IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.20 No.4

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 20, No. 4 (April 2021)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 20, No. 4
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the April 2021 Issue

VOLUME 20 NUMBER 4 April 2021
Table of Contents
Factors Affecting Smart School Leadership Competencies of High School Principals in Vietnam .............................1
Duong Thi Hoang Yen, Le Ngoc Hung, Thi Thuy Hang Vu, Tan Nguyen
Chatterpix Kids: A Potential Mobile App for Helping Primary ESL Pupils Improve Their Speaking Fluency.......18
Thirumangai Rajendran, Melor Md Yunus
Enhancing Students’ Performances by Integrating Social Media in Undergraduate Learning..................................43
Thanuja Chandani Sandanayake
Effectiveness of the WebQuest Strategy-Based Educational Platform and Learning Environment in Acquiring
Biological Concepts and Systemic Thinking in the Biology Course among Pre-Service Teachers ............................ 61
Tahani Alebous
What do College Learners Think of Synchronous Learning? ......................................................................................... 82
Gentjana Taraj
Using Speaking Frames as Scaffolding Tools to Teach University Students to Speak in ESP....................................99
Nataliia Saienko, Iryna Nazarenko
Project-based Learning as a Tool for Student-Teachers’ Professional Development: A Study in an Omani EFL
Teacher Education Program.............................................................................................................................................. 116
Saleh Al-Busaidi, Fawzia Al-Seyabi
The Development of Historical Competencies in Secondary Education: A Study Based on the Analysis of Sources
in Spanish and Italian History Textbooks........................................................................................................................ 137
José María Álvarez-Martínez-Iglesias, Jesús Molina-Saorín, Francisco Javier Trigueros-Cano, Pedro Miralles-Martínez
The Effects of Student Led Conferences on the Improvement of 21st Century Career and Life Skills ................... 152
Canan Şişman, Elif Bahadır
Involving University Stakeholders in Upgrading the Fostering of Students’ Readiness to Embark on a Career..170
Taras O. Olefirenko, Valentyna I. Bobrytska, Nina G. Batechko, Tatiana D. Reva, Oksana M. Chkhalo
Information and Communication Technologies as a Means of Developing Global Planetary Thinking among
Students of Non-Humanitarian Specialties..................................................................................................................... 190
Natalia V. Maiatina, Halyna V. Salata, Nadiia A. Bachynska, Olena M. Snihur, Halyna V. Haiovych
Implementation of the Cross-Cultural Approach in the Modern School.................................................................... 210
Natalia P. Dichek, Igor M. Kopotun, Svitlana M. Shevchenko, Natalia B. Antonets, Daria V. Pohribna
The Mediating Effects of Ego Resilience on the Relationship between Professionalism Perception and
Technostress of Early Childhood Teachers ..................................................................................................................... 245
Sungwon Kim, Jiyoung Lee

Extent of Implementing the Characteristics of Professional Learning Communities at the UAE Special Education
Centers.................................................................................................................................................................................. 265
Rami Abdallah, Rawhi Mraweh Abdat, Christopher Hill
Revisiting Robert Axelrod: Cooperation, School Management and Teacher Unions................................................ 284
Vuyisile Msila
The Impact of the Academic Advising Style on the Development of an Academic Integrity Culture among Future
PhD Candidates ..................................................................................................................................................................302
Petro M. Boychuk, Olha L. Fast, Olha P. Shevchuk, Tetiana V. Horobets, Vasyl A. Shkoba
The Knowledge Landscape of School Disciplinary Committees on Disciplinary Policies in Mopani Education
district, Limpopo Province, South Africa ........................................................................................................................ 320
Rifumuni Nancy Mathebula, Tawanda Runhare

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 1-17, April 2021
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.4.1
Factors Affecting Smart School Leadership
Competencies of High School Principals in
Vietnam
Duong Thi Hoang Yen**, Le Ngoc Hung, Thi Thuy Hang Vu
University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6685-4103
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-5236
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0262-3450
Tan Nguyen
Thua Thien Hue Department of Education and Training, Hue, Vietnam
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2575-6296
Abstract. Leaders of high schools in the context of the fourth industrial
revolution face many challenges and new opportunities. Schools need to
become smarter, more flexible, and more secure, and, therefore, the
principal’s leadership competencies are likely to have new elements and be
affected by new influencing factors. The aim of this study was to identify the
factors that influence the competencies of school leadership in today’s
increasingly smarter school landscape. Research was conducted using
qualitative and quantitative research methods. The research sample
consisted of 295 high school principals from five provinces and cities in
Vietnam. The results showed that smart school leadership competencies
depend on individual factors, school-level factors, and educational
community-level factors. Smart school development policy and innovation
of smart school infrastructure and facilities were identified as the most
important factors.
Keywords: high school; leadership; leadership capacity; smart school
1. Introduction
The general leadership competencies and capacities of high school principals have
been identified as a decisive factor in the quality of general education (Dinham,
2005). In the present context, the smart school is a development trend of
information and communication technology (ICT) in education (Wu et al., 2019).
* Corresponding author: Duong Thi Hoang Yen; Email: duonghoangyen@vnu.edu.vn

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
It is very likely, therefore, that the competency structure of the smart school
principal must also have new elements.
Vietnam is a developing country that is very active in the application of
information technology (IT), science, and technology in socio-economic
development, including education. It has been determined that the acceleration of
modern scientific and technological revolution and formulation of information
society in the coming decades are placing requirements on and facilitating the
development of education and training (Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 2006,
2012). The smart school model has been proposed and tested in a number of high
schools in Vietnam. However, this was not based on a specific document or
instruction from the Ministry of Education and Training. Moreover, in the field of
educational management, there are only a few studies on the issue of developing
the smart school leadership competencies of principals, especially in the context
of fundamental and comprehensive education reform under the development of
the open-market economy in Vietnam.
Some previous studies have also shown that the factors affecting the school
leadership competency development of principals are claimed to include age and
gender, professional competence, working experience, and school organization
(Chen, 2003; Piaw et al., 2014). Still, there are other factors affecting this, including
policy, cultural, and community-level factors, that need to be examined with
systematic evaluative research. This research need has become more urgent in the
context of the fundamental and comprehensive education reform in Vietnam since
2013 with the aim of more insightful understanding and effective solutions to
enhance the smart school leadership capacities of high school principals.
This research aims to evaluate the influence of the above factors on the smart
school leadership capacities of high school principals in Vietnam. The paper
applies existing theoretical approaches and analyzes survey data collected from
several high schools in Vietnam. The research findings are expected to clarify
theoretical issues and inspire solutions to the development of principals’
leadership competencies in response to Vietnam’s new General Education
Program.
In this article, we present a summary of some basic concepts and research results
related to smart schools, smart school leadership competency and some factors
affecting school leadership competencies. Next, the research process, research
methods and research sample are described in detail. From the results of the data
analysis, we come to a number of conclusions and discussions focusing on the
factors that influence smart school leadership competencies.
2. Literature Review
First, we present three key concepts of this research: school leadership, smart
schools, and smart school leadership competency. Second, we analyze a number
of studies related to the factors affecting smart school leadership competencies.

3
2.1 The concept of school leadership
As a decisive factor in maintaining the quality of school operations and learners’
learning, school leadership has been examined from various research perspectives
(Marks & Printy, 2003; Pont et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2007; Silins & Mulford,
2002). It is common to conduct comparative research between school leadership
and management to highlight the features of leadership. Management is defined
as the ability to employ decision-making power and capacity to achieve a goal.
Leadership, on the other hand, is defined as the ability of an individual or a group
to exert power over and intentional influence onto others to achieve a goal (Bush,
2007; Bush & Glover, 2002; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Pont, 2014; Pont et al., 2008;
Yukl, 2002). According to Bush (1986, 2007), Bush and Glover (2002), and Le
(2018), there are six management models, corresponding to eight leadership
models. The six management models are the formal, collegial, political, subjective,
ambiguous, and cultural models. The eight leadership models are the managerial,
participative, transformational, transactional, postmodern, contingency, moral,
and instructional models.
Many viewpoints on leadership in connection with school organization and
learning improvement have been introduced. Educational leadership (Sellami
et al., 2019) is represented in school leadership (Bush & Glover, 2002; Bush &
Heystek, 2006) through various forms. These include transformational leadership
(Allix, 2000; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006), instructional
leadership (Feye, 2019; Hallinger, 2003; Southworth, 2002), constructive
leadership (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1997), cultural leadership (Hallinger, 2004;
Muralidharan & Pathak, 2019), teacher leadership (Berry, 2014; Harrison & Birky,
2011; Howe & Stubbs, 2001; Smylie & Denny, 1990), and change leadership
(Wagner, 2018). It also includes learning leadership (Reeves, 2006), learning-
centered leadership (Goldring at al., 2007), shared leadership (Lambert, 2002;
Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000; Pearce et al, 2007), distributed
leadership (Bolden, 2011; Harris, 2004; Spillane et al., 2004; Timperley, 2005),
democratic leadership (Woods, 2004), situational leadership (Thompson & Glasø,
2015), system leadership (Ramosaj & Berisha, 2014), and collaborative leadership
(Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
Research has shown that at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of
the twenty-first century, there was a noticeable transformation in the leadership
competency model, from principals as managers to principals as managers and
leaders (Pont et al., 2008; Townsend, 2011). As a result of this transition, school
leadership involves the combination of transformational leadership and
pedagogical (instructional and teaching) leadership. The major characteristics of
the transformational leadership model are vision, restructuring, staff
development, syllabus development, and external community-participation
encouragement (Leithwood & Sleegers, 2006). For pedagogical (instructional and
teaching) leadership, major characteristics are educational goal setting, program
planning, and teacher and teaching evaluation. The top priority of pedagogical
leadership is promoting learners’ learning outcomes, thus particularly
emphasizing the task of teaching and learning management (Robinson et al.,
2009).

4
In the new context, the current school leaders are facing a number of issues, such
as public-private competition, and needs and requirements of science and
technology application in management and education. School leadership must be
redefined with greater autonomy and new missions of school leaders in order to
improve learning quality (Potter et al., 2002; West et al., 2005). In summary, there
are four school leadership missions relating to factors affecting teaching and
learning quality. These are:
(i) supporting, evaluating, and developing teachers;
(ii) identifying, evaluating, and justifying objectives;
(iii) managing resources strategically; and
(iv) leading the system – leadership beyond the school level.
2.2 The concept of smart schools
‘Smart’ means being able to think quickly (wording) and decide and act
intelligently, promptly, effectively, and powerfully to solve problems in different
situations (Gardner, 2011; Kim et al., 2013; Middleton, 2015; Zhu et al., 2016). The
smart school, then, is defined as a teaching and learning institution based on
modern ICT to educate children to become information society citizens in
response to the fourth industrial revolution (Ibrahima et al., 2013; Majeed &
Yusoff, 2015; Masrom & Selamat, 2012; Omidinia et al., 2012).
The smart school is the smart educational paradigm guaranteeing four smart
factors: smart educational philosophy, smart educational methods, smart
educational environment, and smart learners (Zhu et al., 2016). Through the smart
school, smart education processes can be organized to improve smart learning
quality and efficiency. Smart learning, rather than simply learning with modern
equipment and facilities, refers to self-disciplined, motivated, adaptable,
resourceful, and modern technology-supported learning (Kim et al., 2013;
Middleton, 2015).
In the modern age with the development of ICT, a new feature of the smart school
is the use of smart technology, including hardware and software, to search,
process, store, and use necessary information in different circumstances. These
include the use of a virtual desktop in a smart school technology (Reychav et al.,
2016) and utilizing smart devices for sending data and receiving instructions
(Abdel-Basset et al., 2018).
2.3 Smart school leadership competency
Literature has shown that there are four subgroups of principal leadership
competency (Pont et al., 2008). The first is technician leadership competency for
effective school finance and facilities management. The second is personnel
leadership competency for building safe, open, and mutually respectful
relationships between teachers and learners, managers, administrative staff, and
other employees in the school. The third subgroup of principal leadership
competency is pedagogical leadership competency for instructing, managing,
evaluating, and supervising the teaching, learning, and research activities of the
school. The last subgroup is cultural leadership competency for developing a set
of values and standards to improve the operational quality and efficiency of the
school. Viewpoints regarding the different leadership sub-competency focuses

5
can vary. For instance, if pedagogical and teaching competency is prioritized, one
would select a competent teacher to be appointed as the school principal. Davis
and Marquis (2005) believed that principals are competent managers, which
means management and administrative competencies should be the most crucial
factors to consider when selecting a principal. The question is to identify new
leadership competencies to meet the new requirements of smart schools in the
new context. Principals of twenty-first-century schools are expected to possess
leadership competencies in the school paradigm with passion, skills, knowledge,
career enthusiasm, and operational strategies to maintain school efficiency (Bush,
2007; Davis & Marquis, 2005).
Principals’ smart school leadership competencies are made up of several
component competencies relating to different fundamental operational aspects of
the school. These are teaching and learning instructional, cultural, strategic,
educational managerial, and organizational managerial leadership competencies
(Alvy & Robbins, 2005; Berlin et al., 1988; E-Lead, 2008; Fink & Resnick, 2001;
Muralidharan & Pathak, 2019; Piaw et al., 2014; Robbins & Alvy, 2004).
2.4 Factors affecting smart school leadership competencies
The principal’s leadership competencies are the decisive factor affecting the
operating efficiency and learning quality of the school (Feye, 2019; Gaetane et al.,
2009; Muralidharan & Pathak, 2019; Sebastiana et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2016). These
competencies are subject to the principal’s personal traits and institution-level
factors. The principal’s leadership competencies are profoundly influenced by
two factors, namely years of working experience and qualified professional
competence. Professional development is crucial to enhance leadership
competencies prior to the appointment of principals (Chen, 2003; Piaw et al.,
2014).
A literature review of existing studies on school leadership and related topics has
revealed the fundamental theoretical background and research methodology for
this research as follows. First, smart school leadership can be assigned either to
multiple people in the school or a single individual, such as the principal,
schoolboard president, or head of the school’s party committee organization in
the case of Vietnam. However, under the scale of this research, the factors
affecting principal leadership competencies are the focus due to the principal’s
leading position in the school’s organization as well as their decisive influence on
the schools’ managerial, administrative, and other staff.
Second, the term ‘smart school leadership competencies’ includes various
components, from leadership to managerial and administrative competencies.
Apparently, it is difficult to theoretically separate leadership from managerial and
administrative competencies. In reality, competent management and
administration are integral to strong leadership. Third, following up on the
existing research, this paper focuses on the individual, school-level, community-
level, and policy factors affecting smart school leadership competencies.

6
3. Research Methodology
Figure 1 illustrates the steps followed to conduct this research.
Figure 1: Steps employed in the research
This study employed a non-experimental research design with survey
questionnaire. The respondents of the survey were high school principals.
Respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire in a time of between 15
and 30 minutes. The survey sample included 295 high school principals from five
cities/provinces, namely Quang Ninh, Hai Phong, Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City, and
Hue.
Table 1 shows some general information of the respondents of this study.
Table 1. Characteristics of survey respondents (295 principals) on smart school
leadership competencies
Number Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 213 72.2
Female 82 27.8
Workplace
Hanoi 99 33.6
Ho Chi Minh City 100 33.9
Other 96 32.5
Working experience (years)
Under 10 years 18 6.1
Between 10 and 20 years 117 39.7
Over 20 years 160 54.2
Leadership experience (years)
Under 10 years 191 64.7
Over 10 years 104 35.3
Total 295 100
The questionnaires were distributed and collected through the Department of
Education and Training to the five cities/provinces. During the new school year
assignment meeting in each province, school principals were convened. The
questionnaires were distributed and received within the framework of each
meeting. Naturally, the questionnaires were distributed only to public school
principals. Finally, 295 valid questionnaires were returned and included in the
analysis process.
Step 1:
Sample
selection
Step 2:
Designation
of survey
Step 3: Data
collection
Step 4: Data
analysis

7
The questionnaire comprised of 17 questions, designed on a five-point Likert scale
(see Tables 2–5). The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Part 1 related to smart
school leadership competencies (four questions). The variable ‘smart school
leadership competencies’ was measured with four capacity indicators as follows:
Capacity 1 (C1): inquisitiveness and pride in leading a smart school;
Capacity 2 (C2): adaptability to technology and artificial intelligence- (AI)
driven changes in education and life;
Capacity 3 (C3): influence on school staff as an example of smart gadget
and advanced technology usage;
Capacity 4 (C4): seeking for external support to one’s own smart school
leadership competencies; and
Capacity 5 (C5): Overall competencies (average of the four component
competencies) was also measured as follows: C5 (all) = C1 + C2 +
C3 + C4/4.
Part 2 related to the factors affecting the competencies of smart school leaders
(13 questions). These 13 factors were divided into three groups as follows:
Group 1: individual factors, including F1) knowledge, F2) strategic
thinking, and F3) adaptability to modern technology and
information;
Group 2: school-level factors, including F4) requirements for smart school
development, F5) smart school development resources,
F6) teaching staff engagement, F7) teaching staff and other
employees’ IT competence, F8) students’ IT competence, and F9) IT
infrastructure;
Group 3: community-level factors, including F10) government education
policies, F11) Ministry of Education and Training policies,
F12) community culture, and F13) approval of families and other
educational parties; and
The overall factor (F14 – the average of all 13 aforementioned factors) was
also measured as follows: F14 (all) = F1 + F2 + F3 + … + F13/13.
4. Research Results
In this section, the research results are presented, starting with the smart school
leadership competencies of principals. The section continues with the factors
influencing the smart school leadership competencies of principals, with each
group discussed separately. Lastly, a correlation is made between the factors and
competencies.
4.1 Principals’ self-evaluation on their own smart school leadership
competencies
Respondents’ rating of their smart school leadership competencies are depicted in
Table 2. The majority of the principal respondents evaluated their component and
overall competencies as good and very good. The competency with the highest
mean (4.42) was inquisitiveness and pride in leading a smart school (C1), whereas
the lowest mean (4.23) was attributed to C4 (seeking for external support to one’s
own smart school leadership competencies).

8
Table 2. Component and overall leadership competencies of principals
Principal competency N Min Max Mean SD
C1 Inquisitiveness and pride in leading
a smart school
295 1 5 4.42 0.695
C2 Adaptability to technology and AI-
driven changes in education and life 295 1 5 4.30 0.684
C3 Influence on school staff as an
example of smart gadget and
advanced technology usage
295 2 5 4.34 0.685
C4 Seeking for external support to one’s
own smart school leadership
competencies
295 2 5 4.23 0.685
C5 (all) Overall competencies (average of
the four component competencies)
295 1.5 5 4.32 0.597
4.2 Factors affecting the development of leadership competencies
The questionnaire results on Group 1 (individual factors) are displayed in Table 3.
All three individual factors were highly appreciated by the respondents as
significantly and greatly influencing smart school leadership competencies, with
the highest level of influence attributed to F1, ‘principals’ awareness of and
interest in smart school development’ (mean = 4.52).
Table 3. Influence of individual factors
Individual factor N Min Max Mean SD
F1 Awareness of and interest in smart
school development
295 2 5 4.52 0.709
F2 Strategic thinking to develop smart
schools
295 2 5 4.48 0.718
F3 Adaptability to modern technology
and information and competence of
IT application in school leadership
295 1 5 4.28 0.829
With regards to school-level factors (Group 2), results are depicted in Table 4. The
respondents considered all six factors in this group as having a significant or great
influence on smart school leadership competencies. The factor of ‘infrastructure
of IT and smart equipment’ (F9) was rated as the most influential factor in this
group (mean = 4.36) (Table 4)
Table 4. Influence of school-level factors
School-level factor N Min Max Mean SD
F4 Gaps between smart school
development objectives and
managerial, teaching, and working
staff’s experience in using modern IT
and smart equipment
295 2 5 4.12 0.741
F5 Ability to mobilize and exploit the
school’s resources or finance and
infrastructure of IT for smart school
development
295 2 5 4.26 0.762

9
F6 Teaching and non-teaching staff’s
awareness of and interest in smart
schools
295 2 5 4.25 0.732
F7 Teaching and non-teaching staff’s
readiness for and competence in
applying modern IT and equipment
295 2 5 4.22 0.698
F8 Learners’ readiness for and
competence in applying modern IT
and equipment
295 2 5 4.19 0.750
F9 School’s infrastructure for IT and
smart equipment system for smart
school development
295 2 5 4.36 0.804
Community-level factors include government education policies, the Ministry of
Education and Training’s policies, community culture, and the approval and
support of families and other educational parties. The results of this group (3) are
depicted in Table 5. Respondents claimed all the factors in this group to be
considerably or very influential in developing smart school leadership
competencies. The factor ‘government and provincial authorities’ educational
policies and attention’ (F10) was regarded as the most influential factor
(mean = 4.51).
Table 5. Influence of educational community-level factors
Community-level factor N Min Max Mean SD
F10 Government and provincial
authorities’ educational policies and
attention
295 2 5 4.51 0.728
F11 Ministry of Education and Training’s
smart school development policies
and attention
295 2 5 4.50 0.760
F12 Community culture and local level of
application of modern IT and smart
equipment
295 1 5 4.03 0.820
F13 Approval and support from families
and relevant parties to optimize the
use of current IT and smart gadgets in
teaching and education
295 1 5 4.25 0.787
F14
(all)
The overall factor (average of all 13
abovementioned factors) 295 2 5 4.31 0.561
4.3. Correlation between the factors and competencies of smart school
leadership
The Pearson correlation results between the four capacities and the first nine
factors (Groups 1 and 2) are presented in Table 6. Both individual and school-level
factors obtained correlations with high statistical significance (0.01) with smart
school leadership competencies. Capacity 1 (principals’ inquiring competency)
obtained the strongest correlation with F1 (principals’ awareness) (.336).
Capacity 2 (principals’ adaptability) correlated strongly with F9 (IT
infrastructure) (.323). The results for C3 (principal setting a good example)
showed a strong correlation between this capacity and F2 (strategic

10
thinking) (.348). For C4 (seeking for external opportunities), the strongest
correlations were established with F3 and F8 (adaptability and students’ IT
competency, respectively) (.293 for both values). Moreover, the overall capacity in
the principals’ smart school leadership competencies, C5 (all), had the highest
correlation with F4 (requirements for smart school development) (.380).
Table 6. Pearson correlation between individual and school-level factors and smart
school leadership competencies
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
(all)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
C1 1 .706** .715** .562** .859** .336** .319** .250** .295** .253** .265** .302** .230** .323**
C2 .706** 1 .708** .653** .882** .341** .337** .323** .364** .326** .312** .308** .327** .367**
C3 .715** .708** 1 .701** .898** .280** .348** .263** .321** .236** .239** .298** .227** .306**
C4 .562** .653** .701** 1 .838** .221** .227** .293** .341** .257** .205** .242** .293** .284**
C5
(all)
.859** .882** .898** .838** 1 .339** .354** .325** .380** .308** .294** .331** .310** .368**
F1 .336** .341** .280** .221** .339** 1 .787** .479** .501** .474** .603** .564** .481** .605**
F2 .319** .337** .348** .227** .354** .787** 1 .495** .445** .509** .501** .531** .461** .560**
F3 .250** .323** .263** .293** .325** .479** .495** 1 .414** .372** .420** .430** .400** .453**
F4 .295** .364** .321** .341** .380** .501** .445** .414** 1 .503** .526** .565** .509** .548**
F5 .253** .326** .236** .257** .308** .474** .509** .372** .503** 1 .541** .593** .585** .546**
F6 .265** .312** .239** .205** .294** .603** .501** .420** .526** .541** 1 .609** .545** .610**
F7 .302** .308** .298** .242** .331** .564** .531** .430** .565** .593** .609** 1 .653** .626**
F8 .230** .327** .227** .293** .310** .481** .461** .400** .509** .585** .545** .653** 1 .552**
F9 .323** .367** .306** .284** .368** .605** .560** .453** .548** .546** .610** .626** .552** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 295
The Pearson correlation results between the four capacities and the last four
factors (Group 3) and the overall factor are presented in Table 7. The community-
level factors also obtained close correlations with the smart school leadership
competencies of the respondents, with high statistical significance (0.01). Factor 10
(government and local authorities’ attention and policies to develop smart
schools) was found to be the most influential component and overall smart school
leadership competency of principals (with a mean value of 4.51).

11
Table 7. Pearson correlation between community-level factors and overall factor and
smart school leadership competencies
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
(all)
F10 F11 F12 F13 F14
(all)
C1 1 .706** .715** .562** .859** .437** .436** .339** .362** .430**
C2 .706** 1 .708** .653** .882** .437** .426** .358** .402** .481**
C3 .715** .708** 1 .701** .898** .419** .377** .343** .353** .416**
C4 .562** .653** .701** 1 .838** .326** .246** .320** .335** .374**
C5
(all)
.859** .882** .898** .838** 1 .466** .427** .391** .417** .489**
F10 .437** .437** .419** .326** .466** 1 .780** .558** .485** .747**
F11 .436** .426** .377** .246** .427** .780** 1 .530** .487** .775**
F12 .339** .358** .343** .320** .391** .558** .530** 1 .445** .659**
F13 .362** .402** .353** .335** .417** .485** .487** .445** 1 .768**
F14
(all)
.430** .481** .416** .374** .489** .747** .775** .659** .768** 1
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 295
5. Discussion
The term ‘smart’ and the component competencies of smart school leadership are
far from unfamiliar under reform school leadership in Vietnam. As a result, the
respondents rated their own smart school leadership competencies as very good,
with an average of 4.3/5.
In this study, the factors affecting smart school leadership competencies were
classified into three level-based groups: micro-level (individual), meso-level
(school), and macro-level (community). Analysis results showed these factors as
attributors to Vietnamese high school principals’ smart school leadership
competencies. The most influential factor at the individual level was found to be
related to professional development. At school level, the most influential factor
was related to IT infrastructure and equipment improvement. At community
level, the factor of government and local authorities’ policies on smart school
development was determined the most influential factor.
The findings exhibiting strong correlations between these factors and smart school
leadership competencies in this study align with existing research acknowledging
leadership competencies as an attribute of school organization (Ogawa & Bossert,
1995). Nevertheless, when studying and evaluating the development of smart
school leadership competencies and the factors affecting it, it is crucial to take into
account the context of fundamental and comprehensive education and training
reform in Vietnam since 2013. The training of educational managerial staff,
including principals, was designed to develop staff competencies, including
‘smart competencies’. This is amongst the objectives of this reform in response to
the new learners’ competency-based General Education Program.
Traditionally in Vietnam, smart means the capacity to identify and solve problems
quickly and effectively; yet, in this research, smart refers to the competencies to
apply modern IT such as smartphones, computers, and internet-connected
multimedia facilities and digital resources. In the 2003/2004 school year in
Vietnam, one pilot ‘smart classroom’ was installed in a primary school in Dong

12
Trieu district, Quang Ninh province. In that smart classroom, teachers and
students used modern internet-connected multimedia facilities such as
computers, interactive boards, and camera systems in teaching and learning. All
79 schools in this district now have at least one smart classroom (Vu, 2018).
Meanwhile, the project of developing smart schools has also been launched in
some big cities in Vietnam, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong. It has
been demonstrated both internationally and in Vietnam that managerial staff,
especially principals, possessing smart school leadership competencies is a
prerequisite for setting up a smart school.
Self-evaluation of the participating principals regarding their smart school
leadership competencies yielded the level ‘good’, which should be interpreted as
equal to knowledge and comprehension, the two basic levels in Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). This means that the respondents were well aware
of the component competencies of smart school leadership. These competencies,
however, are subject to further practice and development in the actual process of
setting up and developing the smart school. In other words, high school
principals’ self-evaluation of smart school leadership competencies as ‘good’
should be considered a prerequisite for smart school development. To develop the
competencies in question, it is necessary to carry out projects to influence the
relevant factors. This may especially take the form of developing policies and
programs for smart school development, renovating smart school infrastructure
and equipment, and training principals in their smart school leadership
competencies.
6. Conclusion
This study has indicated that high school principals in Vietnam tend to be
confident in their smart school leadership competencies despite only a few ‘smart
classes’ and pilot smart school projects in several cities. Aligning with previous
studies, the findings also highlighted that smart school leadership competencies
are dependent on individual factors, school-level factors, and educational
community-level factors. Smart school development policies and smart school
infrastructure and facilities innovation were identified as the most critical factors
affecting smart school leadership competencies. The results of this research have
emphasized the need to develop principals’ smart school leadership competencies
to contribute to smart school development in accordance with practical
conditions.
7. Acknowledgments
This research is funded by the Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam,
under project number QG.18.32.
8. References
Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M., & Rushdy, E. (2018). Internet of things
in smart education environment: Supportive framework in the decision-making
process. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 31(5), e4515.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4515

13
Allix, N. M. (2000). Transformational leadership: Democratic or despotic? Educational
Management and Administration, 28(1), 7-20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X000281002
Alvy, H., & Robbins, P. (2005). Growing into leadership. Educational Leadership, 62, 50-54.
Berlin, M. B., Kavanaugh, J. A. % Kathleen, J. (1988). The principal as curriculum leader:
Expectations vs. performance. NASSP Bulletin, 72(509), 43-49.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019263658807250907
Berry, B. (2014, October 22). Clearing the way for teacher leadership. EducationWeek, 34(9),
2021. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09Berry.h34.html
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M D., Furst, E. F., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook I: Cognitive
domain). David McKay Company.
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x
Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice.
South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391-406.
Bush, T., & Glover D. (2002). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. National College for
School Leadership.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2003&aut
hor=+Bush%2C+T.author=+Glover%2C+D.&title=School+Leadership%3A+Con
cepts+and+Evidence
Bush, T., & Heystek J. (2006). School leadership and management in South Africa:
Principals’ perceptions. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(3),
63-76.
Chen, I. J. (2003). Leadership competencies of vocational high school principals in Taiwan. ASPA
Conference paper. ASPA online.
http://www.aspa.asn.au/content/view/109/43/
Davis G. F. & Marquis C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first
century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332-343.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0137
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-356.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510605405
E-lead. (2008). Leadership for student success: Instructional leadership.
http://www.elead.org/resources/resources.asp?ResourceID=14.
Feye, D. D. (2019). Instructional leadership practice and challenges of school principals in
governmental secondary schools of Sidama Zone (SNNPRS). IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 24(10), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2410010107
Fink, E. & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82, 598-606.
Gaetane, J-M., Normore, A., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing
21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 4(1), 1-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ875408.pdf
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Frames%20of%20mind%3A
%20The%20theory%20of%20multiple%20intelligences&publication_year=2011&
author=Gardner%2CH
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N. & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing learning
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current

14
practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 1-36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760802014951
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
Hallinger, P. (2004). Meeting the challenges of cultural leadership: The changing role of
principals in Thailand. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1),
12-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630042000178482
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading?
Educational Management and Administration, 32(1), 11-24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204039297
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(2), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253
Harrison, S., & Birky, G. (2011). Revisiting teacher leadership: Perceptions of teachers and
principals. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 9(2).
https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2012.9.2.3
Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2001). From Science teacher to teacher leader: Leadership
development as meaning making in a community of practice. Science Education,
87(2), 281-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10022
Ibrahim, M. S., Razak, A. Z. A., & Kenayathulla, H. B. (2013). Smart principals and smart
schools. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 826-836.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.404
Kim, T., Cho, J. Y., & Lee, B. G. (2013). Evolution to smart learning in public education: A
case study of Korean public education. In L. Tobias, R. Mikko, L. Mart, & T. Arthur
(Eds.), Open and social technologies for networked learning (pp. 170-178). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37285-8_18
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A
constructive developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-
657. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306717
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Beyond Instructional Leadership,
59(8), 37-40. http://ascd.org/publications
Le, N. H. (2018). Theories of leadership and management in response to fundamental and
comprehensive education reform in Viet Nam. Communist Review.
https://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/en/nghien-cu/-/2018/52777/cac-ly-
thuyet-lanh-dao%2C-quan-ly-truoc-yeu-cau-doi-moi-can-ban%2C-toan-dien-
giao-duc-o-viet-nam.aspx.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale
reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
Leithwood, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). Transformational school leadership: Introduction.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 143-144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565688
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration
of transformational and instructional leadership. Education Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03253412

15
Middleton, A. (2015). Smart learning: Teaching and learning with smartphones and tablets in
post compulsory education. Media-Enhanced Learning Special Interest Group and
Sheffield Hallam University.
Muralidharan, E., & Pathak, S. (2019). Consequences of cultural leadership styles for social
entrepreneurship: A theoretical framework. Sustainability, 11, 965.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040965
Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224-243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x95031002004
Omidinia, S., Masrom, M., & Selamat, H. (2012). Determinants of smart school system
success: A case study of Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(1),
29-36.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287420348_Determinants_of_smart
_school_system_success_case_study_of_Malaysia
Omidinia, S., Masrom, M., & Selamat, H. (2013). An examination of the concept of smart
school: An innovation to address sustainability. 2nd International Conference on
Advances in Computer Science and Engineering (CSE 2013), July, pp. 326-329. Atlantis
Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/cse.2013.73
Pearce, C. L. & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of
leadership. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 115-139).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-
0977(00)07008-4
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, C. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539
Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2007). Shared leadership theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(3), 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.009
Piaw, Y. C., Hee, T. F., Ismail, N. R., & Ying, L. H. (2014). Factors of Leadership Skills of
Secondary School Principals. 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences -
WCES 2013. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5125 – 5129,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1085
Pont, B. (2014). School leadership: From practice to policy. Journal of Educational Leadership
and Management, 2(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.4471/ijelm.2014.07
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Improving School Leadership. Volume 2: Case
Studies on System Leadership. OECD Publishing. 2, rue Andre Pascal, F-75775
Paris Cedex 16, France. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/44375122.pdf
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership (Vol 1): Policy and
Practice (Lithuanian version). OECD publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167995-lt
Potter, D., Reynolds, D., & Chapman, Christopher. (2002). School improvement for schools
facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. School
Leadership & Management, 22(3), 243-256. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1363243022000020381
Ramosaj, B., & Berisha, G. (2014). Systems theory and systems approach to leadership.
ILIRIA International Review, 1(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.21113/iir.v4i1.53
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
ASCD.
Reychav, I., Warkentin, M., & Ndicu, M. (2016). Tablet adoption with smart school website
technology. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(4), 280-287.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1163996

16
Robbins, P. & Alvy, H. (2004). Instructional, curricular, and assessment leadership: The
helmsman in action. In The new principal's field book: Strategies for Success (pp. 88-
117). Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Robinson, V. M. J, Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K L. (2007). Chapter 4: The impact of leadership
on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
In Wise, C., Bradshaw, P. & Cartwright, M. (Eds.), Leading professional practice in
education (pp. 47-61). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915152.n6
Robinson, V. M. J., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes:
Identifying what works and why best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Ministry of
Education, New Zealand.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary principal: School leadership for the next century.
Education and Urban Society. 20, 239-249
Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., Wiederman, W., & Hochbein, C. (2019). Principal leadership
and school performance: An examination of instructional leadership and
organizational management. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(4), 591-613.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763. 2018.1513151
Sellami, A. L., Sawalhi, R., Romanowski, M. H., & Amatullah, T. (2019). Definitions of
educational leadership: Arab educators’ perspectives. International Journal of
Leadership in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1690701
Silins, H. & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood &
P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 561-612). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0375-
9_21
Slater, C. L. (2011). Understanding principal leadership: An international perspective and
a narrative approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(2),
219-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210390061
Smylie, M., & Denny, J. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in
organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x90026003003
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (2006). Vietnam’s education and training development strategy
till 2010.
http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/English/strategies/strategiesde
tails?categoryId=29&articleId=3064
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (2012). Vietnam’s education and training development strategy
for the 2010–2020 period.
http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?cl
ass_id=2&mode=detail&document_id=160806
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical
evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73-91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 3-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726
Thompson, G., & Glasø L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: A test from three
perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130
Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500038545
Townsend, T. (2011). School leadership in the twenty-first century: Different approaches
to common problems? School Leadership and Management, 31(2), 93-103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.572419

17
UNESCO (2016). Leading better learning: School leadership and quality in the Education 2030
Agenda – Regional reviews of policies and practices.
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/
Abstract-Leadership.pdf
Vu, T. T. H. (2018). Smart school: Origin, definition and lessons for Viet Nam. Viet Nam
Journal of Education, 432(2), 6-10,60.
https://tapchigiaoduc.moet.gov.vn/vi/magazine/download/?download=1&ca
tid=334&id=5921
Wagner, J. (Ed.). (2018). Leadership and influencing change in nursing. URPress.
https://ourspace.uregina.ca/handle/10294/8296
West, M. Ainscow, M., & Stanford, J. (2005). Sustaining improvement in schools in
challenging circumstances: A study of successful practice. School Leadership and
Management, 25(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243052000317055
Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 7(1),
3-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312032000154522
Wu, D., Zhou, C., Meng, C., Wang, H., Chen, M., Lu, C., & Xu, J. (2019). Research on the
status quo of smart school development in China. In M. Chang, et al. (Eds.),
Foundations and trends in smart learning: Lecture notes in educational technology
(pp. 181-186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6908-7_26
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed). Prentice-Hall.
Zaenab, S. M., & Zailin S. Y. (2015). Are we ‘smarter’ now? Case study of smart school
implementation in a developing nation. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(3), 236-
258. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v5i3.8082
Zhu, Z-T., Yu, M-H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education.
Smart Learning Environments, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2

18
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 18-42, April 2021
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.4.2
Chatterpix Kids: A Potential Mobile App for
Helping Primary ESL Pupils Improve Their
Speaking Fluency
Thirumangai Rajendran
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9113-5669
Melor Md Yunus
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7504-7143
Abstract. The mastery of all four language skills has become one of the
topmost priorities among English as a Second Language (ESL) learners
worldwide. Despite multiple efforts taken to master the necessary skills,
speaking remains to the most challenging skill for many Malaysian ESL
learners. Previous studies suggest that Mobile-assisted Language
Learning (MALL) for speaking has taken its first steps in Malaysian
tertiary and secondary levels of education. However, there is still a
paucity of research done on MALL at the primary level. The present case
study therefore sought to fill in the gap by exploring how the ChatterPix
Kids mobile app has helped 5 purposively selected Year 3 primary school
pupils develop their speaking fluency. This was done through speaking
practices conducted over 12 speaking lessons during the Movement
Control Order (MCO) from their perspective. The pupils’ responses
obtained through the semi-structured interviews were triangulated using
the responses obtained from them through both a focus group and their
parents’ feedback obtained through an open-ended questionnaire. The
findings were thematically analysed. Seven themes were highlighted
which indicate the crucial need to incorporate MALL for speaking among
Malaysian primary school pupils. Further studies are recommended to be
done on how ChatterPix Kids could be exploited when learning other
language skills such as listening, reading, and writing. So far as the
study’s limitations are concerned, there is a need to investigate how the
pupils’ confidence could be sustained in the absence of the app when
speaking in public.
Keywords: English as a Second Language (ESL); Mobile-assisted
Language Learning (MALL); speaking; ChatterPix Kids; mobile app

19
1. Introduction
The current demands of 21st century skills expect an individual to be proficient in
English in order to be distinguished as a ‘global player’. This has raised growing
concerns in the education system worldwide, particularly in countries which
regard English as a Second Language (ESL) (Rao, 2019). Correspondingly, the
term ‘bilingual proficiency’ has been coined by the Malaysian Ministry of
Education (MOE). This is the expectation that every Malaysian child should be
proficient in both the Malay and English languages by the end of the 12-year
schooling process. The MOE aspires to create students who are at least
‘operationally proficient’ in English as stipulated in the Malaysian Education
Blueprint (2013 - 2025). According to the current Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which is used to describe a learners’ language
ability against the international standard, being operationally proficient refers to
the ability to use the language flexibly and effectively for social, academic, and
professional purposes. At this point, Malaysian ESL learners are expected to have
improved their communicative competence based on the 6 levels stipulated in the
CEFR. This puts further emphasis on speaking (Azlan et al., 2019).
Amid achieving the above aspiration, the speaking skill is often regarded as one
of the most demanding and challenging of the four skills whereby many
Malaysian ESL learners are still struggling to achieve fluency when speaking
(Darmi & Albion, 2017; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017; Azlan et al., 2019; Paneerselvam
& Mohamad, 2019; Precintha et al., 2019). Recent studies suggest that this scenario
is not only evident among adult ESL learners but that it is also an obtrusive issue
among most primary ESL pupils in Malaysia (Nijat et al., 2019; Samat et al., 2019).
Generally, studies done in both global and local contexts have addressed similar
factors contributing towards the poor speaking fluency among ESL learners. First,
the learners are identified to be the victims of common psychological factors such
as a lack of motivation and poor self-confidence, in addition to anxiety, a fear of
criticism and inhibition (Leong & Ahmadi 2017; Abugohar et al. 2019; Azlan et al.,
2019; Paneerselvam & Mohamad 2019; Nijat et al., 2019; Samat et al., 2019;
Tonekaboni, 2019; Yin, 2019). A lack of speaking practice opportunities in their
immediate surroundings is also prominent, as learners prefer using their mother
tongue in their daily conversations outside the classroom (Shuangjiang & Jitpanat,
2017; Lutfi, 2020). Lutfi (2020) found that most of the classroom time is spent
learning structures and forms instead of focusing on communicative activities,
leaving a very limited amount of time for each learner to practice speaking the
target language.
This phenomenon was evident among the pupils chosen for this study before they
started using the ChatterPix Kids mobile app for speaking practice. They were
observed to hesitate and have fragmented speech while speaking due to
difficulties retrieving the lexical items, encoding the grammatical message, and
correcting their own output. This condition makes them hesitate while speaking
with frequent uses of pause fillers like “umm”, “mmm”, “uhh”, “errr”. They also
tend to translate, repeat, self-correct, and rephrase words. Due to these issues in
speaking fluency, the pupils scored in the lower bands in their CEFR classroom-
based speaking assessment. This issue becomes even more challenging to

20
intervene in as schools have been closed during the Movement Control Order
(MCO) due to Covid-19.
Over the past few decades, different technologies have been used as tools for
enhancing the speaking skill among the ESL learners worldwide. One of the areas
that has indicated positive outcomes is Mobile-assisted Language Learning
(MALL). In Malaysia, a few studies have explored MALL at the tertiary education
level in universities and colleges (Hashim et al. 2016; Ismail et al., 2019; Precintha
et al., 2019). However, to the researchers’ best knowledge, there has only been one
study done on MALL at the primary level to date (Azlan et al., 2019). This further
supports Ismail et al.’s (2019) claim that there is still a paucity of research
investigating the implementation of MALL in the Malaysian primary school
context. Nevertheless, studies focusing on MALL, particularly on speaking
among Malaysian ESL learners (Darmi & Albion, 2017; Azlan et al., 2019), are still
limited.
A review done by Hashim et al. (2017) claims that mobile devices are finding their
way into classrooms through the students’ pockets. This correlates with the
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission’s (2017) survey which
reported that telephones were the highest medium of communication being used.
Apparently, 83.2% of children aged 5 to 17 were Internet users, and 93% of the
surfed the Internet using their smartphones. This study intends to fill in the
literature gap by contributing meaningful insights to the field of MALL for those
speaking predominantly in the Malaysian primary school context. The purpose of
this case study is to explore how the ChatterPix Kids mobile app could help 5
purposively selected Year 3 primary ESL pupils in developing their speaking
fluency through speaking practices conducted over 12 speaking lessons during
the MCO from their perspective. These pupils were noticed to exhibit improved
speaking fluency and positive language behaviours after using the ChatterPix Kids
mobile app as a tool for practicing speaking. The pupils’ parents’ views were also
explored as they had witnessed their child’s speaking practices which take place
in informal learning situations. The pupils’ perspectives were obtained through
semi-structured interviews and a focus group while their parents’ views obtained
through an open-ended questionnaire. These views were triangulated to see if
there was any possible relationship that could further strengthen the findings
related to the current study’s proposed research question:
i. How does the use of the ChatterPix Kids mobile app help pupils to speak English
fluently?
This article opens with an introduction to brief the readers on the focus of the
current study. Next, the literature review provides substantial theoretical
perspectives and concepts relevant to the study with a detailed review of the past
studies conducted in the field of MALL for speaking. At the same time, the
literature gaps are identified to shed some light on the significance of this study.
This is then followed by the methodology which outlines the research design,
instruments, participants, data analysis and the aspects of validity and reliability.
The findings of this study are presented and discussed in relation to the reviewed

21
literatures and past studies. Finally, the findings are concluded by highlighting
possible implications and recommending suggestions for future research.
2. Literature Review
The Concept of Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL)
Trifonova and Ronchetti (2003) define mobile learning as the application of
Information and Technology (IT) assisted by mobile devices to enhance the
teaching and learning experience. MALL can also be defined as the use of diverse
mobile technologies in language acquisition. Past researchers identified 6 learning
theories associated with the employment of mobile technologies in language
learning, namely behaviourism, constructivism, situated, collaboration, informal
learning and lifelong learning, and support in teaching and learning (Karim et al.,
2017; Rahamat et al., 2017; Cakmak, 2019).
Traxler and Kukulska-Hulme (2015) claimed that MALL has been widely
advocated in the educational context. The reviews done by past researchers
suggest that MALL has been developed into a field in its own right. This resulted
in an increase in the number of studies examining the use of various mobile
devices both inside and outside of formal language learning, as pointed out by
Hashim et al. (2017). Klopfer et al. (2002) reviewed 5 unique educational attributes
of mobile devices which add value to MALL:
• Portability: the ability to learn on the move.
• Social interactivity: communication between the users is facilitated.
• Context sensitivity: the provision of real data that is relevant to the
learners’ location and time.
• Connectivity: getting connected to each other or having a shared network.
• Individuality: the ability to perform independent learning.
In relation to the above attributes, Hashim et al. (2017) stated that technologies,
particularly mobile devices such as handphones, iPods, and PDAs, are handheld
devices. This makes it easier for the learners to use them as a tool to enhance their
language learning. These handheld devices are considered suitable for modern
education as they are small and exhibit portability, functionality, ubiquity, utility,
and connectivity (Hashim et al., 2017). They provide a richer learning
environment for learners by extending the learning environment beyond the
classroom setting. This allows learning to take place anywhere at any time so then
even learners on the move can improve (Kukulska, 2009). Klimova (2017) claims
that the majority of learners nowadays own a mobile phone and about half of
them own more than one. This indicates that mobile phones could be considered
a potential tool as part of embracing the future of language learning prospects.
Speaking Fluency
The current study adopts the idea of fluency which relies on the pupils’ ability to
speak English with facilitation skills (filler, lexical phrases, ellipsis…etc.) and
compensation skills (self-correction, rephrasing, or repeating) in order to cope
with the ongoing fast communication as opined by Widdowson (1998) and
Segaowitz (2000). This refers to “smoothness”. Smoothness pertains to the ease of
regularity (Housen et al., 2012) with which a speaker can flow when delivering

22
spoken content by joining sounds, syllables, words, and phrases together without
stammering, stuttering, cluttering, or mumbling.
The Application of MALL and the Learners’ Speaking Fluency
Several studies indicate that the learners’ speaking fluency improves when they
use the audio and video recording features of a mobile phone to record and review
their speaking performance either individually or as part of a class. A study done
by Moghaddas and Bashirnezhad (2016) among a group of Iranian higher
education learners has proven that the learners’ utterance fluency improved when
they recorded and listened to their voice recordings. Similarly, a group of
Malaysian undergraduate learners in Darmi and Albion’s (2017) study reported
improved speaking fluency. They were able to identify errors in their speech
through the recording. Besides, their classmates’ feedback was regarded as
helpful as they reviewed the recordings collectively. This is further confirmed by
Soto and Zenteno’s (2019) study which discovered that there was progress in
terms of the phrasing, volume, smoothness, and pace among 31 7th grade South
American learners. They were noticeably putting in the effort to perform better in
the upcoming speaking tasks after having their errors identified.
The learners’ speaking fluency is further improved as they actively participate in
MALL environments. The learners in the work of Darmi and Albion (2017) and
the 38 Indonesian learners at Borneo University in Kusmaryani et al.’s (2019)
study were discovered to be actively taking part when they use mobile
applications for speaking. Likewise, 86 Chinese learners at a civil aviation
vocational college involved in Yin’s (2019) study actively engage in speaking
through the audio and video recording features of a mobile phone. Azlan et al.’s
(2019) study indicated that the infusion of the Instagram face-filter interface
promoted active participation in the speaking performance among the group of
pre-school and primary school pupils in Malaysia. This special feature is also
believed to motivate and boost the pupils’ interest in continuing their speaking in
English. Furthermore, Instagram is reported to be actively used as it has improved
the communication skills of ESL adult learners from 42 different countries
(Gonulal, 2019). Sherine et al. (2020), on the other hand, found that active speaking
tasks among a group of Indian undergraduate engineering learners through the
use of WhatsApp improved their fluency, coherence, lexical resource,
grammatical range and accuracy, and pronunciation. In terms of motivation,
mobile apps have been viewed as a great tool for maintaining the learners’ interest
and improving their confidence to speak the target language. In relation to this,
the use of the “Speaking English 60 Junior” app installed with Automatic Speech
Recognition (ASR) feature immediately demonstrated the consequence of the
speech input with a virtual character via ASR. The learners in the work of Ahn
and Lee (2016) showed great interest in it for speaking. Furthermore, the teachers
in Abugohar et al. (2019) study found mobile apps such as ‘Talking Tom’, ‘Virtual
Speaking Buddy’, ‘Voki’ and ‘Talking Angela’ as being helpful in motivating
learners to speak English confidently. This mirrors the impact of using the
“English Daily” mobile app among learners in Tonekaboni’s (2019) study.
A study conducted by Ahn and Lee (2016) examining a group of Korean middle-
school learners reflected that the use of the “Speaking English 60 Junior” app

23
installed with the Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) feature has facilitated
their speaking fluency achievement by contextualising the language use in
specific social situations. Supporting this, contextual learning experiences
positively affected the 209 Arabian undergraduate learners at the King Saud
University who were involved in the survey conducted by Almarshadi et al.
(2019). The survey revealed that the use of the smartphone’s built-in features such
as the dictionary, mobile apps, and SNSs such as WhatsApp and e-mail improved
the learners’ pronunciation, grammar accuracy and oral comprehension. The
significance of contextual learning is equally illustrated in Kusmaryani et al.’s
(2019) study as the learners explored materials outside of the classroom. Roach et
al. (2018) proclaimed that authentic learning materials will substantiate contextual
learning as the learners integrate their previous experience into their current
realities. Mobile apps are believed to provide authentic learning opportunities for
learners, allowing them to obtain a better understanding as they get to apply
speaking in real-world conversations (Ahn & Lee, 2016; Almarshadi et al., 2019;
Kusmaryani et al., 2019). In addition, 49 Arabian teachers from higher education
institutes in the work of Abugohar et al. (2019) proclaimed that mobile apps are
believed to cater to shy and anxious learners as they create a less stressful teaching
and learning environment.
Studies done by Moghaddas and Bashirnezhad (2016), Darmi and Albion (2017),
Azlan et al. (2019) and Kusmaryani et al. (2019) indicate that MALL allows
learners to learn in collaboration as opined by Vygotsky (1978) in his social
constructivism theory. Learners are regarded as speaking better as they get their
errors corrected by both their teacher and peers. Nevertheless, collaborative
speaking tasks in WhatsApp have significantly reduced the fear of receiving
feedback and taking language tests among 9 Syrian graduates at Aleppo
University, thus improving their fluency.
MALL has allowed learners to get access to learning without place and time
constraints, provided that the mobile devices can be explored ‘anywhere’ at
‘anytime’. An empirical analysis done by Wan (2019) among colleges in China has
proven the “English Fluent” app as being beneficial for the learners. They were
provided with rich learning content useful for speaking practices regardless of the
place and time. Similar results were reported by Tonekaboni’s (2019) study which
involved the use of the “English Daily” app among a group of Iranian elementary
learners aged 14 – 17 years old at the Kish Language Institute. A recent study done
by Wang and Hsu (2020) using the “English Messenger” app among a group of
Taiwanese undergraduate and graduate learners at the National Kaohsiung
University reported a significant improvement in using conversational English for
business among them. The mobility of mobile devices has further promoted
autonomous learning. Lutfi’s (2020) findings implied that 30 tertiary level
students in Yogyakarta were able to use the ‘Quizlet’ app to carry out speaking
independently. Interestingly, a recent survey among 41 Indian learners at Sri
Ramakrishna Institute of Technology (SRIT) by Nanjundan et al. (2020) indicated
that such apps could fulfil the self-study concept.

24
To conclude, it has been made crystal clear that the use of multiple mobile devices
in various MALL contexts worldwide has positively contributed towards the
development of speaking fluency among the studied learners. However, most of
the studies were conducted among tertiary level learners and only one among the
reviewed studies was done at the primary level (Azlan et al., 2019). This study
aspires to fill in the existing literature gap by exploring how the use of the
ChatterPix Kids mobile app could help a group of Malaysian primary ESL pupils
in developing their speaking fluency.
ChatterPix Kids Mobile App
The ChatterPix Kids is a free downloadable app for mobile devices that was created
by Duck Duck Moose, Inc, a part of the Khan Academy family. The family creates
educational mobile apps for adults as well as young learners. The app can be
downloaded on any mobile device including smartphones, iPads and tablets
through either the Google Play Store or the Apple Store. Marciano (2018) views
ChatterPix Kids as a fun and interesting mobile app that allows young children to
snap a photo, record their voice and make images “talk”. The recording can later
be replayed, edited, and saved to their device’s gallery. The researchers believe
that ChatterPix Kids can be a potential tool to help the ESL learners develop their
speaking fluency. However, there has only been one study done by Marciano
(2018) using ChatterPix Kids as a tool for reading aloud and reducing stress among
American teachers and students. This study intends to highlight the potential of
the ChatterPix Kids mobile app in helping primary ESL pupils to develop their
speaking fluency.
3. Methodology
Research Design
The current study employed the case study method under the qualitative
approach. The data collected in this study was based on the pupils’ authentic
experiences of interacting with the ChatterPix Kids mobile app for speaking
activities and their parents’ feedback based on their observations. The pupils
involved in this study experienced using the app for speaking practice during the
MCO for 12 speaking lessons. They used the app to capture images related to the
speaking tasks given and recorded their voice to create “talking” avatars. Upon
recording their voices based on the topics given from the modules stipulated in
the CEFR Get Smart Plus 3 Student’s Book, which was the main textbook, the
recordings were shared in Google Classroom. These were reviewed by both the
teacher and their classmates. Figure 1.0 below shows snapshots of the voice
recordings done across the 12 consecutive speaking lessons.

25
Figure 1.0 Snapshots of the voice recordings done by the pupils using ChatterPix Kids
Figure 1.0 above illustrates that the pupils used the app to snap pictures of living
and non-living things in their surroundings before making them into “talking”
avatars through a voice over. As the pupils continued doing this as part of their
learning, their speaking fluency progressed.
Research Instruments
It is important to note that qualitative research does not restrict the views of the
participants. At the same time, Creswell (2014) claimed that the researcher never
used someone else’s instrument. Instead, the researchers’ “record information on
self-designed protocols that help in organising information reported by
participants to each question” (Creswell, 2014, p. 227). In this qualitative case
study, the data was obtained through one-on-one semi-structured interviews and
a focus group discussion with 5 purposively selected Year 3 primary ESL pupils.
This was in addition to collecting their parents’ feedback through open-ended
questionnaire. The findings obtained from all three instruments were triangulated
in order to enhance the credibility of the findings.
Semi-structured interviews (SSI)
The semi-structured interviews were conducted on an individual basis with the
pupils to discover their experience of using the ChatterPix Kids mobile app for
speaking practice. Additionally, it was to gather insights on how to use the app as
a speaking tool that could help them to develop their speaking fluency. The
interview protocol was self-designed by the researcher (see Appendix A). The
interview questions were also tested on the participants’ classmates and a few
questions were made simpler to suit the participants’ proficiency level. Given that
the participants were intermediate users of English, several questions were
translated into their mother tongue and they were validated by the school’s Head
of Language Panel. Semi-structured interviews allowed for a degree of flexibility
to let the researcher probe and obtain answers on how the pupils’ speaking
fluency could have been developed using the ChatterPix Kids mobile app. This was
done by posing more enhanced questions than the initially drafted ones.

26
Focus Group (FG)
The findings obtained from the focus group are believed to further emphasise the
pupils’ responses that were obtained through the semi-structured interviews. The
interviews were on the use of the ChatterPix Kids mobile app and how it may have
helped to develop their speaking fluency. The focus group discussion was carried
out using the researcher-made discussion protocol (see Appendix B) as guidance.
During the focus group, the pupils were asked to practice turn-taking so then each
of them would have an equal opportunity to respond. Several questions were
translated into the pupils’ mother tongue and they were validated by the school’s
Head of Language Panel. The focus group discussion was recorded to avoid
overlooking or losing any of the information.
Open-ended Questionnaire (OEQ)
In this study, open-ended questions (see Appendix C) were used as a means of
collecting personal feedback from the parents of the pupils involved in the study.
Feedback from the pupils’ parents was essential in this study as the parents had
closely observed their children’s activities when using the ChatterPix Kids mobile
app as a tool for speaking practice conducted during the remote learning due to
MCO. The open-ended questions were self-designed by the researcher by
adapting the semi-structured interview and focus-group questions conducted
among the pupils.
Research Participants
The participants of this study consisted of 5 purposively selected Year 3 pupils
who had experience of using the ChatterPix Kids mobile app as a tool for speaking
practices conducted during the MCO. They had developed fluency in their
speech, and their parents had closely witnessed these events. Prior to conducting
the study, both the pupils’ and parents’ consent were obtained through written
consent forms (see Appendix D - H). The pupils were from an urban national
primary school in Selangor state. Pseudonyms were given to the pupils (P1, P2,
P3, P4 and P5) and the parents (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5) to maintain their
confidentiality. These pseudonyms were used throughout the discussion. The 5
Year 3 pupils who were purposively chosen for this study had poor fluency when
speaking English and they scored in the relatively lower bands in the mid-term
CEFR classroom-based speaking assessment. However, an improvement in their
fluency was visible as they started practicing speaking alongside the use of the
ChatterPix Kids mobile app. They were therefore recruited as participants due to
their potential to provide substantial insights. Their parents were also included as
participants to obtain their feedback on the effect of using the ChatterPix Kids
mobile app on their children’s English-speaking fluency.
Data Analysis
The data was collected through semi-structured interviews, a focus group and an
open-ended questionnaire that were all transcribed in verbatim. The transcripts
were then analysed using the 6-phased thematic analysis proposed by Braun and
Clarke (2006) in order to understand how the use of ChatterPix Kids could have
helped the pupils develop their speaking fluency. First and foremost, the
transcriptions were read multiple times to become familiarised with the
participants’ responses. During this process, their theoretical and reflective

27
thoughts were penned down, and potential codes were jot down based on the
reviewed literature. Next, the initial codes were manually assigned to the data by
highlighting words, phrases and sentences that appear important and interesting
in relation to answering the research question. For example, responses such as
“can speak English more” and “can speak English always” were highlighted as
they were regarded as significant when forming the themes. In the third phase,
the identified codes were sorted into relevant themes. To come up with the
themes, the listed codes were linked to their associated extracts and then collated
into groups. For instance, the codes mentioned above were collated into one single
theme, ‘more engagement in speaking task’. The generated themes were then
linked to the concepts involved in the respective theories and concepts referred to
in this study. For instance, ‘active learning’ and ‘portability’. The themes were
then reviewed and refined. The identified extracts were checked to see whether
they support or contradict the themes suggested. Nevertheless, any overlapping
themes were either split or the codes were shifted into the existing themes where
they fit better. I the fifth phase, the identified themes were linked to the existing
literature and the previous studies were reviewed as a basis for forming the
theoretical and conceptual ideas in this study. At this point, the attributes of the
mobile devices coined by Klopfer et al. (2002) appeared to complement the
identified concepts. Finally, the discovered themes were reported in detail to
adequately answer the research question. They were further justified by referring
to the relevant extracts from the participants’ responses, reviewed literature, and
past studies.
Validity and Reliability
Guba and Lincoln (1989) argued that the “trustworthiness” of qualitative inquiry
could be established by addressing the following characteristics of a research,
which are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In this study,
the credibility of the data was ensured by having the Head of the English Panel in
the school in which the study was conducted perform member-checking on the
instruments that were prepared by the researcher before the data collection
process. In addition, the data was collected using 3 different instruments such as
semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and an open-ended questionnaire for
the purpose of data triangulation. This yields more rigorous findings and
provides a better understanding of the findings from different perspectives. The
transferability of the study’s findings was ensured by providing a detailed
account of the context of the study and the participants involved. In terms of the
increasing dependability, the researcher sought a colleague’s assistance when
performing the audit trail on the data collected in this study. Finally, data
confirmability was achieved by allowing the participants to read their
transcriptions to ensure that their responses were reported without being
fabricated. The participants’ identities remained confidential throughout the data
reporting.
4. Findings and Discussion
The findings of this study are presented by thematically analysing the responses
obtained from the pupils through the semi-structured interviews (SSI) and focus
group (FG) as well as their parents’ feedback obtained through the open-ended

28
questionnaire (OEQ). The data obtained from all 3 instruments was triangulated
to yield credible themes.
How does the use of the ChatterPix Kids mobile app help the pupils to speak
fluently?
The findings obtained in this study suggest that the use of the ChatterPix Kids
mobile app has helped the primary ESL pupils develop their speaking fluency.
Pupils who have been hesitating, stammering, stuttering, and facing difficulties
to express themselves fluently in English were discovered to have smoothness
when delivering oral messages after using ChatterPix Kids as a tool for speaking
practice. The analysis of the findings resulted in 7 themes as shown in Figure 2.0
below.
Figure 2.0 Themes raised in the analysis
The themes illustrated in Figure 2.0 above suggest how ChatterPix Kids could help
the pupils develop their speaking fluency. The themes were further discussed
with close reference to the relevant literature and past studies.
Authentic tasks in meaningful contexts
Roach et al. (2018) stated that authentic learning experiences could enable the
pupils to process new information or knowledge in such a way that it makes sense
to them in their frame of reference. Parallel to this, the pupils involved in this
study comprehended the words or phrases used to describe both living and non-
living objects around them. The ability to practice speaking using authentic
materials in meaningful contexts via ChatterPix Kids is made apparent through the
participants’ responses.
“I make my TV talk, chair and my cat. I also make the car to talk. That
day I take a picture of fruits and make it talk.” (P1, SSI)
“I think ChatterPix can help me to speak better in English because I can
let the things I like to talk in my voice.” (P2, FG)
“He made our cat to speak in his voice and he also made a birthday
wish for his brother by making his brother’s picture talk.” (Q1, OEQ)
The responses above clearly indicate that pupils were able to practice speaking
and were working towards developing their speaking fluency by exploiting the
various authentic materials available in their immediate surroundings. This
Themes Authentic tasks in meaningful contexts
More engagement in speaking tasks
Application of prior knowledge to current situations
Self-reflection and error correction
Flexibility in learning
Reduced fear and anxiety
Scaffolding from More Knowledgeable Others (MKO)

29
echoes the findings of the previous studies (Ahn & Lee, 2016; Abugohar et al.,
2019; Almarshadi et al., 2019; Gonulal, 2019; Kusmaryani et al., 2019; Sherine et
al., 2020). The mobile app being ‘context sensitive’ (Klopfer et al., 2002) is seen of
as helpful when making authentic learning possible.
More engagement in the speaking tasks
Constructivists believe that learners construct meaning only through active
engagement with the real-world tasks being performed (Piaget, 1968). Similarly,
the pupils in this study who were previously shy, anxious, less motivated, and
timid to speak in English during the classroom presentations started developing
confidence and an interest in the speaking tasks. This was because they could use
the ChatterPix Kids to practice speaking in any situation, be it inside or outside the
house because a smartphone is portable (Klopfer et al., 2002). The use of the app
increased the pupils’ engagement and widened the pupils’ speaking
opportunities. They proclaimed the following:
“The app lets me to talk more in English at home and when I go out
of my house. I can take picture of anything I like and speak in English to
make the picture talk.” (P3, SSI)
“(…) the app makes me to talk more English at home. I can talk in
English when I play with the app always.” (P1, FG)
Supporting this, one of the parents’ responded:
“The app helps him to express himself in English as he always uses
Malay at home.” (Q4, OEQ)
The infusion of ChatterPix Kids has profoundly increased the pupils’ engagement
with the speaking tasks. As the pupils become more engaged, their speaking
fluency eventually develops as indicated in the other studies done in MALL
environments (Darmi & Albion, 2017; Azlan et al., 2019; Gonulal, 2019;
Kusmaryani et al., 2019; Sherine et al., 2020; Yin, 2019).
Application of prior knowledge to current situations
Piaget (1968) argues that knowledge assimilation takes place as the learners
incorporate new experiences into their old experiences. In other words, linking
their prior knowledge to their current knowledge or vice versa. In this study,
pupils were discovered to use the words, phrases, and sentences taught to them
in both face-to-face and virtual speaking lessons in daily situations that they were
currently facing. Along this process, pupils find a ‘fit’ between their prior
knowledge and current knowledge thus helping them to orally produce smoother
speech with less hesitations and distortions as they tend to have reduced fillers
such as “umm”, “aah”, and “hmm” as they try searching for appropriate words
to be included in their speech. Supporting this, the pupils confessed the following:
“I can speak better because I use the sentences teacher teach me in
class.” (P1, SSI)
“(…) The app allows me to use the sentences I have learned in English.
I can practice saying the sentences more.” (P5, FG)
In addition, one of the pupils noted that he was able to remember
the words better as he uses them in his speech. He proclaimed that:
“I can practice words and sentences teacher has teach me in class. I
can remember better also.” (P3, SSI)

30
The pupils’ claims are further supported by one of the parents’ confessions:
“She is braver to speak in English freely because she can use the correct
words.” (Q2, OEQ)
As asserted by Perkins and Salomon (1988), it is important for learners to apply
the knowledge learned in one situation to other situations as it will improve their
comprehension. The pupils in this study were believed to gain a better
understanding of the use of the words learned before, enabling them to convey
their oral messages with ease and clarity. This echoes Darmi and Albion’s (2019)
findings.
Self-reflection and error correction
Next, the pupils in this study could have developed their speaking fluency as they
could perform ‘knowledge accommodation’ to modify their existing knowledge
when it does not fit the current situation (Piaget, 1968). As a matter of fact, the
ChatterPix Kids mobile app has allowed pupils to identify mistakes that cause
disfluency in speech such as long pauses, the wrong usage of words and too many
fillers. They performed self-corrections. The feature of the ChatterPix Kids mobile
app that allows pupils to re-record, play, pause, stop, and backtrack while
listening to their voice recordings provides ample opportunities for them to
meticulously listen and rectify their mistakes in terms of speaking fluency. Similar
results have been seen in a few studies (Moghaddas & Bashirnezhad, 2016; Darmi
& Albion, 2017; Soto & Zenteno, 2019) in which learners put in the effort to
perform better in the speaking tasks as they recorded and reviewed their speaking
performance. To substantiate this, the pupils were asked about what they
normally do if they think that their voice recordings are not fluent. They
mentioned the following:
“I will practice, and I will do the recording again. I will read the
sentences and remember then I will record my voice again.” (P1, SSI)
“I will record again until I get correct.” (P4, SSI)
Supporting this, one of the parents’ confessed:
“My child likes to replay the recordings again and again to check if he
has spoken correctly.” (Q1, OEQ)
As the pupils noticed errors in their recorded speech, they immediately recorded
their speech again to do better. Some of the pupils’ responses depict that they have
applied various strategies such as reading the sentences repeatedly, memorising
words, and self-rehearsing before recording their voice. This supports Nanjundan
et al.’s (2020) claim that MALL could promote the self-study concept and provide
self-learning opportunities.
Flexibility in learning
The use of ChatterPix Kids is regarded as flexible. This is because the pupils were
able to use the app for speaking practices in an extended learning environment
beyond their classroom context (Kukulska, 2009). At this point, the portability and
individuality features of the mobile devices (Klopfer et al., 2002) allow the
personalised learning to take place anywhere and at any time. The pupils
proclaimed that:

31
“I can speak English always by using the app because I can use it
anytime at different places. Like in my house, in my bedroom, at my
garden, and in my father’s car.” (P1, SSI)
“Yes, I can speak English more because the app is fun and interesting.
I make sure I speak only in English when I use the app.” (P5, FG)
Parents’ feedbacks add better insights on how ChatterPix Kids
offers convenient and flexible learning approaches to pupils.
“Yes, she can use the app anytime she wants. She will try speaking
English using different things she finds at home.” (Q2, OEQ)
The excerpts above support the findings of Tonekaboni (2019), Wan (2019) and
Wang and Hsu (2020) in which the learners involved in their study have practiced
speaking flexibly using mobile apps such as “English Daily”, “Fluent App”, and
“English Messenger”. Nevertheless, the pupils in this study were discovered to
be autonomous learners as they used ChatterPix Kids to carry out speaking
activities on their own without being dependent on their teacher (Lutfi, 2020).
Reduced fear and anxiety
Apart from that, the pupils’ responses depict that they have reduced fear and
anxiety when speaking in English if they use ChatterPix Kids. Pupils who were
initially shy, timid, and anxious about participating in speaking activities during
the speaking lessons in the classroom were detected to have improved self
confidence when speaking the target language with the help of ChatterPix Kids.
Moreover, the pupils proclaimed that the app allowed them to practice speaking
in a fun, less stressful, and playful manner. This lowered their anxiety when
uttering words in the target language. Accordingly, the participants responded as
follows:
“Not shy because I feel like playing the app is so nice and if speak wrong
can play again.” (P3, SSI)
“Yes, I can speak English more because the app is fun and interesting.
I make sure I speak only in English when I use the app.” (P5, FG)
“She is braver to speak in English freely.” (Q2, OEQ)
However, some pupils contended that:
“Sometimes I feel shy if I talk in front of my mother...but if I talk in
my room then I am not so shy.” (P2, SSI)
“I feel shy sometimes, but I also feel happy when they say the
recording is good.” (P5, SSI)
The responses above suggest that ChatterPix Kids has the potential to lessen the
pupils’ fear and anxiety, thus allowing them to speak the target language more
fluently. This echoes the findings of several studies that have proven that mobile
apps are a great motivational tool for learners to use to speak confidently (Ahn &
Lee, 2016; Abugohar et al., 2019; Tonekaboni, 2019). Furthermore, it supports
Azlan et al.’s (2019) and Shamsi et al.’s (2019) claims that the learners’ speaking
performance improved in less stressful environments. However, P2’s (SSI) and
P5’s (SSI) responses indicate that there is a need to further investigate how the
pupils’ confidence when speaking can be sustained while speaking in front of
others at the same time as in the absence of ChatterPix Kids.

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 20 No 4 April 2021