Mobile Handheld Recording Devices in General English Classroom

Mobile Handheld Recording Devices in the General English Classroom

Farhad Ghorbandordinejada*

, Abdolvahab Aghasafi1, Amir Farjadnasab

2 &Amin Harandi

3

aAssist. Prof. of TEFL Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, P.O. Box 167855-

163- Tehran-Iran, [email protected] bMA Student of TEFL Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, P.O. Box 167855-

163- Tehran-Iran, [email protected] c MA Student of TEFL Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, P.O. Box 167855-

163- Tehran-Iran, [email protected] d MA Student of TEFL Department of Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, P.O. Box 167855-

163- Tehran-Iran, [email protected]

Abstract

The purpose of this empirical study was to examine the effect of the classroom

recording by the language learners using mobile handheld devices (i.e. cell phones,

digital voice recorders, mp3 players, etc) over the overall learning in the general

English classroom. The population of this study was all the freshmen students of the

different majors at the Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University (SRTTU) in Tehran

who enrolled in the general English course of the English language department in the

school year of 2010-2011. The volunteer sample in this experimental study consisted of

30 freshman students who were randomly chosen and divided into two groups. During

a session of teaching grammar (forms and functions of English verbs), both groups

received the same instruction in the same class; however one group (control) supposed

to use traditional paper and pencil note taking and the other group (experimental)

allowed to record the voice of the class for subsequent uses. The students in both

groups were asked to review their material before the next session; one group through

studying their notes and the other by listening and practicing the recorded voice of the

classroom. A week after the instruction, a T-test analysis performed on the test scores

of the groups revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t (28) = 2.519,

p <0.05). The findings of this study may be an open window to further research in this

growing field.

Keywords: Mobile learning, Digital recording devices, General English

* Corresponding Author: Tel.: +98-912-189-0207; fax: +98-212-297-0035,

E-mail address: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Rapid developments in information and communications technologies (ICT) provide

education community with new opportunities to exploit these advances for more active and

effective learning. One of these burgeoning areas is known as Mobile Learning (m-Learning)

that deals with the application of mobile electronic and wireless devices in the processes of

learning and teaching and attracted the attention of education authorities for about a decade or

more (Traxler, 2009).

Of course m-Learning can be related to e-Learning in one hand and Distance Learning

on the other hand (Keegan 2002). This duality is due to the perspectives we look at this issue.

One point of view takes learners and their learning context that is not fixed or predetermined

and the other viewpoint hold the concept of learning with mobile devices such as mobile

phones, MP3 players, Personal Digital Assistants or PDAs and so on (Keegan 2002). The

latter perspective is the basis of this study.

One of the first groups of scholars who grasped this new idea of using these devices in

learning have been ELT specialists who try to exploit those technological advances in

learning a new language (e.g. Zhao,2005; Brown 2001). The combination of m-Learning

_that is a field in general education_ and second/foreign language learning is referred to as

Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL). Among the benefits of MALL and m-Learning

in general connections between formal and informal learning, work and leisure, supporting

learners' autonomy and self-directness, the low cost of most of its devices (compared with

desktop computers) and also their availability can be mentioned(Kukulska-Hulme &Traxler,

2005).

However most of the researches about application of MALL have been done in the

area of vocabulary learning and retention (e.g. Stockwell, 2010; Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009; Lu,

2008) and little work has been considered the facility of mobile electronic devices to record

the voice of the class for later uses and reviews.

So this paper focuses on examining the effectiveness of reviewing the materials of an

English grammar class through recording the voice of class by means of cell phones, digital

voice recorders and MP3 players that are more pervasive in our context of Iran.

2. Literature review

2.1. What is m-Learning?

Impressive developments in technology during the last two decades created a

worldwide attention toward the kind of technology that permits private individuals to enjoy

mobile wireless connectivity (Chen et al., 2003; Corllet et al., 2004). Availability of mobile

technology especially among young generation in the form of mobile phones and other

mobile electronic devices has created opportunities for educators to design new educational

models that mobile connectivity into a variety of educational settings (Chang et al., 2003;

Johnson & Moltz, 1996). The different feature of mobile technology that attracts educators is

that it removes the limitations of time, space and connectivity conventional classroom and

other forms of teaching and learning. Mobile leaning may thus be considered as an "extreme

form of felexible learning" (Seppala & Alamaki, 2003).

When we look at the relatively immature literature of m-Learning _immature because

the field itself is a young enterprise_ we confront with myriad and different definitions for m-

Learning. This diversity is partly due to the point of emphasis. There are definitions and

conceptualizations of mobile learning that define it purely in terms of its technologies and its

hardware, namely that it is learning delivered or supported solely or mainly by handheld and

mobile technologies; and other definitions that is a pedagogic view and perhaps look at the

underlying learner experience and ask how mobile learning differs from other forms of

education, especially other forms of e-learning (Traxler, 2009).

Here are some definitions of m-Learning from both camps (technology driven

researches and pedagogic driven ones):

_Keegan (as cited in Ally, 2009) defines m-Learning as 'the provision of education

and training on PDAs/palmtops/handhelds, smart phones and mobile phones.'

_O’Malley et al. (2003) have defined mobile learning as taking place when the learner

is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or when the learner 'takes advantage of the

learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies.'

_Stone (2004) states that m-learning is a 'special type of e-learning, bound by a

number of special properties and the capability of devices, bandwidth and other

characteristics of the network technologies being used.'

_ Traxler (2005) believes that 'any educational provision where the sole or dominant

technologies are handheld or palmtop devices' is m-Learning.

_and Kukulska-Hulme & Shield (2008) refer to m-Learning as ' learning mediated via

handheld devices and potentially available anytime, anywhere. Such learning may be

formal or informal.'

To show the difference between e-Learning and m-learning Traxler (2009) compares

the characteristics of these two field and mentions "we find words such as “personal,

spontaneous, opportunistic, informal, pervasive, situated, private, context-aware, bite-sized"

as the features of m-Learning in the literature in contrast with words from literature of

"conventional 'tethered' e-learning such as structured, media-rich, broadband, interactive,

intelligent, usable." Nevertheless he states that this distinction is "blurred and temporary" (p.

14) as the virtue of e-learning is the power of its technology and soon this virtue will also be

accessible to mobile devices.

The problem of finding an acceptable definition for mobile learning as Traxler (2007)

states is that mobile devices and technologies are pervasive and ubiquitous especially in

developed societies and this will leads to the alteration of knowledge and discourse in these

societies. This situation, in turn, changes the ways of learning (both its formal and informal

orientations) and the ways of delivering and scaffolding learning as well. That is in Trexler

(007) words "… learning that used to be delivered 'just-in-case,' can now be delivered 'just-in-

time,' 'just enough,' and 'just-for-me".

Another area that is influenced by mobile technologies is 'work' and this affect the way

mobile learning would be defined:

Mobile technologies also alter the nature of work (the driving force behind

much education and most training), especially of knowledge work. Mobile

technologies alter the balance between training and performance support, especially

for many knowledge workers. This means that 'mobile' is not merely a new adjective

qualifying the timeless concept of 'learning'– 'mobile learning' is emerging as an

entirely new and distinct concept alongside the 'mobile workforce' and the 'connected

society.' (Traxler, 2007: 5)

To clarify which devices could be categorized as mobile devices there are typical

examples in the m-Learning literature like _but not limited to_ handheld computers (Personal

Digital Assistants or PDAs), MP3 players, notebooks, mobile phones, smart phones and

palmtops (Kukulska-Hulme &Traxler, 2005). The portable and personal nature of these

devices actualizes the slogan of m-Learning that is "anywhere, anytime learning" (Ally,

2009; Kukulska-Hulme &Traxler, 2005; Keegan 2002).

2.2. Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL)

As it was mentioned, ELT scholars have tried to use the findings and opportunities

that m-Learning offers from the early days of its emergence. The results of the studies on

application of mobile learning into foreign/second language learning have led to evolution of

the sub-field of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) in a same line as Computer

Assisted language learning (CALL). However, as Kukulska-hulme & Shield (2008) refer,

MALL is different from CALL in that 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 that is MALL is more learner-friendly than CALL as these days

struggle to learn without a teacher’s direction and guidance.

Kukulska-hulme & Shield (2008) divide the researches in the field of MALL into " content-

based (i.e. the development of activities and learning materials) and those that concentrate on

design issues related to developing learning materials and activities for mobile devices". They

believe that while content developing studies work on more formal learning courses and often

employ mobile devices as a means of delivering content to learners, investigations in the area

of design issues call the "informal" nature of many manifestations of mobile learning in

which learners may define their own learning and even provide materials to other learners.

A brief overview of the researches that have been done in this area based on the

particular device being used is presented bellow.

Cell phones

The majority of Content-related works according to Pęcherzewska & Knot (2007)

appear to make use of cell phones. The most frequent studies, as Kukulska-hulme & Shield

(2008) mention, seem to employ text messaging for vocabulary learning (Levy & Kennedy

2005, McNicol 2005), and quizzes and surveys (Levy & Kennedy 2005, McNicol 2005)

which are mainly directed towards teacher-learner communication rather than encouraging

learners to communicate with each other. Nevertheless there are some studies that promote

learner-learner interaction. For example Dias (as cited in Kukulska-hulme & Shield, 2008) set

up a web-board accessible by mobile phone so that learners could interact asynchronously

with each other, their teachers and any guest lecturers.

MP3 players

McCarty (2005) reports that Osaka Jogakuin College (Japan) provided first year

undergraduates with iPods in early 2004 to support their English studies. They had access to

web and could download podcasts of English language news broadcasts in order to carry out

their assignments. In Duke University, according to Belanger (2005), students were supplied

with iPods to use these devices for listening and speaking activities in several language

courses, which utilized both their listening and recording capabilities in the fall of 2004.

PDAs

The use of Personal digital assistants (PDAs) has been reported in different disciplines

within high school, universities, and medical schools (Carlson, 2002). For language learning,

according to Chinnery (2006) they have been mostly used as translators. However several

foreign language courses at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, have also used wireless

handheld computers for various classroom activities (Samuels, 2003) as PDAs offer

numerous uses, including Internet and wireless access, and therefore file-sharing between

teachers and students and amongst students themselves (chinnery, 2006).

Digital voice recorders

Research on using relatively inexpensive, easily portable devices such as digital voice

recorders for MALL activities is relatively scarce; a point to which Kukulska-hulme & Shield

(2008) have referred to in their review paper. However they mention an experiment at Dublin

City University in which students of French used their digital voice recorders to download

audio files from a special website designed for this purpose, so they could listen to their audio

archives at any time and in any location. They could also upload their edited audio materials

of their projects for others use.

To find out new possibilities of exploiting digital voice recorders in the process of

language learning, a somehow neglected area, the researchers in this study tried to examine

the effect of reviewing the taught material through recorded voice of class in comparison with

traditional note taking. The null hypothesis for this research is as follow:

There is no significant difference between the performance of the group prepared for

test through listening to the recorded voice of the class and that of group studied their paper

notes.

3. Methodology

3.1. Overall design of the study

The present study was carried out in one of the general English classes of Shahid

Rajaee Teacher Training University (SRTTU) of Tehran where one of the researchers was the

instructor of the class and other researchers as his assistants. So the design of this study was

an action research in which the researchers were involved directly in the processes of data

collection and decided about the changes of directions during the course of research to

improve and validate the finding of the study, a matter that is usual and permitted due to the

nature of action research.

3.2. Participants

The participants of this were 30 freshmen students of Civil Engineering who enrolled

in the general English course of the English language department of SRTTU in the school

year of 2010-2011. The class consisted of 20 female and 10 male students between the ages

of 19 and 21. They were all informed about the purpose and procedure of the study and

agreed willingly to participate. They were randomly divided into two groups of fifteen as the

experimental and control groups.

3.3. Instruments

In order to record the voice of the class cell phones, digital voice recorders and MP3

players, the types of mobile devises that are most ubiquitous and inexpensive in our context

of Iran, were used. Almost every member of the experimental group had at least one of these

devises which had the facility of voice recording and allowed to record the voice of the

presented material during the classes. However to ensure that everybody had the recording

the voice of the class the researchers themselves recorded the class and stored the sound files

on CD ROMs and gave them to whomever couldn't capture the voice of the class properly.

For the purpose of evaluation, a researcher made test was used to assess the learning

rate of the participants. The test had 20 marks and was reviewed by two expertise of this field

about its validity and rated three times by three different raters to ensure inter-rater reliability.

General reliability of the tests was difficult to determine because of the time limitation and

ongoing nature of action research however, as it was mentioned, the validity of the tests was

confirmed by two experts.

3.4. Procedure

As it was referred earlier the participants were divided into two groups as the

experimental and control groups. They were instructed some grammatical points (forms and

functions of English verbs) simultaneously in the same place while the voice of the instructor

and students were being recorded to be given to students of experimental group. The students

themselves were also allowed to record the class voice as they wished but not take notes. The

students of control group had to take notes using traditional paper and pencil method as they

agreed before the experiment willingly. The presented materials were about English verbs,

their forms and functions, tenses and active and passive voices. The students then were

supposed to review their recording and notes and be tested on these materials the following

week. It should be mentioned that students of each group supposed to use its own material

(i.e. experimental group used recorded voice and control group used paper notes) and do not

exchange their materials as they all promised and agreed to do so.

One week after the instruction both groups were given a test on materials presented

last session. The students' papers were corrected by three different raters and the means of the

raters' scores for each student were used as the data needed for the study.

3.5. Data collection and analysis

For the purpose of this study that was to compare the performance of the experimental

and control group a test was given to the students. The scores of the test which corrected by

three different persons (and showed a high level of correlation of about 98 percent) were the

data of this research.

To analyze the data a t-test was performed using SPSS software at the level of

significance of 0.05.

4. Results

After conducting the researcher made test the papers were given to three raters to be

corrected. The mean scores of the raters were taken as the data of this study. Tables 1 and 2

display the individuals' scores and the mean score for each student.

Table 1

Group1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rater1 18 17.25 16.5 14.5 16.75 18.5 17.25 18.5 15.75 14.75 17 15 17.75 18.5 15.75

Rater2 17.5 17.5 16 14.75 17.25 18.25 17.25 18.5 16.5 15.25 17.5 15 17.75 18 16.5

Rater3 18.5 17.5 16 14.25 16.75 17.75 17.75 18.5 16 14.75 17.5 14.25 17.75 17.5 16

mean 18 17.42 16.17 14.16 16.92 18.16 17.42 18.5 16.08 14.92 17.33 14.75 17.75 18 16.08

Table 2

Group2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rater1 17 10.75 10 16.75 16 19.75 16 10 14.5 11.25 15.25 5.5 12.5 18.25 15

Rater2 17 11.25 11 17 16 19.75 17 10.25 15 11.5 16 6.25 13.5 18.5 15.75

Rater3 17.25 10.5 10 16.25 16.5 19.75 17.5 10.5 15 11.5 15.25 6 13.5 18.25 15.75

mean 17.08 10.83 10.33 16.67 16.33 19.75 16.83 10.25 14.83 11.42 15.5 5.92 13.17 18.33 15.5

To ensure the inter-rater reliability a correlation analysis was performed on the raters'

scores that showed a high level of correlation. In Table 3 the result of correlation analysis

is given. As you see the correlation coefficient is very large among the raters' scores.

Table 3

rater1 rater2 rater3

Rater 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .990**

.986**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 30 30 30

Rater 2 Pearson Correlation .990**

1 .989**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 30 30 30

Rater 3 Pearson Correlation .986**

.989**

1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 30 30 30

In order to compare the performances of the students of experimental and control

groups their mean scores of the raters were contrasted through conducting t-test analysis. As

it is evident in Table 4 there is a significant difference between the groups (t (28) = 2.519,

p<0.05). Therefore the null is rejected and listening to the recorded voice of the class for test

preparation can be helpful.

Table 4

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study, as mentioned before, was to explore the effectiveness of

preparing for the exams using one of the common features of mobile electronic devices that is

voice recording. Through this facility students may record the given lectures given by the

instructors and listen to them anywhere and anytime as they are ready and willing. In the

introduction of this study it was referred to that in spite of this very helpful facility of mobile

electronic devices (i.e. voice recording) is neglected and little research has been carried out

about its possible benefits. The researchers in this study tried to exploit this potential in a

general English class and two groups of students were compared based on access to the

recorded voice of the class for test preparation.

The findings of this small scale action research although confirm the effectiveness of

recording the voice of class for further reviews, should not take as conclusive and the results

must be reported with caution.

There were some limitations in carrying out this research. One of the most

problematic issues in this study was time limitation as this general English course was a

credit one and an experimental study could not be extended for a long time and the results

and scores were important matters for the students. However this study was done with their

agreement and they were motivated to see the results.

Another restriction on the way of this study was limited amount of participants. As it

was an experimental exploration the permission of students was needed because the General

English courses of SRTTU are credited and output is an important issue for students.

However in spite of all these limitations this study can be viewed as a start for further

researches during a course or semester and larger groups of participants on the effectiveness

of using mobile electronic devices for recording voice of class for subsequent reviews.

References

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

finalscores Equal

variances

assumed

13.410 .001 2.519 28 .018 2.59311 1.02955 .48418 4.70204

Equal

variances

not

assumed

2.519 17.598 .022 2.59311 1.02955 .42657 4.75966

Ally, M. (Ed.). (2009). Mobile Learning Transforming the Delivery of Education and

Training. Edmonton, AU Press.

Belanger, Y. (2005, June). Duke University iPod first year experience final evaluation report.

Retrieved September 28, 2010 from http://cit.duke.edu/pdf/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf

Brown, E. (Ed.) (2001, January 8). Mobile learning explorations at the Stanford Learning

Lab. Speaking of Computers, 55. Stanford, CA: Board of Trustees of the Leland

Stanford Junior University. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from

http://sll.stanford.edu/projects/tomprof/newtomprof/postings/289.html

Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support

learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology,

40(1), 78-91.

Carlson, S. (2002). Are personal digital assistants the next must-have tool? [Electronic

version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(7), A33.

Chang, C.Y., Sheu, J.P., & Chan, T.W. (2003). Concept and design of Ad Hoc and Mobile

classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 336-346.

Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., & Sheu, J. P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird

watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 347-359.

Chinnery, M. G. (2006). Emerging technologies going to the mall: mobile assisted language

learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16.

Corlett, D., Sharples, M., Bull, S., & Chan, T. (2005). Evaluation of mobile learning

organizer for university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 162-

170.

Johnson, D. B., & Moltz, D. A. (1996). Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless network.

Mobile computing, 353, 153-181.

Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning. Ericsson.

Kukulska-hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning:

From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3),

271-289.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., &Traxler, L. (2005). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and

Trainers. London: Routledge.

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: Routledge.

Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone [Electronic version].

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 515-525.

McCarty, S. (2005). Spoken Internet to Go: Popularization through Podcasting. JALT CALL

Journal, 1(2), 67-74.

McNicol, T. (2005, May 4). ‘Language E-learning on the move’. Japan Media Review.

Retrieved September 28, 2010, from http://ojr.org/japan/wireless/1080854640.php

O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J. P., Taylor, J., Sharples, M. & Lefrere, P. (2003, June 10)

MOBIlearn WP4 – Guidelines for Learning/Teaching/Tutoring in a Mobile

Environment. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from

http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/ guidelines.pdf

Pęcherzewska, A., & Knot, S. (2007). Review of existing EU projects dedicated to dyslexia,

gaming in education and m-learning’. WR08 Report to CallDysc project.

Samuels, J. (2003, August 15). Wireless and handheld devices for language learning.

Proceedings of the 19th

Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning,

Madison, WI. Retrieved July 24, 2005, from

http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_50.pdf

Seppala, P., & Alamaki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. . Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 330-335.

Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: examining the effect of

the platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95-110.

Stone, A. (2004). Designing scalable, effective mobile learning for multiple technologies.

In J. Attwell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Learning with mobile devices. London:

Learning and Skills development Agency.

Traxler, J. (2005). ‘Mobile Learning: It’s here, but what is it?’ Interactions, 9 (1), University

of Warwick.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing, and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The moving finger

writes and having writ… . International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 8(2), 1-12.

Traxler, J. (2009). Current State of Mobile Learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile Learning

Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 9-24). Edmonton, AU

Press.

Zhao, Y. (2005). The future of research in technology and second language education. In Y.

Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learning: Developments and

directions (pp. 445-457). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.