EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD MOBILE–ASSISTED

LANGUAGE LEARNING AT TERTIARY LEVEL

A JOURNAL

Submitted to the English Department Faculty of Teaching and Educational

Sciences University of Swadaya Gunung Jati Cirebon in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements Sarjana Pendidikan (S1) Degree

by
FAUZIAH
Std. ID Num. 114060114

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHING AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SWADAYA GUNUNG DJATI
CIREBON
2018
 EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD MOBILE–ASSISTED
LANGUAGE LEARNING AT TERTIARY LEVEL

FAUZIAH

University of Swadaya Gunung Jati,

Indonesia

fziah96@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This thesis presents the findings of a study to analyse EFL students‟ perception
toward mobile–assisted language learning at tertiary level. Participants were
twenty one students which five males and sixteen females who registered in an
Undergraduate of English Education. The study employed a qualitative method
and descriptive case study as its design. The data collected from thirty four items
of five sections for questionnaires which adopted from El Boukhari GHRIEB
(2015) and also conducted interview. The data analysed using frequency of the all
respondents with likert scale. The finding of this study was positive impact. The
most of college students performed positive responses towards mobile-assisted
language learning questionnaire. While, from interview, it was found that the use
of mobile devices by respondents got more benefits than barriers. In view of these
findings, the implications for the issue of EFL college students with mobile-
assisted language learning were discussed.

Keywords: Perception, EFL college students, Mobile-Assisted Language

Learning.
 INTRODUCTION

Students are thus able to gain information, share knowledge and learn
whatever they (Sharples et al., 2007). It is difficult to uncover or detect the
thought of processes and motivations behind learner activity and how much a
specific activity represents a competency, skill, attribute or expertise. In other
words, it seems relatively unclear what is considered efficient in the world of
mobile learning. For those reasons, learners are using Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning in either explicit or implicit manner. This can be observed
in students‟ behaviour on listening, texting, and audio-visual watching
(projector or LED), as an example. Campbell (2006) reported that young
people ages 18-23 are more tolerant on mobile phones in the classroom when
compared to older age brackets. Essentially, Young people as students tend to
have very positive perceptions of mobile phones and regard the technology as
an necessary tool for social connection (Campbell, 2006, p. 290). Language
learners are studying in more explicit way of using the m-technology as well.
This can be observed from students‟ use of mobile phone for listening to
podcasting, translating words and comprehend the video in other language.
The research in perception toward MALL has been conducted by several
researchers, Among others are Brandl, (2002) Valarmathi, (2011) Kukulska
Hulme, (2012). The review and analysis of publications on the topic of
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning demonstrates that in developed countries
modern mobile devices are used in the field of teaching, education,
management, organization of learning, as well as technical means of
education support for college students. The significant of their use originates
from the beginning of 21st century in various areas of social life or even social
worker. The attention towards Mobile-Assisted Language Learning increases
more significant in colleges, which is established by the increased amount of
scientific publications and International Scientific Conferences (e.g.,
mLearner, IMCL), scientific journals and books (Brandl, 2002; Valarmathi,
2011). The writer had interview the English teacher at one school in Cirebon,
he said mobile phone is able to use while teacher teach in setting. It is more
challenging for the teacher because they can use app or game randomly, so
teacher should be innovative and creative. Students also have many benefits
from technology at collage. But some of them, argues they don‟t put mobile
phone or mobile devices into their passion.
Kukulska Hulme argues that reporting learner activity is not
comprehensive enough, and that there is a call for more comprehensive
studies. In this research, concentrate on the impact of current studies using
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. From the researchers (Brandl, 2002;
Valarmathi, 2011; Kukulska Hulme, 2012), the writer intends to conduct
research with the tittle “EFL Students‟ Perception toward Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning at One University in Cirebon.”

Research Question
Based on the background above, the problem of this study could be
formulated as follows:
1. What are the perceptions of EFL college students toward the use of
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning in the classroom?
2. How are college students‟ attitudes on Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning as EFL students?

Objective of the Study

In this study, the researcher will know the perceptions of EFL college
students toward the use of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning inside in the
classroom.
Also the attitudes of EFL college students are the second concerned in
this study towards Mobile-Assisted Language Learning.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

1. Mobile Learning
The nature of methods m-learning and e-learning are made some
researchers suspicious, the way students access the internet; mobile
 phone are best suited to bite-sized courses, e-learning is more structured
and formal, mobile devices can be used just-in-time and on imposition
learning at the moment it is needed, and m-learning needs a new strategy
of assessment. Winters (2006) categorizes the definitions of mobile
language learning into four main categories: technocentric, relations to e-
learning, augmented formal education, and learner centered.
How they connect to each other, and where they fit into. Intensely,
(Brown, 2003) asks over the past decade we have become familiar with
the term e-learning and now m-learning is emerging. Brown (2003)
believes, on the other hand, that e-leaning is a macro notion that include
both online and mobile learning. In other words, mobile learning is a
subset of e-learning which is in turns a subset of distance learning.
2. Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL)
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning commonly defined as the use of
mobile devices in language learning and teaching. Viberg and Gronlund
(2012) construed m-Learning is a branch of the growing field of Mobile-
Assisted Language Learning. MALL differ from Computer-Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) in its use of personal, portable devices that
enable new ways of learning emphasizing conttinuity or spontaneity of
access and interaction across different contexts of use (Kukulska-Hulme,
2013, p. 3701). Warschauer and Healy argue that the main emphasis of
communicative Computer-Assisted Language Learning is on what the
learners can achieve while interacting with each other using computer
than on while the learners are interacting with the machine.
Learning with mobile devices Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
can occur in a multitude of environtments in addition to offering
possibilities for informal, contextual and spontaneous learning (Duman et
al., 2015; Sharples et al., 2007). Mobile Assisted Language Learning
provides ubiquitous access to learning opportunities (Kukulska-Hulme,
2010). Mobile devices, unlike computer, can provide the learners with
immediate or instant access to the internet.
 On the other hand, Stockwell and Hubbard (2013) argue that Mobile-
Assisted Language Learning is not a fully independent. The two major
field that MALL bounds to are: Computer Assisted Language Learning
and Mobile-Assisted Language Learning in common. This is not to deny
that MALL receives its foundation from Second Language Acquisition
(SLA). This demand tries to represent MALL in Venn diagram where
Computer Assisted Language Learning, mobile learning and Mobile-
Assisted Language Learning overlap in some areas. This is a key feature
resulted from the portability of the devices which is absent in computers.
It is this which makes some researchers such as (Traxler, 2007) believe
that learning with mobile devices is becoming more personalized,
situated, and authentic. As in other technology-enhanced language
learning becomes more flexible, learning is becoming more integrated
with everyday life. MALL has also spotlighted the social aspect of
language learning by mutual support in online social spaces. It seems that
research in Mobile-Assisted Language Learning has not yet shown what
is considered as efficient in Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (Duman
et al., 2015; Kukulska-Hulme, 2010).
3. Mobile Learning in Higher Education
Regarding the question, why higher education in particular need to
focus on mobile learning? Quinn (2012) convincingly states that mobile
devices are out there, and consequently they can be ignored to the
instructor‟s risk or capitalized on for the learner‟s benefit. Mobile
learning has the potential to support all forms of education be it primary,
second, or high school. However, higher education in particular is more
appropriate to integrate students-centered mobile learning (Cheon, Lee,
Crooks, and Song, 2012). Students are using their mobile devices for
learning purposes, if not in formal way with their lecturers and
administrators, they are doing it informally among themselves. On a
campus, the physical site could be memographed with digital records of
college history, tour information, and campus digital life. Consider the
 manifold implications for intellectual property (recall Third Voice and
EQuill). Sometimes students are using their devices with their lecturers
either to answer a question or for rearranging the schedule. In all, they
are using them, and as a result upper education can exploit the
opportunities that these devices are seizing Quinn (2012).
4. EFL College Students
English as a Foreign Language who learn in campus or named
college students. It means English becomes foreign language for college
students because they are not an native speakers of England.
5. Benefits and Challenges of MALL
The successful realization or implementation of mobile learning
hints looking at what these new developed devices have to offer for
education, and the limitation that might stand before any attempt to foster
its occupation. Therefore, investigated mobile devices as eligible tools in
education.
a. MALL Benefits
Mobile devices have a certain added privileges, consequently
they offer new opportunities for language instruction. According to
(Chaka, 2009), It is these privileges which make mobile phones a
multi-purpose teaching and learning devices. Agnes Kukulska-
Hulme (2006) also points out that the utilise of mobile technologies
is still rather new. She encompasses this as follows: “We are still in
the early days of the application of mobile technologies to language
learning. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of early examples feature
rather conventional approaches, reflected in activities that take some
advantages of portability but do not yet appear to be exploiting the
full range of potential. It seems that there is always a hunger for the
comfortably acquainted basics: typically, vocabulary and grammar,
in the form of structured modules and exercises. Mobile devices are
well equal to support these kinds of activity, whose value should not
be dismissed, but mobile learning has far more to offer.” (p. 119).
 The portability of mobile as media is another benefit. They can
be just as there is no a big problem or easily utulized outside of the
classroom as they can in it; learners can study or practice
manageable chunks of information in any place on their own time,
thereby taking more advantages of their convenience. Ultimately,
what these benefits indicate is the potential Mobile Assisted
Language Learning has in expending social inclusion in language
learning. Mobile phones can deliver interesting, engaging and
motivating learning activities. Learners like these affordances of
mobile technology where they can relate with their peers to complete
learning activities (Palalas, 2011). From the standpoint of
transactional farness, also mobile phones have an advantage. The
instructors can initiate the learners into a learning environtment
where they provide initial scaffolding and then gradually withdraw
the support to allow learners take charge of their learning (Park,
2011).
b. MALL Challenges
Researchers have argued that the primary mechanism underlying
reason of the negative effects of cell phone use is through reduced
attention to the classroom lecture. Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning also poses related challenges, for instance; inherent or
flexible to carry to wherever but in the portability of mobile media
are reduced screen sizes, limited audiovisual quality, virtual
keyboarding and one-finger data entry, and finite power. Further,
their availability can be limited. Nevertheless, Gilgen (2004) has
demonstrated the possibilities of increasing mobile labs for schools
with limited funding.
Other potential drawbacks include finite nonverbal
communications, limited message lengths, a lack of cultural context,
and potentially limited social interaction. While mobile technologies
are advancing, their output is rapidly moving from verbal to visual, a
 clear disadvantage for language learning (Colpaert, 2004).
Connection troubles are also a concern: web-based language learners
might choose to limit their online connection times, or they may not
have access at all.
By reducing attention during class, information is not properly
lay away or stored, thus resulting in poor retention of the material.
Proof has shown that at least 30% of the information is lost when
texting during a lecture (Froese et al., 2012) and as many as 89% of
students shifted their attention to leisure activities during class rather
than praying full attention to the lecture (Levine et al., 2007). These
distracting effects of mobile phone use in the classroom also extend
to nearby students who are not using their cell phone (End,
Worthman, Mathews, & Wetterau, 2009) These distractions have
even led to the notion that mobile phone usage is more disruptive
than talking during classroom lectures, which can lead to students‟
impaired concentration and missing key class notions (Aagaard,
2015; Cutino & Nees, 2016; King, Valenca, & Nardi, 2010; Shaw,
2009; Wood et al., 2012). A second mechanism proposed for the
negative effects of cell phone usage is suboptimal learning strategies,
beyond poor attention. While cell phone ownership may be almost
universal for college-aged individual, this is not true for other
populations or media. The costs to educational institutions of
purchasing them the whole could be staggering.
6. Perception
According to O‟Connor and Geiger (2009) who states that
perceptions is a process of receiving, selecting, organizing,
interpreting, evaluating and giving reaction to stimulant of the senses
or data. Based on the definitions above, it can be summarized that
perception is a process of recognizing/receiving the stimulant in
form of events, objects, or other through the senses, then those
stimulant are organized and interpreted, and lastly giving reaction
 toward them. (Traxler, 2007) believe that learning with mobile
technologies is becoming more personalized, situated, and authentic.
Baran (2014) draws the attention to a positive perspective on the
integration of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning to teacher
education; however, emphasizes the need for theoretical approaches,
a variety of research methodology and professional development
models relating Mobile-Assisted Language Learning to pedagogical
and professional practices.
Based on the elaboration above, it can be concluded that
perception has several principles. They are relative perception,
selective perception, object arrangement and influenced perception.
They are the basic things related to the perception itself.
7. Attitude
Attitudes, in general, are defined as a positive or negative
evaluation of people, objects, event, activities, ideas, or just about
anything in a person‟ environment. Brown (2000: p. 180) has
defined attitude, like all aspects of the development of cognition and
effect in human beings, develop early in the childhood and are the
result of parents‟ and peers‟ attitude of contact with people who are
“different” in any number of ways, and of interacting factors in the
human experience.
An attitude is an individual‟s disposition to react with a certain
degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to an object, behavior,
person, institution, or to any other discriminable aspect of the
individual‟s world. Attitude is a hypothetical construct. Being
inaccessible to direct observation, it must be inferred from
measurable reactions to the attitude object. Beyond the requirement
that these reactions reflect favorable or unfavorable evaluations of
the object, there are virtually no limitations to the kinds of responses
that can be considered. To simplify matters it is possible to
categorize attitude-relevant responses into various subgroups.
 The most popular classification scheme goes back at least to
Plato and distinguishes between three categories of responses:
cognition, affect, and conation (Allport et al 1954). Within each of
these categories it is also useful to separate verbal from nonverbal
reactions. Based on Rosenberg & Hovland‟s argue the different
types of responses from which attitudes can thus be inferred. The
cognitive category contains perceptions of, and information about.
Cognitive indicators of attitude thus involve verbal expressions of
beliefs or nonverbal perceptual reactions. Affective responses
include verbal expressions of feelings toward the attitude object as
well as physiological reactions, facial expressions, and other
nonverbal indicators of positive or negative feelings. Finally,
responses of a conative nature are behavioral inclinations, plans,
intentions, and commitments, as well as various overt motor acts
involving the attitude object.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

1. Result
a. Questionnaire Analysis
In this study, the writer gave the college students a questionnaire
with 34 statements. The writer used questionnaire to investigate the
perception and attitude of EFL students‟ toward mobile assisted
language learning at tertiary level. The questionnaire was
administered in upperclass of Swadaya Gunung Jati University. The
writer explains the analysis of the questions from 21 college students
and total percentage is 100%.
1) Validity
The questionnaire is valid if value of Pearson Correlation >
0,68. Value 0,68 obtained from table r statistic which the amount
of object is eleven. But, in this study the validity of questionnaire
 is not really considerate. The writer relies on how the results by
object on this study which focused.
Table 3.1

Item Item Item Item Item Item Item

2 15 16 18 21 29 30

Pearson ,614* ,786** ,713* ,687* ,730* ,613* ,855**

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) ,045 ,004 ,014 ,020 ,011 ,045 ,001

N
11 11 11 11 11 11 11

The questionnaire has thirty four items or questions with

eleven object, but from those items only seven items which valid.
The more stars above the more valid questions which is item
fifteen and item thirty.
b) Reliability
The questionnaire is reliable if value of Cronbach‟s Alpha >
0,60. From the table bottom, value of Cronbach‟s Alpha is 0,63.
So, the questionnaire is reliable.
Table 3.2

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
,635 ,587 35
  The Frequent of Usage Mobile Device in the Classroom
Section 1

Frequency of daily uses of Mobile Devices inside the

Classroom
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Never
50%
Seldom
40%
30% Sometimes
20% Frequently
10%
Always
0%
Access the Taking Reading Translating Recording Taking pict
internet notes PDF/Note “use the lecturer from
electronic whiteboard
dictionary”

Figure 4.1
The three most frequency of the use of mobile device were
translating via digital dictionary, connecting for internet and taking pict
from whiteboard. The daily uses of mobile devices inside the classroom
was seldom, although 52,4% of the respondent judged always to translate
vocabulary via digital dictionary. While taking notes the respondents
forechoose to sometimes and seldom still the lower choice. In reading
PDF/note the most answer is the same with the previous statement which
is sometimes beside that there is not respondents who answer seldom and
never. The statement translating or use it as electronic dictionary the
students mostly choose always while the lowest answer is seldom.
Recording the lecturer the students prefer to choose never and the lower
answer is frequently while there is not answering always. Taking pict
from whiteboard the most answer is frequently while the lowest is
seldom and never.
  The Students Readiness on Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Section 2
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree
60%
Neutral
50%
Agree
40%
Strongly agree
30%
20%
10%
0%
I am I can I want to
ready to afford use my
use the own
MALL payment MALL
of
internet
access

Figure 4.2

The data showed that the majority of the respondents were agree
with percentage 66,7% from statement one, 47,6% from statement two
and 66,7% from statement three which means be ready to use mobile
assisted language learning inside classroom, as the result of section two
from statement one the largely answer was agree while the low answer
was neutral. The statement two about can afford the payment of internet
access for learning purposes, the highest respond answer was agree and
the lowest answer was neutral. The statement three was about use their
own mobile assisted language learning, the answer was the same with the
previous statement that was the most respond was agree while the lowest
answer was neutral.
 The Usage Mobile Device Inside Classroom
Section 3

Using mobile devices inside classroom

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Strongly disagree
30%
20% Disagree
10% Neutral
0%
Agree
Strongly agree

Figure 4.3

The four most agreement on usage mobile device inside classroom

were mobile devices should be encouraged inside classroom with
percentage 61,9%, 57,1% on mobile assisted language learning can be
used as a supplementary to printed material, 47,6% on mobile devices
should be used for learning purposes inside classroom and mobile
devices should be allowed as a learning material with percentage 52,4%.
The more details the statement one. The statement number two, was
about mobile assisted language learning can enhance collaboration inside
classroom. There were neutral as the most answer and strongly agree as
the lowest choice. The statement three, was about the use of mobile
devices inside classroom enhance interaction. There were the greatest
answer neutral while the contrary was disagree. The statement four, was
about mobile devices should be allowed as a learning material.
 Factors Impacting on uses Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Section 4

Factors impacting College Students’ use of the

Mobile Assisted Language Learning
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% Agree
10%
Neutral
0%
Disagree

Figure 4.4
The two most significant on factors the use of mobile assisted
language learning by college students were 47,6% agree with statement
college students have different technology mobile devices and 28,6%
agree with statement MALL has small screen and small keypad. The
statement number one, was about lack the training to use mobile assisted
language learning. There were the highest answer was disagree while the
lowest answer was agree and neutral. Result of the statement two, was
about do not think that MALL is useful for learning/teaching purposes.
The respondent prefer to choose disagree rather than agree or neutral.
The data showed on statement three, was about MALL has small screen
and small keypad that the majority of the respondents were neutral, as the
result percentage 57,1% and the lowest 14,3% who answered disagree.
 Attitude of College Students on Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Section 5

College Students’ Attitude toward mobile

assisted language learning

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Strongly disagree
30%
20% Disagree
10%
0% Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

Figure 4.5
a. The most aggrement on mobile assisted language learning were mobile
devices are good tool for vocabulary activities, appreciate to send a
message to my classmates and teacher‟s learning material to their
mobile phone through internet and about mobile devices are good tools
to keep in touch with other students outside classroom. The bar
number one was about mobile devices are good tool for listening
activities, the respondents prefer to choose agree rather than strongly
agree which was the lowest answer. The bar number two was about
mobile devices are good tool for writing activities, the majority data
was neutral and the lower was strongly disagree. The bar number three
was about mobile devices are good tool for speaking activities, there
were the highest respond which was agree while the lowest answer
was neutral and disagree. The bar number four was about mobile
devices are good tool for reading activities, there were majority answer
was agree while the lower was neutral. The bar number five was about
that mobile devices are good tool for vocabulary activities, the
respondents prefer to choose agree
2. Discussion
a. Questionnaire
The questionnaire result indicates, there is a positive impact of
using mobile device in language learning. This study parallel with the
result of research by Mr. El Boukhari Ghrieb (2015) who researched
about teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards the use of mobile
assisted language learning. He reported that he found students have
shown their willingness and readiness to adapt mobile assisted
language learning. But, teachers still perceive the process of
mainstreaming MALL is not opportune for the time being. The first
section, questionnaire was aim to find out participants frequency
toward the use of mobile device. The result indicates that the use of
mobile device for making calls, sending messages, browsing social
networks were very frequent. The second one was about college
students‟ readiness for mobile assisted language learning, this study
obtained from college students‟ questionnaire the results have positive
attitude toward MALL. The section third was about using mobile
devices inside classroom. In this study, believe that mobile devices
might not be controlled in the classroom. The section fourth, factors
impacting college students‟ use of the mobile assisted language
learning.
b. Interview
The result of interview was about opinion of using mobile devices
for language learning purposes inside classroom, most of respondents
agree with utilizing mobile device in the classroom. They argue that
mobile device it‟s a good thing because sometimes the lecturer doesn‟t
explain the material clearly. So, mobile device can help to look for
another material on the internet it means supports our learning
activity. The benefits of using mobile devices for language learning
purposes inside classroom were easier to learned everything included
learning language, gave information faster, and can compare the
 materials from lecturer with materials that we get from internet using
mobile device. the barriers of using mobile devices for language
learning purposes inside classroom were sometimes not all of the
students have cell phone in one class so that can be an obstacle,
According UNESCO (2012) stated the fact that there was no equitable
access of phones (ownership versus access, types of handsets, usage
abilities based on affordability, etc.) makes using mobiles in formal
education based on a bring-your-own-technology (BYOT) model very
challenging also is not every single mobile device has an internet
service, do the access reputable sources (hoax) and bad signal.

CONCLUSION

This research was to find out the EFL students‟ perception toward mobile assisted
language learning. Further more the writer investigate participants‟ perception
about the potential of mobile assisted language learning in teaching learning
language skills and tried to prove that its use will create a flexible setting for
college students. After the writer analyzed the data obtained in the previous
chapter from some college students‟ perception about the benefits and barriers of
using mobile device inside classroom. Finally the writer find out several benefits
and barriers of using mobile device such as the advantages were easier to learned
everything included learning language, gave information faster, and can compare
the materials from lecturer with materials that we get from internet using mobile
device, while the barriers, there were sometimes not all of the students have cell
phone in one class, not every single mobile device has an internet service, do the
access reputable sources (hoax) and bad signal.
 REFERENCES
Abdellah, Ibrahim M. and Thouqan , Saleem Yakoub. 2016. The Effect of
Mobile Learning on Students‟ Achiement and Conversational Skills.
International Journal of Higher Education Vol. 5, No.3 May 24, 2016.
Alexander Bryan. 2004. Going Nomadic: Mobile Learning in Higher
Education. Educause Review, 39(5), 28-35. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/going-nomadic-mobilMobile-
Assisted Language Learning-higher-education.
Chang, Fang-yu. 2011. The causes of students‟ reticence and passivity in
English classroom. ASIA TEFL. 8 (1), 1-22.
Creswell, John, W. 2009. Research design qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches: third edition. USA: SAGE publications, Inc.
Derya B. 2015. MALL Revisited: Current Trends and Prdagogical
Implications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 195(2015) 932-
939.
Dixson, Marcia, D. 2015. Measuring student engagement in the online
course: the online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning.
19(4).
Duff, Patricia, A. 2008. Case study research in applied linguistics. USA:
Taylor and Francis Group.
Farani, R. 2016. The utilization of virtual learning environment to improve
students participation in online discussion. Indonesia Technology
Enhanced Language Learning.
Felicia Zhang. 2012. Computer Enhanced and Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning. Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
George M. Chinnery. 2006. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Going to the
MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning &
Technology Vol. 1 0 No. 1 pp. 9-1 6.
Harri M. 2015. The Affordances of Duolingo for Mobile-assisted language
learning. University of Oulu Faculty of Humanities Autumn 2015.
Jeffrey H. and Scott T. 2013. The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student
Learning. Communication Education Vol. 62, No. 3, July 2013, pp. 233
252.
Lester, D. 2013. A review of the student engagement literature. Focus on
Colleges, Universities, and School., 7(1), 1-8.
Mandernach, B. Jean. 2015. Assessment of student engagement in higher
education: a synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International
Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 1-14.
Mazuro, Cath & Rao, Namrata. 2011. Online discussion forums in higher
education: is „lurking‟ working?. International Journal for Cross-
Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(2), 364-371.
Mcmillan, James, H. 1996. Educational research fundamental for the
consumers: second edition. USA: Harper Collins.
Mr. El Boukhari G. 2015. Teachers‟ and Students‟ Attitudes towards the use
of Mobile Assisted Language Learning. University of Mohamed Kheider
of Biskra.
Pareja-Lora, C. Calle-Martínez, & P. Rodríguez-Arancón (Eds), New
perspectives on teaching and working with languages in the digital era
(pp.223-232).
Parichehr A. Somayeh S. Zohreh B. and M. Ramazani. 2017. Mobile-
Assisted Vocabulary Learning: A Review Study. Australian
International Academic Centre, Australia Vol. 8 No. 2;April 2017.
Prensky, Marc. 2010. Teaching digital native: Partnering for real learning.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(2), 74-76.
Richards, Jack, C. 2014. The changing face of language learning: learning
beyond the classroom. RELC Journal. 1-8.
Read, T., Bárcena, E., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2016). Exploring the
application of a conceptual framework in a social MALL app. Dublin:
publishing.net.http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.tislid2014.436.
Saeed, Sitwat & Zyngier, David. 2012. How motivation influences student
engagement: a qualitative case study. Journal of Education and learning.
1(2), 252-267.
Selwyn, Neil. 2009. The digital native-myth and reality. New Information
Perspective, 61 (4), 364-379.
Sheridan, K. & Kelly, M. A. 2010. The indicators of instructor presence that
are important to students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767-779.
Whittaker, C. & Brian T. 2013. Blended learning in English language
teaching: course design and implementation. London, UK: British
Council.
Yao-Ting S. Kui-En C. and Tzu-Chien L. 2016. The effect of integrating
mobile devices with teaching and learning on students‟ learning
performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers &
Education 94 (2016) 252 e 275.