Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of platform
Open accessAbstract
While problems such as small screens and inconvenient keypads have been pointed out by researchers (e.g., Thornton & Houser, 2002), we still have little knowledge of how the mobile platform affects the way in which activities are completed and how learners make decisions about using mobile phones.Stockwell (2007b) provided preliminary evidence that learners generally require more time to complete vocabulary activities and achieved slightly lower scores on mobile phones when compared to completing the same activities on desktop computers, but data in the study were limited.The current study examines 175 pre-intermediate learners of English who could choose to complete vocabulary activities on either a mobile phone or a desktop computer to identify the effect of the mobile platform.Data were collected from three cohorts of learners over a three-year period, and learner activity was analysed for the amount of time required to complete activities on both platforms and the scores they achieved for the activities.The results of the study are discussed in terms of how the platform affects learners' ability to complete tasks, whether continued usage contributes to improved performance or sustained usage of the mobile platform over time.Trends across the yearly cohorts were also identified.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Notifications are typically sent at random times or hard-coded times in the LMS app, which might not be based on theoretical/empirical reasoning and might result in undesirable learning impacts.
“Typically, notifications are sent at a random time of day or whatever time has been hard-coded in the LMS app-which might not be based on theoretical/empirical reasoning, both of which might result in undesirable learning impacts (Tabuenca et al., 2015; Stockwell, 2010).”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Stockwell, 2010
The 'Mobile Phones and Vocabulary Learning' section says teachers controlled the timing and frequency of messages in two studies, and some learners found the messages too frequent. It does not say that LMS notifications are typically random or hard-coded, lack a theoretical or empirical basis, or cause undesirable learning outcomes. The supplied passages give no page number. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe problem experienced in the Stockwell (2010) study is a common occurrence in distance and e-learning.
“The problem experienced in the Stockwell (2010) study is a common occurrence in distance and e-learning”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Stockwell (2010)
The Conclusion (page unavailable) identifies problems in the study, including learners’ reluctance to try mobile technology and the longer time activities could take on phones. It does not establish that any of these problems is a common occurrence in distance and e-learning generally; the citing sentence also does not specify which problem it means. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStockwell (2010) found no instances of learners acting on activities within a six-hour period after receiving an email notification.
“The author found no instances of learners acting on the activities within a six-hour period after receiving the email notification from the server.”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Stockwell, 2010
The Data Collection and Analysis section says the server logs recorded activity start and completion times, but does not report responses to email notifications. Implications for Further Research proposes sending email reminders as a future option. Searches for a six-hour period and server email notifications found no passage reporting the claimed finding. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Ally, M. (2009). (Ed.). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education & training. Athabasca: AU Press.
- Browne, C., & Culligan, B. (2008). Combining technology and IRT testing to build student knowledge of high frequency vocabulary. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(2), 3-16.
- Chen, N.-S., Hsieh, S.-W., & Kinshuk. (2008). Effects of short-term memory and content representation type on mobile language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 93-113. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num3/chenetal.pdf
- Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students' pronunciation? Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 66-86. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/ducatelomicka.pdf
- Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2008). L'italiano al telefonino: Using SMS to support beginners' language learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 315-350.
- Kiernan, P., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning. Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84.
- Koole, M. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education & training (pp. 25-47). Athabasca: AU Press.
- Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Mobile usability and user experience. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 45-56). London: Routledge.
- Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). (Eds.). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.
- Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 76-83). London: Routledge.
- Ma, Q. (2004). Theoretical and design issues for a computer assisted vocabulary learning program: WUFUN. Proceedings of the Eleventh International CALL Conference (pp. 241-251). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
- Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
- Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). Top of the pods-In search of a podcasting "podagogy" for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 471-492.
- Stockwell, G. (2007a). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105-120.
- Stockwell, G. (2007b). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383.
- Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 253-270.
- Taylor, R.P., & Gitsaki, C. (2003). Teaching WELL in a computerless classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 275-294.
- Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2002). M-learning: Learning in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing face of CALL: A Japanese perspective (pp. 229-243). The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
- Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217-228.
- Wang, S., & Higgins, M. (2006). Limitations of mobile phone learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 3- 14.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lin, J.-J., & Lin, H. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1541359 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Hoi, V. N. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103761 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Elgort, I. (2018) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.34554 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“The latter were studies that incorporated mobile-assisted language learning (e.g., Amer, 2014; Andu-jar, 2016; Stockwell, 2010; Terantino, 2016), intercultural exchanges (e.g., Lin, 2016) and other CMC studies (e.g., Kozar, 2016; Yilmaz & Yuksel, 2011), and longitudinal studies (e.g.,…”
BackgroundSher, V., Hatala, M., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2022.6697 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“We used trace data to determine contextual TOD preferences from usage logs, as opposed to the current paradigm of surveys and questionnaires (Romero & Barberà, 2011; Stockwell, 2010; Luo, Pan, Choi, & Strobel, 2018; Davidson & Ritchie, 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- Authors
- Stockwell, G.
- Affiliations
- Waseda University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Stockwell, Glenn
- ORCID
- Stockwell, Glenn
- Venue
- Language Learning & Technology
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-110
- ISSN
- 1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136139529
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 49.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
- Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- mobile devices, vocabulary acquisition, mobile learning, learner performance, task completion time, student decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
