Powerpoint slides from my presentation at the EuroCALL 2014 conference.

1. Towards a Framework for
Evaluating Language Learning
Mobile Apps
Fernando Rosell-Aguilar
@FRosellAguilar
Department of Languages, The Open University

2. Overview
• Apps for language learning
• Taxonomy
• In search of a framework
• Final thoughts

3. Apps for language learning
• New market since 2007 (iPhone) + iPad 2010
• “Game changer” (Goodwin-Jones, 2001)
– Functionalities
– Competitors followed (Android, Windows...)
• 50 billion apps downloaded by May 2013
• Potential for ubiquitous learning opportunities, ease of
use, collaborative potential, content access, productivity
(Murphy, 2011)
• Fits with constructivism; rhizomatic learning; use of
authentic materials; informal and lifelong learning;
learning objects; CALL; MALL theories and practices of
just in time teaching.

4. Apps for language learning
• “Super powers” (Sweeney & Moore, 2012)
– Screen size
– touch screen
– enhanced text entry
– high-quality image, audio and video playback, recording, editing and
sharing
– voice recognition
– storage
– Fast connectivity
– Geolocation
– Bluetooth connection
(Goodwin-Jones, 2011)

5. Apps for language learning
• Criticisms
– Often “designed by developers with little knowledge of language
learning” (Moore, 2011)
– Often replicate what’s been done before: “pedagogically nothing
new has been done with smartphones that has not already been
done with earlier mobile devices” (Burston, 2014)
– Most apps focus on cognitive processes and receptive skills
(Kim & Kwon, 2012). Little socio-cognitive activity or
collaborative learning.
– Have we gone 20 years back to behaviourist CALL?
• This is changing.

6. Apps for language learning
• Research:
Wide ownership, enjoyable (Khaddage & Latemann,
2013)
Some indications of language learning improvement:
– Reading (McLanahan et al, 2012; Harmon, 2012)
– Listening (Lys, 2013, Kim, 2013)
– Vocabulary (Yildiz, 2012)
– Verb conjugation (Castañeda & Cho, 2013)
– Character writing (Shinagawa, 2014, Rosell-Aguilar & Kan, 2014)

7. Taxonomies of apps for learning

8. Sweeney & Moore (2012):
• Productivity Apps and non-dedicated apps for LL
• General Education and Creativity Tools
• Dedicated Apps for LL

9. My taxonomy

10. How do we evaluate apps?
A number of frameworks have been proposed:
• Walker (2010)
• Schrock (2011)
• Vincent (2013)
• Peachey (2013)
Specific to Language Learning:
• Rosenthal Tolisano (2012)
• Sweeney & Moore (2012)
• Rodríguez-Arancón, Arús & Calle (2013)
Koole’s frame model

11. Walker (2010)
• Curriculum connection: skills practised match target
• Authenticity: problem based
• Feedback
• Differentiation: flexibility to meet needs
• User friendliness: degree which learners can engage
• Motivation

12. Schrock (2011-2013)
• Curriculum connection
• Authenticity
• Feedback
• Differentiation
• User friendliness
• Student motivation
• Reporting: data available to student / teacher
• Sound: use of music / sound
• Instructions
• Support page

13. Peachey (2013)
• Accessibility: across different platforms
• Learning outcomes
• Price
• Digital literacy
• Learnable (user friendliness)
• Interaction
• Registration
• Authenticity
• Reusability
• Security
• Prolonged use (motivation)
• Context

14. Vincent (2013)
• Relevance (Curriculum connection)
• Help available
• Appropriate content
• Information error-free,factual & reliable
• Customization (differentiation)
• Good technical design
• Accessible
• Feedback
• Thinking skills
• Engagement (motivation)
• Sharing: can be exported and transferred to other devices
• Price
• Works well
• No advertising
• Updates
• Promotes creativity and collaboration

15. Rosenthal Tolisano (2012)
• Content: authenticity, curriculum connections,
personalisation, differentiation, publishing (exporting)
• Logistics: user friendliness, no advertising, ease of
management, image and sound quality, access to
unmoderated content
• Sustitution vs transformation model: substitution (same
task can be done without device), augment (improves
task), modify (task redesign), redefine (new tasks),
amplify (using app allows building and deepening skills)
• Fluency: ability to move smoothly between tasks, import
from other apps
• Evidence of learning: research, development,
presentation, participation, design.

16. Sweeney & Moore (2012)
• Allows personalization
• Visible progress indicators
• Covers relevant language
• Covers more than one skill
• Maximizes exposure to target language
• Appropriate for the device (content, activity, interface)
• Encourages learning behaviours which correspond with
what we know about general mobile-enabled behaviour
patterns (includes social and gamification aspects)

17. Rodríguez-Arancón, Arús & Calle
(2013)
• Cognitive value and pedagogic competence
• Content quality
• Capacity to generate learning
• Interactivity and adaptability
• Motivation
• Format and layout
• Usability
• Accessibility
• Visibility
• Compatibility

18. Lots of factors and criteria!
• Which ones do we choose? Some? All?
• Are all criteria relevant to all apps?

19. Criteria to evaluate Education Apps

21. Final considerations
• Do not expect an app to do it all, but to do what it does
well.
• Wouldn’t expect perfection from other media or type of
resources.
• Use framework to develop skills to evaluate apps.
• Each individual has different needs.
• “The one app to rule them all” doesn’t exist: use App
Mashing to create a synergy of different skills to suit
learners with different needs at different stages, different
levels, different times.

22. Thank you!
¡Gracias!
@FRosell-Aguilar
Fernando.Rosell-Aguilar@open.ac.uk