Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/ISSN 2187­4972

AN EVALUATION OF TABLETCOMPUTERS FOR UBIQUITOUS
LANGUAGE LEARNING
Name: Paul A. Lyddon
Corresponding Author: l​yddon@wilmina.ac.jp
Year of Publication: 2015

To cite this article​: Lyddon, P. (2015). An evaluation of tablet computers
for ubiquitous language learning. W​orking Papers in Language Education
and Research​, 3, 1­12.

Scroll down for article

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

AN EVALUATION OF TABLET COMPUTERS FOR UBIQUITOUS LANGUAGELEARNINGPaul A. Lyddon
Osaka Jogakuin UniversityABSTRACTThis study presents an evaluation of a pilot project requiring 118 top incoming first­year
Japanese university students to buy their own tablet computers for everyday use in their English
lessons as part of a special academic track curriculum aimed at preparation for study abroad.
The principle aim was to determine the potential of tablet computers as a “good enough”
multi­purpose tool (Capps, 2009) for bridging the gap between in­class and out­of­classlearning. These 118 students and 310 others with access to a variety of technologies, includingtablets with wi­fi, but only on a shared basis, were given online surveys as a means ofcomparing the types, frequencies, and purposes of their digital tool use inside and outside theclassroom. The results indicate that tablet computers may indeed be an adequate replacementfor dedicated technologies such as voice recorders and digital audio players, but not for otherssuch as electronic dictionaries and paper­based materials.

1. INTRODUCTIONIn April 2013, Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) was awarded a Ministryof Education Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development Grant for up to five
years of funding to create a program to enable and eventually encourage at least 40% of its
approximately 430 incoming English majors to study abroad and at least 100 of these students toattain a TOEFL­ITP score of 600 or better by graduation. Although students in the English
Department had long been streamed into tiers on the basis of standardized test scores, theresponse to this new challenge was to target the top 120 incoming students with a special
Academic English track to help them qualify for study abroad as early as possible. The principal

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

interventions involved enrolling these students in an Accelerated English course to provide themwith an extra three hours of lesson time each week and requiring them to purchase tablet
computers to allow them to pursue their studies anyplace and anytime (Pea & Maldonado, 2006).
The exclusive nature of these measures, however, resulted in a splintering of the Freshman
English course into two distinct curriculums, a Standard Track and an Advanced Track, offering
potentially unequal educational opportunities (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004). A
proposal was then made to expand tablet computer adoption across all tiers from the followingyear, but first an evaluation of the initial implementation was conducted to ensure the adequacy
and worth of its continuation. This paper reports on the results of an investigation into two mainquestions:
1) How well suited are tablet computers for in­class English study? In other words, are they
sufficient by themselves, or do they need to be supplemented with other technologies?
2) How well suited are tablet computers for out­of­class English study? That is, do learners
with tablet computers actually engage in more out­of­class English study than those
without them?

2. METHOD

Data were collected via a 9­part Survey Monkey questionnaire, a link to which was sentalong with an invitation message to the official university email accounts of 428 first­year

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

English majors in the last two weeks of the 2013 spring semester. Both the questionnaire and theinvitation message were written entirely in Japanese.
The questionnaire comprised 25 items grouped into 10 general topic areas with one toeight items each. With the exception of a comment space at the end, all items required only
closed responses. Table 1 lists the general topic areas and shows the number of items for each.
Table 1.​General Topic Areas and Numbers of Questionnaire Items
Topic Area

No. ofItems

English Skill Needs and Interests

2

English Learning Activity Structures2Out­of­Class English Study Habits

3

Private Technology Ownership1

Frequency of In­class Technology Use

2Frequency of Out­of­class Technology Use

3Pre­ & Post­Enrollment TechnologicalProficiency

2

Potential Benefits of Using Technology for
English Learning8Ideal Technological Environment for Learning
English

1

Other Comments*1Total25*Open­ended

Of the 310 Standard Track and 118 Advanced Track students who received the invitation toanswer the questionnaire, the numbers providing complete responses were 59 (19%) and 31(26%), respectively. Thus, the latter group was slightly overrepresented. Given the exploratory

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

nature of this study, however, no statistical hypothesis tests were conducted. Rather, comparisonswere made of the descriptive statistics for key survey items, which are identified, analyzed, anddiscussed in the next section.

3. DISCUSSION

To answer the first research question, regarding the suitability and self­sufficiency oftablet computers for in­class study, the survey respondents were asked to assess on a 6­point
scale (0 = lowest, 5 = highest) the potential of nine then­in­use technologies for improving
speaking and listening in their Freshman English (i.e., oral communication) class and a subset ofseven for improving reading and writing in their Literacies class. The results are summarized inTables 2­5, where the highest rated (i.e., reportedly most useful) technologies are highlighted foreach group.

Table 2.​
Median Perceived Technology Potential for Improving Speaking in Class
Standard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

32.5

Electronic dictionary

43.5

Voice recorder55

Digital audio player

44Desktop computer

33

Laptop34Tablet

34Smartphone

44Internet

45

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13For the purpose of improving speaking ability, voice recorders were chosen by bothgroups as most valuable (see Table 2), despite the fact that the mode frequency of their reportedin­class use was only one to two times per month in a course that met four times per week.
However, the Advanced Track students gave an equally high rating to the Internet and, with the
exception of smartphones, for which there was no difference, they placed greater value on
portable devices with wifi access. In this case, however, mode reported in­class Internet use wasthree to four times per week for students in the Advanced Track but only one to two times permonth for those in the Standard Track.

Table 3. ​Median Perceived Technology Potential for Improving Listening in ClassStandard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

33

Electronic dictionary

34Voice recorder

44.5

Digital audio player

54.5

Desktop computer

33

Laptop

44

Tablet35

Smartphone

45Internet

45

Similar to their appraisal of voice recorders for speaking, Standard Track students rated digitalaudio players, a technology they reported using only once or twice per month, as most useful forWorking Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

listening (see Table 3). Advanced Track students, on the other hand, while acknowledging thepotential of voice recorders, saw the greatest utility in tablets, smartphones, and the Internet, forall of which they reported much more frequent in­class use.

Table 4.​
Median Perceived Technology Potential for Improving Reading in ClassStandard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

55

Electronic dictionary

55

Desktop computer

34

Laptop34

Tablet25Smartphone

34Internet

45

In the case of reading, both Standard and Advanced Track students gave the highest
utility ratings to traditional paper­based materials and electronic dictionaries (see Table 4).
However, Advanced Track students saw equal value in the Internet and tablets and even rated allother computing devices more highly than did their Standard Track counterparts.

Table 5.​Median Perceived Technology Potential for Improving Writing in ClassStandard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

55

Electronic dictionary

55

Desktop computer

3.5

4

Laptop

44

Tablet34

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13Smartphone

43

Internet

44While the profiles of the Standard and Advanced Track students showed clear differences in theirappraisals of the various technologies for speaking, listening, and reading, for writing they wereremarkably similar, with both groups expressing a clear perceived advantage for paper­basedmaterials and electronic dictionaries (see Table 5). One possible explanation is greater
proficiency in handwriting over typing. The most notable and interesting difference here is thatthe relative utility of tablets and smartphones is reversed for the two groups, possibly reflecting
the differently weighted effects of access and screen size limitations.
On the basis of the preceding evidence, it might be argued that tablets are indeed
sufficient tools for in­class English study, with no need for supplementation by othertechnologies except possibly for writing, where paper­based materials and electronic dictionaries
might still be employed, but other expensive devices such as voice recorders, digital audio
players, and desktop and laptop computers might be dispensed with. However, since track
assignment was not random but based on initial English proficiency, which might be linked toeducational opportunity, students were also asked how long they privately possessed various
technologies prior to their enrollment at KUIS and how proficient they felt with each both prior
to enrollment and at the conclusion of the first 15­week semester. The mode responses amongStandard Track and Advanced Track students with regard to length of pre­enrollment tablet
computer ownership were ‘never’ (82%) and ‘1 to 3 months’ (43%), respectively. On the otherhand, on a 6­point scale representing their self­assessment of their proficiency with tablet

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13computers to that same point (0 = lowest, 5 = highest), the median scores were 1.3 for theStandard Track and 1.5 for the Advanced. Moreover, the mode response in both groups was 0.
Thus, despite higher pre­enrollment tablet ownership rates, Advanced Track students indicated
no appreciably greater tablet proficiency.
The end­of­semester self­assessment on the same 6­point scale showed tablet proficiency
improvement for both groups—Standard Track students had potential lesson time access to alimited number of loaner tablets that their teachers could sign out on a first­come first­served
basis—but the Advanced Track students had by then gained a clear advantage. Whereas themedian self­assessment among Standard Track students had risen to 1.7, that of the Advanced
Track students jumped to 4.1, surpassing their proficiency with all other technologies except
electronic dictionaries (4.7) and smartphones (4.5). Median self­assessed proficiency for laptop
computers, available to both groups on the same sign­out basis as tablets for the Standard Trackstudents, was exactly 3.9 across the board. In short, the class requirement of private tablet
ownership led not only to tablet mastery but to a greater degree of technological proficiency
overall.
To answer the second research question, regarding the suitability of tablet computers forout­of­class study, the survey respondents were asked to report the amount of time they spent onout­of­class English study and the frequency of their use of the same nine technologies for thesepurposes. The results are summarized in Tables 6­8.

Table 6. ​Weekly Average Out­of­Class English Study< 1 hourStandard Track (%)

Advanced Track (%)

20

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13

1­2 hours

2114

3­5 hours

4838

6­10 hours

2238

10+ hours

710While nearly half of all Standard Track students reported spending an average of three tofive hours per week studying English outside of class, only a little over a third of Advanced
Track students responded likewise, with equal numbers claiming six to ten hours of out­of­class
English study (see Table 6). However, it must be remembered that the latter were also enrolled in
an extra three­hour­per­week Accelerated English course undoubtedly requiring additional
homework. In fact, in answer to a follow­up question as to the breakdown of their out­of­class
English study, Advanced Track students reported spending approximately 70% of their time oncompulsory assignments and 30% on self­directed study, whereas the distribution for Standard
Track students was 60% to 40%.

Table 7. ​Mode Frequency of Tool Use for English HomeworkStandard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

3­5x/wk.

3­5x/wk.

Electronic dictionary

3­5x/wk.

3­5x/wk.

Voice recorder

Never

Never

Digital audio player

Never

Never

Desktop computer

Never

Never

Laptop1­2x/wk.

3­5x/wk.

TabletNever

3­5x/wk.

Smartphone3­5x/wk.

3­5x/wk.

1­2x/wk., Never3­5x/wk.

InternetWorking Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13With regard to frequency of individual tool use for out­of­class English study, Advanced
Track students unsurprisingly indicated that they used tablets and the Internet much more often
to complete their required homework assignments (see Table 7), for the nature of the given
assignments may to some extent dictate the use of certain tools. More interesting is the findingthat Advanced Track students continued to use these same tools for their self­directed English
study, when they had the choice not to (see Table 8). Also noteworthy is the smartphone usage of
the Standard Track students for homework versus self­study (cf. Tables 7 & 8), for the use ofsmartphones for homework was certainly not compulsory, but students who chose to utilize themto this end did not seem to see their applicability for their own private purposes.

Table 8. ​Mode Frequency of Tool Use for Self­Directed English StudyStandard Track

Advanced Track

Paper­based materials

1­2x/wk.

1­2x/wk., 3­5x/wk.

Electronic dictionary

6­7x/wk.

6­7x/wk.

Voice recorder

Never

Never

Digital audio player

Never

Never

Desktop computer

Never

Never

LaptopNeverNeverTablet

Never

6­7x/wk.

SmartphoneNever

6­7x/wk.

Internet

1­2x/wk.

6­7x/wk.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13To tie together the two central research questions, the survey respondents were finally asked tochoose from the given list of tools all those they would use in their ideal English learning
environment. The results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9.​Top Five Tools for Ideal English Learning Environments
Standard Track
Rank

Advanced Track

Tool% of
Responses

Tool% of
Responses

1Electronicdictionary

90Internet,
tablet (tie)872Laptop,
paper­basedmaterials
(tie)

83

­­­

­­­3

­­­

­­­

Electronic
dictionary

83

4Internet

76

Laptop73

5Smartphone

74

Paper­basedmaterials

70

With the exception of electronic dictionaries, which are always privately owned andnever supplied by the university, neither Standard Track nor Advanced Track students chose
dedicated digital tools (i.e., ones with a single main purpose, such as voice recorders and digitalaudio players) for their ideal learning environment. Moreover, excepting tablet computers for
Advanced Track students and smartphones for Standard Track students, both groups selected thesame technologies, although in different orders. From these data, we might then infer that theideal learning environment for each group reflects learner priorities within current classroom

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13constraints: The Standard Track students, with irregular in­class Internet access, placed greater
value on electronic dictionaries and paper­based materials, whereas the Advanced Trackstudents, with daily in­class tablet and Internet use, saw greater utility in these othertechnologies. Perhaps because of their larger screens, both groups preferred laptops tosmartphones, but as tablets were chosen by the Advanced Track students overall, with thepossible exception of paper­based materials for reading and writing, they may indeed be goodenough to replace the multiplicity of other tools that have preceded them.

4. CONCLUSION

Lack of initial technological proficiency did not deter Advanced Track students fromembracing tablet computers by the end of the first semester after their adoption. In fact, otherthan electronic dictionaries, support for dedicated technologies such as voice recorders anddigital audio players was deemed no longer necessary. Nevertheless, continuing demand for
laptops and paper­based materials indicated that these tools may need to remain in place until theexact reasons for their perceived extra utility become clearer. Moreover, although tablets
theoretically should have allowed learners to pursue their studies anytime and anywhere, they did
not actually lead to any additional elective study time. As such, their relative efficacy will alsoneed to be investigated further.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 1­13The author wishes to thank Mr. Akiyuki Sakai of the Self­Access Learning Centre atKanda University of International Studies for his help translating the recruiting messages andsurvey items for the data collection. He would also like to thank RILS&LE for funding to attend
EUROCALL 2013 “20 Years of EUROCALL: Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future”,
September 11­14, 2013, in Évora, Portugal, where this paper was first presented.

6. REFERENCES
Capps, R. (2009). The good enough revolution: When cheap and simple is just fine. WiredMagazine, 17(9), 110­118.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal
access to differentiated use. In K.M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355­400).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Pea, R.D., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing
devices anytime, anywhere. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learningsciences (pp. 852­856). New York: Cambridge University Press.