Going Mobile: Language Learning With an iPod Touch in Intermediate French and German Classes
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 445
Going Mobile: Language Learning
With an iPod Touch in
Intermediate French and German
Classes
Lara Ducate
University of South Carolina
Lara Lomicka
University of South Carolina
Abstract: Mobile devices are becoming more and more pervasive in today’s world for
both personal use and educational purposes. Specific to the field of languages, mobile‐
assisted language learning, derived from m‐learning and computer‐assisted language
learning (CALL), differs from CALL in that it makes use of a personal portable device to
enhance learning and give it the “anytime, anyplace” feature. Our study focused on both
the learner and the mobile tool. We specifically investigated how students use mobile
devices, specifically the iPod Touch, while noting differences in both personal and
academic use. Using ecological constructivism as a theoretical framework, we examined
the affordances of the mobile devices that encourage interaction with the target language
and culture and explored a range of tasks using a mobile device.
Key words: ecological constructivism, iPod Touch, m‐learning, mobile assisted
language learning, mobile devices
Introduction
Mobile devices are becoming more and more pervasive in today’s world, both for
personal use and for educational purposes. Currently, 67% of U.S. college students
are smartphone users, and eMarketer (2012, n.p.) predicted that by the year 2016,
91.4% of U.S. college students will own a smartphone. However, this practice begins
long before college: Croy (2012) indicated that one third of American high school
students own an iPhone. The impact of mobile technology is apparent in many
Lara Ducate (PhD, The University of Texas at Austin) is Associate Professor of
German and Applied Linguistics at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
Lara Lomicka (PhD, Pennsylvania State University) is Professor of French and
Applied Linguistics at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 46, Iss. 3, pp. 445–468. © 2013 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12043
446 FALL 2013
aspects of society, including art, employ- (Attewell, Savill‐Smith, & Douch, 2009,
ment, language, commerce, crime, and p. 1). These handheld technologies can
learning (Traxler, 2009a). include cell phones, PDAs, iPods, and iPads.
In addition to the growing use of mobile Mobile tools are small, ubiquitous, and
devices in these domains, the application of functional, which makes them attractive
such devices to classroom practice is and easy for students to use and for
generating more attention. In educational facilitating sociocultural opportunities for
settings, learning and teaching using mobile learning (Pachler, Cook, & Bradley, 2009).
devices is referred to as m‐learning, or more Chinnery (2006) described mobile learning
specifically—“the provision of education as taking place in environments that could
and training on PDAs/palmtops/handhelds, be “face‐to‐face, distance, or online; further,
smartphones and mobile phones” (Traxler, they may be self‐paced or calendar‐based”
2009b, p. 2). Mobile learning, including (p. 9); in other words, devices can be used
mobile‐assisted language learning (MALL), both within and outside the classroom and
originally focused on the use of mobile can reduce the cognitive load by providing
technologies to facilitate learning. More less information at one time (Koole, 2009).
recently, however, researchers have also Specifically related to language learning,
begun to focus on the mobility of the learner MALL, which is derived from both m‐
(Sharples, 2006). Using mobile devices, both learning and computer‐assisted language
instructors and learners are able to “tran- learning (CALL), differs from CALL in
scend the boundaries of the structural stasis that it makes use of a personal portable
of classrooms and lecture halls and their device to enhance learning and give it the
associated modes of communication—they “anytime, anyplace” feature (Geddes, 2004,
do not have to be confined to one particular p. 1). Kukulska‐Hulme (2009) noted that
place in order to be effective” (El‐Hussein & MALL is more spontaneous than CALL
Cronje, 2010, p. 13). because it allows for “new ways of learning,
The study reported here focused on emphasizing continuity or spontaneity of
both the learner and the mobile tool and access and interaction across different con-
specifically investigated how students used texts of use” (p. 162) and also places
the iPod Touch for both personal and learning more directly in the hands of the
academic purposes. An iPod Touch is student, although guidance is still necessary.
similar to an iPhone and plays music, videos, Both students’ positive attitude toward,
and games and downloads apps; it also and widespread use of, mobile phones have
connects wirelessly to the Internet. It is not, played a major factor in the growing use of
however, a smartphone. Using ecological and interest in MALL (Burston, 2011).
constructivism as the theoretical frame- Perhaps the largest area of research has
work, this study considered the features of investigated the use of mobile phone devices
mobile devices that encouraged interaction (Pecherzewska
& & Knot, 2007). For language
with the target language and culture and learners, mobile phone devices can impact
explored the range of tasks for which the learning of grammar, as noted by
learners used a mobile device. Baleghizadeh and Oladrostam (2010), who
found that English as a foreign language
students who had access to mobile phones
Review of Literature scored better on a posttest than those in the
Mobile Learning group without access to a mobile phone.
Mobile learning (m‐learning) has been Comas‐Quinn, Mardomingo, and Valentine
defined as using “handheld technologies, (2009) described the use of mobile phone
together with wireless and mobile phone devices to help students engage with the
networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and target community and to share and com-
extend the reach of teaching and learning” ment on cultural experiences in a blog. In a
Foreign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 447
three‐year study of 175 participants in suggested that learning became more stu-
Tokyo, Stockwell (2010) found that 60% dent‐centered and collaborative because
of learners never used the mobile phone to students could communicate with peers
complete vocabulary‐related exercises, whenever they needed help. Additional
while only three learners used a mobile benefits of mobile learning include increased
phone device to complete all of the activities. access to authentic materials, opportunities
Although students claimed that it took to interact within and beyond the learning
longer to complete the activities on mobile community (Comas‐Quinn et al., 2009),
phones than on a computer, Stockwell noted access to comprehensible and extralinguistic
that learners did improve in speed and input (McQuillan, 2006), and opportunities
scores over time when using either platform. for additional language practice beyond
He also found that more students in the third classroom space and time (Hoven &
year of the project used mobile phones than Palalas, 2011). Mobile devices also allow
in the first year. students to document study abroad experi-
In addition to studies on the use of ences (Comas‐Quinn et al., 2009) and to
mobile phones, researchers have also inves- take and share pictures (Wong, Chin, Tan,
tigated the use of a variety of mobile devices & Liu, 2010). In summary, Burston (2011)
in educational contexts. Hoven and Palalas emphasized that students’ perception of the
(2011) examined mobility with an iPod “anywhere and anytime” convenience is
Touch in a university‐level blended course overwhelmingly favorable. As illustrated
in English for accounting. Twelve partic- by these studies, MALL offers numerous
ipants employed mobile devices to view and benefits, and the mobile context is ideal
respond to podcasts and to engage in mobile for supporting learner interaction and
blogging. The study reported high levels of collaboration and the co‐construction of
student satisfaction with this mobile device knowledge.
and reported that the mobile listening Researchers have also documented new
option was superior to text‐based resources. challenges raised by the use of MALL.
Kondo et al. (2012) investigated mobile Stockwell (2012) suggested that the small
practices with pocket gamers (Nintendo DS screen size, the restricted ways to access
mobile) to see if the use of such devices input, and the limited types of tasks that may
would foster a self‐regulated style of learn- be performed could influence the amount of
ing. Using pre‐ and post‐assessment results information provided to learners. Sharples
and course evaluations from 88 first‐year (2009), for example, noted that there is little
students in a university in Japan, they found published research on the impact of MALL
that MALL encouraged study without on learners’ opportunities to speak and
instructor intervention and resulted in listen to the language, and research has
increases in time spent on learning tasks, shown that students and instructors do not
levels of satisfaction from the tasks, and self‐ make full use of the “anytime, anyplace”
measured achievement. (Geddes, 2004, p. 1) capabilities. There are
Several studies have examined attitudes also psychological barriers to using MALL,
toward MALL. Beres’s (2011) data from a which can include finding the balance
long‐term survey of 349 university‐level between private time and study time, as
second language students suggested that well as challenges associated with studying
students viewed the process of language in public venues or when using public
learning as extending beyond the traditional transportation (Stockwell, 2012). Other
four walls of the classroom and indicated researchers (Ducate & Lomicka, 2009;
that students responded positively to MALL. Stockwell, 2008) have pointed out that
Nah, White, and Sussex (2008) reported students do not always choose to use a
that students enjoyed being able to listen any mobile device when they have access to a
where and at any time; their research also computer. Because MALL is relatively new,448 FALL 2013
researchers and users of these devices must gate the use of iPods, iPod Touches, and
keep these concerns in mind. Nintendo or gaming devices in educational
Because of these conflicting findings, contexts. The examples discussed above
Stockwell (2008) called for more studies on highlight a variety of perceived benefits of
students’ use of mobile devices outside of the using mobile devices, such as increased
classroom. Sharples (2009) emphasized that opportunities for input and language prac-
MALL remains in its infancy, and not until tice beyond the classroom as well as
recently did MALL activities go beyond increased opportunities for learners to
simply mirroring early CALL activities engage in interaction and collaboration
(electronic quizzes, grammar drills, and and the co‐construction of knowledge.
vocabulary lists). The challenge for mobile Research has also pointed to three types of
learning, then, is to build a deeper and more challenges to the use of mobile devices for
pedagogically solid understanding of the learning, including (1) pedagogical con-
ways in which learners use a variety of cerns that involve limited access to input as
mobile devices and the effectiveness of these well as types of tasks; (2) psychological
devices in offering learning opportunities limitations, such as use of devices in public
that are not limited to simple vocabulary or and private contexts; and (3) methodologi-
grammar practice activities and quizzes. cal concerns, such as issues related to
Furthermore, research into the use of control and privacy.
MALL must take into consideration a variety
of methodological concerns. First, as the
devices are not always the property of the Ecological Constructivism
researcher or are loaned to the learners for Blyth (2008) described four theoretical
the duration of the project, the researcher approaches to research on second language
has less control over how and when they are learning: technological, psycholinguistic,
used, which can make it more difficult to sociocultural, and ecological. Technological
control the variables associated with their studies address the process by which new
use (Pachler, 2009; Sharples, 2009). There technologies move from being used in
are also privacy issues associated with society at large to their use for, and impact
tracking students’ use of these devices, as on, specific educational purposes. Psycho-
they are accessed by students for both linguistic studies take as a point of departure
learning and personal business (Van ‘T the interaction and noticing hypotheses,
Hooft, 2009); thus, user data must be while sociocultural research is based on
supported by information from student Vygotsky’s theories of social learning and
questionnaires in order to gain a more mediation. Ecological studies consider the
complete picture of how devices were interactions among various aspects of an
employed (Isomursu, Kuutti, & Väin- intervention, including the students, teach-
ämö, 2004; Trinder, Scott, & Magill, ers, environment, and technological tools, in
2009). Wali, Oliver, and Winters (2009), order to determine how they work together
for example, had students complete ques- to influence the teaching and learning
tionnaires about how they used mobile process. Thus, the ecological constructivist
devices in formal and informal settings, approach allows the researcher to examine
observed learners using the devices, and both the individual process of learning and
installed system‐monitoring software on how the student mediates interactions with
students’ laptops to reveal what they were other learners and other learning tools
doing, thus allowing the researchers to (Hoven & Palalas, 2011) and “stresses the
triangulate data from several sources. interactivity of humans and their environ-
Thus, although most research has ments in the process of socialization and
addressed the use of mobile phone devices, development” (Lam & Kramsch, 2003, p. 6).
more recent research has begun to investi- Blyth (2008) has suggested that, while eachForeign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 449
of these four research approaches provides a intercultural synchronous computer‐medi-
valuable window into second language ated communication exchange between
teaching and learning, sociocultural and native and nonnative speakers, Darhower
ecological approaches to research are be- (2008) noted that, while many linguistic
coming more prevalent, perhaps because affordances were available to the learners,
these approaches “provide insights into how the learners did not always notice and use
languages are learned and how these in- them to their fullest potential. Some learners
sights can be used to address practical ignored corrections by the native speakers,
linguistic issues” (Lafford, 2009, p. 692). while the majority merely acknowledged the
Lafford specifically noted the importance of reformulation but did not integrate it into
language educators considering interactions their own language use. As many of the
among, for example, learners’ attitudes and corrections were implicit, Darhower con-
abilities, including linguistic, cultural, prag- cluded that the learners either did not notice
matic, and affective (such as self‐confi- the reformulation or did not understand its
dence) elements in virtual environments as importance in the conversation. According
well as when students use Web 2.0 technol- to van Lier (2004), it is the responsibility of
ogies to interact and share information. the instructor and other interlocutors to
When describing the ecological per- help make the affordances available and
spective for language learning, van Lier accessible to learners so that they notice and
argued that it is necessary to consider the can use them to their learning benefit.
context when investigating the learning With regard to language learning with
activity because the learner “acts and mobile technology, Hoven and Palalas
interacts within and with his environment” (2011) and Lafford (2009) suggested that
(2004, p. 246). Part of this interaction is learners’ use of technological affordances to
mediated by “affordances” (Gibson, 1979) facilitate learning can be encouraged and
—that is, sources of support that are managed by the instructor, other inter-
available in the environment that the learner locutors, or the task design. In their study
may use to reach various goals. Depending on mobile technology, Hoven and Palalas
on the user, an affordance can be manipu- (2011) noted four features of tasks that can
lated in various ways. In language learning, support learning within mobile contexts: the
for example, “if the language learner is active tasks (1) must contain linguistic content
and engaged, she will perceive linguistic that is relevant to a variety of learner types;
affordances and use them for linguistic (2) should be designed so that learners
action” (van Lier, 2000, p. 252). A more actively search for the linguistic material to
motivated student, or a student with more fully engage with it; 3) should require
guidance, will more easily identify appro- interaction with another learner, instructor,
priate affordances, such as opportunities for or instructions to provide guidance for
interaction, then engage in or with them and completion of the task; and (4) should
thereby learn from them. In contrast, encourage mediation and thereby provide a
students who are less engaged or motivated form of scaffolding by means of interactions
may not recognize all available sources of with other learners or with resources
support or take advantage of potentials for obtained through mobile devices. Thus,
interaction in and with the target language. learners learn to process meaning through
However, in order to make use of all a fluid system of mediated verbal and
available resources and sources of support, nonverbal relationships that are contingent
the learner must first be made aware of these on affordances in their context and environ-
affordances and their potential (van ment. These relationships may be mediated
Lier, 2004). The existence of the affordance by other learners, more sophisticated users
alone does not necessarily encourage action of the language, signs and nuances in the
(van Lier, 2004). For example, in an context, technology‐based resources, and450 FALL 2013
the technological tools themselves. Lan- 3. To what extent did use of the mobile
guage is therefore emergent and dynamic, device provide students with increased
as learners use and create authentic lan- exposure to the target culture and
guage, both purposefully and incidentally, opportunities for communicating in the
on the basis of their perceptions of, target language?
interactions with, and action upon affor- 4. How did students perceive the use of the
dances found in their learning and language mobile devices?
environment (Hoven & Palalas, 2011, p.
702).
Therefore, according to ecological con- Methods
structivism, learning cannot be looked at
only as taking place within the individual; Participants
research on learning should also incorporate Thirty‐nine students in two intermediate‐
into the analysis the role of the environment, level (4th semester) foreign language classes
available tools and resources, instructors, at a large southern university were involved
instructions, and other learners and in the semester‐long study. There were 20
interlocutors. students in the French course and 19
While previous research on MALL has students in the German course. The partic-
focused on students’ use of and attitudes ipants were between 18 and 22 years old; 22
toward MALL or on particular types of were male and 17 were female. Twenty‐four
materials and activities that may be accessed had used an iPod Touch before; 11 were
using mobile devices (Kukulska‐Hulme & familiar with one but had not used one
Shield, 2008), few studies have examined before, and only four had never seen one.
the types of tasks or types of communication
in which students are engaged, nor have Procedures
studies investigated the extent to which
Pre‐Survey
learners have taken advantage of the
At the beginning of the semester, a pre‐
“anytime, anywhere affordances” of mobile
survey (see Appendix A) was administered
devices (p. 280). The current study seeks to
using surveymonkey.com to gauge students’
add to the growing body of research on
interest in the project and to assess their
communication and “anytime, anywhere”
level of experience using iPod Touches.
learning with MALL. Based on previous
research on MALL and situated within the
framework of ecological constructivism, this Training
study investigated students’ “anytime, any- Students either checked out an iPod Touch
where” use of the iPod Touch and consid- from the Foreign Language Learning Center
ered how instructors integrated the iPod at the university for the duration of the
Touch into learning and how students project or used their own iPod Touch.
reacted to using the iPod Touch to access Students were also allowed to use a
learning materials at their own convenience smartphone if the device provided access
and to suit their own needs, both within and to applications that were similar to those on
beyond the classroom. Specifically, the the iPod Touch. Twenty‐seven students
study addressed the following questions: checked out an iPod Touch; two German
students and one French student opted to
1. Which affordances of the mobile device use their own mobile device or smartphone,
did students use and with what and the remaining students used their own
frequency? iPod Touch. As all students had access to the
2. To what extent were different affor- same applications and other tools, such as
dances used for personal and academic cameras, on their devices, data from all
purposes? students were included in this study.1 AnForeign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 451
initial in‐class training session was provided, culture. For example, after students read a
although it was not necessary because most text that took place in Berlin, students were
students were familiar with the devices. able to follow the characters from place to
Devices were not locked down or pre‐ place using the Google Maps app to help
loaded; rather, students could freely load them visualize the characters’ journey and to
devices with additional music, movies, and get to know areas around Berlin. To gain
apps of their choice and use the devices for historical background on a novel they read
their own purposes outside of class. Devices that took place in former East Germany,
were reformatted at the end of the semester. different groups researched various histori-
cal events and terms such as Stasi (secret
Logs police), Freie Deutsche Jugend (similar to
As it was not possible to track students’ use Girl/Boy Scouts), and the Berlin Wall and
of the iPod Touches because some of the then shared the information that they had
devices were owned by the students, found. When studying various cities in
students were given time in class biweekly German‐speaking countries, students sur-
to complete a user’s log on surveymonkey. veyed the headlines of the city’s newspaper
com to record the types of affordances that and conducted Web searches of popular
they used on the mobile devices for both destinations and upcoming events in the city
personal and academic purposes (see Ap- to help them gain an image of the city and
pendix B). think about where they might enjoy visiting.
To complement a textbook chapter on
media, students used the TéléPub app to
Tasks watch French television commercials and
At the beginning of the semester, students then made comparisons between the home
received a list of French or German and target cultures. YouTube was also a
applications (apps) that they were encour- useful source of videos about various
aged to download; new applications were German‐ or French‐speaking cities, movie
added as necessary throughout the semester trailers, music videos, and informational
(see Appendix C). Throughout the project, videos about aspects of culture, such as
students engaged in weekly in‐class tasks, regional dishes. This culturally rich infor-
weekly homework assignments, and four mation served as a basis for discussions
larger out‐of‐class tasks. about products, practices, and perspectives
of culture as well as for making cultural
comparisons.
In‐Class Tasks
Examples of in‐class tasks included (1) Homework Assignments
searches about cities, people, political par- Each week for homework, students com-
ties, and historical events; (2) information‐ posed three tweets on Twitter for classmates
gap tasks on political parties, paintings, and to read and to which classmates were
historical information; (3) exploring news- required to respond. At least two of the
paper headlines; (4) searching travel apps; tweets were required to be in the target
(5) comparing television commercials; (6) language, and one could be in English. The
navigating Google Maps; (7) viewing You- topics were open, and the goal of the tweets
Tube videos in the target language; (8) was to allow students to express themselves
referencing dictionary and grammar apps; using the target language in a relaxed
(9) researching and comparing weather; and manner without the pressure of writing a
(10) searching and listening to French and large amount of text (posts are limited to 140
German music. Students used the informa- characters). Tweeting also served to build
tion they found using their devices in class community within the classroom and, by
or group discussions about the target tweeting about their daily lives, thoughts,452 FALL 2013
and concerns, classmates learned more smoke, including the ages of the smokers.
about each other, their hobbies, and inter- Describe the stereotype you chose and
ests. Students were graded simply for provide evidence for or against the
completing their three tweets and responses, stereotype (include a link to your sources
rather than on the accuracy, complexity, or on your post).
content of the messages.
The four projects asked students to
Out‐of‐Class Tasks present themselves, talk about their living
In addition to the tasks described above, accommodations, explore a favorite spot in
students completed four formal out‐of‐class town, and discuss stereotypes. The projects
projects that included a video or photo were evenly spaced throughout the semes-
component using their devices. These ter, approximately every three weeks. Stu-
projects are described in more detail below. dents posted each project with a short
description to the group Facebook page,
Project 1: About Me (Individual task). which was set up as a discussion forum to
Create a short video (2–3 minutes) where serve as a repository for the assignments,
you discuss an interest you particularly including a link, when appropriate, to their
enjoy. How did the interest come about? video, which was uploaded to the class
How much time do you spend doing it? YouTube channel. Facebook was chosen
Why do you enjoy it? About 10–30 because students were already familiar with
seconds of the video should show your it and visited it regularly, thus making it a
actual interest. logical and easy place to post information;
Project 2: My Dorm/Apartment (Individu- however, any course management tool
al task). Create a photo collage (using for could be used. The posts were required to
example http://www.photovisi.com/) of be at least 50 words and written in the target
your dorm room or things/people in your language (see Appendix D for the grading
dorm room. Write about why you chose rubric). Students received one point extra
those pictures, why they are meaningful, credit if they replied to another student.
and what they tell about you. During the course of the project, students in
Project 3: Welcome to Our City (Collabo- the French class also communicated with
rative task). Create a 2‐ to 3‐minute video French students from Paris who would be
with a partner showing visitors a place you visiting the following semester; thus, they
want to take them to in Columbia [South were not only introducing themselves and
Carolina]. Give a bit of history/back- their city to their classmates but also to their
ground about the area you chose. Give future French friends. The outside audience
directions from campus to the location for the German students was a group of
you chose and talk about the hours you elementary school teachers from Saxony‐
can visit. Perhaps there is even a link to the Anhalt, Germany who would be visiting at
Web site that you can include. the end of the semester; thus, these students
Project 4: Exploring Stereotypes (Individ- also had a larger audience than just their
ual task). Interview three people about classmates. Because the courses needed to
what stereotypes they think of when they accommodate partner classes who were not
think about France/Germany and French/ enrolled at the institution, Facebook was
German people. From the list of topics most appropriate for posting the projects.
you were given in your interview, choose
one to explore. Then research the actual Post‐Surveys
facts associated with that stereotype. For At the end of the project, a post‐survey on
example, if the stereotype is that all surveymonkey.com was administered that
French people smoke, look up statistics asked similar questions to those in the
on how many French people actually biweekly logs about students’ use of theForeign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 453
devices; it also assessed students’ opinions (80%). Although only two students men-
about the use of the devices in their French/ tioned prior use of iPod Touches in an
German class over the semester (see Appen- academic setting, 33 out of 39 students
dix E). Only 30 students responded to the (85%) responded that they were excited to
final survey, so there are fewer post‐survey use the devices during the semester and thus
responses than from the pre‐survey. most began with a positive attitude toward the
project.
Analysis
The surveys and the out‐of‐class homework
Research Question #1—Which
assignments were the main sources of data
used to address the research questions. The affordances of the mobile device did
pre‐ and post‐survey information was ag- students use and with what
gregated, and data from the logs were frequency?
summarized for each question. For the The survey results indicated that students
short‐answer questions, the researchers used their devices for a variety of activities.
read students’ responses, then organized Figure 1 indicates the number of students
them by topic and theme. who used each application or tool. Data in
Figure 1 show that students did indeed take
Results advantage of a variety of affordances offered
When asked in the pre‐survey how they by the mobile devices. When comparing the
thought iPod Touches could be useful in the logs from the beginning to the end of the
foreign language class, the majority of stu- semester, the researchers found no major
dents suggested the use of German or French change in apps that were accessed, and it
applications (100%), sharing information appeared that students generally used the
(82%), navigating the Internet (95%), viewing same apps throughout the period under
videos (80%), listening to music (64%), consideration unless a new app was pre-
building community (82%), and communi- sented by the instructors and/or required to
cating with classmates or the professor complete a particular assignment.
FIGURE 1
Purposes for Using the iPod Touch454 FALL 2013
FIGURE 2
Use of Device for Academic Purposes
Research Question #2—Were assignments required its use (33%). One
different affordances used for personal student remarked: “The exposure was right
and academic purposes? at our fingertips. The iPod Touch made it
For academic purposes, students’ logs easier and more accessible to learn French.”
indicated that they mainly used the mobile Another echoed, “It was a constant reminder
device for apps, the dictionary, searching, to practice the language and think about
and tweeting (Figure 2). For personal use, things in French.” A student in the German
students gravitated toward Facebook, mu- section reported, “Previously, I never would
sic, searches, and apps (Figure 3). When have even thought about German outside
asked whether they used the devices more the classroom, but this semester, I was more
frequently for personal purposes or for exposed because of the fact that I was always
language learning, students responded looking at German on Facebook and
from their logs in an even split (15/15). Twitter.” Only a small number of students
did not feel that the mobility aspect was
important. One reported no gain in expo-
Research Question #3—To what sure outside of class and clearly preferred a
extent did use of the mobile device computer: “I did not really use my iPod
Touch for language purposes outside of
provide students with increased
class. I would use my computer.”
exposure to the target culture and The out‐of‐class tasks allowed students
opportunities for communicating in the opportunity to create videos where they
the target language? practiced presentational skills to communi-
As mentioned above, students used the cate in the target language through writing
device both in and out of class. Ninety and speaking, as is evident in Table 1.
percent of the students indicated (27/30) Through the in‐class assignments, in which
that they gained more exposure to the target students worked with target culture apps,
language outside of the classroom due to the explored authentic Web sites, or watched
device’s mobility (13%) and the fact that the authentic videos, they employed theirForeign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 455
FIGURE 3
Use of Device for Personal Purposes
interpretive communication skills and were When asked about whether they en-
exposed to target culture products, practi- joyed their devices, 87% of the students
ces, and perspectives. Survey results indi- replied that they did (26/30). Two students
cated that, because students had constant only somewhat enjoyed them, and two did
access to the iPod Touches, they also not enjoy having them for the semester.
explored the target language and culture Nine (23%) were fearful of losing them,
on their own in ways not connected to or damaging them, or breaking them. Of the 39
required by their classes. devices “loaned” out, all were returned with
exception of one that was stolen. Students’
favorite aspects were having a portable
Research Question #4—How did dictionary (18%), writing Twitter posts
students perceive the use of the mobile (15%), and being able to work on the go
devices? and look up information anytime and
Ninety‐three percent of the students (28/30) anywhere (21%). One student commented,
felt that their learning increased as a result of “A lot of the apps allowed me to solve basic
having access to an iPod Touch throughout issues with my grammar, also it helped a lot
the semester due to the mobility of the as an English‐to‐French dictionary to refer-
device and accessibility of the apps and other ence.” Another likened it to having a
features. When asked about why they felt computer in class: “It was like using a
that they learned more, one student replied, personal computer in class. We could
“It forced us to think in French more, and do research artists and culture. I also could
less translation in our heads,” while another look up words in the dictionary when
mentioned that “it was super easy to access speaking.” Yet another stated, “It integrated
French.” Another student responded, “I was technology into learning, which is a very
able to read German news by using different progressive approach to teaching the lan-
apps.” Yet another replied, “Yes, I was able to guage that held my attention.” Fifty‐six
find words I wanted to know anywhere.” percent of the students agreed that it made456 FALL 2013
TABLE 1
Out‐of‐Class Tasks
Standards
Project Description Addressed
About me: • Communication
• Individual (presentational)
• Create a short video (2–3 minutes) where you • Communities
discuss an interest you particularly enjoy. How did
the interest come about? How much time do you
spend doing it? Why do you enjoy it? About 10–30
seconds of the video should show your actual
interest.
My dorm/apartment • Communication
• Individual (presentational)
• Create a photo collage (using for example http:// • Communities
www.photovisi.com/) of your dorm room or things/
people in your dorm room. Write about why you
chose those pictures, why they are meaningful, and
what they tell about you.
Welcome to Columbia • Communication
• Collaborative (presentational)
• Create a 2‐ to 3‐minute video with a partner showing • Communication
visitors a place you want to take them to in (interpretive)
Columbia. Give a bit of history/background about • Communities
the area you chose. Give directions from campus to
the location you chose and talk about the hours you
can visit. Perhaps there is even a link to the Web site
that you can include.
Exploring stereotypes • Communication
• Individual (presentational)
• Interview three people about what stereotypes they • Cultures
think of when they think about France/Germany • Connections
and French/German people. From the list of topics • Communities
you were given in your interview, choose one to
explore. Then research the actual facts associated
with that stereotype. For example, if the stereotype
is that all French people smoke, look up statistics on
how many French people actually smoke, including
the ages of the smokers. Describe the stereotype you
chose and provide evidence for or against the
stereotype (include a link to your sources on your
post).Foreign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 457
learning more portable and convenient, and iPod Touch speaks to another benefit of the
54% stated that it helped make them more mobile devices. While some of the tasks in
motivated to learn German or French. which students engaged might be possible to
Students’ preferences for tasks in future accomplish using a laptop, students did not
semesters included producing videos, using necessarily have at their disposal a laptop or,
the devices for tweeting, and communicat- if they did have access, they did not routinely
ing with classmates or native speakers via bring the device and use it for research
Skype or Facetime. during class. In addition, on a laptop, the
To summarize, students took advantage necessary apps and video/digital camera
of a variety of affordances when using their features were less readily available.
mobile device or iPod Touch. According to the From a pedagogical perspective, their
survey, searching, tweeting, and Facebook simplicity and mobility made the devices
were among the most popular tools. For quite useful in the classroom for reference,
personal use, students tended to take advan- research, and completing jigsaw tasks.
tage of the social media and music features Rather than having to go to the computer
most frequently, while for academic use, they lab, students could easily access their mobile
explored apps, dictionaries, and search tools. devices to gather information or complete a
Finally, students overwhelmingly enjoyed short task and then put them away when the
being able to use a device as part of their task was complete. As all students had access
language class, and a main advantage they to a mobile device, it made it easier to
reported was the exposure to the target complete video projects, which required
language and culture outside of the classroom. students to use the language outside of class,
and in some cases to interact with other
Discussion native speakers. One caveat to using the
As shown by the survey results, the benefits of devices in the classroom was that it was
using iPod Touches in the foreign language sometimes difficult to ascertain whether
classroom were clearly recognized by the students were using them for academic or
participants in this study. iPod Touches are personal use. While they were readily
easy to use on the go, can facilitate autonomy available for reference at any time during
and increased exposure to the foreign class, it was not always obvious if students
language, and offer access to authentic were looking up a word or checking
materials and resources and to the target Facebook.
language and culture. The following sections
comment further on each of these aspects. Autonomy and Increased Exposure
Students’ comments on the surveys showed
Ease of Use and Mobility that the easy access to affordances on these
Two of the most cited advantages offered by devices also played a large role in providing
the iPod Touch in the post‐survey were ease opportunities for increased exposure to the
of use and mobility (see also El‐Hussein & target language and culture. To help students
Cronje, 2010; Sharples, 2006; Traxler, 2007). make best use of affordances available to
Similar to Burston’s findings (2011), the them, and as recommended by van Lier
simplicity of the iPod Touch and ability to (2004), students were provided with a list of
access it any where and any time stood out as possible applications and were able to choose
a major benefit for the students. As noted by which apps to use both within and outside of
Traxler (2007), the mobility, ease of use, and class. Students acknowledged that they
access to the device allow learners to “exploit enjoyed being able to explore and use apps,
small amounts of time and space for such as Anki, Leo, Twitter, word reference,
learning” (p. 8). The obtrusiveness of and itranslate on their own and benefitted
bringing laptops in the classroom vs. the from the flexibility and freedom to use the
flexibility of being able to quickly access an devices in ways that corresponded with their458 FALL 2013
needs and interests. Kukulska‐Hulme and (1) students were exposed to various types
Pettit (2009) confirmed these same findings. of linguistic content; (2) tasks were designed
Their study, involving graduates of the to encourage students to engage with this
Institute of Educational Technology at the linguistic material; (3) in order to fulfill the
Open University who used mobile devices, guidelines of the tasks, students had to
found that mobile learning “gives individuals interact with another student or at mini-
the capacity to make use of electronic mum, engage with the instructions of the
resources and tools in flexible ways that suit task; and (4) students were encouraged to
their circumstances and lifestyles” (p. 152). interact with the resources available through
Being given the time and affordances that the device and their fellow classmates. As
were necessary to guide their own learning recommended by Lafford (2009), using the
allowed students in the current study to iPod Touch to complete assignments also
“stumble and learn” (Comas‐Quinn et al., allowed students to more effortlessly and
2009, p. 101) and thereby discover new quickly engage in real‐world tasks, such as
information they had not necessarily planned conducting an interview, completing online
to find using the devices in ways that guided searches, and describing themselves and
their own learning. their city. Although not everything they did
As evidenced by students’ comments and on the device related to the target language,
logs, they had the time, autonomy, and it was encouraging to see from the logs and
affordances to explore the target language short‐answer questions that students did
and culture in ways related to their classes, make an effort to engage with the target
which ultimately provided them with more language so as to manage their own learning
exposure to the target language and culture on and discover items of personal interest both
the topics and in the ways that most interested in and outside of the classroom.
them. Students also reported spending in-
creased time listening to and reading in the
target language thanks to having the device, Opportunities for Standards‐Based
which also increased their exposure to the Learning
language outside of class. Each student could Thanks to the availability of the iPod
work at his or her own pace to explore topics Touches, students’ greater access to authen-
of interest. The autonomy and flexibility of the tic materials and increased opportunities for
devices could be one reason why students felt communication allowed them to meet each
that their learning increased with the use of of the 5 C’s that are outlined in the
the iPod Touches. Standards for Foreign Language Learning
(National Standards, 1999). First, use of the
Access to Authentic Materials and iPod Touch greatly enhanced students’
Target Language and Culture opportunities to engage in all three com-
In addition to ease of use and mobility and municative modes: students met Standard
increased exposure and autonomy, students 1.1 by using the language to communicate
could more easily access authentic materials with each other in the target language
of the target language and culture with the through Twitter and Facebook, they met
iPod Touch. Students accomplished this Standard 1.2 when they interpreted authen-
both on their own as they explored various tic listening and reading passages from
apps and through the more structured tasks online sources, and they met Standard 1.3
that they were required to complete, when creating projects for their classmates
including the weekly in‐class tasks, weekly to read and view. Through using apps and
homework assignments, and four larger out‐ visiting authentic Web sites created by and
of‐class tasks. As noted by Hoven and Palalas for the people of the target culture, students
(2011), use of the affordances offered by gained insights into the products, practices,
the iPod Touches had multiple benefits: and perspectives of the target culturesForeign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 459
(Standards 2.1 and 2.2) and made extensive Conclusion
comparisons with their own language and This study offered a preliminary look at
culture (Standards 4.1 and 4.2). Using the MALL, most particularly how students used
iPod Touch to gather information on topics a mobile device “on the go” both within and
such as art and artists, geography, historical beyond the language classroom, at times and
events, and political systems, students places that best accommodated their sched-
easily reinforced their existing knowledge ules and learning goals. The findings
in other disciplines while also learning new suggested that intermediate language stu-
information and acquiring new points of dents who are offered the use of mobile
view (Standards 3.1 and 3.2). By communi- devices will take advantage of the affordan-
cating with their classmates and, more ces for personal and academic uses, thereby
important, with the native French and allowing increases in the amount of time
German speakers who had personal and allocated to language learning and thus
meaningful reasons to read and react to greater exposure to the target language and
students’ work through Twitter and Face- culture. As one student summarized, “I
book, students became part of vibrant could think about the language anywhere
language communities (Standard 5.1). and anytime.” When iPod Touches were put
Finally, it is hoped that by engaging in into the hands of learners, the range of
authentic tasks, participating in live‐time activities and live‐time access to authentic
discovery, and sharing information in the materials, resources, and support trans-
target language with peers and authentic formed learning, offering students unlimited
audiences, students will become motivated access to resources, opportunities to com-
to continue language study and thus municate using the language in important
become lifelong learners (Standard 5.2). and meaningful ways, mobility, conve-
nience, and opportunities for learning
anywhere and at any time.
Limitations and Suggestions for
Future Research Note
Although it could be difficult to replicate 1. As the vast majority of devices used in this
this study due to the small sample size, the study were iPod Touches, we refer to the
reliance on self‐reported data from surveys devices as such throughout the article.
and logs, and the ever‐changing nature of
mobile technology and the possibilities it
offers, there are several recommendations References
for future explorations. First, as more and
Attewell, J., Savill‐Smith, C., & Douch, R.
more students acquire smartphones, pro-
(2009). The impact of mobile learning: Examin-
viding a mobile device may no longer be ing what it means for teaching and learning.
needed because students may be able to use London: Learning and Skills Network.
their own devices rather than using a Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. (2010).
device on loan. Further research could also The effect of mobile assisted language learning
track students’ devices to monitor more (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL
precisely the sites, the apps, and the language students. MEXTESOL Journal, 34, 1–10.
used in order to have a clearer picture of how Beres, D. (2011). Mobile‐assisted language
students use devices both personally and for learning from the student perspective: Encour-
academic purposes. In addition, there is a aging effective language learning strategies
outside of the classroom. In B. R. Facer & M.
need for longitudinal studies on MALL that
Abdous (Eds.), Academic podcasting and mobile
explore the many advantages of the social and assisted language learning: Applications and
mobile nature of the devices for out‐of‐class outcomes (pp. 93–110). Hershey, PA: IGI
use. Global.460 FALL 2013
Blyth, C. (2008). Research perspective on Hoven, D., & Palalas, A. (2011). (Re)
online discourse and foreign language learn- conceptualizing design approaches for mobile
ing. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse language learning. CALICO Journal, 28, 699–
online (pp. 47–72). Philadelphia: John 720.
Benjamins.
Isomursu, M., Kuutti, K., & Väinämö, S.
Burston, J. (2011). Exploiting the pedagogical (2004). Experience clip: Method for user
potential of MALL. Retrieved September 15, participation and evaluation of mobile concepts.
2012, from http://www.moblang.mobi/confer- In Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Partici-
ence/files/PedagogicalAspectsOfMobileLearning_ patory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada,
MobLang_JackBurston.pdf pp. 83–92.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., Sakamoto,
Mobile assisted language learning. Language K., Shimomura, H., & Wada, N. (2012).
Learning & Technology, 10, 9–16 [Electronic Mobile assisted language learning in university
version]. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from EFL courses in Japan: Developing attitudes
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/emerging/default. and skills for self‐regulated learning. ReCALL,
html 24, 169–187.
Comas‐Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valen- Koole, M. (2009). A model for framing mobile
tine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning:
learning: Making the most of informal and Transforming the delivery of education and
situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21, training (pp. 25–50). Edmonton, Alberta:
96–112. Athabasca University Press.
Croy, K. (2012). Attention teachers: One third Kukulska‐Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile
of American high school students own an learning change language learning? ReCALL,
iPhone. Wired Educator [Electronic version]. 21, 157–165.
Retrieved September 15, 2012, from http://
Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Pettit, J. (2009).
www.wirededucator.com/blog/2012/05/05/
Practitioners as innovators: Emergent practice
attention‐teachers‐one‐third‐of‐american‐high‐
in personal mobile teaching, learning, work,
school‐students‐own‐an‐iphone/
and leisure. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning:
Darhower, M. (2008). The role of linguistic Transforming the delivery of education and
affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO training (pp. 135–156). Edmonton, Alberta:
Journal, 26, 48–69. Athabasca University Press.
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An
in the language classroom: Inherently mobile overview of mobile assisted language learning:
or not? In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second From content delivery to supported collabora-
language teaching and learning in the Net tion and interaction. ReCALL, 20, 271–
Generation (pp. 113–128). Honolulu: Univer- 289.
sity of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language
Lafford, B., (2009). Toward an ecological
Resource Center.
CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Modern
El‐Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Language Journal, 93, 673–696.
Defining mobile learning in the higher educa-
Lam, E., & Kramsch, C. (2003). The ecology of
tion landscape. Educational Technology &
an SLA community in computer‐mediated
Society, 13, 12–21.
environments. In J. Leather & J. van Dam
eMarketer. (2012). College students adopt (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition (pp.
mobile across the board. Retrieved June 25, 141–158). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
2013, from http://www.emarketer.com/news- Kluwer Publishers.
room/index.php/college‐students‐adopt‐mobile‐
McQuillan, J. (2006). iPod in education: The
board/
potential for language acquisition. Retrieved
Geddes, S. J. (2004). Mobile learning in the September 15, 2012, from http://e2t2.bing-
21st century: Benefit to learners. Retrieved hamton.edu/pdfs/iPod_Lang_Acquisition_
September 15, 2012, from http://knowledge- whitepaper.pdf
tree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition06/download/
Nah, K. C., White, P., & Sussex, R. (2008). The
geddes.pdf.
potential of using a mobile phone to access the
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to Internet for learning EFL listening skills within
visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. a Korean context. ReCALL, 20, 331–347.Foreign Language Annals VOL. 46, NO. 3 461
National Standards in Foreign Language [Electronic version]. Retrieved June 25, 2013,
Project. (1999). Standards for foreign language from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
learning in the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: article/view/346/882
Author.
Traxler, J. (2009a). Current state of mobile
Pachler, N. (2009). Research methods in learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning:
mobile and informal learning: Some issues. Transforming the delivery of education and
In G. Vavoula, N. Pachler & A. Kukulska‐ training (pp. 9–24). Edmonton, Alberta: Atha-
Hulme (Eds.), Researching mobile learning (pp. basca University Press.
1–16). Bern: Peter Lang.
Traxler, J. (2009b). Learning in a mobile age.
Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Bradley, C. (2009). “I International Journal of Mobile and Blended
don’t really see it”: Whither case‐based Learning, 1, 1–12.
approaches to understanding off‐site and on‐
Trinder, J., Scott, R., & Magill, J. (2009). Using
campus mobile learning? In G. Vavoula, N.
automatic logging to collect information on
Pachler & A. Kukulska‐Hulme (Eds.), Re-
mobile device usage for learning. In G.
searching mobile learning (pp. 77–96). Bern:
Vavoula, N. Pachler & A. Kukulska‐Hulme
Peter Lang.
(Eds.), Researching mobile learning (pp. 241–
Pecherzewska,
& A., & Knot, S. (2007). Review of 258). Bern: Peter Lang.
existing EU projects dedicated to dyslexia,
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance:
gaming in education and m‐learning. WR08
Social‐interactive learning from an ecological
Report to CallDysc project. Contact authors
perspective. In J. P., Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultur-
for further information.
al theory and second language learning
Sharples, M. (Ed.). (2006). Big issues in mobile (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University
learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleido- Press.
scope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of
Initiative. Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences
language learning. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Research Institute.
Publishers.
Sharples, M. (2009). Methods for evaluating
Van ‘T Hooft, M. (2009). Researching informal
mobile learning. In G. Vavoula, N. Pachler &
and mobile learning: Leveraging the right
A. Kukulska‐Hulme (Eds.), Researching mobile
resources. In G. Vavoula, N. Pachler & A.
learning (pp. 17–40). Bern: Peter Lang.
Kukulska‐Hulme (Eds.), Researching mobile
Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner learning (pp. 169–180). Bern: Peter Lang.
preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile
Wali, E., Oliver, M., & Winters, N. (2009). Are
learning. ReCALL, 20, 253–270.
they doing what they think they’re doing?
Stockwell, G. (2010). Effects of multimodality Tracking and triangulating students’ learning
in computer‐mediated communication tasks. activities and self reports. In G. Vavoula, N.
In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task‐ Pachler & A. Kukulska‐Hulme (Eds.), Re-
based language teaching and technology (pp. searching mobile learning (pp. 317–338). Bern:
83–104). London: Continuum Books. Peter Lang.
Stockwell, G. (2012). Mobile‐assisted lan- Wong, L.‐H., Chin, C.‐K., Tan, C.‐L., & Liu,
guage learning. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders M. (2010). Students’ personal and social
& M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary com- meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile
puter‐assisted language learning (pp. 201–216). learning environment. Educational Technology
London: Continuum Books. & Society, 13, 15–26.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and
evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger Submitted November 30, 2012
writes and having writ…. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8 Accepted May 11, 2013
APPENDIX A
iPod Touch Pre‐Survey
1. What are the last 4 digits of your id#?
2. What is your age?
17 or younger 18–19 20–21 21–22 over 22You can also read
