CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 1469 - 1474
International Conference on Current Trends in ELT
The Impact of Mobile Dictionary Use on Language Learning
Mehrak Rahimia * Seyed Shahab Mirib
a'b English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran, 1678815811, Iran
Abstract
Widespread use of mobile and wireless devices in education has led to revolutionary changes in the way teachers teach and learners learn. Due to their pervasiveness, mobile phones are considered as being potentially valuable learning tools. However, students' personal use of mobile phones and their apps for learning benefit is still open to research. This study thus investigated the impact of mobile dictionary use on language learning. Thirty-four lower-intermediate language learners participated in a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study. They were divided into two groups (17 in each group) based on their choice to work with a mobile dictionary or a printed one for their language course. During the course, the experimental group used a dictionary installed on their mobile phones to do all their activities. Meanwhile, the control group worked with the printed version of the same dictionary. A teacher-made achievement test was used as the pre- and post-test. The result showed that, while controlling for the entry level language ability, the experimental group outperformed the control group in the post-test. The finding of the study underscores the vital role mobile phones play in extending learning out of the classroom anywhere anytime.
© 2014 TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
Keywords: mobile; dictionary; language learning; MALL
1. Introduction
The learning and teaching environments of the twenty first century are changing very fast due to unprecedented opportunities advancement of information and communication technologies have created for education. After around half a century of integrating computers into instruction, the rapid evolution of mobile devices is opening up a whole world of new learning experiences with technology.
* Mehrak Rahimi. Tel.: +9821 22970035; fax: +9821 22970035. E-mail address: mehrakrahimi@yahoo.com
1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.567
Mobile learning is a type of learning that takes place with the help of mobile devices (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008) and simply means learning anywhere and at any time. While at the beginning, mobile learning focused on the role of mobile technologies and devices in education, in the recent years mobile learning is characterized with the mobility of the user and the informal learning that happens out of the classroom (Sharples, 2006). In this case, any portable and palmtop devices such as portable media player devices, tablets, and mobile phones contribute to mobile learning.
From among the portable technological tools, mobile phones are the most commonly used devices for learning (P^cherzewska & Knots, 2007) and due to their portability and accessibility many scholars now consider using them in the educational settings for learning and teaching purposes (Tayebinik & Puteh, 2012). Research shows that mobile phones can be used to leverage instruction (Roschelle, 2002), empower place-based learning (Squire, Jan, & Mathews, 2007), and amplify learning (Squire & Dikkers, 2012).
Mobile learning has certain benefits for language classes as well and allows language teachers to offer access to authentic content, communicative language practice, and task completion (Chinnery, 2006). While the effect of some mobile phone affordances such as Short Message Service (SMS), voice-messaging, cameras, video-recording and Internet access have spawned studies (e.g., Thornton & Houser, 2005; Jee, 2011), "few studies have investigated students' personal use of mobile apps for learning and the learning benefits" (Steel, 2012, p. 1). The purpose of the current study thus is probing into the effect of using mobile dictionaries on lower-intermediate EFL learners' language learning in contrast to using printed dictionaries.
1.1. Mobile learning
Mobile learning can be defined as "any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices" (Traxler, 2005). A mobile device is "any device that is small, autonomous and unobtrusive enough to accompany us in every moment" (Trifanova & Ronchetti, 2003, p.3). In accordance with the developmental history of mobile learning (Sharples, 2006) three aspects can be specified for this type of learning (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010):
• Mobility of technology,
• Mobility of learning, and
• Mobility of learner.
Mobility of technology focuses on examining the possibility of using portable and wireless devices such as mobile phones, laptops, and tablets for educational purposes. The focus of mobility on learning is on the extensive use of mobile devices for learning outside the classroom. The third aspect focuses on "the mobility of the learner, the design or the appropriation of learning spaces and on informal learning and lifelong learning" (Pachler, Bachmair, & Cook, 2010, p. 41).
From among the devices that can be used for mobile learning, mobile phones have gained more attention due to their ubiquity among the youth at schools and universities, and their applications in education. The swift development of mobile phones in the last decade from simple phones to smart-phones, which can serve as a minicomputer, telephone, or camera, and transfer data as well as video and audio files, has made mobile phones efficient learning tools. Klopfer and Squire (2008) describe the affordances of mobile phones as:
• Portability: can take the computer to different sites and move around within a location.
• Social interactivity: can exchange data and collaborate with other people face to face.
• Context sensitivity: can gather data unique to the current location, environment, and time, including both real and simulated data.
• Connectivity: can connect handhelds to data collection devices, other handhelds, and to a common network that creates a true shared environment.
• Individuality: can provide unique scaffolding that is customized to the individual's path of investigation (cited in Squire & Dikkers, 2012, p. 447).
Research on using mobile phones in education shows that students consider mobile phones as useful learning tools; using mobile phones can amplify students' personal and academic interest; and they help students learn school subjects better (e.g. Squire & Dikkers, 2012).
1.2. Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL)
Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is any type of language learning that takes place with the help of portable devices. "MALL differs from computer-assisted language learning in its use of personal, portable devices that enable new ways of learning, emphasizing continuity or spontaneity of access and interaction across different contexts of use" (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008, p. 273).
Mobile devices are effective tools for language learning in general terms (e.g., Rosell-Aguilar, 2007; Fallahkhair, Pemberton, & Griffiths, 2007), have positive effect on the development of language skills (e.g., Chen & Chang, 2011; Chang & Hsu, 2011), heighten learners' language learning attitudes and motivation (e.g., Huang, Huang, Huang, & Lin, 2012), and support learner interaction, collaboration, and the co-construction of knowledge (Joseph & Uther, 2009).
The impact of MALL on language learning can be argued from both theoretical and research-based stands. Theoretically, it is suggested that MALL "addresses many of the major challenges of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), such as comprehensible input or "i+1" (Krashen, 1985), the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996), corrective/facilitative feedback (Gass, 1997; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998), and learner autonomy (Benson, 2001)" (Jee, 2011, p. 162). Empirical studies also show that MALL influences language learners' vocabulary learning (e.g., Ogata, Yin, El-Bishouty, & Yano, 2010), promotes learner-learner interaction (Dias, 2002), increases students' communicative competence and language learning motivation (Cooney & Keogh, 2007), and promotes peer-assisted language learning (Lan, Sung, & Chang, 2007).
Research on MALL has mainly focused on teacher-led mobile learning and students' own use of mobile apps and the role of mobile apps in their learning have been taken for granted in the literature (Steel, 2012). Language learners use these apps quite frequently due to their "availability, convenience and low cost" (Steel, 2012, p. 1). Mobile apps include a variety of applications that help language learners to manage their time of studying more efficiently. One mobile application that is extensively used by students is mobile dictionaries. Advantages such as performing search; having a greater number of words, phrases, collocations, idioms, synonyms and antonyms; playing pronunciation of words; and showing images and videos related to the word's meaning can make mobile dictionaries a better choice instead of compact phrasebook or printed dictionaries among language learners (Joseph & Uther, 2009). In spite of the popularity of mobile dictionaries among students, research on the effect of this app on language learning is still scarce.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Thirty-four lower-intermediate language learners participated in a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study. They were divided into experimental (n=17) and control groups (n=17) based on their choice to work with a mobile dictionary or a printed one for their language course.
2.2. Instruments
Two instruments were used in this study: a language achievement test; and the Longman mobile and Longman paperback Dictionary.
2.2.1. The language test
The language test consisted of 5 parts including listening (20 items), vocabulary (30 items), grammar (30 items), reading comprehension (10 items) and writing. The test was administered twice, prior to the study and at the end of the course. The test was scored out of 100. All parts except the writing part had a multiple choice format, and thus
were scored objectively (1 for correct and 0 for wrong answers). The writing part included writing a short paragraph and was scored using a weighted rubric (Sokolik, 2003). The paragraphs were scored two times by the teacher.
The reliability of the first part of the test was estimated to be .86 and the intra-rater reliability of the writing part was .89.
2.2.2. Longman mobile and printed dictionaries
The experimental group used the fifth edition of Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE), mobile phone version (version 1.3), registered on September 2012. The control group used the second impression of the fifth edition of LDOCE printed in 2010.
2.3. Procedure
Both groups were pretested on their language ability prior to the course. For a 16-session semester the experimental group used LDOCE installed on their mobile phones to do all their activities in and out of the classroom. Meanwhile, the control group worked with LDOCE printed version to do their language activities. At the end of the instruction both groups were post-tested on their language ability.
3. Results
Table 1 summarizes the mean scores of both groups' pre-tests and post-tests. As Table 1 shows, the experimental group had higher mean score after the experiment (mean=85.29) in comparison to the control group (mean=77.35). In order to test whether this difference was statistically significant, a one-way between-groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. Participants' scores on pre-test were used as the covariate in this analysis.
Table 1.Descriptive statistics of both groups' post-tests
Group Mean SD N
Control 77.352 7.598 17
Experimental 85.294 9.026 17
Total 81.323 9.150 34
As Table 2 shows, the result of ANCOVA revealed that there was a significant difference between two groups in post-test [F (1, 31) =37.166; p=.000; partial eta squared=.545] in favour of the experimental group. Accordingly, the conclusion can be drawn that using mobile dictionaries has caused a higher level of language learning in comparison to using printed dictionaries.
Table 2. The result of ANCOVA
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 2423.300 2 1211.650 110.428 .000 .877
Intercept 52.982 1 52.982 4.829 .036 .135
Pre-test 1887.270 1 1887.270 172.003 .000 .847
Group 407.801 1 407.801 37.166 .000 .545
Error 340.142 31 10.972
Total 227623.000 34
Corrected Total 2763.441 33
4. Discussion
The aim of the current study was investigating the effect of using mobile dictionaries on language learning in contrast to using paperback dictionaries. The findings showed that EFL learners who used the mobile dictionary to learn English improved their language ability more than those who used the printed dictionary.
The finding corroborates previous research findings that generally computer-assisted language learning environments can have a positive effect on learners' achievement in learning English as a foreign language. Using technology promotes language learners' motivation, creates positive attitudes toward learning a foreign language (Rahimi & Hosseini, 2011), and lowers learners' anxiety in language classes (Rahimi &Yadollahi, 2011).
However, the innovative finding of this study is related to using mobile dictionaries in language classes and the learning that is extended to environments out of the classroom, into everyday activities, and learning anywhere at any times (Joseph & Uther, 2009) with the help of one mobile app. "Mobile apps offer a wide range of learning tools [to students] that can be downloaded to their mobile devices and used productively at opportune times in a variety of settings and on-the-go" (Steel, 2012, p. 1). In case of language learning this feature of mobile learning is a more practical help, as "extending language learning outside of classroom time, especially where in-class language practice time is limited, is essential to language acquisition" (Kennedy & Levy, 2009, cited in Steel, 2012, p. 2). Moreover, as foreign language learning needs frequent informal practice (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012), mobile phones provide ample opportunities for learners to have continuous connection with the target language.
Among mobile apps, using dictionaries is highly regarded by students (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012) because using mobile dictionaries is time efficient and help language learners acquire vocabulary and check verb conjugations (Steel, 2012). The affordances that are included in mobile dictionaries such as visual media (images, graphics), audio media (pronunciation), multimedia, and searching can also be the reason of better learning when students use mobile dictionaries (Joseph & Uther, 2009).
References
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
Chang, C.K., & Hsu, C.K. (2011). A mobile-assisted synchronously collaborative translation-annotation system for English as a foreign language
(EFL) reading comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 155-180. Chen, I.-J., & Chang, C.C. (2011). Content presentation modes in mobile listening tasks: English proficiency as a moderator. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 451-470.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies, going to the MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 9-16.
Cooney, G., & Keogh, K. (2007). Use of mobile phones for language learning and assessment for learning. Paper presented at MLearn 2007.
Available at: http://www.learnosity.com/files/learnosity-use-ofmobile-phones-for-language-learning-and-assessment-for-learning.pdf. Dias, J. (2002). Cell phones in the classroom: Boon or bane? C@lling Japan, 10, 16-21.
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 12-21.
Fallahkhair, S., Pemberton, L., & Griffiths, R. (2007). Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via mobile phone
and interactive television. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 321-325. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Jee, M. J. (2011). Web 2.0 Technology meets mobile assisted language learning. The IALLT Journal, 41, 161-175.
Joseph, S., & Uther, M. (2009). Mobile devices for language learning: Multimedia approach. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 7-32.
Huang, Y.M., Huang, Y.M., Huang, S.H., & Lin, Y.T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: Evidence of active/passive
attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use. Computers & Education, 58, 273-282. Kennedy, C. & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and CALL: Factors for success in a context of change. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 22, 445-463.
Klopfer E., & Squire K. (2008) Environmental detectives - the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 203-228. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20, 271-289.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Language learning defined by time and place: A framework for next generation designs. In E. Diaz-Vera, Javier (ed).
Left to my own devices: Learner autonomy and Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Innovation and leadership in English language teaching, 6 (pp. 1-13). UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lan, Y.J., Sung, Y.T., & Chang, K.E. (2007) A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading.
Language Learning & Technology, 11, 130-151. Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194. Long, M. (1996). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649-666.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Ogata, H., Yin. C., El-Bishouty, M. M. & Yano, Y. (2010). Computer supported ubiquitous learning environment for vocabulary learning.
International Journal of Learning Technology, 5, 5-24. P^cherzewska, A., & Knot, S. (2007) Review of existing EU projects dedicated to dyslexia, gaming in education and m-learning. WR08 Report to
CallDysc project. June 2007. Available at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40115316/WR08-Existing-EU-Projects-review. Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structure, agency, practices. UK: Springer Science-Business Media. Rahimi, M., & Hosseini, F. (2011). The impact of computer-based activities on Iranian high-school students' attitudes towards computer-assisted
language learning. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 183-190. Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). Success in learning English as a foreign language as a predictor of computer anxiety. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 175-182.
Roschelle J., & Pea, R. (2002). A Walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change CSCL. Available at:
http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/WalkWildSide.pdf. Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). Top of the pods-in search of a podcasting "podagogy" for language learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 471-492.
Sharples, M. (ed.) (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning
Initiative. UK: University of Nottingham,. Squire, K., Jan, M., & Mathews, J. (2007). The design and use of simulation computer games in education. In B.E. Shelton and D.A. Wiley (eds.),
The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 264-296). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning: Use of mobile media devices among youth. Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18, 445-464. Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan (ed.). Practical English Language Teaching, (pp. 87-108). McGraw-Hill: Singapore. Steel, C. (2012). Fitting learning into life: Language students' perspectives on benefits of using mobile apps. Proceedings ofascilite 2012, Future Challenges Sustainable Future. Wellington, New Zealand. Available at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wellington12/2012/images/custom/steel%2c_caroline_-_fitting_learning.pdf. Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Mobile learning to support teaching English as a second language. Journal of Education and Practice, 3, 5663.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228. Traxler, J. (2005) Mobile Learning: It's here, but what is it? Interactions, 25. Available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/resource/interactions/archive/issue25/ traxler. Trifanova, A., & Ronchetti, M. (2003). Where is mobile learning going? Proceedings of the E-learn Conference, 1795-1801. Available at: http://www.science.unitn.it/~foxy/docs/Where%20is%20Mobile% 20Learning%20Goi ng%20(E-Learn2003).pdf.
