The Impact of MALL on English Grammar Learning

(1)

CULTURE-LANGUAGES-MEDIA

Independent Project with Specialization in English

Studies and Education

15 Credits, First Cycle

The Impact of MALL on English

Grammar Learning

MALL:s påverkan på engelsk grammatikinlärning

Marija Cukalevska

a

Elina Johansson

b

Master of Arts in Upper Secondary Education, 300 creditsb _{Examiner: Damon Tutunjian} English Studies and Education Supervisor: Jasmin Salih

2020-11-09

Master of Arts in Secondary Education, 270 creditsa English Studies and Education

(2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to explore how grammar learning in the English as a second or foreign language classroom can be improved. Our aim was twofold: (1) to investigate the possible effect of implementing Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on students’ grammar learning in the Swedish upper secondary level education, and (2) to find out what students’ attitudes are towards such an implementation and how it can impact student motivation. We analyzed and provided an overview of ten articles relating to the subject. The results showed that the use of MALL contributed to improved grammar learning when it was used as a tool to help students analyze and reflect upon specific exercises collaboratively and to help individuals do grammar exercises and tests with a formative purpose. However, the results also showed that MALL was not beneficial if only used as an educational or communicative tool. Lastly, the results showed that students overall had a positive attitude towards the use of MALL in education, despite experiencing some technical difficulties, and that the approach further motivated students’ will to learn. Based on the results, we argued that the use of MALL in the English language classroom coincided well with the _{guidelines of the curriculum and syllabus for} English 5, and that, if used as recommended, MALL could help improve Swedish students’ English grammar learning and their motivation.

Key terms: _{MALL; Mobile-Assisted Language Learning; grammar; ESL; English as a second} language; EFL; English as a foreign language; language learning; student attitude; student perceptions; student thoughts; student beliefs

(3)

1. Introduction

English as a native and second language is used in a large variety of situations all over the world, and according to Lee McKay (2016) it is the most geographically widespread language in terms of the number of countries it is spoken in (pp. 19-20). Therefore, English teachers have a duty to provide students with the proper knowledge required to take part in English conversations. Indeed, the curriculum for upper secondary level states that schools have a responsibility to ensure that students acquire enough knowledge of a subject to be able to use it in their everyday and work life (Skolverket, 2011b, p. 5). However, statistics from Skolverket (2019) show that 8.5% of Swedish students graduating from ninth grade in 2019 lacked a final grade in English. This affected their position in upper secondary school since English is one of the core subjects, and without at least the grade E a student is not eligible to apply for upper secondary studies (Gymnasieguiden, 2020). Studies also show that some students who did receive a final grade in English in ninth grade found it difficult to reach the criteria of their upper secondary English education. For example, a report from Skolverket (2017) shows that 25% of students at vocational programs in upper secondary education in Sweden fail to receive a passing grade in English 5 (p. 7).

Although poor grammar might not be the sole reason for some students’ lack of a final grade or chance of reaching the new criteria, grammar is an integral part of learning a language. Indeed, even the syllabus for English 5 asserts the importance of students’ understanding of grammar. Though the specific term “grammar” is not mentioned, Skolverket (2011a) declares in the subject’s core content that students need to study the structure of the language to be able to adapt the language to different purposes and situations (pp. 3-4). Biber et al. (2002) present grammar usage as a number of choices a speaker makes to, for example, convey their reason for communicating and to whom they are speaking (p. 2). Therefore, without proper grammar communication would be difficult.

As mentioned earlier, a large number of students at vocational programs in Sweden struggle to receive a passing grade in English 5 (Skolverket, 2017). According to Wery and Thomson (2013) students who struggle in school often exhibit “apathetic attitudes”and a lack of motivation while studying (p. 103). To counteract the lack of student motivation, they recommend teachers connect learning tasks to the “real world” while helping students to focus on what is fun about the tasks (pp. 106-107).

Other than a “real world” connection in students’ tasks, Skolverket (2000) mentions that the goal for students should be to achieve a life long will to learn (pp. 7-9). The best way to

(5)

between young people is done through mobile phones. Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020) claims that 95% of people between the ages of 16 and 24 use a mobile phone for personal purposes. Since the majority of young people use mobile phones in their everyday life, mobile phones might be considered part of the “real world” and fun to use, which raises the question of whether the use of mobile phones in education can help improve students’ motivation.

The usage of mobile phones in the classroom has been a debated topic within the realm of education for some time. Skolverket (2020) claims that although some teachers see mobile phones in the classroom as a disturbance, others have found ways to utilize them in their teaching. Additionally, both the curriculum for upper secondary education in Sweden and the syllabus for English 5 support the use of mobile phones, a digital tool, in teaching situations. The curriculum states that students, facing a world that is becoming more digitized, should be given the opportunity to develop their digital competence (Skolverket, 2011b). It also states that schools should take students’ different qualifications and needs into consideration when planning their education (Skolverket, 2011b, p. 2). Furthermore, Skolverket (2011a) asserts that students should interact in English with the help of different aids and media as part of the aim of the subject (p. 1).

A particular use of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is a way to incorporate mobile phones in the learning environment. According to Miangah and Nezerat (2012),

“Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) deals with the use of mobile technology in language learning” (p. 309). The authors mention that the main idea with the usage of mobile phones in a learning context is for learning to become personalized and spontaneous. As the learning occurs through one's phone, there is no need to be in a classroom or in front of a computer as one would usually be when learning, thus making MALL a solution for the barriers that may appear when learning is scheduled at a specific time and place (p. 309). Furthermore, Richards and Reppen (2016) claim that technology-supported teaching can help with time management since it enables students to learn grammar outside of the classroom, which gives teachers more time to focus on other things during lessons (p. 168)

The use of technology, such as mobile phones, can also be connected to learning theories. Focusing on a sociocultural perspective, Uden (200) states that Vygotsky presented language learning as a social activity that takes place between and with the help of multiple participants (p. 87). For that to happen, mediation is necessary. Lantolf (as cited in Lundahl, 2012) explains that the tools used for mediation can be both symbolic, such as language in itself, and physical, such as a computer (p. 207). Additionally, Uden (2007) makes a connection between the use of technology and the sociocultural learning perspective. She mentions

(6)

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), which focuses on the notion that a learner is able to develop their knowledge further with the help of someone more competent than if the learner worked alone. She claims that mobile technology can act as the mediation tool that enables learner’s development in the ZPD (p. 87).

Although the use of technology in classrooms and in education in general has been discussed in previous research, there seems to be a gap in the field regarding in what manner MALL can impact Swedish students’ grammar learning at an upper secondary level. Since upper secondary school comprises the final years of education for those who choose not to attend higher education, it might be their last chance to study English grammar. As such, it seems imperative to study how MALL can affect students’ grammar learning at that level. Furthermore, as shown previously in the text, students who struggle in school can express a lack of motivation, which teachers need to combat. In combining our research of what impact MALL can have on grammar learning with research on how students perceive the use of MALL, we also hope to clarify in what manner it can affect students’ motivation.

(7)

2. Aim and research questions

The intention of this paper is to analyze the possible impact the use of MALL might have on grammar learning at upper secondary level. The aim is also to analyze students’ attitudes towards the use of MALL in the English language classroom to determine whether it can help with students’ motivation. The analysis will be based on the following questions:

1. To what extent does the use of MALL improve students’ English grammar learning at an upper secondary level?

2. What are students’ attitudes towards the use of MALL in the classroom, and how does their perception of its utility affect their motivation towards learning the L2?

(8)

3. Method

For the purpose of this paper, we define MALL as the use of portable handheld devices, namely mobile phones and tablets, for language learning purposes.

The method used while searching for and collecting articles relevant to this paper is electronic searches in databases focused on education.

3.1 Search delimitations

Initially, the search was limited to the Malmö University Library Searchbase and the databases ERIC (via EBSCO) and Education Research Complete (ERC). The option “peer reviewed” was always chosen to guarantee the validity of the sources.

When including all search terms relating to the first research question with the option “find all my terms” chosen, the results were limited to 20 articles. Hence, the options “find any of my search terms” and “apply related words” were chosen instead to increase the number of results, which resulted in 2,938 articles. By varying the combination of our search terms, we were able to find a few articles that related to both research questions.

The same procedure was implemented while searching for articles related to the second research question. When including all search terms with the option “find all my terms” chosen, the results were limited to 12 articles. However, when the options “find any of my search terms” and “apply related words” were chosen, the search resulted in 2,723 articles. By varying the combination of our search terms, we were able to find a few articles that related to both questions.

To further expand the list of articles relating to the research questions, a search was made on Google Scholar, which resulted in 3,210 articles. A few articles were chosen as possible additions to our list. To assert the validity of these articles, their titles were entered into the Malmö University Library Searchbase, ERIC (via EBSCO) and Education Research Complete (ERC) with the option “peer reviewed” chosen. However, none of the articles were found in the databases and were therefore excluded from the list again.

The date range used in the searches was limited to the years 2010-2020 to ensure that the empirical data was relevant since the research area of this paper focuses on modern technology and the curriculum and syllabus used today.

(9)

● Research Question 1: MALL; Mobile-Assisted Language Learning; grammar; ESL; English as a second language; EFL; English as a foreign language; language learning ● Research Question 2: MALL; Mobile-Assisted Language Learning; grammar; ESL;

English as a second language; EFL; English as a foreign language; student attitude; student perceptions; student thoughts; student beliefs

The terms “MALL” and “Mobile-Assisted Language Learning” were chosen since the focus of this paper is to investigate the effect that approach might have on grammar learning. Furthermore, the term “language learning” was chosen as a part of the focus of examining how MALL might affect students’ language and grammar learning.

The terms “ESL”, “English as a second language”, “EFL”, and “English as a foreign language” were chosen since the focus of the paper is the Swedish education system and English is taught as a foreign language in Sweden. We chose to use the terms “English as a second language” and “ESL” too to include studies conducted in other countries than Sweden where English is considered to be a second language.

The terms “student attitude”, “student perceptions”, “student thoughts”, and “student beliefs” were chosen since the focus of the second question is students’ attitudes towards MALL.

3.2 Inclusion criteria

We chose to include articles where the participants of the studies were both younger and older than our target group; upper secondary level students in Sweden. The results relating to the applicability of MALL can be applied to our target group since the study participants’ ages are still close to the age of our target group.

We also chose to include studies conducted worldwide if the participants were learners of English as a second or foreign language since that is the situation in Sweden as well, which makes the results relevant to our research questions.

3.3 Exclusion criteria

We chose to exclude articles where the studies focused primarily on other language features than grammar and mentioned grammar only fleetingly in the results. Furthermore, we chose to exclude articles where the interviews in relation to students’ attitudes focused more on other language features than grammar or more general usage of mobile phones.

(10)

After the inclusion and exclusion, we arrived at a total of 10 studies, most of which addressed both research questions as indicated in the table below.

Table 1. Articles included in the paper

Research Question 1: Research Question 2: Number of sources used where

participants’ age was 12-17 5 4

Number of sources used where participants’ age was 18 and older

3 5

Number of sources included in

(11)

4. Results and Discussion

This section will present different perspectives regarding the current paper’s area of interest, namely to what extent the use of MALL can improve students’ English grammar learning at an upper secondary level, what students’ attitudes are towards the use of MALL, and how students’ perception of its utility affect their motivation towards learning the L2. The first section focuses on the results and discussion of research question 1, and the second section focuses on the results and discussion of research question 2.

4.1 To what extent does the use of MALL improve students’ English grammar

learning at an upper secondary level?

Although the majority of the studies examined in this paper show that the use of MALL in the language learning classroom has a positive effect on students’ grammar learning, the results differ in terms of how useful MALL is and in what manner it helps the students.

Several studies demonstrate that the use of MALL in the ESL or EFL classroom has a positive effect on students’ grammar learning. Khodabandeh et al. (2017) conducted an experiment to examine the effect of sharing tasks on a virtual network through the use of mobile phones. 60 iranian highschool students took part in the experiment where all students, who were taught grammar inductively, performed a pre- and posttest. During the process, the control group received photocopied exercises to solve while the students in the experimental group worked together in groups of five to find explanations for specific grammar rules which they then shared with others through the smartphone application _Telegram. _{The authors found that the} students in the experimental group reached higher results on the posttest, and concluded that the use of MALL-based tasks has a positive effect on students’ grammar learning.

A similar study was conducted by Gharehblagh and Nasri (2020). The authors examined whether students’ working collaboratively on writing exercises through the use of MALL exhibited improved results in their writing, and what students’ attitudes towards the approach were. Amongst other perspectives, grammar results were studied. After doing a pretest, the participants in the experimental group used the application _{Telegram to collaborate with others} and reflect on writing exercises given to them while the control group received the same writing exercises on paper. Later, all participants did a posttest, a delayed posttest, and took part in an interview. The study showed that the experimental group scored higher results than the control group on both the posttest and the delayed posttest, and the authors argue that the results point to the benefits of collaborative learning through the use of mobile technology. In addition, they

(12)

explain that it is beneficial to use MALL in collaborative work to improve students’ writing skills by reason of mobile learning offering alternatives in which each student can learn at their own pace.

The results of the studies conducted by Khodabandeh et al. (2017) and Gharehblagh and Nasri (2020) assert that students’ grammar improves when they work collaboratively to analyze and reflect upon exercises given to them. Both studies used the mobile-based application

Telegram as a tool to communicate and execute the assignments. Combined with Uden’s (2007)

claim that language learning is a social activity according to Vygotsky and her statement that technological tools (as a physical tool for mediation (Lantolf, 2000, cited in Lundahl, 2012) can enable learners to develop their skills within the ZPD, this paper’s findings suggest that the use of MALL is beneficial from a sociocultural learning perspective. For example, when the students in Khodabandeh’s et al. (2017) study worked together in groups to find explanations for specific grammar rules they were able to discuss the rules and help one another understand them better. Hence, it can be seen as a social activity where students with less knowledge can use the knowledge of their peers to develop their own skills within the ZPD. When the groups then share their findings through _{Telegram, the activity offers the same opportunity to the rest of the} students through the use of a technological tool. We argue that these results should be taken into account when considering how to implement MALL into the Swedish English language classrooms.

Furthermore, three other studies support the claim that MALL is beneficial to students’ grammar learning, whereof one was conducted by Hedjazy Moghari and Marandi (2017). Through an empirical study, accompanied by interviews, the authors examined two parts; what impact grammar teaching through text messages had, and what the stakeholders’ (students, parents, teacher, and principal) beliefs about said practice were. 60 Iranian students, aged 14, took part in the experiment where the experimental group received grammar exercises via text-messages outside of the classroom followed by the correct answers later the same day. The control group did the same exercises using pen and paper. The study showed a noticeable difference in the results of the experimental group, compared to the control group, as they outperformed their peers in a grammar posttest conducted after twelve weeks. The authors attribute some of the success of the experiment to the portability of mobile phones, which enables students to answer messages immediately, and to the fact that students do not seem to consider that what they are doing can be seen as studying, which in turn makes them more motivated.

(13)

In addition, a study conducted by Li and Hegelheimer (2013) sought to investigate the effect of a mobile-application _{as a tool for practicing grammar and students’ attitudes towards} the approach. _{19 foreign exchange students at a university in the US took part in the experiment.} The authors introduced an application called Grammar Clinic to an ESL writing class where the participants used it to perform a series of grammar exercises. They also _{provided the students} with a questionnaire to research their attitudes towards the approach. Further, _{through a} grammar pre- and posttest, combined with an analysis of the students’ self-editing and the final draft of a writing assignment, the authors discovered an improvement in students’ grammar. However, due to the fact that there was no control group used in the experiment, the authors are not able to explicitly claim that _{Grammar Clinic is the sole reason for the improvements made.}

Moreover, a study conducted by Titova (2015) examined what effect the use of _{PeLe as a} testing system had on students’ language learning. 35 students at a university in Russia took part in the study. The participants were initially divided into 4 groups; 2 control groups and 2 experimental groups. The experimental groups partook in grammar and vocabulary tests using

PeLe on their mobile devices with the results used for formative assessment, while the control

group used pen and paper for the same exercises. Additionally, the participants answered a questionnaire regarding their experiences with and attitudes towards the MALL-approach. The study showed an improvement in the experimental groups’ performance, whereas the control groups experienced a decrease in their overall results. However, the author presses the importance of considering that the positive results could be linked to the students’ interactions with mobile devices, the implementation of regular testing, or the fact that they received immediate feedback, and not solely the use of _{PeLe. With this in mind, the author still} recommends using the MALL-approach in combination with formative assessment to achieve the best results.

In line with the claims presented by Miangah and Nezerat (2012), who suggest that the main focus of MALL is to make learning personalized and spontaneous in terms of time and place, the findings of _{Hedjazy Moghari and Marandi (2017) and Li and Hegelheimer (2013) show} that the portability of mobile phones is integral to students’ developing their grammar skills by being able to do grammar exercises outside the classroom. Furthermore, in connection to Richards and Reppen’s (2016) claim that students learning grammar outside the classroom is beneficial to teachers’ time management inside the classroom, we argue that MALL can help both students and teachers. Moreover, keeping in mind that Titova (2015) focused her study on using mobile devices as a tool to administer formative tests to students and that Skolverket (2011b) states the importance of taking students’ individual qualifications and needs into

(14)

consideration, we argue that the use of MALL in connection to formative evaluation can help personalize learning.

One study shows that using mobile phones in the classroom can be facilitated by students’ using their own devices. Chou et al. (2017) sought to research the effect of the implementation of the Bring Your Own Device-approach (BYOD) (where students bring and use their own mobile phones when studying), the use of an application called _{Socrative for} formative assessment, and students’ attitudes towards MALL. 46 grade eight students from Taiwan participated in the study. All participants completed a pretest and then a number of quizzes at the end of each lesson. The experimental group received the quizzes and subsequently the correct answers through the app, while the control group received the same information via paper sheets. The study showed that the paper-based tests were more effective from a learning improvement perspective since the control group achieved better results in the posttest compared to the experimental group. However, a delayed posttest showed that the students in the experimental group only had a slight decrease in the results compared to the posttest, which the authors claim shows that the BYOD approach helps students retain knowledge better. Furthermore, the authors argue that this might be connected to the fact that students sometimes engage more actively in language learning when using tools such as applications, which could lead to higher learning retention.

As claimed by Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020), 95% of Swedish people between the ages of 16 and 24 use mobile phones for personal purposes. In the BYOD approach, examined by Chou et al. (2017), students are required to bring their own mobile devices to use in class to take formative quizzes on. Since the vast majority of Swedish upper secondary students already possess the tool needed for this approach according to statistics, we argue that the implementation of the approach in the Swedish classroom would be beneficial. Most students will already be familiar with how the devices work and schools might save money by not needing to invest in devices for more than the few students that do not already own a mobile phone. Furthermore, since Chou et al. found the approach to be beneficial to students’ knowledge retention, the approach could also be beneficial to students’ general grammar learning.

On the other hand, some studies show a less significant or no improvement in students’ grammar learning. A study conducted by Kayapinar et al. (2019) sought to examine the effect of using tablets for learning purposes compared to regular teaching practices and students’ attitudes towards the approach. 56 university students in Turkey took part in the study. The authors compared the results of a pretest and a posttest, a survey, an attitude scale, and an interview to

(15)

examine if the use of tablets in grammar teaching helped improve students’ grammar. The experimental group used tablets preprogrammed with, for example, the coursebook and instant messaging services through which students could send questions and receive feedback. The control group had access to the same programs, but were restricted to using the library’s computers or their own laptops. The authors found that although the majority of the participants improved their grammar skills over the course of the experiment, the use of tablets solely as an educational tool did not lead to a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group.

Furthermore, a study by Mauricio and Genuino (2020) examined whether using smartphones as a tool for collaborative writing had an impact on students’ writing performance and what students’ attitudes towards the approach were. 40 grade eleven students from the Philippines participated in the study. The participants were given a short lecture about collaborative and academic writing and were then asked to write an essay in groups. Afterwards, they took part in a focused group discussion to determine their attitude towards the project and the use of smartphones in the project. After examining the students’ writing performance, the authors concluded that the approach had a positive effect on the content and organization of the essay and students’ vocabulary, but not on students’ grammar learning.

As stated, both the Swedish curriculum for upper secondary education and the syllabus for English 5 mention the use of digital tools, such as mobile phones, in the classroom. The curriculum states that students need to develop their digital competence (Skolverket, 2011b), while the syllabus states that students should use different aids and media to interact in English (Skolverket, 2011a). While the implementation of MALL would mean following those guidelines, the current paper raises concerns regarding how MALL should be used. The results of Kayapinar et al. (2019), and Mauricio and Genuino’s (2020) studies show that it is not enough to simply use mobile phones or tablets as an educational tool or as means for students to communicate with one another to significantly improve their grammar learning. However, since other studies suggest that MALL can indeed be beneficial to students’ grammar learning in different scenarios, we urge teachers and future teachers to consider in which ways the approach should be implemented to gain most success based on the results of this paper.

(16)

4.2 What are students’ attitudes towards the use of MALL in the classroom, and

how does their perception of its utility affect their motivation towards learning the

L2?

Multiple articles used in this paper attained a similar idea of students’ perspective on MALL. Most of the research demonstrated a positive attitude from the learners. Hedjazi Moghari and Marandi (2017) identified students’ perception along with the benefits of learning grammar via text-messages. Through interviews with selected students, parents, the teacher, and the school principal, the authors examined what the stakeholders’ beliefs about MALL were. The results discovered that all stakeholders except the teacher expressed positive attitudes towards the practice. The students believed learning grammar via mobile phones was of great help. The authors believe the students’ enthusiasm for using mobile phones in class is one reason behind their positive attitudes, as the learners spoke of using this method of teaching in other subjects than English.

Another positive example of learning grammar is presented in Li and Hegelheimer’s (2013) study. As the students worked with the application _{Grammar Clinic, 76% of the} participants believed the application was a useful and helpful way of learning. Hence, the authors stated _{that the use of Grammar Clinic in mobile-assisted language learning might have had positive} effects on students’ grammar learning. _{Equally as excited were the students in Krasulia and Saks’} (2020) research who were 100% pro mobile learning. After partaking in MALL tasks, the participants answered two self-report questionnaires. The results showed that despite experiencing technical difficulties, 100% of the participants were pro mobile-learning, with 50 % of students arguing they had improved their reading and listening skills. Furthermore, the students felt a comprehensive satisfaction towards MALL. The authors concluded that students’ results increased due to learning through mobile devices being more authentic and therefore more motivating. The students were aware of their motivation boost. 69.2% of them believed that MALL made them feel more connected to the real world, which engaged them in their learning.

Furthermore, Lawrence (2015) found that nearly half the participants in the study were positive towards integration of smartphones inside and outside the EFL classroom. In the study, students partaking in a compulsory L2 English course at a Korean university answered a survey regarding their attitude towards the integration. The survey showed that almost 50% of the participants responded positively to smartphones as a tool in class. However, other participants felt ambivalent, while some were not in favor of it at all. Lawrence continued to mention that students seemed to learn the most while doing something they liked and that higher engagement

(17)

in students was driven by them learning through choice. In conclusion, Lawrence stated that a large part of students were positive towards integrating smartphones in the EFL classroom. The author stated that previous studies’ higher percentage of positive answers might be based on the participants’ majors being either English or technology oriented.

Mauricio and Genuino (2020) also introduced students’ positive outlook on using mobile devices in a learning environment. _{Their results had a positive influence not only on the writing} process that was examined through smartphones, but also on students’ attitudes towards the use of smartphones in the classroom. The authors came to this belief through students participation in a focused group discussion to determine their attitude towards the practice. The results showed a confident influence on student engagement. _{The writers implied that a reason behind} the students’ enthusiasm was them being allowed to use their personal phones in the conducted writing activity. It increased students’ confidence as they were more excited than usual to participate online. Participants in their research mentioned how writing became easier when using their smartphones.

Likewise, through the use of _Telegram _{in Gharehblagh and Nasri’s (2020) study on} student’s writing skills, the authors concluded that it contributed to student encouragement within collaborative activities. Furthermore, the interviews conducted showed that all interviewees were positive towards working collaboratively through the use of MALL. This was because communication through _{Telegram was believed to cause less stress.}

Similarly, students in a research made by Titova (2015) obtained an overall positive perspective on MALL due to it improving their satisfaction towards learning. In addition to the

PeLe _{testing system, the participants answered a questionnaire regarding their attitude towards} the MALL-approach. _{The author found that students had a positive view on the use of the} mobile-assisted language learning model.

The findings presented above offer an overall positive outlook by students concerning using MALL when learning (Hedjazi Moghari and Marandi, 2017; Li and Hegelheimer, 2013; Lawrence, 2015; Maurucio and Genuino, 2020; Gharehblagh and Nasri, 2020; Titova, 2015). One reason for this is that teachers have found a way to use mobile devices as a learning tool in class rather than them being a distraction. (Skolverket, 2020). The majority of the reviewed studies pointed out how motivation in students’ learning and results in their performance were correlated. As aforementioned, Wery and Thomson (2013) suggest that students struggle in school when they are not motivated to learn. _{Dörnyei (2009) writes about one theoretical} concept behind the L2 motivation field, which he acknowledges as integrativeness. He explains that the motivation behind integrativeness consists of a learner’s desire to study a second

(18)

language to be able to communicate with members of a different language community than their own (p. 22), in this case several communities where English is spoken. Correspondingly, we believe that the use of mobile phones in general, and in the classroom specifically, can facilitate and inspire communication between different language communities and therefore might act as a motivational tool for students. Based on the results of this paper, we argue that the overall positive response towards the implementation of MALL shows that the approach could be applied to the Swedish context as well to help increase students’ motivation and their grades correspondingly.

As previously stated, 8.5% of ninth graders graduate with an incomplete grade in English (Skolverket, 2019) and 25% of students in vocational programs do not receive a grade in English 5 (Skolverket, 2017). As stated, the reasons behind the Swedish grades being incomplete may not solely be related to grammar specifically; however, poor results may be rooted in students’ lack of motivation. A lack of motivation in learning may occur when students do not find tasks interesting. For students to gain interest in what they are doing, it should be related to their personal life. Krasulia and Saks (2015) presented statistics that showed a greater number of students’ that enjoyed working with mobile phones as a learning tool because they felt it was related to their personal life. According to Miang and Nezerat (2012), students favor personalized learning, and they view mobile devices in class as fun and spontaneous. Wery and Thomson (2013) also recognized the importance of connecting learning to the real world. There is no doubt that mobile phones are a big part of real life experiences as technology keeps advancing. The Swedish curriculum, as well as the syllabus, support the usage of mobile phones as a digital tool for the purpose of learning, which is presented in Skolverket (2011b, 2011a). Another statement from Skolverket (2011b) urges teachers to consider students' needs in learning. This stems from Skolverket’s (2000) goal for students in Swedish schools to have a “life long will to learn.” Based on this paper’s findings, we believe that the best way for teachers to awaken students’ will to learn is to work in a way that motivates them. In his article, Lawrence (2015) supported this statement by pointing out that students seemed to learn the most while doing something they liked.

On the other hand, some students in Li and Hegelheimer’s (2013) study viewed the character limitations when writing a text-message as a problem. Some students felt they needed more instructions than the ones they received through text. As such, Li and Hegelheimer indicated that 59% of students in their research felt they needed more instruction than what was given to them.

(19)

In addition, Chou’s et al. (2017) research on BYOD also resulted in students feeling that they needed more instruction during their work with the devices. Although the experimental group expressed positive attitudes towards the BYOD approach, they similarly expressed a need for more preparation as they expressed uncertainty towards facing mobile-related issues. Moreover, 70% of the respondents in Krasulia and Saks’ (2020) research article expressed challenges as a result of technical and digital literacy restrictions when working with MALL.

Furthermore, Kayapinar et al. (2019) found that students preferred tablets as a supplementary tool to their learning rather than as a replacement. In their study, the experimental group felt conflicted by the tablets not being equally fast which affected the students' engagement in the task. They continued to present that only a number of 29% of the students in the experimental group felt comfortable when working with tablets. Before the experiment, 15% of the students viewed the tablets as a challenge. After the process, the number increased to 29%. Furthermore, Kayapinar et al. acknowledged that making grammar interesting was hard.

Students learn the most when they are given extensive instructions to solve a task, which some studies in this paper revealed to be a limitation when working with MALL. More than half of the students in Li and Hegelheimer’s (2013) article explained that they lacked enough instructions to perform in the best way possible since the instructions they received were limited due to the amount of characters allowed in a text-message. The students in Chou’s et al. (2017) research experienced the same thing, which led to the BYOD approach not bringing significant improvement in students’ results other than them maintaining a better knowledge retention. Despite these obstacles—along with other complications when using technology based learning such as relying on internet connection (Krasulia and Saks, 2020) and tablets not operating at the same rate at all times (Kayapinar et al., 2019)—all of the studies included in this paper indicate that a majority of their participants had a positive attitude towards MALL. Based on these results, we urge that the implementation of MALL in the Swedish classroom is combined with extensive task instructions and reliable technological support to ensure that students can work without interruptions.

(20)

5. Conclusion

The results of the paper indicate that the use of MALL in English grammar learning at the Swedish upper secondary level coincides well with the guidelines of the curriculum and syllabus for English. However, it is important that MALL is not simply used as an educational or communicative tool; instead, it should be used to help students collaborate on specific exercises or help individuals do grammar exercises and tests with a formative purpose. Furthermore, the MALL approach is relevant to modern education since the vast majority of Swedish youths already carry and use mobile phones daily, which in turn opens up the possibility of learning to be portable. Further, since learning can be seen as a social activity, using mobile phones to help connect and learn with others can improve students’ grammar learning.

Additionally, the findings of this paper imply that students’ motivation increases when engaging in tasks that are related to the real world. Mobile devices in particular spark an interest within learners: The results of the reviewed studies show that the majority of students have a positive attitude towards MALL. When students are offered to work in a way that they favor, their performance tends to improve because they find it easier to accomplish a task they feel enthusiastic about. Nonetheless, challenges with technology may occur as mobile-devices are in need of, for example, a stable internet connection. Moreover, in contrast to traditional learning, students seem to feel the need for more instructions when engaging in MALL. All these factors need to be taken into consideration if MALL is implemented in the English classroom for upper secondary school in Sweden. Regardless of the aforementioned restrictions, the overall idea of referring to mobile phones as a tool in language learning is welcomed and embraced by learners according to the findings of this paper.

In conclusion, the findings of this paper imply that MALL can improve Swedish upper secondary level students’ English grammar if used as a tool for students to discuss and reflect upon exercises collaboratively. Furthermore, we argue that MALL can be successfully used to practice grammar outside the classroom as well as a tool to administer formative grammar tests. However, simply used as an educational or communicative tool, mobile devices are of no significant benefit to students’ grammar learning. Additionally, MALL is shown to have an overall positive impact on students’ motivation as it encourages them to learn. An increase in motivation is indeed a factor to students performing higher test results in multiple studies included in this research. The majority of the studies reviewed in this paper show students being pro mobile-learning.

(21)

The current paper does have its limitations. The studies analyzed were conducted on different age groups and in other countries than Sweden, and although the applicability of the use of MALL could still be valid in a Swedish context, the results would have been even more relevant had the studies focused on students in upper secondary school in Sweden alone. Furthermore, we did not conduct an empirical study. If we had, it would have contributed further to the results of the paper.

In line with the discovery of a lack of empirical studies conducted on Swedish upper secondary level students focusing on the topic of the effect of MALL-implementation on grammar learning, we recommend that a research project with this focus be made.

(22)

References

Biber, D., Leech, G.N. & Conrad, S. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written

English. Harlow: Longman.

Chinnery, G. M. (2006). EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Going to the MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), pp. 9-16.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44040/10_01_emerging.pdf Chou, P-N., Chang, C-C., & Lin, C-H. (2017). BYOD or not: A comparison of two assessment

strategies for student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 74, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.024

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),

Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual

Matters

Gharehblagh, N. M., & Nasri, N. (2020). Developing EFL Elementary Learners' Writing Skills through Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL). Teaching English with Technology,

vol. 20 (1), 104-121

Gymnasieguiden (November 18 2020) 10 vanligaste frågorna inför gymnasievalet.

https://www.gymnasieguiden.se/informeras/10-vanligaste-fragorna-infoer-gymnasievalet Hedjazi Moghari, M., & Marandi, S. S. (2017). Triumph through Texting: Restoring Learners'

Interest in Grammar. ReCALL, vol. 29 (3), 357-372.

Kayapinar, U., Erkir, S., & Kose, N. (2019). The Effect of Tablet Use on Students' Success in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Grammar Classroom. Educational Research and

Reviews, vol. 14 (5), 178-189

Khodabandeh, F., Alian, J., & Soleimani, H. (2017). The Effect of MALL-Based Tasks on EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning. Teaching English with Technology, vol. 17 (2), 29-41

(23)

Krasulia, A., & Saks, K. (2020) Students’ perceptions towards mobile learning in an English as a foreign language class. 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced Learning

Technologies (ICALT), Tartu, Estonia, 2020, pp. 238-240, doi:

10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00078.

Lawrence, B. (2015). Learner Receptiveness Towards Mobile Technology in a College English Program: The Smart Decision?. English Teaching, vol. 17 (1), 3-28

Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-Assisted Grammar Exercises: Effects on Self-Editing in L2 Writing. Language Learning & Technology, vol. 17 (3), 135-156

Lundahl, B. (2012). Engelsk språkdidaktik: texter, kommunikation, språkutveckling. (3. [rev.] ed.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Mauricio, M. C., & Genuino, C. F. (2020). Writing Performance and Attitude of ESL Learners Engaged in Smartphone Assisted Collaborative Activity. LEARN Journal: Language

Education and Acquisition Research Network, vol. 13 (2), 445-468

Miangah, T. M., & Nezerat, A. (2012). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. International Journal

of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(1), pp. 309-319.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tayebeh_Mosavi_Miangah/publication/27160058 1_Mobile-Assisted_Language_Learning/links/54cdd78d0cf24601c08e3da4/Mobile-Assis ted-Language-Learning.pdf

Richards, Jack C., & Reppen, Randi. (2016). 12 Principles of Grammar Instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 151-170) New York: Routledge

Skolverket (2000). Det Livslånga och Livsvida Lärandet.

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a6537df/1553956707219/pd f588.pdf

Skolverket (2019). Grundskolan - Slutbetyg per ämne i årskurs 9.

(24)

amne&p_flik=G&p_ar=2019&p_lankod=&p_kommunkod=&p_skolkod=&p_hmantyp =&p_hmankod=&p_flik=G

Skolverket (2011b). Läroplan för gymnasieskolan.

file:///home/chronos/u-7e7f4ea8da34a20046654ecd3758100e6fe5d83f/MyFiles/Downlo ads/L_roplan%20f_r%20gymnasieskolan%20(2).pdf

Skolverket (2020). Mobiltelefoner i klassrummet inte bara ett problem.

https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/forskning-och-utvarderingar/forskning/mobilt elefoner-i-klassrummet-inte-bara-ett-problem

Skolverket (2017). Nära examen: En undersökning av vilka kurser gymnasieelever med studiebevis

saknar godkänt i för att få examen (Rapport 461).

https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=3827 Skolverket (2011a). Ämne - Engelska.

file:///home/chronos/u-7e7f4ea8da34a20046654ecd3758100e6fe5d83f/MyFiles/Downlo ads/Engelska.pdf

Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020). Användning av mobiltelefon och dess appar (andel personer, procent) efter mobiltelefon och appar, kön, redovisningsgrupp och år.

https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__LE__LE0108__LE0108J /LE0108T30/table/tableViewLayout1/#

Titova, S. (2015). Use of mobile testing system PeLe for developing language skills. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 523-528). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000387

Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. Int. J. Mobile Learning and

Organisation, Vol. 1 (1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2007.011190

Wery, J., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Motivational strategies to enhance effective learning in teaching struggling students. Support for Learning, Vol. 28 (3), 103-108. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.12027