See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354726829

Mobile apps for teaching and learning English as a foreign language to a

teenagers and adults

Article in ÑEMITỸRÃ Revista Multilingüe de Lengüa Sociedad y Educación · January 2021

DOI: 10.47133/nemityra010210

CITATIONS READS

5 1,682

3 authors, including:

Valentina Canese
National University of Asuncion
83 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Valentina Canese on 06 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 2707-1642

MOBILE APPS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH AS A

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO A TEENAGERS AND ADULTS

Aplicaciones de Teléfonos Celulares para la Enseñanza-Aprendizaje del Inglés como

Lengua Extranjera a Adolescentes y Adultos

Mirtha Beatriz Castillo Alvarenga 1Emilio Willy Strahm Voulquin2 Valentina Canese3

Recibido 15/01/2020
Aceptado 25/02/2020

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated and reviewed phone apps designed to aid in the learning of English of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL). From among ninety frequently-downloaded free Android apps, the authors selected and
reviewed twelve apps for their potential use by teenagers and adults in EFL classrooms at the intermediate and
advanced levels. They employed an author-developed rubric with eight criteria: curriculum connection,
authenticity, feedback, differentiation, performance, sharing, user-friendly, and appeal. Findings suggest that
several Android apps exist that can potentially enhance the teaching and learning of English. Implications
suggest that if teachers are trained at reviewing apps, they can become empowered at selecting digital tools for
making their lessons more compelling and student-centered. Yet, to maximize the efficacy of these apps in their
EFL classrooms, teachers should provide support and feedback related to the skills being practiced by their
students on these apps.

Keywords: language learning, language skills, mobile learning in language teaching, smartphone applications

RESUMEN

Este estudio evaluó y revisó aplicaciones telefónicas diseñadas para ayudar en el aprendizaje del inglés como
lengua extranjera (EFL). De entre noventa aplicaciones de Android gratuitas que se descargan con frecuencia,
los autores seleccionaron y revisaron doce aplicaciones para su uso potencial por adolescentes y adultos en las
aulas de EFL en los niveles intermedio y avanzado. Emplearon una rúbrica desarrollada por los autores con
ocho criterios: conexión curricular, autenticidad, retroalimentación, diferenciación, rendimiento, intercambio,
facilidad de uso y atractivo. Los resultados sugieren que existen varias aplicaciones de Android que pueden
mejorar potencialmente la enseñanza y el aprendizaje del inglés. Las implicaciones sugieren que, si los docentes
están capacitados para revisar aplicaciones, pueden obtener el poder de seleccionar herramientas digitales para
hacer que sus lecciones sean más convincentes y centradas en los estudiantes. Sin embargo, para maximizar la
eficacia de estas aplicaciones en sus aulas de EFL, los docentes deben brindar apoyo y comentarios relacionados
con las habilidades que practican sus alumnos en estas aplicaciones.

Palabras clave: TIC en la educación, aprendizaje de idiomas, aplicaciones de celular, criterios de evaluación

INTRODUCTION

Advances in technology have led to smartphones becoming more powerful and

accessible to the public as essential tools for work, entertainment, social interaction, and
information sources (Sarwar & Soomro, 2013). Because today’s learners were born into a
world grounded in digital technology, they are accustomed to multitasking, instant
information, and worldwide communication (Pletka, 2007). Technology has redefined
student-centered approaches in education, changed learners themselves, and also affected the
role of the teacher (Eato, 2010). To meet the needs of today’s youth, teachers need to learn

1
Instituto Superior de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Asunción
2 Instituto Superior de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Asunción
3 Instituto Superior de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Asunción [email protected]

ÑEMITȲRÃ, 2020; 1(2) 97

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47133/nemityra010210
ISSN 2707-1642

how to reexamine and adapt their approaches by allowing students to take advantage of
available technology in an effective way.
Technology has been present in English language instruction since the early 1940s
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Yet, these earlier uses of technology lacked “the anytime,
anywhere” advantage provided by modern mobile phones and their apps (McQuiggan, 2015).
Multiple applications now exist for both students and teachers on various platforms. One such
platform is the Google Play Store, also known as Play Store, which offers a variety of free
mobile apps for Android smartphones. These apps can facilitate the development of language
skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom for teenagers and adults at the
intermediate to advanced levels (Godwin-Jones, 2017).
As technology has evolved, so has its role in the classroom. In the last ten years,
smartphone apps have been developed to help teachers and students in the teaching and
learning of languages. Yet, although this is the 21st century, some teachers still use
technology from the mid-20th century. These technology tools are outdated and not relevant
to students’ interests and needs. Such outdated tools include using worksheets, copying notes
from the board, and listening to lectures (Pletka, 2007). Current technology offers numerous
apps that claim to support the acquisition of English language skills. Yet, because of
insufficient studies about the effectiveness of these apps, educators are unable to ascertain
which apps might be best for their EFL students. To help educators recommend apps for their
students, we reviewed apps available in Play Store designed to develop English language
skills. Our three-fold purpose for this study is as follows:

1) Identify free Android apps for the teaching and learning of EFL according to the
skill identified for a given app,
2) Describe selected EFL apps at the intermediate to advanced levels, and
3) Describe and review the twelve free Android apps that were the most widely
downloaded and highly rated by users at the time of this study.

Our main goal is to help EFL educators select free Android apps according to targeted
language development skills and, by doing so, support their students in acquiring English.
To achieve this goal, our study was guided by two research questions:

1) Which free Android apps offer the potential of enhancing the teaching and learning
of English?
2) To what extent can twelve of these apps be useful to learners for developing skills
in speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar?

In addition to providing a review of existing apps, this study also provides teachers
with the Language Skills App Review Rubric (LSARR). Though yet untested for reliability
and validity, this author-developed rubric can be used by teachers for conducting their own
review of other apps, both those currently available as well as those yet to be designed. A
potential weakness of this study is how it reviews only a limited number of apps and how all
reviewed apps are Android and available only through Play Store.

METHODS

To address our research questions, we employed a descriptive approach “aimed at

casting light on current issues or problems through a process of data collection that enables
[it] to describe the situation” (Fox & Bayat, 2007, p. 8). This descriptive approach entailed
selecting 12 apps with high reviews by users, evaluating these twelve12 apps with our author-
98
ISSN 2707-1642

developed rubric, and then describing each of these apps for qualities that would enhance the
teaching and learning of EFL.
For this study, we examined ninety free apps available in Play Store for teaching and
learning a given language skill. We used purposeful sampling to select apps based on four
criteria: age group (teenagers and adults), most commonly downloaded, screenshots provided
by the apps, and average rating by users. Although some apps had 5 stars, which was the
maximum score, they were only reviewed by a small number of users because of being new
on the market. We considered screenshots because they provided useful information
regarding appeal and exclusive use of target language.
Each of the apps focused on one of six skills: speaking, listening, reading, writing,
vocabulary and grammar. From among ninety apps at the intermediate+ level, we
purposefully selected two representative apps from each of these six skills and then reviewed
and described each of these twelve apps (see Table 1).
Table 1. Criteria Used for Selection of Apps
Number of User Number of
App Name and Skill it Develops Developer Reviewers rating Downloads

Speaking Apps

English Conversation Practice Talk English 31,686 4.6 1,000,000

DS&T_Modern
How to Speak Real English English Studio 33,684 4 1,000,000

Listening Apps

English Listening X-App 25 4.7 5,000

Daily English Listening THT Group 1,613 4.5 100,000

Reading Apps

Reading Comprehension Paprika Studio 201 4.4 50,000

English Reading Test quizworld 1,420 4.2 100,000

Writing Apps

Essay Writing Lite Webmolite 60 4 10,000

IELTS Writing FR-solutions 922 4.7 50,000

Vocabulary Apps

Wordalot - Picture Crossword MAG Interactive 90,658 4.5 1,000,000

Learn English Vocabulary Visual Education 1,287 4.8 50,000

Grammar Apps

English Grammar Ultimate maxlogix 44,291 4.4 1,000,000

English Grammar Test SevenLynx 73,119 4.6 5,000,000

After we reviewed and selected twelve apps, we developed a spreadsheet on Google

Sheets to facilitate collaboration among the authors when evaluating the apps. We created
this Google rubric by combining three rubrics available online: (1) Harry Walker’s Original
Evaluation Rubric for Mobile Apps, (2) Tony Vincent’s Educational App Evaluation Rubric,
and (3) Susan Mutt’s Student App Review Rubric. These three rubrics shared similar
dimensions but each one overlooked one or more important dimensions that were used in one
99
ISSN 2707-1642

of the other rubrics. To produce a more inclusive rubric, we blended dimensions from these
three rubrics and created a new rubric called Language Skills App Review Rubric (LSARR).
Though not yet tested for validity and reliability, LSARR offered insights for our review
based on its eight dimensions and five ratings. The dimensions are curriculum connection,
authenticity, feedback, differentiation, performance, sharing, user-friendliness and appeal.
The ratings range from 1 (low) to 4 (high) as well as “not applicable ”for dimensions that
could not be reviewed. This rubric is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 - Language Skills App Review Rubric (LSARR)

Domain 0 1 2 3 4
Skill reinforced in the Skill reinforced is Skill reinforced is Skill reinforced is
app is not clearly prerequisite or related to the strongly connected
Curriculum
N/A connected to the foundation skills for targeted skill or to the targeted skill
Connection
targeted skill or the targeted skill or concept or concept
concept concept
Skill is practiced in a Skills is practiced in Some aspects of the Targeted skill is
rote or isolated a contrived app are presented practiced in an
fashion (e.g., game/simulation an authentic learning authentic
Authenticity N/A
flashcards) format environment format/problem-
based learning
environment
Feedback is limited Feedback is limited Feedback is specific Feedback is specific
to correctness of to correctness of and results in and results in
student responses student responses improved student improved student
Feedback N/A and may allow for performance (may performance; Data is
student to try again include tutorial aids) available
electronically to
student and teacher
App offers no App offers limited App offers more than App offers complete
flexibility (settings flexibility (e.g., few one degree of flexibility to alter
Differentiation N/A cannot be altered) levels such as easy, flexibility to adjust settings to meet
medium, hard) settings to meet student needs
student needs
Crashes fairly often Loads and performs Performs and loads Performs and loads
Performance/ and takes multiple slowly. Sometimes quickly. Some minor quickly. No issues
N/A times to open. crashes. technical issues. and very reliable.
Ease of Use

No performance Limited performance Performance data or Specific performance

summary or student data or student student product is summary or student
product is saved product is not available in app but product is saved in
Sharing N/A accessible exporting is limited app and can be
and may require a exported to the
screenshot teacher or for an
audience
Very complex to Kind of difficult to Easy to learn and Very easy to learn
User-Friendly
learn. No directions learn. Directions are direction can be and directions are
Directions & N/A
available. limited. followed. clear and simple to
Instructions
follow
Low quality graphics Average sound and Good graphics and Excellent graphics
and sounds. graphics. Limited sounds. Enhances and sound. Very
Appeal: Looks appeal, but a little learning appealing.
N/A
& Sounds distracting.

Source: Adapted from Walker (2014), Vincent (2013) and Mutt (2012).

RESULTS

Application accessibility was evaluated based on technology that enabled learning

“anytime and anywhere” (West & Vosloo, 2013, p. 6). Of the twelve apps reviewed, four

100
ISSN 2707-1642

(33%) can be accessed only online, and eight (67%) can be accessed either online or offline
once installed on the phone (see Graph 1).

Graph 1 - Online and offline accessibility of reviewed apps

We evaluated how each of these apps performed according to each of the eight
dimensions on the LSARR. These results are portrayed in Table 3 and then explained in the
following section.

Table 3 – Data analysis per dimension

Dimension User-Friendly Directions &

Performance/Ease of Use

Appeal: Looks & Sounds

Curricular Connection

Mean Scores by App

Final Scores by App
Differentiation
Authenticity

Instructions
Feedback

Sharing

Apps

Speaking Apps

English Conversation Practice 4 2 0 1 4 3 4 4 22 2.75

How to Speak Real English 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 17 2.13
Listening Apps
English Listening 4 2 1 4 4 1 4 3 23 2.88
Daily English Listening 4 2 1 2 4 1 4 3 21 2.63
Reading Apps
Reading Comprehension 4 4 2 1 4 1 4 2 22 2.75
English Reading Test 4 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 24 3.00

Writing Apps

Essay Writing Lite 4 2 0 1 4 4 4 1 20 2.50

IELTS Writing 4 2 3 1 4 4 4 1 23 2.88

Vocabulary Apps

Wordalot - Picture Crossword 4 2 2 1 4 3 4 4 24 3.00

101
ISSN 2707-1642

Learn English Vocabulary 4 2 1 1 4 3 4 4 23 2.88

Grammar Apps

English Grammar Ultimate 4 2 1 1 4 3 4 3 22 2.75

English Grammar Test 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 26 3.25

Mean Scores by Dimension 3.83 2.25 1.33 1.58 4.00 2.33 4.00 2.92

Curriculum Connection - The mean score for Curriculum Connection is 3.83 out of 4.
Eleven of the twelve apps scored 4 because of having a strong connection to the targeted
curriculum. These eleven apps provide ample practice in developing skills related to the
curriculum.
Authenticity - The mean score for Authenticity is 2.25 out of 4. Just one of the twelve
apps received a score of 4. This high score was based on how the targeted skill was practiced
in an authentic format. Two apps received a score of 3 as the skill was practiced in an
artificial format. Eight apps received a score of 2 because only some their aspects are
presented an authentic learning environment. And, one app received a score of 1because the
task is presented in an isolated format.
Feedback - The mean score for Feedback is 1.33 out of 4.0. Two apps received a score
of 0because they did not provide any kind of feedback. Six apps received a score of 1 as the
feedback provided in the app was only limited to correctness of students’ responses. Two
apps received a score of 3 because they provided specific feedback and included a tutorial.
And, two apps received a score of four for providing feedback that was specific and also
because the feedback was available electronically to both the teacher and the student.
Differentiation - The mean score for Differentiation is 1.58 out of 4. Eight apps
received a score of 1because they do not offer flexibility in their settings. One app received a
score of 2because it only offered limited flexibility in terms of level of proficiency. One app
received a score of 3because it offers more than one degree of flexibility; allowing students to
adjust settings to meet their needs. And, one app received a score of 4 because it offered
complete flexibility to alter settings.
Performance - The mean score for Performance was 4.0 out of 4. All twelve apps
received the score of 4 for performing well. This meant that they loaded quickly and that no
issues were found in terms of technological features. Apart from minor delays due to in-app
ads, no glitches or errors were discovered. All twelve apps performed quickly and reliably.
Sharing - The mean score for Sharing was 2.33 out of 4 Five apps received a score of 1
because users’ product and progress cannot be saved. Five apps received a score of 3 because
the users’ performance can be made available to the teacher yet only via screenshots. Two
apps received a score of 4 because the users’ performance can be saved in the app and sent to
the teacher.
User-Friendliness - The mean score for User-Friendliness was 4.0 out of 4. All twelve
apps received a score of 4. Each app presented a comprehensible tutorial on how to use the
apps or simple instructions expressed in straightforward English. In many cases, these
instructions were accompanied by a YouTube video.
Appeal - The mean score for Appeal was 2.92 out of 4. Four apps received a score of 4
because their design included appealing graphics and sound. Five apps received a score of
3because they possessed good graphics and sounds. Only one app received a score of 2
because either the sounds or graphics had limited appeal. And, two apps received a score of
1because neither their sounds nor graphics were of quality.
The total number of possible points on LSARR was 32, which represents4 points multiplied
by 8 dimensions. The highest scoring app was English Grammar Test, which scored 26,
102
ISSN 2707-1642

having received3 or 4 in all dimensions except differentiation. The next highest were
Wordalot and English Reading Test, each with 24. Immediately following at 23 were Learn
English Vocabulary, IELTS Writing, and English Listening. Scoring 22 were English
Grammar Ultimate, Reading Comprehension, and English Conversation Practice. Only one
app, Daily English Listening, scored 21 points. And, the lowest score was obtained by How to
Speak Real English, which only scored 17 points.

Review of Each App

This section presents a more detailed description of these twelve apps. For each
language skill targeted in a given app, we compare and contrast that skill with the app’s
LSARR scores. We also provide screenshots of the apps.
Speaking Apps
English Conversation Practice received high scores in curriculum connection,
performance, user-friendliness, and appeal. Similarly, How to Speak Real English received
high scores in performance and authenticity. Both apps received a low score in
differentiation. According to the scores, English Conversation Practice can better help
speaking skills. More detailed descriptions of these apps follow below.
English Conversation Practice. Developed by Talk English, this app obtained a score
of 4 in curriculum connection. Although it introduced its content via listening, it allows the
learner to get the necessary input to improve not only pronunciation but also situational
content, which can help in the development of speaking. Topics presented include situations
such as meeting someone, buying something, and planning a hangout. This app focuses on
imitative speaking activities, where students repeat the conversation introduced by the app
and then they are quizzed on the content through a multiple choice exercise. Regarding
authenticity, the app received a score of two as content was presented in an artificial format.
The app offers students the freedom to choose a role to record themselves and the recording
can be saved. Even though sharing is not possible, students’ product is available within the
apps. Conversations and graphics in the app are of excellent quality. Unfortunately, in-app
ads purchases tend to be distracting or hinder the ease of use (see Fig. 1). The mean score for
the app is thus 2.75 out of 4.

Fig. 1. English Conversation Practice by Talk English screenshots

How to Speak Real English. Developed by DS&T Modern English Studio, this app
provides vocabulary, lessons, and test sections, as well as a “How to Study” section, which is
103
ISSN 2707-1642

the app tutorial. All these elements contributed to a score of four in the category of user-
friendliness, directions & instructions. However, in the category of authenticity it scored very
low (2) as the content was presented through flashcards and audio in a rote learning fashion.
Additionally, it scored two in curriculum connection as it fails to reinforce the targeted skill
since it mainly presents phrases in isolation for the learner to repeat. Another problem is the
level of proficiency necessary to understand the presenter as most of the time, content is not
introduced in simple, straightforward English. This app also requires the teacher to listen to
students’ recordings of the dialog presented for later assessment. Another key point is that
How to Speak Real English provided fictitious affective feedback as it had no voice
recognition capability, but considered utterances correct in all instances (see Fig. 2). Thus,
the mean score for all dimensions was 2.13 out of 4.

Fig.2. How to Speak Real English by DS&TModern English Studio screenshots Listening Apps

English Listening and Daily English Listening received similar scores in curriculum
connection, performance, user-friendliness. authenticity, sharing, and appeal. However, Daily
English Listening performed much better in differentiation. A more comprehensible review of
each listening app comes in the following section.
English Listening. Developed by X-App, this app scored four in four categories:
curriculum connection, differentiation, performance and user-friendliness. In fact, it is one of
the apps that offer the most flexibility. It allows the learner to adjust settings in terms of level,
speech speed, and topic. Some of the topics include: family, food, lifestyle, and business. As
of speech speed, students can select among medium, fast, slow and very slow. Levels are
categorized using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A2, B1,
B2, C1 and C2 -beginner to advanced level. Even though audios seemed to be either
authentic or authenticated material, the app scored only three in authenticity as the app is not
practiced in an authentic environment. Audio quality is excellent and as a result the app
scored four in appeal. However, the app was poor in terms of graphics (see Fig. 3). Sharing is
not possible nor is student product available for saving in the app. The mean score for this
app was 2.88 out of 4.

104
ISSN 2707-1642

Fig. 3. English Listening by X-App screenshots

Daily English Listening. Developed by THT Group, this app offers flexibility in
terms of level settings; therefore, it received four in differentiation. Levels vary from
beginner to advanced. It also scored four in curriculum connection, user-friendliness, and
performance as it offers dialogues followed by questions presented in multiple choice format.
Exercise results could not be saved nor shared; consequently it received a score of one in
sharing. Feedback was limited to correctness of learner responses. In addition, it has a
vocabulary section which gives the learner definitions of words and phrases from the audio
(see Fig. 4). Therefore, the mean score was 2.63 out of 4.

Reading Apps

Reading Comprehension and English Reading Test scored similarly in curriculum

connection, performance, user-friendliness, and feedback. However, the analysis showed
that English Reading Test outscored Reading Comprehension in differentiation and appeal
(see Table 3). Following is a more thorough summary of the features each app provides and
the scores the apps obtained.
Reading Comprehension. Developed by Paprika Studio, this app offers the meaning
of vocabulary words, reading and vocabulary practices, and test sessions. These elements
made this app score four in curriculum connection, authenticity, performance, and user-
105
ISSN 2707-1642

friendliness. Conversely, the app scored low in differentiation and sharing because the
settings cannot be altered and learners’ progress is not saved. Finally, the app received a
score of two in feedback and appeal: looks & sounds (see Fig. 5) since feedback is limited to
correct or incorrect scoring. Thus, its mean score resulted in 2.75 out of 4.

Fig. 5. Reading Comprehension by Paprika Studio screenshots

English Reading Test. Developed by quiz world, this app offers quizzes, flashcards,
grammar lessons, chat rooms among other features. This app received the maximum score in
curriculum connection, performance, user friendliness, and appeal: looks & sounds. It is
strongly connected to the reading skill, fast and reliable, very easy to use, and it has
outstanding sound and graphics. In the dimensions of authenticity and differentiation it was
scored three since even though the learner can experience authentic learning in some aspects
of the app, there is more than one amount of flexibility to meet students need. Its mean score
resulted in 3 out of 4.

Fig. 6. English Reading Test by quiz world screenshots.

Writing Apps

The data collected regarding how well writing skills performed demonstrated that both
Essay Writing Lite and Learn English Writing equally obtained the highest score in
106
ISSN 2707-1642

curriculum connection, user-friendliness, performance, and sharing. On the other hand, Essay
Writing Lite received the lowest score in feedback since it does not meet the minimum
requirement in this dimension. Therefore, it was determined that Learn English Writing
surpassed Essay Writing Lite because it obtained a higher score in feedback (see Table 3).
Essay Writing Lite. Developed by Webmolite, this app offers three free sections on
how to write essays: (1) How to write an essay, (2) Descriptive essays and (3) Practice
descriptive essays. In order to access the rest of the content you have to buy the full version
of the app. How to write an essay is divided into: Steps to write essays, which shows tips on
how to write them. It also provides information on how to write an essay, most common
mistakes and tips and tricks for writing an essay. The practice section offers a variety of
topics for the learner to choose. Once the writing is done, student product can be saved within
the app and shared via email as well. (see Fig. 6).
As a result, this app obtained four in curriculum connection, performance, sharing and
user-friendliness. Authenticity is among the most difficult categories to achieve and the app
received a score of two. Because it is an app that enhances essay writing, it has no flexibility
in terms of level or other settings, which produced a low score in differentiation. As for
appeal, it also received a score of two, since the app was quite dull in terms of design and did
not provide any kind of audio or video for presenting its contents. The mean score for the app
was 2.5 out of 4.

Fig. 6. Essay Writing Lite screenshots.

IELTS Writing. Developed by FR-solutions, this is an app which presents extensive

content and tips on how to write essays, letters, graph descriptions, writing lessons, practice
tests and useful links where students can read more about the process of writing.
Additionally, the app introduces expository, argumentative, and cause-effect essay samples.
The section on “how to write an essay” features an essay question, a sample answer and also
a comment on the features and important sections of the sample answer. The lesson section
further presents information on the process to write an essay, tips of vocabulary and some tips
on paragraph writing, types of essays, introductions and conclusions. All of the topics
presented in the app were strongly related to the skill being taught and practice and as a
result, IELTS score 4 in the dimension of curriculum connection (see Fig. 7).
In addition, it has a practice test section, which is divided in IELTS Academic and
IELTS General. Both section offer tasks, answer samples and the possibility of sharing
student product via a wide range of social media, as well as WhatsApp and email. All of the
above resulted on a score of four in, performance, sharing and user-friendliness as well. Even
107
ISSN 2707-1642

though, samples and sample analysis were very helpful, there was no feedback provided for
students to improve their writing skills. This is a common shortcoming for apps that help in
the development of productive skills, such as writing. Because of the kind of skill being
practiced through this app, the app scored one in differentiation and appeal as good graphics
were not presented and neither audio nor videos were available. Consequently, the mean
score for the app was 2.88 (see Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Screenshots showing the features of the app IELTS Writing by FR-solutions.

Vocabulary Apps

The information presented about the apps reviewed for this skill shows that Learn
English Vocabulary and Wordalot performed successfully and received identical scores in the
dimensions of curriculum connection, user-friendliness, performance, and appeal (4 out of 4).
Feedback was the criterion that made the difference with a score of 1 and 2 respectively.
Learn English Vocabulary. Developed by Visual Education, this app offers a wide
variety of topics, such as environment, shopping and health. Each topic has two sets of
vocabulary flashcards: one where vocabulary is presented and the other where the learner
practices by flipping the flashcards to check (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Learn English Vocabulary by Visual Education screenshots

108
ISSN 2707-1642

In addition, it has two listening sections: one where the learner is presented with a
picture, and the word is pronounced for the student to decide if the picture matches the word
pronounced. The other one displays a group of six pictures for the student to choose
according to the audio cue. It also has a writing section where the learner listens to the word
and he or she has to write it down. There is also a pronunciation section where the students
have to produce orally the word for the picture cue. The voice recognition feature displays the
word the user utters and then marks it right or wrong. Finally, it has two multiple choice tests
sections in which the students have to select the correct word based on the picture cue and
vice versa. The app had a mean score of 2.88 out of 4.
Wordalot – Picture Crossword. Developed by MAG Interactive, this is a very
straightforward app. Learners are presented with a picture which includes images of words in
a small crossword. Learners can choose where to start the puzzle and letters to choose from
are provided for the selected word. In terms of appeal, this app scored four for its beautiful
design and the necessary amount of audio for a vocabulary game-like app.
As the learner completes the crossword, he or she receives coins which can be used to
“buy hints” when necessary. In case more help is needed, Wordalot allows users to ask
friends for help or automatic creation of screenshot to be shared via several social networks
and WhatsApp. As a result, Worldalot scored four in authenticity, for being strongly
connected with the targeted skill. (see Fig. 9) Cognitive feedback is not provided because the
correct completion of words in the puzzle is a requisite for the user to move forward in the
game. Instead, this app provided “affective” feedback as it was presented in a game format
and encouragement and complimentary phrases ensued a completed crossword.
Consequently, the mean score for the app was 3 out of 4.

Fig. 9. Wordalot App by MAG Interactive screenshots

Grammar Apps

The top two grammar apps, English Grammar Ultimate and English Grammar Test,
were reviewed, classified, scored, and compared according to the developed criteria in the
rubric we developed. Both apps received the highest score in curriculum connection,
performance and user-friendliness. They also received the same score (3) in sharing and
appeal. However, English Grammar Test outperformed English Grammar Ultimate in
authenticity, feedback and differentiation. (see Table 3). A more detailed review of these
apps follows.

109
ISSN 2707-1642

English Grammar Ultimate. Developed by maxlogix, this app offers grammar topics
presentation as well as exercises (see Fig. 10). In terms of curriculum connection, it received
a 4 for providing a considerable variety of grammar topics. In terms of authenticity, it was
given a 2 since multiple choice exercises contributed to a contrived format. It performed and
loaded rather quickly. In addition, it offered an easy-to-use platform so it received a score of
4 in performance and user-friendliness. It also received a 4 in sharing as the grammar
exercises can be shared via several social networks, email and WhatsApp. It received a 2 in
the category of appeal since there are no graphics or sound bites in the app. The average score
for this app was hence 2.75.

Fig. 10. Features of the app English Grammar Ultimate by maxlogix

English Grammar Test. Developed by Seven Lynx, this app provides some flexibility
in its settings as it allows the learner to choose between intermediate and upper-intermediate
levels (see Fig. 11). As a result, it scored 3 in the dimension of differentiation. It also offers a
long list of grammar topics which can be practiced with exercises provided in the app. The
app clearly reinforces the skill of grammar and as a result received the highest score in
curriculum connection. Unfortunately, it scored low in appeal since it is poor in terms of
looks and sound as no audio or video is provided to introduce the grammar inductively or
deductively. In terms of user-friendliness, we found that the app is really simple and its
instructions are very easy to follow. Thus, the mean score for the app was 3.25.

Fig. 11. English Grammar Test by SevenLynx screenshots

110
ISSN 2707-1642

DISCUSSION

New generations’ dependence on their social groups, their tendency to help each other
and their need to achieve their goals and be successful (Borges et al., 2010) are aspects which
app developers tapped into. Additionally, because of the importance of teacher-generated
feedback, the capability of sharing students’ product is essential. Nevertheless, we found that
only fifty percent of the reviewed apps place a lot of importance in the feature of sharing by
letting users share their progress through social media. Some apps also take into account the
current focus on goal achievement by offering stars or coins as a form of reward.
Walker (2011, 2014) notes that feedback has to be effective in order to improve
performance and result in better outcomes (32). Unfortunately, we found that in terms of
feedback, most apps do not provide specific feedback or that the feedback provided is still
very limited (see Table 3). This is especially evident with the apps reviewed that dealt with
productive skills. On the other hand, receptive skills apps and grammar as well as vocabulary
apps, were more efficient in providing feedback. We found that on average apps only
provided what Brown (2015) refers to as cognitive feedback.
As teachers are no longer the only source of information, this study aimed at finding
efficient language skill apps for English teaching and learning (Babu and Dhanaraju, 2016).
We found that most reading, listening, speaking, vocabulary and grammar apps reviewed
offered the necessary input, interactive activities and feedback that allowed the learner to
apply the concepts previously learned (Beetham and Sharpe, 2007). Only writing apps in this
study fulfilled the characteristics of a tertiary app -supporting dialogue between learner and
technology- since new content (students’ product) could be shared with peers or the teacher.
According to app developers, app design and appeal are vital to capture the user’s
attention and level of engagement (Lee &Cherner, 2015). In spite of in-app ads, most of the
reviewed apps were able to comply with the need of an app to be appealing. Reading and
Writing apps did not provide high quality design since high definition graphics or audio were
not necessary. On the other hand, listening and speaking apps provided excellent audio
quality. Vocabulary apps are the ones which excelled in terms of appeal since they provided
high resolution images and sound as well as some kind of animation.
Lee and Cherner (2015) as well as Walker (2011, 2014) acknowledged the importance
of curriculum connection as a way to reinforce learning and improve students’ problem
solving skills. We found that all apps reviewed, except for How to Speak Real English, were
strongly connected to the targeted skill. Some apps which had primary technology aspect,
fulfilled the presentation, practice and production stages of the teaching process and for this
reason can be, as Eaton (2010) claimed “used instead of books” (13). However, writing skills
cannot yet be developed by using an app alone.
According to Lee and Cherner (2015), one must focus on how diverse students are in
terms of background knowledge and aptitudes, as well as different proficiency levels, when
considering if a teaching material is appropriate for classroom instruction and in order to
anticipate students’ needs. In terms of differentiation, only one app offered complete
flexibility in terms of proficiency level, as well as topics. The rest of the apps provided
flexibility in terms of either topic or proficiency level.
Perhaps among the most important factors listed by Rhodes (2015) and that affect an
app approval are: performance and user-friendliness. All the apps reviewed performed very
well as it is clear that constant feedback provided by users allowed developers to work on
solving minor issues. Because the apps we reviewed were rated highly, it can be said that
these apps were ranked positively because of the lack of performance issues. Another factor
that may cause user frustration is app ease of use or user-friendliness. Lee and Cherner (2015)

111
ISSN 2707-1642

explain that an app ease of use is crucial because “learners who find an app easy to use are
more likely to … spend time with it” (p. 31). All apps reviewed succeeded in being user-
friendly as they were all very easy to learn to use and directions were clear and simple to
follow (Walker, 2011).
As Walker (2014) emphasized the importance of task authenticity, we focused on
whether the tasks in the apps were presented and practiced in an authentic learning
environment. It is important to mention that almost all of the apps reviewed lacked
authenticity not only in terms of the kind of material presented but in activities they presented
as well. None of the receptive skill apps introduced or dealt with extensive activities such as
listening or reading for pleasure. Listening skills apps did not present authenticated tasks that
required student interaction such as listening and reacting in debates, conversations and
discussions (Brown, 2015). Being receptive skills apps, both listening and reading apps
shared similarities in terms of the type of activities for instructional purposes. All receptive
skills apps presented intensive activities.
Being a productive skill, speaking was described by Mercado (2012) as the “one [skill]
that would seem to be least compatible with technology” (p. 63). The reviewed speaking apps
are still far from providing the necessary interaction for students to develop their speaking
skills (Brown, 2015). In terms of the teaching process, the writing apps reviewed did not offer
any real writing activity. Tasks presented were merely either imitative or of academic nature.
AlthoughScarcella and Oxford (1992) among others recommend “learners are to be asked to
discover grammatical rules by themselves” (p. 178), we found that on average both subsidiary
skills apps, grammar and vocabulary, lacked authenticity. Writing apps either
presented grammar deductively or did not provide any kind of grammar presentation.
Finally, since mobile learning was defined as the use of mobile technology to enable
learning “anytime and anywhere”, apps were analyzed based on accessibility (West&Vosloo,
2013). We found that only a third of the apps reviewed needed internet access to be used and
progress to be shared. In fact, two third of the apps, once their content is downloaded and
installed, could be accessed and their exercises can be practiced anytime and anywhere.

CONCLUSION

At the outset of our study, the main question that guided our research was: What are the
most widely downloaded and highly rated free Android apps that can help enhance the
teaching and learning of English based on the skills they developed? In addition, our sub-
research questions were: (1) Which free Android apps can help enhance the teaching and
learning of English? (2) Which free Android apps can help develop the main language skills
and vocabulary and grammar?
With regard to the main question of what the most widely downloaded and highly rated
free Android apps that can help enhance the teaching and learning of English based on the
skill they develop were, our study found the following. First, the most widely downloaded
apps were: English Grammar Test, with 5,000,000 downloads, English Conversation
Practice, How to Speak Real English, English Grammar Ultimate and Worldalot, which had
1,000,000 downloads each. Second, users rated the most highly the following apps: Learn
English Vocabulary, which received a 4.8, English Listening, and IELTS Writing, with a 4.7,
respectively.
Considering the first research question, we found that there are many apps offered by
Play Store to help teachers improve class instruction and students in their quest to learn
English. While not all apps may be equally adequate to address this issue, according to our
review, on average the apps reviewed performed relatively well according to the criteria
included in the adapted rubric used in this study. However, because only a small minority of
112
ISSN 2707-1642

the reviewed apps were designed to encourage autonomous learning, teachers cannot heavily
depend on the use of a particular app to develop the main and subsidiary language skills.
Instead, he or she may need to use a variety of apps in order to get enough variation and
reinforcement of the target skills. However, what this research suggests is that apps can be
remarkable tools to make the language learning process much more student-centered.
Our results suggest that most of the free Android apps reviewed can help to develop the
four main language skills and subskills. With only one exception, the apps reviewed featured
secondary technology type of tasks, hence offering students interactive activities and
feedback that allowed them put into practice previously learned concepts. In addition, only
the writing skill apps promoted the creation and sharing of new content. Perhaps the factor
that most contributes to the development of the language skills is the fact that the majority of
the apps reviewed can be indeed accessed to “anytime and anywhere” as they provide online
as well as offline accessibility.
Considering how the reviewed language skill apps performed based on the adapted
rubric, we found that apps presented both asset sand shortcomings. First, the reviewed apps
performed extremely well in terms of curriculum connection, performance, appeal, and user
friendliness. This could be connected to the fact that apps were selected based on the
screenshots provided in Play Store and users’ ratings of the app. Second, all apps provided
extensive practice material in order to avoid repetition of activities or scarcity of content.
Third, almost all apps succeeded in providing content and activities that reinforced the target
skill so this might have affected Play Store users’ ratings. Fourth, even though sharing is
available for app users, apps are still failing in terms of providing vital specific feedback,
which can make learning personalized and clearly enhance the learning of the target skill.
Apps still need development in terms of authenticity as all apps introduced tasks which were
far from being considered real-life like. Similarly, apps fall short in personalizing material, as
most of the reviewed apps lack the necessary flexibility to differentiate content in terms of
students’ interests and learning styles. As the ideal scenario is for the students to work
autonomously, differentiation is of extreme importance. As we aimed in this study to identify
and review free Android apps that can enhance the teaching and learning of English, our
findings suggest that the language skills apps reviewed have the potential to complement the
teacher and aid the students in the process of learning English.
Our findings have important implications for the teacher. A significant implication is
that teachers should not underestimate the importance of the dimension of sharing as this
feature provides not only evidence of students’ work but also critical information for future
remedial classes and feedback. Teachers cannot deny the importance of social media in the
educational field as a place for learners to collaborate and share their ideas and student
created content (Krau, 2013). Even though feedback is still limited in apps, the access to
students’ product is of paramount importance. Another implication is that teachers should
recognize that they can share the role of facilitator with the appropriate use of technology.
When selecting apps for use in and out of the classroom, teachers should also take into
account the benefits of game-like activities as rewards are an important element for
increasing students’ motivation. Similarly, they should make the students engage with apps
whose activities promote collaboration as it is one of the 21st century skills. An additional
implication of this study is that LSARR is concise as well as helpful and has important
implications for helping teachers in the search for the optimum apps for enhancing the
teaching and learning processes. Finally, the main implication of this study was the
identification of the characteristics that an efficient language skill app should possess.
Accordingly, the major practical contribution of the present research is that it provides
teachers with the tool to select the most convenient apps. In brief, teachers should choose

113
ISSN 2707-1642

apps that not only reinforce the target skill, and be as authentic as possible but also be
flexible, fast, easy to use and appealing.
More research into language learning apps is necessary in order to obtain an answer to
how apps can enhance the teaching and learning process. As a recommendation for future
research, we suggest a more thorough research into each of the main language skills or
focusing on one skill alone. We also recommend that teachers create an adaptation of the
rubric for students to also evaluate apps on their own or as part of the classroom time. This
rubric may have simplified vocabulary and smileys instead of a numbered scale to assess
student’s satisfaction in terms of the reviewed app. Furthermore, for the students to review
the apps, motivation should be included in the app. For app developers we recommend more
variation in the tasks presented as well as more authenticity of the tasks. Even though apps
presented enough practice, most apps used the same kind of tasks again and again. Similarly,
as much as it is extremely important to allow more collaboration within the apps, a feature
that may increase engagement would be a two-user interaction activity. In addition, some
kind of game-like practice as applicable can help enrich the features of the app.

REFERENCES

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development
for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50-57.
Babu, P. S., & Dhanaraju, Z. (2016). The role of teachers in the 21st century. In Proceedings of
National Conference on Two Year B.Ed. Programme in the Cradle of Nurturance,
Conservation for Quality Management: A Need for Achieving Excellence and Expertise, p.
19-22. Madurai, India: Shanlax Publications.
Beetham, H., &Shrape R. (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering e-
Learnig. New York, NY: Routledge.
Beatty, K. (2015). Language, Task and Situation: Authenticity in the Classroom. Journal of Language
and Education, 1(1).
Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning.
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Borges, N. J., Manuel, R. S., Elam, C. L., & Jones, B. J. (2010). Differences in motives between
Millennial and Generation X medical students. Medical education, 44(6), 570-576.
Brown, H D. (2015). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 4th
Edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chen, C. & Chung, C. (2008). Personalized Mobile English Vocabulary Learning System Based on
Item Response Theory and Learning Memory Cycle. Computers & Education, vol. 51, no. 2.,
pp. 624-645.
Dudeney, G. & Nicky H. (2007). How to Teach English with Technology. Pearson/Longman
Eaton, S. E. (2010). Global Trends in Language Learning in the 21st Century. Eaton International
Consulting Inc., Onate Press, retrieved from: files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED10276.
Emrah, E & Yaman, I. (2016). A Shift from CALL to MALL? Participatory Education Research.
Special Issue 2016-IV, pp., 25-32.
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college: The
millennial students. Journal of College admission, 195, 20-25.
Fox, W. & Bayat, M. S. (2007). A Guide to Managing Research. Cape Town: Juta and Co.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology,
21(2), 3-17.
Goodman, P. S. (2001). Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change. Mahway, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Klimova, B. (2018). Mobile phones and/or smartphones and their apps for teaching English as a
foreign language. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1091-1099.
Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to Tools: Connecting Student Cell Phones to Education. Washington DC: ISTE.

114
 ISSN 2707-1642

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research: Insights from the research.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C. & Sloan, T. (2015). A Comprehensive Evaluation Rubric for Assessing Instructional Apps.
Journal of Information Technology Education Research, vol. 14. pp. 21-53.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D.T. & Voegtle, K. (2006) Methods in Educational Research: From
Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McQuiggan, S., et al. (2015). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for developers, Educators, and Learners.
Hoboken, NJ: John Willey & Sons.
Mercado, L. A. (2012). English Language Learning and Technology. Buenos Aires: Cengage
Learning.
Motteram, G. [Ed.] (2013). Innovations in Learning Technologies for English Language Teaching.
London: British Council.
Murphy, K., De Pasquale, R., & McNamara, E. (2003). Meaningful connections: Using technology in
primary classrooms. Young Children, 58(6), 12-18.
Mutt, S. (2013). Monday Made it! App Review Rubric for Kid Critics. Digital: Divide & Conquer,
digitaldivideandconquer.blogspot.ca/2013/07/monday-made-it-app-review-rubric-for.html.
Pilgrim, J., Bledsoe, C., & Reily, S. (2012). New technologies in the classroom. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 78(4).
Pim, C. (2013). Emerging technologies, emerging minds: digital innovations within the primary
sector. Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching, 17-42.
Pletka, B. (2007). Educating the Net Generation: How to engage students in the 21st century. Los
Angeles: Santa Monica Press.
Qiang, C. Z., Kuek, S. C., Dymond, A., & Esselaar, S. (2011). Mobile Applications for Agricultural
and Rural Development. ICT Sector Unit: World Bank.
Rhodes, W. (2015). What makes a Great App? SAVVY Apps. N.p. July.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 3rd.
Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rickes, P. C. (2009). Make way for millennials! How today's students are shaping higher education
space. Planning for Higher Education, 37(2), 7.
Robson, M. (2013). The English Effect: The impact of English, what it’s worth to the UK and why it
matters to the world. London: British Council.
Sarwar, M., & Soomro, T. R. (2013). Impact of smartphones on society. European journal of
scientific research, 98(2), 216-226.
Scarcella, R. C. & Oxford. R. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the
Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders from the 21st Century.
Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD.
Thoman, E. (2002). Screen-Agers... and the Decline of the Wasteland. Fed. Comm. LJ, 55, 601.
Vincent, T. (2012). Ways to evaluate educational apps. Learning in Hand. Retrieved from
http://learningin-hand.com/blog/ways-to-evaluate-educational-apps.html.
Walker, H. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of apps for mobile devices. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 26(4), 59-63.
Walker, H. (2014). Establishing content validity of an evaluation rubric for mobile technology
applications utilizing the Delphi method. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
West, M., & Vosloo, S. (2013). UNESCO policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris, FR: United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

115

View publication stats