WRITING

CALL-MALL integration
in the writing
classroom: smartphone

ia
applications and

ed
dM
corrective feedback
an
Andrew Pollard discusses a dynamic use of technology to help learners write in the
ing
EAP classroom.
sh

C
li

omputer-assisted language
learning (CALL) has been a part of
ub

language education since before the

beginning of this century (Chapelle,
2009). From CALL, and through the
nP

development of technology, we have

transitioned into the area of mobile-
assisted language learning (MALL).
ilio

MALL has been taken on board by

language educators and has resulted
in its inclusion in many classrooms
covering a wide variety of skills and
v

areas (Burston, 2014). Looking at

Pa

the analysis conducted by Burston

(2014), it is apparent that vocabulary
instruction is the most common MALL-
related inclusion, whereas there are
©

very few MALL projects directed toward

writing skills. Perhaps one of the
issues in play is that the technological
advancement of mobile devices, and
their resultant size, could be acting as
a ‘limitation’. To put it another way,
vocabulary instruction often consists of
isolated lexis or lexical chunks, which
if transitioned to a mobile device do
not occupy much in terms of screen
space. In contrast, the screen real estate
available on a mobile device may limit

n Volume 27 n Issue 2 www.modernenglishteacher.com 23

WRITING
the opportunity to tackle areas such as
writing skills with ease. This is perhaps
where the relationship between CALL
and MALL can be exploited, and raises
the question I am attempting to address
in this article: How can mobile devices
be brought into the writing classroom
in an effective manner?
MALL in the writing
classroom
As the screen space of mobile devices
has already been identified as a
possible limiting factor in MALL-based
writing activities from the student’s
perspective, we should consider
whether MALL-based writing activities
are possible from the teacher’s
perspective. It is common for language
teachers to collect student-produced
writing for use in several ways. One of
these ways includes teacher-directed
corrective feedback, which is typically
returned in a later class. Another
typical activity can be referred to as
delayed corrective feedback. This is
where student-produced utterances
or sentences are placed on the board
for whole class analysis, comment
and correction. Both of these activities
are accepted classroom practices for
the latter stages of a lesson; however,
they both have their negative points.
Firstly, teacher-directed corrective
feedback is often not spontaneous.
Secondly, delayed corrective feedback
cannot effectively tackle extended
ilio
discourse due to the time required in
transferring student-produced work
onto the board, and while individual
student work can be checked during
v
general class monitoring, this does not
Pa
serve a purpose in offering constructive
feedback to the whole class. This may
be where technology could help in
filling a void in the writing classroom.
©
This is not to say that technology in
and of itself is the answer. For while
materials in the class should engage
the learner (Tomlinson, 2003), a prime
consideration for MALL integration,
as with any language class, is for
scaffolding of material to be present,
and for the learners to be provided
with timely feedback (Kukulska-Hulme
et al, 2015). In terms of scaffolding,
through focusing on student-produced
24 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 27
work from class, the material should
have been effectively scaffolded in the
earlier stages of the lesson in order for
the students to progress into attempting
the target production in the latter stages
of the lesson. In terms of offering timely
feedback, a CALL-MALL integrative
practice allows for feedback to be
given in class, as the writing happens.
These factors both suggest that
technology is being considered as a
tool to facilitate student learning, rather
than being implemented because of its
novel aspect.
“In contrast, the
dM
screen real estate
available on a
an
mobile device
may limit the
ing
opportunity to
sh
tackle areas such
as writing skills
li
with ease.”
ub
nP
Corrective feedback and
student awareness
When we consider corrective feedback
on written work, there are two
overarching aspects involved. These
are based around the premise that
corrective feedback can be directive
or facilitative. Directive feedback,
made with explicit correction, can
have demotivating effects on students
(Boramy, 2010). However, Hirose
(2012) notes that when directive
feedback is given from peers, it is
often perceived positively. In terms
of teacher-issued feedback, Boramy
(2010) suggests that facilitative
feedback is preferred, which is
feedback that looks at organisational
aspects of the writing. The logical
direction is that both corrective
feedback styles be integrated for a
more rounded picture to be provided
to the student. However, to strike
the positive motivational balance,
there is also the need for both peer-
guided and teacher-guided feedback
to be issued. This is where the earlier
concept of delayed correction needs
to be revisited in terms of technology
integration.
When we consider delayed correction,
the premise is related to the Noticing
Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2001). The
Noticing Hypothesis argues that
ia
learners can only develop their
acquisition of grammatical features if
ed
they are aware of them, and ‘notice’
them in an active manner. Through
attending to the features explicitly,
these features can transition from the
short-term to the long-term memory;
however, not attending to the features
of form can stymy development (Ellis,
2008; Schmidt, 2001). The process of
attention is an internal one for the
learner, whereas delayed correction
has external influences. However, it
is possible to prompt the learner in
the areas to which they should be
attending. This kind of prompt or recast
is what is present in oral corrective
feedback, and can be extended to
the writing classroom (Sarandi, 2016).
Extending the notion of noticing
beyond the focus on form, it is also
possible to direct student attention
toward organisational features of
language. This is especially relevant
if we are considering how to address
corrective feedback in extended
written discourse.
The EAP classroom
The context in which I am coming
from with this classroom suggestion
is an EMI university in China where
foundation year students develop
their EAP skills in preparation for
continuing their undergraduate
degrees in English. As a result, it is
an expectation that they are able to
perform with academic competence
in terms of written proficiency.
If we are to consider that logical
progression and organisational
features are a major component of
academic discourse (Kuo, 1995), then
addressing how these can be attended
to in the classroom environment
in a ‘live’ fashion with student-
n Issue 2

produced work is of interest. Watson
Todd (2003) comments that the
incorporation of technology into EAP
is promoted, which is a supporting
rationale for its inclusion here. Further
to this, it is suggested that CALL can
be implemented in a communicative
manner to encourage discussion
and practice (Gruba, 2004). Through
taking these considerations on board
and in tandem with the notions of
noticing and delayed corrective
feedback, this is where the idea for
this CALL-MALL integration was borne.
Task overview
The basic overview of this integrative
task relies on two pieces of equipment
– an internet-equipped computer with
beam projector and a smartphone –
which is where we draw the notion that
the CALL-MALL relationship can be
exploited. In the first instance, many
classrooms are technology-enhanced
these days, and having access to an
internet-equipped computer with
a beam projector is becoming the
norm. In the second instance, the
teacher’s smartphone requires two
applications to be installed: WeChat
and CamScanner. WeChat is a
multiplatform free messaging app
widely used in China, and is accessible
in other regions (Tencent Inc., 2018).
Other messaging apps perform the
same function at the general level;
however, WeChat also has a web-based
ilio
platform that has the ability to maintain
simultaneous logins across both
smartphone and computer. Although
this same function is available with
v
WhatsApp (WhatsApp Inc., 2018), I
Pa
have a preference for WeChat given
my current teaching context and the
connectivity of China, and therefore,
this article will focus on the use of
©
WeChat. CamScanner is a free mobile
scanner app that allows users to create
PDF files with their smartphone and
is available on multiple platforms
(INTSIGAII, 2018). These are the
essential tools required to facilitate
this CALL-MALL integrative activity.
The basic premise is that through using
these tools in unison, the teacher is able
to display student-produced work via
the beam projector for ‘live’ analysis,
n Volume 27 n Issue 2 www.modernenglishteacher.com 25
WRITING
ia
ed
dM
an
comment and correction. It is through 1. Writing is addressed through the
this whole-class display of written work original student work.
that all language skills can be integrated
ing
2. Reading is addressed through the
in the process. Kukulska-Hulme et al
analysis process.
(2015) assert that an aim for MALL is to
integrate all four skills in the classroom. 3. Speaking, listening and reading are
sh
Through this CALL-MALL integrative addressed through the comments
process of CamScanner-WeChat- and corrections.
Projector, learners are encouraged to
li
4. Writing is once again addressed
make use of all four skills:
through the revision and feedback
ub
process.
“The basic
nP
Implementation and
premise is that process guidance
The basic premise is that through
through using
using these tools in unison, the
teacher is able to display student-
these tools produced work via the beam projector
for ‘live’ analysis, comment and
in unison, the
correction. This activity is intended
for use in the latter phase of a lesson
teacher is able to when the class is primarily attempting
to analyse extended discourse on
display student- multiple levels. The activity begins
during the student writing process
produced work and while the teacher is monitoring
student progress on the task. The
via the beam following is the step-by-step process
involved in how to integrate the CALL
projector for and MALL aspects to lead into a live
corrective feedback session:
‘live’ analysis,
1. While students are on task, the
comment and teacher visits the WeChat web login
page (http://web.wechat.com/)
correction.” to activate a simultaneous login
WRITING
across smartphone and computer.
Onscreen smartphone and computer
prompts will guide the process.
2. During student writing, the teacher
monitors students as per the
norm. However, the teacher also
selects several examples from their
monitoring that they wish to highlight
for analysis. These examples
are captured and edited with
CamScanner while ensuring minimal
disruption to the student task.
3. The edited CamScanner file
is transferred via WeChat by
smartphone as a PDF file. This can
be completed in multiple ways;
however, the most streamlined
process in terms of the end result
involves two steps: (a) Visit the
WeChat Contacts menu on the
smartphone and select ‘File
Transfer’ from the contact list. Send
a text message to File Transfer to
initiate a chat; (b) Use CamScanner
to share the PDF file to WeChat.
In the recent chat history, File
Transfer will now be visible.
4. When the teacher is ready to begin
the corrective feedback session,
the PDF file will be visible and
downloadable on the classroom
computer through the pre-logged in
WeChat web application.
This four-step process brings the
students’ work to the classroom
computer and can be displayed via
v ilio
Pa
©
26 www.modernenglishteacher.com n Volume 27
the beam projector for whole-class
analysis, comment and correction. It is
worth noting that while it is possible to
use email instead of WeChat, the use
of WeChat makes the process more
fluid through its instant reception
and popup of the files transferred.
As a process, this live application of
CALL-MALL integration expedites the
delayed correction proceedings by
not delaying the presentation of the
student work on the board due to
student or teacher having to transcribe
the excerpts by hand. While the PDF
file is displayed, the teacher is able
to guide and prompt students in the
areas that need attention, in line with
dM
the concept of noticing. Teachers
can manipulate the guidance and
corrections for students by annotating
the PDF in Adobe Acrobat (or via a
an
smart board if they have a classroom
equipped with one).
ing
In terms of the feedback process, the
guiding notes and suggestions made
may move from general to specific
levels as analysis develops. The initial
sh
stages of the process can be conducted
in a student-centred manner, where the
li
teacher attempts to ‘direct’ attention
in efforts to prompt students to self-
ub
correct in a more directive manner.
This process draws upon the notion that
peer-initiated directive feedback is often
nP
seen positively (Hirose, 2012). As put
forth earlier in this article, the notion
of noticing could extend to include
organisational aspects, particularly if
we are to consider extended academic
discourse and the use of coherence and
cohesion markers.
Moving along from directive feedback,
there is a possibility for both peers and
teacher to move toward facilitative
feedback. Again, the teacher is able
to prompt and guide students in
these areas with forms of Socratic
questioning. Through this process, the
ia
students are able to further develop
an awareness of the items in need of
ed
attention. In conducting the activity
in this way the teacher is able to
offer supporting facilitative feedback,
which, as Boramy (2010) notes, is
often positively viewed. These latter
stages of the process may move more
towards a more teacher-centred
approach and make explicit use of the
annotations made in Adobe Acrobat.
Overall, the analytic processes
involved through this multi-stage live
analysis of CALL-MALL integrated
delayed corrective feedback serves
to develop the academic discourse
capabilities of the students through
the teacher promoting noticing in
extended discourse as a scaffolded
form of corrective feedback.
Interactions and student
benefits
There are a number of ways the
students can interact with the
n Issue 2
 WRITING

displayed student work. The way
in which the work is presented to
the whole class allows for group
discussion and can promote the
concepts of peer learning and
collaboration, while discussions can
be guided into two streams depending
on the teacher’s intention. The first
stream is related to raising language
awareness, which in this instance is
specifically linked with metalanguage
awareness. An example may be
hypothesis language, hedging, etc.),
analysis of whole essay logic and
progression, highlighting lexical
sets, or the proofreading of citations
and reference lists. This multitude
of applications is testament to the
potential for incorporating CALL-MALL
integrated feedback procedures into
the writing classroom.
“The overall
648). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Hirose K (2012) Written Feedback and oral
interaction: how bimodal peer feedback
affects Japanese EFL students. The Journal of
Asia TEFL 9 (3) 1–26.
INTSIGAII (2018) CamScanner | Turn your
phone and tablet into scanner for intelligent
document management. Retrieved from
https://www.camscanner.com
Kukulska-Hulme A, Norris L & Donohue J
(2015) Mobile Pedagogy for English Language
Teaching: A Guide for Teachers. London: The

ia
British Council.
that through students discussing
and analysing hedging language or
benefit of these Kuo C-H (1995) Cohesion and coherence

ed
lexical sets in use, they are extending in academic writing: from lexical choice to
organization. RELC Journal 26 (1) 47–62.
their understandings of the concepts
interactions

dM
as well as taking active control of Pollard A (2015) Increasing awareness and
talk time through free messaging apps. English
revising and correcting their work.
The second stream points toward
is the intrinsic Teaching Forum 53 (1) 25–32.

topic development, which is essential

for effective academic writing. In this
highlighting of the Sarandi H (2016) Oral corrective feedback:
a question of classification and application.

an
TESOL Quarterly 50 (1) 235–246. doi:10.1002/
area, the students are able to develop
their critical thinking skills through
process approach tesq.285

their discussion and analysis of the

to writing, and Schmidt R (2001) Attention. In P Robinson
(Ed.) Cognition and Second Language
ing
writing samples, which is of particular
Instruction (pp3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge
importance when students are focused
on aspects of logical progression and
that students can University Press.

Tencent Inc. (2018) WeChat – Free messaging

relevance. The critical thinking in the
take more control
sh

and calling a pp. Retrieved from http://www.

second stream has the added benefit
wechat.com/en/
of introducing the importance of
of their extended Tomlinson B (2003) Materials evaluation.
li

editing and revision at the extended

In B Tomlinson (Ed.) Developing Materials
discourse level, which is developed
academic
ub

for Language Teaching (pp16–36). London:

through the student interaction, Continuum.
facilitative feedback and directive
feedback. The overall benefit of
discourse Watson Todd R (2003) EAP or TEAP? Journal
nP

of English for Academic Purposes 2 (2)

these interactions is the intrinsic
highlighting of the process approach
through analytic 147–156. doi:10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00014-6

WhatsApp Inc. (2018) WhatsApp. Retrieved

to writing, and that students can
processes.” from http://www.whatsapp.com
ilio

take more control of their extended

academic discourse through analytic
processes.
References
v

Boramy S (2010) Using directive and

Concluding remarks facilitative feedback to improve student
Pa

writing: a case study of a higher education

It is worth pointing out that the setting in Cambodia. Language Education in
application of this CALL-MALL Asia 1 (1) 23–47. doi:10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/
integrated corrective feedback activity A04/Sou
©

is not restricted to language level
constructs. It is applicable across all
areas of extended discourse in the
classroom and can serve to increase
awareness of the writing process
as a whole. In terms of EAP, the
application can encompass aspects
such as: development of paragraph
and essay-level structure, particular
emphasis on target language structures
and features (e.g. thesis statements,
compare and contrast language,
Burston J (2014) The Reality of MALL: Still on
the Fringes. CALICO Journal 31 (1) 103–125.
doi:10.11139/cj.31.1.103-125
Chapelle CA (2009) The spread of computer-
assisted language learning. Language Teaching
43 (01) 66. doi:10.1017/s0261444809005850
Ellis R (2008) The Study of Second Language
Acquisition (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gruba P (2004) Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL). In A Davies & C Elder (Eds)
The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp623–
Andrew Pollard is currently teaching
in the Centre for English Language
Education with the University of
Nottingham Ningbo China. His
professional experience has seen him
teach undergraduate and postgraduate
level courses in English and applied
linguistics in Australia, China and Korea.
Andrew’s current research interests
surround prosodic and paralinguistic
features of English and their effects
on international communication. He
may be contacted at andrew.pollard@
nottingham.edu.cn

n Volume 27 n Issue 2 www.modernenglishteacher.com 27