Page 26 - LanGuide Project: Research and Professional Insights
P. 26
a Čebron and Emma Beatriz Villegas Cunja
majority of exercises is formed by drills on vocabulary and grammar. The
approach mainly derives from the ease to program and implement such
software features. As a result, students using mobile language-learning
apps demonstrated low achievement scores due to insufficient linguistic
content provided by the device. What is more, such mLearning pedagogy
contrasts with the sl a principles, which emphasize the need for collabo-
rative and communicative language learning activities.
Such considerations are taken even a step further by Nielson (2011),
whose study reports on responses from adult language learners using
Rosetta Stone and Tell Me More – two popular, commercially available,
technology-mediated self-study packages. Her report on actual learners’
engagement with mLearning resources reveal a severe participant attri-
tion in spite of initial high motivation. The reasons listed include techni-
cal problems, but also a limited exposure to vocabulary and structures in
context, as well as a lack of genuine discourse provided by the software
packages. Indeed, their findings suggest that successful language learn-
ers included in their research group looked for help from native speakers
in their environment to enhance their learning achievements. The lack of
incentives to engage in genuine discourse is actually at odds with recent
theories of sl a, which call for exposure to contextually appropriate target
language discourse, both from an interactionist perspective (Gass, 2003;
Mackey, 2007; Long, 2017) and from a sociocultural perspective (Lantolf,
2000). However, in the author’s view the main obstacle to retaining learn-
ers’ interest is that independent learners using c a l l or m a l l require
support and guidance (Littlemore, 2001; Mozzon-McPherson, 2007), be-
cause ‘c all should not be too closely associated with self-access or auton-
omy, and [. . .] teachers are needed to drive the c all process’ (Jones, 2001,
p. 360). Therefore, teachers and materials writers should understand that
merely providing access to self-study materials does not guarantee usage
of mobile apps; additional resources to help users compensate for the inad-
equacies of stand-alone c all and m all products as well as face-to-face
support should be provided (Jones, 2001; Wegerif, 1998).
A critical examination of learning approaches adopted within eLearning
and mLearning thus provided the following insights:
– mLearning resources and self-study packages generate initial moti-
vation, but are susceptible to high attrition rates among learners.
– mLearning tools and resources develop mainly a receptive language
knowledge rather than a productive language knowledge.
26
majority of exercises is formed by drills on vocabulary and grammar. The
approach mainly derives from the ease to program and implement such
software features. As a result, students using mobile language-learning
apps demonstrated low achievement scores due to insufficient linguistic
content provided by the device. What is more, such mLearning pedagogy
contrasts with the sl a principles, which emphasize the need for collabo-
rative and communicative language learning activities.
Such considerations are taken even a step further by Nielson (2011),
whose study reports on responses from adult language learners using
Rosetta Stone and Tell Me More – two popular, commercially available,
technology-mediated self-study packages. Her report on actual learners’
engagement with mLearning resources reveal a severe participant attri-
tion in spite of initial high motivation. The reasons listed include techni-
cal problems, but also a limited exposure to vocabulary and structures in
context, as well as a lack of genuine discourse provided by the software
packages. Indeed, their findings suggest that successful language learn-
ers included in their research group looked for help from native speakers
in their environment to enhance their learning achievements. The lack of
incentives to engage in genuine discourse is actually at odds with recent
theories of sl a, which call for exposure to contextually appropriate target
language discourse, both from an interactionist perspective (Gass, 2003;
Mackey, 2007; Long, 2017) and from a sociocultural perspective (Lantolf,
2000). However, in the author’s view the main obstacle to retaining learn-
ers’ interest is that independent learners using c a l l or m a l l require
support and guidance (Littlemore, 2001; Mozzon-McPherson, 2007), be-
cause ‘c all should not be too closely associated with self-access or auton-
omy, and [. . .] teachers are needed to drive the c all process’ (Jones, 2001,
p. 360). Therefore, teachers and materials writers should understand that
merely providing access to self-study materials does not guarantee usage
of mobile apps; additional resources to help users compensate for the inad-
equacies of stand-alone c all and m all products as well as face-to-face
support should be provided (Jones, 2001; Wegerif, 1998).
A critical examination of learning approaches adopted within eLearning
and mLearning thus provided the following insights:
– mLearning resources and self-study packages generate initial moti-
vation, but are susceptible to high attrition rates among learners.
– mLearning tools and resources develop mainly a receptive language
knowledge rather than a productive language knowledge.
26
