Language, learning and technology

Volume 15 Number 2
June 2011
Articles Columns
Comprehending News Videotexts: The Tribute to Irene Thompson
Influence of the Visual Content Article PDF
Abstract | Article PDF by Dorothy Chun
Jeremy Cross, Nanyang Technological p. 1
University
pp. 44–68 Emerging Technologies
Mobile Apps for Language Learning
Divergent Perceptions of Article PDF
Tellecollaborative Language Learning by Robert Godwin-Jones
Tasks: Task-as-Workplan vs. Task-as- pp. 2–11
Process
Abstract | Article PDF Action Research
Melinda Dooly, Universitat Autònoma de Edited by Fernando Naiditch
Barcelona Using Wordles to Teach Foreign Language Writing
pp. 69–91 Article PDF
by Melissa Baralt, Susan Pennestri, and Marie
Online Domains of Language Use: Selvandin
Second Language Learners’ pp. 12–22
Experiences of Virtual Community and
Foreignness Announcements
Abstract | Article PDF News From Sponsoring Organizations
Sarah Pasfield-Neofitou, Monash Article PDF
University pp. 23–26
pp. 92–108

Reviews
Edited by Paige Ware

Moodle 2.0
Moodle.org
Article PDF
Reviewed by Tsun-Ju Lin
pp. 27–33

Teaching Literature and Language Online
Ian Lancashire (Ed.)
Article PDF
Reviewed by David Malinowski
pp. 34–38

Contact: Editors or Managing Editor
Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Teaching English Language Learners through
Technology
Tony Erben, Ruth Ban, and Martha Castañeda
Article PDF
Reviewed by Jesús García Laborda and Mary
Frances Litzler
pp. 39–41

Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English
and Chinese
Richard Xiao and Tony McEnery
Article PDF
Reviewed by Zhang Xiaojun
pp. 42–43

Contact: Editors or Managing Editor

About Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal which began publication in July 1997. The journal
seeks to disseminate research to foreign and second language educators in the US and around the world
on issues related to technology and language education.
• Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai'i National
Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for
Language Education and Research (CLEAR), and is co-sponsored by the Center for Applied
Linguistics (CAL).
• Language Learning & Technology is a fully refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in
the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of
the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and
language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies.
• Language Learning & Technology is published exclusively on the World Wide Web. In this way,
the journal seeks to (a) reach a broad audience in a timely manner, (b) provide a multimedia
format which can more fully illustrate the technologies under discussion, and (c) provide
hypermedia links to related background information.
• Beginning with Volume 7, Number 1, Language Learning & Technology is indexed in the
exclusive Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI
Alerting Services, Social Scisearch, and Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences.
• Language Learning & Technology is currently published three times per year (February, June,
and October).


Sponsors, Board, and Editorial Staff
Volume 15, Number 2

SPONSORS
University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
CO-SPONSOR
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

ADVISORY AND EDITORIAL BOARDS
Advisory Board
Susan Gass Michigan State University
Richard Schmidt University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

Editorial Board
Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas Georgetown University
Klaus Brandl University of Washington
Thierry Chanier Universite Blaise Pascal
Tracey Derwing University of Alberta
Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University
Regine Hampel The Open University
Philip Hubbard Stanford University
Claire Kennedy Griffith University, Brisbane
Markus Kötter University of Münster
Marie-Noelle Lamy The Open University
Lina Lee University of New Hampshire
Meei-Ling Liaw National Taichung University
Lara Lomicka University of South Carolina
Jill Pellettieri Santa Clara University
Bryan Smith Arizona State University
Patrick Snellings University of Amsterdam
Maggie Sokolik University of California Berkeley
Susana Sotillo Montclair State University
Paige Ware Southern Methodist University
Mark Warschauer University of California, Irvine

Editorial Staff
Editors Dorothy Chun University of CA, Santa Barbara
Irene Thompson The George Washington University
(Emerita)
Associate Editors Trude Heift Simon Fraser University
Carla Meskill State University of New York-
Albany
Managing Editors Daniel Jackson University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Web Production Editor Carol Wilson-Duffy Michigan State University
Book & Multimedia Review Paige Ware Southern Methodist University
Editor
Emerging Technologies Editor Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University
Copy Editors Rebecca Estes University of California, Davis
Daniel Jackson University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Dennis Koyama Kanda University of International
Studies

The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229,
P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department
of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Language Learning & Technology June 2011, Volume 15, Number 2
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/tribute.pdf p. 1

TRIBUTE TO IRENE THOMPSON
In July 1997, Mark Warschauer realized his vision of an open access journal for
emerging research in the field of computer-assisted language learning as the founding
Editor of Language Learning & Technology. A year later, in July 1998, Lucinda Hart-
González joined as a Co-Editor (serving for two years in that position), and in January
1999, Irene Thompson came on board as the third Editor. Thirteen years and 37 issues
later, Irene is stepping down at the end of August 2011. I have had the great privilege
and pleasure to work with Irene for the last 12 years since 2000 and would like to offer a
tribute to her for helping to bring LLT to the tremendous heights it has reached.
In 1998, LLT had more than 1,000 readers worldwide. In 2010, there were 18,214
official subscribers, and the journal’s Website has an average of 1,513 visitors per day,
with over 552,000 visitors during the year. Since 2003, LLT has been indexed in the
exclusive Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI), ISI Alerting Services, Social SciSearch, and Current Contents/Social and
Behavioral Sciences, and in 2009 was ranked 3rd in Linguistics journals (out of 93) and
3rd in Education journals (out of 139).
ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking:
Year Impact Factor 5 Year Linguistics Education
2009 2.53 3.575 3 out of 93 3 out of 139
2008 1.70 2.067 11 out of 68 9 out of 113
2007 1.22 No Data 13 out of 55 14 out of 105
A study by Smith and Lafford (2009) that appeared in The Modern Language Journal
surveyed expert researchers in language education and technology. These experts ranked
Language Learning & Technology highest in quality in a list of 19 academic journals.
LLT was also ranked first in terms of these scholars’ preferences for publishing their
own research and in having benefit for tenure/promotion.
All of the above successes are due in large measure to Irene Thompson’s expertise,
dedication, thoroughness, attention to detail and unwavering commitment to excellence.
She has worked tirelessly on all aspects of the journal, from the layout and design of the
Website to the copyediting of individual articles and reviews, from performing internal
reviews of the 150+ yearly submissions during the last several years to working closely
with authors to craft publishable articles. During the time of her editorship, the journal
has received over 1,300 submissions! Although we are on opposite ends of the continent,
working with Irene these past 12 years has been seamless, enjoyable, and immensely
rewarding. My heartfelt gratitude to her professionally and personally, and my very best
wishes for her well deserved retirement.
Despite the sadness of Irene Thompson’s departure, the journal seems to have come full
circle as we welcome Mark Warschauer back as Co-Editor. LLT will no doubt continue
to thrive and benefit from Mark’s visionary leadership. Aloha and mahalo to Irene and
welcome back, Mark!
Sincerely,
Dorothy Chun
Editor-in-Chief

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 1

http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/emerging.pdf pp. 2–11

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
MOBILE APPS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
Robert Godwin-Jones
Virginia Commonwealth University
It wasn’t that long ago that the most exciting thing you could so with your new mobile phone was to
download a ringtone. Today, new iPhone or Android phone users face the quandary of which of the
hundreds of thousands of apps (applications) they should choose. It seems that everyone from federal
government agencies to your local bakery has an app available. This phenomenon, not surprisingly has
led to tremendous interest among educators. Mobile learning (often “m-learning”) is in itself not new, but
new devices with enhanced capabilities have dramatically increased the interest level, including among
language educators. The Apple iPad and other new tablet computers are adding to the mobile app frenzy.
In this column we will explore the state of language learning apps, the devices they run on, and how they
are developed.

THE CHANGING MOBILE ENVIRONMENT
As long as there have been portable audio-video and computing devices, there has been interest in
exploring their use in language learning. As portable cassette players yielded to iPods and other MP3
players, the new capabilities of the hardware led to enhanced use of audio-based learning such as
language podcasts with integrated transcripts. As PDA’s (personal digital assistants) became more
widespread with the advent of the Palm Pilot and its successors, language dictionaries, e-book grammars,
and flashcard programs began to appear. Palm also was the producer of some of the first smartphones,
which integrated PDA functions with new capabilities including SMS messaging, built-in cameras, and
voice recording. With a small internal grant, I was able in 2002 to purchase smartphones for each of the
participants in a study abroad program in Austria. The picture taking, text messaging, and dual-language
dictionaries proved to be very useful, but the main point of having the phones—for the students to write
travel diaries—proved to be problematic as the text input system (T9 keyboard) was too slow and error-
prone for writing longer texts efficiently. This kind of issue was not unusual at the time. Five years ago in
LLT, George Chinnery (2006) surveyed the state of mobile language learning. He reported on projects
using mobile phones for vocabulary practice, quiz delivery, live tutoring, and email lesson content
delivery, and on other projects using PDA’s for file sharing, video playback and stylus text entry. In many
of these instances, Chinnery reported that technical problems arose due to the limitations inherent in the
devices, in particular small, low-resolution screens (problematic for image/video display or even good
text reading), poor audio quality (both in phoning and audio playback), awkward text entry, limited
storage/memory and slow Internet connectivity. Many of the language learning projects were seriously
hampered by these issues. Moreover, the predominant operating systems (OS) for phones and PDA’s at
the time, namely Palm OS, Windows Mobile, and Nokia Symbian, offered limited features and
expandability. All did allow, however, apps to be loaded onto devices, but they were few in number and
limited in functionality. Web browsing was constrained and slow; Web navigation using a mini-joystick
or a stylus was awkward and error-prone.
A huge step up in functionality arrived with the Apple iPhone in 2007. It is not only the iPhone’s own
advanced features which have proven to be a game-changer in the mobile area, but also the fact that its
success has led competitors to create other equally capable devices. With the iPhone, Android devices,
and Windows Phone 7 products, what used to be phones with added-on computing capabilities have
morphed into mini-computers which can also make phone calls. These devices go a long ways towards
solving the issues arising from early efforts in mobile assisted language learning. Screens are
considerably larger, with higher resolution and clarity, and capable—through more powerful processors—

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 2

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Mobile Apps for Language Learning

of playing back high-resolution video smoothly. Almost all smartphones today feature a responsive touch
screen which makes Web navigation much easier. Text entry is enhanced through a relatively large virtual
keyboard or a full physical mini-keyboard. Many phones are capable not only of video capture, but of
video (and image) editing as well as of voice recognition. Most of the new generation of smartphones
have faster 3G or 4G cellular connectivity along with even faster Wi-Fi. Built-in storage is greatly
enlarged, with flash memory having in recent years become cheaper, smaller, and higher capacity. Some
of the functionality of current smartphones even surpasses in some ways what is available on laptops, as
many include GPS chips, accelerometers, compasses, high-resolution cameras, and proximity sensors.
Most incorporate Bluetooth and USB connections as well. Clearly having such powerful devices available
anytime, anyplace provides tremendous opportunities for educational use. However, it is not just—or
even primarily—hardware enhancements of the iPhone generation devices that hold the most promise for
use in language learning. Equally important is the software and the new opportunities that arise from
mobile application development.

APPS ON THE RISE
One of the significant software enhancements of the iPhone when first released in 2007 was the much
greater usability of its Web browser, Mobile Safari. Coupled with a larger, high-resolution screen, a more
powerful processor, more internal (RAM) memory, and faster Internet connectivity, Mobile Safari was
able for the first time on a device its size to access and display the “full” Web. Previous phone browsers
used either text only browsing, server-based on the fly re-formatting (Opera Mini), or reliance on WAP
(Wireless Application Protocol), a way to rewrite HTML for display on phones. Web browsing on a
phone did not deliver the same Web experience as desktop browsers. Web pages on the iPhone, by
contrast, are not dumbed down in any way, but are displayed as they would appear in a normal Web
browser on a desktop computer. The smaller screen size effects the readability of full-page display, but
the iPhone introduced touch actions such as double tap and two-finger zoom to allow smaller text to be
read. Other smartphones have similar browsers. In fact, most are based on the WebKit rendering engine
developed by Apple for use in Safari. Apple has made Webkit an open source project. Another significant
development with Mobile Safari was robust JavaScript support, the language that supplies much of the
interactivity on the Web. Also supported was CSS 2 (cascading style sheets), which not only is important
for formatting Web pages but also plays a key role in structuring the page’s “document object model”
(DOM), an essential element in being able to change dynamically and programmatically elements of a
page. At the same time, Apple introduced extensions to HTML and CSS which enhance the Web display
on iPhones. As WebKit is used now across smartphone platforms, these tags are commonly supported
and, in fact, are making their way into the specifications of HTML 5, the new version of the Web
formatting language, not yet finalized, but already largely supported in many browsers. A major
component of current Web publishing is, however, not supported on iPhones or on other mobile Apple
devices, Adobe’s Flash; Apple believes that HTML 5 will gradually replace the use of Flash. That
remains to be seen.
Given the enhanced capability of mobile Safari, Apple initially encouraged developers to add
functionality to the iPhone by creating Web apps, that is, HTML-based programs which used JavaScript
and CSS to provide interactivity. Developers, however, were not satisfied with this approach, which did
not provide full access to the capabilities of the iPhone, and in 2008 Apple announced that it would allow
3rd party native applications for the iPhone. Subsequently, a SDK (software development kit) was
released for development of iPhone apps, built into Apple’s programming environment, XCode. At the
same time Apple created a curated environment for distributing the new apps, the Apple App Store,
integrated into the iTunes Store. The App Store has proven to be wildly successful, with some 400,000
apps to date. Other smartphone OS’s have implemented similar systems, although in general without the
strict scrutiny apps submitted to the Apple store undergo. Google’s Android OS, in particular, has gained
significantly in the past year in both users and number of apps. There are predictions that the number of

Language Learning & Technology 3


Android apps will soon surpass those for Apple devices.
Among these iPhone and Android apps are a good number supporting language learning. Claire Siskin
has provided a nice list of apps for language learning, and others have listed and reviewed apps for all
languages, or for specific languages such as Japanese, French, and ESL. Many of these apps are of similar
kind to those available for some time on phones, including flashcard programs, dual language
dictionaries, and phrase books. Not all are of the highest quality. In some instances, newer hardware and
software have allowed for enhanced functionality. Phrase books, for instance, can now hold much more
content, including video as well as audio, and integrate with online sites. Some travel guides such as the
Lonely Planet apps feature advanced features such as drag-and-drop trip planners, audio phrase books,
and even augmented reality, which uses phone camera views to overlay local site information.
Vocabulary development programs have become more sophisticated and powerful. One I have been using
for studying Chinese is eStroke. Its primary purpose is to help in learning stroke order for writing Chinese
characters, but it also includes an extensive dual-language dictionary, features excellent animations, and
includes personal library and quizzing functions. Another popular app for Chinese is Pleco, which starts
out as a free app, but adds functionality through a large number of paid add-ons such as specialized
dictionaries, enhanced handwriting recognition, and optical character recognition. ChinesePod has a
nicely designed app which offers a variety of tools to work with lesson podcasts and their
vocabulary/phrases. The app also automatically syncs the user’s learning status on the app with that on
the Web site and allows lesson content to be downloaded for off-line study, one of the benefits of apps
over the live Web. Another nice feature new smartphones offer Chinese learners, and anyone else using a
non-Latin writing system, is the ease with which one can switch the virtual keyboard’s text input system,
making it possible on the iPhone, for example, to enter Chinese characters by drawing them with one’s
finger or switching to pinyin text entry with then the corresponding character equivalents displayed for
selection.
Flashcard programs have also become more powerful. A popular program of this type is Anki, a spaced
repetition vocabulary study program (discussed in the LLT 14/2 column). The mobile version offers
essentially the same powerful functionality as the desktop version, including deck and individual card
editing, audio support, and customizable review options. It also syncs with the desktop and Web versions.
The popular Quizlet flashcard system also offers a mobile app, which has an interesting auto-define
function when adding new items, which allows the user to see/choose definitions that other Quizlet users
have entered for that term. Wordreference.com’s app links to language discussion forums that reference
the term searched. Conjugation Nation offers apps in a variety of languages for drilling verb forms.
Linking a mobile app to Web services or an online database is being used more and more in language
learning apps, in particular in commercial products such as Rosetta Stone or Transparent Language’s
Byki, as well as in online services such as Babbel.com or hello-hello, all of which have mobile apps
which sync mobile and desktop versions. Complete language courses, such as Living Language for
French, are now also being offered as apps. An interesting approach to leveraging the client-server
relationship on mobile devices is the Cloudbank project described by Pemberton, Winter, and Fallahkhair
(2009). It uses crowdsourcing to build a database of informal English language usage, featuring an
Android app communicating with a database through Web services. It also uses RSS feeds to keep users
informed of new content added.
Cloudbank leverages not only the ability of a smartphone to exchange information with an online
database; it also makes use of a peer-to-peer network. In fact, with the rise of social networking, we are
seeing more language learning apps that take advantage of this trend. The Byki app for example, allows
users to search for use of terms within Twitter messages. The Micromandarin project uses the location
aware program Foursquare to provide contextually relevant content for language practice. The app uses
GPS to determine a user’s location and supplies vocabulary information and practice appropriate to that
location: food and drink vocabulary, for instance, if the user is in a restaurant. The CLUE project makes



similar use of GPS to supply location appropriate content and adds another dimension through tagging
objects with RFID tags (radio frequency identification), whose information then can be retrieved on the
smartphone. Beaudin, Intille, Tapia, Rockinson and Morris (2007) describe a similar project for
vocabulary learning, using objects in the home with stick-on sensors. It seems likely that we will see app
development in the future take greater advantage of some of the hardware features of new smartphones
beyond the GPS chip. The accelerometer, for example, used extensively in mobile game applications,
could be used in language learning games as well.
Claire Siskin’s list of apps for language learning includes a category called “repurposed apps,” which
discusses general purpose apps that could be used in language learning, including voice search, voice
email, postcard creation, audio recording, and children’s games. Integrating audio capabilities adds a
crucial component of language use and learning. A good many e-books are becoming available, especially
for the iPad, which combine text, images, and audio in an attractive way. Some also include games. Many
of these, such as the Town Musicians of Bremen, are designed for children, but clearly would be of
interest for language learning. Google Translate for Android offers an interesting experimental feature
using voice. “Conversation mode” lets users translate an utterance into the target language, which is then
read aloud. One’s conversation partner can then speak in the target language and have in turn that
response be translated and read aloud. Another Android voice translation app is Talk to Me, which has
gotten positive reviews. While newer smartphones include voice recognition, including in some cases for
languages other than English, this feature does not yet appear to have worked its way into apps.

DEVELOPING FOR MOBILE DELIVERY
In order to take full advantage of the hardware and OS capabilities of a mobile device, developers need to
create an app using an approach consistent with that device’s programming environment. For Apple iOS
devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad), that means using Objective-C and Apple’s XCode developers’ tool.
However, such apps will not run on Android devices, for which apps are written in Java running on a
version of Linux. iOS apps are available exclusively from the Apple App Store (unless the iPhone is
“jailbroken,” i.e., unlocked for open access), while Android apps are more widely available, from the
official Android Market, Amazon’s Appstore for Android, Handango, and other repositories. As is the
case with iOS apps, Android apps are free or available for a price, usually under ten US dollars. Some
apps are considerably more expensive—buying all the add-ons to Pleco costs US $149. Apps are usually
available in English only, few are localized for other languages. Other smartphone environments
(Blackberry, WebOS [Palm/HP], Windows Phone 7) use different programming environments, all
mutually incompatible. All of the different smartphone software companies make development tools
available, which typically include a desktop phone simulator. Most are free, or available for a modest
cost. Except for iOS development, which is Mac OS only, app development can be done on Windows or
Macintosh machines, and, in some instances, on Linux.
App development is currently progressing at a feverish pace, and app developers are in high demand.
However, for language learning purposes, native app development may not be the best choice. Not only
are the programming environments different, each also involves knowing or learning a programming
language such as Objective-C or Java. Moreover, there is little carryover from developing an app in one
environment to re-creating that app for a different platform. Obviously, the fundamental functionality and
user interface design could be the same, but the programming will be altogether different and done using
different tools. For educational use, as things stand now, it would seem that one at the least would want to
have an iOS and Android version of an app, probably a Windows Phone 7 app as well, and possibly
WebOS or Blackberry versions, depending on one’s user base and the market rise and fall of the various
companies’ products. This could prove to be a time-consuming and expensive development process.
An alternative to developing native apps is to create instead a Web app. This involves using more familiar
and easier-to-learn HTML, JavaScript and CSS. All are scripting rather than programming languages,



hence do not involve compilation into byte-code. The only tool needed is a text editor. Web apps will run
and perform similarly in most smartphone environments, particularly as all but Microsoft now use
WebKit. The look and feel can be quite similar to built-in apps, particularly if one uses relatively new
HTML/CSS tags such as the “viewport” meta tag and CSS “webkit-border” rules. Icons/shortcuts to the
Web app on the home screen allow it to be launched in a similar way to native apps. Distribution for Web
apps is through a Web server, rather than from an app store. What does one sacrifice creating a Web app
rather than “going native”? Execution speed is likely to be slower and the user interface not as slick.
There will also be more limited access to the device hardware, including its camera, audio player or GPS.
These considerations may or may not be of consequence, depending on the nature of the application. They
may be outweighed by the advantage of creating one app which can be universally deployed. My second
year German students have been using for the past year a simple flashcard Web app I created, which is
linked both from the Blackboard course Web site and from an open, mobile-friendly link. This allows the
students to use the app both from desktop browsers and mobile devices, something not doable with native
iPhone or Android apps.
Another possibility is to create a “hybrid app,” a Web app which is then ported through a tool such as
PhoneGap to the native environment of the smartphone. This facilitates linking to some hardware features
of the device. It also allows for possible distribution through one of the app stores. A number of Web apps
created with PhoneGap are available from the various app stories. Creating a Web app for mobile
distribution through PhoneGap or similar tools such as Appcelerator Titanium can be much easier through
using templates such as those available from Mobile Boilerplate or by using a mobile-oriented JavaScript
library. Among the latter is jQuery Mobile, an extension to the popular and free jQuery library. Using
jQuery Mobile makes it easy to create parts of a Web app such as navigation, form elements, and page
transition effects without having to write the JavaScript oneself. It supports most smartphone platforms
(but not yet Windows Phone 7) and features progressive enhancement, meaning that its advanced features
degrade gracefully if not supported in a given mobile browser, while maintaining across all browsers the
same essential content and functionality. If not supported, for example, page transitions such as fading,
flipping or sliding will simply not appear, but the new page will still be displayed.
Another kind of mixed environment approach that is getting wide usage is the creation of Web-based
content that automatically re-formats itself for display on a small screen. This approach uses a feature of
CSS 3 called CSS media queries, which is widely supported on both mobile and desktop browsers. This
involves adding a tag to the HTML header to direct a Web browser to use a size appropriate CSS style, as
in the following example:
<link media=“only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)” href=“mobile.css” type=“text/css”
rel=“stylesheet” />
In this case the page formatting will be determined by the “mobile.css” style, rather than the main CSS
linked in the header of the page, if the device being used has a maximum width of 480 pixels. A similar
process has been possible for some time to enable optimization of a print copy of a Web page. What is
new here is the ability to specify a screen width to be used in connection with a particular style. A mock-
up of an online journal page from the Web design site “A List Apart” demonstrates this and displays
differently depending on screen width, with the pictures either displayed in 2 columns on a phone (480
pixels wide or less), 4 columns on a typical monitor (480 to 600 pixels) or 6 columns on a widescreen
monitor (wider than 600 pixels). The navigation buttons also change location depending on the screen
size, namely moving to the top for a small screen. While this approach has a number of devotees, others
advocate creating separate HTML pages for mobile devices. It is a trade-off between more complex code
which adjusts automatically to different screen size or simpler code which must be maintained and synced
in different file locations.
One approach that many language developers have used in the past in creating Web-based interactivity is



problematic in the mobile sphere, namely Flash. Traditionally, Flash has been used for video streaming,
animation, and for general interactivity. Flash is not likely to ever be supported on iOS devices, but it
does run on other mobile devices. Android 3.0 and some 2.x versions support Flash. However, Flash
performance on mobile devices is not as robust as it is on desktop platforms. It tends to run more slowly
and occasionally crashes the system on some devices, due mostly to memory issues. Adobe has been
working on better performance on mobile devices, and it seems likely performance will improve in the
near future. However, if it’s possible to use HTML 5 rather than Flash—which may or may not be
possible—that is advisable for the widest possible compatibility.

OUTLOOK: TABLETS ALSO ON THE RISE
Complicating app development even more is the arrival of touchscreen tablets. The iPad, introduced in
2010, has been a phenomenal success for Apple, with sales far exceeding most expectations and eclipsing
sales of earlier tablet computers, which never caught on except in narrow niche markets. Apps developed
for the iPhone will also run on the iOS-based iPad but to take advantage of the larger screen need to be
modified, which may entail a revamping of the user interface. One of the first commercial language
learning apps designed specially for the iPad was the heavily marketed hello-hello app, available for
several different languages. Meanwhile, tablets from other manufacturers are becoming available, many
using the Android OS. The Android tablets vary in sizes, most either 7 or 10 inches, with likely more
variation in future models. Given this scenario, it seems all the more advisable for developers to consider
creating a Web app with a fluid grid that adjusts automatically to different environments. It looks likely
that tablets will be a popular product in the near future, so having language learning applications that
work in that environment seems highly desirable. Of course, a special use case may make creation of a
native app more appropriate, especially if the target audience has a marked predominance of one
platform, or if hardware linkage is an important part of the project. It’s unfortunate that today in mobile
software development, we seem to have gone back to the days when developers had to make a choice that
excluded a large part of their possible market, as in deciding between Mac-based HyperCard or Windows
only Toolbook. The Web has been an environment which has brought peace to the platform religion wars
but we are starting to see a new war of words being waged between iOS and Android partisans.
As recently as 2007, a comprehensive review of mobile assisted language learning by Agnes Kukukska-
Hulme and Lesley Shield found that for the most part uses of mobile devices were pedestrian, uncreative,
and repetitive and did not take advantage of the mobility, peer connectivity, or advanced communication
features of mobile devices. Most activities were teacher-led and scheduled, not leveraging the anytime,
anyplace mobile environment. Oral interactions and learner collaboration were infrequently used. The
problem is less one of hardware/software shortcomings and more in developers’ conceptualization of how
language learning could be enhanced in new, innovative ways with the assistance of mobile devices. The
new mobile computing environment ushered in by the arrival of the iPhone gives us even more capability
of which to take advantage. It would be a shame to fall into only the same use patterns as in the past. In a
recent post to his mobile ESL blog, David Read describes what he would like to see in a language app. He
envisions a photo translation function that would make use of the built-in camera as a scanner to read in,
recognize, and translate items from menus, posters, or other realia, similar to how that works now in the
SnaPanda program (Android). He would also like to see new approaches to accessing language corpora
on small screens as well as ways to look up and display items simultaneously from a variety of online
dictionaries, with the added ability to add items from all these sources—scanning, look-up, corpora—to a
personal word bank. It would be interesting to see such functions combined as well with an intelligent
tutoring system (ITS). A step in that direction is the TenseITS project (Cui & Bull, 2004) which featured
a mobile ITS using context and location of the user to determine which verbs to use in drill exercises. The
PDAs used in the project were hampered by limited memory capacity; the new generation of mobile
devices could make mobile ITS a more doable proposition. Chen and Li (2010) describe a project which
combines context/location awareness with a rudimentary kind of ITS, with content delivered based on a



user’s profile/learning history and current location. In this case location was determined by nodes in a
wide-area network, but GPS could also be used. With the good connectivity now available on mobile
devices, adding a social dimension to location-aware learning apps would be beneficial, allowing users to
share context-specific learning experiences.
It is not just the mobility, enhanced hardware, and better software of new mobile devices that should
encourage new thinking. The devices in and of themselves encourage a new kind of relationship between
user and machine. The responsive touchscreen interface seems to create a more personal, even intimate
connection, becoming part of one’s personal identity. According to a recent report on creating mobile
apps from Forrester Research, the emotional bond often created is something to keep in mind when
developing mobile apps. The devices are more personal also in the sense that they are individually highly
customizable and small enough to be always within reach. It’s also the case that both smartphones and
tablets tend to focus the attention more on one task at a time than is the case with regular computers.
Although multi-tasking to one degree or another is available on these devices, the screen size and touch
interface tend to invite users to focus exclusively on the program running in the foreground. For
educational uses, this may present a welcome opportunity to capture, at least for a short time, the full
attention of the learner. Desktop and laptop computers will continue to be used, but as mobile devices
proliferate, their use may change. Apple devices are still tied to using a computer for storage and syncing,
but the predominant movement these days is towards over-the-air syncing and resources residing “in the
cloud” rather than on a personal computer. With faster Internet connections, client-user interactions
through Ajax (JavaScript-based server interactions) or other means work faster and smoother, making it
possible to draw data more efficiently from online sources for smoother interactions in an ITS or other
program involving heavy data usage.
As personal devices, smartphones are ideal for individualized informal learning. The user determines
which apps to acquire and how to use them. As language educators, we should encourage and assist the
learner autonomy this enables and provide means for learners to combine formal and informal learning.
Song and Fox (2008) describe a project which features an open-ended, student-oriented approach to
vocabulary learning in which EFL students were provided access to and guidance on using a variety of
vocabulary building tools. The article describes the considerable variety of tools and approaches
eventually chosen by the students. This kind of activity becomes even more powerful when coupled with
the ability for students to show or discuss their methods and findings with their peers. The photo blogging
project described by Wong, Chin, Tan, and Liu (2010) involved students using iPhones to take photos to
illustrate Chinese idioms being studied and to share their photos and comments with the class through a
wiki. Students were encouraged to take photos based on their daily lives using their immediate
surroundings. This use of the student’s actual environment improves upon similar projects that have used
an artificial space such as a lab (Stockwell, 2008) or a classroom (Liu, 2009). We know that learning
becomes more real and permanent when tied to learners’ lives outside the academic environment. Mobile
devices are a great way to achieve that goal. Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that we are far from
seeing universal ownership of smartphones—they are still too expensive for many budgets. Designing
exclusively for smartphone usage will necessarily exclude many users. Smartphone penetration will likely
gain worldwide in coming years, but not at the same pace everywhere. At the same time, phone and tablet
models—both hardware and software—will evolve from their current state. Given how competitive and
profitable that market has become, the pace of innovation is likely to be rapid. As mobile devices become
even more powerful and versatile, we are likely to see more users make them their primary, perhaps their
sole computing devices. This is not a trend language educators can ignore.



REFERENCES
Beaudin, J. S., Intille, S. S., Tapia, E. M., Rockinson, R., & Morris, M. E. (2007). Context-sensitive
microlearning of foreign language vocabulary on a mobile device. In B. Schiele, A. K. Dey, H. Gellersen,
B. de Ruyter, M. Tscheligi, R. Wichert, E. Aarts, & A. Buchmann. (Eds.), Ambient intelligence (pp. 55–
72). (Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Volume 4794/2007. Berlin: Springer.
Chen, C-M., & Li, Y-L. (2010). Personalized context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting
effective English vocabulary learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 341–364.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 10(1), 9–16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/emerging.pdf
Cui, Y., & Bull, S. (2005). Context and learner modelling for the mobile foreign language learner. System,
33, 353–367.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile
devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening? Paper presented at EuroCALL 2007,
Conference Virtual Strand, September, 2007. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.84.1398&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Liu, T.-Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 515–527.
Pemberton, L., Winter, M., & Fallahkhair, S. (2009). A user created content approach to mobile
knowledge sharing for advanced language learners. Proceedings of mLearn 2009, Orlando, Florida, 184–
187.
Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary testing.
European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 290–314.
Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning.
ReCALL, 20(3), 253–270.
Wong, L.-H., Chin, C.-K., Tan, C.-L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students’ personal and social meaning making
in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 15–26.

RESOURCE LIST
Language Learning and Mobile Apps
• Language Learning Applications for Smartphones, or Small Can Be Beautiful – Clair Siskin’s list
• Brief Review of Language Learning Apps – HRC Blog
• Learnosity Blog : Mobile Applications for Language Learning
• Move Over, Rosetta Stone: Mobile Language Apps Make Learning Fun
• Mobile Application for Language Learning – MALL Research Project Report from the schools online
initiative
• Cool Apps for Language Learning
• 50 iPhone Apps to Help You Learn a New Language
• How I’m using my iPad to learn languages



• Google Docs gets Android, iPhone editing in 44 languages
• Mobile Language Learning: Learn Japanese on the Go
• Mobile ESL: My perfect language learning mobile app
• TOTALe Companion – For Rosetta Stone
• Byki Mobile App
• Quizlet – App
• Conjugation Nation – Verb form app
• WordReference.com app
• CloudBank Project – Crowd-sourcing project with Android app
App Development
• Mobile application development – Good introduction from Wikipedia
• Mobile app development trends - what languages should you be learning? – Nice overview of
different platforms
• Mobile App Design Best Practices - Forrester Research – Comprehensive but expensive
• What is Android? | Android Developers – Good starting point
• iOS Development Center – Starting point from Apple for developing iPhone and iPad apps
• BlackBerry Developer Zone
• WebOS Developer Center
• Introduction to Windows Phone 7 Development)
• How To Port an iPhone Application to the iPad
• Green’s Opinion: From iPhone to iPad: Creating a Universal Application
Web Apps and Mobile-friendly Web Publishing
• Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 – From the W3
• ADL Mobile - Mobile Learning Research
• Designing Web Sites for Phone Browsers – Microsoft
• New to Mobile? Welcome to the One Web Debate
• Mobile Application Development: Web vs. Native - ACM Queue
• Responsive Web Design or Separate Mobile Site? Eh. It Depends
• A List Apart: Articles: Responsive Web Design
• A Flexible Grid
• jQTouch - jQuery plugin for mobile Web development
• Sencha - Desktop and Mobile JavaScript Frameworks
• PhoneGap
• Baker Ebook Framework



• jQuery Mobile | jQuery Mobile
• Nuance Mobile Developer Program: Dragon Mobile SDK
• Need a Mobile Web App Template? Mobile Boilerplate 1.0 is Here
• CSS3 Media Queries
• css3-mediaqueries-js – Library to use css media queries in supported browsers


http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf pp. 12–22

ACTION RESEARCH
USING WORDLES TO TEACH FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING
Melissa Baralt, Florida International University
Susan Pennestri, Georgetown University
Marie Selvandin, Georgetown University
This paper introduces readers to Wordle, a data visualization tool, and describes how word
clouds, or wordles generated by Wordle, were used in an action research project designed
to facilitate the teaching of foreign language (FL) writing within a dual coding theoretical
framework. Over the course of one semester, students in a third-semester university FL
Spanish course submitted drafts of their compositions electronically to create wordles
(word clouds). The wordles were then used as visual tools to discuss students' writing
development, writing strategies, and lexical acquisition. Word frequency counts along
with wordles also contributed to student-centered discussions about writing. The paper
concludes with a discussion of ways in which instructors can incorporate wordles into
their FL classrooms to facilitate the teaching of L2 writing, as well as use them as tools to
promote vocabulary development and communicative task-based teaching and learning.

USING WORDLES TO TEACH FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING
Data visualization tools have recently generated increased interest in multiple disciplines due to their
ability to present and summarize data in ways that appeal to different types of learners. One type of data
visualization, word clouds, assists in accentuating the main points of text-based information. In a matter
of a few seconds, a word cloud highlights the main ideas by presenting words used in a text in the shape
of a cloud, with the biggest words being those that were most frequently employed in the text. While
numerous ideas exist for the potential of word clouds, there is relatively little research on whether and
how they can facilitate the teaching and learning of vocabulary. No study exists to date that explores their
potential in the FL classroom. In examining one type of data visualization tool for word clouds, Wordle,
the present paper aims to fill this gap by carrying out an action research project during which “wordles”
were incorporated into a Spanish foreign language (FL) classroom. The project had two goals: to facilitate
the teaching of writing in class and to improve students’ writing in the FL.
The first part of the paper that reports on this project contains a brief discussion of data visualization as a
learning tool by specifically examining word clouds and how they have been used in previous research.
The second part describes an action research project conducted by the authors using Wordle. The final
section discusses the outcome of the project and provides suggestions for incorporating word clouds into
the FL classroom. Throughout the paper, the term wordle is used to refer to a word cloud in general, while
the capitalized term Wordle refers to the specific application tool created by Jonathan Feinberg (2009).
Data Visualization
Data visualization refers to the use of tools for representing data in the form of charts, maps, tag clouds,
animation, or any graphical means that make content easier to understand (Barret, 2010). It serves as a
way to communicate information clearly and effectively through visual representation, sometimes even
via animated multimedia (see Friendly, 2008, for an excellent review of the history of data visualization
through the centuries). Over the past few years, the use of data visualizations has increased rapidly in
academia and in other contexts. These tools can help facilitate the understanding of complex events or
phenomena because they present data in a multimodal way, incorporating visual, phonological, textual,
and even animated input. For example, data visualization was used to report on the 2010 midterm
elections in the United States (see CNN© video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnPjjAfcIgI).

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 12

Melissa Baralt, Susan Pennestri, and Marie Selvandin Action Research: Using Wordles

Wordle
It is only recently that data visualization has become more accessible to the general public. Using widely
available Web 2.0 tools, users can now easily create data visualizations without needing to know the
technology used to create word cloud output. Creating data visualizations is now as easy as pasting
information into a browser’s window and choosing an output style, thanks to the many Websites that
provide these tools for free to the public.
Word clouds are one of the most popular forms of data visualization. A word cloud, also called text cloud
or tag cloud, is a visual representation of word frequency. The size of each word in a cloud depends on
how many times it appears throughout the text. As the frequency of the word increases, the size of the
word in the cloud becomes larger as well. The importance of a word is thus visualized in the cloud
according to its font size. A number of free word cloud tools are available, such as Tagxedo, Tagul,
Wordsift, and Tag Crowd. One of the most popular word cloud generators is Wordle, created by IBM
developer Jonathan Feinberg. Feinberg also built Word-Cloud Generator (WCG), the tool found in the
widely-known interactive data visualization site called Many Eyes (http://www-
958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/).
Defined by Feinberg as a “toy,” Wordle is used by many for its simplicity and its visually appealing
results. Users simply need to copy text from any source and paste it into Wordle, which performs
statistical analyses of the text and organizes it by word frequency. Users can then change the font, shape
and color scheme of the resulting image, remove any unwanted words, and view the total word frequency
counts in a separate chart. Figure 1 below shows a word cloud created by the authors using Wordle.

Figure 1. Example word cloud from Wordle.net (created by the authors).
Word Clouds in Research
Only a small number of studies (Cidell, 2010; McNaught & Lam, 2010; Pendergast, 2010; Ramsden &
Bate, 2008) has conducted research with word clouds, all within the last four years. Pendergast (2010)
used “tag clouds” to perform an analysis of the most commonly used terms from documents published by
the American Association for Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS), creating what she referred to as a
“folksonomy” of texts (p. 292-3). She showed that the clouds revealed a visual hierarchy of text, and
concluded by suggesting that tag clouds be included on Websites next to the published documents.
Pendergast argued that doing so would appeal to multiple generations, including the “millennials,” who,
according to her, are multiliterate and tend to prefer visual over textual information (p. 297).



Cidell (2010) suggested that “content clouds” may serve as a form of exploratory qualitative data analysis
(p. 516). She carried out a study with geographical data from public meeting transcripts and newspaper
articles about “green” buildings. Using both visual content clouds and word frequency reports to carry out
two case studies, Cidell showed visually how the same environmental issues are understood in different
ways across the country. McNaught and Lam (2010) also supported the use of word clouds, arguing that
they can be used as supplementary research tools for the triangulation of data (i.e., using multiple
methods and data sources to obtain a more reliable picture of the phenomenon being explored). They
carried out a study in which transcripts from two student focus groups, Chinese secondary school science
students and second year law students, were analyzed. The researchers used Wordle to assess students’
blog entries about their educational experiences as well as the use of ebooks. They were able to
demonstrate the vast differences among student experiences, as well as to qualitatively corroborate their
quantitative findings about students’ perception of the value of both the focus groups and ebooks. Finally,
Ramsden and Bate (2008) discussed the potential for word clouds to contribute to the field of education.
They described how word clouds can be used to examine teacher responses to a survey about podcasting
in educational contexts. The authors concluded by suggesting other uses for wordles (e.g., gathering
informal feedback during large group instruction), as well as considerations teachers should take into
account when creating word clouds, for example, the selection of software, data preparation, and how to
interpret a word cloud.
Word Clouds in Education
To our knowledge, there is currently no research on the implementation of word clouds in the classroom.
Rather, there are resources and suggestions for teachers on how to use word clouds. For example, Mehta
(2007) created a Website that uses word clouds to analyze the speeches of U.S. presidents called U.S.
Presidential Speeches Tag Clouds. Users can drag a timeline cursor to compare the frequency and trends
of word use by all of the presidents. Another example is the Website www.gapminder.org, which has a
section entirely dedicated to materials for teachers, such as the data visualization graph of wealth and
health of nations. Not surprisingly, most literature on ways that teachers might incorporate word clouds is
available on the Internet, typically in the form of blogs. One of the most detailed blogs with ideas for
teachers is the Website The Clever Sheep, maintained by a Canadian high school teacher Rodd Lucier
who proposes a number of educational uses for word clouds (Lucier, 2008).
Dual Coding Hypothesis
The theoretical framework for using wordles in the classroom is based on the dual coding hypothesis
(Paivio, 1986). Engaging in class-based discussion about the meaning of words while simultaneously
being able to look at them in a wordle, thus presenting learners with visual and auditory input
concurrently, may help them to process and to retain vocabulary more effectively. According to Paivio’s
Dual Coding Theory, as well as to recent empirical findings about the way in which human brains process
information (see Sousa, 2006, for a review), both verbal and nonverbal knowledge contribute to lexical
representation of words in the mind. In reviewing what brain research tells us about second language
learning, Genesee (2000) explains that “as connections are formed among adjacent neurons to form
circuits, connections also begin to form with neurons in other regions of the brain that are associated with
visual, tactile, and even olfactory information related to the sounds of words” (p. 2). Using multimedia-
based input in class such as wordles should facilitate learners’ ability to make meaningful connections
among written, oral, and visual information, since the dual coding theory postulates that the mind
processes and encodes information in multiple ways. There is clearly a need, then, for studies that show
whether and if so, how, word clouds can enhance teaching and learning. The present study sought to
address this need by carrying out an action research project exploring the potential of word clouds in a FL
classroom context.



THE PRESENT STUDY
To investigate the potential of word clouds in a FL classroom, an action research project was designed
using Wordle to enhance essay-writing skills in an intermediate-level FL Spanish class. The steps used in
the present project were adapted from Mackey and Gass’s (2005) explanation of action research,
specifically to (a) incorporate “wordles” in the FL classroom to facilitate the teaching of writing in
Spanish and (b) improve students’ FL writing. To follow is a description of the classroom context and
each step taken during the research project.
Classroom Context
Wordles were incorporated into an Intermediate-level Spanish FL class at a private research university. In
a class of 18 students, which met for 50 minutes three times a week, students were assigned
communicative tasks to perform with their peers in order to practice newly learned vocabulary and
grammar. Students were also regularly assessed in speaking, reading, listening and writing.
For the writing component, students wrote four compositions throughout the semester, each with two
drafts. Some days of instruction were designated for in-class writing workshops that served as an
opportunity for discussing the writing process and writing strategies, and also for receiving instructor and
peer feedback. The writing workshops were conducted as a class and were typically divided into two
parts. During the first half of the workshop (25 minutes), the instructor discussed with students how to
write in different genres such as narration, argumentation, and presentation in Spanish. Spanish transition
words, such as paragraph markers, were presented, as well as writing techniques and formats that students
could employ in their essays. The instructor also dedicated time to review common intermediate-level
errors in writing. During the second half of the workshop (25 minutes), students worked in pairs to
develop and discuss their essay topics, work on outlines, and ask questions. The writing workshops were
conducted in Spanish.
All four composition topics covered cultural themes introduced in the course. Students were expected to
be able to: present information formally with an introduction, supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion;
use accurate grammar; and incorporate the instructor’s feedback into their writing. These expectations
were clearly communicated to the students.
Action Research Stage 1: Identification of the Problem and Hypothesis
The instructor observed two main issues in students’ writing, which served as the foci of the current
project: (1) continuous repetition of errors in students’ essays, and (2) students’ reliance on high
frequency words, without trying to incorporate new ones into their writing. In other words, students rarely
employed new vocabulary, relying instead on the same words. Below are some examples from student
compositions.
Pienso que estereotipos no están basados en la realidad por muchos razones. Primero, un estereotipo
que pienso que no es cierto es el estereotipo que atletas son brutos y no son inteligentes. Un otro
estereotipo es que personas gordas son gordas porque no hacen ejercicio; este también es falso por
muchas razones. Muchas personas piensan que ...
“I think that stereotypes are not based on reality for many reasons. First, a stereotype that I think is
not certain is the stereotype that athletes are dumb and are not intelligent. One other stereotype is that
fat people are fat because they do not do exercise; this is also false for many reasons. Many people
think that …”
Note that the verb pensar “to think” is used three times; the adjective mucho “many” three times, and the
un otro “one other” is used instead of otro “another,” a common error. Despite class discussions about the
use of new lexical items, students often relied on words with which they were most comfortable. The
instructor therefore wanted to develop a more student-centered way to promote more lexical creativity



and grammatical accuracy. In consultation with the instructional technology staff, the instructor decided
to use wordles as a teaching tool during the writing workshops. Because wordles are used for visualizing
the text and could be based on the students’ own compositions, the instructor hypothesized that their use
could have a positive effect on student writing.
Action Research Stage 2: Data Collection
Data collection for this action research project came from three sources. First, at each draft stage, the
instructor used Wordle to create one whole-class-based wordle as well as a word frequency count from all
of the students’ compositions. Second, after each writing workshop, the instructor wrote a teaching
reflection about the class discussion and how students responded to the wordles. Lastly, at the end of the
semester, the instructor asked students about their own perceptions of the use of Wordle for the writing
process.
For the second composition, students were asked to submit their first draft to the instructor electronically.
Using Wordle, the instructor then created a single wordle based on all the students’ compositions. During
the next class meeting and writing workshop, the instructor showed the resulting wordle to the class.

Figure 2. Students’ first wordle for draft one of composition two.

Figure 3. Students’ wordle for the second draft of composition two.



As can be seen in the wordle in Figure 2, the largest words were those most frequently used in the
students’ writing. Using the wordle, the students and the instructor engaged in a dialogue about
vocabulary items they had used, the different tenses, and even themes that their peers had written about.
The class discussion during the workshop was therefore focused entirely on the students’ own use of
words. By examining the wordle in Figure 2 as a visual representation of the students’ own writing, the
instructor addressed issues in writing in a way that was based primarily on the students’ written
production instead of the teacher’s feedback. Together, the class then came up with the goal of having
students use five new vocabulary words in their second composition draft. For the next writing workshop,
students again sent their second draft electronically to the instructor. Figure 3 shows the wordle from the
second draft of the second composition.
This wordle showed that more words were used in the second draft than in the first one. To provide
additional evidence, the instructor used the “show word counts” tool on the Wordle Website to create a
corpus count of every word used in all 18 student compositions (Figure 4). While the total number of
word types that students as a class used in their first draft was 1,134, the second draft word count was 1,
258. Furthermore, in addition to showing the total number of word types used by the students, the
instructor showed them the frequency of each word. For example, in the first draft, the high frequency
word mucho “many” was used 48 times across students’ compositions. In the second draft, it was used
only 21 times, meaning that students were using different adjectives in their writing. Both tools also
showed students how many tenses they had produced, the different uses of adjectives, and how they
showed grammatical agreement. The word frequency list also allowed the class to discuss topics in
orthography: in scrolling down the word count list, a student pointed out that observaciones
“observations” was listed twice. A closer examination revealed that across all 18 compositions, there were
two uses of observaciones and two uses of observaciónes with an accent mark on the penultimate
syllable. Students then inquired about which was correct, noticing their equal frequency. The instructor
invited students to brainstorm about syllabification rules in groups. As a class, the students concluded that
the single form observación has an accent, but maybe the plural form does not need one. This allowed the
instructor to briefly discuss accentuation in a way that was based on the students’ own writing. To
conclude workshop 2, students established further goals for their next composition: a continued
incorporation of new vocabulary words as well as the use of tenses besides only the present and past. One
student also reminded the class to think about accent marks when an extra syllable is added to the word.
Goals, therefore, were student-generated for the next composition and writing workshop.
In the third composition, students’ writing continued to improve in the areas of grammatical complexity,
accuracy, and use of new vocabulary, as indicated by an improvement in the average composition grade
calculated with a rubric in these three areas, among others. Anecdotally, students reported to the instructor
that they enjoyed the Wordle tool and looked forward to seeing the class wordle getting bigger with each
successive draft. By the third composition, the whole-class wordle contained 1,476 word types. Some
students used new vocabulary that had specifically come up during the class discussions of their writing.
There was also a notable decrease in the use of commonly used words, such as mucho “many,” pienso que
“I think that,” and personas “persons”. The wordle helped to discourage use of common words, because
students knew that they would show up in the class wordles. The end goal of seeing the wordle grow
promoted the incorporation of new lexical items in their FL writing.



Figure 4. Excerpt from word frequency count (produced by the same Wordle tool).
One incident that took place during a conversation about the students’ third composition was particularly
revealing. The name Bob was present in the second wordle (composition 3, draft 2). During the following
writing workshop, the instructor asked students to identify any words they did not recognize in the
wordle, and then invited the authors who had used those words to define them in class. A student raised
his hand and asked “¿Quién es Bob?” (“Who is Bob?”). After much laughter from the class, the student
who had written about Bob explained that Bob was his uncle who had dressed up as a clown one year for
his birthday. Notably, this excerpt had an error in it: the student’s first draft contained the erroneous form
vestió, “dressed,” which the instructor corrected to se vistió (irregular spelling and reflexive form). The
student, while telling the class about Bob, produced the correct form (se vistió) and went on to explain
that this irregular verb had been corrected in his first composition, but that he had remembered the correct
form. The humorous conversation about Bob turned into a form-focused incident during which the
student himself drew attention to a linguistic form in front of the whole class. Thus, a student’s
observation resulted in another student’s consideration of grammatical accuracy, while sharing a
meaningful story. This moment in class illustrated how opportunities to talk about the writing process,
grammar, and feedback, namely, the instructor’s corrections of students’ compositions, were facilitated by
the use of wordles.
By the fourth composition, the wordle for students’ compositions had grown by another 50 words, as can
be seen in Figure 5. Not only were students using more vocabulary in their writing, they also were
employing and trying out new grammatical tenses, as demonstrated by both the wordle and corpus word
frequency count.



Figure 5. Students’ wordle for final composition.
For example, the first wordle and word frequency count showed that students employed only the present
and past tense; however, by the fourth composition, they were using the present, past, future, perfect
tenses, and even the present subjunctive. Though the addition of these tenses and moods was a function of
new grammar learned during the semester, the wordles helped to show how much students had learned
and how much they could express in writing by the end of the semester. It is important to point out that
the very mechanisms of their writing served as the focal points of their own class discussions about the
writing process.
Action Research Stage 3: Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of Wordle
At the end of the semester, the instructor asked students to share their thoughts about the use of Wordle
and whether or not they thought it was an effective tool to learn about writing in Spanish. Students were
asked to write their opinions anonymously. 100% of the students thought that the use of Wordle was
worthwhile and that it was a valuable tool to help them improve their writing. Many credited the wordles
with making the writing workshops much more enjoyable and interesting than traditional ones. Students
also made reference to the visual component of wordles. Below are some student comments:
“I really like the wordles. They were fun and different. They also were interesting in that they
showed me what everyone else was writing about. I got to know my classmates a little better.”
“The wordles definitely helped me in my writing. I especially liked that [the instructor] actually
showed us how many more words we were writing with, how our grammar was improving … for me,
having something visual just helps me more.”
“Using wordles for me was better because it made the writing workshop days more interesting. I
normally hate writing workshop days! The visual of what everyone was writing about made it more
interesting.”
“… What I liked was that it was a way of making art from our class’ compositions. It made me more
interested in writing, and I can honestly say I learned some words by studying the wordles.”
These student comments corroborated perceptions expressed in the teaching reflection journal kept by the
instructor. After the first writing workshop, the instructor reflected on how she felt and how students
seemed to respond:
Today I felt like I really was able to get them interested in writing in Spanish! They seemed to come
alive when I showed them the wordle and explained that it was made up of every one of their
compositions. For the first time I felt like I wasn’t up there in front of the class lecturing about



writing. Writing workshops are sometimes difficult for me in that sense, because it’s hard to make the
very topic of writing be student-centered and communicative. They seemed so interested and so much
more willing to talk about their compositions, and I was able to use the wordle to get them to initiate
the discussion. This definitely started by talking about the vocabulary they used, asking which words
they recognized and which they didn’t. I think the word frequency count will help too—I’m going to
try that next time and see how they react to it. The best part of today though, was the fact that the
students came up with goals to improve the next round of compositions. This made me ecstatic,
because I wasn’t telling them what to do—they thought of the ideas themselves.
By the end of the semester, the instructor wrote the following as a conclusion to the action research
project:
… I feel like I have finally found something to really enhance my teaching about writing. The wordles
were an excellent way to help me teach more effectively this semester, because I felt that I was
connecting with my students better. As I’ve taught this class before, I definitely feel that wordles
assisted in obtaining better writing on behalf of the students too. They were fun, were visual, and
were created from the students’ work … they helped me to motivate my students about writing.
The instructor’s impression of the use of wordles to assist in teaching about FL writing was very similar
to that of the students: effective, novel, and enjoyable. Not only did the class discussions and workshop
days become more student-centered, students also improved in their writing by incorporating new
vocabulary into their essays, using grammar more accurately, and incorporating more content in their
writing. Both the instructor and students had positive perceptions of wordles, confirming the instructor’s
hypothesis that wordles could be an effective tool for improving student writing.

DISCUSSION
This action research project was designed to address problems in students’ FL writing as identified by the
instructor, as well as to improve instruction in writing workshops. The incorporation of wordles into the
classroom as an instructional tool resulted in the students using more varied vocabulary, more verb tenses,
and more accurate grammar in their writing. In addition, feedback on students’ perceptions of wordle as a
tool to help them improve their writing was very positive. From the instructor’s perspective, wordles
enhanced the teaching of writing workshops and made them more effective and student-centered.
Other Uses of Word Clouds in the FL Classroom
The action research project described above demonstrated how word clouds can be used to facilitate the
teaching of FL writing. However, they can certainly be employed as well for other languages, purposes,
and for different types of tasks in FL instruction. For example, the Wordle application also supports
Cyrillic, Devanagari, Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek scripts, and therefore can be used for many other
foreign languages. To conclude, we would like to propose further suggestions for FL instructors such as:
Vocabulary Development
Instructors can create wordles from a text and have students learn and be tested on new words. For
example, instructors can create a word cloud from a news article and use it to start an in-class
conversation about current events. Students can use the word cloud visual to ask questions about words
they might not know and/or as a means of input when discussing current events.
Pre-communicative Task Phase
Instructors can use word clouds during the pre-task phase of communicative tasks for which students are
required to use new vocabulary. Students can be given a few minutes to study the word cloud and ask
questions; they can then continue to refer to it as a visual means of vocabulary assistance while engaging
in conversational interaction.



Pre-reading Activity
Students can engage in discussions using key words produced in a word cloud and make predictions
about the content before reading the actual text.
Brainstorming
Students can use word clouds to generate ideas for new writing topics and/or themes.
Reflection
Students can use Wordle as a reflective tool for writing projects. For example, a wordle can be created for
each essay that a class writes; wordles could be displayed as art forms illustrating the different genres and
topics the class wrote about.
Assessment
Instructors can create word clouds from students’ individual essays and use them for self-assessment
purposes. Similar to the present study, the resulting word clouds as well as word frequency counts can
show students’ individual progress towards improving their vocabulary. The source of text could derive
from blog posts as opposed to essays; this could be especially relevant for online classes.
Define Main Ideas
Students can use Wordle to make a word cloud out of a speech or newspaper article in the target language
to discover and highlight the main ideas.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
In this action research project, wordles helped the instructor to foster more student-centered discussion of
writing in class. In addition, they helped students to improve their writing. This study also aimed to
contribute to the body of literature on emerging technology, in this case, wordles as data visualization
tools.
A limitation of this study is its possible lack of generalizability. Findings in action research projects are
typically relevant to the specific class under investigation, its students, and its own unique characteristics.
While the use of wordles was successful in the current project, it may yield different results in other
classrooms, contexts, and even languages. In addition, any instructor who wants to use Wordle must have
a Java-enabled Web browser. If the in-class computer does not have java applets, the instructor may need
to take a screen shot of the wordle before class. Finally, the algorithm used by Wordle automatically
eliminates “common words” unless the instructor turns off this option. It is possible that “common
words” are treated differently across languages.
While this study is classroom-specific, our goal is to share the results of the project with other FL
instructors so that they too can consider the implementation of word clouds as well as other forms of data
visualization tools in their classrooms. Further empirical studies, action research projects, and even
classroom tasks are needed so that we learn more about how data visualization tools afford opportunities
for teaching and learning in a variety of contexts and languages.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Melissa Baralt is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Applied Linguistics at Florida International University
in Miami, Florida. She does research in second language acquisition, bilingualism, and task-based
language learning that involves technology.
E-mail: mbaralt@fiu.edu



Susan Pennestri is an Instructional Technologist at the Center for New Designs in Learning and
Scholarship (CNDLS) at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. She works with faculty across all
disciplines to enhance instruction through the use of technology in ways that are pedagogically
appropriate.
E-mail: sqp@georgetown.edu
Marie Selvanadin is a Web Application Developer at the Center for New Designs in Learning and
Scholarship (CNDLS) at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. She designs and develops Web
applications that meet the pedagogical needs of faculty members, as well as research on new Web
applications.
E-mail: mks49@georgetown.edu

REFERENCES
Barret, T. (2010). Forty-five interesting ways* to use Wordle in the classroom [Slideshare slides].
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/boazchoi/fortyfive-interesting-ways-to-use-wordle-in-the-
classroom
Cidell, J. (2010). Content clouds as exploratory qualitative data analysis. AREA, 42, 514–23.
Educause (2009). 7 things you should know about…Data Visualization II. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7052.pdf
Feinberg, J. (2009). Wordle. Retrieved from http://www.wordle.net/
Friendly, M. (2008). A brief history of data visualization. In C.-H. Chen, W. K. Härdle, & A. Unwin
(Eds.), Handbook of computational statistics: Data visualization (pp. 15–56). New York: Springer.
Genesee, F. (2000). Brain research: Implications for second language learning. Eric Digest, EDO-FL-
00012, 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0012brain.html
Lucier, R. (2008). Top 20 uses for Wordle. Retrieved from http://thecleversheep.blogspot.com/
2008/10/top-20-uses-for-wordle.html
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mehta, C. (2007). US Presidential Speeches Tag Cloud. Retrieved from http://chir.ag/projects/preztags/
McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative Report,
15(3), 630–643. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual-coding approach. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pendergast, D. (2010). Connecting with Millennials: Using tag clouds to build a folksonomy from key
home economics documents. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38, 289–302.
Ramsden, A., & Bate, A. (2008). Using word clouds in teaching and learning. Retrieved from
http://opus.bath.ac.uk/474/1/using%2520word%2520clouds%2520in%2520teachi
ng%2520and%2520learning.pdf
Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/news.pdf pp. 23–26

NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Sponsors
University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)
Co-Sponsor
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource
Center (NFLRC)

The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials
development projects and conducts workshops and conferences for language professionals among its
many activities.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Our 2011 Summer Institute on Online Learning Communities for Less Commonly Taught
Languages will bring together faculty from participating institutions to build language-specific online
cafés. Participants will structure thematic café content rubrics, participate in training sessions on research-
based pedagogical best practices for facilitating online learning communities, and practice technical skills
needed to host cafés on the BRIX courseware system and to deploy tag cloud technology, skills that will
enable them to fashion online learning communities to achieve a variety of specific purposes.
The Chinese, Korean, and Russian Flagship Cafés will combine Flagship students at domestic sites and
study abroad sites, allowing second-year students to act as mentors for first-year students preparing for
their upcoming international experience, further improving their language and networking skills. The
International Teacher Development Café for Samoan Educators will facilitate the sharing of ideas,
research, and materials among teachers across the Pacific in the US, Samoa, and New Zealand. The
Japanese for International Business Café will serve as a virtual support group and networking venue for
MBA students conducting their overseas internships throughout Japan. Each café will serve as a model
for developing similar cafés in the future.
Interested in finding out more about online cafés or creating your own? Visit our Online Cafés resource
Website.

STAY IN TOUCH WITH SOCIAL MEDIA
Did you know that the NFLRC has its own Facebook page? It’s one of the best ways to hear about the
latest news, publications, conferences, workshops, and resources we offer. Just click on the “Like” button
to become a fan. For those who prefer getting up-to-the-minute “tweets,” you can follow us on our
Twitter page. Finally, NFLRC has its own YouTube channel with a growing collection of free language
learning and teaching videos for your perusal. Subscribe today!


News from Our Sponsoring Organizations

NEW NFLRC PUBLICATIONS
‘O Fāiā Fa‘atūmua o Sāmoa mai Tala o le Vavau by ‘Aumua Mata‘itusi Simanu
More so than most other Polynesian languages, the Samoan language is highly
stratified. The common spoken form of Samoan used among friends and peers,
for example, would be inappropriate for public speaking at both traditional and
non-traditional gatherings. At these kinds of events, Gagana Fa‘aaloalo (Respect
Language) and Gagana Fa‘afailāuga (Chiefly Language/Oratory) are used. Both
of these speech registers interweave into the language references to Samoan
history, genealogies, and, more recently, the Christian bible. The first book in
this series, ‘O si Manu a Ali‘i, was written primarily to provide linguistic
background for these registers. This second book, ‘O Fāiā Fa‘atūmua o Sāmoa
mai Tala o le Vavau, provides the core knowledge necessary to understand the
high level of interplay in Samoan oratory between language and history.
Check out our many other publications.

OUR ONLINE JOURNALS SOLICIT SUBMISSIONS
Language Learning & Technology is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the
University of Hawai‘i NFLRC and the Michigan State University Center for Language
Education and Research (CLEAR). LLT focuses on issues related to technology and language
education. For more information on submission guidelines, visit the LLT submissions page.
Language Documentation & Conservation is a fully refereed, open-access journal sponsored
by NFLRC and published exclusively in electronic form by the University of Hawai‘i Press.
LD&C publishes papers on all topics related to language documentation and conservation.
For more information on submission guidelines, visit the LD&C submissions page.
Reading in a Foreign Language is a refereed online journal, jointly sponsored by the
University of Hawai‘i NFLRC and the Department of Second Language Studies. RFL serves
as an excellent source for the latest developments in the field, both theoretical and pedagogic,
including improving standards for foreign language reading. For more information on
submission guidelines, visit the RFL submissions page.
Michigan State University Center for Language Education
and Research (CLEAR)
CLEAR’s mission is to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States.
Projects focus on materials development, professional development training, and foreign language
research.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Four professional development workshops are slated for July 2011. The application deadline is June 1, so
hurry to choose your courses:
• Rich Internet Applications for Language Learning: Introductory Techniques
• Adding Variety to Reading and Vocabulary Lessons
• Project-Based Learning in the Language Classroom
• Using Video to Promote Language Development in the Classroom


News from Our Sponsoring Organizations

Detailed information on all workshops can be found on our Web site.

NEW PRODUCT

We have recently released our new Introductory Business Chinese CD-ROM. The software is intended
mainly for use by those who have little or no knowledge of the Chinese language but who, for any
number of different reasons, wish to learn more about business and economics in the Chinese
environment.

MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
CLEAR is developing several new products during our fifth funding cycle. Check our Web site for
updates on new products and services. Some of our upcoming projects include:
• Professional development webinars on diverse topics
• Online videos for language teaching techniques
• Online listening and speaking tests for LCTLs
• Applications for language learning on mobile devices

CONFERENCES
CLEAR exhibits at local and national conferences year-round. We hope to see you at ACTFL, CALICO,
MIWLA, Central States, and other conferences.

NEWSLETTER
CLEAR News is a free bi-yearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials.
Download PDFs of back issues and subscribe at http://clear.msu.edu/clear/newsletter/.

The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes and improves the
teaching and learning of languages, identifies and solves problems related to language and culture, and
serves as a resource for information about language and culture. CAL carries out a wide range of
activities in the fields of English as a second language, foreign languages, cultural education, and
linguistics.
Featured Resources:
• Language Policy Research Network (LPREN)
CAL is pleased to host the Language Policy Research Network (LPREN), created in 2006 by the
Research Networks committee of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée,
(International Association of Applied Linguistics). Visit the LPREN Web site to learn more or to
join the e-mail discussion group.
• CAL News
CAL News is our electronic newsletter created to provide periodic updates about our projects and
research as well as information about new publications, online resources, products, and services
of interest to our readers. Visit our Web site to sign up.


Language, learning and technology

Language, learning and technology

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Language, learning and technology

Semelhante a Language, learning and technology (20)

Mais de Mario Lobo

Mais de Mario Lobo (6)

Último

Último (20)

Language, learning and technology