Enhancing Japanese University Students’English Engagement andSpeaking Proficiency Using Smartphones

Kristin ArmitAge
English Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University

Introduction

to address the limited amount of class time and, thelimited opportunities to interact with native speakers of

In Japan, university entrance tests, which rely on

English (NSEs); to maximize the efficacy of homework

testing receptive skills, still dictate the focus of English

assignments; to reduce the students’ levels of anxiety;education in secondary schools, leaving students ill

and to increase students’ confidence and motivation

prepared for the communicative requirements ofusing English.

university classrooms. The chance to practice using
English with native speakers of English (NSEs) is also

Limited class time and opportunity to use English

limited and many students do not see the purpose of

Using the prescribed textbook to help students

studying English (Kikuchi, 2013) except for passing thetransition from a focus on receptive skills to activating

unit so they can graduate.

their accumulated English knowledge to interactively

In this paper I outline a series of speaking activities

participate in an English only environment, created

I introduced in speaking classes for which students use

a situation where teachers and many students were

their smartphones, as an innovative way of practicing

frustrated with the simplistic product that emerged atEnglish. After a review of pertinent literature, thethe end of the subject. Many students were unable toinnovation and class practices are presented, followed byinteract for longer than two minutes; their conversations

a discussion and analysis of the results, culminating inwere more like an interview than natural conversationsuggested pedagogical implications.

and they often used Japanese (L1). The final test is apaired test format that hopefully reflects realistic student-

Literature review
Use of smartphones in language classes

student interaction. Although paired speaking tasks are
now commonly used in both pedagogic and assessment
contexts (Nitta & Nakatsuhara, 2014) because they elicit

Much research on the use of smartphones to enhancea wide range of interactional skills (Galaczi, 2014), paired

learning such as evaluation of smartphone applications

speaking tests are uncommon, so they are challenging(Kim & Kwon, 2012), the usefulness of particularfor students. Paired tests are also more likely to induce

applications (Sung & Poole, 2017), and Japanese students’positive washback with teaching and classroom andattitudes to smartphone use for language learning (White

homework activities centered on pair and group activities& Mills, 2014) has been undertaken. The increasing(Egyud & Glover, 2001), which result in increased practiceubiquity of smartphones means most students andtime. However, just giving students more time to practiceteachers have access to smartphones, and although

speaking may not lead to proficiency gains (Nakatani,using their smartphones to speak in English might be2005) as was evident in our classrooms. Limited

seen as a new and unique activity, using technology

opportunities to interact with NSEs outside of class, andthat students are familiar with reduces anxiety (Gobel

class sizes of 30 reduce students’ability to interact with& Kano, 2014) and increases student engagement while

the English teacher.

supporting cooperative learning (Nielsen & Webb, 2015).
The pedagogical use of smartphones was introduced
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 201905_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 35

35

2019/03/16 13:11

Kristin ArmitAge

Student confidence, anxiety, and motivation

90 minutes twice a week. The goals of the speaking

Many students lack confidence in their English abilities,

curriculum are for students to communicate their ideas

because of past experiences of failure, and they are veryclearly and concisely in English and to actively participate

apprehensive about their abilities to participate in classin conversations. The final test is a five-minute paired

and to perform adequately on the final test. Besides

speaking test.

experiences of failure, other common demotivating factors
include teachers, class characteristics, environment,materials, and lack of goals (Kikuchi, 2013).

Homework assignments
Under the quarter system, students have an average

To address these problems and to create anof three days to complete homework assignments, so

environment conducive to second language acquisition,

the incidences of incomplete homework and student

a task was created that encouraged social relationships

complaints about workload versus student life balance

within the class (Watanabe & Swain, 2007) and students’are high. As a result, teachers began giving homework

involvement and self-confidence by using appropriate

assignments that involved receptive skills (e.g., vocabulary

scaffolding (Matsuda & Gobel, 2004). Appropriate

lists), which may not be the most effective use of out-of-scaffolding included classroom activities incorporatingclass time to attain the goals of the class.

interactional and communication strategies, so students
could become more proficient (Nakatani, 2010), andParticipantsa variety of feedback and assessment measures and

The 152 participants in this study (97 (64%) males andactivities. Self-assessment and correction activities were55 (36%) females) were in five of my speaking classes

used to motivate students, so they could clearly see

from the Faculties of Agriculture, Law and Letters,

their progress (Harris, 1997), and to help students notice

Science, Mechanical Engineering, and Collaborative(Schmidt, 2001) gaps in their language. Although there

Regional Innovation. The majority of students (96%) were

may be some resistance from students because they

18 or 19 years old and had at least six years of English

fear they may adopt the mistakes of their partners, theclasses in secondary school and are mostly classified as

feedback may not be appropriate, or they may worry that

Common European Frame of Reference (CEFR) A1 or A2

their skills are limited, or that they may appear arrogant(Council of Europe, 2001).

(Barker, 2004; Hyland, 2004), guiding students to become
resources for each other reduces the reliance on NSEs.

Procedure

It also helps learners experiment and test new forms

All students participating in this project of fiveof language, move beyond a dependence on formulaic

paired speaking activities carried out as a homework

language, and highlights the benefits of interaction andassignment, owned a smartphone and gave their informed

motivation to learn (Philp, Adams & Iwashita, 2014).

consent to take part in this research.

Task repetition is also important because it has been

Pairs of students contacted each other using theirshown to help most learners develop greater language

smartphones and spoke in English about a particularcomplexity, fluency, and accuracy (Goh & Burns, 2012),

topic. After the call finished, they wrote notes about theand repetition can be instrumental in reducing theconversation including the conversation itself (who said

possibility of learned helplessness, particularly withwhat), their feelings about the conversation, and anythingscience and engineering students (Johnson, 2013).

they noticed they did not know or learned from theirpartner. In the next class, the same pair of students

Methodology
Curriculum

compared notes, asked the teacher or other students
for clarification on any points, made any revisions, andpracticed the conversation, again referring to their notes.

The innovation described in this paper was conducted

Then pairs of students performed for another pair, a

at Ehime University in 2018. All first-year students

group, or in front of the class. This task was repeated(around 1800) are required to take General English

five times with a different partner each time. This(taught as separate skills) under the quarter system

repetition enabled different conversational structures(15 classes) with English 1-Speaking taught in the first(e.g., greetings, turn-taking, giving opinions), linguistic

quarter. Classes of around 30 students are taught forfeatures, performances and feedback, and assessment to36

05_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 36

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:11

Enhancing Japanese University Students’English Engagement and Speaking Proficiency Using Smartphones

become more complex as students became used to doingtask, a research journal kept by the teacher, and semi-

the task and became more confident about performing

structured interviews with students were collected.

and providing feedback. To maximize the potential for
language learning, class activities linked to the telephone

Whole-class survey

task were designed and implemented. These activities

All 152 students taking the speaking classes were

included goal setting, reflecting on how to cooperate

surveyed for their opinions of the telephone activity. The

with others effectively, how to perform assessments andquestionnaire asked students to respond to a series ofdeliver feedback, and fluency exercises.

statements using a 4-level Likert scale and to provide

This activity provided students with a mix of
qualitative and quantitative assessment, carried out

comments, if desired. The results of the survey are
shown in Table 1.

by themselves, peers, and the teacher. For each of the

Although the internal reliability of the survey was low,

telephone tasks, students were asked to reflect andmaking any inferences drawn from the data contentious,

write down their comments (Student Reflections) based

the data collated from other sources confirm the findings

on how well they thought they had carried out the task

to some extent.

(preparedness, attitude, active listening, helping partner,

While almost 95% of all students said they were

usefulness of written notes after the call) or any linguistic

pleased with the progress made speaking to otherfeatures they had learned. In this innovation, accuracy

classmates on the telephone and the activity helped themwas only attended to if lack of accuracy impeded

to improve their English (96%), and gave them confidence

communication. This action was deliberate because fear

to speak English (95%), the enjoyment students got fromof making mistakes inhibits Japanese students fromcooperating with their peers to achieve the tasks wascommunicating (Carless, 2012). For some of the calls,

rated the most positively with an average of 3.34. The

after watching a pair perform, qualitative feedback inlowest average rating of any of the questions was about

the form of oral comments was given by the teacher or

future smartphone use in English classes. This finding

other pairs, and for other calls it was quantitative, using

is a little surprising given the positive comments about

a checklist. This clear feedback provided students withsmartphone use for this activity, but it is not entirely

what was done well and what areas needed improvement.

unexpected given prior research findings (Stockwell,2008). Although the majority (97%) of students thought
the telephone activity was a good way to improve their

Results

speaking skills, a high percentage (93%) thought that they

To determine if the intervention was successful, datafrom whole class surveys, student reflections after each

could have improved their speaking skills by doing otheractivities.

Table 1. Frequency of responses to telephone activity questionnaire (N=152)

Items

4

3

2

1

M

SD

1. Pleased with progress made speaking toother classmates on the telephone

38 (25%)69 (45.4%)

37 (24.3%)

8 (5.3%)

2.91

0.19

2. Telephoning other classmates helped to
improve my English

31 (20.4%)

71 (46.7%)

44 (28.9%)

6 (3.9%)

2.84

0.06

3. Could have improved speaking skill by
doing other activities

30 (19.7%)

64 (42.1%)

47 (30.9%)11(7.2%)

2.75

0.21

4. Enjoyed cooperating with other students
to achieve speaking tasks

73 (48%)62 (40.8%)

12 (7.9%)5 (3.3%)

3.34

0.21

5. Telephone activity has given me
confidence to speak English

23 (15.1%)

78 (51.3%)

43 (28.3%)

8 (5.3%)

2.77

0.16

6. Telephone activity is a good way to
improve students’speaking skill

43 (28.3%)

73 (48%)32 (21%)4 (2.6%)

3.02

0.11

7. Interested in using smartphone in otherways in English class25 (16.4%)

55 (36.2%)

57 (37.5%)

15 (9.9%)

2.59

0.09

Notes: 4=Agree, 3=Quite agree, 2=Agree a little, 1=Disagree; M=mean, SD=standard deviation
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 201905_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 37

37

2019/03/16 13:11

Kristin ArmitAge

Student reflections

than more- or less-proficient speakers.

Students made notes on their telephone activity
sheets, or on their comment cards, which provided
student feedback on activities undertaken in the course.
Comments that showed individual progress and students’

Discussion
The following themes emerged from the data.

awareness of using English as a communicative tool suchas I want to use as many kinds of reaction words in order to talkIndividual progress

more effectively and actively next time, I feel I’m talking more

Although the final test is an evaluation of what studentssmoothly, I can talk about my ideas, I could deepen the topic byproduce on the day and may not reflect everything

using various question words, It felt good to try hard and I wasthey know or have learned (Fulcher, 2010), on-goingreally helped by my partner confirmed the survey results.

assessment in class through feedback from peers andThis assignment also helped students find new friends,

the teacher, and self-assessment enhances metacognitive

common hobbies, learn about the city they had justawareness of their learning progress (Hale, 2015). Having

moved to, and enjoy university life more.

notes about the conversation helped students to review
specific linguistic forms and to review with their partner

Research Journal

in class; thay also served as a prompt to use in class if or

To assess the effectiveness of each stage of thewhen they performed. Student-generated conversations

intervention, I kept a journal to more deeply understandalso provided the teacher with a supply of authentic

how and why students might be affected by theconversations that represented “things that matterintervention for future improvement. These entries

to them in their lifeworlds” (Chappell, 2014, p.6) andcovered outside influences such as university events,

provided evidence of current student knowledge, common

special events (World Cup soccer games being broadcast

difficulties, or gaps in their knowledge.

at 2:00 am), and classroom specific influences, such asclass time (first period on Monday morning) and student
proficiency.

English as a communicative toolStudents commented that they were finally using
English to communicate with other people compared

Semi-structured interviews

with English they studied in high school. Reviewing and

The semi-structured interviews were based onlearning communicative structures in class and thenthe survey results. Ten students volunteered to be

having a chance to practice them with someone elseinterviewed and could choose the language they were

helped them to understand how to use the language

most comfortable communicating in. A Japanese English

effectively. Using smartphones meant students could

teacher and I transcribed the interviews. The interview

not rely on gestures to signal their confusion ordata echoed the majority of students’written comments

to help them explain something when they lacked

that telephoning classmates in English was a uniquethe appropriate vocabulary, which directly led toactivity, but it was also challenging because it wasinvestigating clarification or other strategies to maintaindifficult to talk and write notes at the same time andthe conversation. While the use of some strategies, suchsometimes difficult to remember what was said in theas message abandonment or the use of L1, may not becall. Students also said it was useful to ‘perform’ ineffective in the long term, judicious use of the L1 canclass or watch other students because they felt a close

help learners to extend their interaction (Philp, Adams

connection to their classmates and could learn from them,& Iwashita, 2014) and may make talking about theirand that targeted feedback from the teacher and peers

language production more effective, which can lead tothroughout the process helped to lessen their stress andproficiency gains (Swain, 2005).

anxiety. When asked to elaborate on activities students
could do instead of telephone calls to improve their

Making friends

speaking skills, students said more practice or individual

Employing an interactive out-of-class assignment

homework assignments. A surprising finding was thatchallenged students to communicate with people they did

most students said they would rather talk to someone

not know well, and it helped contribute to an energized

who had the same level of English proficiency rather

class atmosphere.

38

05_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 38

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:11

Enhancing Japanese University Students’English Engagement and Speaking Proficiency Using Smartphones

Peer-interaction
Although some students worried about their English
proficiency and whether they could assist more-proficientengagement with the language and utilizing and valuingeach other as learning resources should lead to improved
language proficiency.

peers, all students discovered that they could help

In future, students’ self-reported language gains

each other and felt they had improved their English,

could be supplemented with an analysis of their written

even though their partner was not a NSE. This result

telephone conversations, or calls could be recorded andsupports previous research findings on peer interaction

analyzed to determine effective strategy use and short-(Baker, Cundick, Evans, Henrichsen & Dewey, 2012).

term language gains. Recording calls could also free

Becoming involved in peer-assessment not only madestudents from having to write while talking.

students aware of the assessment requirements but

As students also felt that they could have improved

also challenged them to reevaluate their previously held

their speaking skill by doing other activities instead ofbeliefs that learning English is difficult.

the telephone task, future research could entail using acontrol group that only engages in individual preparation

Motivated by the challengeof conversations outside of class, or a group that does

Overall, students were motivated to complete each taskdifferent types of English study, which may highlightbecause it could increase their opportunity for getting awhat type of activity helps students improve theirhigher score on the final test. The various stages of the

English proficiency. Redesigning the questionnaire totelephone activity (calling, writing, assessing, practicing,overcome reliability issues is also important.

performing) helped motivate students with different

Understanding if this activity leads to sustainedlevels of English proficiency in different ways (Sugita

confidence using English or increased students’& Takeuchi, 2010), with less-proficient students being

extramural study after class is the next phase of thismotivated by having many opportunities for successresearch.

and getting regular feedback on areas they needed
to improve, whereas more-proficient speakers were
motivated by the public display of their skills.

References
Baker, W., Cundick, D., Evans, N., Henrichsen, L., & Dewey,

Use of smartphones
Although Stockwell (2008) suggested students may
regard their smartphones as their‘private space’, whichshould be clearly separated from their‘studying space’, inthis study, students thought that using their smartphones
was a convenient way to practice speaking English
outside of class because they could arrange a flexible andconvenient time to talk, and these findings echo more
recent research that found that the lines between spaces
are becoming blurred because students use their phones
for school, leisure, work, and communication (Viberg &Grönlund, 2013).

D. P. (2012). The relationship between reported out-ofclass English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied
Language Learning, 22, 21-47.
Barker, D. (2004). Encouraging students to take their language
learning outside the classroom. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 8, 7986.
Carless, D. (2012). Task-based language teaching in Confucianheritage settings: Prospects and challenges. OnTask, 2(1), 4-8.
Chappell, P. (2014). Engaging learners: Conversation- or
dialogic-driven pedagogy? ELT Journal, 68(1), 1-11.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European frameworkof reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egyud, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs: A
secondary school perspective. ELT Journal, 55(1), 70-76.

Implications and future pedagogicaldirections

Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London: HodderStudents overwhelmingly (96%) thought that taking

Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence acrosspart in the telephone activity was helpful in improving

proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in

their speaking ability, and all were able to pass the final

paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574.

Education.

paired speaking test. Although it is difficult to measure

Gobel, P., & Kano, M. (2014). Mobile natives: Japanese

how much this activity helps students’ speaking anduniversity students’use of digital technology. In J.-B.

listening improvement, more time on task, a deeper

Son (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Learners,

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 201905_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 39

39

2019/03/16 13:11

Kristin ArmitAge

teachers and tools (pp. 21-46). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic
approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, C. C. (2015). Self-assessment as academic community
building: A study from a Japanese liberal arts university.
Language Testing in Asia, 5(1), 1-12.
Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning informal settings. ELT Journal, 1(1), 12-20.

Sung, K.-Y., & Poole, F. (2017). Investigating the use of asmartphone social networking application on language
learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 13(2), 97-115.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis ofusers’attitudes toward the use of mobile devices in secondand foreign language learning in higher education: A caseHyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-

from Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169-180.

of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3),Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency

180-202.
Johnson, M. P. (2013). A longitudinal perspective on EFL
learning motivation in Japanese engineering students. In M.

differences and patterns of pair interaction on second
language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL
learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-142.

T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning

White, J., & Mills, D. J. (2014). Examining attitudes towards andmotivation in Japan (pp. 189-205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual

usage of smartphone technology among Japanese university

Matters.
Kikuchi, K. (2013). Demotivators in the Japanese EFL context.

students studying EFL. CALL-EJ, 15(2), 1-15. Retrieved fromwww.callej.org/journal/15-2/White Mills 2014.pdf

In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (Eds.), Language
learning motivation in Japan (pp. 206-224). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Kim, H., & Kwon, Y. (2012). Exploring smartphone applications
for effective mobile-assisted language learning. MultimediaAssisted Language Learning, 15(1), 31-57.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of
performance in the foreign language classroom. System, 32,
21-36.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training
on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language
Journal, 89(i), 76-91.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL
learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using
multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language
Journal, 94(i), 116-136.
Nielsen, L., & Webb, W. (2015). Teaching with cell phones.
Educational Leadership, 5, 70-73.
Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach
to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test
performance. Language Testing, 31, 147-175.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction andsecond language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognitionand second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for andusage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 253-270.
Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do
to motivate their students? A classroom research on
motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 21-35.

40

05_Kristin ARMITAGE.indd 40

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:11