate and feel they play an important role.
4) Automatic Speech Recogntion (ASR)
Voice-recognition software has been reviewed as a tool for language learning since
80s. Numerous ESL software has been embedded in ASR devices for more interactive oral
practice. Recent advances in mobile technology makes speech processing technology
possible by improving on the limitation of storage, memory, and speed of wireless phones.
Voice-recognition apps enable voice dialing, or automatic translating. Dragon dictation and
Nuance offer microblogging or text-messaging by voice. Voice translating apps such as
Jibbigo translates words, phrases and simple sentences, allowing two parties to peak
alternately. ASR-based apps, such as Bing, Google Voice, Vlingo, or Siri Assistant also
function as automatic hands-free task processing engines.
III. RESEARCH METHODS
1. Applications to Review
This study deals with iPhone applications for learning English searched by a keyword
in iTunes3), a media player computer program that manages content on the Apple4) smart
devices, products supported by mobile platform called iOS..
The reason to choose iOS is because this study is intended to focus more on global
trends of mobile application use. According to the Gartner Report5) (August, 2011) the
current market share of smartphone platforms reveals that 43.4% for Android, 18.2% for
iOS, and 22.1% for Symbian. However, Symbian provides a very limited number of apps
3) http://www.itunes.com
4) http://www.apple.com
5) http://www.gartner.com
38
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
(2); the number of Android applications (250) is also far less than that of iOS (499) in
searching of keyword, ‘ESL.’ In addition, Android ESL apps were pretty much overlapped
with iOS ones. Therefore, it seems statistically relevant to say that iOS apps can
represent the overall trend and features of current apps in the ESL field.
From the primary search, 499 applications were found using the keyword, ‘ESL.’
Among them, this study filtered out 87 applications using the following procedure (Table
1). First, this study excluded applications targeted at learners of specific languages, such
as Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, French, and so forth. Second, only one application was
selected out of the multiple versions of one company because, when analyzed, it was
found that they share almost the same design features.
Focused Skills Number of Applications Mean Percentage Paid Free
Vocabulary 37 42.5 23 14
Grammar 11 12.6 10 1
Listening 10 11.4 4 6
Reading 15 17.4 10 5
Speaking 8 9.1 6 2
Writing 5 5.7 5 0
Total 87 100 59 28
[Table 1] Number of Smartphone Applications by Language Learning Areas
2. Analytical Framework of MALL
This study employs Hubbard’s widely used software review criteria, “Integrated
Framework for CALL Courseware Evaluation” (1988, 2006, 2011) as the basis of an
analytical framework. However, since this framework was designed for courseware and
PC-based learning, this study modified it by adding and deleting some elements and
criteria and narrowing down the scope of the framework in order to better fit in
mobile-assisted language learning environments and devices. The revised framework has
three categories: Content/Design Target, Procedure and Approach, Technological
Features.
In Content/Design Target, this study attempts to identify intended users’ profile and
their learning from the applications. This includes mostly elements of Hubbard’s ‘Learner
fit’. In this category, target learners, content, learning styles and strategies were analyzed
from L2 learners’ perspectives.
Procedure & Approach analyzed mobile apps from pedagogical and SLA perspectives.
This covers activities, focus, and methodological approaches, which incorporates ‘Activities’
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
39
∎ Content/Design Target
∙Target Learners
- age (children, young adult, adult)
- interest (general, ESP)
- proficiency level (beginner, intermediate, advanced)
∙Content
- topic
- organization
- content size (number of units, topics, sentences, words, etc)
∙Learning styles (recognition, recall, comprehension, experiential learning etc.)
∙Learning strategies (field-dependent/independent, deductive/inductive reasoning, collaborative, etc)
∎ Proce dure & Approach (Pedagogy and SLA)
∙Activities
- Instructional (tutorials, drills, text(voice) reconstruction)
- Individual (test, quiz, game)
- Facilitative (dictionary, database, verb conjugator, spell/grammar checker, pronunciation
∙Focus
- Linguistic focus (discourse, lexis, grammar, spelling, pronunciation)
- Language skill focus (reading, listening, writing, speaking)
- Sociolinguistic focus (form/meaning focused, information gathering, authentic tasks)
∙Methodological approaches (audio-lingual, situated, task-based, structual etc)
∎ Technological Features
∙Multimedia (videos/ graphics/Sound/Music/Resolution Size )
∙Exploitation of mobile potential
- Other Functions (memo pad, voice recording, speech synthesizing, speech/text recognition)
- Web 2.0 features (SNS, wiki, blog, podcasting etc.)
[Table 2] Analytical Framework of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
and ‘Teacher fit’. Since mobile apps were mostly designed for individual learning, some
questions in Hubbard’s regarding teachers and curricula were excluded.
Technological Features includes four elements, simplicity of direction and usage,
platform compatibility, multimedia, and exploitation of computer potential. Each item has
mobile-fit questions including web 2.0 technology and currently available platforms. The
further detail in this framework is described in Table 2.
40
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
3. Procedure
The application review of this study can be considered as ‘judgemental’ analysis of
software evaluation (Chapelle, 2001, p. 54). According to Chapelle (2001) “the judgemental
analysis should examine characteristics of the software and task in terms of criteria
drawn from research on SLA” (p. 54). The study was conducted by analyzing the data
both quantitatively and qualitatively in the following manner. First of all, the researchers
searched the applications with the keyword ESL in iTunes and reviewed them by
reviewing the description. Next, the applications were selected based on the following
criteria. They should be 1) designed for ESL only 2) written in English, 3) include some
instructional devices (tutorial, scaffolding, or direct instruction). More than 100
applications, including both free and paid versions, were downloaded and reviewed to
carefully select the appropriate target materials. The free versions were chosen from the
multiple series made by the same publishers. The researchers finally chose 87 target
applications. Third, the applications were sorted by focus skills, and then each application
was both qualitatively reviewed and quantitatively coded by all the items of the evaluation
criteria (Table 2). MS Excel 97 was utilized to create a systematic and easily assessable
log. Fourth, each skill area was recorded both on the separate and the same index sheet
for data triangulation, and the researchers reviewed the logs by alternatively going over
the data between two sheets to compare and contrast them with other skill areas. For
general pattern finding across the skills, the analysed data were integrated, repeatedly
reviewed, and counted in the three major themes, ‘Content/Design Target,’ ‘Procedures and
Approaches,’ and ‘Technological Features.‘ Decision Tree Analysis (DTA, Han & Kamber,
2001) was used for knowledge discovery or data mining. DTA enhanced qualitative
process by allowing the researcher to analyze the quantitative data (Castellani &
Castellani, 2003, p. 1009).” Each app in a tree has many branches that describe features of
evaluation items in three categories, which helps to shape common properties by groups.
Finally, for descriptive statistical results, the researcher used automatic formula or “find
word” in MS Excel 97 to calculate the total numbers and the percent rates.
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
41
IV. RESULTS
1. Features of Current ESL Mobile Applications
1) Content/Design Target
(1) Target Users
The target users of the applications are mostly adults or young adults (81%). Only 19
% of selected applications were designed for children. This seems closely related to the
population of smartphone owners. The assumed proficiency level varies from beginning
(22%), intermediate (47%), to advanced (30%). They were fairly well-balanced across
language skills, except writing apps which were all targeted at advanced learners. The
target users are considered to have general interest in learning English, and the limited
number of applications offers content for special interest group such as business English
or English test preparation.
(2) Content
The organization and study features have distinctive patterns according to the target
language skills. Most of the apps require cognitive learning style such as learning styles
of recognition (31%), recall (29%), comprehension (31%), rather than socio-cognitive (ex.
experiential learning (12%).
2) Procedures and Approaches
(1) Activities
The activities of the ESL apps are analyzed to be ‘not well developed’ and also
‘traditional’, They seem quite different from the concept ‘mobility of MALL’ in El-Hussein
and Cronje (2010). Almost the half of the apps offer listed language data only, no
recognized instruction. The instructions of the other half are nearly teacher-directed such
as tutorials (75%) or drills (40%). Only 17.5% of them are learners’ own reconstruction of
text or voice. Quite a number of applications (40. 6%) include indivitual activities such as
games or tests. There was no attempt to encourage or facilitate collaborative learning.
However, many of them are facilitative for independent language learning by providing
good scaffolding devices such as word dictionaries, spell checkers, hyperlink,
pronunciation, or other reference databases.
42
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effecti ve Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
[Figure 2] Multimedia and Exploitation of Mobile Potential
(2) Focus
The major focus of ESL mobile applications is words. Across all applications, 55%
have activities for vocabulary learning and vocabulary applications takes 41%. From the
data analysis, other linguistic foci such as spelling or pronunciation are also closely related
to developing word knowledge. The other language skills in the list are reading (15),
grammar (11), listening (10), speaking (8), and writing (5) in order. The findings support
the fact that the current mobile apps focus more on receptive language skills than
productive, and present more form-focused short language information. Culture (15%) or
authentic context (9%) were not much highlighted.
(3) L2 Methodological Approaches
Although some apps do not have any recognizable methodological approaches, there
were various patterns yielded from the data analysis from L2 perspectives. The most
frequently employed approaches are task-based (28) (mostly cognitive tasks such as
problem-solving) and audio-lingual (27), situational (6), or structural (6) approaches have
been also taken.
3) Technological Features
Figure 2 shows the technology use in the reviewed applications. It was analyzed that
the most frequently employed multimedia feature was sound and video. Most of the apps
include the connection to SNS, but with no specific study purpose. Results clearly show
that recent mobile technologies such as speech recognition or text recognition, or other
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
43
Age Interest Proficiency Level
Children Young
Adults Adults General Specific Beginner Intermediate Advanced
N7 24 6 31 6 8 15 14
% 18.9 64.8 16.2 83.7 16.2 21.6 40.5 37.8
[Table 3] Students' Profile of Vocabulary Applications
web 2.0 tools, were not embedded, or embedded without much consideration of MALL.
2. Further Analysis of ESL Apps by Language Skills
1) Vocabulary (37)
(1) General Learning Features
Vocabulary apps mostly have similar content designs, namely, ‘word list presentation’.
However, their target learners’ profile and difficulty level vary in terms of age, interest,
and proficiency level as in Table 3.
From the data analysis in Table 4, the most dominant organization type is the word
list with its definition and example sentences. A few applications provide list of quizzes,
tests, and game for enhancing learners’ comprehension and self-checks. Noticeably, many
apps (56.7%) have topics, which probably provides users with more context and
motivation.
Topic Organization
Yes No
Word List +
Definition +
Examples
Tests Game Word List
+Tests
Word List
+Game
Word List
+Quiz
+Game
Resource + Quiz +
Game + Media
N21 16 23 6 1 3 1 2 1
% 56.7 43.2 62.1 16.2 2.7 8.1 2.7 5.4 2.7
[Table 4] Content of Vocabulary Applications
Learners can also selectively choose lexical categories, vocabulary and idioms, and 80%
of applications employ at least two types of learning styles and all of them require
‘recognition.’
44
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
Study Feature Learning Styles
Words Idioms Both RC RC+RE RC+CO RC+RE+CO RC+RE+CO+EX
N 24 8 5 6 10 13 5 2
% 72.9 48.6 13.5 16.2 27 35.1 13.5 5.4
Note: RC: Recognition RE: Recall CO: Comprehension EX: Experiential Learning
[Table 5] Study Feature and Learning Style of Vocabulary Applications
One of the prototypical examples is Smart Words. From the main page, learners can
either start learning the list of words or search for specific words. Smart Word presents
each word on one page with a definition, an example, and two audio files for
pronunciation: American English and British English.
[Figure 3] The Screenshots of
Smart Words
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
From the data analysis, vocabulary apps can be described as “various technology uses
and scaffolding devices, but traditional L2 approaches.” As shown in Table 4, most
vocabulary apps seem to function as self-study reference rather than formal instruction.
Only a few apps (9) offer some tutorials or drills. The majority of these apps were
designed for individual learning. Very few attempts were made for collaborative learning.
Many, however, have excellent facilitating devices, such as pronunciation (14), additional
databases (15), videos and graphic for visual aids (4), or bilingual translations by actively
using various new technologies, such as SNS6), voice recording, YouTube7), GPS8).
L2 approaches were not very diverse and were mostly traditional. Most frequently
6) Just vocabulary, World Glide, Idiom attack
7) Idiom attack
8) American Idioms
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
45
found methodologies were audio-lingual (14) or task-based (10). Tasks were mostly
finding answers to the questions, and none of them provide other types of tasks in
Task-Based Learning. Some apps (2) attempt to provide lesson by situation.
2)Grammar(11)
(1) General Learning Features
Grammar applications are developed mostly for young adult learners (72%) of the
intermediate level (81%). Thus, they all focus on general learning purposes. Most
applications deals with all the topics of English grammar. They are mostly two types,
text-based grammar instructions or grammar tests/quizzes. To heighten learners’
awareness, one application provides both types.
Topic Organization
Verb
Tense All Topics Others Tests Text-based grammar
instruction
Test+Text-based grammar
instruction + Context
N28 1 7 3 1
% 18 72 9 63.6 27.2 9
[Table 6] Topic and Organization of Grammar Applications
Most of the apps include comprehension learning style. Although they apply grammar
contents in the “bite-size” screen, they tried to involve more than two learning styles.
RC RE CO RE+RC CO+RE CO+EX CO+RC+RE RC+RE+CO+EX
N112 2 1 2 1 1
%9918 18 9 18 9 9
Note: RC: Recognition RE: Recall CO: Comprehension EX: Experiential Learning
[Table 7] Learning Style of Grammar Applications
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
Most of the grammar apps are considered as formal instruction. Eight apps out of 11
have tutorials or drills. Four applications (36%) even serve activities to reconstruct texts.
In addition, they provide pronunciation, words, or other linguistic knowledge as well as
grammar and other integrated skill practices, reading(11), listening(3), speaking(1) or
writing(1)9).
The methodological approaches in grammar apps also remain traditional. The lesson
46
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
was given by structural unit, and then tests were provided. Some learner-centered
functions such as “add/remove,” “mark favorites,” automatic scoring, memo pad, or voice
recording were recognized in a few apps. One noticeable attempt is Grammar A-Z. As
shown in Figure 4, it presents comprehensive grammar instruction, with various exercises
context, quizzes, and four integrated skills. Good scaffolding utilities such as a voice
recorder, memo pad, and a dictionary for many different L1 users, including Korean,
Japanese, Hindi, English, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese.
[Figure 4] The Screenshots of
Grammar A-Z
3) Listening (10)
(1) General Learning Features
There are numerous potentially effective language learning applications for listening
such as many audio or video-uploaded podcasting, but the selected listening apps were
designed particularly for ESL. Listening applications present meaning-based resources
with various topics mostly focusing on a particular group, young adult learners (90%) of
intermediate level (89%).
The content is all diverse, authentic, and well scaffolded with transcripts (6) or
subtitles (3). The design of the content was basically identical in most listening apps,
which is “providing listening files and comprehension questions.”
9) Grammar A-Z
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
47
Organization Learning Style
Listening+
Transcript
Listening+
Subtitle Test CO CO + RE CO + RC CO+RE+RC
N6314312
%60 30 10 40 30 10 20
Note: RC: Recognition RE: Recall CO: Comprehension
[Table 8] Content and Learning Styles of Listening Applications
For example, College Girl’s Voice Blog presents about a 5-10 minute authentic speech
with subtitles that can be shown or hidden by the control button. Users can develop
listening and reading skills simultaneously. The content is meaning-based regarding
college cultures in America.
[Figure 5] The Screenshots of
College Girl’s Voice Blog
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
All the reviewed apps provide meaning-based instruction, and half of them include
cultural context. Three apps sequence the content by situation base, and two applications
highlights communication practice. An audio-lingual method is still portrayed in some
applications’ contents (4). Due to listening focus and technological restrictions, there was
not much interaction between users or between users and their mobile apps. Only one app
allows voice recording and another app presents video file. Only two apps provide SNS
service, but not for the purpose of communicative exchanges.
Their linguistic focus mostly covers discourse and pronunciation of word or sentence
level, but some apps also deal with word spelling (3) and grammatical elements (4) from
the listening scripts. Further scaffolding such as resources or links to topic-related
information was not found.
48
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effecti ve Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
4)Reading(15)
(1) General Learning Features
There are numerous e-book apps and other apps for authentic reading purposes such
as news or websites. This study reviewed only reading apps for ESL learners. Unlike,
when looking at the listening features of apps, reading applications were analyzed from a
general interest pespective for all age and proficeincy groups.
Age Interest Proficiency Level
Children Young
Adult Adult General Specific Beginner Intermediate Advanced
N5 6 4 14 1 5 5 5
% 33 40 26.6 93.3 6.6 33.3 33.3 33.3
[Table 9] Students' Profile of Reading Applications
The topic and genre of their reading texts were diverse; for example. fairy tales (2),
news (1), dramas (1), novels (1) etc. Most reading apps (11) also provide audio files, and
some of them (2) even provide text with videos.
One third of the applications provide input enhancement functions for users. When
leaners listen to the audio files of the text, the words of the text are highlighted or
underlined in sync with the recorded voice. One app includes a caregiver’s guide for the
children’s reading practice. Similar to listening reading apps also require a variety of
learning styles, recognition, recall, experiential learning, as well as comprehension.
Input Enhancement Quiz/Test Tutorial Note Guide Summary
N5 4 111
% 33 26.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
CO RC CO+ RC CO+EX CO+RC+RE CO+RC+EX CO+RC+RE+EX
N43 3 1 1 1 2
% 26.6 20 20 6.6 6.6 6.6 13.3
Note: RC: Recognition RE: Recall CO: Comprehension EX: Experiential Learning
[Table 10] Study Feature and Learning Style of Reading Applications
As a good example, Oxford Bookworms Library series provides eBook apps with
original illustrations, audio files, glossaries, and word quizzes. They provide apps with two
different sizes for iPad and iPhone.
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
49
[Figure 6] The Screenshots of Dracula:
Oxford Bookworms Library
(i-phone size)
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
Only a few L2 approaches were found in reading categories; expectedly. Most
prominent was bottom-up reading because most reading apps offer word exercises only,
and users are expected to read the story while listening to the audio file. Reading and
listening skills can be developed at the same time, but there was no instruction or guide
for learners. There are two scaffolding devices for L2 readers. First, the target words are
linked to the glossary and printed in red. Second, a picture is given for each page that
describe the scene. There is no activity from any apps that guide the pre- or post-
reading process.
5) Speaking(8)
(1) General Learning Features
The majority of speaking applications are targeted at young adults or children.
However, their interests and topics vary for the age group of the intermediate or lower
proficiency level: pronunciation (3), tongue twister (1), phonics (2), ESP (2), test
preparation (2). 50% of the apps require learners to use recognition and recall. The way
they organize the lessons is also noticeably diverse; providing questions and answers,
model practice, audio video tutorials, or animated simulation etc.
Age Interest Proficiency Level
Children Young Adult Adult General Specific Beginner Intermediate Advanced
N2 5 1 4 4 3 4 1
% 25 62.5 12.5 50 50 37.5 50 12.5
[Table 11] Students' Profile of Speaking Applications
50
Exploring Smartphone Appli cations for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Topic Organization
Pronunciation Phonics ESP Tongue
twist Test Prep Picture/L
etter Tutorial Example
sentence Test
N3 221 2 22 11
% 37.5 25 25 12.5 25 25 25 12.5 12.5
Note: ESP: English for specific purposes
[Table 12] Content of Speaking Applications
More than half of the selected apps provide voice recording for accuracy development.
They were designed mostly for individual practice. Simulations (3) and quizzes (1) are
included in some apps.
IELTS Speaking Success is the most recognized in this category. It consists of 25
usual topics and 28 critical topics. Each topic provides learners with guiding questions,
relevant vocabulary and idioms. IELTS speaking success also offers audio streaming and
recording service so that learners can compare their pronunciation with native speakers.’
To share learning, learners can directly email their recorded speeches, or they can register
on a company-administered web forum or SNS.
[Figure 7] The Screenshots of IELTS Speaking Success
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
The types of speaking practices are mostly drill and practice, for example, ‘listening
and repeating’, ‘reading aloud’, or ‘voice recording’. Some apps provide references only
such as speaking tips, sample dialogue, or mouth movement videos. Learner-centered or
interactive activities were not found. Another noticeable pattern is that the most of the
lessons are form-focused. Only two apps have meaning-based content, such as job
interview or selected topics from IELTS. There is no attempt to provide contextualized
meaning exchanges among learners or between learners and texts. Furthermore, skills
were not integrated actively to develop comprehensive speaking ability such as reading
and speaking (2) or listening and speaking (responding). Only instruction for the
development of bottom skills, such as sound, phoneme, dialogue practices were attempted.
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
51
6) Writing(5)
(1) General Learning Features
Writing applications mostly have a very clear target group for young adults who
prepare essays or take writing tests to enter university in English speaking countries.
They present a series of tutorials of diverse essay types, such as college scholarship
essays, SAT essays, summary essays and so forth.
Organization Study Feature
Essay Writing Tutorial Essay Tutorial + writing pages writing guideline
N3 2 5
%60 40 100
[Table 13] Content and Study Feature of Writing Applications
Instruction patterns in all the selected apps are similar and straightforward. They
require comprehension and experiential learning and provide writing tutorials, writing, and
a spell checker. Some apps additionally facilitate web dictionary, outline guide, or
bibliography. ESL Essay Writing is one example of writing applications.
(2) L2 Approaches and Methodological Concerns
Some applications effectively facilitate users with writing practices from various
writing approaches, such as process writing, self-editing, interactive writing etc.. The
writing process was systematic providing “brainstorm-outline-write-study with
tutorials-revise-submit” steps. In addition, some applications attempt to provide an
opportunity for self-editing based on email-based or web-based individual feedback and a
reference guide. Essay Writing Wizard MAX is one excellent example. It consists of six
different apps including writing planner, organizer, handbook, Q&A, and personal assistant.
Learners can brainstorm on “Notes”, organize an idea on “Outline”, and write a draft on
“Essay.” Learners use other apps on the writing process by reading tutorials, asking
questions, or checking writing styles from the reference etc. Email or SNS service are
actively used for one-to-one communication.
52
Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assi sted Language Learning
[Figure 8] The Screentshots of
Essay Writing Wizrad MAX
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
1. What are the common and distinctive features of ESL smartphone
applications?
The analysis of ESL smartphone applications reveals several common features. First,
the majority of applications deals with short language data information such as word lists,
pronunciations, grammatical elements, or sample dialogues or essays etc. The development
of vocabulary is the most common skill area ESL apps apply themselves to. This is not a
surprising result because the phone screen allows the bite-size chunks of input rather
than extended tasks or lengthy reading passages. Another reason might be that the mobile
applications are still considered to function as study reference not as full instruction.
Therefore, most of the apps present language learning of lexical level or facilitate the
users with glossaries often including one-sentence examples or pronunciation sound files.
Second, most of them require cognitive language learning style and seldom provide
socially interactive learning opportunity. Most instructions in vocabulary and grammar
apps are drills, problem solving, recalling, comprehension checks to individually construct
linguistic knowledge. The technology functions as resources (ex. word list, tongue
twisters, sample writings, games) and tools (ex. dictionaries, a notepad, a voice recorder, a
translater etc.), and it is up to the users to control them for developing new knowledge.
This approach is very close to cognitive CALL (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). There is no
full instruction that controls learners, but, rather, individualized, personal, analytic,
learner-centered learning opportunities. There were few attempts to provide opportunities
for collaboration with others or much attention given to engaging in authentic contexts or
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
53
extended discourses. Socially interacting technology, such as SNS, Wikis, and podcasting,
were hardly employed for socio-cognitive CALL (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).
Third, ESL apps employ various modes and functions of multimedia, such as sounds,
videos, musics, or images, for personal, perceptual, and field-independent learning while
other mobile technologies such as SNS, podcasting, voice synthesizing, which clearly
provide more collaborative, constructive, or field-dependent practice, are not actively used
for instruction,
Fourth, their L2 approaches are not diverse and remain in the form-focused
instruction. The data analysis of ESL applications across the skill areas shows that most
of the apps are primarily form-focused. Two dominant methods are audio-lingual and task
(test)-based. There were many authentic or extended discourses provided. Sound setup or
voice recording tools were highlighted in many apps for repetition drills.
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses in utilizing present smartphone
applications for effective MALL?
As summarized in the literature (p. 34, Figure 1), effective MALL should assume a
good mobility and also include benefits of MALL (p. 35). Currently available ESL
smartphone apps have both strengths and weaknesses from the criteria indicated in the
literature. First of all, the ESL apps seem effective in that they provide a personal and
learner-centered learning opportunity with ubiquitously accessible and flexible resources
and activities. This could encourage learners to develop a sense of individuality and
develop life-long learning habits. Students can more easily and promptly access language
learning materials and tools on their own anytime and anywhere; therefore, enhancing
their language learning motivation and autonomy in MALL.
On the other hand, there is also substantial scope to improve ESL apps to reach
effective MALL. They are weak in realizing mobility as a more situated, field-dependent,
and collaborative learning opportunity. More active use of authentic context, socially
interactive tasks, timely and situated materials (ex. podcasting) is needed. In addition,
knowledge reconstruction based on social process should be also considered in designing
instruction and implementing technology. The present apps facilitate personal learning, but
do not effectively assist personalized learning. Although there seems a plenty of
learner-centered learning opportunity by providing rich language data, including sound and
movies, and test questions, they lack knowledge-building devices, such as hyperlinks,
RSS, MoSoSo, CMS, and other web 2.0 tools.
Some more suggestions for instructional design were evident from the data analysis.
54
Exploring Smartphone Appli cations for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
First, more varied and appropriate technology should be embedded in the technology to
encourage development of other language skill areas. Recorder, speech recognizer, audio
file controller, memo pad, course management services(CMS) could be more widely and
properly utilized for developing productive speaking and writing skills. Second, more
diverse L2 approaches and methodologies should be employed to satisfy the different
needs and styles of learners. Despite good quality and quantity of input, their application
and use are mostly based on a structural and cognitive focus.
Another critical limitation in MALL is high cost. Smartphones are costly so the users
are generally working adults. There are three times more paid apps than the free ones,
which, generally, are so-called “trial or lite versions” The price ranges vary depending on
data capacity amount and the number of bells and whistles the devices feature.
This study shows the great potential of mobile language learning and reminds us of
how swiftly mobile technology changes. The effective design and use of ESL mobile
applications should continue to be studied in order to suggest the right direction to
effective MALL.
REFERENCES
Castellani, B & Castellani, J. (2003). Data mining: Qualitative data analysis with health
informatics data. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 1005-1018.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for
teaching, testing, and research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies Going to the MALL: Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16.
Cho, S. (2006). The use of podcasting for English learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language
Learning, 7(3), 241-254.
Cho, S. (2007). Current status and future of MALL. Multimedia-Assisted Language
Learning, 10(3), 187-201.
Cho, S. (2009). Smartphones used for foreign language learning. Multimedia-Assisted
Language Learning, 12(3), 211-228.
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education
landscape. Educational. Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
Globeck, J. (2006). Computing with trust: Definition, properties, and algorithms. Retrieved
May 5, 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
55
arnumber=4198839
Globeck, J. (2009). Introduction to computing with social trust. In J. Globeck (Ed.),
Computing with social trust (pp. 1-5). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Han, J. & Kamber, L. (2001). Data mining: Concepts and techniques. San Francisco: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Houser, C., & Thornton, P. (2005). Poodle: A course-management system for mobile phones.
Proceedings of IEEE International workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in
education, Tokushima, Japan. Retrieved September 10, 2011 from the World Wide
Web: http://te.ugm.ac.id/~fikri/download/ieee/e-learning/23850211.pdf
Hubbard, P. (1988). An integrated framework for CALL courseware evaluation. CALICO
Journal, 6(2), 51-72.
Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. In L. Ducate & N. Arnolds (Eds.), Calling
on call: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp.
313-334). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Hubbard, P. (2011). Evaluation of courseware and websites. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.),
Present and future perspectives of CALL: From theory and research to new
directions in foreign language teaching, Second Edition. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Kiernan, P. J., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones
useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84.
Kim, E.-Y., Park, S.-M., & Baek, S.-H. (2011). Twitter and implications for its use in EFL
learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 113-137.
Kim, H. (2010). Three teachers’ initial efforts to use Twitter for teaching English in public
schools. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 129-154.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H., (2002, August). Environmental detectives: PDAs as
a window into a virtual simulated world. Paper presented at International Workshop
on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Växjö, Sweden.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile Usability in educational contexts : What have we learnt?
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-16.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(2),
157-165.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile-assisted language learning:
From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271
–289.
Lee, H. (2010). Smart phone based Chinese education application project and production
56
Exploring Smartphone Appli cations for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
experiment. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ewha Woman’s University, Seoul.
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme
& J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp.
76-83). London: Taylor and Francis.
Lomicka, L. & Lord, G. (2009). The next generation: Special networking and online
collaboration in foreign language learning. CALICO Monograph Series, 8. 1-11.
Lugano, G. (2007). Mobile social software: Definition, scope and applications, The
proceedings of eChallenges Conference, 1434–1441.
Lugano, G. (2008). Mobile social networking in theory and practice. First Monday, 13,
11-3. Retrieved September, 11, 2011 from the World Wide Web http://
firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2232/2050
Minović, M., Šavljanin, V., Milovanović, M., & Starčević, D. (2008). Usability issues of
e-learning systems: Case study for Moodle learning management system.
Proceedings of the OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters on the
Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: 2008 Workshops, 5333, 561-570.
O’Bryan, A. & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of
podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL, 19(2), 162-180.
Sharples, M. (Ed.) (2006) Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the
Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative. Learning Science
Research Institute, University of Nottingham. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from the
World Wide Web http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/msh/Papers/BIG_ISSUES_REPORT_
PUBLISHED.pdf
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005) Towards a theory of mobile learning. In H.
van der Merwe & T. Brown (Eds.) Mobile technology: The future of learning in your
hands (p. 58), Cape Town: mLearn.
Shen, R., Wang, M., & Pan, X. (2008). Increasing interactivity in blended classrooms through
a cutting-edge mobile learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(6), 1073-1086.
Stanley, G. (2006). Podcasting: Audio on the Internet comes of age. TESL-EJ, 9(4).
Retrieved March 3, 2008 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej36/int.pdf.
Thorne, S. L. & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression,
and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371-397.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan.
Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217-228.
Ting, Y. L. (2005, July). Mobile Learning: Current trend and future challenges. Paper
Heyoung Kim․Yeonhee Kwon
57
presented at the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger
writes and having writ.... International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 8(2), Retrieved September 18, 2011 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php
/irrodl/article/viewArticle/346
Trinder, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and systems. In J. Traxler, & Kukulska-Hulme (Eds.),
Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 7-24). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Key words: mobile-assisted language learning, smartphone applications, software
evaluation, second language learning
Applicable levels: primary, secondary, tertiary
Author(s): Heyoung Kim (Chung-Ang University, 1st author); englishnet@cau.ac.kr
Yeonhee Kwon (Chung-Ang Univeristy, 2nd author); twinmay@paran.com
Received: January 31, 2012
Reviewed: March 15, 2012
Accepted: April 15, 2012
