Towards a Framework for Evaluating Language Learning Mobile Apps
2 likes1,632 views
This document discusses frameworks for evaluating language learning mobile apps. It begins by outlining the growth of the market for language learning apps since 2007 and their potential benefits. It then reviews various taxonomies proposed for categorizing apps and examines several evaluation frameworks put forward by scholars. These frameworks consider factors such as curriculum alignment, feedback, differentiation, user friendliness, motivation, and evidence of learning. The document argues that the "perfect" evaluation framework does not exist and that criteria may vary depending on the specific app. It concludes that frameworks can help develop skills to critically examine apps and that using multiple apps can create synergy to suit different learner needs.
Towards a Framework for Evaluating Language Learning Mobile Apps
- 1. Towards a Framework for Evaluating Language Learning Mobile Apps Fernando Rosell-Aguilar @FRosellAguilar Department of Languages, The Open University
- 2. Overview • Apps for language learning • Taxonomy • In search of a framework • Final thoughts
- 3. Apps for language learning • New market since 2007 (iPhone) + iPad 2010 • “Game changer” (Goodwin-Jones, 2001) – Functionalities – Competitors followed (Android, Windows...) • 50 billion apps downloaded by May 2013 • Potential for ubiquitous learning opportunities, ease of use, collaborative potential, content access, productivity (Murphy, 2011) • Fits with constructivism; rhizomatic learning; use of authentic materials; informal and lifelong learning; learning objects; CALL; MALL theories and practices of just in time teaching.
- 4. Apps for language learning • “Super powers” (Sweeney & Moore, 2012) – Screen size – touch screen – enhanced text entry – high-quality image, audio and video playback, recording, editing and sharing – voice recognition – storage – Fast connectivity – Geolocation – Bluetooth connection (Goodwin-Jones, 2011)
- 5. Apps for language learning • Criticisms – Often “designed by developers with little knowledge of language learning” (Moore, 2011) – Often replicate what’s been done before: “pedagogically nothing new has been done with smartphones that has not already been done with earlier mobile devices” (Burston, 2014) – Most apps focus on cognitive processes and receptive skills (Kim & Kwon, 2012). Little socio-cognitive activity or collaborative learning. – Have we gone 20 years back to behaviourist CALL? • This is changing.
- 6. Apps for language learning • Research: Wide ownership, enjoyable (Khaddage & Latemann, 2013) Some indications of language learning improvement: – Reading (McLanahan et al, 2012; Harmon, 2012) – Listening (Lys, 2013, Kim, 2013) – Vocabulary (Yildiz, 2012) – Verb conjugation (Castañeda & Cho, 2013) – Character writing (Shinagawa, 2014, Rosell-Aguilar & Kan, 2014)
- 7. Taxonomies of apps for learning
- 8. Sweeney & Moore (2012): • Productivity Apps and non-dedicated apps for LL • General Education and Creativity Tools • Dedicated Apps for LL
- 9. My taxonomy
- 10. How do we evaluate apps? A number of frameworks have been proposed: • Walker (2010) • Schrock (2011) • Vincent (2013) • Peachey (2013) Specific to Language Learning: • Rosenthal Tolisano (2012) • Sweeney & Moore (2012) • Rodríguez-Arancón, Arús & Calle (2013) Koole’s frame model
- 11. Walker (2010) • Curriculum connection: skills practised match target • Authenticity: problem based • Feedback • Differentiation: flexibility to meet needs • User friendliness: degree which learners can engage • Motivation
- 12. Schrock (2011-2013) • Curriculum connection • Authenticity • Feedback • Differentiation • User friendliness • Student motivation • Reporting: data available to student / teacher • Sound: use of music / sound • Instructions • Support page
- 13. Peachey (2013) • Accessibility: across different platforms • Learning outcomes • Price • Digital literacy • Learnable (user friendliness) • Interaction • Registration • Authenticity • Reusability • Security • Prolonged use (motivation) • Context
- 14. Vincent (2013) • Relevance (Curriculum connection) • Help available • Appropriate content • Information error-free,factual & reliable • Customization (differentiation) • Good technical design • Accessible • Feedback • Thinking skills • Engagement (motivation) • Sharing: can be exported and transferred to other devices • Price • Works well • No advertising • Updates • Promotes creativity and collaboration
- 15. Rosenthal Tolisano (2012) • Content: authenticity, curriculum connections, personalisation, differentiation, publishing (exporting) • Logistics: user friendliness, no advertising, ease of management, image and sound quality, access to unmoderated content • Sustitution vs transformation model: substitution (same task can be done without device), augment (improves task), modify (task redesign), redefine (new tasks), amplify (using app allows building and deepening skills) • Fluency: ability to move smoothly between tasks, import from other apps • Evidence of learning: research, development, presentation, participation, design.
- 16. Sweeney & Moore (2012) • Allows personalization • Visible progress indicators • Covers relevant language • Covers more than one skill • Maximizes exposure to target language • Appropriate for the device (content, activity, interface) • Encourages learning behaviours which correspond with what we know about general mobile-enabled behaviour patterns (includes social and gamification aspects)
- 17. Rodríguez-Arancón, Arús & Calle (2013) • Cognitive value and pedagogic competence • Content quality • Capacity to generate learning • Interactivity and adaptability • Motivation • Format and layout • Usability • Accessibility • Visibility • Compatibility
- 18. Lots of factors and criteria! • Which ones do we choose? Some? All? • Are all criteria relevant to all apps?
- 19. Criteria to evaluate Education Apps
- 21. Final considerations • Do not expect an app to do it all, but to do what it does well. • Wouldn’t expect perfection from other media or type of resources. • Use framework to develop skills to evaluate apps. • Each individual has different needs. • “The one app to rule them all” doesn’t exist: use App Mashing to create a synergy of different skills to suit learners with different needs at different stages, different levels, different times.
- 22. Thank you! ¡Gracias! @FRosell-Aguilar Fernando.Rosell-Aguilar@open.ac.uk