Mobile-Assisted Language Learning: A Literature Review

MOBILE-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning:

A Literature Review
Khansa AL-Qudaimi
Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University

English Language Department
14 May 2013
Introduction
The digital age is characterized by the rapid growth of information and communication
technologies. Among all communication mediums, mobile devices as cell phones, Personal
Digital Assistants (PDAs) and smartphones currently are the most powerful ones. Therefore,
educators have been attempting to provide learning environment through mobile devices and
aiming at developing mobile learning (m-learning) tools for educational purposes (Miangah &
Nearat, 2012). As the demand of acquiring foreign languages increases and peoples free time
decreases, mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) offers the ideal solution. Hence, this paper
aims at spotlighting how the various tools, teaching methods and applications of MALL and mlearning in general have been appearing and revolving to maintain effective learning process.
MALL: An overview
History
According to Salaberry (2001), capturing audio language samples dated back to the
emergence of audiovisual recording devices as reel-to-reel, Video Cassette Recordings (VCRs)
and Personal Computers (PCs). Broadcast devices, as phonographs, radios and televisions, were
considered as sources for authentic speech. The advent of the audiolingual theory in the 1950s
sparked the use of authentic audio samples for educational purposes in language laboratories.
However, the shift to the behaviorist theory in the 1960s replaced the language laboratories with
drill-based computer-assisted instruction. A new vision of the role of technology in education
triggered the immersion of the portable package of self-contained knowledge manipulator, Xerox
Dynabook in the 1970s (Kay & Goldberg, 1977). Since then, the computer-mediated
communication in educational contexts has been progressing as technologies continue to shrink
in size (Chinnery, 2006). The arrival and popularity of the internet alongside the development of
PDA, laptop and mobile devices in the 1990s gave rise to the next generation of e-learning
(Sharples, 2000).
The use of telephone for distance learning was not associated with the release of mobile
devices. In 1988, Twarog and Pereszlenyi-Pinter (1988) utilized the telephone to provide
distance-language learners with feedback and assistance. In 1996, instructors at Brigham Young
University used telephone and computer to teach English courses as distance-learning from
Hawaii to Tonga (Green, Collier, & Evans, 2001). In 2001, Dicky (2001) taught English
conversation courses via teleconferencing in South Korea. Yet, it is only over the past ten years
that phone learning has developed to offer the needed tools for educational institutes,
workplaces, museums, cities and rural areas around the world via cell phones or mobiles
(Gholami & Azarmi, 2012). Mobile learning brought to the light diverse methods and techniques
to assist language learning and learning in general.
Characteristics
What essentially characterizes the mobile for learning is its size and weight which make it
portable. Thus, in MALL there is no need for learners to sit in a classroom or at a computer to
get the material. Such learning is reinforced when people experience shortage of free time due to
working for long hours.
Input and output capabilities such as keypad vs. touchpad, screen size and audio functions
are significant too. Depending on them, mobile device was considered by Miangah and Nearat
(2012) as an extension, but not substitution for existing learning devices. Hence, not all learning
contents and activities are applicable for mobile devices (Gay, Stefanone, Martin & Hembrooke,
2001).
Mobile phones, PDAs and smartphones offer various additional uses beside the phone and
Short Message Service (SMS), including Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), voicemessaging, video recording, cameras, internet and wireless access and, therefore, file-sharing
between teachers and students and amongst students themselves. Data can be transferred easily
to the PCs. Further, some of the PDAs and smartphones have handwriting recognition feature.
Nevertheless, the future success of these devices to Beatty (2003) is tied to their ability to
accommodate voice recognition.
Such different features in the market are compatible to the different needs of the users. Their
costs also vary. But the basic activities can be performed by all mobile phones. Thus, teachers
need to put in their consideration costs and devices.
Learners' skills in using mobile devices must be put into account. Besides, their prior
knowledge and experience in using mobile for learning is crucial. Their attitudes towards
learning via mobile devices play a vital role in learners' output quality.
The attributes of mobile as an inexpensive and sophisticated device have increased the
number of its users. A study conducted by the World Bank in 2012 shows that around threequarters of the worlds inhabitants have access to a mobile phone (Russell & Cieslik, 2012).
Another study carried out at Urmia University in Iran indicates that 44% of mobile phone owners
browse the internet via their mobiles. This manifests the potentiality of such devices for learning
and urges educators to provide tools and software for learners in teaching contexts.
M-learning
Tools for m-learning
The different uses of mobile devices mentioned above, as SMS, internet access, and audio
functions form the basis of m-learning tools. One of the central tools of m-learning is SMSbased learning in which the learner receives text messages to support their learning process
outside of classroom (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). Many have experienced this tool, for instance,
Griffiths University in Australia performed teaching Italian language via sending two to three
SMS messages a day to the learners. Those messages included several language skills; such as,
grammar and vocabulary beside administration news, literature and homework (Pachler,
Bachmair & Cook, 2010).
Another effective m-learning tool is moblogging which is defined by Mielo (2005) as using
cell phone or PDA to post words and/ or pictures to a website. (p. 29) Blogs are recent trend in
language teaching. They ignite language creation, facilitate sharing ideas and collaborative
activities. By using them, time and space boundaries disappear; learners discuss their ideas in a
virtual place on move. Also, authentic personal and visual contents become accessible (Gholami
& Azarmi, 2012).
Blogging and sharing thoughts are not restricted to written language. The widespread of a
new form of media known as podcasting motivates users to have audio blogs or podcasts. These
podcasts are downloadable and can be transferred to a media player. Other listeners can
subscribe to any podcaster they like in order to be able to receive updates. Actually, podcasting is
already widely utilized in language learning by learners who record their own content or access
authentic resources (Chinnery, 2006). In respect to podcasting and English language teaching,
Lomicka and Lord (2011) conducted a study on 73 language educators to discover their goals
beyond podcasting. The study revealed that respondents viewed podcasting as a tool that can aid
in developing both receptive and productive language skills. 41% of the participants used it for
listening practice while 23.2% of them used it to enhance speaking practice and presentation
skills. 12.33% of the educators utilized it to provide pronunciation practice to their students.
Other advantages, like increasing students' independence, exposure to authentic material and
cultural information, collaboration with peers, writing practice, vocabulary learning, motivating,
providing feedback, promoting digital literacy and enhancing class discussion, ranged from
5.48% to 1.37%.
As far as DPAs and cell phones as tools for MALL are concerned, Thornton and Houser
(2003) implemented a study to compare between them by developing a website primarily for
mobile devices. The web-page's main aim was to teach English idioms via illustrative videos,
animations and multiple-choice quizzes. Students browsed the web-page by DPAs or mobile web
and video phones. The results demonstrated similar positive results for all devices, but PDAs
were rated in their video quality higher than other devices because of their larger screen size and
their higher resolution. Yet, all students encountered difficulties with the listening tasks though
the usage of headphones or native English-speaking actors were denied by the researchers.
These results spotlight the limitations of mobile devices for learning purposes. The small
screen size, memory size and keypad or touchpad sophistication may frustrate learners.
Nonetheless, mobile devices are still evolving. Specialists have developed many alternatives like
supplemental keyboards and memory cards. However, enhancement of mobile devices and
offering new features to assist teachers in MALL is undoubtedly fundamental. Miangah and
Nearat (2012) suggest adding video and voice chat properties to encourage efficient audio-visual
chats between language teachers and their students in regard to the learning material and
feedback. Moreover, mobile devices do not aid the variant written characters of some languages
as some are written from right to left and others use the opposite direction. Thus, Miangah and
Nearat (2012) prompt research and experiment on MALL-based techniques in order for them to
be more compatible with languages and their different orientations, as Arabic, Parisian, Chinese
and other languages and expand their usage scope.
Despite their limitations, mobile devices display a plenty of capabilities and functions that
are convenient for students who prefer renewed teaching methods. Learners who encounter lack
of free time or money favor them as well. Further, learners who live in some of the developing
countries or rural sides where no PCs are available find them beneficial.
M-learning and teaching
The communicative potential of mobile devices can be seen as a crucial prerequisite for mlearning. Thus, the application of m-learning in teaching draws the foreground of the sociocultural dimension. At the same time, it impacts the cognitive dimension of learning alongside
the lessened and ready-to-use amount of taught information (Pachler, 2009).
Such effects of m-learning can occur either in-classroom or out-of-classroom usage of

mobile devices in teaching. In-classroom utilization activates close interaction, conversation and
decision-making among students due to m-learning activities, especially if students are divided
into small groups. Such learning experience can hardly be achieved out of classroom. On the
other hand, m-learning is more useful for implementing activities outside the classroom since it
connects learners to real-world experiments. Furthermore, out-of-classroom learners can improve
their language skills on the move and exploit their free time; an advantage that cannot be
achieved in the classroom (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009).
Numerous methods of teaching can be assisted by m-learning either inside or outside the
classroom. One method is game-based learning in which the materials are designated to be
integrated with aspects of the physical environment. The real-world knowledge and the game's
visual world are linked by the m-learning activities. This has been applied in MALL by a
researcher who formulated a game-based language learning for English as a Second Language
(ESL) learners. He aimed at enabling the learners to revise the needed content for Cambridge
First Certificate in English exam (Gholami & Azarmi, 2012).
Another method that can be aided by m-learning is the collaborative approach in which
different learners exchange their knowledge, skills and attitudes through interaction. This
encourages learners to support, motivate and evaluate each other and, therefore, obtain
substantial amount of learning. This can be attained simply by using mobile devices as an
environment that is dependent on its user ahead of the device as remarked by Miangah and
Nearat (2012).
Beside their pedagogical utilization, mobile devices have been used as a flexible means of
student-teacher communication for practical or administrative matters; such as, course updates
and reminders. Likewise, student-student synchronous and asynchronous communication can be
held via mobile devices to portray social interaction that is mediated by cultural tools (Pachler,
2009).
In addition to communication as a practical matter, mobile devices have been used as
referrals to related websites and up-to-date instructional resources (Levy & Kennedy, 2005). As
an example, Thornton and Houser (2003) developed a web page for PDAs and smartphones to
support the English course. Dias (2002) also created a web page for mobile phones to gather
links of English language learning websites. In his page, students had the ability to comment and
communicate asynchronously with their teacher, amongst themselves and with any guest
lecturer.
Via collaborative, communicative, and knowledgeable activities and games with and
supported by mobile devices, m-learning has the potential to meet the required conditions for
effective learning, particularly as a process of cognitive and social development.
Whether occurred face-to-face, distance or online, Copaert (2004) signifies that developing
MALL environment must precede deciding the role of mobile devices in the learning process. In
other words, devices are basic equipment of learning, but the learner should be ahead of
technology. In this respect, Salaberry (2001) agrees with Copaert and opposes technologydriven pedagogy, but he overstates by declaring that modern technologies have not offered
pedagogical benefits as obvious as traditional second language instruction. Beatty (2003)
provides further exaggerated caveat by claiming that teachers need to be concerned about
investing time and money in unproven technology." (p. 72) Fair and reasonable opinion is stated
by Chinnery (2006) who considered technologies, including mobile devices, as instruments and
instructional tools in language instruction but not instructors in themselves. Hence, the effective
use of any instructional tool in language learning requires thoughtful application of second
language pedagogy.
Language skills and m-learning
Mobile devices, as instruments, contain various activities to the different skills of language
learning; such as, vocabulary, pronunciation, reading, grammar, listening and speaking. Different
activities are supported and performed by mobile devices depending on the used model and its
facilities.
Vocabulary
For vocabulary learning, SMS and e-mail messages are common methods of learning new
vocabulary based on the lessons covered in the classroom. Regarding SMS, Levy and Kennedy
(2005) created SMS-based vocabulary learning to teach Italian language by sending idioms,
definitions and example sentences to the learners amounting nine to ten messages per week.
Feedback was collected via quizzes and follow-up questions. Results indicated that the messages
were very helpful for learning vocabulary. Another two studies were generated at the same time
by Thornton and Houser (2003) to teach English language at a Japanese University. One study
compared using SMS versus e-mail messaging. The other study compared using SMS versus
paper-based vocabulary learning. In the first study, students were divided into two groups; one
received vocabulary via SMS messages, and the other received mini-lessons of vocabulary three
times a day organized in chunks in order to make them readable on the tiny screens. In both
studies, students received identical lessons; definitions of five words per week and the use of
them in different contexts. Students were tested weekly. The results showed that SMS students
learned over twice the number of vocabulary words as the e-mail students. Besides, SMS
students improved their scores by nearly twice as much as students who had received their
lessons on paper. Concerning their attitudes, the vast majority preferred the SMS instruction. The
authors concluded that the effectiveness of their lessons was derived from delivering messages as
push media. Therefore, students were able to frequently rehearse and space study, and utilize
recycled vocabulary.
Teachers can use m-learning tools to create exercises on vocabulary covered in the
classroom. Students may be given the questions in the classroom and asked to complete them via
their mobile phones before sending them back to the instructor (Miangah & Nearat, 2012).
New vocabulary can also be sent to students' mobile phones accompanied by pictorial
annotations for better understanding. This was experienced by Chen and Hsu (2008) who was
teaching English verbs by sending pictorial annotations attached to the verbal words. Post-test
results reflected that this method assisted learners with lower verbal and higher visual ability to
retain vocabulary.
In order to assess vocabulary retention, in-class polling system can be utilized. This system
was applied by Thornton and Houser (2003) who provided the students with polling software
accessible via mobile phones to be used during the class time. The advantage of this system was
the immediate reception of feedback by students and teachers.
For new words, mobile dictionaries can be used. In this regard, Myers (2000) made several
observations on Chinese learners of English language who used mobile dictionaries. He noticed
that learners practiced unfamiliar words that the looked up their meanings. They had been
recording new learned words in their notes. After many times, they shifted from looking up
Chinese words to English words which indicated their attempt to function in the foreign
language. The positive effect expanded to include their improvement in spelling. However, the
author concluded that students are prompted to use such dictionaries only when the target
language is similar to the native language.
Pronunciation, reading and grammar

Dictionaries are not only used to find the meanings of words, but also to learn how they are
pronounced. A study conducted at Urmia University in Iran demonstrated that nearly half of the
participants (%48.8) were using their mobile phones dictionaries, but numerous respondents did
not have access to dictionary software to install on their mobile phones (Gholami & Azarmi,
2012). Nevertheless, an adequate m-learning program has to contain voice transmission and
sound functions so that learners may download dictionaries to their mobile phones and learn the
pronunciation of unfamiliar new words. Also, via multimedia functions, they may record their
own voices and submit them to the teacher. This would assist in assessing the students'
weaknesses in pronunciation (Miangah & Nearat, 2012).
As far as reading activities are concerned, mobile devices offer various capabilities. Reading
activities can be installed as a well-designed learning course. They can be sent to the learners
through SMS as well. Miangah and Nearat (2012) point out that mobile learning programs that
have text announcer pronunciation are more useful for reading and listening comprehension at
the same time. To provide learners with effective English language learning environment, Chen
and Hsu (2008) created Personalized Intelligent Mobile (PIM) learning system. Due to this
system, students received English news articles on their mobile phones based on their reading
abilities evaluated by fuzzy item response theory. The PIM system would automatically discover
and retrieve unfamiliar words of individual learners from the articles. The results of the study
reflected that this method beside self-assessment feedback responses were effective in enhancing
reading abilities and comparison of the learners.
About grammar, Miangah and Nearat (2012) suggest designating grammatical points as a
program and install it on mobile devices. This program teaches rules that are followed by
multiple-choice activities. Different exercises can be formed, as 'true-false' or 'fill-in the blank',
and practiced by the learners. Vocal services or SMS are also convenient tools for grammatical
explanations.
Listening and speaking
For listening skills, teachers can design a platform in which learners listen to texts by vocal
service on their mobile phones. Then, they may answer listening comprehension quiz based on
that audio text. Another use of m-learning for listening was illustrated by Huang and Sun (2010)
who created multimedia system for English language learners based on their mobile phones'
capacities. They were asked to access a certain multimedia materials' website and order learning
courses which consist of a set of video materials and exercises. Huang and Sun (2010) believed
that mobile multimedia English listening exercise system promotes learner's English listening
abilities to a higher degree. On the hand, Belanger (2005) spotlighted the Turkish class in which
students used iPods to access authentic materials; such as, news, songs, and poems, and to the
instructors vocabulary and translations.
IPods were also utilized for speaking skills. At Duke University experiment in 2004, all
freshmen students were given iPods equipped with voice recorders amongst. These iPods
composed the primary tool for Spanish language classes. Students responded to verbal quizzes,
submitted audio assignments, recorded audio journals and received oral feedback from their
instructor via iPod (Chinnery, 2006).
Insight on MALL applications
There is a plenty of downloadable applications for mobile devices. According to the World
Bank, more than 30 billion mobile applications were downloaded in 2011 only (Russell &
Cieslik, 2012). A portion of this huge number of application is part of MALL and the other
portion can be used for MALL purposes. One example of MALL applications is MOBO City
which is a mobile game that introduces computer technical English vocabulary to the learners
(Ghazvini, Earnshaw, Robison & Excell, 2009).
Further, many mobile English language learning programs have appeared on the fore, for
instance, BBC World Services Learning English which provides learners with English language
lessons via SMS in Africa and China. Similarly, BBC Wales offers Welsh lessons. M-learning is
another website for learning English, but it is directed mainly towards non-English speaking
young adults (Chinnery, 2006). Recently, BBC Janala launched a project in 2009 at Bangladesh
in which they aim at reducing the barriers to learning English language, improving English
language skills among the population of Bangladesh, enabling greater access to economic and
social activities and supporting the development of an English language media sector. BBC Jala
subscribers get a daily three-minute audio lesson sent to their mobile phones (McCarthy, 2011).
Effectiveness of MALL
Numerous studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of MALL. Some
researchers assure its positive effect on language learning process and some others indicate that
using MALL does not aid language learning. One of the first projects in MALL was Spanish
10
language program developed by Stanford Learning Laboratory. They utilized both voice and email in mobile phones. The content of the program encompassed vocabulary practice, word and
phrase translations, quizzes and access to live talking tutors. The results of the study revealed
that mobile devices were effective in automated vocabulary lessons, quizzes if delivered in small
chunks and the live talking tutoring. However, the tiny screen size was not appropriate for
learning new content, but to review and practice. Besides, poor audio quality had affected the
comprehension (Thornton & Houser, 2003).
Another study conducted by Garcia (2002) to evaluate a business Spanish course developed
for smartphones. The course included video clips, exercises and a glossary. The results
highlighted the role of multimedia functions in motivating learners, but they encountered
difficulties in using pointers and touchpad for data entry.
On the other hand, Stockwell (2008) reported that learners preferred using their PCs to
mobile phones. They expressed that unless their teacher asked them, they did not intend to use
their mobile phones due to the cost of internet access, the screen size and the keypad. Hence, it
took them long time to complete the assigned task.
Kiernan and Aizawa (2004) students' of Japan University had similar attitudes. Before
applying their study, Kiernan and Aizawa theorized that language learning must follow the taskbased approach. Thus, they attempted to explore MALL and its usefulness in task-based learning
for ESL students. They placed upper and lower level students in three groups; face-to-face
speaking users, PC e-mail user and mobile phone e-mail users. The study program contained a
pretest, three narrative tasks, three invitation tasks and, then, a repeated post-test. The findings
indicated that the face-to-face speaking users completed the tasks within the time limit, only two
pairs of PC email users and one pair of mobile phone email users completed the tasks. Also, the
face-to-face speaking users had significantly faster performances, and the mobile phone email
users had the slowest. The researchers referred the results to the relative speed of typing versus
speaking, and of typing on mobile thumb pads/ touchpads versus keyboards.
Advantages and disadvantages of m-learning
M-learning is featured by its personalized, spontaneous and informal learning process. It can
be considered as the ideal solution to the barriers of language learning in terms of time, place and
cost. In other words, learning across contexts by the inexpensive mobile device due to its
portability characteristic is a key factor of m-learning. The use of m-learning changes the locus
11
of control and shifts it from teacher-led to student-led learning process. Therefore, learners direct
their own learning process and progress based on their cognitive state and according to their
individual needs. It also provides them with the capability of being connected and communicated
with the learning website via the wireless network. This facilitates social interaction, data
exchanging and collaboration with other learners (Chinnery, 2006; Huang & Sun, 2010; Klopfer,
Squire & Jenkins, 2002; Miangah & Nearat, 2012; Pachler, 2009).
In spite of these properties, m-learning may take longer time in performing tasks because of
the tiny screen size, virtual keypad, limited power of storage and multimedia limitations. Even in
designing courses' programs, teachers encounter difficulties in resizing pictures to fit in the small
screen, network connection problems, online chats and slow processing time. In fact, many of the
mobile devices were not formed for educational purposes. Devices that are appropriate for
learning tasks are too expensive for most of the learners to buy. Another clear disadvantage of
m-learning for language learning is the graduate shift from verbal to visual output. Other
disadvantages may include limited nonverbal communications, limited message lengths, lack of
cultural context and potentially limited social interaction (Chinnery, 2006; Copaert, 2004;
Kukulska-Hulme, 2009; Miangah & Nearat, 2012; Pachler, 2009).
Conclusion
Various researches have been conducted towards MALL as a growing field of study in
language learning. Yet, there is still a large amount of information remains uncovered. There is a
lack in research on the methods that aid in providing convenient MALL environment for
learners. In addition, some skills as listening and speaking need further improvements in MALL
research (Miangah & Nearat, 2012). Research on using authentic content, communicative
language practice and task completion is non-existent (Chinnery, 2006). In general, there is a
paucity of application and formal research on MALL.
Although MALL and m-learning encounter different challenges, the use of mobile devices
for educational purposes has been expanding. This expansion urges language teachers and
educators to support the use of m-learning and create new tools that fulfill the needs of language
learners, especially that m-learning enables learners to have their own individualized learning
process that is compatible to their needs and capabilities.
12
References
Anderson, P., & Blackwood, A. (2004). Mobile and PDA technologies and their future use in
education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, 4 (3). Retrieved from:
www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/acf11ae.doc
Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Duke University. (2005). Duke University iPod first year experience final evaluation report.
North Carolina, USA: Belanger, Y. Retrieved from:
http://cit.duke.edu/pdf/reports/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf
Chen, C., & Hsu., S. (2008). Personalized intelligent mobile learning system for supporting
effective English learning. Educational Technology and Society, 11 (3), 153-180.
Chinnery, G. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile-assisted language learning. Language
Learning and Technology, 10, 9-16. Retrieved from:
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/emerging/default.html
Colpaert, J. (2004). From courseware to coursewear?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17
(3-4), 261-266.
Dias, J. (2002). Cell phones in the classroom: Boon or bane?. Calling Japan, 10, 16-21.
Dickey, R. (2001). Make it a conference call: An English conversation course by telephone in
South Korea. In L. Henrichsen (ed.), Distance-learning programs (pp. 51-60).
Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Garcia, J. (2002). Tele-enREDando.com: A multimedia WEB-CALL software for mobile
phones. International Journal of English Studies, 2 (1), 167-178.
Gay, G., Stefanone, M., Martin, M., & Hembrooke, H. (2001). The effects of wireless computing
in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 13 (2), 257-276.
Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R., Robison, D., & Excell, B. (2009). The MOBO City: A mobile game
package for technical language learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies, 3 (2), 19-24. Retrieved from:
http://www.glyndwr.ac.uk/computing/research/pubs/mobo-city-ffg.pdf
Gholami, J., & Azarmi, G. (2012). An introduction to mobile assisted language learning.
International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 2 (8), 1-9. Retrieved from:
13
http://www.academia.edu/2214648/An_introduction_to_Mobile_Assisted_Language_Lea
rning
Green, B., Collier, K., & Evans, N. (2001). Teaching tomorrows class today: English by
telephone and computer from Hawaii to Tonga. In L. Henrichsen (ed.), Distance-learning
programs (pp. 71-82). Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Inc.
Huang, C., & Sun. P. (2010). Using mobile technologies to support mobile multimedia English
listening exercises in daily life. The International Conference on Computer and Network
Technologies in Education. Retrieved from:
http://nhcuer.lib.nhcue.edu.tw/ir/bitstream/392440000Q/649/1/120.pdf
Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. Computer, 10 (3), 31-41. Retrieved
from: http://www.manovich.net/26-kay-03.pdf
Kiernan, P., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful
language learning tools?. ReCALL, 16 (1), 71-84.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (eds.). (2002). Proceedings from IEEE International
Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education: Environmental
Detectives: PDAs as a Window into a Virtual Simulated World, Vaxjo, Sweden: IEEE
Computer Society, pp. 95-98
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning?. ReCALL, 21 (2),
157-165.
Kukulsak-Hulme, A., & Shield, A. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning:
Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening? ReCALL, 20
(3), 271-289.
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. (2011). Podcasting past, present and future: Applications of academic
podcasting in and out of the language classroom. In B. Facer, & M. Abdous (eds.),
Academic podcasting and mobile assisted language learning: Applications and outcomes
(pp. 1-20). USA: IGI Global.
14
McCarthy, C. (2011). BBC. Janala. World Innovative Summit for Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.wise-qatar.org/node/8098
Miangah, T., & Nearat, A. (2012). Mobile-assisted language learning. International Journal of
Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3 (1), 309-319
Mielo, G. (2005). The medium is the moblog. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 62 (1), 2835.
Myers, M. (2000). Voice recognition software and a hand-held translation machine for second
language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (1), 29-41.
Pachler, N. (2009). Research methods in mobile and informal learning: Some issues. In G.
Vavoula, N. Pachler, & A. Kukulska-Hulme (eds), Researching mobile learning:
Frameworks, tools, and research designs (pp. 1-16). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile devices as resources for learning:
Adoption trends, characteristics, constraints and challenges. In N. Pachler, B. Bachmair,
& J. Cook (eds.), Mobile learning (pp. 73-93). New York: Springer
Russell, C., & Cieslik, N. (2012, July 17). Mobile phone access reaches three quarters of planet's
population. The World Bank. Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2012/07/17/mobile-phone-access-reaches-three-quarters-planets-population
Salaberry, M. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A
retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 39-56.
Sharples. M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning.
Computers and Education, 34 (3-4), 177-193.
Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile
learning. ReCALL, 20 (3), 253270.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2003). Using mobile web and video phones in English language
teaching: Projects with Japanese college students. In B. Morrison, C. Green, & G.
Motteram (eds.), Directions in CALL: Experience, experiments & evaluation (pp. 207224). Hong Kong: English Language Centre, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Twarog, L., & Pereszlenyi-Pinter, M. (1988). Telephone-assisted language study and Ohio
University: A report. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 426-434.
15

Mobile-Assisted Language Learning: A Literature Review

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mobile-Assisted Language Learning: A Literature Review

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MOBILE-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING