RUNNING HEAD: MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL
MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
THE VALUE OF INFORMAL LEARNING
Ross Eric Miller
Otemon Gakuin UniversityJapanremorajp@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper begins by dissecting the evolving meaning of “mobile learning” and its
offshoot: mobile assisted language learning (MALL). It then explores the literature
regarding informal learning, especially as it relates to mobile learning and MALL. It
finds that there is often a fine line between what is considered formal and informal
learning. One of the greatest affordances of modern mobile technology is that learners
are freed from the educational restraints of time and space, yet the literature review
found that most implementations of MALL fell into traditional behavioristic models
of pedagogy: formal learning at its most extreme. On the other hand, the literature
also showed some creative uses of mobile devices used with varying degrees offormality. However, not all students adapt to the changing potential of the learner soeasily. This paper shows that in some Asian countries, education regarding
affordances of mobile technology and the power of informal learning was not enoughto help students become more autonomous learners. This paper concludes with anargument that teachers need to provide opportunities for students to create with theirdevices, not simply consume, and on the importance of designing instruction to focus
on the learning, not on the learners or their devices.
Keywords: Informal Learning, Mobile Learning, MALL
Introduction
Mobile learning, or m-learning, has been an area of research that has grownexponentially over the last two decades. In order to research it, it must be defined.
Early definitions of m-learning placed an emphasis on the device. Traxler (2005) as
cited by Crompton (2013) defined m-learning as “any educational provision where thesole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices” (p. 4). As thetechnology grew and become more integrated into society, that definition soon
became obsolete. In 2009, Traxler redefined mobile learning “as not about ‘mobile’ as
previously understood, or about ‘learning’ as previously understood, but a part of a
new mobile conception of society” (p.14). Crompton (2013), along with the editors ofMOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
the Handbook of Mobile Learning, Muilenburg and Berge defined m-learning as“learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using
personal electronic devices” (p. 4). They then elaborate upon that definition sayingthat m-learning can occur with a device formally or informally, in or out of theclassroom, with or without direction or a specific goal and related to or not, theenvironment in which it occurs.
Mobile devices offer affordances based on their physical attributes such assize, avenues for input and output, and the ability to store information (Al-Said, 2015;
Alhinty, 2015; Ilic, 2015). Quinn (2017) describes four affordances which he calls the“4Cs of mobile: content, compute, communicate, and capture” (p. 245). He then goeson to argue that while the abilities to access a variety of content, to interact with thedevice to compute by affecting output through input, to communicate with others, andto capture both context and content are not unique to mobile devices. What makes themobile devices unique is that they have the ability to do all of those things within that
one device at the time and place of one’s own choosing is.
While the potential of m-learning has been recognized across the educational
spectrum, one subject arena that has truly adopted it is that of foreign language
acquisition. The ability to study, and gain access to authentic material, both audio andvisual, without being tethered by limitations of time, space, or materials, allow
students many more opportunities for comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982) andmeaningful communication than were ever possible in an analog world. Mobile
Assisted Language Learning (MALL) has the potential to provide students with all ofopportunities to learn as described by Crompton (2013) which were listed above.
In my own experience as an instructor of English as a foreign language (EFL),
I have tried to show students the affordances offered by their smartphones, and I havegiven them tasks that required their use, but I have never really been able to foster
learner autonomy or get students to recognize how they could use their phones
informally to foster their own learning. In a discussion on this topic, a colleague ofmine said, “even just explaining to learners how their informal learning can bebeneficial to their formal learning can contribute to their learning experience and leadto exponential progress.” With this idea in mind, I began to research how informal
learning has been viewed in m-learning especially with a focus on its perception in
MALL.
Informal Learning
How can we distinguish Informal Learning from Formal Learning when or if
an informal aspect has been implemented by the instructor? Gikas & Grant (2013)12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 2018

65

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
offer up several scholars’ definitions of Informal Learning, but much like thedefinition of m-learning, say that it cannot be conclusively defined. On the other hand,
Formal Learning is designed and structured by instructors, and students will beassessed on how well they perform within certain limitations. If one accepts thatdefinition, then the parameters of informal learning are quite broad. Any activity
instigated by the student that results in learning can be considered informal. In an
article on Informal Learning with PDAs and smartphones, Clough, Jones, Mcandrew,& Scanlon (2008, p. 360) reproduce a typology of informal learning created by
Vavoula et al. (2005):

With this, we can see that Informal Learning can be intentional or unintentional andthat both the process of learning and the goal of learning are established by thelearner. It does not seem that all researchers agree with these definitions because theterm Informal Learning is often used in studies where the teacher has at least defined
an expectation of learning. Song & Kong (2017) citing Sharples et al.(2014) say that“the teacher plays a central role in orchestrating the integration of mobile technology,
pedagogy and curriculum across formal and informal learning settings” (p. 39).
m-learning and Informal Learning
Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula (2005) felt that any theory on mobile learning
should encompass both formal and informal learning situations. They recognized thatlearning needs can arise from an internal desire, “out of curiosity or serendipity,
prompting the learner to form new goals which may then be explored through formal
or informal study” (p. 5). Agreeing with this sentiment, Brown & Mbati (2015)
believe that m-learning can and should be utilized to integrate both formal andinformal learning because “learning is interwoven with everyday activities that takeplace in everyday locations” (p 122).
In a comprehensive review of mobile learning in science, Crompton, Burke,
Gregory, & Gräbe (2016) looked at 49 articles. They found that 51% of the studies
could be considered to have taken place informal learning contexts while 18% took
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 2018

66

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
place in a combination of both formal and informal settings. They found that 33 of the
49 studies took place, at least in part, in informal environments. For the purpose of
their review, informal study was considered to be “intended learning in an atypicalsetting” (p. 153) which makes it unclear who defined the intended learning goals: theteacher or the students.
Jones, Scanlon, & Clough (2013) reported on two case studies that looked at
m-learning in informal and semiformal settings. In the first study, 40 secondary
students in an afterschool geography club focused on food sustainability. Students
formed their own groups, and while the teacher was there for support, the students
decided on their own avenues of inquiry. The authors found that m-learning allowed
the students to follow their own paths of inquiry and take charge of their own projects.
The second study involved geocaching, where the students did not have particularlearning goals, but through searching for a geocache, learned about the landscapethrough their own research or collaboration with others.
Prieto, Migueláñez, & García-Peñalvo (2013) describe what seems to be atypical use of m-learning in an informal setting: the use of smartphones in museums
which can be used to help learners with their just-in-time learning desires. Koole(2009) includes environment, type of task, and how the material is presented in
discussing how mobile learning that takes place at museums or other types ofmemorable sites can help facilitate learning because it grounds the experience in what
the author terms “episodic memory” (p. 31). Koole (2009) goes on to say that theaffordances of m-learning “impact a learner’s ability to understand, negotiate,
integrate, interpret, and use new ideas as needed in formal instruction or informal
learning” (p. 36). Martin & Ertzberger (2013) also believe that not only do “mobile
technologies ability to work within the specific context and environment of thelearning, it has the ability to increase the ease of informal learning” (p. 78). However,in another museum-related study, students who had access to mobile devices to learn
about specific paintings while viewing them scored lower than students who had toreturn to a computer work station to read about the paintings. They suggested that thereason for this was that the devices might have distracted the students from what they
were supposed to be learning, so perhaps a cognitive overload.
MALL and Informal Learning
In a United Nations white paper on mobile learning trends in Asia, Hylen(2012) reports that “across the region, policy-makers have prioritized programmesthat promote lifelong learning, and an increasing number of educators are recognizing
the importance of encouraging informal learning that happens outside of school
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 201867

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
contexts” (p. 15). In looking to the future though, the author laments the fact thatmobile devices are primarily being used as content delivery devices, not as tools fordeepening understanding or the creation of knowledge. Does this prediction highlighta limitation of the devices or highlight a fault in pedagogical implementation? A few
years after this report, Burston (2014) said that, “pedagogically MALL has been
largely constrained to behaviorist, teacher-centered, tutorial applications” (p. 344).
This assessment to can apparently be applied to the United States as well. Looking at
a 2014 study conducted by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, Joo,
Kim, & Kim (2016) report that “students have favorable attitudes toward newtechnology, recognize the value of mobile technology for academic success, andexpect to use it more for academic purposes” (p. 612). They then continue to say thatwhile the students seem eager to take advantage of their mobile devices, there waslittle support of their using the devices on campus. It seems that while mobile devices
have the ability to expand and enhance potential learning opportunities, they are all
too often being used as updated textbooks or one-on-one assistant teachers. Even
though mobile technology allows for learners to engage with language content andstudy informally, students (and teachers) might not be aware of how to do so.
Formalized Informal MALL
The study of vocabulary is a necessity when learning a foreign language, but it
is rarely fun. In a Formal Learning situation, a teacher would assign a list of
vocabulary words and then test students on them. Students who study vocabulary
words because they have identified their own need to learn those words would
approach the task more out of a sense of curiosity than as a chore. In an early study
involving Informal Learning and MALL, Song & Fox (2008) tracked students for one
year and detailed how they made use of PDAs to learn vocabulary and identified
seven ways in which they were used for the learning of incidental vocabulary. They
also found that students engaged in both individual and collaborative activities. While
not an implementation study, Nisbet & Austin (2013) argue that adult ESL learners
should be shown how they can use apps on their smartphones for vocabularyacquisition. One of their suggestions is that students commit to using an app of theirchoice for a certain period of time, and then report on how they felt about it. In thiscase, the suggestion would serve as sort of guided Informal Learning.
Informalizing Formalized MALL
Kukulska-Hulme (2009) wrote that a mobile device could serve as a bridge
between formal and informal learning. In an ideal world, students would inherently
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 2018

68

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
know that they could use their mobile devices to cross that bridge. Bo-Kristensen,
Ankerstjerne, Neutzsky-Wulff, & Schelde (2009) recognized that we don’t live in an
ideal world, and that in order to help students learn informally, they needed someformal guidance. In this implementation, students were given pre-activities that would
activate schema and prepare them for the types of language they would most likely
need in an unstructured situation. The authors had placed “geotags” (GPS location
markers) around particular landmarks, and then students had to go to those landmarks
and record a conversation they had using the target language with a native speaker
they encountered at that location. The picture/recording/video would then be uploaded
to the geotag’s description in Google Maps. The author’s felt that this type of activity
helped students make a connection between the language they were taught in theformal setting of the classroom and the real-life language they used in the informal
environment. When put together, the geotags and the content associated with them
formed a sort of “tourist language map” of the city.
In order to help exchange students from a university in the U.K. engage withboth the culture of the town in Spain where they were staying and with the language
itself, Comas-Quinn, Mardomingo, & Valentine (2009) set up a blog where students
could upload their encounters with the foreign culture. The students seemed interested
in the project, but very few made entries. The authors felt that the main problem withthis activity was that it was limited to one week. A future iteration would allow for
more time for students to engage with the project.
In Japan, Freiermuth (2015) used geotagging to hide assignments in fivedifferent geocaches near the campus. Students had to find the geocache in order tofind out what the assignment was. As a scaffolding activity, students began by finding
two relatively easy to find geocaches. They were also tasked with creating “creative”
videos that demonstrated the process of finding a geocache. Once the teacher felt thatthe students were able to accomplish the tasks, they were allowed to do so. The task
itself inherently engaged the students, and the projects let them upload videos thatstudents knew had the potential to be seen by others so they took care with theirEnglish. The liked the challenge and they liked learning about geocaching. The
negative comments were “mostly about mosquitoes and weather” (p. 5), but overall,
the students’ impressions were extremely positive.
Barriers to Informal Learning with MALL
In an attempt to see how Chinese students would make use of the affordancesof a mobile device in their informal study of English, Chen (2013) provided ten
students with an android tablet, and instructed them on its various affordances.
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 2018

69

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
Students were then told that they should primarily use the tablets to study English.
This was an action research project and after one cycle of guidance, observation, andreflection, the author initiated a revised plan that had two goals: make students moreaware of the various affordances of the tablet and set up a way for them to interact
and collaborate. At the end of the two-week study, Chen (2013) found that simply
providing the devices was not enough for students to then engage in practices ofInformal Learning. The author found that “learners need to be properly guided not
only technologically, but also methodologically” (p. 28). Straub (2009) argues thatthe adoption of technology for informal learning (or formal learning) is the result of acomplex interaction of individuals and their society. As Chen’s 2013 study was
conducted with students who had been brought up and educated in a tradition of
behaviorist teaching practices, it is likely that the methodological training Chen
(2013) was referring to was in teaching students how to be self-autonomous, and not
wait for direction from an instructor to proceed with their learning. In Japan, thisseemed to be the case. White & Mills (2012) state the assumption that learning withmobile devices should stimulate informal learning, but they report findings from
Kondo et al. (2013) that said, “research conducted in the Japanese university setting
seemed to indicate that students in this setting may not possess the autonomy and selfdirectedness to take advantage of this affordance of the technology” (p. 5).
Conclusion
Mobile learning, MALL, and Informal Learning are all concepts that are easy
to visualize but difficult to vocalize. Instructors’ goals should be to help students dowell not only in one class, but in all of their classes, and help them develop the skills
and curiosity that will help them become lifelong learners. The affordances of MALL
and the qualities of informal learning are two traits that students need to learn about
and teachers need to inform them about. The digital didactical design introduced by
Jahnke & Kumar, (2014) included teaching objectives, learning activities, andassessment, supported by technology and involving active social relations. They talkabout the integration of technology not for the consumption of information, but for thecreation of it, and instruction is centered on the learning, not on the learner. It is onlyby showing students how mobile devices can be used to learn and create newknowledge, the full potential of m-learning or MALL will be reached.

12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 201870

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
Declarations
Availability of data and materials: n/aCompeting interests: n/a
Funding: n/a
Author’s contributions: 100% of this manuscript was written by REM
Acknowledgements: n/aReferences
Al-Said, K. M. (2015). Students’ perceptions of edmodo and mobile learning and theirreal barriers towards them. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 14(2), 167–180. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n1p189
Alhinty, M. (2015). English-Language Learning at their Fingertips: International
Journalof
MobileandBlendedLearning,
7(2),45–63.
http://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2015040104
Bo-Kristensen, M., Ankerstjerne, N. O., Neutzsky-Wulff, C., & Schelde, H. (2009).
Mobile City and Language Guides--New Links between Formal and Informal
Learning Environments. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 7(2), 85–92.
Retrievedfrom
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ867105&site=ehost-live
Brown, T. H., & Mbati, L. S. (2015). Mobile learning: Moving past the myths andembracing the opportunities. International Review of Research in Open andDistance
Learning,
16(2),
115–135.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: the pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 27(4), 344–357. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.914539
Chen, X.-B. (2013). Tablets for Informal Language Learning: Student Usage andAttitudes.
Language
Learning&
Technology,
17(1).
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6573-7
Clough, G., Jones, A. C., Mcandrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with
PDAs and smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 359–371.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00268.x
Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs inlanguage learning: making the most of informal and situated learning
opportunities.
ReCALL,21(1),
96–112.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000032
Crompton, H. (2013). Mobile Learning: New Approach, New Theory. In Z. L. Berge
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 2018

71

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
& L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of Mobile Learning (pp. 47–57).
Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118764.ch5
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The Use of Mobile
Learning in Science: A Systematic Review. Journal of Science Education andTechnology, 25(2), 149–160. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
Freiermuth, M. R. (2015). “I Found It!” A smartphone GPS treasure-hunting game ina flipped English class. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,(August 2015), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1066793
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education:
Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social
media.
InternetandHigher
Education,
19,
18–26.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
Hylen, J. (2012). Turning on Mobile Learning. United Nations Educational, ScientificandCultural
Organisation,
1(1).
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00809.x
Ilic, P. (2015). The effects of mobile collaborative activities in a second language
course. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(4), 16–37.
http://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2015100102
Jahnke, I., & Kumar, S. (2014). Digital Didactical Designs: Teachers’ Integration ofiPads for Learning-Centered Processes. Journal of Dgital Learning in Teacher
Education, 30(3), 81–88.
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of
supporting inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers
and Education, 61(1), 21–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.008
Joo, Y. J., Kim, N., & Kim, N. H. (2016). Factors predicting online university
students’ use of a mobile learning management system (m-LMS). Educational
Technology
ResearchandDevelopment,
64(4),
1–20.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9436-7
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile
Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 25–44).
Athabasca University Press. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition(Internet e). Pergamon Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/328293
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning?
ReCALL European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning,
21(157), 157–165. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000202
Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental
12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 201872

MOBILE LEARNING AND MALL: A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO
study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021
Nisbet, D., & Austin, D. (2013). Enhancing ESL Vocabulary Development Throughthe Use of Mobile Technology. Journal of Adult Education, 42(1), 1–7.
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2013).
UNDERSTANDING MOBILE LEARNING: DEVICES, PEDAGOGICALIMPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH LINES. TESI, 15(1), 20–42. Retrieved
fromhttps://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/123181/1/GRIAL_SanchezPrieto_Olmos_GarciaPenalvo_Understanding.pdf
Quinn, C. (2017). Mobile Learning. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends
and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (Fourth, pp. 244–249).
Pearson.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning[online]. In Proceedings of mLearn (pp. 1–9). Retrieved fromhttp://iamlearn.org/mlearn-archive/mlearn2005/CD/papers/Sharples- Theoryof Mobile.pdf
Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental
vocabulary
testing.
ReCALL,20(3),
290–314.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000438
Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2017). Affordances and constraints of BYOD (Bring YourOwn Device) for learning and teaching in higher education: Teachers’
perspectives. The Internet and Higher Education, 32(August), 39–46.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.08.004
Straub, E. T. (2009). Informal Learning Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory
and Future Directions for Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and
Future Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research,
79(2), 625–649. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325896
Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile
Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 9–24).
White, J., & Mills, D. J. (2014). Examining Attitudes towards and Usage ofSmartphone Technology among Japanese University Students Studying EFL.
Call-Ej, 15(2), 1–15.

12 ICLICE & 2 IMELT, Singapore
6th - 7th December, 201873