JULIE LEATON

10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

Overview
The journal article being critiqued, “Understanding Students’ Learning Practices:

Challenges for design and Integration of Mobile Technology for Design and Integration of

Mobile Technology into Distance Learning” by authors Olga Viberg and Åke Grönlund, is a

qualitative study, which discussed the types of mobile learning available to language students

(Viberg & Grönlund, 2015). The study focused on adult learners taking a beginning Russian

course as distance learners.

The authors described their research design as focusing on “design for, rather than design

of, learning”(Viberg & Grönlund, 2015, p. 359). They explained that mobile learning

information systems are a social construct defined by the designers, users, and society. The

authors wanted to find out how effectively the students use mobile technology (cellphones,

tablets, etc.) versus how they use nonmobile technology (tower, laptop computer) while learning

the second language.

For the research, the authors used the methodology of structural analysis of the “situated

use of technology”(Viberg & Grönlund, 2015, pp. 361–364). They explained that this lens

helped them understand how the students used the mobile technology in their learning. The

method to gather the information was interviewing 25 students taking beginning Russian using

an online format. They also interviewed, through a focus group, two employees of the

universities IT department. The final method they used was a document analysis of two of the

computer programs, the course schedule, and the course syllabus.

To collect the data, each participant was interviewed for 20 to 40 minutes. The

transcripts of the twenty-three Swedish speaking participants were translated into English. To

1
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

analyze the transcripts, the authors used “technology-in-practice perspective” to see how the

students used the mobile technology for the class. The researchers found that most students use

traditional computers to do the actual classwork because the computer form of programs had

more features and were easier to use than the app versions on tablets and smartphones. The

participants used mobile technology to supplement what they learned in class with other apps.

They also used the mobile technology when not at home. As one participant responded, “Home-

you use a computer, out- you use your mobile” (pg. 366).

Critique of Questions and Data Collection

The research presented two questions in relation to language learning. The first, “How

do students use technology in their language learning?” and the second, “Why do students use

certain technologies and leave out others in their learning?” (p. 360). These are important,

becoming more relevant questions in the field of education as curriculum becomes more and

more reliant on technology. The questions were placed on their own lines separated from the

rest of the text making them very easy to find in the article. The questions were appropriate for

qualitative research because the authors were looking for subjective answers, were of interest to

the reader, were used to direct the research, were not testing a hypothesis (Ryan, Coughlin, &

Cronin, p. 740).

To set up the study, the authors set a theoretical framework of structuration theory with

the structure of technology-in-practice (Viberg & Grönlund, p. 360-361). They chose this theory

because it focuses on the people of the study and their use of the technology and not of the

technology itself. The authors did not explain structuration theory at the beginning of the

section. They only used the acronym ST. While an educated reader would understand the

2
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

theory, as a student, I had to look up what the theory entailed. Wikipedia defines Structuration

Theory as “a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that based on the

equal analysis of both structure and agents.”(“Structuration theory,” 2017) Although the

researchers did not explain the theory, they did give a clear explanation on why they used the

theory for their lens, which was to measure student engagement.

To collect the data to answer the questions, the authors used three methods. First they

individually interviewed twenty-five adult using an online format (Viberg & Grönlund, p. 363).

Fourteen of the participants were female while eleven were male. They chose the online format

because the students used the program (Adobe Connect) in their class, so the students were

familiar with the technology. They go on to explain that three interviewees spoke English while

the rest spoke Swedish. The interviews were then transcribed with the Swedish interviews being

translated into English. The authors explained that they chose this method of data collection

because the students were familiar with the technology, the interviewers could establish rapport

with the interviewees and no one could dominate the group discussions. The sampling size of

the participants was appropriate to qualitative research; giving the researchers enough data to

draw conclusions, but not so much that they could not thoroughly go through the information.

There is, however, concern for the ethics of the research. The students interviewed were current

students in a beginning year Russian class. The participants also were required to use the

technology in the course. The researchers did not discuss in the article whether the participants

willingly volunteered or were pressured into doing the interviews by the person controlling their

grade. They also did not describe receiving approval through an ethics committee. The

researchers also did not discuss if the participants were able to give informed consent (Ryan et

al., p. 741). The researchers were, however, conscientious of not revealing the identity of the

3
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

participants. When they quoted a participant, they referred to the individual as a number, and not

by any form of their name.

The second set of data the researchers collected was by forming a focus group with two

members of the university’s IT team (Viberg & Grönlund, p. 364). The authors acknowledged

that this is an unusually small number for a focus group, but defended it saying they wanted the

interaction between the two representatives to understand the two programs better. Again, the

authors did not discuss getting informed consent from the two participants. They also potentially

gave information about the IT representatives by discussing that one of the representatives

helped design the course while the other was teaching the course for the first time. If a reader

was familiar with the university program, he/she could potentially identify who they were. Most

likely this would cause no problems since the researchers were gathering background data and

not hurtful data.

The final data set was with a document analysis of the user manuals of the two programs

required for the course, the course schedule, and the course syllabus (Viberg & Grönlund, p.

364). They describe using this analysis to backup information they received from the

participants and not to generate new data.

Critique of Data Analysis

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed the technology, the modality of norms, and the

interpretive schemes (Viberg & Grönlund, pp. 365–372). For the technology, the researchers

used a technology in practice perspective (p. 365). First, the authors described the strengths and

weaknesses of the two main programs that the university required for the class. They claimed

the programs as limiting to the professors, but did not go into details. They also acknowledged

4
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

that a majority of the participants used these two programs on their home computer. They used

their mobile devises for supplemental activities such as app practice, listening to podcasts, and

looking up news and articles in Russian. The researchers explained that the two required

programs had less features in their app form compared to the computer form.

For the modality of norms, the authors discussed both formal and informal norms, as

required for structuration theory(Viberg & Grönlund, 2015, pp. 366–367). For the formal norms,

this study discussed the parts of the technology and activities that were required for the students

to do to be successful in the course-the students’ institutional participation. In the formal norms,

the researchers discussed the positives and negatives of using the two required programs in a

mobile setting. The informal norms discussed the extra work that students did to complement

the classwork. This included using other apps, watching programs and reading news in the

native language. The major theme observed by the researchers was that the students valued

doing the work individually over doing the work in a group setting.

The final analysis that the researchers discussed is through interpretive schemes. The

authors explained that this section is an attempt to identify “assumptions and beliefs drawn on in

technology-based practices”(Viberg & Grönlund, 2015, pp. 369–370). For this, the researchers

observed student beliefs. From the data, beginning students tended to use technology to find

learning aids to help them do repetitive practice in the target language. They also found the

belief that individual, self-paced work is more effective for student learning than collaborative

learning. The adult students had limited time to devote to learning and wanted to use it to the

maximum. The students also valued quick feedback from the teacher over interaction with their

classmates. Finally, the students viewed the technology as effective in target language learning

5
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

because it kept them motivated, gave them a chance to hear native speakers, and allowed

flexibility in learning.

For each of the types of analysis, the researchers explained why they used each filter, the

theory behind it, and cited the source of the research. They demonstrated a strong knowledge of

data collection and analysis. While I do not believe the authors achieved data saturation, I do

believe they were thorough and displayed rigor in their documentation (Ryan et al., p. 742).

Critique of Discussion, Conclusion and References

For the discussion, the researchers concluded that, for language learning, students used

mobile technology for its flexibility, its ability to fill in the gaps of their learning, and access

authentic realia in the language. They concluded that a course design flaw was the course

technology did not support repetitive and imitation exercises forcing the students to supplement

with other apps. They also concluded that the technology used for the class was very limited

when used on mobile devices.

The conclusions drawn were appropriate for the research. The authors broke the

conclusion up into themes from their observations. They did not go beyond what they observed

to draw conclusions They related the conclusions back to the research and used the conclusions

to create ideas on how to improve the language course in the future (Ryan et al., p. 743).

The authors include detailed references for their study. This included research

information, school information, and a paragraph describing the backgrounds of each of the

authors (p. 372). The list seems complete and would be a good resource for further study of

mobile technology use.

6
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

Conclusion

Overall, this article seems to be well-written, thorough, and relevant to distance language

learning. The authors seem qualified to do the study and are well knowledgeable on the

requirements for beginning language learning. The researchers did an adequate amount of data

gathering without overwhelming the topic. They were very thorough on their analysis of the data

and used appropriate research methods to draw their conclusions. They backed up, with

documentation, why they chose each research method. The only flaws I noted in the article was

the authors only using ST to describe structuration theory and not mentioning ethical

considerations. As a novice reader, I did not understand the acronym and had to research it

through the cited source to understand the theory. The authors also used several different

acronyms throughout the paper. Although they explained the meaning at the beginning,

sometimes they would not use the acronym again until several pages later. I found myself

constantly looking back to see which acronym it was. It might have been helpful if the authors

had included a chart with the acronyms listed so the reader did not have to go back and search

for the original acronym. These flaws in the article were very small and did not detract from the

overall message. As a reader, I gained several different insights, ideas and confirmations of my

practiced as a teacher in a foreign language classroom.

7
 JULIE LEATON
10/22/17
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LEARNING PRACTICES…

References

Ryan, F., Coughlin, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2:

qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738–744.

Structuration theory. (2017, November 11). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Structuration_theory&oldid=809753905

Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2015). Understanding Students’ Learning Practices: Challenges for

design and Integration of Mobile Technology for Design and Integration of Mobile

Technology into Distance Learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 357–377.

https://doi.org/10.1080