Salomon (2016) discusses the fact that while technology can provide information, it cannot transform it into knowledge. He then proceeds to differentiate between the affordances that technology offers and the actual realization of its use.
Coincidentally, this week, when I was evaluating language apps, I stumbled upon a similar question: To what extent does the language app make use of its mobile affordances? I was shocked to find out that from among the four apps that I was evaluating (Duolingo, Mango Languages, Busuu, and Burlington English), only one (Busuu) made use of the benefits traditionally offered by SNSs.
If you are wondering why that would be beneficial, think how many hours you spent on Duolingo trying to learn a new language. The problem is that most language apps not only ignore the development of productive skills (speaking and writing), but also their mobile function (recording, time and place fluidity).
In reality, this means that most language apps are just a little more than digital books or games.
Here is my chart based on Dudeney and Hockly (2022). In my original evaluation, I also used some other criteria, but these are the ones that strictly deal with the digital aspect of the apps. Even though the final results were somewhat different from this table, it is obvious why learning apps do not work well.
Salomon, G. (2016). It's not just the tool but the educational rationale that counts. In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational Technology and Polycontextual Bridging (pp. 149-161). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2022). Materials for mobile learning. In J. Norton and H. Buchanan (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development for Language Teaching (pp. 414-426). Routledge.
|
Categories |
Duolingo |
Mango Languages |
Busuu |
Burlington English |
|
Is the app behaviorist (content MALL) or communicatively based? |
Behaviorist
5 |
Behaviorist
5 |
Communicative
10 |
Minimally communicative 7 |
|
Does the app make use of mobile device affordances? (camera, recorder, web browsing, messaging)? |
Voice recognition
5 |
Voice recognition
5 |
Global connectivity to other users 10 |
Voice recognition
5 |
|
Does the app support incremental development of learner’s digital skills? |
User-friendly
9 |
Slightly complex 7 |
User-friendly
9 |
Demanding
4 |
|
How does the app exploit mobility? Can it be used where no internet access is provided? |
Somewhat mobile
4 |
Can be downloaded in advance 8 |
Can be downloaded for paid version. 6 |
Cannot be used without the internet. 0 |
|
Is the app weighted toward creation and communication MALL (cooperation with other learners)? |
No (AI feedback)
2 |
No
0 |
Yes
10 |
No
0 |
|
Does the app motivate the learner beyond the novelty period? |
Gamification
5 |
Can feel tedious 6 |
Social design
10 |
At times feels mechanical 7 |
|
Total points27 |
27 |
31 |
55 |
23 |
|
Final result of evaluation |
3 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
Comments
Post a Comment