Ballance (2012) commentary on Stockwell’s (2010) article: Outline.

Purpose: To describe Ballance’s (2012) position towards Stockwell’s (2010) empirical research on the use of Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL) for vocabulary activities in classroom settings.

Audience: Second language teachers and students, educational and technological professionals. 

Thesis statement: According to Ballance (2012), Stockwell’s (2010) research does not give evidence of valid exploitation of MALL’s potential in classroom settings, not only because of the rapid pace of technological developments but also in terms of its scope.

I.  Stockwell’s (2010) findings have little relevance regarding the use of MALL.

a.       Rapid pace of technological innovations

b.      Pre-smart phones problems

i.            Internet access costs

ii.         Scrolling time

iii.       Small screens and keypads

c.       Smart-phones advantages

i.        Wi-fi connection

ii.      Touch screen

iii.    Applications integrated

d.       Longitudinal research benefits

II.   Activities presented do not much communicative MALL

a.  Pen and paper completion activities

b.  Mobile phone and PC platform were the same

  i.   Students’ platform choice

c.  “Dead time” (p.22) was not the previous focus of the research.

III.  Conclusion

a.  More evidence is needed to analyze the effect of MALL in classroom settings

  

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