a pedagogic assessment of mobile learning applications
TRANSCRIPT
A PEDAGOGIC ASSESSMENT OF MOBILE LEARNING APPLICATIONS
Jorge Arús Hita, UCM, [email protected]
Cristina Calle Martínez, UCM, [email protected]
Pilar Rodríguez Arancón, UNED, [email protected]
ATLAS (Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Linguistic Applications)
ICDE-UNED, 7-9 March 2013
Outline
• Background and motivation – SO-CALL-ME – Why mobile learning?
• Research goal – App evaluation
• Methodology – Rubric-based – Criteria for rubric creation
• Results – Technical aspects – Types of apps – Differentiating features
• Conclusion – What results show – What we can do now
Background and motivation
• Research carried out within the SO-CALL-ME project (Social Ontology-based Cognitively Augmented Language learning Mobile Environment; FFI 2011-29829)
• Mobile Learning is receiving widespread attention, as attested: – EU initiatives to promote it, e.g.:
• Framework Programmes of Research and Development • MOBIlearn (with the US) • eMapps • M-Learning (in UK)
– Increasing presence of mobile learning at generalist academic conferences, e.g. ICDE 2013
Research goal • Examination of both the qualities and limitations of the most
salient EFL MALL applications available at the moment by assessing their features from a pedagogic point of view – Pedagogic in the sense that we do not focus here on the technical
specifications of the apps, but rather on the kind of EFL teaching or practising they provide
– Starting point from which to gain knowledge and insights into the features that are effective and suitable for learners using MALL
– to develop applications which help to improve the communicative competences of the students/users in an independent and effective way, putting to good use the full potential that audiovisual material can provide
Methodology
• Creation of two templates (shared through Google Drive):
– list of evaluated apps and their URLs
– Rubric for the evaluation of EFL apps
• Evaluation of EFL apps
Methodology
1. list of evaluated apps and their URLs :
Methodology 2. App assessment rubric:
Criteria for rubric creation
• Simplicity
– for relatively fast assessment which would enable covering a fairly large number of apps in a reasonable amount of time
• Geared towards our project’s specific needs:
– Cognitive value
– Similarity with the pedagogic aims of SO-CALL-ME
– complementarity with the pedagogic aims of SO-CALL-ME
App evaluation
• 67 apps evaluated – Some of them downloaded (when free to download
and once downloaded the app ran well)
– Most of them based on the scrutiny of the information available on the website describing the app
• Each of the three evaluators assessed different apps – Pro: Larger number of apps assessed
– Con: Potentially less reliable assessments, but …
Results • A high number of apps presented technical problems at the time of downloading
or starting them – Complaints in forums – Observed on downloaded apps
• More apps for Apple than for Android (or others)
• A few of them can also be directly run from the Internet on a conventional computer
• Prices – Mobile versions of traditional dictionaries, textbooks, vocabulary or grammar tests, etc, (as
high as around 30 euros) – Apps downloadable for a small amount –usually around 1 euro, and rarely above three euros
(e.g. Cambridge’s English Monstruo) – Apps with an initial free sample pack and the possibility to download further packs for a small
amount (again, around 1 euro; e.g. the British Counsil’s LearnEnglish Grammar. – Completely free apps ; e.g. The wide choice of apps available from the British Counsil. – Full-fledged English courses , e.g. Busuu or EF’s EnglishTown (the price depends on the needs
of the user and/or seasonal offers)
Results
• Types of apps – Games, very often aimed at children, e.g. apps available from Cambridge
English Online. – App versions of dictionaries, handbooks and textbooks, e.g. Cambridge’s EFL
methods, dictionaries, etc; – Apps providing vocabulary, grammar and/or pronunciation practice, such as
My Word Book, Johnny Grammar’s Quiz Master, 60 Second Word Challenge or Sounds Right • Some go beyond mere drilling or quizzing: listening comprehension practice by means of
podcasts and the exploitation thereof, e.g. Listen-to-English and A Cup Of English; apps allowing conversation practice, e.g. English Feed, even with other users, e.g. The Language Campus;
– Adaptation of online courses such as Busuu and EF’s EnglishTown to mobile devices.
– Apps exploiting the use of language in context (most closely related to the interests and goals of SO-CALL-ME): through podcasts –e.g. Learn English, Talking Business English– videos –e.g. Learn English Audio & Video, Conversation English– films –e.g. English Attack– and cartoons –e.g. Big City Small World.
Results
• Differentiating features
– Drag & drop (e.g. Learn English Grammar)
– Drawing with one’s finger (e.g. Premier Skills)
– Connectivity with social networks (e.g. Language City, Learn English, 60 Second Word Challenge and Tongue Mystery English)
– Student’s Avatar (Quiz up)
Conclusion • The results give us an idea of the qualities and limitations of the apps
evaluated, as a first step in the development of other apps that may fill some existing gaps.
• The quantitative scrutiny here presented has allowed us to ascertain the limited scope of many of the existing products. – Not something in itself negative; it shows the efforts by methodologists,
linguistic engineers and technological enterprises to develop technology which assists students to learn anytime and anywhere.
– Yet, it is also a fact that they tend to provide a rather fragmented language practice: some vocabulary here, some grammar there, etc..
• Some of the MALL apps evaluated, however, do provide more contextualized practice. – We will look at these in more detail
• to learn from their strengths • to integrate a sound pedagogy that may result in the creation of apps which,
without being a mere mobile version of traditional online courses, will provide quality teaching and practice