2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

12
122
2
5

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 210 publications
(160 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(8 reference statements)
12
122
2
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Although this area of CALL inquiry is still in its infancy, the current literature provides mixed results of IDLE for language learning. For example, Burston (2014Burston ( , 2015 and Sung, Chang, and Yang (2015) have reported that mobile language learning in informal settings produced limited effects. In contrast, other studies have suggested a positive relationship between IDLE and L2 outcomes such as speaking (Mitra, Tooley, Inamdar, & Dixon, 2003), writing (Sun et al, 2017), vocabulary (Jensen, 2017; Sundqvist & Wikstr€ om, 2015;Sylv en & Sundqvist, 2012), reading and listening (Sylv en & Sundqvist, 2012) and formal testing (Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015;Sundqvist & Wikstr€ om, 2015).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this area of CALL inquiry is still in its infancy, the current literature provides mixed results of IDLE for language learning. For example, Burston (2014Burston ( , 2015 and Sung, Chang, and Yang (2015) have reported that mobile language learning in informal settings produced limited effects. In contrast, other studies have suggested a positive relationship between IDLE and L2 outcomes such as speaking (Mitra, Tooley, Inamdar, & Dixon, 2003), writing (Sun et al, 2017), vocabulary (Jensen, 2017; Sundqvist & Wikstr€ om, 2015;Sylv en & Sundqvist, 2012), reading and listening (Sylv en & Sundqvist, 2012) and formal testing (Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015;Sundqvist & Wikstr€ om, 2015).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As summarized by Burston [18], most MoLL studies focus on the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, describe project implementations with varying degrees of specificity, and explore primarily vocabulary learning in short-term contexts. A meta-analysis of 44 publications on MoLL revealed that mobile-assisted language instruction does indeed result in meaningful language improvements, meaning that 70% of students in mobile-assisted classrooms would outperform students in non-mobile-assisted classrooms [19]. Additionally, learning effects were similar across age groups, and both commercial and specifically designed software appear to produce similar learning results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…With the similar idea of integrating technology into language education, MALL offers a great deal of advantages which CALL cannot offer. One of the major aspects that differentiate MALL from CALL is mobility and portability (Kadyte, 2004;Sung, Chang, & Yang, 2015). Mobile devices are easily carried around, making teaching and learning possible in many circumstances.…”
Section: Mobile-assisted Language Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%