An outline on Ballance’s (2012) commentary on Stockwell’s (2010) article

Purpose: To illustrate Ballace’s (2012) position as regards using Stockwell’s (2010) study into the effects of Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL) on vocabulary activities in Second Language classrooms.

Audience: Teachers and second language students. Educators and professionals interested in technology.

Thesis statement: According to Ballance (2010), Stockwell’s (2010) results in the empirical research do not guarantee success in Second Language classrooms, due to the rapid pace of technological development as well as its limited scope.

1.      Stockwell’s (2010) findings are obsolete since students entered to a new MALL research area.  

1.1.   Rapid pace of technology

1.2.   i-Phone and Android platform was already released

1.3.   Pre-smart phones weakness

1.3.1.     Internet access cost

1.3.2.     Scrolling time

1.3.3.     Small screens and keypads

2.      Smartphone’s benefits

2.1.    Wi-Fi admission

2.2.   Application (apps) integrated

2.3.   Touch screens

3.      Activities designed were not appropriate for the use of MALL

3.1.   They were designed for pen and paper or computer completion

3.2.   The PC and mobile phone platform were similar

3.2.1.     Students would choose to work with PC platform

3.2.2.     Students would choose to work with the mobile phone platform

3.3.   They prevent students to take advantage of “dead time”

4.      Conclusion

4.1.   The data gathered does not show the usefulness of using MALL in classroom environment. 

References

Ballance, O.J. (2012). Mobile language learning: More than just “the platform”.Language Learning & Technology. 16 (3), 21-23. 

Retrieved from  http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/ballance.pdf

Stockwell, G. (2010). Using Mobile Phones for Vocabulary Activities: Examining the Effect of the Platform. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 95–110. 

Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol14num2/stockwell.pdf