Reid 1

“If we educators are smart, we’ll figure out how to deliver our product in a way that fits
into our students’ digital lives – and their cell phones.”
- Marc Prensky (2004)

“Many people who don’t play video games, especially older people, are sure to say that
playing video games is a ‘waste of time.’”
- James Paul Gee (2007)

Abstract

There is a deep rift between those who subscribe to the idea that mobile learning can
promote meaningful, active learning and those who believe mobile phones have no place
in education. Likewise, there are those who encourage the implementation of serious
games with educational value, and those who insist that gaming is a meaningless and
wasteful activity. Therefore, fusing a serious game with a mobile learning device will
surely encounter critics of both the content and method by which it is being delivered.
Despite this, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate the effectiveness of a serious
game via a mobile device using the theoretical framework of Elaborative Rehearsal
(Reigeluth), Cognitive Load (Sweller), Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart),
Multimedia Theory (Mayer & Moreno), and the Theory of Mobile Learning (Sharples,
Taylor, & Vavoula).

Rationale

Although the term ‘m-Learning’ is constantly evolving, the eLearning Guild’s 2008
Mobile Learning Report describes it as “any activity that allows individuals to be more
productive when consuming, interacting with or creating information mediated through a
compact digital portable device that the individual carries on a regular basis”(Wexler, et
al. 2008, p.7). Digital natives (as Marc Prensky refers to the younger generation) carry
devices in their pockets that have the computing power of machines that once took up an
entire building; what could be perhaps the most effective didactic tool is staring educators
in the face. However, as m-Learning becomes more realized in education, the question
becomes, what do we do with it? One possibility is to combine serious gaming with
mobile devices.
 Reid 2

This study outlines a mobile game called Grammar Companion that focuses on
improving grammar. The target audience for the game is college freshmen in a
developmental English course. The game serves as remediation for basic grammatical
principles such as subject/verb agreement, comma usage, coordination, subordination,
and parts of speech. The objective for this game is to create a sense of engagement,
motivation, and personalization to otherwise dry, static, and impersonal material. Its
design is simple: drill and practice to reinforce the content as presented in class. It is not
the contention of this paper that mobile gaming should supplant core instruction. Instead
it should be used supplementary, repeatedly. In the context of basic grammar and
mathematics, which require mundane practice and repetition for improvement,
“[t]echnology may take the place of the teacher, as in drill and feedback”(Sharples,
2007).

Although there is abundant literature on m-Learning and on serious games respectively,

both are still in the early adoption stages. So, research in mobile gaming has not yet
yielded significant conclusions. Gerhard Schwabe and Christoper Goth write, “With
mobile game learning still in its infancy a deeper understanding of its design principles as
well as of arising opportunities and limitations is paramount”(Schwabe & Goth, 2005).

Learning Theory

One of the most important aspects of this game is that it is founded on contextualization.
Grammar Companion is designed as a mobile game because it is played in a learner-
controlled context. “Learners learn best when they can contextualise what they learn,
both for immediate application and to acquire personal meaning”(Ally, 2004). Grammar
Companion collaborates with the following theoretical frameworks in order to create a
memorable experience for the learner, process the information at a higher level of
cognition, and ultimately, improve retention of basic grammatical concepts.

(1) Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1992): This theory suggests that rehearsal of
 Reid 3

material results in optimized learning and retention. First and foremost, Grammar
Companion is a game. It is designed to increase learner motivation, participation, and
engagement towards grammatical content in a competitive atmosphere. The game uses
elaborative rehearsal to scaffold content through repetition and persistence. The game
utilizes a ‘drill & practice’ behavioral design because of its content. Reviewing the
concepts in a learner-controlled environment creates a context for the learner and
encourages a deeper understanding.

(2) Levels of Processing (Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S., 1972): Through this learning
theory, the learner codes the material at a higher level, and even further, links the material
with a familiar memory of when and where he was when he accessed the game on his
mobile device. For example, “after a word [or in this case, a grammar principle] is
recognized, it may trigger associations, images or stories on the basis of the subject’s past
experience with the word”(Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

(3) Mayer’s Multimedia Theory (Mayer & Moreno,1998): The authors propose five
major principles on incorporating multimedia in instruction. The most applicable
principle to Grammar Companion is the Multiple Representation Principle which states
“it is better to present an explanation using two modes of representation rather than
one”(Mayer & Moreno, 1998). By displaying the game on a mobile device with images
provides another medium for the grammar concepts to take place.

(4) Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988): Sweller contests that overloading
the learner with information is inhibitive to the learning process. Richard Mayer and
Roxana Moreno, authors of the above theory, confer that “a shorter presentation primes
the learner to select relevant information and organize it productively”(Mayer & Moreno,
1998). This is an important aspect of the mobile game. Grammar Companion presents the
information in short bursts of information creating a connection with the material
presented in the classroom. Marguerite Koole also acknowledges that “well-implemented
mobile education can assist in the reduction of cognitive load for learners”(Koole, 2009).
Ideally, the mobile game will transfer knowledge from short-term to long-term memory,
 Reid 4

and promote retention.

(5) Theory of Mobile Learning (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007): John Traxler
argues in a 2007 article that “‘mobile learning’ is emerging as an entirely new and
distinct concept alongside the ‘mobile workforce’ and the ‘connected society’”(Traxler,
2007). Subsequently, Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula propose that a theory of mobile
learning is appropriate and necessary. The criteria for this theory is that the theory must
be (1) significantly different from theories of classroom or workplace, (2) it must account
for the mobility of learners, (3) it must address formal and informal learning, (4) it must
theorize learning as constructive and a social process, and (5) a mobile learning theory
must analyze learning as a personal, situated activity mediated by technology (Sharples,
Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007). Grammar Companion aims to accomplish each of these
requirements.

Game Structure

Grammar Companion is used as a supplemental remediation tool in response to

classroom instruction. It uses the learning theories mentioned above to implement
rehearsal of grammar principles. The learner creates a customizable profile by uploading
a picture of his choice to the Grammar Companion account. The objective of the game is
for the user to accumulate the most points over the course of the semester, thus increasing
his class ranking. Points are awarded for correcting problematic sentences sent daily to
the mobile device. In the seated classroom, the instructor covers one area of grammar per
week. The corresponding grammatical sentences are sent to the user’s mobile device.

For example, a typical week in developmental English may cover the grammar rules of
subject/verb agreement. Direct instruction and practice is covered initially on the first
class of the week in the seated class. Then, for each subsequent day of the week, a
sentence that is problematic with subject/verb agreement is sent to the user’s mobile
device for correction (see figure 1). Additionally, a caption at the bottom of the interface
gives the user a hint on how to correct the sentence. The user types in the corrected
 Reid 5

sentence and submits (see figure 2). Instant feedback is provided with the problematic
sections of the sentence highlighted. If the user is correct in rewriting the sentence, points
are awarded. If they are incorrect, no points are awarded, but they still view the feedback
and corrected version of the sentence.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Study Procedures

The study will focus on three main research questions:

1. Applied as a supplement to seated classroom instruction, does Grammar Companion

on a mobile device increase student achievement?
Treatment: In a class of 20 students with access to a mobile device, deliver the
classroom-based lecture first, and then release one problematic sentence that
corresponds with that week’s content per day.
 Reid 6

Control Group: Class of 20 students with no access to the mobile game.

Independent Variable: Classroom of 20 students with access to mobile game.
Dependent Variable: End of the week grammar test over the material
Assessment: Compare the results of the grammar test of the control group with
the results of the Independent Variable group.

2. Applied as a supplement to seated classroom instruction, does Grammar Companion

improve retention of grammatical principles?
Treatment: In a class of 20 students with access to a mobile device, deliver the
classroom-based lecture first, and then release one problematic sentence that
corresponds with that week’s content per day.
Control Group: Class of 20 students with no access to the mobile game.
Independent Variable: Classroom of 20 students with access to mobile game.
Dependent Variable: Comprehensive end of the semester grammar test over the
material
Assessment: Compare the results of the grammar final of the control group with
the results of the Independent Variable group.

3. Applied as a supplement to seated classroom instruction, does Grammar Companion

improve writing ability?
Treatment: In a class of 20 students with access to a mobile device, deliver the
classroom-based lecture first, and then release one problematic sentence that
corresponds with that week’s content per day.
Control Group: Class of 20 students with no access to the mobile game.
Independent Variable: Classroom of 20 students with access to mobile game.
Dependent Variable: Amount of grammatical errors in a final draft of an essay
Assessment: Via the grammar checker in Microsoft Word, compare the number
of grammatical errors in the essays of the control group with the number of
grammatical errors in the essays of the Independent Variable group.

The statistical method preferred in the evaluation of these results is a multiple

 Reid 7

regression model where it is determined whether the independent variable affects or lends
support to the improvement of student achievement.

Conclusion

The main intent of the study is to determine whether a mobile game, when used as a
supplemental tool, will improve the grammar, retention, and writing of learners or
whether it has no statistically significant impact. Based on existing theoretical
frameworks, Grammar Companion incorporates important principles of learning into a
learner-controlled, mobile environment that promotes anytime, anywhere access to
course material. It is a motivating tool to engage students in course content using
fundamental applications of situated and informal learning. The results will yield whether
the mobile game produces better performance in the context of grammar and
developmental education students. The purpose of this study is not to promote mobile
gaming as an alternative to classroom instruction, instead, it is the contention of this
study that mobile learning and its subsets such as mobile gaming, is an effective
instructional strategy that has not yet been realized.

References

Ally, M. (2004). Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning
devices. Proceedings of the Mobile Learning 2004 International Conference,
Rome.
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of Processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
 Reid 8

Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.),

Empowering Learners and Educators with Mobile Learning. Athabasca, AB:
Athabasca University Press.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning:
Implications for design principles. In N.H. Naryanan, Ed. Electronic Proceedings
of the CHI’98 Workshop on Hyped-Media to Hyper-Media: Toward Theoretical
Foundations of Design, Use and Evaluation, Available at
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/csse/research/research_groups/vi3rg/WS.html
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile
Age,” in Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.): The Handbook of E-
Learning Research. Sage, London, pp.221-247.
Wexler, S., Brown, J., Metcalf, D., Rogers, D., & Wagner, E. (2008). elearning guild
research 360° report: Mobile learning. Santa Rosa, CA: eLearning Guild.
Schwabe, G., & Goth, C. (2005). Mobile Learning with a mobile game: design and
motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 204-216.