Publicação
Effectiveness of Mobile Apps in Language Learning: A Comparative Study of Duolingo and Traditional Classroom Methods
| Resumo: | Education is suffering a massive modernisation, and the field of Language Learning is no exception. Traditional methods used to teach a language from scratch are being challenged by contemporary Information Systems, especially by Mobile Language Learning Apps (LLAs). The popularity, convenience and gamified experience of the most popular LLA - Duolingo – has attracted millions of users to learn a language every day. This study develops both approaches and compares them, testing its effectiveness in Language teaching, in a complex Language setting: Chinese Mandarin. Data associated with the performance in language acquisition (LA), was mainly collected twice: before the study, in a Diagnostic test and afterwards, in a Final Exam that comprehended specific topics like Characters recognition, Listening comprehension and Pronunciation. In a study of 31 final participants, Traditional approach students, scored on average, greater than Duolingo students, in every aspect of evaluation, including the Final Score which is divided in a Writing Part and an Oral one. Although, the efficiency of the Duolingo group was proved to be higher, on average, than the ones on Traditional side. Both groups, overall scored poorly in certain areas, such as Character recognition, exposing the complexity of the Chinese Language from scratch, although the difference between both is observable. The lack of dialogue capabilities is also unimpressive from the Duolingo approach, where students are not able to answer a simple question, hindering fluency. Duolingo, as it stands, is not able to fully replace a professor, by not providing optimal results, despite its potential as a complementary tool, due to its constant access ability and for the introduction of new vocabulary. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Calheiros, Guilherme Oliveira da Direita |
| Assunto: | m-Learning Language Learning App Duolingo Chinese Language Traditional Education Learning SDG 4 - Quality education SDG 8 - Decent work and economic growth SDG 9 - Industry, innovation and infrastructure SDG 10 - Reduced inequalities SDG 17 - Partnerships for the goals |
| Ano: | 2024 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade Nova de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório Institucional da UNL |
| Resumo: | Education is suffering a massive modernisation, and the field of Language Learning is no exception. Traditional methods used to teach a language from scratch are being challenged by contemporary Information Systems, especially by Mobile Language Learning Apps (LLAs). The popularity, convenience and gamified experience of the most popular LLA - Duolingo – has attracted millions of users to learn a language every day. This study develops both approaches and compares them, testing its effectiveness in Language teaching, in a complex Language setting: Chinese Mandarin. Data associated with the performance in language acquisition (LA), was mainly collected twice: before the study, in a Diagnostic test and afterwards, in a Final Exam that comprehended specific topics like Characters recognition, Listening comprehension and Pronunciation. In a study of 31 final participants, Traditional approach students, scored on average, greater than Duolingo students, in every aspect of evaluation, including the Final Score which is divided in a Writing Part and an Oral one. Although, the efficiency of the Duolingo group was proved to be higher, on average, than the ones on Traditional side. Both groups, overall scored poorly in certain areas, such as Character recognition, exposing the complexity of the Chinese Language from scratch, although the difference between both is observable. The lack of dialogue capabilities is also unimpressive from the Duolingo approach, where students are not able to answer a simple question, hindering fluency. Duolingo, as it stands, is not able to fully replace a professor, by not providing optimal results, despite its potential as a complementary tool, due to its constant access ability and for the introduction of new vocabulary. |
|---|