The field of supplementary language learning applications has experienced considerable growth in recent years. However, evaluations of these applications concerning their affordances and limitations have not been fully explored. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the potential suitability and limitations of the mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL) application called “Mondly” from the perspectives of EFL learners. Drawing upon Reinders and Pegrum’s (2015) framework and utilizing descriptive statistics, we sought to uncover whether Mondly met the assumptions of this framework. A convenience sample of sixty-two participants was recruited to participate in the study. Participants received one training session to learn how to use Mondly and ten sessions to practice learning English as a foreign language (EFL) using the app on their cell phones and website. A final session was allocated for participants to report their experiences of using the app by responding to a questionnaire. The results indicated that Mondly has the potential to benefit EFL learning. The study highlights the importance of evaluating supplementary tools for instructional purposes and identifies some limitations of Mondly. The evaluation can aid in adapting appropriate apps for specific purposes and enhance the quality of MALL applications.
Research Article
Evaluating Language Learning Applications from EFL Learners’ Perspectives: The Case of Mondly
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3011332/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
MALL
CALL
Evaluation
Mondly
Language Learning
Based on the sociocultural theory of mind (SCT), human cognition is believed to be mediated by artifacts or tools, whether physical or symbolic, as outlined by Vygotsky (1978). These cultural artifacts, including images, texts, and symbolic tools such as language, facilitate a learner’s psychological development. He considers mediation as one of the core concepts of SCT (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014), including a system of symbols, human behavior, and a physical tool (Donato & MacCormick, 1994). Mediatory artifacts and technology, such as computers and cell phones, serve as reliable sources of electronic scaffolding and have the potential to mediate learning (Lantolf et al., 2015). With rapidly evolving and affordable smartphones and tablet computers overcoming technological and economic restrictions, greater emphasis is being paid to using computers and mobile devices as supplementary to language instructional tools (Burston, 2015).
With the advent of new technology and shifting conceptions of teaching, the landscape of conventional teaching and learning approaches has significantly transformed (Nair & Md Yunus, 2023). This transition extends beyond traditional monomodal and teacher-centered instruction, embracing multiple modes of digital technologies, which has caused drastic changes in education. Theorists of multimodality (Warschauer, 1999) argue that since digital technologies have expanded the repertoires of resources for text construction, there is an essential need to broaden conventional teaching and learning. Cazden (1996) indicates linguistic diversity, the multiplicity of communications mediums, and the growing cultural diversity worldwide call for a more expansive form of teaching and learning than traditional techniques prescribe.
With the growth of technology-enhanced language learning, second or foreign language educators need to assess its efficacy, the promising future potential, and the benefits of its resources (Tommerdahl et al., 2022). Although some infrastructure, including access to hardware, software, and connectivity, may play a key role in language learning, the MALL resources and the design of those resources have a pivotal role in language learning (Reinders & Pegrum, 2015). Some facets are categorized outside the area of learning design, which can influence language learning and need to be assessed in several categories. It is essential to identify the potential affordances and drawbacks of mobile resources to employ or design sound mobile learning websites or apps. In addition, this recent tendency to implement mobile devices in language learning and teaching has led to the development of MALL (Burston & Androulla, 2020; Ebadi & Bashir, 2021; Sato et al., 2020a; Sung et al., 2016).
Mondly is one of the promising applications among other language learning tools developed by the EdTech company of Ati Studios. It is regarded as a foreign-language learning virtual reality (VR) app incorporating the communicative elements of social learning into self-study language learning (Tai et al., 2020a). However, it has a non-VR version, which is also categorized in MALL software. Overall, Mondly has a user-friendly and self-directed learning setting that can be used by computers or mobile phones inside or outside a classroom. It offers free and premium access to 41 languages to over 80 million people learning from the users’ native language anytime, anywhere, on any device. Moreover, it integrates chatbot and speech recognition technologies (mondly.com).
As a result of the effect of technology on the delivery of education, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic (Nair & Md Yunus, 2023), courses are now given online. Owing to distance learning and the Covid-19 pandemic, the need for more English educational tools is evident. Although studies have recognized the necessity for alternative learning approaches, such as technology-enhanced learning (Roza & Rustam, 2023; Nair & Md Yunus, 2023), a few investigations have been conducted to evaluate their appropriateness and weakness in their particular context. Namely, this trend is increasing worldwide while the quality of learning design of MALL apps is still not widely recognized. Consequently, instructors need to evaluate the weaknesses and affordances of these supplementary tools accordingly. That is MALL learning design or mobile material including “appropriateness”, “educational affordances”, “pedagogical stands”, “correspondence to second language acquisition (SLA) principles,” and “affective principles” need to be taken into account in the MALL domain appropriately.
The evaluation of language learning apps delivered through mobile devices has been under-researched. This study is intended to determine the potential appropriateness and possible constraints of MALL materials, specifically Mondly, for language learning to address this gap. Thus, the study investigated the extent to which the Mondly users found it an effective language learning tool and whether it has the potential to assist language learners regarding the criteria mentioned earlier. The evaluation was based on the criteria for MALL appropriateness concerning a number of categories affecting the subsequent reuse of this app among EFL learners in the Iranian context. Therefore, the following research questions are addressed:
- What are the 7th-grade learners’ perspectives towards Mondly, the non-VR version, as a supplementary tool in language learning?
- What are the affordances and challenges of learning a language through Mondly?
2.1 Mobile-assisted language learning
Drawing on the sociocultural theory of mind (SCT), the concept of mediation indicates that human cognition is mediated by artifacts or tools, either physical or symbolic (Vygotsky, 1978). In the literature, different artifacts or tools have been identified as objects to regulate learning in a productive learning environment. For instance, MALL results in self-regulation. However, the users of the mediatory artifacts highly rely on physical tools, such as Mondly, to develop language skills. In essence, through mediation from concrete and symbolic tools (Lantolf et al., 2015), language learners can improve their language skills independently(Lantolf et al., 2015; Thorne & Lantolf, 2007). These mediatory artifacts and technology—a reliable source of electronic scaffolding—can mediate learning (Lantolf et al., 2015); hence these psychological tools contribute to language learning and play an essential role in a learner’s psychological development. A learning app like Mondly can be regarded as a “psychological tool that assists individuals to develop mastery of their own “natural” psychological functions of perception, memory, and attention” (Kozulin et al., 2003, p. 1). Unlike the behaviorist approach, social constructivism originated from Vygotsky (1978) and draws on active and exploratory learning, social and collaborative effort, authentic and contextualized materials, and learner-centered activities (Pegrum, 2015). The affordances of smartphones in MALL may provide better educational opportunities for social interaction and collaborative learning (Burston & Androulla, 2020; Godwin-Jones, 2016; Sato et al., 2020a; Sung et al., 2016).
Several MALL researchers have confirmed that smartphones may pedagogically impact language development (Pegrum, 2015). In essence, mobile devices can be employed to enhance speaking, writing, reading, listening comprehension skills, vocabulary learning, grammar, and pronunciation (Burston, 2013, 2015; Gimeno-Sanz et al., 2020; Rassaei, 2020; Sato et al., 2020). A systematic review conducted by Chen et al. (2020) indicated that integrating mobile devices into language learning is more productive than traditional techniques.
Plonsky andZeigler (2016) point out that it is essential to ensure that how the benefits of technology can be best used to provide learners with the best language learning opportunities.Thus, materials and their implementation used in MALL should be carefully selected to bring its users the most advantages. Since the users might spend time and energy learning through MALL, it is crucial to assess the advantages of adoption against the potential time and financial commitment (Reinders & Pegrum, 2015). To do so, the MALL resources should be evaluated before implementation to prevent wasting time and effort, which may lead to frustration.
A great deal of previous research into MALL has focused on trends, challenges, opportunities, perception, experience, motivation, learner autonomy, and the effect of using mobile apps on language learning and teaching (Chen et al., 2020; Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg, 2018; Loewen et al., 2020; Sato et al., 2020). For instance, Chen et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of journal articles, conference proceedings, and Ph.D. dissertations released between 2008 and 2018 and found that using mobile devices for language acquisition appears more effective than using other traditional techniques. Furthermore, they regard mobile learning as a mediation tool for language learning through smartphones that might potentially transcend time and place constraints. According to their findings, technology- and student-centered perspectives are the current trend in the MALL domain, which may foreground learner autonomy.
Conducting an experimental study using a questionnaire survey, Sato et al. (2020) examined whether MALL can facilitate vocabulary recall and stimulate learner autonomy. At the same time, they investigated whether there is a relationship between these three constructs: vocabulary recall, autonomy, and motivation. Their results revealed that the learner autonomy and target expression were enhanced. Additionally, they found motivation strengthens autonomy accordingly. The study showed that MALL resulted in a better level of learner autonomy and willingness to study L2 vocabulary. In a comprehensive review through content analysis, Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018) evaluated MALL articles according to Reinders and Pegrum’s (2015) evaluation framework as a benchmark to find the particular affordances of mobile technology for language learning. They reported that the affordance of MALL is well-suited to promoting social constructivism. Moreover, the research identified the advantages of integrating individual and collaborative learning in mobile language learning.
Loewen et al., (2020) investigated how learning the Turkish language using Duolingo encouraged learners to spend more time studying. They evaluated Duolingo’s effectiveness for language learning through MALL. The results showed a strong relationship between the time the learners spent on this app and their improvement in learning Turkish. In addition, their mixed-methods design showed that the participants improved their language proficiency at the end of the study. Furthermore, analyzing individuals’ experiences of using Duolingo revealed a high motivation and positive perceptions toward this language learning app among its users.
2.2 Evaluating MALL resources
The evaluation of MALL resources refers to examining the learning design of those resources (Reinders & Pegrum, 2015). According to Hubbard (2006), evaluation refers to investigating software to determine its suitability. Likewise, the evaluation might investigate how to implement and evaluate the software in a particular setting appropriately. Different studies have applied various frameworks in language learning throughout the literature on evaluating CALL and MALL resources. For instance, Hubbard (2006), Jamieson & Chapelle (2010), and Jeong-Bae (2011) designed frameworks to investigate and evaluate MALL and CALL materials both their software and applications, to mention some.
Presenting a framework for evaluating MALL resources or mobile materials in the form of collections of websites or apps, Reinders and Pegrum (2015) indicated how MALL resources or mobile materials can be assessed based on specific criteria regarding the users’ perspectives. This framework includes various categories used to assess learning design which takes the form of activities designed around websites or apps and is only dedicated to language learning skills. The model covers the extent to which the learning design makes use of the potential educational affordances of mobile devices; the extent to which the learning design corresponds to general pedagogical approaches; the extent to which the learning design corresponds to specific L2 pedagogical approaches; the extent to which the learning design corresponds to SLA principles; and the extent to which the learning design considers affective principles.
Introducing the model mentioned above for app evaluation, Reinders and Pegrum (2015) reported how this classification can assess mobile resources critically. Moreover, it can enable the teachers to utilize appropriate and effective mobile material inside and outside the classroom. Furthermore, it allows teachers to guide students in selecting suitable language proficiency levels. More importantly, they pointed out that the framework was merely developed for assessing the mobile materials; however, these principles can be adopted to guide the development of the learning design of mobile resources for language teaching and learning. In sum, MALL resources can encompass “appropriateness,” “educational affordances,” “pedagogical stands,” “correspondence to second language acquisition (SLA) principles,” and, “affective principles”. It is important to highlight that while their framework considers many educational components, it lacks any learning result measurement, which should be investigated after initial implementation.
2.3 Mondly
Mondly affords materials and activities designed around the website or app dedicated to language learning and self-study purposes. It also offers virtual and augmented reality (AR) lessons, which require wearable tools such as VR headsets. Mondly appears to be the first app to combine AR with chatbot technology and speech recognition to help learners to learn new languages by speaking with them and providing feedback on their pronunciation (Symonenko et al., 2020). The lessons are offered daily in a category to pick from, each of which can be considered one-of-a-kind. Moreover, weekly and monthly calls are available (Sanda & Klimova, 2021). It likewise contains a “program that incorporates pre-testing, ongoing evaluation, and achievement test” (Healey & Johnson, 1997), which ranks its worldwide users.
Over the past decade, most research in Mondly has emphasized the use of VR technology which enables learners to have access to simulated virtual environments to perform authentic learning activities (Tai et al., 2020). For instance, Tai and Chen (2021), Symonenko et al. (2020), Sanda and Klimova (2021), Tai et al. (2020), and Park et al. (2019) have investigated Mondly through desktop-based VR or VR through mobile-rendered head-mounted displays (HMDs). In addition, the rest of the studies concern the comparison with other MALL apps, e.g., Duolingo (Loewen et al., 2019), or virtual reality applications such as VRSpeech, VR Learn English, Gold Lotus, AltSpace VR, and VirtualSpeech (Park et al., 2019; Sanda & Klimova, 2021).
Although Mondly includes reading, listening, writing, speaking, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation exercises, its unique feature is the ability to converse with virtual characters about real-life circumstances. Since VR may not be widely employed by language teachers, owing to some teachers’ reluctance and fear of implementing VR-powered learning aids and resources in their classrooms, VR might be considered a new technology in L2 education (Bonner & Reinders, 2018). VR and AR might identify Mondly, or most studies may be conducted about these two unique features; its non-VR version also has its proponents.
Utilizing Mondly, Tai et al. (2020) conducted a study using a commercial VR app to examine the effect of VR via mobile-rendered HMDs on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. They utilized VR app for one group using mobile-rendered HMDs to participate in conversations with virtual characters and a walkthrough video of the VR player’s app by the personal computers for another group. The VR player interacted with vocabulary exams, a perceptual questionnaire, and interviews to measure the participants’ vocabulary retention. The results revealed that VR players performed far better than video viewers. The majority of VR participants found VR-mediated vocabulary learning to be motivating and beneficial. The VR players were provided with multimodal support. Moreover, they engaged through real-time interactivity and feedback. Some video watchers noted that the walkthrough video aided vocabulary learning by contextualizing, while others complained that it lacked engagement and distracted their attention.
Much of the available literature on Mondly deals with VR and AR. However, Sanda and Klimova (2021) are much more concerned with evaluating MALL apps to reveal whether the apps have customization for their particular users. They compared four language learning apps: Duolingo, EWA, Mondly, and LinGo: Play. The results revealed that applications were not customized for the elderly and young groups. However, it must be noted that each of them had its affordances and drawbacks regarding each group. Compared to others, it seems that Duolingo was the best regarding clarity. They suggested that language learning apps should have some features, including ease of navigation, clarity of instruction, simplicity in design, and minimal redundancy, to be considered appropriate for all age groups. In addition, they pointed out that the applications crashed occasionally.
Based on the literature reviewed above, as Reinders and Pegrum (2015) and Burston (2015) indicate, evaluating mobile learning resources in language education is not yet a fully-fledged field of research.
The present research study explored the efficacy of Mondly, the non-virtual reality (VR) version, as a language learning application for young learners with low proficiency levels. The research design adopted for this study entailed using a survey as a data collection instrument, which was structured according to Reinders and Pegrum’s (2015) theoretical framework. The framework served as a guiding tool for developing a set of predetermined questions that could capture relevant data. The data obtained from the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize and describe the results and compared to previous literature to contextualize the findings. A descriptive analysis method was employed to gather information from participants about their experience with the Mondly app. The research design adopted was appropriate for the research question, and the data analysis approach was deemed suitable for summarizing and describing the findings. Incorporating a theoretical framework and the comparison with previous literature have enhanced the credibility and validity of the study. The study’s methodology ensures the reliability and validity of the findings, while the exploration of the users’ perceptions provides insight into the challenges and affordances of mobile resources in an informal context.
3.1 Participants
A total of 62 (45 male, 72.6, and 17 female, 27.4) Iranian teenagers—in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades starting to learn basic English at their schools were recruited through convenience sampling. Their age ranged from 12 to 16 years, with the majority (22%) being 14. Due to the nature of the study, data was collected from intact groups (Ary et al., 2018) who were about the same age and the same level of proficiency but with different genders. They attended English classes and were unfamiliar with applications such as Mondly for language learning. They primarily used technology for playing games, communication, and recreation. The data collection process was designed to capture the participants’ engagement with language learning technology. Notably, the participants were unfamiliar with applications such as Mondly, which are designed for language learning. The study’s design and sampling method ensured that the participants represented a diverse range of genders, providing a comprehensive understanding of the engagement patterns of Iranian teenagers with technology-based language learning.
3.2 Instrument
The questionnaire utilized in this study was adopted from Reinders and Pegrum (2015), consisting of 25 items on a five-point Likert scale to assess the 25 criteria. The evaluation framework is divided into five categories; each subdivided into criteria that can be rated on a scale of 1 to 5, yielding a total score for each criterion, category, and mobile resource as a whole. A response of “strongly agree” obtains the highest score (scored 5) and “strongly disagree” the lowest (scored 1). The data was collected using the online survey through Google Forms investigating the “educational affordances,” “general pedagogical approaches,” “L2 pedagogical approaches”, “SLA principles,” and “affective factors” of Mondly. Moreover, the users’ perceptions about the possible challenges and affordances of Mondly were explored in an informal context. Overall, this questionnaire evaluated the educational affordances, pedagogical approaches, SLA principles, and affective factors of Mondly using a questionnaire-based evaluation framework.
3.3 Procedure
The participants practiced learning English through Mondly for 45 days to become familiar with all parts individually or collaboratively. The teachers explained the study to their students and asked for their participation. They were learning English by Mondly with the help of their teachers and peers individually or collaboratively. Over the semester, students were asked to use Mondly to complete each topic whenever they had time, in and outside of the classroom. They could have access to the website on their laptop and download the app on their cell phones, which allowed them to practice learning English whenever or wherever they had time to do the activities or fulfill the tasks.
The adapted questionnaire was translated into Persian, the participants’ native language, since the participants were at a lower level of proficiency and could not understand English. One of the researchers translated the questionnaire into Persian as she holds a degree in English translation. In addition, using the back translation technique, another translator translated the Persian version back into English to confirm its accuracy and check the consistency of the translations. The original version and the back translation version were identified as equivalent.
Then the reverse translation was piloted on three respondents from the study population to find any potential ambiguity and fit the questions with the participants’ understanding. According to Mackey et al., (2000), pilot testing could frequently lead to revisions and fine-tuning of the protocol, thereby preventing the loss of precious, beneficial, and irreplaceable data. After piloting the questionnaire, the participants and the researchers made minimal modifications to customize the questions.
On the other hand, reliability was estimated to check the scale’s internal consistency or the togetherness of items (Pallant, 2020). As such, the most appropriate method of testing reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, was run using SPSS to meet the assumptions. This statistic indicates the average correlation among the items that make up the scale.
All items, including questions about “educational affordances,” “general pedagogical approaches,” “L2 pedagogical approaches”, “SLA principles,” and “affective factors,” were worded positively and negatively. They were reversed and reverse-coded before checking the reliability and analyzing the learners’ evaluation (Larson-Hall, 2015; Pallant, 2020) of Mondly through Reinders and Pegrum’s (2015) questionnaire. Then the data were analyzed and reported using frequency, mean, and SD.
3.4 Data Analysis
The data from this study were analyzed based on the learners’ responses to the questionnaires, which were analyzed using SPSS, 23 version. The quantitative analysis was employed to statistically analyze the learners’ evaluation of Mondly through Reinders and Pegrum’s (2015) framework using descriptive statistics, namely the mean, standard deviation, and the sum of the scores. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, which was estimated 0.771 as illustrated in Table 1.
| Cronbach's Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items | N of Items |
|---|---|---|
| .771 | .687 | 25 |
The results of evaluating the learners’ viewpoints are presented in Table 2. The frequency, SD, and mean for all the items and responses were computed to analyze the participants’ perceptions of Mondly. As illustrated in Table 2, “educational affordance design” is highlighted in yellow; “general pedagogical design” is in green; “pedagogical design” is colored turquoise; the grey color is related to SLA design; the last category, “affective design,” is highlighted in blue. These categories were subdivided into criteria that were used as a benchmark for assessing Mondly. By doing so, the results of descriptive statistics were reported below, in which the sum and the mean of each criterion or subdivision of category were estimated accordingly.
The first research question aimed to assess Mondly as a supplementary tool in language learning from a group of 7th-grade learners’ evaluation. Notwithstanding, the second research question relating to the affordances and challenges of learning a language through Mondly was addressed and foregrounded within the first question.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
The obtained score from the first seven questions relating to the first category, “educational affordance design,” was 40 out of 50. This means the application offers high affordances for local learning, personal or individual learning, episodic, extended learning, and mobility. The potential for local learning was 4.60, the second-highest average among other criteria indicating that Mondly can afford reasonable opportunities for local learning. Mondly does not have a chatroom or forum for collaborative learning from around the world or social connectivity that may promote comprehensible input and output. However, global and social learning is only limited to interaction with the partner character (a robot with animation features), not other learners or instructors. It might help the students stay connected and share their knowledge in their communities. Still, it might not be able to connect them to a global network of resources and other language learners or instructors.
These findings were in contrast to the affordances of mobile technologies proposed by Pegrum (2016), noting that not only can these educational tools integrate local and global learning, but they can connect episodic and extended learning. Therefore, Mondly may support distributed and situated learning but not networked learning. The core of digital language learning is the interaction that enhances the effect of digital tools on learning. This opportunity can be provided for the learners in different forms (Carrier et al., 2017). That is connectivity supplies networked and situated learning, which can occur independently or collaboratively regardless of time and place. Al-Emran et al. (2016), in this line, stated MALL apps foster learning anytime and anywhere. Likewise, he suggested that learners can employ mobile applications to have conversations, increase technological awareness, apply social media, find answers to their inquiries, collaborate in groups, share knowledge, and thus promote learning objectives. The current study’s findings differ from these in that it is limited to resources and topics without providing the opportunity to collaborate or scaffold with other learners. In essence, the main aim of Mondly is to develop vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and language skills within the app (Al-Emran et al., 2016; Sato et al., 2020; Tai et al., 2020; Tai & Chen, 2021).
This evaluation is contrary to that of Shadiev et al., (2017) who found learners can engage with real objects and stimulate their imagination to produce meaningful output since mobile technologies can generate authentic learning content, environments, and tools for a seamless learning experience. In other words, the non-VR version of Mondly may not afford authentic learning environments where learners can visit places with actual objects and experience real-life scenarios to the same extent as the VR version. However, it is believed that the VR version is far from the real-world environment taking users to a simulated environment; namely it is completely separated from the real environment as well (Alizadeh, 2019). Unlike VR, AR draws on the existing real world by adding digital elements wherein consumers assume those objects are genuine.
Concerning the second category, “general pedagogical design,” and its related criteria, the overall score for this category was evaluated 36 from 50 scores. The findings indicated that this language learning app is highly student-centered and learners can decide what and when to learn autonomously. Moreover, the materials are rooted in embodied and somehow informal and more formal learning. Although it does not thoroughly rely on repetitive practices, social constructivist learning is not taken for granted. According to Burston's (2015) study, this mobile app lacks communicative affordances because the learners interact only with the automaton or artificial intelligence and not with one another. Similarly, Loewen et al. (2019) indicated that Duolingo lacks contextual meaning and communicative tasks. In this line, Mondly was designed to primarily cater to lexical and grammatical elements either explicitly through translation activities or implicitly through repetition and reinforcement. The learners complete the translation by speaking, typing, and selecting the words from the multiple-choice or putting scrambled sentences into order.
Despite the perceived limitations of Mondly, including reliance on translation, the absence of interaction, and collaborative learning, towards language instruction (Reinders & Pegrum, 2015), Mondly is not thoroughly built upon the behavioristic approach involving rote learning. In other words, Mondly’s technical features are not routed in repetitive language learning. Unlike the findings of Loewen et al. (2019) on Duolingo, Mondly lacks the opportunities to engage in collaborative learning and the constructivist approach (Kim & Kwon, 2012).
Despite controversial debates about the quality and potential of educational apps in the literature, a body of research has revealed their contributions to language learning and teaching (Burston, 2015; Burston & Androulla, 2020; Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg, 2018; Sato et al., 2020). Unlike vague and abstract materials presented in some coursebooks, similar to Chen et al.’s (2020) findings, the results indicated that Mondly engaged learners in meaningful real-world learning where the users can benefit from the multimodal features of this colorful and pictorial app. Given the well-organized design of Mondly, the navigation, and access to the main topics, tests, vocabulary, and settings, it can attract language learners to study willingly across time and space.
On the other hand, the evaluation showed that the learners are tied to some preselected or controlled practices. Therefore creativity and criticality may not be thoroughly met in this app. In a similar vein, some researchers have argued that learning activities on mobile apps lack pedagogical innovation. Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018) observed that technical support and program rigidity could hinder innovation.
The third category, “pedagogical design,” was estimated at 11 from 15. The content is mainly rooted in explicit knowledge of native cultural aspects such as friendship, family, music, food, and school. The lessons are organized around the topics that cover the language items, i.e., vocabulary acquisition and grammar learning, to ensure that learners have reasonable control of the high-frequency vocabulary of the language and to select and sequence grammar items appropriately. Mondly offers multimodal learning content that includes audio, text, and visual assistance to help students visualize, contextualize, and assess their understanding. In line with the study of Sato et al. (2020), the results of the current evaluation revealed that the learners might gain autonomy in blended learning settings to pick up the vocabulary. However, this does not mean that the success of Mondly in improving vocabulary implies that it is effective in various areas of language knowledge and skills (Tommerdahl et al., 2022).
In line with the study of Loewen et al. (2019), found that Duolingo caters to “L1–L2/L2–L1 translations, multiple-choice translations, and dictation” (p. 5). That is, the way of delivering new words may offer teaching through translation or the concept of the grammar-translation method. The words are delivered in the target language one by one or in a word list with their pronunciation. At the same time, the learners match the corresponding picture or supply the translation that resorts to the users’ first language (L1). It could thus be argued that when it comes to applying those words in new situations, the learners may be unable to apply them. According to Widdowson (1987, as cited in Nunan, 1988), learners may be unable to apply what they have learned in new settings. Still, they will be able to execute in the limited scenarios they have practiced.
Concerning presenting grammar in this app, it seems that the verbs are presented in a logical sequence of George’s Verb Form Frequency Count (George, 1963). Concerning the cultural aspects, it is postulated that they are implied within the topics and are limited to learning the native culture. Mondly is not concerned with intercultural competence (communicative approach). Furthermore, the primary focus of this app is to learn a language from the users’ native language. In other words, the users of this app rely on translation to learn the second language. It may be argued that by encouraging the learners to carry out a task through translation, they can resort to translation for language learning.
Regarding the fourth category, i.e., SLA, the score was 14 out of 25. The response to the type of feedback given to oral speech was the lower average among other criteria, which was 1.94 out of 5.00. Owing to the absence of human interaction or peer feedback, the only interactivity was with the partner’s character. Hence no negotiation of meaning was available. However, a great deal of automated feedback was provided explicitly and directly for the written mistakes and extra elaboration on the topic. The speech-to-text functionality seems satisfactory, although the conversation can be taken unreal (thelingoworld.com). Despite having a chatbot, Mondly is limited to providing a situation wherein the chatbot imitates the conversation, and the learners can practice by responding to those conversational prompts. When the users had a conversation with the chatbot, they did not get clear feedback on improving their pronunciation. Consequently, due to the absence of social interaction or negotiation of meaning among the learners, Mondly can afford little opportunity for a social constructivist learning approach. Similarly, Loewen et al. (2019) indicated that Duolingo’s feedback mostly consisted of displaying a right response or marking a ‘Right/Wrong’ evaluation. It could thus be argued that typical of MALL applications, the clarification of the request has not been provided by Mondly either.
Responding to mistakes, i.e., oral and written mistakes, may be confusing for language learners since the partner character politely asks to repeat the phrase to continue the conversation without pointing out where the mistakes or incorrect word order lie. In contrast to this, the findings of Tai et al. (2020) revealed that learners are guided through virtual scenarios while interacting with virtual characters via collaborative dialogs and receiving immediate feedback. Moreover, this study differs from Tai et al. s’ (2020) and Tai and Chen’s (2021) findings, partially suggesting that the VR version provides meaningful and dynamic interaction with virtual characters and immediate feedback through context-based learning while the non-VR version is limited to interactions with the chatbot. Although “automated feedback has been proven to be an efficient SLA design component” (Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg, 2018, p. 214), it cannot facilitate the negotiation of meaning and interaction. According to Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg (2018), a social constructivist learning strategy is formed by combining the negotiation of meaning in interaction with feedback offered by learners using mobile technology and teacher feedback.
Mondly relies heavily on a large amount of input and a significant amount of output in terms of comprehensive input and output. Using chatbot technology and speech recognition for studying foreign languages improves output, i.e., speaking and writing, and receptive skills, i.e., listening and reading. In essence, concerning comprehensive output, the users were offered different sorts of controlled practices for speaking and writing, grammar learning, and vocabulary acquisition due to the limitations of the non-VR version of Mondly. The findings above confirm Symonenko et al.’s (2020) claims that this language learning app mainly provides three types of strands, including meaning-focused input, language-focused learning, and meaning-focused output (Macalister & Nation, 2019). Likewise, the current study agrees with Tai et al. (2020) and Tai and Chen’s (2021) findings, partially suggesting that desktop VR promotes vocabulary learning by offering comprehensible input and output, input enhancement, and a learner-centered environment.
Lastly, the affective design evaluated by the learners was estimated at 9 out of 10 scores. The highest average was 4.65, related to the last criterion, i.e., the absence or presence of anxiety. The findings indicated that the stress-free environment of the app encouraged the learners to practice English. According to Macalister and Nation (2019), affective factors refer to feelings such as motivation, language anxiety, and opinions about native speakers that might impede or foster the learning process. Hence, the app seems user-friendly, enabling learners to access all parts with no limitations. Thus, they are attracted to and involved in the learning process with fun. The users assumed that they did not need to learn by memorizing route learning through repetition. Moreover, they were not forced to do a lot of homework and were not bound to complete one task to go to another level, which did not make them anxious to be prepared for every session. Hence, they were motivated to practice and learn anywhere, anytime (Al-Emran et al., 2016).
Given that Mondly is targeted at lower levels, the lack of level differentiation can be a significant disadvantage. There seems to be no discernible difference between the upper and lower levels. Therefore, it can be concluded that Mondly is more appropriate for distance learning, which can be applied as a supplementary platform to improve language skills at lower proficiency levels. However, all features are unavailable in the free version, and constantly asking to purchase the premium version is not pleasing.
The study reported in this article presented an attempt to contribute to the growing body of adoption of language learning apps and their effects on EFL learning in non-educational and/or educational settings. The present study extended the knowledge base in MALL and CALL areas by supporting the effectiveness of language learning and teaching applications as supplementary instruments in or out of classrooms. The current study found that Mondly can provide a multimodal learning environment for language development, interaction, and scaffolding. The role of mediatory tools in fostering language learning suggested that Mondly can be an effective teaching method. Utilizing digital tools at any time and place can empower students with language skills at their convenience. Generally speaking, every application devised and employed for promoting teaching and learning should be evaluated for effective implementation. This study evaluated Mondly on five categories using a 5-point Likert scale through EFL learners’ perspectives drawing on a mediational tool for language learning. The results indicated that Mondly has its particular affordances, i.e., local learning, personal or individual learning, episodic, extended learning, and mobility.
The Mondly application offers limited opportunities for social and global connectivity among learners, as it is confined solely to the application platform. Nonetheless, it fosters a student-centered approach that promotes learner autonomy. The resources provided are rooted in real-world situations, presenting a diverse range of multimodal materials that cater to student preferences and facilitate formal and informal learning. Automated corrective feedback is also provided in detail, although it may not be as productive as peer or teacher feedback. The application offers significant input and ample opportunities for output; however, the lack of negotiation of meaning and interaction may be considered a drawback. This application generally provides several affordances, particularly for independent learners with limited proficiency who rely on their L1 for language acquisition. Nonetheless, it is not without limitations, which may not apply to the VR version of the application. Additional research is warranted to examine this aspect in more detail.
Although the learning tasks featured in the Mondly application have not been explicitly classified within a behavioristic learning paradigm, it is notable that a significant portion of the activities is based on principles of repetition and reinforcement. However, the absence of collaborative activities within the non-VR version of Mondly indicates a lack of emphasis on social-constructivist approaches. Nevertheless, the app does endeavor to incorporate real-world elements, albeit to a limited extent, thereby aligning with situated learning. Notably, the non-inclusion of virtual and augmented reality components in the non-VR version of the application imposes constraints on the authenticity, interaction, and mobility afforded to learners. Additionally, the fact that Mondly primarily emphasizes language learning from the perspective of the user's native tongue implies an association with the grammar-translation method.
The outcomes of this assessment may have implications for enhancing and personalizing the quality of mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) resources and applications utilized in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context. Further studies are needed to evaluate teachers’ evaluations and perceptions of language-related applications comprehensively. Additionally, the quality of the Mondly website necessitates further evaluation. It is imperative to note that since this study did not have access to head-mounted displays, a complete assessment of the affordances of the VR version of Mondly was not possible. Consequently, additional research is warranted to appraise the full potential of VR-based Mondly in authentic learning environments.
Authors’ Contributions
- Sedigheh Hajizadeh: Collected the data and wrote the first draft
- Ahmed Rawdhan Salman: Designed and conducted the procedures and reviewed the final draft, and made necessary revisions
- Saman Ebadi: Designed and conducted the procedures and reviewed the final draft, and made necessary revisions
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
It can be provided in Google Drive if necessary
- Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033.
- Alizadeh, M. (2019). Virtual Reality in the Language Classroom: Theory and Practice. Call-Ej, 20(September), 21–30.
- Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and Virtual Reality in the Language Classroom: Practical Ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33–53. http://www.tewtjournal.org.
- Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of implementation studies 1994–2012. Language Learning and Technology, 17(3), 157–225.
- Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159.
- Burston, J., & Androulla, A. (2020). Twenty-Five Years of MALL Experimental Implementation Studies: What Do We Really Know About It? In A. Andujar (Ed.), Recent Tools for Computer- and Mobile- Assisted Foreign Language Learning (pp. 35–50). IGI Global.
- Carrier, M., Damerow, R. M., & Bailey, K. M. (2017). Digital Language Learning and Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Cazden, C. B. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.
- Chen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., & An, H. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on language learning: a meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1769–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09801-5.
- Donato, R., & MacCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The modern language journal, 78(4), 453–464.
- Ebadi, S., & Bashir, S. (2021). An exploration into EFL learners’ writing skills via mobile-based dynamic assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1995–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10348-4.
- George, H. (1963). A verb-form frequency count. Academic.Oup.Com. https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/XVIII/1/31/418963
- Gimeno-Sanz, A., Valentina, M., & Van de Julie, V. (2020). Understanding Learner and Instructor Attitudes Toward and Use of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. In A. Alberto (Ed.), Recent Tools for Computer- and Mobile- Assisted Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1–34). IGI Global. https://lccn.loc.gov/2019024178
- Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Mobile Learning: Languages, Literacies and Cultures. CALICO Journal, 34(3), 376–379. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.32218.
- Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL Software. Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching, c, 313–338.
- Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.014.
- Jeong-bae, S. (2011). Exploring and Evaluating Language Learning Web Sites. Sensor Review, 31(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.1108/sr.2011.08731daa.016.
- Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 1–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.
- Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12580.
- Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.),. Theories in Second Language Acquisition, January, 207–226.
- Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS and R. In A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS and R. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775661
- Loewen, S., Crowther, D., Isbell, D. R., Kim, K. M., Maloney, J., Miller, Z. F., & Rawal, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A Duolingo case study. ReCALL. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000065.
- Loewen, S., Isbell, D. R., & Sporn, Z. (2020). The effectiveness of app-based language instruction for developing receptive linguistic knowledge and oral communicative ability. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/FLAN.12454.
- Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2019). Language Curriculum Design. In Language Curriculum Design. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203763
- Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). HOW DO LEARNERS PERCEIVE INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004010.
- Nair, V., & Md Yunus, M. (2022). Using Digital Storytelling to Improve Pupils’ Speaking Skills in the Age of COVID 19. Sustainability, 14(15), 9215.
- Nunan, D. (1988). Language Teaching-Syllabus Deisgn. 177.
- Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(6), https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12166.
- Park, W., Park, D., Ahn, B., Kang, S., Kim, H., Kim, R., & Na, J. (2019). Interactive AI for Linguistic Education Built on VR Environment Using User Generated Contents. International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, ICACT, 2019-Febru, 385–389. https://doi.org/10.23919/ICACT.2019.8701950
- Plonsky, L., Technology, N. Z. L. L., & & (2016). & undefined. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Infallibleinroad.Co.Uk, 20(2), 17–37. https://infallibleinroad.co.uk/scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44459/1/20_02_plonskyziegler.pdf
- Rassaei, E. (2020). Effects of Mobile-Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12629.
- Reinders, H., & Pegrum, M. (2015). Supporting language learning on the move: An evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources. Second Language Acquisition Research and Materials Development for Language Learning(Eds.), 2014(2012), 116–141.
- Roza, Z., & Rustam, S. (2023). Digital storytelling to facilitate academic public speaking skills: case study in culturally diverse multilingual classroom. Journal of Computers in Education, 1–28.
- Sanda, L., & Klimova, B. (2021). Educational mobile applications for learning English as a second language by Czech seniors. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 1848–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.190.
- Sato, T., Murase, F., & Burden, T. (2020). An empirical study on vocabulary recall and learner autonomy through mobile-assisted language learning in blended learning settings. CALICO Journal, 37(3), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.40436.
- Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers and Education, 94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008.
- Symonenko, S., Zaitseva, N., Osadchyi, V., Osadcha, K. P., & Shmeltser, E. O. (2020). Virtual reality in foreign language training at higher educational institutions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2547, 37–49.
- Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2021). The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality on EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1272–1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994291.
- Tai, T. Y., Chen, H. H. J., & Todd, G. (2020). The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1752735.
- Thorne, Lantolf, Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). : Sociocultural Theory and The Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press, 2006. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 477–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/AMM027
- Tommerdahl, J. M., Dragonflame, C. S., & Olsen, A. A. (2022). A systematic review examining the efficacy of commercially available foreign language learning mobile apps. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2035401.
- Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning.
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Etec.Ctlt.Ubc.Ca. http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Sociocultural-Constructivist
No competing interests reported.