Article in Ñemit ỹ RÃ Revista Multilingüe de Lengüa Sociedad y Educación · January 021 doi: 10. 47133/nemityra010210 citations reads 693 authors

ISSN 2707-1642
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
112 
 
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.