@CUE

Mobile-CALT: A Practical Guide for
Using Cell Phones for CALT
Andrew Komasinski
Hokkaido University of Education
This paper describes Mobile-CALT, a cell phone-based Computer Assisted Language
Testing (CALT) method that was used at Hokkaido University of Education’s Asahikawa
campus during the 2014 academic year. The paper begins, first, with the motivations fordeveloping an off-the-shelf implementation of phone-based CALT. Second, it describes thehistory of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) in Japan and then explains how to
implement Mobile-CALT using Google Forms, bit.ly, and Quick-Response (QR) codes.
Finally, the paper discusses the effectiveness of utilizing Google Forms for Mobile-CALT
and indicates optimal contexts for this implementation.
本研究が北海道教育大学旭川校で平成２６年度の前期に、携帯電話を基盤としたCALT、Mobile-CALTと呼ぶ、の実施を述べる。まず、施す動機の背景を説明する。それでこれは今までのMALL文献及び日本内実践の中に置く。また、

GoogleFormsおよび bit.ly およびQRコードが使う手続きを述べる。 最後に、Mobile-CALTの実践的効果と実行するのが良い状況を述べる。

CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning) often evokes images of expensive
computer classrooms, but not every university provides such resources. Most
students, however, bring cell phones to school every day, and these can be used
for MALL (Mobile-Assisted Language Learning) without a CALL classroom. In
what follows, I present “mobile-CALT” (Computer-Assisted Language Testing[CALT] on cell phones), a method for doing homework and quizzes on mobile
phones.
In the spring semester of the 2014, I began teaching classes for primarily firstand second-year students at the Asahikawa campus of Hokkaido University of
Education. Having previously taught smaller university courses in the U.S. in my403

Komasinski

discipline (philosophy), the number of classes and students seemed daunting
to manage using conventional means (seven courses with 215 students). The
students I taught were taking courses offered by the English faculty to fulfill
either general education requirements for all majors or requirements for an
English teaching license.
I wanted to survey my students to better understand them and develop
relevant content, but a paper survey would have been time-consuming in termsof data entry. To remedy these issues and to have digital data, I wanted to use
an online system, but I faced two problems. First, my classrooms did not havecomputers. Moreover, several students I spoke with indicated they did not own
computers and that they did not have laptops or tablets that they could bring toclass. Computer ownership and literacy among Japanese college students appears
to vary widely. Thornton and Houser (2005) claim only 17% of students at
Kinjo Gakuin University have computers, while Gromik (2009) claims 97% of
students at Tohoku University do own computers. As such, I could not dependon computers for data collection. To solve the problem of computer access, I
decided to have them take the survey on their cell phones. As Lockley (2011)
and Murray and Blythe (2011) point out, Japanese students tend to have higher
rates of ownership, usage, and literacy with cell phones than computers. Based on
this, informal surveying, and prior experience in Web application development, I
concluded that using cell phones would be a plausible digital data entry method.

The Case for Mobile-CALT

Improvements in cell phone and tablet computer technology have led to a rapid
increase in the use of MALL over the past 20 years. MALL utilizes a mobile
device such as a cell phone or tablet computer (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008)
to provide a “highly portable…individual… unobtrusive…available…adaptable…
[and] intuitive” platform (Sharples, 2000, pp. 178-179). In the process, MALL
acts as a force for change in equalizing access for all students (Valk, Rashid,& Elder, 2010). Many recent implementations of MALL have been Webbased. Web-based testing provides (a) asynchronous testability, (b) grassroots
availability, and (c) affordability (Roever, 2001). Continuing advances in mobile404

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415

HTML and cellphones have helped make MALL even easier to implement(Godwin-Jones, 2011).
Japanese universities have also seen MALL implementations, mainly forvocabulary learning (Thornton & Houser, 2005; Stockwell, 2007; Rivers, 2009).
While cell phones and more recently smartphones are nearly ubiquitous in Japan(Kondo et al., 2012; Wang & Smith, 2013), educational use has lagged general
adoption (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008). Thornton and Houser (2005)
tested a cellphone-based delivery method for short vocabulary lessons, buildingon the higher penetration of cellphones to personal computers in Japan at thetime. Stockwell (2007) implemented a more advanced vocabulary-learning
system where a user’s profile and the performance on prior vocabulary activities
influence future activities. Quick Response (QR) codes have also been used in
MALL in Japan to store messages for use in class (Rivers, 2009).
MALL implementations have had two types of challenges. First, there
are human problems. Of note are lower completion rate for remote classes(Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006), lower performance versus face-to-face interactive
tasks (Chinnery, 2006), problems of motivation (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006),
and students resisting the use of their cell phones for school purposes that they
perceive to be invasive (Kondo et al., 2012; Stockwell & Hubbard, 2013). I did
not encounter these sorts of issues in any notable way.
Second, there are technological issues. While difficulties with data entry on
flip phone cell phones and bandwidth associated-problems (Wang & Higgins,2006; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008; Burston, 2011; Godwin-Jones, 2011)
have diminished, Roever (2001) presciently identified three potential issues
that still have currency: (1) “Cheating and Item Exposure” insofar as Webimplemented tests are hard to keep confidential, (2) the problem of managing
user-entered data, and (3) browser incompatibility in managing the different
browsers and the different versions of a given browser students may use (pp.
88-89; see also Wang & Higgins, 2006, p. 9). Mobile-CALT benefits directlyfrom the ubiquity of cell phones, advances in mobile Web technology, and prior
MALL research, but these technical and human problems remain.
405

Komasinski

MethodIn utilizing mobile-CALT with my students, a challenge existed in how toprovide each student in all my classes with access to the survey on the first day
without requiring them to type a lengthy URL. To solve this problem, I decided
to use three off-the-shelf and easily accessed Web site-based technologies: Google
Forms, Bitly (bitly.com), and QR Codes. Google Forms supplies a very simple
system for creating quizzes that can include multiple-choice, multiple-answer,
short answer, and other question formats, and this is compatible with nearly all
cell phones. This application handles the data entry and submission. The URLs
that it generates, however, are long and thus unwieldy to enter.
I addressed making the URLs easier for cell phones to handle through a
combination of a URL shortening service (Bitly) and QR codes (black-andwhite square block patterns common in advertising). Denso Wave, the ownerof QR codes, has promised not to enforce its patents, in order to make thetechnology free and widely available. Consequently, with a simple search, I
found a QR code generator online. The use of both QR codes and Bitly URLs
is redundant, but using both enables both those with and those without QR
readers to take quizzes since students without QR code readers installed can also
type the URL quickly.
I used this method for the initial survey, providing paper versions to students
who did not take the survey on phones. Based on the success of this initial trial
survey and its convenience and ease of use, I expanded and refined the method
throughout the semester across several classes for submitting homework andmanaging quizzes. Still, I worried, as have many of my peers (McCoy, 2013;
Valois, 2012; Weimer, 2014; Young, 2006) that cell phones would prove to
be classroom distractions. Both in America and Japan, I have seen students
distracted by texting and other applications. Teachers more accustomed to
MALL may feel differently.
As indicated before, cell phones have the advantage of students already being
familiar with how to use their own phones, and my experience matched this.
Out of 195 students who used the system, only three did not have smartphones.
While mobile phones are not the best tool for every teaching purpose, they offer406

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415

a very effective and under-utilized tool for mobile-CALT. Setting up mobileCALT with Google Forms and QR codes took some trial and error, and thefollowing represents the best practices version.

Mobile-CALT Setup

Setting up mobile-CALT with Google Forms is relatively simple. First, log in toa Google account. Then, access Google Forms by opening a browser window to
http://forms.google.com. The initial screen appeared as in Figure 1.
To make a form, rename the “Untitled Form” to a descriptive title by clicking
on the text “Untitled Form” and changing it there. Add questions by clicking
on “Untitled Question” and changing the text and type to be appropriate (forexample, a survey question, or a quiz question). To add further questions, click“Add Item” and repeat as necessary to complete the form (Figure 2). Since theprimary use of mobile-CALT is for quizzes and homework assignments, checkthe “Required Question” option to insure students must write or select ananswer before they can submit their form. For mobile-CALT quizzes, unclick
the checkbox that reads “Show link to submit another response” to reduce thechances of confusion and multiple entries. The design is complete when “Done”
is clicked.

Figure 1. Initial screen when accessing Google Forms.

407

Komasinski

Figure 2.Example of a question item on Google Forms.

Clicking on “Send Form” in the completed Google Form provides the
URL to give to students in the box entitled “Link to Share.” This URL provides
anyone in the world who has the code to take the mobile-CALT item (survey,
quiz, etc.) prepared. While not necessary for QR codes, I then passed this URL
through the URL shortener Bitly by pasting the URL into the box that reads,“Paste a link to shorten it” and clicking “Shorten”. This shortened URL can besupplied to students so that those without QR code reader applications can alsouse Mobile-CALT with an Internet-connected phone or other device such as acomputer.
Making a QR code involves entering the URL into a QR code generator.
Copy either the original URL or one returned by the shortener into a text
document. Enter this URL into the generator (https://www.the-qrcodegenerator.com/) and enter the URL in the box (Figure 3). Confirm thefunctionality of the QR code by testing with a phone. This measure is merely aprecaution to avoid human error.
408

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415

Figure 3. Example of a QR Code created by a QR code generator.

After the code’s functionality is confirmed, save the image by clicking “Save”
to store it as a file. For distribution, the image and URL can be either projected
on a screen, handed out, or both with the optimal method varying depending on
the class size. The author found that multiple QR codes yielded a more timely
start to quizzes.
The results of submitted homework and quizzes appear on Google Drive.
To view the results, go to drive.google.com and click on the created Form. On
that page, “View Responses,” an option near the top of the screen, is clicked.
This shows a Google Sheet that contains the answers to the quiz or homework inquestion. An example of the output is shown in Figure 4.

Discussion

This mobile-CALT implementation (and its variations) was used in the Spring2014 semester for 1,503 student responses to intake surveys, an exit survey,
homework, tests, and quizzes instances (see Table 1). This produced 13,999
student answers to questions. Further, 184 out of 195 students agreed to allow
use of their data for future research and to evaluate question difficulties. While
the precise time savings for grading cannot be calculated, clear benefits wereachieved in rapidly assessing the surveys to tailor classes and in quickly being able
to grade items.
409

Komasinski

Figure 4. A Google Sheet that contains the homework answers submitted by Google Forms.

Though this procedure both easy and useful, I encountered five challenges
one should be aware of if using this system for giving quizzes or homework. First,
not every student either owns a cell phone or is willing to use a cell phone to takea quiz, so I still needed to provide some printed copies of the quiz or homework.
I chose to input those students’ answers into the Google Sheet myself which,depending on the class size, took a good deal of time, but it helped keep the datain one place.
Second, not every phone works well with Google Forms. Almost all phones
were capable of handling text questions, but some stumbled with drop-down
options, multiple-choice, and multiple checkbox questions. Older flip-style cell
phones had the worst compatibility problems, but some older Android phones
issued by Docomo from 2012 also saw some difficulties, particularly with dropdown questions. Due to the in situ nature of Mobile-CALT, I did not have theopportunity to collect more precise information about which phones faceddifficulty. Fortunately, all iPhones and all modern (2013 or later) Android
phones were fully compatible with the quizzes through Google Forms. This
problem should become less prominent in the future as students tend to get newor newer cell phone models.
410

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415
Table 1
Utilization of Google Forms and QR Codes in Spring 2014 Semester
Item Name

Entries

Fields1

Intake Survey

195

32

2

English Comm. Quiz 1

51

9

3

English Comm. Quiz 2

51

9

4

Eng. Comm. Midterm

54

29

5

English 1 Quiz 1

40

11

6

English 1 Quiz 2

41

8

7

English 1 Quiz 3

30

22*

8

English 1 Quiz 4

38

4

9

English 1 Quiz 5

39

12

10

English 1 HW Week 10

35

10

11

English 1 HW Week 11

30

12

12

English 1 Final

42

28*

13

Eng. 2 Chapter 10 HW

26

18

14

Eng. 2 Chapter 12 HW

33

18

15

Eng. 2 Chapter 13 HW

25

19

16

Eng. 2 Chapter 15 HW

15

22

17

Eng. 2 Chapter 16 HW

29

20

18

Eng. 2 Chapter 7 HW

36

9

19

Eng. 2 Quiz 1

39

11

20

Eng. 2 Quiz 2

39

7

21

Eng. 2 Quiz 3

41

6

22

End-Class Survey

124

22

Note. When fields is marked by a *, this means that not every item required an answer. The
number of end-class surveys is less than initial survey due to students taking multiple classes
taking the exit survey only once.

411

Komasinski

Third, several students accidentally navigated away from the Web page andlost their data. Google Forms only takes data once a student clicks “submit.”
Consequently, if a student navigates away (either by accidentally hitting theback button, moving his finger on the screen such that it makes a refresh, back,or navigate away gesture, or by mistakenly presuming they had submitted andclosing the browser), then the student’s quiz data was lost. Though this did occur,it happened in just a handful of cases. In the worst case, one student had it occur
twice in one day. For subsequent items, these students always requested a paper
version.
Fourth, a few students inadvertently submitted the same quiz twice. This
produced two rows in the Google Sheet (the duplicated rows can simply bedeleted from the Google Sheet afterward). This tended to happen sparingly
on each assignment and usually to the same students. One reason might bethat the cell phone’s browser window tries to refresh the next time it opens andconsequently resubmits the same data. A second reason might be that students
did not understand they had successfully submitted the quiz and resubmitted tobe sure.
Fifth, Google Sheets proved difficult for grading and returning feedback.
The Google Sheets produced by Google Forms do not leave extra spots forgrading. Moreover, converting them into something that can be returned to thestudents would require either major reformatting or the cutting of each row into
a separate strip of paper. The author solved this by importing all of the Google
Sheets into a MySQL database using Google’s API and giving each student acustom QR code with access to their graded information.

Conclusion

While I did encounter some minor issues, I still highly recommend the Google
Forms and QR Codes for mobile-CALT. While other systems such as GLEXA
and Moodle can do more, these resources require time to master and institutional
support, plus they are often not available to part-time instructors. Google Forms
is quick to set up, has the support of a global corporation, and organizes thedata into a spreadsheet on its own. I maintain that Mobile-CALT is thus well412

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415

suited for surveying students and giving them quizzes and tests. Consequently,
I enthusiastically suggest this mobile-CALT implementation to instructors wholack these resources (or just lack the time to master larger packages) as a no-cost,
relatively hassle-free way of creating quizzes and homework, which they can
implement without the assistance of their employers. For those accustomed to thelengthy, time-consuming process of grading by hand on paper and or data entry,
this method will be a welcome educational tool for significant time reduction.

References

Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57,
299-305.
Burston, J. (2011). Realizing the potential of mobile phone technology for
language learning. The IALLT Journal, 41 (2), 56-71.
Chinnery, G. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16.
Denso Wave Incorporated. (n.d.). “History of QR code.” [sic] Retrieved fromhttp://www.qrcode.com/en/history/
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2-11.
Gromik, N. (2009). Do you know who we are? Undergraduate students’ accessto technology: A survey report. The JALT CALL Journal, 5, 57-66.
Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., Sakamoto, K., Shimomura, H., & Wada,
N. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning in university EFL courses inJapan: Attitudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL, 24, 169187.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted
language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration andinteraction. ReCALL, 20, 271-289.
Lockley, T. (2011). Japanese students’ experience of ICT and other technology
prior to university: A survey. The JALT CALL Journal, 7, 93-102.
McCoy, B. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use
413

Komasinskiof digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education,
4(4), 5-15.
Murray, A., & Blyth, A. (2011). A survey of Japanese university students’
computer literacy levels. The JALT CALL Journal, 7, 307-318.
Rivers, D. (2009). Utilizing the quick response (QR) code within a Japanese
EFL environment. The JALT CALL Journal, 5, 15-28.
Roever, C. (2001). Web-based language testing. Language Learning &Technology, 5(2), 84-94.
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong
learning. Computers & Education, 34, 177-193.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent
mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 20, 365-383.
Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobileassisted language learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research
Foundation for English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.
tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning
Thornton, P., & Houser C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English educationin Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228.
Valk, J., Rashid, A., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improveeducational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 117-140.
Valois, M. (2012, April 20). The professor’s inner bitch. Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-ProfessorsInner-Bitch/131478/
Wang, S., & Higgins, M. (2006). Limitations of mobile phone learning. The
JALT CALL Journal, 2, 3-14.
Wang, S., & Smith, S. (2013). Reading and grammar skills through mobile
phones. Language Learning and Technology, 17(3), 117-134.
Weimer, M. (2014, January 8). The age of distraction: Getting students to put
away their phones and focus on learning. Faculty Focus. Retrieved fromhttp://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/the-age414

Mobile-CALT, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 403-415

of-distraction-getting-students-to-put-away-their-phones-and-focus-onlearning/
Young, J. (2006, June 2). The fight for classroom attention: Professor vs. laptop.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
article/The-Fight-for-Classroom/19431

Author bio

Andrew Komasinski is a Global Education Leadership program advisor at
Hokkaido University of Education. He has a PhD in Philosophy from Fordham
University and a professional background in web application development.
In addition to his interests in CALL and CLIL, he continues to publish on
Confucianism, Hegel, and Kierkegaard. komasinski.andrew@a.hokkyodai.ac.jp
Received: March 26, 2015
Accepted: November 5, 2015415