Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work Jack Burston University of Cyprus Abstract This paper focuses on the technological and pedagogical aspects of the design and implementation of MobLang, a mobile phone-based language teaching program. Mobile phone technology has been limited by a number of factors, practical as well as pedagogical. Practical obstacles include the perceived intrusion into private communication space, costs, and the constraints of small screens and keyboards. To avoid intrusion, MobLang stores all resources on a local memory card, thus allowing users to access program resources entirely at their convenience. So, too, the use of a memory card eliminates telephone charges altogether. Screen space utilisation is maximised through scrollable horizontal window zoning and the use of audio for presentational purposes. Likewise, the use of audio recording for user input effectively circumvents keyboarding constraints. Pedagogically, the majority of existing mobile phone applications to date has been text-based and restricted to the rote learning of vocabulary and multiple-choice exercises. MobLang lessons endeavor to be more attractive and effective by focusing on the acquisition of essential formulaic expressions within a range of activity types, including simulated dialogues, that make extensive use of graphics and audio. Keywords: mobile phone, language learning, vocabulary acquisition

82

Jack Burston

1.

Background

This paper deals with pedagogical and technological aspects of the use of mobile phones in language learning. There is an intended double meaning in the title, getting ‘it’ (i.e., Mobile Language Learning) to work, and more speciically getting ‘IT’ (i.e., Instructional Technology) to work. The experiences described in this paper derive from a European Lifelong Learning project, called MobLang. The mission of MobLang is to provide majority language speakers with basic communicative competency in languages that have minority status in their country: Basque in Spain, Irish in Northern Ireland, Albanian and Turkish in Greece, Turkish in the south of Cyprus and Greek in the north. With the exception of Northern Ireland, which works with children in a school environment, its targeted audience is adults wanting to learn a language independently of any academic environment. For all learners, MobLang resources are provided free of charge and are complemented by Language Cafés, i.e., informal meetings with native speakers of the languages studied which provide occasions for language practice. In this paper, I will focus speciically on the technological and pedagogical lessons we have learned about the design and implementation of the mobile phone-based language teaching program that underlies MobLang.

2.

The State of Mobile Learning

Interest in mobile learning, in general, dates from the invention of the clay tablet, the scroll, later the book, and much later audio recording technologies. The very irst wax cylinders for language learning were produced by Linguaphone in 1901. More recently, in the 1990s, interest focused on Personal Digital Assistants (PDA). In this century, the iPod, and similar MP3 players that have followed in its footsteps, have proven to be a useful out-of-class adjunct for language listening activities. That being said, however, the use of podcasting in language courses very much remains the exception rather than the rule. With the advent of wireless telephony, and the incorporation of considerable PDA functionality, attention has shifted to the mobile phone as the vehicle of mobile learning. As the cost of owning and using the technology has come down and the functionality of the devices has improved, so too their use among the general population has increased. In the developed world, mobile phone usage is ubiquitous, and it is very widespread in most developing countries as well. Nowhere is mobile phone usage greater than among adolescents and young adults, the prime target population for educational initiatives. Mobile phones offer the prospect of anytime, anywhere, learning. More than anything else, it is this promise which has driven interest in them as teaching devices. The irst attempts to use mobile phones for language learning

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

83

go back to 2001 (Houser et al.). Given the state of the technology at the time, this was necessarily restricted to the exploitation of SMS, i.e., text messaging. Even with the advent of multimedia capable phones, SMS and other text-based applications continue to ind a place in mobile language learning programs (Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Başoğlu and Akdemir, 2010; Li et al., 2010; Begum, 2011; Salameh, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). It must be said that most of the published research that has come out of these experiments leaves much to be desired. Reports typically describe the technology, the conditions of use and student attitudes towards the use of the technology. A few studies do undertake an analysis of learning effectiveness (Thornton and Houser, 2005; Stockwell, 2007; Lu, 2008; Song, 2008; Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Başoğlu and Akdemir, 2010; Stockwell, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). However, these are nearly all limited to short-term experiments involving small sample sizes and limited target vocabulary. Notwithstanding, some useful insights can be gained from these experiences. Student attitudes towards the use of mobile phones for language learning have been overwhelmingly positive (Thornton and Houser, 2005; Kennedy and Levy, 2008; Lu, 2008; Nah et al., 2008; Tschirhart et al., 2008; Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Amer, 2010), although the novelty effect cannot be excluded as an important factor here. The prospect of ultra-portable, anytime, anywhere, learning ranks at the top of the list of attractive features. However, positive student attitudes do not necessarily translate into actual usage. The reasons for this are very constant across the various groups that have tried mobile language learning. Firstly, there is a psychological factor. Even though students typically carry their phones with them all the time and are avid users of SMS, sending and receiving dozens every day, they have proved rather intolerant of pedagogical messages invading what they regard as their private space (Dias, 2002; Shudong and Higgins, 2005; Stockwell, 2007). For many students, even one such message per day pushed the limits of acceptability (Kennedy and Levy, 2008). A second factor has been cost. As long as only text messaging was involved and SMS charges were covered by lat-rate contracts, students have not complained. However, the prospect of making students pay for the service has been a matter of concern and hesitation to the present day (KukulskaHulme and Shield, 2007; Stockwell, 2007; Kennedy and Levy, 2008; KukulskaHulme and Shield, 2008; Nah et al., 2008; Stockwell, 2008; Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2009; Begum, 2011). Technical dificulties have also dogged mobile phone usage, i.e., unavailable and unreliable network connections, short battery life, limited data storage (Shudong and Higgins, 2005; Vinci and Cucchi, 2007). While such operating problems have been largely resolved in more recent times, two intrinsic constraints remain: small screens and pint-sized keyboards. Researchers

84

Jack Burston

consistently comment about screen size limits and the dificulty of inputting text (Chinnery, 2006; Li, 2007; Stockwell, 2007; Stockwell, 2008; Nah et al., 2008; Joseph and Uther, 2009; Begum, 2011; Hoven and Palalas, 2011). In contrast to personal SMS usage, where spelling is famously neglected and the use of cryptic abbreviations abound, responding to text-based pedagogical exercises requires a level of typographical precision on the phone to which most students are not accustomed. Where students have been given the option of computer-based web resources (i.e., with full-sized screens and keyboards), the great majority with computer access has opted for it in preference to the same resources via mobile phone (Stockwell, 2007; Stockwell, 2008; Stockwell, 2010). Lastly, the use of mobile phones for language learning has suffered from serious pedagogical limitations (Kukulska-Hulme and Shield, 2008; GodwinJones 2011). Even on high-tech platforms, most programs to date have been restricted to rote learning of word level vocabulary and grammar rules (Chen and Chung, 2008; Stockwell, 2008; Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Başoğlu and Akdemir, 2010; Li et al., 2010; Khazaie and Ketabi, 2011; Burston, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). Activities have likewise been largely limited to simple true-false and multiple-choice exercises (Thornton and Houser, 2003; Saran et al., 2008; Tschirhart et al., 2008; Joseph and Uther, 2009; Amer, 2010), with little or no context, no communicative interaction, and no feedback on performance. So, too, although many entry-level mobile phones have provided multimedia support for several years now, relatively few attempts have been made to incorporate visuals, audio playback and voice recording into language learning programs (Saran et al., 2009; Tschirhart et al., 2008; Anaraki, 2009; Liu, 2009; Amer, 2010; Khazaie and Ketabi, 2011; Salameh, 2011). In sum, the state of mobile-based language learning at the outset of the MobLang project was one characterised by technical improvements that had resolved problems of access, battery life and data storage and had given mobile phones much of the functionality earlier found only on PDA devices, most notably access to multimedia resources. Small screen size and cumbersome text inputting remained, however, a challenge. So, too, did the concern with intrusiveness and costs. Pedagogically, available language learning applications typically underutilized available multimedia resources and restricted themselves to the acquisition of word level vocabulary and elementary grammar using the most basic exercise formats.

3.

The MobLang Approach

Given the mission of MobLang to provide basic communicative competence in minority languages, the lessons we developed could not simply be based on rote learning of isolated words or grammar rules. Neither could they be restricted to text since learners especially needed to be able to recognise

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

85

and use the spoken language studied. The incorporation of audio was thus a sine qua non. In accordance with a large body of research on vocabulary and grammar acquisition (Lewis, 1993; Lewis, 1997; Lewis, 2000; Wray, 2002; Ellis, 2003; Meunier and Granger, 2008), the pedagogical consultants of the MobLang project team, which consisted of a CALL specialist and two experienced language teachers, agreed that lessons would best be based on the learning of formulaic expressions (i.e., lexical strings). At the elementary linguistic level the MobLang team was targeting prefabricated lexical chunks, A1 on the scale of the European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001), that have a very high frequency of occurrence and thus represent the building blocks of most of the discursive resources our learners needed for day-to-day communication. Likewise, basic syntactic constructions are embodied in such lexical strings, which allow their acquisition without the need for the explicit teaching of grammatical rules. The acquisition of formulaic expressions presented textually and supported by audio for playback and recording (i.e., language modeling and production) are thus the pedagogical imperatives that drove the design of our lessons. Technologically, our irst task was to determine the kinds of phones our potential language learners had. We did this by surveying focus groups in the four countries involved in the project. In Northern Ireland, these consisted of 10 to 12 year old school children. In Spain, Greece and Cyprus, our feedback came from a broad cross section of adults: bicommunal activists, business people, students, nurses, etc. These indings were complemented by information from published statistics about mobile phone market share. Not surprisingly, everyone in the focus groups, children included, either owned (or had access to) a mobile phone. The nearly 400 responses we received about the kinds of mobile phones in use proved to be quite varied and essentially corresponded to published data about the market share of various mobile phones, as summarised in the following table: Table 1: Mobile Phone Base 44%

Nokia

22%

Samsung

18%

Sony Ericsson

5%

LG

3%

Blackberry

2%

Apple

6%

Other

86

Jack Burston

While nearly all of these phones are programmable, they differ critically in the programming languages they support. As a rule Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson all support Java, which combined represented 84% of our target users. In order to reach the maximum number of potential learners, we opted to primarily support Nokia phones, speciically the 6303i and compatible models. Though the MobLang project was not able, within its budgetary constraints, to guarantee the program would work perfectly on all Java-supported platforms, we expected that it would in fact run on a substantial number of Samsung and Sony Ericsson phones. But this left us with the vexing question of how to avoid excluding half of our potential language learners. In the end, the simplest solution was that of purchasing the required phones and loaning them to interested learners. Since MobLang is a pilot project, the total number of users in each country at any one time is not expected to exceed 50-60. So, no more than 25-30 phones would need to be purchased for each partner country. Even with free phones to use, the expense of usage was a major problem that we have had to address. The use not only of text, but also of media involves data transmission fees as well as call charges. Besides the inancial costs to learners, downloading iles to mobile phones would have also required server facilities and related infrastructure accessible in all four partner countries. Fortunately, we found a good – and inexpensive – alternative to ile transfers: locally installed memory cards. Provision for these is increasingly common even on entry level phones. An entire MobLang lesson program does not exceed 220MB, and can thus be easily accommodated even on a relatively small (i.e., 1GB) memory card, with plenty of room left over for a user’s other personal needs. MobLang programs for each language can be freely loaded onto existing memory cards from the project’s website1. Should learners not already have a memory card installed in their phone, or want to keep MobLang separate from their personal data, the project can supply the program pre-installed for the cost of the card and postage (~ €10). Moreover, many phones with memory cards can operate independently of an actual phone connection, i.e., with or without a SIM card. So language learners may not even need to be connected to a service provider to access MobLang lessons. Screen size on modern mobile phones is now adequate to support language learning activities. However, even with the smartest of smart phones, keyboard size (whether virtual or physical) and coniguration remains an impediment to text-based responses. The only practical way to address this problem, and the one which we have taken, is to not require text input from learners. MobLang lessons, however, do make extensive use of text as a presentational device to provide essential visual support for language learning and familiarise learners with the writing system of the language they are studying. 1

http://www.moblang.eu

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

87

In theory, then, the approach taken by MobLang has the potential of overcoming the shortcomings of previous attempts to exploit mobile phone technology for language learning. Its pedagogical approach is based on sound language acquisition principles which drive a technology capable of supporting multimedia, in general, and audio playback and recording, in particular, in a way that avoids major costs to the end-user. But what does this look like in practice? In collaboration with Anspear2 (a UK company specialising in mobile phone instructional technology), we have developed a common pedagogical template for all L1-L2 (native language– foreign language) pairs e.g., Spanish-Basque, English-Irish, etc. The lessons are programmed in Java and work off a stored database consisting of textual lexical strings, graphics images and audio recordings. The MobLang program is accessed from the Applications menu and comprises a main Lessons module plus four ancillary modules: Lesson Search, Flashcards, L1-L2 Dictionary and L2-L1 Dictionary (Fig. 1). Figure 1: MobLang Main Menu Options Lessons Lesson Search

L2-L1 Dictionary

Flashcard

L1-L2 Dictionary

Lesson Search gives access to all lesson materials via an alphabetical listing. Flashcards, which include illustrative graphic representations and pronunciation, allow users to practice simple bi-directional L1/L2 word correspondences (Fig. 2). Figure 2: Turkish-Greek Flashcard

2

http://www.anspear.com

88

Jack Burston

The Dictionaries provide a bi-directional L1/L2 word index (Fig. 3). Figure 3: Bi-directional L1-L2 Greek-Turkish Dictionaries

The heart of the MobLang program is the Lesson component, which consists of seven thematic modules3 (Fig. 4): Getting Started, Greetings, Time and Weather, Food and Drink, Directions and Location, Shopping, Personal Relations. Figure 4: MobLang Lesson Components (Greek-Turkish)

In order to maximise available screen space, the MobLang Lesson window is divided into two horizontal zones, the bottom one of which is capable of scrolling left or right in carousel fashion to give access to sub-options. When an option is selected, its icon moves to the top zone thereby creating a “bread crumb” sequence which allows users to keep track of where they are in the program. The Getting Started module (Fig. 5, opposit) consists of three subcomponents: the Alphabet, Numbers, and Calendar (Seasons, Months, Days). The remaining six modules are conversational in nature and are each organized into a phrasal and a dialogue component (Fig. 6, opposite).

3

The content of the Irish course for school children was adapted to the age of the learners and had slightly different themes e.g., School and Home Life.

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

89

Figure 5: Getting Started Module and Sub-options Getting Started 

Alphabet

Numbers 

Seasons

Calendar Months

 Days



Figure 6: Phrasal and Dialogue Sub-Components of a Conversational Module

There are some 25 thematically related phrases, i.e., formulaic expressions, in each conversational module. The word level constituents of these phrases provide the contents of the bilingual dictionaries. The phrases are combined to create a dozen mini-conversations within the Dialogue component. In all, then, MoblLang lessons comprise a total of about 150 phrases and 70 dialogues in each of the ive L1-L2 language pairs. The Phrases and Dialogues component of each lesson give access to a carousel sub-menu structure, which consists of four exercise types: Vocabulary, Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing (Fig. 7, overleaf).

90

Jack Burston Figure 7: Phrases and Dialogues Sub-components

The Vocabulary exercises present L2/L1 textual correspondences (Phrases or Dialogues) with accompanying L2 audio recordings. They serve to establish the basic link between L2-L1 meanings and the written and spoken L2 equivalents. The Listening, Speaking, and Reading and Writing components provide a variety of productive (L1  L2) and receptive (L2  L1) language activities designed to foster memory retrieval and vocabulary acquisition (Table 2). Table 2: MobLang Activity Types

Phrases Listening Hear L2/ Select multiple-choice L1 text equivalent Hear L2/ Unscramble L2 text equivalent Speaking See image/ Record corresponding L2 word See L1 phrase/ Record L2 eqivalent Reading & Writing See L1 phrase/ Select multiple-choice L2 text equivalent See L1 phrase/ Unscramble L2 text equivalent

Dialogues Listening Hear L2 dialogue prompt/ Unscramble L2 text response Speaking See L2 dialogue prompt/ Record appropriate L2 response Hear L2 dialogue prompt/ Record appropriate L2 response Reading & Writing See L2 dialogue prompt/ Unscramble L2 text equivalent

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

91

Listening activities present an exercise prompt aurally and require a text response. Throughout the MobLang program, a keyboard option allows the last played audio ile to be replayed at will. In order to circumvent the shortcomings of mobile phone keyboards, where text responses are required, this is done through multiple-choice options and the manipulation of on-screen text. Speaking activities use text, graphics and audio as an exercise prompt, to which responses are given orally and recorded. Reading and Writing activities present an exercise prompt textually and require a textual response, again via multiplechoice or on-screen text manipulation. In the case of textual responses, correct/ incorrect conirmation is given and the anticipated response is displayed. With oral responses, users can play back their recording and compare it to a native speaker model.

4.

Preliminary Results

How well MobLang works out in practice remains to be demonstrated. Preliminary results, though, from pilot testing of the various language pairs with 85 users are promising (See Appendix). Owing to the differences between the content and users of the Irish as opposed to the Generic (Albanian, Basque, Greek, Turkish) programs, questions dealing with course speciics were treated separately for the two groups (Irish = 61, Generic = 24). Course speciic questions fall into two categories: general and thematic. For the general questions, the Irish course evaluation relating to ease of use and utility averaged 87% positive (Very Good/Good) responses. For the Generic course, positive responses to the same questions averaged 77% (Fig. 8). Figure 8: MobLang Ease of Use & Utility: General Usefulness

Irish Course Users

Generic Course Users

Irish participants indicated without exception that they would recommend MobLang to others. Similarly, 90% of the Generic course users gave it a positive recommendation. Both the Irish and Generic groups made regular use of MobLang, the former accessing it 93% and the latter 76% on a combined daily and weekly basis (Fig. 9, overleaf).

92

Jack Burston Figure 9: MobLang Frequency of Usage

Irish Course

Generic Course

No doubt because of its use within a supportive educational environment, Irish school children accessed MobLang much more frequently than did the adult users of the Generic program, 87% daily for the former compared to 24% daily for the latter. The Irish school children also worked with the course for longer periods of time than did the adult users, with 20+ minutes being the most frequent session duration compared to 5-10 minutes for the adults (Fig. 10). Figure 10: MobLang Duration of Usage

Irish Course

Generic Course

Overall, the evaluation of the Irish and Generic course themes was broadly similar. On average, their usefulness was positively rated (Very Useful/Useful) at 90% for the former and 94% for the latter (Fig. 11). Figure 11: MobLang Usefulness of Themes

Usefulness of Irish Course Themes (N=55)

Usefulness of Generic Course Themes (N=20)

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

93

In sum, participants from the Irish and Generic groups were overwhelmingly positive about the user friendliness of the system and the helpfulness of the information provided about it. While both groups accessed MobLang regularly, usage data indicate that learners supported by a formal educational environment, i.e., Irish school children, availed themselves of MobLang resources considerably more than did users learning entirely on their own. As with their evaluation of the general features of MobLang, the great majority of Irish and Generic course users indicated satisfaction with the thematic content of the program. Overall, only a small minority of Generic course users would not recommend MobLang to others.

5.

Conclusion

In its design and implementation MobLang endeavors to provide beginning level language learners with a media-rich mobile environment in which to acquire basic communicative competence. The one signiicant technical constraint that has dogged previous attempts to exploit mobile phones for language learning, small and cumbersome keyboards, has been avoided by not requiring text input, and using either multiple-choice activities or the manipulation of on-screen text. So, too, MobLang lessons make extensive use of audio for playback as well as recording, supported by text in both the L1 and L2. The underlying pedagogy of MobLang lessons is based on the acquisition of formulaic expressions reinforced by a considerable variety of contextualised language usage activities. The mobile phone platform which serves as the vehicle for MobLang lessons accommodates the greatest portion of the market and can support future expansion to other languages. Thanks to the use of local memory storage, costs to users are kept to an absolute minimum. Lastly, early evaluations from pilot testing indicate that MobLang lessons are being found useful and that the majority of learners appear to be inclined to use them on a regular basis. More testing with a larger user base, of course, is still needed and especially the question of learning effectiveness needs to be addressed. Overall though, MobLang seems to be off to a good start.

94

Jack Burston

References Amer, M. 2010. Idiomobile for Learners of English: A Study of Learners’ Usage of a Mobile Learning Application for Learning Idioms and Collocations. PhD dissertation Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Available at [http://dspace.lib.iup.edu:8080/dspace/ bitstream/2069/270/1/Mahmoud+Amer+Correct(ed.)pdf]. Accessed 26 October, 2011 Anaraki, F. 2009. ‘A Flash-Based Mobile Learning System for Learning English as a Second Language’, Proceedings International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, Singapore, 400–4. Başoğlu, E. and Akdemir, O. 2010. ‘A Comparison of Undergraduate Students’ English Vocabulary Learning: Using Mobile Phones and Flash Cards’, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 93: 1–7. Begum, R. 2011. ‘Prospect for Cell Phones as Instructional Tools in the EFL Classroom: A Case Study of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh’, English Language Teaching 41: 105–15. Burston, J. 2011. ‘Realizing the Potential of Mobile Phone Technology for Language Learning’, The International Association for Language Learning Technology Journal 412: 1–15. Cavus, C. and Ibrahim, D. 2009. ‘m-Learning: An Experiment in Using SMS to Support Learning New English Language Words’, British Journal of Educational Technology 401: 78–91. Chen, C-M. and Chung, C-J. 2008. ‘Personalized Mobile English Vocabulary Learning System Based on Item Response Theory and Learning Memory Cycle’, Computers and Education 51: 624–45. Chinnery, G. 2006. ‘Going to the MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning’, Language Learning & Technology 10: 9–16. Available at [http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/ emerging/default.html]. Accessed March 1, 2010. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press 2012. Available at [http:// www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf]. Accessed 1 March. Dias, J. 2002. ‘Cell phones in the Classroom: Boon or ‘Bane?’ [Part 1]. C@lling Japan: The Newsletter of the JALT-CALL Special Interest Group, 102: 16–22. Ellis, N. 2003. ‘Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure’, in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 63–103. Godwin-Jones, R. 2011. ‘Emerging technologies: Mobile apps for language learning’, Language Learning & Technology 15: 2–11. Accessed at [http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ june2011/emerging.pdf]. Accessed March 2, 2012. Houser, C., Thornton, P., Yokoi, S. and Yasuda, T. 2001. ‘Learning on the move: Vocabulary study via mobile phone email’, ICCE 2001 Proceedings, 1560–5. Hoven, D. and Palalas, A. 2011. ‘Reconceptualizing Design Approaches for Mobile Language Learning’, CALICO Journal 283: 699–720. Joseph, S. and Uther, M. 2009. ‘Mobile Devices for Language Learning: Multimedia Approaches’, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 41: 7–32.

6: Mobile Language Learning: Getting IT to Work

95

Kennedy, C. and Levy, M. 2008. ‘L’italiano al Telefonino: Using SMS to Support Beginners’ Language Learning’, ReCALL Journal 203: 315–30. Khazaie, S. and Ketabi, S. 2011. ‘Contribution to Vocabulary Learning via Mobiles’, English Language Teaching 41:174–84. Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Shield, L. 2007. ‘Can Mobile Devices Support Collaborative Practice in Speaking and Listening?’, EuroCALL Virtual Strand. Available at [http:// vsportal2007.googlepages.com/collaborativepractice]. Accessed 27 September 2011. Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Shield, L. 2008. ‘Overview of Mobile Assisted Language Learning: Can Mobile Devices Support Collaborative Practice in Speaking and Listening?’, ReCALL 203: 271–289. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I. and Vavoula, G. 2009. ‘Innovation in Mobile Learning: A European Perspective’, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 11: 13-35. Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, Michael 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. 2000. ‘Language in the Lexical Approach’, in M. Lewis (ed.), Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 126–54. Li, M., Ogata, H., Hou, B., Hashimoto, S., Uosaki, N., Liu, Y. and Yano, Y. 2010. ‘Development of Adaptive Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phone E-mail’, 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education, 34–41. Liu, T. 2009. ‘A Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Language Listening and Speaking’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25: 515–27. Lu, M. 2008. ‘Effectiveness of Vocabulary learning via Mobile Phone’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24: 515–25. Meunier, F. and Granger, S. 2008. Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Benjamins : Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Nah, K-C, White, P. and Sussex, R. 2008. ‘The Potential of Using a Mobile Phone to Access the Internet for Learning EFL Listening Skills within a Korean Context’, ReCALL 20 3: 331–47. Salameh, O. 2011. ‘A Multimedia Ofline Cell Phone System for English Language Learning’, International Arab Journal of e-Technology 21: 44–48. Saran, M., Cagiltay K. and Seferoglu G. (2008). ‘Use of Mobile Phones in Language Learning: Developing Effective Instructional Materials’, 5th International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education – WMUTE2008, 39–43. Saran, M., Seferoglu G. and Cagiltay K. 2009. ‘Mobile Assisted Language Learning: English Pronunciation at Learners’ Fingertips’, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 34: 97–114. Shudong, W. and Higgins, M. 2005. ‘Limitations of Mobile Phone Learning’, Proceedings: IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 179–81. Song, Y. 2008. ‘SMS Enhanced Vocabulary Learning for Mobile Audiences’, International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 21: 81-98. Stockwell, G. 2007. ‘Vocabulary on the Move: Investigating an Intelligent Mobile

96

Jack Burston

Phone-Based Vocabulary Tutor’, Computer Assisted Language Learning 204: 365–83. Stockwell, G. 2008. ‘Investigating Learner Preparedness for and Usage Patterns of Mobile Learning’, ReCALL 203: 253–270. Stockwell, G. 2010. ‘Using Mobile Phones for Vocabulary Activities: Examining the Effect of the Platform’, Language Learning and Technology 142: 95–110. Thornton, P. and Houser, C. 2003. ‘Using Mobile Web and Video Phones in English Language Teaching: Projects with Japanese College Students’, in B. Morrison, C. Green and G. Motteram (eds), Directions in CALL: Experience, Experiments and Evaluation, 207–23. Thornton, P. and Houser, C. 2005. ‘Using Mobile Phones in English Education in Japan’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 213: 217–28. Tschirhart, C., O’Reilly, C. and Bradley, C. 2008. ‘Language Learning “On The Go”’, in J. Traxler, B. Riordan and C. Dennett (eds), mLearn 2008 Conference Proceedings, 279–88. Vinci, M. and Cucchi, D. 2007. ‘Possibilities of Application of E-Tools in Education: Mobile Learning’, International Conference for ICT for Language Learning. Florence, Italy. Available at [http://www.leonardo-lets.net/ict/common/download/ MariaLuisaVinci.pdf]. Accessed 15 Dec 2011. Wray A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, H., Song, W. and Burston, J. 2011. ‘Reexamining the Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phones’, Turkish Online Journal on Educational Technology 103: 203–14.