Short Research Papers

Exploring Student Failure to Use

Smartphones for Language Learning
Olivia Kennedy
Nagahama Institute of Bioscience and Technology
Sandra Healy
Kyoto Institute of Technology
Two second language acquisition researchers were invited by a teacher of English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) to investigate why a technological intervention intended to raise
the low student motivation levels in her high school classroom was not successful. This
article explores that failure and the reasons for it. Students were taught how to install anduse the language learning application, Duolingo, and instructed to use it for ten minutes
each day in class. Unfortunately, few students engaged with the app and no improvement
was seen in their attitudes towards learning English. The researchers analyzed the way thatthe technology had been implemented and examined the students’ experience of it. The
teacher was interviewed, questionnaires were distributed, focus groups were held, and thedata were coded and analyzed. The results show that the poorly managed implementationand the participants’ not viewing their devices as potential learning tools directly impacted
their willingness to use their smartphones for learning purposes. This article adds to thegrowing body of knowledge that technology must be strategically implemented if it is tomeaningfully impact learning.
第二言語習得（SLA）の研究者である筆者は、ある教師が実施した高校生の英語学習のモチベーションの低さを改善することを目的とした技術的介入が不成功に終わった理由について調査を実施した。教師は言語学習アプリ「Duolingo」のインストール方法と使用方法を生徒に教え、毎日10分間、授業中に使用するように指示した。しかし、アプリを使いこなす生徒はほとんどおらず、英語学習に対する姿
勢にも改善が見られなかった。教師へのインタビュー、アンケートの配布、フォーカ
スグループの開催、そしてデータのコード化と分析を通して、技術の導入方法を分34

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53
析・調査した。その結果、技術導入時の管理が不十分であったこと、参加者が自分のデバイスを潜在的な学習ツールと見なしていなかったことが、学習意欲に直接影響を与えたことが判明した。本論文は、技術が学習に意味のある影響を与えるためには、戦略的に導入されなければならないという知見を提供するものである。

This article describes a research project undertaken to explore the reasons why the
implementation of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) into a Japanesehigh school English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom was not successful.
Two second language acquisition researchers were asked to investigate theunsuccessful introduction of the language learning app Duolingo (Von Ahn &Hacker, 2011). This article first presents a brief literature review covering MALL
and Information Communication Technology (ICT) usage in Japanese schools
and Duolingo, then describes the mixed methods study that was undertaken to
explore the reasons for the unsuccessful integration of Duolingo into this setting.
For some 20 years, due to the international increase in the use of mobile
devices such as smartphones and tablets, MALL has been predicted to change
the way that languages are learnt. The term MALL describes language learningthat can be achieved wherever the learner is and takes place on handheld
devices such as smartphones or tablets. Seen as a subset of Computer Assisted
Language Learning (CALL), MALL has the following key characteristics: theuse of mobile devices, their portability, and the afforded access to information.
Kukulska-Hulme and Shields (2008) state that “MALL differs from CALL
in its use of personal, portable devices that enable new ways of learning,emphasizing continuity or spontaneity of access across contexts of use” (p. 273).
Teachers and administrators around the world now see MALL as an importantpart of language courses in many different learning contexts, and it has beenfound to encourage collaboration (Chang & Hsu, 2011), communicationand interaction between learners (Troussas et al., 2014; Ahmed, 2015), anddevelopment of socio-cultural knowledge (Pachler et al., 2009). Positive effects
on learner autonomy levels have also been reported throughout the world, withvarious types of MALL giving learners more control over the learning process,thereby allowing them to choose what to focus on (Alzubi & Singh, 2017) and35

Kennedy & Healy

encouraging them to think independently (Ahmed, 2015). Additionally, MALL
has been found to empower students (Ahmed, 2015; Alzubi & Singh, 2017;
Samsiah & Azidah, 2013; Ma, 2017). As a result, MALL is seen a potential
solution to many problems that occur in language learning including negative
attitudes to learning and a lack of exposure to the language being studied(McCarty et al., 2017).
In Japan, however, despite high levels of technology usage, the uptake oftechnology in education has been limited. For example, Shiobara (2018) foundthat Japanese classrooms mainly use blackboards, video and DVD players topresent information, and Moritz (2017) commented that many high schoolclassrooms still have tape recorders. Tasaki (2017) also noted the infrequent useof ICT in Japanese schools and added that many tests are administered on paper
rather than via computers. Takashiro (2018) reported that it is uncommon forschools in Japan to use technology outside of information technology (IT)classes. These findings are reinforced by the 2018 results of the Programme forInternational Student Assessment (PISA) (Schleicher, 2019), a worldwide study
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in
which 80% of Japanese high school students responded that they spent no timeusing computers for school lessons, the highest in OECD countries. Only 3%
reported doing their homework on a computer and 6% browsing the internet forschoolwork.
The high level of ownership of smartphones in Japan (Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications, 2018) and their familiarity make them a logicalchoice when introducing MALL activities into the classroom. Caldwell (2018),
examining Japanese university students’ ICT competencies and the potentialof MALL found that students felt more familiar using smartphones than otherdevices. However, Fathali et al. (2020) found that while Japanese university
students regularly use ICT on a daily basis in Japanese, they rarely do so in
English. They suggested this may be due to lack of knowledge about technology
and the fact that the dominant method of language teaching in Japan, yakudoku,
or translation-reading, connects students to traditional technologies like
dictionaries. The translation-reading method often results in “transmissionist”
36Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

or teacher-centred learning (Saito, 2019), and is common in countries with
Confucian backgrounds. Transmissionist learning places “the teacher as thesource of knowledge and the students as passive recipients of knowledge” (Teo etal., 2008, p. 165). In cultures which value the teacher as the master of knowledge,
when technology is entrusted with the task of instruction, the role of the teacher
becomes unclear (Aoki, 2010), and learners may also be unsure of how to behave.
Teachers may also worry that a new, more facilitative role (in contrast to the
traditional instructive lecturing style) may lead to a concurrent loss of control(Reinders & White, 2016).
Duolingo is a free language-learning app which, according to the company’s
website, Duolingo.com, has some 500 million users, of whom 40 million use theapp monthly as of December 2020. Learners of the 39 languages offered initiallytake a placement test, and then the app uses adaptive learning technology tointroduce vocabulary and activities according to the ability that learners display.
The app is popular for its accessibility via smartphone, gamification, and varietyof activities (Munday, 2016).
In 2011 and again in 2020, the Duolingo company itself commissioned
studies of the effectiveness of their app and claimed based on the results thatthe app is more effective than a university language course (Vesselinov & Grego,
2012; Jiang, et al., 2020). However, Krashen (2014) criticized Vesselinov andGrego’s research methods and also Duolingo’s reliance on conscious learning,rather than acquired knowledge, and instead maintained the importance oflearners being exposed to language that they can understand in order to truly
make progress (Krashen, 1985). Similarly, Reinders and Pegrum (2015) foundthat Duolingo’s behaviorist approach, which conditions learners with stimulus
followed by either reward or punishment, limits its effectiveness. Crowther etal. (2017) found that Duolingo lacks productive and interactive tasks and also
criticized its lack of meaning-focused input, which gives learners opportunities
to learn incidentally as they focus on meaning while either listening or reading(Nation & Yamamoto, 2012).
Little research is available on Japanese high school students and their useof technology in language learning due to restrictions on the usage of mobile
37

Kennedy & Healy

devices in the classroom/at school. However, as usage of these tools will
increase from now and rests on their successful implementation, it is importantto understand how problems arise and how they can be prevented. This study
describes an investigation that resulted from the failure of the introduction ofDuolingo by the classroom teacher to improve low motivation levels and English
ability, and examines the questions:
1. What were the contributing factors for the student participants’ failure toengage with Duolingo?
2. What role did the teacher play in that failure?

MethodSetting and Participants
The 20 female and 16 male Japanese participants (n = 36) attend a large coeducational public high school in a small city in western Japan. They are aged 16(n = 31), 17 (n = 4) and 18 (n = 1) years old; all are in first year of high school,
which is the standard fourth year of compulsory EFL instruction in Japan. The
participants form an intact class of 36 students who spend 30 hours each week
in the classroom together. They must achieve a passing grade in EFL to graduate.
Seventy percent will enter employment directly from school, and the remaining
30% are expected to attend tertiary education, which is lower than the national
average of 54% (Entrich, 2017). All participants in this study have their own
smartphone compatible with Duolingo.
The teacher of the class is a participant in this research project rather than partof the research team. A Japanese national and veteran teacher of EFL with morethan 30 years of classroom experience, she had seen significant improvements
in her own conversational Italian by using Duolingo and subsequently hoped
to bring this experience of language-learning success to her students. While she
was not involved in data collection or analysis, she agreed to be interviewed,
facilitated the researchers’ efforts to collect data, and organized her lessons sothat group interviews could be held during class time.
A mixed methods approach as outlined by Creswell (2009) was used,
and both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The teacher was
38

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

interviewed both at the start of the project, and after the focus groups were
held (see below); the sessions were recorded and transcribed. At the end of thesemester, students were first asked to fill in a simple paper-based survey about
their smartphone ownership and usage (Appendix), and then they took part ina 30-minute focus group to discuss their smartphone usage. Focus groups havebeen found to be particularly suitable for teenagers (Ho, 2006). The students
were randomly assigned to six groups and were provided with general prompts
to start and facilitate the discussions. All of the data was gathered in Japanese
including the focus group discussions, which were audio-recorded, transcribed,
and translated by the authors of this paper. Later, the transcripts were coded
manually and analyzed using Steps for Coding and Theorization (SCAT)
method (Otani, 2007). Once this data had been initially analyzed, participants
were asked to answer a further short questionnaire consisting of eight openended questions to further explicate some of the issues that arose (Appendix).
Student participants were informed about the purpose and scope of theresearch project and were asked to sign a consent form in Japanese. They
understood that participation or lack thereof would not affect their course grade
and that they could withdraw at any point. The teacher of the class also gave her
written consent.

Results
Teacher interview
The teacher described how she first introduced Duolingo to her students, saying
she tried to create a connection with them and develop a positive attitude towards
language learning by sharing her own experiences as a language learner and userof Duolingo to study Italian. The students responded enthusiastically, and so she
showed them how to download and use the app. The students all downloaded it,
and after an initial exploratory session and discussion they decided to use it fortargeted individual language practice in class for the next 10 weeks. She allowed
them 10 minutes in each class but did not monitor their usage.
Although she was familiar with Duolingo for personal use, she stated she wasunaware of functions that make it possible for teachers to use it with groups of39

Kennedy & Healy

learners. Because she asked her students to register individually rather than as agroup, it was not possible for her to monitor their usage online and track theirprogress. She was also not able to look at their devices in class because privacy
laws in Japan do not allow teachers to access students’ mobile phones (Mitomo,2020).
Questionnaire results
All student participants have their own smartphone of which 88% are iPhones.
Length of ownership ranges from one to more than seven years, with a mean ofthree years and 10 months. Participants reported an average daily usage of 171
minutes, which is much higher that the Japanese average weekly smartphone
usage for teenagers (aged 13-19), which was 143 minutes in 2016 (Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications, 2017). The average number of nights
participants reported using their smartphones between the hours of midnightand 5:30am was 3.96. When asked why they used their phones at night, 10
participants reported that they are checking notifications, 10 said they cannot
sleep, and five are worried that they may miss something.
Focus Groups Results
Three dominant themes emerged through the analysis of the focus groups:
convenience, connections with others, and overuse. All of these themes concern
the relationship between the participants themselves and their smartphones.
Convenience. The most dominant theme that emerged concerned how
convenient life with a smartphone has become. Approximately a third of the total
discussion time was dedicated to the convenience that instant access provides toinformation necessary for daily life.
While most of the participants’ discussions related to checking information
about lifestyle or entertainment, one participant, S15, raised the idea ofthe smartphone as an educational tool. He talked about doing homeworkassignments using his phone but was teased by classmates for this idea. Mostof the participants seemed to see no connection between themselves, theirmobile phones, and their schooling. None of the other participants mentioned
education during the focus groups, and the theme was conspicuous in its
40Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

absence. Despite the apparent convenience of using their phones for so manyother aspects of their lives, they did not consider their potential use for study.
This will be further addressed in the discussion section.
Connections with others. Another theme that was mentioned by all groups
was the ability that their smartphone has given them to connect with others.
Fourteen speakers raised this theme and eight others added to it. As theirconversations deepened and became gradually more personally revealing, many
speakers described how much social support their smartphones provide them.
Participants talked about how having a smartphone made social interaction
easier. They described checking television programs or song lyrics, the opening/closing times of stores, or the status of public transport. This online access gavethem the ability to share accurate information and increased confidence when
joining conversations with their peers.
Participants also mentioned being able to readily and comfortably contact
parents, siblings, friends, coaches, teammates, and employers. One participant(S27) mentioned how he could comfortably send text messages to his father,saying that he finds it easier to talk to him by text message rather than face-toface. His comments were acknowledged and agreed with by the group. Anotherparticipant (S4) added that it is always good to prepare her mother for difficult
topics by sending a text before she wants to talk to her face-to-face.
The acquisition of their phone was an important development in therelationship between the participants and their parent(s). Several describedhaving difficulty persuading their parents to buy them a smartphone. However,most viewed having a smartphone as having a positive impact on their family
lives. One student (S10) mentioned his family viewed him as more considerate
and increased his freedom due to his use of his phone to keep in touch. Likeother members in his group, the communication that his smartphone allowed
had made a positive difference in his family dynamic.
Overuse. The final theme that emerged in the focus groups concerned theoveruse of smartphones. The situation that one participant (S31) describedseemed to resonate with his group. Each night in bed he listens to music, watches
videos, plays games, texts friends, and reads blogs until he drifts into sleep, often
41

Kennedy & Healy

with his phone still in his hand. When it buzzes with a new notification, hewakes up to read it. That then leads into another cycle of phone use until he falls
asleep again. As he described his experiences, the five others nodded and madesounds of agreement.
Nine of the 36 participants (25%) talked about not being able to control
their smartphone use, for example: “I use it more than I need to, and I don’t
really like that” (S6). Another participant said, “Once I touch it, I can’t stop,and that’s a problem for me” (S14). Another said, “I have to study, but I use myphone. At that time, having a phone is a problem for me” (S11). In addition, in
three separate groups a participant used the word “addicted”, and other membersof those groups nodded. One described his feelings, “It’s highly addictive and I
can’t resist” (S23). Another said, “I’m so addicted that it’s like one of my organs”(S3).
Written Data Post-Focus-Group Discussions
After the focus groups, the students were asked to complete a short questionnaire(Appendix) designed to gather more information about issues that had arisen in
the focus groups. Ten of the participants (28%) agreed that they feel addicted totheir smartphone, while seven (11%) did not respond to this question. Twentyfour of the participants (67%) agreed that apps are useful for learning, andtwenty-two (61%) reported that they would like to use apps in class for learning.
When participants were asked how much they had used Duolingo, 18 (50%)
said that they used it whenever the teacher told them to. The remaining 50% said
that they did not use it. Nine participants (25%) explained their lack of use as, “I
did other things on my phone.” Three participants (8%) explained that they did
not use Duolingo because they “learn better using a pen and paper,” and two said
that they “need to hear the teacher talking, rather than a CD, etc.” Two students(5%) answered that they were worried about using the data on their phones, anda further two stated that they simply did not want to use the app. Sixteen of thestudents removed Duolingo from their phones after every class session, and afurther two removed it periodically. One female student (S8) justified this with
“it was taking up space that was needed for something more important.”
42

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

Discussion

The relationship that the participants felt with their smartphones emerged as a
key factor in their usage of Duolingo. Participants referred to their phones as if
they were people, and we can see this anthropomorphism in their comments. For
example, one participant stated that his phone is his “ideal partner,” and anotherthat he “want[s] to marry it”. They continued to say that they love their phones
and never wanted to be separated from them.
The participants also viewed their phones as helpmates or personal assistantsbecause of the convenience, access to information, and ability to contact friends,
family, and community that these devices bring to their lives. Before Duolingo
was introduced, the participants had no experience using their smartphones
for formal learning at high school. Their teacher also reported that when she
asked them as a class whether they had used their smartphones as part of formal
learning during junior high school, one student described instead the experienceof having to hand their devices in to their homeroom teacher at the start of theschool day and not receiving them back until it was time to go home. A show ofhands confirmed to her that this was almost universal. Their lack of experiencein using their devices in a formal learning environment may in part explain theirfailure to make full use of Duolingo.
Duolingo usage data is not presented as part of this research article because
unfortunately that data was not collected. Walking around the classroom
looking over students’ shoulders, the classroom teacher stated she could see theDuolingo symbols and color theme on their screens and was satisfied that herclass was working productively. Many teachers are not confident using MALL
in their teaching, as they do not have the requisite skills and are often too busy
to learn how to do it effectively (Farley et al., 2015). Additionally, as a teacher
in her late 50s, she overestimated the students’ ability to use technological tools
and disregarded her knowledge of them as learners. While they may have known
how to use the technology, they were unable to use it to study independently.
Better scaffolding was required. In much the same way as the New Zealanduniversity learners that Reinders (2014) described, “[w]ithout proper guidance
and ongoing support, many do not have the skills and experience to be successful
43

Kennedy & Healy

in learning independently” (p. 14). Reinders advocates for the establishment of apersonal learning environment, set up by each individual with tools and resources
to develop their language learning. This was not done in this context. While
the students here knew how to download and install the app, they did not havethe experience of self-directed learning necessary to work independently, evenduring class time. They had not previously taken control of their own learning,
and therefore found even the ten minutes allocated each lesson to Duolingo
difficult to make effective use of.
While these students fall within Prensky’s (2001) definition of digital
natives, their comments in the final survey show that they prefer traditional
methods of learning.
Japanese students are not used to using ICT for learning outside the
ICT classroom and instead largely rely on paper and pencil to produce work
(Takashiro, 2018). Classes in Japan are also generally teacher-centered (McCarty
et al., 2017), and students are often passive, with Higuchi (2013) noting there isa lack of independent-minded learning among students here. For these students,
who have never experienced student-centered learning, the unstructured classtime to explore the Duolingo app independently may have seemed unfamiliar
and threatening.
Smartphones have been shown to be strongly connected to digital identityand also to individuals’ sense of self (Traxler, 2011). Before the introduction ofDuolingo, the participants in this study had not previously been asked to use
their phones as part of a formal learning process or allowed to use them during
lessons. The lack of a school Wi-Fi network which necessitated students using
their own cellular data plans further caused the participants to view theirdevices as strictly for personal use. Attempts by the teacher to bring the students’private smartphones into their academic sphere were rejected. As Stockwell andHubbard (2013) found, some students may prefer to reserve their phone use forprivate purposes.
Levels of acceptable phone usage may vary according to social and culturalcontexts. In their review, Sohn et al. (2019) found between 10% and 30% of
smartphone addiction in young people, with higher levels in Asia than in other44Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

parts of the world. While Tangmunkongvorakul et al. (2020) found lower levelsof smartphone addiction among Japanese high school students (12%) comparedto Thai high school students (35.9%), this was not borne out in the present
study. Here, 25% of the participants self-reported they feel addicted to theirphones and showed awareness of the extent of their smartphone usage.
Several studies have found significant correlations between self-identified
smartphone addiction and smartphone usage that negatively impacts study
participants’ lives (Duke & Montag, 2017; Kim et al., 2015). Research in various
learning contexts has found correlations with four types of impact. First, impacts
on physical health are often seen in a reduction of sleep hours and daily exercise(Ezoe et al., 2016, with university student participants). Second, impacts on
mental health are seen in the form of depression (Bickham et al., 2015, withyoung adolescents), stress (Thomée et al., 2011, with young adults), anxiety(Elhai et al., 2017), and low self-esteem (Yang et al., 2010, with adolescents).
Third, impacts on school grades or work performance (Gallimberti et al., 2016)
and finally impacts on relationships and the ability to concentrate on tasks,
which is termed “technoference” (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016), are observed. Allof these impacts can be described as decreased well-being caused by problematic
smartphone use.
Seventy percent of the participants do not plan to continue on to postsecondary education and feel that they have little need or desire to master the
English language. Their teacher, talking about her relationship with them, said:
They don’t hate me. We get along quite nicely, and around school and in the
break before the bell they chat to me about all sorts of things in their lives.
When I start into the lesson, they switch off. It’s English that they hate.
Falout and Maruyama (2004) mention that the attribute of English language
learning that most commonly demotivated students was the need to memorize
vocabulary. Because of the dense focus on vocabulary study in the lower levels of
the Duolingo app, this may have played a part in these students’ failure to engage
with it.

45

Kennedy & Healy

Conclusion

The teacher in this study attempted to intervene and improve the languagelearning environment for her students by introducing a technological solution;
however, the learners’ prior beliefs and experiences negatively influenced theoutcome of the intervention. The students’ perceived their smartphones as being
for personal and social rather than educational usage, which made it difficult forthem to see their phones as tools for learning. The teacher lacked experience using
technology in the classroom and took a risk trying to introduce something new,exemplifying the problem that teachers face trying to incorporate new practices
without training while maintaining educational standards. The study was limitedby the small number of participants from a specific environment which affects
the generalizability of the findings, and further research is needed to explore thishypothesis and extend the research to other groups.

Acknowledgements

Part of the focus group discussions has been previously published in Kennedy,O. (2018).

References

Ahmed, M. D. (2015). Can smartphones pave the path towards EFL
competence for Saudi college students? Education and Linguistics Research,
1(2), 120–144. https://doi.org/10.5296/elr.v1i2.8467
Alzubi, A., & Singh, M. (2017). The use of language learning strategies throughsmartphones in improving learner autonomy in EFL reading among
undergraduates in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics,
7(6), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p59
Aoki, K. (2010). The use of ICT and e-learning in higher education in Japan.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 42, 854–858.
Bickham, D. S., Hswen, Y., & Rich, M. (2015). Media use and depression:
Exposure, household rules, and symptoms among young adolescents in theUSA. International Journal of Public Health, 60, 147–155. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00038-014-0647-6
46

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

Caldwell, M. (2018). Japanese university students’ perceptions on the use of
ICT and mobile-learning in an EFL setting. Computer Assisted Language
Learning-Electronic Journal, 19(2), 187–212.
Chang, C. K., & Hsu, C. K. (2011). A mobile-assisted synchronously
collaborative translation-annotation system for English as a foreign
language (EFL) reading comprehension. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 24(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.5369
52
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Crowther, D., Kim, K. M., & Loewen, S. (2017). The implementation of ISLA
in MALL technology: An investigation into the potential effectivenessof Duolingo. MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies. Michigan
State University.
Duke, Ã., & Montag, C. (2017). Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions andself-reported productivity. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6: 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic
smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations
with anxiety and depression psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders,
207, 251–259.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030
Entrich, S. R. (2017). Shadow education and social inequalities in Japan:
Evolving patterns and conceptual implications. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-69119-0
Ezoe, S., Iida, T., Inoue, K., & Toda, M. (2016). Development of a Japaneseversion of smartphone dependence scale. Open Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 6, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2016.67017
Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A comparative study of proficiency andlearner demotivation. The Language Teacher, 28(8), 3–10.
Farley, H., Murphy, A., Johnson, C., Carter, B., Lane, M., Midgley, W., HafeezBaiz, A., Dekeysey, S., & Koronios, A. (2015). How do students use theirmobile devices to support learning? A case study from an Australian47

Kennedy & Healy

regional university. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. https://doi.
org/10.5334/jime.ar
Fathali, S., Marandi, S. S., & Okada, T. (2020). Beyond the language classroom:
A case of Japanese EFL students’ engagement with ICT. CALL-EJ, 21(2),150–175.
Gallimberti, L., Buja, A., Chindamo, S., Terraneo, A., Marini, E., Rabensteiner,
A., Vinelli, A., Gomez Perez, L. J., & Baldo, V. (2016). Problematic cell
phone use for text messaging and substance abuse in early adolescence (11to 13-year-olds). European Journal of Pediatrics, 175, 355–364. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00431-015-2645-y
Higuchi, T. (2013). How should college students’ independence be nurtured?
Benesse Educational Research & Development Institute. http://www.
childresearch.net/data/school/2013_01.html.
Ho, D. G. (2006). The focus group interview: Rising to the challenge inqualitative research methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0605
Jiang, X., Rollinson, J., Plonsky, L., & Pajak, B. (2020) Duolingo efficacy study:
Beginning-level courses equivalent to four university semesters. Duolingo
Research Report DRR-20-04 August 14, 2020. https://www.duolingo.
com/efficacy
Kennedy, O. (2018). Examining student perceptions about smartphones tounderstand lack of acceptance of mobile-assisted language learning. In P.
Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. ThouÃ«sny (Eds). (2018). Future-proof
CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters – Short papers fromEUROCALL 2018. Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2018.26.9782490057221
Kim, S. E., Kim, J. W. & Jee, Y. S. (2015) Relationship between smartphone
addiction and physical activity in Chinese international students in
Korea. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 200–205. https://doi.
org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.02
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. AddisonWesley Longman.
48

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

Krashen, S. (2014). Does Duolingo “trump” university-level language learning.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 13–15.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted
language learning: From content delivery to supported collaborationand interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0958344008000335
Ma, Q. (2017). A multi-case study of university students’ language-learning
experience mediated by mobile technologies: a socio-cultural perspective.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3-4), 183–203. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/09588221.2017.1301957
McCarty, S., Obari, H., & Sato, T. (2017). Implementing mobile language
learning technologies in Japan. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98110-2451-1
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference oftechnology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal
and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2017). White paper
on information and communications 2017. http://www.soumu.go.jp/
johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2017/2017-index.html
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2018). White paper on
information and communications 2018.
http://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2018/2018index.html.
Mitomo, H. (2020). Utilization of ICT in elementary and secondary educationin Japan: Its policies and effects. In H. Mitomo (Ed.), Telecommunications
policies of Japan (pp. 239–266). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-15-1033-5_13
Moritz, C. (2017, July 7). Technology in the English Classroom. Jobs in Japan.
https://jobsinjapan.com/living-in-japan-guide/technology-english-classroom/
Munday, P. (2016). The case for using Duolingo as part of the classroom
experience. Revista Iberoamericana de EducaciÃ³n a Distancia, 19(1):49Kennedy & Healy

83–101. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.19.1.14581
Nation, P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language
learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching,
1(2): 167–181. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Otani, T. (2007). SCAT. A qualitative data analysis method by fourstep coding: Easy startable and small scale data-applicable process oftheorization. Bulletin of the Nagoya University Graduate School of Educationand Human Development, 54, 27–44.
Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Bradley, C. (2009). “I don’t really see it”: Whither
case-based approaches to understanding off-site and on-campus mobile
learning? In G. Vavoula, N. Pachler, & A. Kukulska-Hulme (Eds.),
Researching mobile learning: Frameworks, tools and research designs (pp.
77–95). Peter Lang Publishing.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon,
9(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Reinders, H. (2014). Personal learning environments for supporting out-of-classlanguage learning. English Teaching Forum, 4, 14–27.
Reinders, H., & Pegrum, M. (2015). Supporting language learning on themove. An evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources.
In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Second language acquisition research and materials
development for language learning (pp. 116–141). Taylor & Francis.
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How
far have we come and where to next. Language Learning and Technology,
20(2), 143–154.
Saito, Y. (2019). Pedagogical stylistics as a discipline for bridging the gap
between literary studies and English language teaching in Japan. Kantōeibun-gaku kenkyū [Kanto Review of English Literature], 12, 129–138.
Samsiah, B., & Azidah, A. (2013). Adoption and application of mobile learningin the education industry. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90,
720–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.145
Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD
Publishing.
50

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

Shiobara, F. J. (2018). Paradoxes of technology and human behaviour inJapanese higher education. The University of Liverpool (United Kingdom).
Sohn, S. Y., Rees, P., Wildridge, B., Kalk, N. J., & Carter, B. (2019). Prevalenceof problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomesamongst children and young people: A systematic review, meta-analysis
and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 356. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12888-019-2350-x
Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile
assisted language learning. The International Research Foundation forEnglish Language Education, 2013, 1–15. https://www.tirfonline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/TIRF_MALL_Papers_StockwellHubbard.pdf
Takashiro, N. (2018). Technology use and middle school students' participationin shadow education in Japan. International Psychology Bulletin, 22(4),
14–21.
Tangmunkongvorakul, A., Musumari, P. M., Tsubohara, Y., Ayood, P.,
Srithanaviboonchai, K., Techasrivichien, T., Suguimoto, S. P., Ono-Kihara,M., & Kihara, M. (2020). Factors associated with smartphone addiction:
A comparative study between Japanese and Thai high school students. Plos
One, 15(9), e0238459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238459
Tasaki, N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA results on Japanese educational
policy. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 145–153. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejed.12217
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs aboutteaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 163–174. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13598660801971641
Thomée, S., Härenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use andstress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults- A prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health, 11, 66. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-66
Traxler, J. (2011). Ethics in mobile learning - Moral movements? In I. A.
SÃ¡nchez & P. IsaÃ­as (Eds.) Mobile learning 2011 (pp. 95–101). IADIS
51

Kennedy & Healy

Press.
Troussas, C., Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2014). Collaborative learning:Group interaction in an intelligent mobile-assisted multiple language
learning system. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 279–292. https://doi.
org/10.15388/infedu.2014.17
UNICUITC (United Nations International Telecommunication Union
Information and Communication Technologies). (2017). Measuring
the information society report 2017. https://www.itu.int/pub/D-INDICTOI-2017
Vesselinov, R., & Grego, J. (2012). Duolingo effectiveness study. City
University of New York, USA, 28, 1–25. https://static.duolingo.com/s3/
DuolingoReport_Final.pdf
Von Ahn, L., & Hacker, S. (2011). Duolingo [Computer software and mobileapp]. https://www.duolingo.com/
Yang, Y., Yen, J., Ko, C., Cheng, C., & Yen, C. (2010). The association between
problematic cellular phone use and risky behaviors and low self-esteem
among Taiwanese adolescents. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-217

Author bios

Olivia Kennedy is a lecturer at Nagahama Institute of Bioscience and Technology inShiga, Japan. She is passionate about improving student experiences of learning. Her
research interests include the uptake, usage and acceptance of technology for language
learning. o_kennedy@nagahama-i-bio.ac.jp
Sandra Healy is an Associate Professor at Kyoto Institute of Technology in Japan.
Her research interests include using technology in English language education, andgender, language and identity issues in language learning. healy@kit.ac.jp
Received: September 17, 2020
Accepted: November 12, 2021

52

Exploring Student Failure to Use Smartphones for Learning, OCJSI 3, pages 34-53

Appendix
English translation of the first survey instrument
1. How old are you?
2. Are you male/female/prefer not to say?
3. Do you have a smartphone? If “yes”, what make/model is it?
4. How long have you had your smartphone? (years months)
5. How long do you spend each day using your smartphone?
6. How many times each week do you use your phone between 12am and5:30am?
7. Why do you use your smartphone during the night?
English translation of the second survey instrument
1. How do you feel about your smartphone?
2. Do you feel addicted to your smartphone?
3. Are you happy that you have a smartphone? Please explain your answer.
4. Since you got your smartphone, how has your life changed?
5. Do you think that apps are useful for learning? If “yes,” please explain.
6. Would you like to use apps in class for learning again?
7. How much did you use Duolingo? Please explain.
8. If you didn’t use Duolingo, please explain why not.

53