Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Language acquisition is an active procedure, which requires on the part of

the learners to continually acquire vocabulary of the target language. Acquiring

adequate words to build one’s mental library of lexicon is crucial, so as to allow

the learners to function well in a given context (Moghadam, Zainal, &

Ghaderpour, 2012) Several studies in both first language (L1) and second

language (L2) have indicated that vocabulary knowledge is one of the best

predictors of reading ability and the capability to obtain new details from texts

(Motallebzadeh & Ganjali, 2011; Duff, Cain and Oakhill, 2014; Reen, Plunkett, &

Nation, 2015).

Even in the 21st century, the need for support in literacy acquisition around

the world remains huge. Data presented in a UNESCO-commissioned report

(Education for All, 2014 in Lyytinen & Richardson, 2014) estimates that 250

million children worldwide need reading support, with the largest number of

countries in need located in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The National Center for Education Statistics, US Department (2012)

reports that students who performed well on the vocabulary questions also

performed well in reading comprehension. Fourth-grade students performing

 2

above the 75th percentile in reading comprehension in 2011 also had the highest

average vocabulary score. Lower-performing fourth-graders at or below the 25th

percentile in reading comprehension had the lowest average vocabulary score.

Similar differences were found in the results for grade 8 in 2011 and for grade 12

in 2009. Researchers argued that reading requires fundamental knowledge of the

meaning of words and fundamental knowledge of the internal structure of

sentences.

Hulme and Snowling (2011) stressed that students’ reading

comprehension problem is likely caused by weak vocabulary knowledge,

difficulties in processing grammatical information in spoken language, and poor

performance on general measures of language comprehension.

Vocabulary knowledge is essential for success in reading. Students

cannot understand what they read without understanding what most of the words

mean. Decades of research have confirmed the important role that vocabulary

plays in reading comprehension and in students’ overall academic success

(Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; Proctor, Silverman, Harring, & Montecillo, 2012).

Likewise, Silva, & Cain (2015) and Currie, & Cain (2015) argued that vocabulary

knowledge critically contributes to higher level comprehension skills such as

inferential understanding and processing.

 3

This problem as observed is also present in the Philippines. The National

Achievement Test revealed dismal results on English Performance from year

2007-2012. According to the NAT Overview and 2012 Test Results Presentation

by the Department of Education, the national performance of Grade 3 pupils in

NAT subtests both in reading comprehension and English grammar was below

the target Mean Performance Score of 75 percent. The national performance

mean percentage score results of reading comprehension test of grade 3 were

as follow: SY 2007-2008 (59.03); 2008-2009 (59.37); 2009-2010 (61.74); 2010-

2011 (56.13); 2011-2012 (54.42). In the recent NAT conducted SY 2011-2012

among grade 3 pupils, region XI got an overall MPS of 54.81.

Likewise, grade 6 pupils performed the same level of proficiency. The

national performance mean percentage score results of reading comprehension

test of grade 6 were as follow: SY 2007-2008 (61.62); 2008-2009 (61.81); 2009-

2010 (67.81); 2010-2011 (65.11); 2011-2012 (66.27). The figures connote that

Filipinos need strong reading intervention that would raise the level of learning

outcome.

Further, the performance of Filipino students in the 2003 Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) took precedence of the

abovementioned findings in which the Filipino second year high school students

ranked 41st in math out of 46 participants (Caoli-Rodriguez, 2008).

 4

In the same vein, studies conducted by Willcutt, Petrill, Wu, Boada,

DeFries, Olson, & Pennington (2013) and Boonen, de Koning, Jolles, & van der

Schoot (2016) also revealed that even successful word problem solvers had a

low performance on semantically complex word problems, despite adequate

performance on semantically less complex word problems. The Department of

Education attributed this problem to students’ poor reading comprehension

(Imam, Mastura, & Jamil, 2013).

The study of Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, and Hulme (2010) and

Veeravagu, Muthusamy, Marimuthu, & Michael (2010) provides support for the

idea that the language weaknesses that characterize poor comprehenders can

be ameliorated by suitable teaching. With the massive proliferation of technology

today, mobile learning, learning with mobile devices in various contexts, is an

ascending trend across different sectors of education worldwide (Rikala, &

Kankaanranta, 2012).

Mobile devices offer ways to complement, improve and enhance current

face to-face learning and other technology supported learning and to respond to

practical constraints and barriers. They also offer the opportunity to move beyond

current ideas of teaching and learning, and to devise new methods, practices and

formats that draw on their unique technical characteristics (Kukulska-Hulme,

2005).
 5

Mobile learning can aid formal learning in traditional classrooms by

extending learning beyond class time. Learners can use their mobile phones to

share pictures and videos with their classmates, and have personal

conversations within a learning community (Prasertsilp, 2012).

Vavoula and Sharples (2009) and Yang (2013) asserted that mobile

learning is a relatively new research area, with the first research projects

appearing in the second half of the 1990s and the first international research

conferences less than a decade ago. It is a field whose practice has not yet been

standardized in terms of research frameworks, methods and tools.

Nevertheless, El-Hussein and Cronje (2010) added that designers and

practitioners of education are therefore responsible to produce coherent and

reliable accounts of the likely consequences of the proliferation of mobile devices

in the higher education landscape. The proper design of the technologies leads

to greater effectiveness of mobile learning. Philosophers of education should

explain the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of mobile learning in higher

education. They should also clarify the design paradigm shifts that this mode of

delivering higher education has introduced into the world of practice.

Several studies were already conducted that proved the efficacy of mobile

learning in improving vocabulary learning and retention (Alemi, Sarab & Lari,

2012; Kim, 2011; So, 2009; Ramos, 2007 in Chun & Tsui, 2010; Lu, 2008;

Suwantarathip & Orawiwatnakul, 2015).

 6

However in the region, corpus of data revealed lack of similar studies.

Although there have been initiatives undertaken by some private schools in the

use of mobile learning but there are no published data as proof of information.

Given the low volume of studies conducted abroad, replication of work is

needed to help guide local initiatives to encourage effective use of mobile

devices in teaching and learning (Chen & deNoyelles, 2013; Embi & Nordin,

2013). Moreover, as observed, most of the published studies were conducted

among students in secondary and tertiary level and there is no published study

so far in the vein of Mobile Assisted Language Learning that elaborated the use

of Barrett’s taxonomy in reading comprehension test. The current study is

conducted in primary level and maximized the use of Barrett’s reading taxonomy.

Hence, the researcher is prompted to conduct this study to explore the efficacy of

mobile mediated vocabulary learning and its effect to students’ reading

comprehension ability in local context among grade six students. Further,

conducting this study may shed light to future curriculum developers and

educators to consider mobile learning in education.

 7

Related Literature

In an attempt to describe the existing status of this study, a review of

related literature is hereafter presented. This review provides insights into the

veracity of the problem which the researcher chooses as the research focus.

Vocabulary defined. Vocabulary is the knowledge of words and word

meanings. Vocabulary knowledge is not something that can ever be fully

mastered; it is something that expands and deepens over the course of a lifetime

(Diamond & Gutlohn, 2006).

Instruction in vocabulary involves far more than looking up words in a

dictionary and using the words in a sentence. Vocabulary is acquired incidentally

through indirect exposure to words and intentionally through explicit instruction in

specific words and word-learning strategies. Many studies have shown that

vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge can help students read and

comprehend better. The more vocabulary students know, the better they can

decode and understand what they read (Chou, 2011).

The role that vocabulary knowledge plays in second and foreign language

acquisition has long been neglected. However, vocabulary is currently receiving

increased emphasis in the language teaching curriculum as it is now increasingly

pointed out that there is a reciprocal, well-documented relationship between

 8

vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Constantinescu 2007;

Talarposhti & Pourgharib, 2014).

Stearns (2012) pointed out that as new technologies emerge, there is a

push to integrate technology into the classroom to promote academic success

among students. This undertaking follows the call for No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 that mandates the use of technology and mobile educational services and

equipment in the classroom.

Computer assisted language learning. For thousands of years, teachers

have looked for products to assist them in educating their students in easier and

more effective ways. In ancient times, text was carved into stone, which later

developed to wider use of paper, books, chalkboards, and whiteboards. More

recently, devices requiring electricity, such as televisions, videos, and computers,

have increased in popularity as teaching aids in the classroom. Since the birth of

the internet, computers and tablet computers in particular have become more

common not only in regular classrooms, but also in English as a foreign language

classrooms, where a global network allows a wealth of knowledge to be brought

to students almost immediately at the touch of a button. The use of touch-screen

computer tablets appears to have brought many advantages to the classroom

(Leis, 2014).
 9

In recent years the development of computer assisted language learning

(CALL) has created the need and opportunity for investigating the effects of

multimedia on vocabulary acquisition. Moreover, numerous studies have shown

that computerized media and multimedia environment can be helpful for learning

foreign language vocabulary (Constantinescu, 2007; Talarposhti & Pourgharib,

2014).

CALL involves applying computer hardware (Butler-Pascoe, 2011) and

software (Busch, 2003) to a teaching-and learning environment (Chun, 2001).

CALL has showed positive results in improving the reading skills of students.

Using computers in reading instruction generated a lot of interest among the

students for reading comprehension. In addition, students enjoyed the reading

material with a variety of pictures and sounds. Computer can promote language

interaction between teacher and learners; and it offers the possibility of realizing

a string of didactic operations which is very important for evaluation, and also for

developing students’ creativity (Bhatti, 2013; Dina & Ciornei, 2013).

Computers have been used for language teaching since in the 1960’s

(Lee, 2000). However, the term CALL became established in language education

in the early 1980s (Chapelle, 2001). The reasons for using CALL include: (a)

experiential learning, (b) motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d)

authentic materials for study, (e) greater interaction, (f) individualization, (g)

independence from a single source of information, and (h) global understanding.

 10

The barriers inhibiting the practice of CALL can be classified in the following

common categories: (a) financial barriers, (b) availability of computer hardware

and software, (c) technical and theoretical knowledge, and (d) acceptance of the

technology.

According to Butler-Pascoe (2012) the importance of technology in second

language teaching is no longer questioned as there are established proofs of its

efficacy to the field. What concerns the teachers is the most effective way to

integrate technology into their teaching.

Literature review on the topic of CALL suggests that usage of technology

in second language teaching/learning as a tool has lots of potential and benefits.

Nevertheless, Ally (2005); Yang (2013); Morales (2014); Gu, Gu, and Laffey,

(2011) maintained that CALL should be tailored to the teaching/learning goals

and the students’ needs and teachers should have complete knowledge and

understanding of the technology implementation and use.

Mobile assisted language learning (MALL). Digital inclusion (Group

Special Mobile Association, 2014) pointed out that mobile phones have become

the most popular and widespread form of personal technology on the planet, with

3.6 billion unique mobile subscribers and 7.2 billion connections globally. Mobile

has had a profound impact on all aspects of life, from simply allowing people to

communicate with each other, to providing access to services such as education.

 11

Robinson and Reinhart (2014) observed that while computer has made

the greatest contribution communicatively, educationally and societally, mobile

devices, as a type of computing device or mini-computer, have become all the

more important because of their transportability and convergence ability to permit

users access information, communication, connection, collaboration and

construction.

Wu, Wu, Chen, Kao, Lin and Huang, (2012) researches indicated that

mobile phones and personal data assistants are currently the most widely used

devices for mobile learning, education and language learning. These devices are

used everywhere for doing everything ranging from voice calling to making short

message, video chat, listening to audio (Mp3, Mp4, Mpeg), web surfing,

shopping, and the like.

El-Hussein and Cronje (2010) defines mobile learning as “any type of

learning that takes place in learning environments and spaces that take account

of the mobility of technology, mobility of learners and mobility of learning” (p. 13

(3), 12–21). Mobile learning (m-learning) is also defined as “learning across

multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal

electronic devices” (Crompton, 2013). The uses and applications of mobile

learning have multiplied in different contexts even though the eventual

consequences of the proliferation of this medium are not yet entirely clear, either

to designers and practitioners themselves or to researchers.

 12

The term M-Learning or “Mobile Learning”, has different meanings for

different communities, that refer to a subset of E-Learning, educational

technology and distance education, that focuses on learning across contexts and

learning with mobile devices. Mobile learning has many different definitions and

is known by many different names, like m-learning, u-learning, personalized

learning, learning while mobile, ubiquitous learning, anytime/anywhere learning,

and handheld learning. Mobile learning is emerging as one of the solutions to the

challenges faced by education. With a variety of tools and resources always

available, mobile learning provides increased options for the personalization of

learning.

The teachers or students who are users of mobile devices are getting

used to mobile environment to make education as ubiquitous as possible. This

concept plus the aid of internet opens the idea of distance learning as a means of

receiving education from all parts of the world. Thus, Kukulska-Hulme and Shield

(2008) stressed that in a short period, the attractiveness of distance learning led

to the realization that various mobile devices provide a very effective resource for

education. This way, many researchers tried to make mobile devices a rich

resource for teaching and learning.

Additionally, Fusch (2012) argued that with more students bringing

smartphones and tablets to campus, and expecting to access information and

course content via mobile devices, it continues to be urgent for faculty

 13

developers and instructional technologists to explore the affordances of these

devices and the opportunities for using them to enhance teaching and learning.

Valarmathi (2011) and AbuSa’aleek (2014) emphasized the point that

Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) describes an approach to language

learning that is assisted or enhanced through the use of a handheld mobile

device.In other words, MALL is an approach to language teaching and learning

and any particular mobile device is a language resource, a tool and a support to

a process of language learning. As a new approach for education, Huang,

Hwang, and Chang (2010) assumed that it has implications for the way students

and tutors in educational institutions interact.

Computing Research Association (2005); Chan, Roschelle, Hsi, Kinshuk,

Sharples, Brown, Patton, Cherniavsky, Pea, Norris, Soloway, Balacheff,

Scardamalia, Dillenbourg, Looi, Milrad, and Hoppe (2006); and Ally (2009) have

argued that three factors (1) ubiquitous access to mobile, connected, and

personal, handhelds, (2) the relentless pace of technological developments in

one-to-one computing, and (3) the evolution of new innovative uses of these

handhelds, will create the potential for a new phase in the evolution of

technology-enhanced learning, characterized by “seamless learning spaces”

marked by continuity of the learning experience across different scenarios (or

environments), and emerging from the availability of one device or more per

student (“one-to-one”). The development of mobile technology led to the

 14

development of education through mobile by communication or social media

networks.

In line with the latest Horizon Report 2012 and 2013 which highlighted the

educational potentials of mobile and tablet computing (Johnson et al., 2013;

Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012), MALL is a burgeoning subdivision of

computer assisted language learning in general (Zelezny-Green, 2010). It carries

the idea of e-learning a step further by adapting its content to handheld devices

such as ipods. The main objective of M-Learning is to provide the learner the

ability to assimilate learning anywhere and at any time (Ally, 2009; Crescente &

Lee, 2011).

Portraying learning as a mobile activity is not to separate it from other

forms of educational activities, since some aspects of learning are fundamentally

mobile. With mobile learning in mind, better understanding is elicited how

knowledge and learning materials can be transferred across contexts such as

homes and schools, how learning can be delivered and managed across life

transitions, and how new technologies can be designed to support schools (Liaw,

Hatala & Huang, 2010; Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2010.)

Digital technology can perhaps instead be seen as a catalyst leading to

the awareness of the mobility of learning and the criticality of beginning to reflect

on how learning is developed instead of the actual basis for mobile learning.

Kukulska-Hulme, Pachler, and Vavoula (2009) asserted that learning facilitated

 15

by mobile technology is strongly linked with informal learning due to the highly

personalized nature of the context.

One of the most significant characteristics of mobile learning in Asia is the

ability to provide basic education and continuous learning for people living in rural

areas. Literacy education is an area where the use of mobile learning can have

a particularly positive impact, especially for disadvantaged populations.

Increasing the literacy rate is an imperative issue in developing countries.

Distance education or electronic learning (e-learning) in higher education is

another area where mobile phones have been used effectively to increase

educational opportunities for people living in less developed regions (Isaacs,

2011).

The main characteristics of mobile learning (m-learning) are recognized as

the potential for learning process to be personalized, spontaneous, informal and

ubiquitous. Although learning through mobile phones may take longer time

compared to computers, the learners feel a greater sense of freedom of time and

place, so that they can take the advantage of spare time to learn a second

language when and where they are (Miangah & Nezarat, 2012).

The 21st century is believed to be an era of digital natives and digital

immigrants; hence, there is a strong growth in the use of technological

innovations in daily life, including mobile technology. Mobile learning can be

championed by different learning theories namely, behaviorist learning,

 16

constructivist learning, collaborative learning, situated learning and informal

lifelong learning. However, although some researchers have conducted studies

in this vein and highlighted the prominent function of Mobile Learning, first-hand

empirical studies are still needed to be conducted (Embi & Nordin, 2013).

Ten years of research into mobile learning has revealed no single ‘killer

application’ for mobile technology in learning (Embi, & Nordin, 2013; Sharples,

Arnedillo-Sánchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009; Ally, 2005). To be effective, Jeng,

Wu, Huang, Tan, and Yang (2010) and Wadi (2015) suggested that the

appropriate application of mobile devices is to be developed in the combination

of appropriate use of mobile technology and enhanced educational underpinning.

M-learning may use mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs i.e., Personal

Digital Assistants such as palmtop computers, “pocket PCs”, and mini media

players such asipods). M-learning can rely on podcasts (audio contents, usually

in mp3 format, or even video contents in MPEG-4) or more simply on texting

(SMS). Lominé and Buckhingham (2009); Moura and Carvalho (2010); Cui and

Wang (2008); Kukulska-Hulme, Traxler and Pettit (2007); Sharples, Taylor and

Vavoula (2010) argued that the aim is not to challenge nor replace other forms of

interactions (face-to-face in classrooms, lecture theatres and studios, or virtually

in online learning environments); it is a supplementary method that can support,

enrich and enhance students’ learning experience. What is new in ‘mobile

learning’ comes from the possibilities opened up by portable, lightweight devices

 17

that are sometimes small enough to fit in a pocket or in the palm of one’s hand

(Kukulska-Hulme, 2005).

Kukulska-Hulme, Traxler and Pettit (2007) points out that authentic

learning, learning that involves real-world problems and projects that are relevant

and interesting to the learner can be facilitated using mobile learning. It means

that learning is best based around authentic tasks, that students should be

engaged in exploration and inquiry, that they should have opportunities for social

discourse, and that ample resources should be available to them as they pursue

meaningful problems

Furthermore, Pšenáková (2010) claimed that the traditional forms of

learning nowadays have already been inadequate in numerous cases, the

capacity of classrooms are limited, the number of those wanting to learn is rising

and there is always something new to be learnt, because new scientific results

are born every day, therefore people can complete them with electronic

possibilities.

Among all the devices, cell phones have great potential in language

teaching and learning. Mobile phones can support many kinds of learning,

including language learning. A computer is better than a mobile phone for

handling various types of information such as visual, sound, and textual

information, but mobile phone is superior to a computer in portability (Valarmathi,

2011; Cui & Wang, 2008). Yet concerns have been raised that mobile
 18

technologies also introduce certain problems and barriers (Stodd, 2012;

Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Cavus & Ibrahim, 2009).

Although potential disadvantages exist in mobile learning devices,

including small screens, limited storage capacities, and short battery life, these

drawbacks are outweighed by the advantages that mobile learning can provide to

three groups of users: individual students, faculty, and university administrators.

If mobile learning allows students to easily access to information, then it will bring

value to their learning experience (Prasertsilp, 2013). Another waterloo in

adoption of mobile learning with the use of SMS in the classroom as pointed out

by Scornavacca, Huff and Marshall (2007) is the cost of text messages.

In The Mobile Wave, Saylor (2012) admits that soon it will be cheaper to

read with a tablet computer than paper. That means every literate person on the

planet will have a mobile device from the age of three or four, will use one all

their lives, and will carry it everywhere. Mobile will turn retail into theatre, make a

Harvard-level education accessible to everyone, and bring the global information

flow into the most remote areas of the world.

Related studies. The use of mobile learning reported to have been

correlated to students’ motivation. A study of Leis, Cooke and Tohei (2013)

revealed that students who used their mobile phones in classes also tended to

study more outside the classroom than those who were not permitted to use their

mobile phones in class.

 19

Gasaymeh and Aldalalah (2013) concluded that the use of SMS in the

learning process has the potential to act as motivational tool for the students to

learn. Their study aimed to investigate the impact of using Short Message

Service (SMS) as learning support tool on students’ learning in an introductory

programming course showed that SMS had stimulated the students to review

class materials, to solve assignments, to cooperate with each other, and to

attend class. Overall, the students’ perceptions of the SMS as communication

tool and as learning support tool were positive.

The study of Deng and Shao (2011) examined the use of Remword as a

vocabulary learning tool in a college environment. Students spent their personal

time to learn English especially for memorizing English words. They self-

scheduled their time and self-initiated to remember vocabulary from time to time.

This learning is more self-directed and is not constrained by any other people or

by time and space mediated by the mobile learning tool Remword. All students

held positive perceptions of confidence and abilities to continue the vocabulary

learning with the aids of Remword.

Mobile learning, vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.

Fazeena, Hewagamage and Ekanayake (2012) emphasized that there have

been many studies which have already been done in the area of mobile language

learning. In one study, for example, Kiernan and Aizawa (2004) used mobile

phones to have learners exchange e-mails with one another in order to teach
 20

targeted structures, while Taylor and Gitsaki (2003) required their learners to use

the browser function of their phones to perform Internet searches, and Levy and

Kennedy (2005) sent learners language learning related text notifications through

SMS about what they had learnt during class or details of upcoming television

programs they wanted the learners to watch. Each of these studies capitalizes on

different features of mobile phones (e-mail, web browsers and SMS) and

illustrates the broad potential of the phone as a learning tool.

SMS is the most widely used data application on the planet, with 2.4 billion

active users, or 74% of all mobile phone subscribers sending and receiving text

messages on their phones. Using SMS in language learning classes is one of the

best opportunities for language learners to extend and increase their learning

outside of their classrooms whenever and wherever they desire.

Language learners would be able to extend their learning opportunities

and participate in novel types of learning. In mobile language learning, the

learners are increasingly motivated by their personal learning needs, including

those arising from greater mobility and frequent travel. Some argue that mobile

devices are particularly suited to supporting social contacts and collaborative

learning– claimsthat have obvious relevance for language learning (Hashemi &

Azizinezhad, 2012; Lominé & Buckhingham, 2009).

 21

Major research findings (Zengning, 2011) showed that the majority of adult

learners favor vocabulary learning via mobile phones due to the convenience

facilitated by the portability and accessibility of the mobile phones. The short

message service (SMS) technology is one of the most stable mobile technologies

around. Most of tertiary students carry mobile phones with SMS facilities and can

be used for teaching and learning (So, & Su Yonghua, 2009). SMS is the most

reliable and popular message communication on mobile phones today.

In Ankara, Turkey, a study conducted in a private university (Kilickaya &

Krajka, 2010) comparing the usefulness of online vocabulary teaching and the

traditional methods used in upper-intermediate Academic English class. The

control group students practiced vocabulary items in ten reading passages

through vocabulary notebooks and cards. The learners in the experimental group

practiced the same vocabulary items in the passages through WordChamp. The

vocabulary items were regularly reviewed with both groups. The usefulness of

the two methods was evaluated via the post-test. The study showed that the

learners in the experimental group outperformed the learners in the control group

and that the experimental group students better remember the words studied

online, evidenced by a follow-up post-test given 3 months later.

The same study was conducted at Sama College, affiliated to Islamic

Azad University (IAU) of Mashhad, Iran to examine the effect of SMS, benefits

from personal, informal, situated and context-aware learning on vocabulary

 22

retention and its relation to reading comprehension ability of Iranian lower-

intermediate EFL learners (Motallebzadeh & Ganjali, 2011).

The findings of the study demonstrate that mobile phones as tool and

SMS as an application can facilitate certain forms of learning. Since the text

messages can be easily sent at predetermined times and intervals, they can be

stored systematically and accessible for later retrievals. According to the results

of the study, participants in SMS group significantly outperformed the ones in

conventional/paper group. The obtained results also showed that acquiring

vocabularies sent through SMS can be effective in improving learners’ reading

comprehension scores.

Another study that confirms the usefulness of SMS on students’

vocabulary learning and retention was conducted by Alemi and Lari (2012). The

results of the study showed that in the short term, there was not any significant

difference between learning vocabulary via SMS and learning it by using

dictionary, however, learning vocabulary via SMS helped the participants in the

experimental group to enhance their vocabulary knowledge in the posttest. In the

long term, vocabulary learning via SMS helped students to retain more

vocabulary compared to using dictionary. This implies that using SMS helps to

transfer vocabularies into students’ long term memory.

Furthermore, based on the obtained results of the study (Motallebzadeh,

Beh-Afarin & Rad, 2011) that attempted to investigate the effect of Short
 23

Message Service (SMS) on the retention of collocations among Iranian lower

intermediate EFL learners, participants in SMS group significantly outperformed

the ones in conventional/paper group. SMS has effect on the retention of

collocations among Iranian lower intermediate EFL learners.

Also, in the study conducted by Abbasi and Hashemi (2013), which aimed

to prove whether using mobile phones by intermediate EFL learners have a

significant effect on the learners’ vocabulary retention and whether there is a

significant difference between male and female intermediate EFL learners in

vocabulary retention while using mobile phones proved that using mobile phones

by intermediate EFL learners have a significant effect on the learners’ vocabulary

retention and there is no significant difference between male and female

intermediate EFL learners in vocabulary retention while using mobile phones.

Waqar (2014) on the other hand, conducted a study and investigated the

use of SMS messages to gather data about student learning in mathematics in

two public schools of Punjab. The results of SMS assessment matched the paper

and pencil test except the results on the first two questions of addition in which

students performed better with the paper and pencil test. It is therefore

recommended that testing of mathematical skills of students in upper elementary

grades can be done through SMS if the students are informed and the school

administration agrees with the approach.

 24

Zengning (2011) studied how mobile phone is perceived as a language

learning tool and what opinions students have after the mobile phone learning

experience. A total of 24 part-time adult learners majoring in English participated

in this research. Results support the idea that mobile phones provide an

alternative source for adult learners to learn vocabulary and cater to the

particular needs of adult learners to “learn anytime and anywhere”. Vocabulary

learning with mobile phones allows learners to be exposed to the distributed

vocabulary items on the regular basis, which can be a complementary approach

to massed vocabulary learning, as in the traditional paper-based vocabulary

learning.

A quasi experimental study was conducted by Jahani (2015) to examine

the effectiveness of mobile (SMS) learning on Iranian EFL learners’ English

vocabulary learning. This study compared two approaches of vocabulary

learning, namely, SMS learning and paper text learning in an Iranian school in

Kuala Lumpur. SMS learning method (strategy) not only obtained high scores but

had satisfaction during the learning process.

Applications, or apps, that are available for both smart phones and tablets

can be an effective tool for promoting vocabulary development among adult

learners in English as a second language programs. An app is a software

program for a mobile phone or computer operating system (Nisbet & Austin,

2013). Many currently available mobile learning applications highlight the

 25

mobility, ubiquitous computing, and portability features to facilitate learning

process by utilizing those features (Moura, & Carvalho, 2010; Jeng, Wu, Huang,

Tan & Yang, 2010). Vocabulary is the important component of language

proficiency. How to help students to enlarge their vocabulary is a challenge for

English teachers (Deng & Shao, 2011).

An American study entitled, “The impact of podcasting on students

learning outcomes” (Facer, Abdous, & Camarena, 2009) which focuses on

studying podcasting’s effects on foreign language teaching and learning reported

that the use of podcasts appears to have a positive effect on students’ acquisition

of language skills. The students in the pilot classes reported that the use of

podcasts helped them improve their language skills in all areas, including

reading, writing, comprehension, and speaking, as well as increase their

knowledge of vocabulary and grammatical rules. Students reported that the use

of podcasts helped them most in the acquisition of oral and aural skills and in

building their foreign language vocabulary.

Likewise, a study conducted by Sadeghi and Ahmadi (2012) that

investigated the effects of three kinds of gloss conditions that is traditional non-

CALL marginal gloss, computer-based audio gloss, and computer-based

extended audio gloss, on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners

revealed that extended audio gloss group comprehended online computerized L2

 26

texts significantly better than other groups. All experimental groups performed

better than the control group in text comprehension.

Similar study was conducted by Zidat and Djoudi (2011) that examined the

use of the web for studying English as a second foreign language at an Algerian

university. The results supported the hypothesis that claims the use of web

based application can contribute in improving the students’ reading

comprehension.

However, the study of Wells (2012); Stewart (2012); Milone (2011);

Derakhshan, & Kaivanpanah (2011) and Schugar, Schugar, & Penny (2011)

does not support the abovementioned studies. The aforementioned researchers

found out that the use of technology in the learning process does not have

significant improvement and impact to reading comprehension of the students.

Lin and Yu (2012) elicited the same result where the effects of different

presentation modes (text, text+audio, text+image and text+audio+image) on

vocabulary learning were not significantly different. These findings may confirm

the argument of Ally (2005); Yang (2013); Morales (2014); Gu, Gu, and Laffey,

(2011) that technology in the classroom should be suited to the teaching and

learning goals to elicit desired results. Ballou (2012) and Wu (2015) also

suggested that teachers need to consider the strengths, needs, interests, and

learning styles of their students before selecting instructional methods or

materials for teaching reading comprehension.

 27

Furthermore, Viberg and Grönlund (2012) opined that in order to ensure

reliability, longer studies and larger test groups are required. According to Wu

(2015), besides the treatment, time is the most important variable in conducting

an experiment.

On the other hand, the study of De Jong and Bus (2004); Korat and

Shamir (2007); Twyman and Tindal (2006) shows neutral results. The study

reveals that technology-based approaches are as effective as using non-

technology based approaches to improve reading comprehension.

The future of mobile assisted language learning. Non-traditional teaching

aids have been successfully used in the classroom to enhance and improve

students’ learning (Elson, Ostapski, O’Callaghan & Walker, 2012). The use of

technology in teaching and learning environments is an important aspect which

has received considerable attention in recent years. In a similar vein, the use of

mobiles to increase effectiveness of instruction has been acknowledged through

a number of experimental studies carried out so far (Baleghizadeh & Oladrostam,

2010).

Bailey, Hsu and DiCarlo (1999) maintained that given the pervasive

domination of technology in education, educators are challenged to develop

innovative and creative educational materials that enhance and supplement the

traditional lecture format. The materials must facilitate active learning, enhance

problem solving skills, and encourage small group discussion. Educational

 28

games are a fun way to achieve these goals. Although games do not replace the

traditional methods of obtaining theoretical knowledge, games can reinforce data

acquisition while promoting process skills.

If mobile learning is normalized, serving the needs of learners and

integrating it into every teacher’s everyday practice, technology will certainly

change in the size, shape and position of the classroom computer. It will require

change in attitudes, in approach and practice among teachers and learners; it will

require fuller integration into administrative procedures and syllabuses (Bax,

2003; Kukulska-Hulme, 2009). However, Jarvis and Achilleos (2013)

acknowledged that the concept of CALL remains relevant to the extent that there

will still be a role for it to play in students working on a computer desktop or

laptop.

Leis (2014) mentioned that with computer technology developing rapidly in

the 21st century, there can be a danger that these tools can become the center of

the English lesson, undermining the role of the teacher. However, Dina and

Ciornei (2013) stressed the idea that even though computer has more

advantages that favor computer assisted language learning and teaching in a

classroom, such developing technology should only be seen as integrated into

the learning and teaching process, as part of a daring endeavor in developing a

successful educational system and not as a replacement of teachers in the

classroom. Gourova, Asenova and Dulev, (2013) and Moura and Carvalho,
 29

(2010) supported the same idea and emphasize that M-learning is not going to

fully replace traditional learning approaches. Gay, Stefanone, Grace-Martin and

Hembrooke (2001) emphasized that mobile learning only serves as extension for

learning in new environment. However, it provides an excellent option for

teamwork, interactivity, and seamless collaboration of students in a group or with

their teachers. It is a new trend in education reflecting the changes in

technologies but also the habits of the new generation of computer-savvy

students.

Context has been identified as a central construct in mobile learning

developments, guiding projects to use mobile technologies to help connect

learning across contexts and life transitions, and to form bridges between formal

and informal learning. Learners’ personal interests are frequently supported

through mobile technologies; learner collaboration is also important, and

specifically the ability to support collaborative and conversational learning taking

place outside the classroom, in homes, workplaces and in museums. User

interface and interaction design has addressed some of the requirements of

mobile learners in these contexts, although there is still much to be done. A

combination of technical, pedagogical and sociological expertise will be needed

to make sense of, and give direction to, emerging mobile learning principles

(Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-S´anchez, Inmaculada & Vavoula,

2009; Bruns, Cobcroft, Smith & Towers, 2006; Ozdamli, 2011).

 30

Mobile learning needs to be contextualized in broader, integrative

educational scenarios. In these scenarios, mobile devices need to inter-operate

with embedded ubiquitous technologies and also with network and server

infrastructures, and they need to support well-grounded educational functions

(Sharples, 2006).

Oller (2012) argued that higher education decision makers, instructional

designers, and most importantly teachers need to innovate and experiment

framework of mobile learning as mobile learning technology and applications are

changing and improving from time to time.

The review of related literature advances herein clearly articulates the

need to further test and verify the effectiveness of Mobile Learning to language

teaching considering that studies conducted were from abroad. Further,

replication of the study is also needed to find out if Mobile Learning can be

adopted in context. The findings of the study offer a promising benefit to

students, teachers, and school-heads in the over-all curriculum framework.

However, the current study only focused on Mobile Learning and reading

comprehension and was conducted in a small number of respondents and in a

short period of time.

 31

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the following theoretical underpinnings:

Behaviorist learning theory. The school of behaviorism emerged in the

1910s, led by John B. Watson. Behaviorism equates learning with changes in

either the form or frequency of observable performance. Learning is

accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated following the

presentation of a specific environmental stimulus (Ertmer, & Newby 2013;

Driscoll & van Barneveld, 2015).

Behaviorism applies drill-and-practice strategies to achieve learning that

results in a change in the learner’s behavior. Behaviorists focus on the output of

the learning process by frequently reinforcing concepts with examples,

interactions, and practices. In a mobile learning environment, learners can

repeatedly practice learning content anytime and anywhere. This feature of

learning has similarities to the behaviorism learning theory (Shih, 2007).

Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to

internal events like thinking. Behavior is the result of stimulus– response; it is

determined by the environment (McLeod, 2007).

Transactional distance theory. As mobile devices are becoming

increasingly ubiquitous, many researchers and practitioners have incorporated

 32

the technology into their teaching and learning environments. Instructional

designers and educators recognize the potential of mobile technologies as a

learning tool for students and have incorporated them into the distance learning

environment (Park, 2011).

Transactional distance theory proposed by Michael Graham Moore

provides the broad framework of the pedagogy of distance education (Gokool-

Ramdoo, 2008; Giossos, Koutsouba, Lionarakis & Skavantzos, 2009).

Transactional distance theory is an educational theory that defines the critical

concepts of distance learning. It presents a definition of distance education which

implies the separation of teachers and learners (Moore, 2007).

Transactional distance theory is defined by the fact that distance is

considered not only as geographic separation but also (and more importantly) as

a pedagogical concept (Moore, 1997). As a result, the theory enables the

inclusion of both types of education, that is, “a program in which the sole or

principal form of communication is through technology” and where “technology-

mediated communication is ancillary to the classroom” (Moore 2007, p. 91).

Moore (1993) suggested that transactional distance is not defined in terms

of geographical distance, but rather it is a pedagogical concept encompassing

the separation of learners and teachers by time and space. Transactional

distance is the “psychological and communications space” (Moore, 1993, p. 22)

 33

that occurs between learners and teachers and is shaped by the environment

and by the patterns of activity of individuals within the environment.

Many researchers view transactional distance theory as a basic analytical

framework for understanding distance education systems (Gorsky & Caspi,

2005). Since mobile instruction accounts learning outside the classroom, this

theory is particularly appropriate in the study.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Zone of Proximal Development has

been defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential

development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in

collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Lev Vygotsky views interaction with peers as an effective way of

developing skills and strategies. He suggests that teachers use cooperative

learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more

skillful peers– within the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky believed that

when a student is in the ZPD for a particular task, providing the appropriate

assistance will give the student enough of a “boost” to achieve the task (McLeod,

2010).

Students under mobile learning instruction receive intentional guidance,

scaffolding and reinforcement activities via mobile devices from a teacher-

 34

someone who is an expert or an adult, until the desired outcome is achieved.

Hence, this theory is included in the study.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 shows the variables of the study. The independent variable is the

mobile assisted vocabulary instruction and the traditional teaching. In the study,

Mobile Assisted Vocabulary Instruction formed part of a teaching strategy used

by the teacher conceptualized from Mobile Assisted Language Learning which is

an approach to introduce vocabulary items to the respondents.

The dependent variable is the respondents’ reading comprehension skills.

The reading levels are patterned after Barrett’s (1972) taxonomy of reading

comprehension.

Although the original taxonomy comprises five main comprehension

levels: literal, reorganization, inferential, evaluation and appreciation, the study

adopts only three of the five levels of taxonomy that captures the lower

(reorganization), middle (inferential) and higher (evaluation) order processes of

cognitive demands. The literal is classified under lower order processes of

cognitive demands while the appreciation is under higher order processes of

cognitive demands (Reeves, 2012). The classification of Reeves (2012) confirms

the idea of Basaraba, Yovanoff, Alonzo and Tindal (2013) that literal items were
 35

less difficult than inferential items, and inferential items were easier than

evaluative items.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Reading Comprehension
Mobile Assisted
Vocabulary Instruction o Reorganization
o Inferential
Traditional Teaching
o Evaluation

Figure 1.The conceptual paradigm showing the variables of the study.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to find out the efficacy of mobile assisted vocabulary

instruction to students’ reading comprehension ability. Specifically, the study

sought to answer the following questions:

1) What is the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and control

group in the following reading comprehension taxonomies:

a) reorganization,

b) inferential,

c) evaluation, and

d) overall?
 36

2) Is there a significant difference on the pretest reading comprehension mean

scores obtained by the experimental and control group in the following

taxonomies:

a) reorganization,

b) inferential,

c) evaluation, and

d) in the overall?

3) Is there a significant difference on the posttest reading comprehension mean

scores obtained by the experimental and control group in the following

taxonomies:

a) reorganization,

b) inferential,

c) evaluation, and

d) in the overall?

4) Is there a significant difference on the pretest and posttest reading

comprehension mean gain scores of the students’ in the experimental

group?

5) Is there a significant difference on the pretest and posttest reading

comprehension mean gain scores of the students’ in the control group?

 37

Null hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested at α=<.05 level

of significance:

Ho1 No significant difference is obtained on the reading comprehension mean

scores of the experimental and control group in the pretest in the following

taxonomies: (a) reorganization, (b) inferential, and (c) evaluation, and in the

overall.

Ho2 No significant difference is obtained on the reading comprehension mean

scores of the experimental and control group in the posttest in the following

taxonomies (a) reorganization, (b) inferential, and (c) evaluation, and in the

overall.

Ho3 No significant difference on the pretest and posttest reading

comprehension mean gain scores of the students’ in the experimental

and control group.

Ho4 No significant difference on the pretest and posttest reading

comprehension mean gain scores of the students’ in the control group.