Output 7 – Language Learning in Higher Education Institutions: The role of mobile learning and the possibilities of data-driven language learning.

This is Output 07 Policy recommendations for higher education (HE) institutions developed as part of Work Package 07 by the TELL-OP project. This output reviews EU policies on mobile learning in higher education institutions and developments in the inclusion of ICTs in HE analyzed by TELL-OP. This output takes account of information extracted from various studies conducted into the use of mobile devices in HE. The recommendations specified in this document are based on, but not limited to, the TELL-OP learning scenarios across the CEFR levels A2 and B2. A detailed description of the learning contexts, learner types and proficiency levels of the learners the TELL-OP application caters for, can be found in the TELL-OP intellectual output number 05. The report makes various recommendations across 9 areas. Summary of all recommendation areas:

Technical requirements/mobile devices

These policy recommendations aim at the technical considerations that teachers have to take into account when mobile devices are to be included in the classroom.

Budget and cost

These policy recommendations elaborate on issues that are budget and cost-related.

Safety

These policy recommendations describe what safety measures the teacher should mainly consider before including mobile learning in language teaching.

Application (usage)

These policy recommendations as stated in this document specify guidelines on the usage of applications and devices in the classroom.

Learning and teaching materials

These policy recommendations are guidelines for students as well as teachers in what has to be considered when and what type of learning and teaching materials to include in language learning with mobile devices.

Language skills and areas

These policy recommendations consider the language skills and areas (listening, speaking, writing, reading, and lexico-grammatical knowledge) that are targeted or should be targeted when making use of mobile devices in language learning.

Teacher practices

These policy recommendations aim at facilitating the use of mobile devices by pre-service teachers and in-service-teachers in language teaching and to overcome the technology-related insecurity. The main aim is to support teachers in the inclusion of mobile devices in their language teaching and to improve their practice.

Task creation and type of activities

These policy recommendations suggest what teachers should consider when creating tasks with the use of mobile devices and what type of activities are feasible or recommended.

DDL-specific recommendations

These policy recommendations are developed as an addition to the “task creation and type of activities” in order to provide users of mobile learning with guidelines on how to include DDL activities in language teaching and learning.

2. Introduction

The brief

This is the first release of Output 07, the formal learning in HE and data-driven learning output of Work Package 07 created by TELL-OP. The overall Output Title from the proposal is:

Policy recommendations/guidelines for Higher Education Institutions

The Work Package title is:

Output 07: Language Learning in Higher Education Institutions: The role of mobile learning and the possibilities of data-driven language learning.

The original brief for the Output stated:

Language Learning in Higher Education Institutions: The role of mobile learning and the possibilities of data-driven language learning.

How to bridge the gap between the possibilities offered by ICTs and the huge demand for ubiquitous personalized language learning opportunities in the context of HE and formal learning.

This brief is still valid.

By making use of existing Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies and Open Education Resources (OER) that suit the needs of language learners across different European languages (i.e. English, German, and Spanish), the TELL-OP project seeks to enhance the quality of European formal and HE learning by employing ICT-assisted personalized language learning by the help of mobile devices. The targeted learner group for this specific output are adult language learners who learn a second or foreign language in an education or training institution (e.g. in a language school, a university, etc.) in a structured manner that will lead to some sort of certification. Therefore, only the levels of curriculum, syllabus, accreditation, and certification, which are associated with ‘formal learning‘, will be considered in this output. More background information on HE institutions in Europe will be given in the next section.

3. Background
- HE Institutions in Europe

In the following section some background information about HEIs in Europe is given. By tertiary education in the European Union (EU), we mean the education that is provided by universities and other HEIs which follows after the completion of secondary education. The EU-28 (Eurostat 2012) counted over 20 million tertiary education students in 2012. 12.2% of these students were reported to study humanities and arts. The average age of students in tertiary education across the EU-28 was 22.1 years (Eurostat 2012). The Europe 2020 strategy, which was made by EU leaders, agreed upon goals to be completed by the year 2020 aiming at the 40% of those aged 30-34 having a higher education or equivalent qualification and that school drop-out rates should be reduced to less than 10%. According to the European Commission (2013), 414 million students are expected to be in HE in the world by 2030.

The construction of higher education in the European context is based on the UNESCO ISCED levels 5 (undergraduate) and 6 (postgraduate). As part of the Bologna Process European universities now offer degrees in the following order: first an undergraduate degree, then a master’s degree, and finally a PhD or other doctoral-level qualifications. Furthermore, the Bologna Process founded many programs such as Erasmus and created tools for the transparency of accreditation, i.e. the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) (European Commission 2013).

In face of the economic crisis, there is a high demand for individual digital skills as a job requirement. There is an increased demand for education and especially the integration of ICTs into higher education institutions. Even though there are numerous ideas, initiatives, and projects concerned with OERs in all fields of education that have emerged in the past decade, state-funded HE programs concerned with OER and ICTs are quite rare in European countries other than England, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Also Germany has an ever growing interest in the inclusion of OERs in higher education since 2012 (Deimann et al. 2015). The Transfer Center of the open-educational-resources team, sponsored by the German UNESCO Commission, offers various teaching materials, podcasts, blogs, consultations, talks, further training opportunities, and “OER-camps” for teachers. One example of such events planned by the German open-educational-resources team, for instance, is the OER Festival in 2016 in Berlin that promotes competitions, meetings, and publications that evolve around OERs in the German-speaking context (OERde16 2015). A global network of educational institutions that supports the openness of education and educational materials is the Open Education Consortium (OEC 2015). The OEC generally deals with the openness of education and makes suggestions on how to support the OER movement as a teacher, organization, institution, as well as a student. In a similar vein, the TELL-OP Project, which is a cooperation of five European universities (Belgium, England, Germany, Spain, and Turkey), caters to the demand of including OERs by the use of ICTs with a multitude of languages and educational contexts.

Mobile Learning in HE Institutions

Becoming technology-savvy is a new prerequisite in modern education systems and also in an ever growing number of workplaces in our globalised world. While a large part of the world’s population uses mobile devices as communication and entertainment tools, there is an increasing interest for these devices to be used in an educational context. There are many terms for mobile learning (short m-learning) which started to be of interest since the 2000s, e.g. wireless learning, ubiquitous learning, seamless learning, nomadic learning or persuasive learning (Quinn 2000). Mobile learning does not only include the use of learning through a different and new medium, but it also includes the mobility of the learner and the knowledge he/she can acquire anywhere and anytime and the contextualization of the learning process in the learning environment (Sharples et al. 2010). A comprehensive review of mobile learning in language learning is beyond the purpose of this paper. The reader is advised to consult the following contributions in this context: Alexander (2004), Chapelle (2003), Dudeney & Hockly (2014; 2007), Godwin-Jones (2011), Hockly (2013; 2007), Keengwe (2014), Kukulska-Hulme (2009; 2005), McQuiggan (2015), Sharples et al. (2010), Thomas & Reinders (2010), (for more see references). Most of these contributions, however, deal with information and communication technologies in general and not just with mobile devices. These Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) include computers, handheld devices, radio and television. Mobile devices include standard mobile phones, tablet devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), MP3 players, flash drives, electronic-book readers (e-readers), and smart phones (UNESCO 2011). ICTs transform our relationship to how we process information and knowledge, the interaction between educators and learners, and they blur the line between formal and non-formal learning scenarios. ICTs promote life-long learning and help our students to become globally competitive. Exploring the potential of ICTs is crucial to the improvement of the education and training systems. The European Commission states in this context (European Commission 2015):

ICT tools, Open Educational Resources, and open practices allow for an increase in the effectiveness of education, allowing for more personalised learning, a better learning experience, and an improved use of resources. Such measures also promote equity by increasing the availability of knowledge.

Ultimately, opening up education may lead to a situation where all individuals may learn anytime, anywhere, with the support of anyone, using any device.

While the potential of ICTs in education is generally recognized there is still the need for more guidance as to the integration of ICTs in every day teaching. There are many challenges that educators face, e.g. financial challenges, technical issues, deciding for the right activities, and especially using the technology effectively in the classroom. According to the European Commission, Europe is falling behind in the integration of ICTs in language teaching, since most schools are not digitally equipped and the students are not being taught by “digitally confident teachers” (Open Education Europa 2015). They further state that teachers mainly use ICTs to prepare their teaching but do not use it as a skill for their students to develop in the classroom (ibid.). The “Opening up Education Initiative” by the European Commission launched in 2013 aims at stimulating ways of learning and teaching through ICT and digital content, mainly through the development and availability of OERs. Therefore, the European Commission created an “Open Education Europa portal” in order to grant access to all existing high-quality European OER repositories in different languages to make them easily accessible for learners, teachers, and researchers. Another interesting tool in this context is the OER World Map (https://oerworldmap.org/), which tracks OER activities by organizations, projects, services, persons, and events all over the world in an interactive world map. It does not, however, include direct access to the individual resources but it is possible to filter the results by subject, language, and grade level. Currently the European OER repository lists 115 of such OERs for different languages (European OER Repository 2015). The main aim of the European Commission is to overcome the current fragmentation of European OER use. Thus, the TELL-OP Project follows up on the goals of the European Commission by transforming these challenges into learning opportunities for foreign language learners.

Even though the uptake of ICTs in HEIs has increased, their relationship to positive learning effects has mostly been explored in the context of natural science contents where some studies show a positive relationship (National Centre for Educational Statistics 2001a, 2001b) between the availability or use of ICT and student learning and some show a negative one (Fuchs and Woessmann 2004) whereas some show none (Banks, Cresswell, and Ainley 2003) (UNESCO 2011: 15).

A survey conducted by the TELL-OP Project in 2015, (Bulut et al. 2015; Götz & Puga 2015; Ordoñana et al. 2015; Van de Vyver & Meunier 2015), including 690 responses from different countries, revealed that even though most institutions have access to Wi-Fi and some teachers are familiar with Open Educational Resources (OERs), the use of mobile devices in the language learning context is still not as widespread as anticipated. OERs are any type of material that can be used in an educational context and are publicly and freely available. Typically these resources are made available under open licenses, which means that they can be accessed, copied and modified freely. Teachers wish for more training and more information on the integration of OERs in their language teaching.69% of all participants of the survey were female, with the three main age groups between 26-35 (25%), 36-45 (27%), and 46-55 (32%). Most participants were BA (25%), MA (43%) and PhD (22%) holders with mainly training backgrounds in modern languages (50%), education (42%), language and literature (34%), applied linguistics (23%), and linguistics (20%). The teaching experience ranged quite equally from 3 up to over 26 years. The respondents come from the following countries in descending order of number of responses: Germany, Spain, Turkey, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, and other countries such as the USA, Italy, Serbia, Ireland, Denmark, etc. Most teachers that participated in this survey teach in higher education institutions (52%), secondary school institutions (26%), and adult education institutions (18%). The majority of the participants teach English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (51%). Other languages taught are English as a second language, French, German, Spanish, and Turkish as foreign and second languages.

The results of this survey show that 75% of the students in these institutions have access to Wi-Fi. While 43% of the institutions foster the use of mobile devices (mobile phones, tablets, etc.) in the teaching context, more than half of the institutions (57%) do not. 75% claim to have never received any training in the use of mobile devices in the classroom within their studies and/or from their institutions. When the teachers were asked to evaluate their own computer skills from 1 having ‘no skills’ to 5 being ‘an expert user’ most teachers rated themselves between 3-4. When asked which devices the teachers use in their language teaching, most indicated to use web services (60%), teaching/learning online platforms (58%), and computer labs at school (42%). Mobile devices were used only by 28% of these teachers in the context of language learning. When asked how often these teachers use mobile devices in their language teaching, they answered ‘a few times a year’ (24%),‘monthly’ (12%), ‘on a weekly basis’ (21%), and ‘every day’ (12%).

Specifically, the survey aimed at finding out about the use of OERs in the language teaching context. Interestingly, 79% of 690 full respondents are interested in knowing more about OERs. Almost half (45%) indicate to not be familiar with OERs and 19% have heard of them but have never used them. The following results are thus based on 250 answers (36%) of the participants who said to be familiar with OERs. As far as the frequency of use of OERs is concerned in the context of language teaching, 16% never use them, 14% use them a few times a year, 9% on a monthly basis, 11% use them on a weekly basis, and 4% use them every day. The teachers were asked to give information on how familiar they were with certain technologies that can be used as OERs in the context of language teaching. The only “frequently” used technology are Online dictionaries such as Oxford dictionaries, which are used mainly on a weekly and every-day basis. The following technologies have largely been heard of but never or rarely used in the teaching context: Language learning Apps (e.g. Duolingo), Online collocation dictionaries or databases, text-to-speech technologies (e.g. Naturalreaders), text summarization (e.g. Textcompactor), Wordnet, visual representation of word clusters (e.g. Visual Thesaurus), automated word lists and frequency counts (e.g. Word Counter), lemmatisers, automated Part of speech tagging (e.g. CLAWS, Penn Tagger), vocabulary profiling (e.g. Lextutor), spell checkers (e.g. JSpell), text density/readability index (e.g. Textanalyser), first language corpora (e.g. British National Corpus), specialized corpora, learner corpora (LINDSEI, ICLE), and online corpus management tools (e.g. Sketch Engine, CQPweb). Consequently, most of these technologies are either never used or used a few times a year. To conclude, it becomes obvious that most OERs are not integrated in current language learning contexts in the countries that were surveyed. However, teachers wish to gain more knowledge about OERs and how to integrate them into the language teaching classroom.

Besides the TELL-OP project, many other mobile learning initiatives have been undertaken in order to overcome this gap as mentioned in the introduction. So far the United Kingdom has launched the most m-learning projects in Europe to date (UNESCO 2012). However, Denmark and Germany also seems to be very promising in the field of mobile learning who already have a large number of guidelines and instructional materials in place to aid the use of mobile devices in teaching and learning (ibid.).

3.3 Data-Driven Language Learning

The OERs we have focused on, as mentioned and explained in the previous section (3.2), are mainly based on large computerized language corpora in the language teaching context. A corpus in a broader sense can be defined as follows:

[…] a corpus is a collection of texts assumed to be representative of a given language, dialect, or other subset of language to be used for linguistic analysis (Francis 1982: 7).

In a modern and narrower sense the term corpus is usually used to refer to a collection of language texts or transcriptions of spoken and written language in an electronic form (Biber et al. 1996). Corpora are a good source of what is actually used by users of a certain language or register of a language (Mukherjee 2009: 28-29). Developments in corpus linguistic research led to new descriptions of language that in turn had implications on the teaching material (Hunston 2002: 137). Corpora in the EFL classroom can either have implications on the content of what is being taught or the classroom methodology on how something is taught (Mukherjee 2006: 6). Corpora as a resource of information depend on learner needs and learner objectives. Mukherjee (2006: 5) describes three relevant areas of corpora for language teaching: “(1) using corpora for ELT (e.g. producing learner dictionaries); (2) using corpora in the ELT-classroom (e.g. data-driven learning); (3) using learner corpora [for example to inform language acquisition theories].” Considering all these influences of corpus linguistics on language teaching, especially if the teacher is to use the corpus directly in the classroom, a basic corpus literacy is needed (Mukherjee 2002: 179). By corpus literacy Mukherjee means a basic understanding of what a corpus is, what you can and cannot do with a corpus, how concordances can be analyzed, the investigation of research questions and the autonomous and competent use of corpora to answer these questions, and the ability to develop own Do-it-yourself (DIY) corpora and the use of relevant corpus-linguistic software programs (2006: 14). From the 1960s onwards, various corpora have been compiled for different purposes, e.g. speech and text corpora, mono-, bi- and multilingual, specialized language corpora (general and technical), learner and native corpora, diachronic and synchronic corpora, annotated and unannotated corpora, etc. (Granger 2002: 1; Gut 2007: 148). Additionally, corpora can be annotated differently. Linguistic annotations can refer to different levels of speech, i.e. orthographic transcriptions, phonemic and prosodic transcriptions, part-of-speech (PoS) tagging, semantic annotation, and lemmatization (Gut 2007: 148). Further to this, corpora contain metadata, i.e. additional information about the corpus or its content (ibid.), classifying them as databases in addition to text collections. Depending on whether the corpus is spoken or written, the metadata can include information about the context and design of the corpus (size of the corpus, text types or genres, etc.) and participant profiles (e.g. age, sex, etc.).

Most of the OERs mentioned in section 3.2 are based on such corpora and these can be implemented into the EFL classroom by means of data-driven learning activities. What is meant by data-driven learning will be outlined in the following. The idea behind a corpus-based approach, as described above, should be that the learner is confronted as directly as possible with the corpus-data, thus making him/her a “linguistic researcher” (Johns 2002: 108). In this context, Johns (1997: 101) also refers to the learner as a “language detective” and formulated the motto “[e]very student a Sherlock Holmes!” This method, in which there is either an interaction between the learner and the corpus or, in a more controlled way, between the teacher and the corpus, is widely known under the label data-driven learning or DDL (Johns 1994; Tribble and Jones 1997). DDL activities with language learners can be based on usually larger general reference corpora or on smaller specialized corpora (Römer 2008: 118). DDL can be regarded as a method which fosters language awareness-raising strategies (Römer 2008: 120) and exploratory and autonomous learning (Braun et al. 2006: 1). In DDL activities there can either be teacher-led and relatively closed tasks to entirely learner-centered corpus-browsing projects (Mukherjee 2006: 12). These activities do not necessarily have to be based on concordance lines, but may include word lists or the analysis of texts in their entirety (ibid.: 14). In these types of tasks the teacher takes over a different role and “becomes a coordinator of research or facilitator” (Bernardini 2004: 16). The effectiveness of DDL has already been proven in previous studies, especially in the teaching and learning of vocabulary (Cobb 1997; Cresswell 2007; Stevens 1991). A project carried out by Götz and Mukherjee (2006), who evaluated various DDL activities in a linguistics seminar with corpus-based language learning from the language learner’s perspective, found out that DDL is mostly evaluated positively by the students. However, they did not find any correlations with these findings between the students’ backgrounds. A study conducted by Puga & Götz (forthcoming) replicated the project of Götz and Mukherjee (2006) with a similar approach by making use of a corpus of non-literary text-types of product information labels and different DDL activities. This study, which was conducted almost a decade after the one by Götz and Mukherjee (2006), revealed the same overall results. While the various DDL activities were perceived as a mainly positive experience by the participants as well as the teachers, no connection could be found between successful completion of the DDL tasks and the students’ gender, age, course of studies, or number of semester. However, corpus-linguistic pre-knowledge, a good command of English, and basic computer skills proved to be very helpful when solving the DDL tasks in a faster and more efficient way.

The potential of corpora in language teaching has so far been recognized and promoted mainly by linguists (Hunston 2002, Mukherjee 2002, Braun et al. 2006) and is rarely implemented by language teaching in EFL classrooms (Mukherjee 2009: 161). Many teachers are not at all familiar with corpora, corpus-linguistic resources and corpus-linguistic methods (Mukherjee 2006: 9). This could also be largely confirmed by the TELL-OP Survey conducted in 2015 (see section 3.2). The language teachers are not the ones to blame for this, since the wealth of ICTs available and the huge demand for ubiquitous personalized language learning opportunities is not an easy task to manage. DDL tasks are very time-consuming and require a substantial amount of preparation on the part of the teacher (Meunier 2002: 135). Thus, the main aim of this output is to try to bridge this gap and investigate the role of mobile learning and the possibilities offered by data-driven language learning by formulating recommendations in the HE context and formal learning. Therefore, these recommendations aid the integration of mobile learning in formal HE settings.

Policy Recommendations for Mobile Learning in HE

Before we get to presenting the recommendations, mainly based on previous research in this field, existing policy recommendations for mobile learning in an HE context will be briefly outlined in this section.

In this context, the UNESCO has accomplished a considerable amount of contributions to the policy formation of ICTs in HE. The UNESCO launched a program of studies, consultation, and exchange on policies on ICT in education, which was published in “Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies” in 2011. The UNESCO suggests three main pillars for effective ICT in education policies: access to ICT infrastructure and equipment, teacher capacities and monitoring. The UNESCO has produced a number of resources for policy-makers to consider when making policies on the use of ICT in education, such as ICT in Education (UNESCO 2002), the ICT in Education Toolkit, the ICT Competency Standards for Teachers (UNESCO 2008), Turning on Mobile Learning in Europe: Illustrative Initiatives and Policy Implications (UNESCO 2012), and Policy Guidelines for Mobile Learning (UNESCO 2013).

The UNESCO repeatedly stated that there is a lack of interest and awareness on the part of policy-makers as far as mobile learning is concerned (UNESCO 2012). Official documents on the use of ICT in education contain only few or no references to the use of mobile devices in education (ibid.). It seems that mobile learning is absent from the educational agendas in the majority of European countries, except a few researchers who have identified a few mobile learning projects which were referenced in policy documents (Lewin et al. 2011). Mobile learning is not viewed as an independent branch of ICT policy, which the UNESCO (2012) explains to be due to a lack of awareness among policy-makers about the potential of mobile devices to support learning. It is undeniable that there is a large amount of research which has produced substantial evidence of the potential and the benefits of mobile learning.

In terms of mobile learning initiatives, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Netherlands seem to be the most advanced countries in Europe. Kukulska-Hulme et al. (2011) give an extensive overview of EU- and nationally funded initiatives that were/are concerned with mobile learning. For example, initiatives such as the eMapps (2005-2008), M-Learning (2001-2004), and MoLeNET (2007-2010) formed the basis of policy recommendation formulation in the formal learning context. For a more detailed overview of all mobile learning initiatives the reader is referred to UNESCO 2012. One of the few – or even only – countries in Europe that produced national policy documents that directly address the issue of mobile learning is Denmark (see Bjerre et al. 2009). Moreover, a Danish web portal (www.emu.dk) offers a section on mobile learning to help teachers and students on how to use mobile devices to support learning in different subject areas. However, these very few existing policies mainly focus on learning with mobile devices in the school context, which can of course be modified for the use in HEI. Another policy producing entity in this context that needs to be mentioned is the Policies for OER Uptake (POERUP) from 2011 to 2014 which originated in the United Kingdom. The main aim of this project was to develop policy recommendations to promote the uptake of OERs in universities, schools, and colleges. Two further international projects, the Open e-Learning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) and Open Educational Quality Initiative (OPAL), are one of the very few projects that develop systematic instructions on searching, finding, and creating OERs. Especially the recommendations formulated by Geser (2012) in the OLCOS Roadmap “Open Educational Practices and Resources” contain very useful instructions on including OERs in the classroom. Another valuable resource is the “Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: a guide for teachers” by Kukulska-Hulme, Norris, and Donohue (2015), which provides teachers with a lot of recommendations on how to use appropriate pedagogical strategies so that mobile devices can be used more effectively when teaching and learning English.

For the development of policy recommendations Looi et al. (2011) make a useful distinction between three levels on the analysis of initiatives and policies in the education sector, i.e. macro, meso, and micro. Ministries of Education constitute the macro level, who come up with plans for nationwide implementation. Research institutions, IT companies, and NGOs who produce research are on the meso level. Teachers, parents, and students are on the micro level who enact these policies and programs. The UNESCO (2012) suggests providing macro-level frameworks for mobile learning on the meso and micro levels, identifying innovative projects and best practices and look to previous strategies for ICT in education. The UNESCO (2013) policy guidelines were created for this reason in order to help policy-makers to understand what mobile learning is and encourage them to adopt these policy recommendations tailored to unique needs. The TELL-OP project draws on these policy recommendations and originates on a meso level since the document was created by research institutes and operates mainly on the micro level, i.e. for teachers and students to enact these policies in a formal language learning setting.

4. Policy Recommendations for HEI and language learning in formal settings

Building on earlier work of mobile learning in HE language learning and our own in the context of the TELL-OP project, we formulate our recommendations building on the policy goals as states in the executive summary.

Technical requirements/mobile devices

Take ownership of devices into consideration (do all learners have the device? The same? → compatibility) (working with personally owned or school owned devices?) (Kukulska-Hulme 2009).
Be flexible to adapt to new devices. Developments are too fast (Hockly 2013).
Be willing to experiment due to missing/little research on new devices (Ballance 2012; Hockly 2013).
Save data from learning apps (may not be transferable to other device) (Österreicher 2012).
Choose extensible and programmable devices (Gannod 2011).
Select a type of device according to its intended use (Kukulska-Hulme 2009; Gannod 2011).
Develop a policy for managing application acquisition (can learners download apps or not? → also dependent on if they own the devices) (Gannod 2011).
Offer a choice of devices to learners to cater for the majority of learning styles (Stockwell 2008).
Avoid classic application problems (device incompatibilities, different operating systems).
Investigate learners’ private uses in their everyday lives and design mobile apps that are similar to what they use in their everyday life (Fujimoto 2012).
Explore input methods that are more suited to the interface (Fujimoto 2012).
Consider trends towards over-the-air syncing and “clouds” (Godwin-Jones 2011)

Budget and cost

Compare cost and quality of alternatives (e.g. smart phones against laptops) (Gannod 2011).
Think about relative replacement schedules (when will the device be outdated?) (Gannod 2011).
Take into account costs of management software and IT support (Gannod 2011). Depending on the type of school m-learning can be paired with facilities cuts (substitute lessons or entire school days) (Gannod 2011).

Safety/Security

Think about the issue of security (access to other apps à cheating) (Stockwell 2008).
Prevent abuse: Mobile learning adoption policy should be accompanied by protective measures to prevent abuses → security and privacy of our experiences and those of others → everyone has the right to not be recorded or observed by others (Gannod 2011; Beale 2006).
Take some ethical issues into consideration in terms of privacy or cyber-bullying (Aubusson et al. 2009).

Application (usage)

Clarify whether the mobile learning aid applications is (Lahti et al. 2011; Peters 2007; Bulut et al. 2015; Götz & Puga 2015; Ordoñana et al. 2015; Van de Vyver & Meunier 2015)):
- easy to use and suitable for everybody
- rich in functionality
- engaging
- customizable to learner/institutional needs
- making best use of limited display and keypad
- using minimal network traffic
- not using too much battery power
- not using too much memory space
- the ability to export data
- supporting individual as well as collaborative learning
- encouraging a sense of responsibility
- motivating
- taking user´s age into account
- tracking each individual learners progress
- providing tools for teachers to create and upload their own materials
- including learning activities as well as multiple choice games. Gamification is important in gathering the students’ attention.
Provide time for exploration of mobile technologies (Herrington et al. 2009a).
View mobile learning as a supplement for existing learning techniques rather than a replacement (Gannod 2011).
Use mobile learning in contexts where learners are mobile (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Use mobile learning in non-traditional learning spaces (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Blend mobile and non-mobile technologies (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Make use of the following possibilities:
- mobility (Kukulska-Hulme 2009; Godwin-Jones 2011)
- personalized and authentic learning (Kukulska-Hulme 2009; Herrington et al. 2009a)
- support memory by providing chunks regularly (Lu 2008)
- speech synthesis (Meihami & Husseini 2014)
- interaction and collaboration on many levels (Lys 2013, Godwin-Jones 2011)
- adaptation of difficulty (Petersen & Markiewicz 2008)
- a feedback providing system to reflect on teaching (Aubusson et al. 2009)
Limit multi-tasking and environmental distractions (Stockwell and Hubbard 2013; Schmitz et al. 2013).
Use mobile learning spontaneously (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Use as a bridge between formal and informal learning (what when where can and should students learn?) (Kukulska-Hulme 2009) → perceptions of learning can conflict with personal choices and freedom (Beale 2006).
Learn from your students (what do they already use and how?) (Kukulska-Hulme 2009).
Use mobile learning both individually and collaboratively (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Make sure that the app enables situated learning or learning in context, using phones with cameras/video capabilities to enable students to capture their own material and instantaneously transfer to other students and lecturers (Peters 2007).
Tie learning to learners’ actual lives (Godwin-Jones 2011).
Employ the learner’ own mobile devices (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Develop a shared language, knowledge and understanding (Lefoe et al. 2009).
Ensure fast communication and information for students (integrated messaging feature so that users can text each other directly from the app.)
Test whether the application is downloadable and accessible without internet connection (Tai & Ting 2011).
Use mobile learning to produce and consume knowledge (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Ensure the reliability and security of the application (Oz 2015).
Implement mobile devices as cognitive tools, rather than low level communication or recording devices to avoid technology-driven education (Herrington et al. 2009b).
Supply teachers with help about the practical and theoretical basis of how to use mobile phones for language teaching (Dashtestani 2013).
Use mobile learning to mediate knowledge construction (Herrington et al. 2009a).
Encourage teachers to adopt a positive attitude towards technology (Dashtestani 2013).
Set the learning environment within an authentic and realistic context, be complex, require investment of time and intellectual resources, require examination from multiple perspectives, require collaboration and reflection, be integrated with assessment, and supported by scaffolding (Herrington & Herrington 2007).

Do not just do the same in another medium (Brown and Mbati 2015).

Learning and teaching materials

Provide monitoring and interactive functions in materials – it’s not enough to just give input (Lu 2008).
Support skills needed for working with mobile technologies (Hockly 2013, Brown and Mbati 2015).
Involve students in development of materials (Wang and Smith 2013).
Try to use minimum bandwidth (issue of cost) or make the download accessible offline (Stockwell 2008).
Ensure access to online resources which are available for language learning (Dashtestani 2013).
Build on the existing preferences of students for social communication, listening to audio, watching videos and reading short texts (Byrne & Diem 2014).
Provide apps for reference resources, audio material, (character recognition : not for our languages), an interesting translation app, exercises or apps to improve their vocabulary and grammar knowledge, writing, spelling and listening skills (Fujimoto 2012).
Enable the students to use language learning applications, checking a dictionary or translator, and watching videos or movies, accessing a website to check and download materials, and for interactive learning among learners (Fujimoto 2012).

Do not put emphasis on the tool but on the learning (Brown and Mbati 2015).

Task creation and type of activities

Participate in activities: This influences your view towards mobile technologies in language learning (Kim et al. 2013).
Design shorter, less demanding tasks for mobiles that can be completed without requiring a heavy cognitive load (Stockwell 2008).
Make the activities readable on a small-sized screen or provide activities that are unrelated to the screen (e.g. listening activities) (Fujimoto 2012).
Engage students in activities with easy-to-use features on mobile devices (Kim et al. 2013).
Create activities that enhance motivation by making them engaging, meaningful, organized and enjoyable (Mockus et al. 2011).
Create collaborative mobile learning practices (Aubusson et al. 2009).
Make some students responsible for creating polls or collecting tweets in answer to a question posed at the end of a class, to be shared in a subsequent lesson (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Prioritize the learners own explorative, constructive, and communicative activities instead of teacher-centered knowledge transfer model of education (Geser 2012).
Give learners outside-class learning tasks that involve interacting with other English users (face-to-face or online) in order to situate learning, involve a learner’s community and add authenticity (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Lower the affective filter (Krashen 1977) with your activities (Kim et al. 2013).
Make learners aware of strategies and ways of use (talk about multitasking and effects) (Coens et al. 2011).
Provide opportunities for your students to be involved in interactive activities, e.g. in chat rooms (Bulut et al. 2015; Götz & Puga 2015; Ordoñana et al. 2015; Van de Vyver & Meunier 2015).
Incorporate tasks relating to learners’ communicative needs within and beyond the classroom (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Allow for learning experiences that are real, rich, and relevant (Geser 2012).
Design a variety of interactive and motivating language learning tasks and activities which are appropriate and well-designed according to students’ proficiency levels (Dashtestani 2013).
Design learning activities using technology in a way that they enhance learning instead of just making something easier (e.g. why remember if I can look it up on Google) (Beale 2006).
Expose learners to language as a dynamic system (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Use open tasks in smaller groups (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Adapt the activity to the device and check what kind of input is needed (Fujimoto 2012).
Provide additional material in areas that students are interested in for extensive reading and listening (Wang and Kozo 2011, Cho and Reinders 2010).
Involve physical movement into activities (supporting cognitive structures) → sorting etc. (Reinders 2014).
Create activities that foster autonomous learning among students (Dashtestani 2013).
Develop tasks that both teachers and students can participate in (Oz 2015).
Make existing class activities more practical and meaningful for language learning by using mobile technologies (Kim et al. 2013).
Create a personalized and meaningful learning experience (Kim et al. 2013).
Offer peer support and discussions about the use of mobile devices (Shohel & Power 2010).
Support interaction between teachers (Shohel & Power 2010).

Avoid using difficult tasks that cause anxiety (Kim et al. 2013).
Do not underestimate influence of attitude (towards tool, feeling of own proficiency) (Stockwell 2010).
Do not separate platform from activity (Ballance 2012).

Skills

Target the following skills (Steel 2012):
- Vocabulary (memorization, access to meaning, contexts for use)
- Reading
- Writing
- Grammar
- Translation tasks
- Speaking and Pronunciation (Bulut et al. 2015; Götz & Puga 2015; Ordoñana et al. 2015; Van de Vyver & Meunier 2015).
Include applications for vocabulary learning that (Österreicher 2012):
- integrate auditive and visual elements
- allow individualization of contents
- provide contextualized examples
- allow for individual sorting of items into categories
- send reminders regularly (Lu 2008)
Create interactive multimedia content to increase students’ listening skills (Dashtestani 2013).
Ask learners to record language practice activities in class and use these recordings collaboratively to help each other correct errors, and to research and reference grammar rules based on common problem areas (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Capture samples of speech and writing from learners working in class for later reflection and repair (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Encourage learners to rehearse speech and writing (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Encourage learners to develop skills in ‘learning how to learn’ and attend mindfully to the learning process (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).

Teacher practices

Make some important considerations before integrating ICTs in your classroom: Do all learners have mobile devices? Are learners willing to use their personal mobile devices as part of their language learning in or out of class? etc. (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Create a positive attitude toward mobile learning and encourage its usage in the language learning classroom (Huang et al. 2007).
Hold on to the tried and tested principles of good education in technology-driven learning (Parsons 2014).
Increase learning flexibility by customizing learning to be a more personalized and learner-centered activity (Cobcroft et al. 2006).
Address issues of equity and access to technology (ETA 2011)
- access to ICT within and amongst the institution
- access to ICT in students’ own homes
- access to effective models of ICT teaching and learning
- skilling teachers in ICT
Provide students with opportunities to explore the technology and encourage them to use it as a learning tool (ETA 2011).
Act as a guide and facilitator (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Encourage learners to record, discuss and document their insights, share their helpful language learning and technology strategies and practices and introduce new ones when needed (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Assess the theory of mobile learning against the following criteria (Cobcroft et al. 2006):
Is it significantly different from current theories of classroom, workplace or lifelong learning?
Does it account for the mobility of learners?
Does it cover both formal and informal learning?
Does it theorize learning as a constructive and social process?
Does it analyze learning as a personal and situated activity mediated by technology?
Consider a framework that takes into account a range of contemporary options, encompassing mobile learning’s lucid possibilities (Cobcroft et al. 2006).
Clarify whether mobile learning can be used meaningfully as far as the learning goals are concerned and whether this is even feasible (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Provide learners with timely feedback and scaffolding (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Incorporate mobile learning meaningfully into the overall concept of the training (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Provide a guide about how learners can use mobile phones for learning (so as to increase motivation) (Fujimoto 2012).
Clarify whether these mobile learning sequences are used as an aid or as an obligatory sequence (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Decide how the learning sequences will be divided into in-classroom teaching, online- and mobile learning phases (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Accompany mobile learning adoption by training for the major constituents (appropriate, adequate and ongoing training on content and management software for supporters and some educators, on content software for most educators, students and parents) (Gannod 2011).
Ask learners to make their own shared class multimedia dictionaries containing examples of new language chunks, definitions, illustrations, translations and recordings of their pronunciation (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Give opportunities for learning to interact socially, negotiate meaning and produce varied and creative communication with peers and with English language users beyond the classroom boundaries of time and place (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Enable learners to remain more focused for longer periods and promote self-esteem and self-confidence (Cobcroft et al. 2006).
Explore the use of mobile devices rather than using face to face practice (Shohel 2010).
Mitigate resistance using ICTs and engage reluctant learners (Cobcroft et al. 2006).
Identify areas where learners need assistance and support (Cobcroft et al. 2006).
Invest time developing activities and using the device before using it in the classroom (Lefoe et al. 2009).
Use mobile devices to complement fixed technologies (UNESCO 2012).
Remember that different devices are more suitable for different activities (Kukulska-Hulme 2009, Stockwell 2010).
Make use of a varied media use and address different types of learners (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Make mobile learning part of a blend of learning activities which offer a variety of ways to address learning needs (M-Learning project 2001-2004).
Be aware of language learners’ existing uses and cultures of use (Stockwell and Hubbard 2013).
Be aware of the relationship between types of devices and activities that can be used (Fujimoto 2012).
Provide the students with a variety of applications because it corresponds to their lifestyle (they have a variety of applications already) (Steel 2012).
Push but respect boundaries (allow the user some control over push messages (Stockwell and Hubbard 2013).
Gain an idea of non-learning purposes of mobile applications of your students and bring them to learning purposes in class (Fujimoto 2012).
Understand what is most important to be learnt in both class and private learning settings, and how what is learnt in both contexts can be linked to the other (Fujimoto 2012).
Reflect on the learning process of the learners and the role of the technological devices (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Improve mobile learning acceptance (Liaw et al. 2010):
- Enhance learners’ satisfaction (key factor!)
- Encourage learners’ autonomy
- Empower system functions
- Enrich interaction and communication activities
Make use of aids like learning assistance systems (automatic feedback) (Huang et al. 2010) → only where appropriate: probably more appropriate for form than for content (Fang 2010).
Maximize the impact of ICT in your classroom by ensuring that you and your students use ICT as an integral part of lessons, present ideas dynamically, and use a range of media (Becta 2006).
Identify how ICTs can be used to meet specific objectives within the English curriculum to improve pupils attainment (Moseley et al.1999).
Collaborate with other educators in your field on the creation of modules with mobile learning and share useful teaching activities (Tai & Ting 2011; Oz 2015).
Make use of cultural differences (Liu et al. 2010).
Use ICTs as a range of teaching tools such as discussion boards, forums, email, raps, web quests, video, and digital photography, e-movies, etc. (ETA 2011).
Integrate ICT in such a way as to require purposeful application and meaningful engagement with the technology (ETA 2011).
Take into account the teachers’ thinking about teaching and learning generally as well as their skills with, attitude to and use of ICT (Higgins and Moseley 2001).
Give students a choice to select the device of their choice (Mockus et al. 2011).
Help students to use their mobile phones for academic purposes (Dashtestani 2013).
Integrate ICT into subject teaching in a way that motivates pupils and enriches learning or stimulates higher-level thinking and reasoning (Hennessy et al. 2005).
Choose ICT applications, activities and approaches that fit your own perspectives on teaching and learning (Hennessy et al. 2005).
Understand what visual literacy is and rethink what learning to read and write means in today’s world (Goodwyn et al. 1997).
Train your competences for content development and processing (Schmitz et al. 2013).
Contribute to learners’ sense of progress and achievement (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2015).
Make sure that you have adequate ICT skills, regular use of ICT equipment, and access to reliable technical support (Moseley et al. 1999).
Keep in mind that real assessment can only occur when students have the opportunity to use the technology to develop essential skills and literacies (ETA 2011).

Do not only employ ICTs in the classroom for reasons of convenience, pressure from school administrators or to entertain the students (Herrington & Kervin 2007).
Do not go backwards in pedagogy as you move forward in technology (do not fall back to older approaches, provide authentic learning environments) (Herrington & Kervin 2007).
Do not expect learners to be able to use all aspects of the mobile technology but train and guide them (Stockwell and Hubbard 2013).
Do not be too overly concerned when students use their mobile devices for in-class purposes other than learning (Kinash et al. 2012).
Do not use technology for the sake of it or as an add-on to a lesson (ETA 2011).

DDL-specific recommendations

Foster aspects of corpus competence/corpus literacy (Kreyer 2008):
- Interpreting the data:
  - Dealing with a wealth of authentic data
  - Gaining knowledge about national varieties and genres
  - Interpreting frequencies
- Corpuslinguistic background: What corpora can do and what they cannot do? (Kreyer 2008)
  - Knowledge about corpus design and individual corpora
  - What is the variety represented?
  - Spoken or written corpus?
  - What genres are represented?
  - What is the size of the corpus?
  - Date of materials
  - Linguistic background knowledge: polysemy and homonymy, lexico-grammar, etc.
- Give learners a very precise, detailed and thorough introduction to corpus-based learning procedures, and it is necessary that the learners acquire some kind of corpus literacy as described above (Mukherjee 2002).
- Give a thorough introduction to the tools and methods of DDL learning in order for learner-centered project phases to be successful (Götz & Mukherjee 2006).
- Make sure your students master the necessary methods and techniques to analyze the corpus and that they are able to detect these abilities (Götz & Mukherjee 2006).
- Predefine forms that will be focused on and make sure that interesting and authentic material is provided (Meunier 2002).
- Make use of teacher-led activities with more guidance which are more effective and are a necessity (Götz 2012; Mauranen 2004; Mukherjee 2002).

Do not leave your students alone with the corpus data since most students do not exactly know what to investigate and how to interpret their findings (Mauranen 2004).
Do not let the corpus/corpora be “read” vertically by your students. DDL learning requires horizontal reading of corpus data and thus students should be exposed to whole texts in their entirety (Braun 2005 & Flowerdew 2009).

5. Conclusion

This output tried to give a brief overview of mobile and data-driven learning in higher education in formal foreign and/or second language learning contexts. The document included various policy recommendations and guidelines on the integration of ICTs in the foreign and second language learning classroom on 9 different levels (technical requirements, budget and cost, safety/security, application, learning and teaching materials, task creation, skills, teacher practices, and DDL-specific recommendations). The guidelines were based on studies, lessons learned, and our own survey results, but it is not a completed list of guidelines and it will be updated regularly. We hope that many language teachers and learners will find these guidelines useful and that they will contribute to better the integration of ICTs in foreign and/or second language learning classrooms in HEI as well as schools.

6. References

Alexander, B. (2004). “Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education.” EDUCAUSE Review, 39 (5), 28-35.

Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & K. Burden (2009). “Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: benefits, obstacles and issues.” Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 233-247.

Ballance, O. J. (2012). “Mobile Language Learning: More than just “the platform.” Language Learning & Technology, 16 (3), 21-23.

Banks, D., Cresswell, J. & J. Ainley (2003). Higher-order Learning and ICT amongst Australian 15-year Olds. Melbourne Australian Council for Educational Research.

Beale, R. (2006). “How to enhance the experience without interfering with it.” ed. M. Sharples. Big Issues in Mobile Learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative. 10-14.#

Becta (2006). “What the Research says about using ICT in English. ICT in the English Curriculum.” [accessed: 21.12.2015]. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1650/67/becta_2003_ wtrs_english_synopticreport_Redacted.pdf.

Bernardini, S. (2004). “Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments.” ed. J. Sinclair. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15-36.

Biber, D., Conrad, S. & R. Reppen (1996). “Corpus-based investigations of language use.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 16, 115-136.

Bjerre, S., Christensen, G. & L. Steinmüller (2009). “Vejledning om mobil e-læring –introduktion til mobil e-læring [Guidance on mobile e-learning – introduction tomobile e-learning].” Temahæfte. May 2009. Aarhus, Denmark, eVidenCenter: Det Nationale Videncenter for e-læring [The National Centre for e-learning]. [accessed: 15.11.2015]. http://www.itst.dk/ferdigheder/e-lering/rapporter-og rapporter/Temahefte _mobil_elering.pdf.

Braun, S. (2005). “From pedagogically relevant corpora to authentic language learning contents.” ReCALL, 17(1), 47-64.

Braun, S., K. Kohn & J. Mukherjee (2006). Corpus technology and language pedagogy: new resources, new tools, new methods. English corpus linguistics; 3. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Brown, T. H. & L. S. Mbati (2015). “Mobile learning : Moving Past the Myths and Embracing the Opportunities.” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16 (2), 115-135.

Bulut, D., Dursun, B. & I. Ercan (2015). “A survey of existing OER resources in the field of language processing and their uptake: Turkey.” http://www.tellop.eu/survey-report-turkey/.

Byrne, J. & R. Diem (2014). “Profiling mobile English language learners.” Jaltcall 10 (1), 3-19.

Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing.

Cho, M. Y. & H. Reinders (2010). “Extensive listening practice and input enhancement using mobile phones: Encouraging out-of-class learning with mobile phones.” TESL – EJ 14(2), 1-7.

Cobb, T. (1997). “Is there Any Measurable Learning from Hands-on Concordancing?” System 25(3), 301-315.

Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J. & A. Bruns (2006). “Mobile learning in review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions.” Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006.

Coens, J. et al. (2011). “Listening to an Educational Podcast while Walking or Jogging. Can Students Really Multitask?” IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 70-76.

Cresswell, A. (2007). “Getting to ‘Know’ Connectors? Evaluating Data-driven Learning in a Writing Skills Course.” eds. E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda & J. Santana. Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 267-288.

Dashtestani, R. (2013). “Implementing mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) in an EFL context: Iranian EFL teachers’ perspectives on challenges and affordances.” The JALT CALL Journal, 9(2), 149–168.

Deimann, M., Neumann, J. & J. Muuß-Merholz (2015). “Whitepaper Open Educational Resources (OER) an Hochschulen in Deutschland – Bestandaufnahme und Potenziale 2015.” open-educational-resources.de: Transferstelle für OER. [accessed: 20.12.2015]. http://open-educational-resources.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/02/Whitepaper-OER-Hochschule-2015.pdf.

Dudeney, G. & N. Hockly (2007). How to Teach English with Technology. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Dudeney, G. & N. Hockly (2014). Going Mobile: Teaching with Hand-Held Devices. Surrey: Delta Publishing.

eMapps (2005-2008). “About eMapps.” [accessed: 18.11.2015]. http://emapps.info/.

European Commission (2013). “European higher education in the world.” [accessed: 20.11. 2015]. http://www.em-a.eu/fileadmin/content/Promo/Erasmus__in_the_world_ layouted.pdf.

European Commission (2015). “Opening up education through new technologies.” [accessed: 21.11.2015. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/education-technology_en.htm.

European OER Repository (2015). “Open Education Europa. The gateway to European innovative learning.” [accessed: 22.11.2015]. http://openeducationeuropa.eu/.

Eurostat (2012). “Tertiary education statistics.” [accessed: 20.11.2015]. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Tertiary_education_statistics#Main_statistical_findings.

Flowerdew, L. (2005). “An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies.” English for Specific Purposes 24, 321-332.

Francis, W. N. (1982). “Problems of assembling and computerizing large corpora.” ed. S. Johansson. Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. 7-24.

Fuchs, T. & L. Woessmann (2004). Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and School. Munich, Centre for Economic Studies.

Fujimoto, C. (2012). “Perceptions of mobile language learning in Australia: How ready are learners to study on the move?” Jaltcall 8 (3), 165-195.

Gannod, G.C. (2011). “Integrating m-learning in a broad context: Issues and recommendations.” IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 291-294.

Geser, G. (2012). “Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012.” [accessed: 12.12.2015]. http://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap_ recommendations.pdf.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). “Emerging Technologies. Mobile APPS for language learning.” Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2-11.

Goodwyn, A. et al. (1997). “The future curriculum in English and IT: how teachers and student-teachers view the relationship.” Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6 (3), 227-240.

Götz, S. & J. Mukherjee (2006). “Evaluation of data-driven learning in university teaching: a project report.” eds. S. Braun, K. Kohn & J. Mukherjee. Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy: New Resources, New Tools, New Methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 49-67.

Götz, S. & K. Puga (2015). “A survey of existing OER resources in the field of language processing and their uptake: Germany.” http://www.tellop.eu/survey-report-germany/.

Granger, S. (2002). “A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research.” Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. eds. S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3-33.

Gut, U. (2007): “Learner corpora in second language prosody research and teaching”, Non-Native Prosody – phonetic description and teaching practice, eds. J. Trouvain & U. Gut. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 145-167.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & S. Brindley (2005). “Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change.“ Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

Herrington, A. & J. Herrington (2007). “Authentic mobile learning in higher education.” AARE 2007 International Educational Research Conference, 28 November 2007, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Herrington, A. Herrington, J. & J. Mantei (2009a). “Design principles for mobile learning.” eds. J. Herrington, A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney & B. Ferry. New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education. Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia: University of Wollongong and the Australian Learning & Teaching Council. 129-138.

Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney I. & B. Ferry (2009b). New technologies, new pedagogies: Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education. Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia: University of Wollongong and the Australian Learning & Teaching Council. 1-14.

Herrington, J. & L. Kervin (2007). “Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms.” Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.

Hethey, M. (2013). “Vom E-Learning zum M-Learning: Mobiles Lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht.” Französisch heute 44 (3), 105-108.

Higgins, S. & D. Moseley (2002). “Raising achievement in literacy through ICT.” ed. M. Monteith. Teaching Primary Literacy with ICT. Open University Press, 2002. 30-45.

Hockly, N. (2013). “Mobile Learning.” ELT Journal 67 (1), 80-84.

Huang, J., Lin, Y. & S. Chuang (2007). “Elucidating user behaviour of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model.” The Electronic Library, 25(5), 585–598.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, T. (1994). “From Printout to Handout: Grammar and Vocabulary Teaching in the Context of Data-driven Learning.” ed. T. Odlin. Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 27-45.

Johns, T. (1997). “Contexts: The Background, Development and Trialling of a Concordance-based´CALL Program.” eds. A. Wichmann et al. Teaching and Language Corpora. London: Longman. 100-115.

Johns, T. (2002). “Data-driven Learning: The Perpetual Challenge.” eds. B. Kettemann & G. Marko. Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July, 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 107-117.

Keengwe, J. (2014). Promoting Active Learning through the Integration of Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Kim, D., Rueckert, D., Kim, D.-J., & D. Seo (2013). “Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning.” Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 52–73. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/kimetal.pdf.

Kinash, S., Brand, J. & T. Mathew (2012). “Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 639-655.

Krashen, S (1977). “Some issues relating to the monitor model”. eds. Brown, H; Yorio, C., R. & Crymes, Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice: On TESOL ’77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, Florida, April 26 – May 1, 1977. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. 144–158.

Kreyer, R. (2008). “Corpora in the Classroom and Beyond.” eds. Felicia Zhang and Beth Barber. Handbook of Research on Computer-Enhanced Acquisition and Learning. New York: Information Science Reference. 422-437.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. London and New York: Routledge.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). “Will mobile learning change language learning?” ReCALL, 21(2), 157-165.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., L. Norris & J. Donohue (2015). “Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: a guide for teachers.” ELT Research Papers 14.07, 1-42.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I. & G. Vavoula (2011). “The Genesis and Development of Mobile Learning in Europe.” ed. D. Parsons. Combining E-Learning and M-Learning: New Applications of Blended Educational Resources. Hershey, Pa., IGI Global. 151-177.

Lahti, J. et al. (2011). “MEL: Mobile Media Enhanced Learning Application.” IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 11-18.

Lefoe, G., Olney, I. W., Wright, R. & A. Herrington (2009). “Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the teachers.” Faculty of Education-Papers, 77.

Lewin, C., Savage, J., Haldane, M. & N. Whitton (2011). The Knowledge Map: Innovative Classroom Practice with Digital Technologies. iTEC Project Evaluation Plan, Deliverable D5.1. February 2011. Brussels, European Schoolnet.

Liaw, S., Hatala, M. & H. Huang (2010). “Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach.” Computers & Education 54, 446-454.

Looi, C., So, H., Toh, Y. & W. Chen (2011). “The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Vol. 6, No. 1, 9–37. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5402pk726546884/fulltext.html.

Lu, M. M. (2008). “Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phone.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, 515-525.

Lys, F. (2013). “The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using Ipads.” Language Learning & Technology 17 (3), 94-116.

Mauranen, A. (2004). “Spoken corpus for an ordinary learner.” ed. J. M. Sinclair. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 89-105.

McQuiggan, S. (2015). Mobile learning: a handbook for developers, educators and learners. Wiley & SAS business series.

Meihami, H. & F. Husseini (2014). “Bringing TTS software into the classroom: the effect of using text to speech software in teaching reading features.” Teaching English with technology 14(1), 23-34.

Meunier, F. (2002): “The pedagogical value of native and learner corpora in EFL grammar teaching” eds. S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 119-141.

Mockus, L., et al. (2011). “The Impact of Mobile Access on Motivation: Distance Education Student Perceptions.” Learning Design at Penn State’s World Campus. Conference paper.

Moseley, D. et al. (1999). “Ways forward with ICT: effective pedagogy using information and communications technology for literacy and numeracy in primary schools.” [accessed: 19.12.2015]. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001369.htm.

Mukherjee, J. (2002). Korpuslinguistik und Englischunterricht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Mukherjee, J. (2006). “Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: the state of the art – and beyond.” eds. S. Braun, S. Kohn & J. Mukherjee. Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 5-24.

Mukherjee, J. (2009). Anglistische Korpuslinguistik. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.

National Centre for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2001a). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000. Washington, DC, NCES.

National Centre for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2001b). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000. Washington, DC, NCES.

OERde16 (2015). “Das OER-Festival 2016: Treffen, Wettbewerbe und Publikationen rund um Open Educational Resources im deutschsprachigen Raum.” [accessed: 15.12.2015]. http://open-educational-resources.de/16/.

Open Education Consortium (OEC) (2015). “About the Open Education Consortium.” [accessed: 22.12.2015]. http://www.oeconsortium.org/about-oec/.

Open Education Europa (2015). “The European Commission’s Opening up Education initiative in a nutshell.” [accessed 22.11.2015]. http://openeducationeuropa.eu/en/ initiative.

Open Educational Quality Initiative (OPAL) (2011). “OEP Guide. Guidelines for Open Educational Practices in Organizations” [accessed: 19.12.2015]. http://oerworkshop.pbworks. com/w/file/fetch/44605120/OPAL-OEP-guidelines.pdf.

Open eLearning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) (2006-2007). “Open eLearning Content Observatory Services.” [accessed: 20.12.2015]. “OLCOS.” http://www.olcos.org/.

Ordoñana, C., Pérez-Paredes, P. Aguado, P. & P. Sánchez (2015). “A survey of existing OER resources in the field of language processing and their uptake: Spain.” http://www.tellop.eu/survey-report-spain/.

Österreicher, M.(2012). “Neue Wege für ein unterrichtsintegriertes Vokabellernen mit digitalen Medien.” Französisch Heute 44 (3), 116-120.

Oz, H. (2015). “An investigation of preservice English teachers’ perceptions of mobile assisted language learning.” English Language Teaching, 8(2), 22-34.

Peters, K. (2007). “m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8 (2).

Petersen, S. & J. Markiewicz (2008). “PALLAS: Personalised Language Learning on Mobile Devices.” Fifth IEEE International Conference On Wireless, Mobile, And Ubiquitous Technology In Education (Wmute 2008).

POERUP (2011-2014). “Policies for OER Uptake.” [accessed: 17.11.2015]. http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page.

Puga, K. & S. Götz (forthcoming). “Keep out of reach of children! Introducing the Corpus of Product Information (CoPI) and its potential for corpus-based genre teaching.”

Quinn, C. (2000). “mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, in your Pocket Learning. LineZine, Fall 2000.” [accessed: 20.11.2015] http://www. linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm.

Reinders, H. (2014). “Touch and Gesture-Based Language Learning: Some Possible Avenues for Research and Classroom Practice.” Teaching English with Technology 14 (1), 3-8.

Römer, U. (2008). “7. Corpora and language teaching.” eds. A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter. 112-130.

Schmitz, D., D. May & K. Lensing (2013).”Mobile Learning in der Hochschule.” Journal Hochschuldidaktik 1-2, 35-38.

Sharples, M. et al (2010). “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age.” ed. B. Bachmair. Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 87-99.

Shohel, M. M. C., & Power, T. (2010). “Introducing mobile technology for enhancing teaching and learning in Bangladesh: teacher perspectives.” Open learning, 25(3), 201-215.

Steel, C. (2012). “Fitting learning into life: Language students’ perspectives on benefits of using mobile apps.” eds. M. Brown, M. Hartnett & T. Stewart. Future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings of ascilite conference Wellington 2012. 875-880.

Stevens, V. (1991). “Concordance-based Vocabulary Exercises: A Viable Alternative to Gapfillers.” eds. T. Johns & P. King. Classroom Concordancing ELR Journal 4, 47-63.

Stockwell, G. (2008). “Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning.” ReCALL 20(3), 253-270.

Stockwell, G. (2010). “Using Mobile Phones for Vocabulary Activities: Examining the Effect of the Platform.” Language Learning & Technology 14 (2), 95-110.

Stockwell, G. & P. Hubbard (2013). “Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning.” Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning.

Tai, Y., & Y. L. Ting (2011). “Adoption of mobile technology for language learning: Teacher attitudes and challenges.” The JALT CALL Journal, 7(1), 3-18.

The Mobile Learning Network (MoLeNET) (2007-2010). “The Mobile Learning Network (MoLeNET)” [accessed: 14.11.2015]. http://www.molenet.org.uk/.

Thomas, M. & H. Reinders (2010). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology. London: Continuum.

Tribble, C. & G. Jones (1997). Concordances in the Classroom. A Resource Book for Teachers. Houston, TX: Athelstan.

UNESCO (2002). “Information and Communication Technology in Education: A Curriculum for Schools and a Programme of Teacher Development. Paris, UNESCO. [accessed: 15.11.2015]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001295/129538e.pdf.

UNESCO (2008). “ICT Competency Standards for Teachers: Policy Framework.” Paris, UNESCO. [accessed: 15.11.2015]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/ 156210e.pdf.

UNESCO (2011). “Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies.” Paris, UNESCO. [accessed 15.11.2015]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002118/211842e.pdf.

UNESCO (2012). “Turning on Mobile Learning in Europe: Illustrative Initiatives and Policy Implications.” Paris, UNESCO. [accessed: 15.11.2015]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0021/002161/216165E.pdf.

UNESCO (2013). “Policy Guidelines for Mobile Learning.” Paris, UNESCO. [accessed: 16.11.2015]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002196/219641e.pdf.

Van de Vyver, J. & F. Meunier (2015). “A survey of existing OER resources in the field of language processing and their uptake: Belgium.” http://www.tellop.eu/survey-report-belgium/.

Wang, S. & H. Kozo (2011). “Developing English Reading Comprehension Ability via Mobile Phones.” IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 212-216.

Wang, S. & S. Smith (2013). “Reading and grammar learning through mobile phones.” Language Learning & Technology 17(3), 117-134.

Output 7 – Language Learning in Higher Education Institutions: The role of mobile learning and the possibilities of data-driven language learning.

Output 07

Policy Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions

Document Information

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Background

HE Institutions in Europe

Mobile Learning in HE Institutions

3.3 Data-Driven Language Learning

Policy Recommendations for Mobile Learning in HE

4. Policy Recommendations for HEI and language learning in formal settings

Technical requirements/mobile devices

Budget and cost

Safety/Security

Application (usage)

Learning and teaching materials

Task creation and type of activities

Skills

Teacher practices

DDL-specific recommendations

5. Conclusion

6. References