View in EDS

Twenty Years of MALL Project Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Learning Outcomes

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Twenty Years of MALL Project Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Learning Outcomes
Language: English
Authors: Burston, Jack
Source: ReCALL. Jan 2015 27(1):4-20.
Availability: Cambridge University Press. 100 Brook Hill Drive, West Nyack, NY 10994-2133. Tel: 800-872-7423; Tel: 845-353-7500; Fax: 845-353-4141; e-mail: subscriptions_newyork@cambridge.org; Web site: http://journals.cambridge.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Educational Technology, Technology Uses in Education, Second Language Instruction, Second Language Learning, Research Methodology, Instructional Effectiveness, Meta Analysis, Telecommunications, Grammar, Vocabulary Development, Reading Skills, Listening Skills, Speech Skills
DOI: 10.1017/S0958344014000159
ISSN: 0958-3440
Abstract: Despite the hundreds of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) publications over the past twenty years, statistically reliable measures of learning outcomes are few and far between. In part, this is due to the fact that well over half of all MALL-related studies report no objectively quantifiable learning outcomes, either because they did not involve MALL implementation projects, or if they did, learning gains were only based on subjective teacher assessments and/or student self-evaluations. Even more so, the paucity of statistically reliable learning outcome data stems from the short duration of projects and small numbers of students involved. Of the 291 distinct studies examined in this review only 35 meet minimal conditions of duration and sample size, i.e., ten experimental subjects over a period of at least a month. Sixteen of these suffer from serious design shortcomings, leaving only nineteen MALL studies that can reliably serve as a basis for determining the learning outcomes of mobile-based language applications. Of these studies, fifteen can be considered to report unequivocal positive results, with those focusing on reading, listening and speaking without exception evidencing a MALL application advantage. Four studies, all focusing on vocabulary, reported no significant differences.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1048414
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1048414
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Twenty Years of MALL Project Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Learning Outcomes
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burston%2C+Jack%22">Burston, Jack</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22ReCALL%22"><i>ReCALL</i></searchLink>. Jan 2015 27(1):4-20.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Cambridge University Press. 100 Brook Hill Drive, West Nyack, NY 10994-2133. Tel: 800-872-7423; Tel: 845-353-7500; Fax: 845-353-4141; e-mail: subscriptions_newyork@cambridge.org; Web site: http://journals.cambridge.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meta+Analysis%22">Meta Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grammar%22">Grammar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Skills%22">Listening Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Skills%22">Speech Skills</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1017/S0958344014000159
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0958-3440
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Despite the hundreds of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) publications over the past twenty years, statistically reliable measures of learning outcomes are few and far between. In part, this is due to the fact that well over half of all MALL-related studies report no objectively quantifiable learning outcomes, either because they did not involve MALL implementation projects, or if they did, learning gains were only based on subjective teacher assessments and/or student self-evaluations. Even more so, the paucity of statistically reliable learning outcome data stems from the short duration of projects and small numbers of students involved. Of the 291 distinct studies examined in this review only 35 meet minimal conditions of duration and sample size, i.e., ten experimental subjects over a period of at least a month. Sixteen of these suffer from serious design shortcomings, leaving only nineteen MALL studies that can reliably serve as a basis for determining the learning outcomes of mobile-based language applications. Of these studies, fifteen can be considered to report unequivocal positive results, with those focusing on reading, listening and speaking without exception evidencing a MALL application advantage. Four studies, all focusing on vocabulary, reported no significant differences.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1048414
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1048414
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1017/S0958344014000159
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 4
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meta Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Telecommunications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grammar
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Speech Skills
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Twenty Years of MALL Project Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Learning Outcomes
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burston, Jack
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0958-3440
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: ReCALL
              Type: main
ResultId 1