Designing a mobile language learning system basedon lightweight learning objects

Miloš Milutinović & Aleksandra Labus &

Vukašin Stojiljković & Zorica Bogdanović &

Marijana Despotović-Zrakić

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract This paper investigates the possibilities in the area of application of mobiletechnologies for language learning. The primary goal is to design a mobile system forlearning of the Japanese language with a clear separation of content and presentation, and toleverage the learners’ interest in the Japanese language. Both the technical and the languagelearning perspectives are discussed. A reusable, lightweight model of learning objects withcompact content and a reduced metadata set is presented. These objects are stored in asimple learning object repository that can deliver them to any client over the Internet. Amobile application is designed to use the learning object repository as its content provider,while defining its own method of presentation suitable for smaller screens of mobile devices.For the purpose of evaluation, an experiment was conducted within the e-learning system atthe Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade. Research findings haveindicated that the developed mobile application has a positive effect on the students’ interestin the subject matter.

Keywords Learningobjects .Mobileassisted language learning .Multimediaapplications .L2Japanese learning

Multimed Tools ApplDOI 10.1007/s11042-013-1704-5

M. Milutinović (*) : A. Labus : Z. Bogdanović :M. Despotović-ZrakićFaculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilića 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbiae-mail: milosm@elab.rs

A. Labuse-mail: aleksandra@elab.rs

Z. Bogdanoviće-mail: zorica@elab.rs

M. Despotović-Zrakiće-mail: maja@elab.rs

V. StojiljkovićInstitute for the Serbian Language of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Đure Jakšića 9,11000 Belgrade, Serbiae-mail: stefanvukasins@yahoo.com

1 Introduction

The needs of the modern society make it necessary to develop new paradigms in the field ofeducation, especially those that rely on mobile technologies. Mobile technologies represent aviable solution for learning performed on the move and with heavy time constraints. Theyallow learners to control the preferred pace and the location of learning and to shift towardsstudent-centered learning. This coincides with the prevailing definition of omnipresentlearning: “learn any place, any time” [20, 49]. However, a problem gains significance whenthis power is put into the hands of learners. Increasing the learners’ freedom increases theimportance of their self-motivation and interest for the area of study.

Modern technologies implemented in the field of a second language learning (L2) make itpossible to access a multitude of language resources in the form of books, dictionaries,literature in foreign languages, as well as various multimedia resources. However, theseresources are usually not very well suited for use in the mobile environment. Mobileapplications specifically targeted at language learning require that the designers adjust thelearning environment and the presentation of educational content in order to find anoptimum model of interaction with the users. Innovative methods of presenting information,imaginative interaction patterns and edutainment concept make the learning material moreaccessible to less motivated learners [4, 35]. Multimedia content can especially be helpful tolearners by enabling multimodal learning, but methods of delivery, storage and presentationneed to be adjusted to the capabilities of mobile devices and the cognitive capacity oflearners in mobile contexts. Therefore, mobile applications for language learning should bedesigned to exploit the characteristics of mobile environment, but also to foster the learningprocess and to use any means to additionally motivate the learners. Placing the burden onlearners by requiring the execution of complex learning tasks, and presenting content andmultimedia not adjusted to their devices should be avoided; user interfaces should be kept assimple as possible to allow the learners to concentrate on their tasks [19].

The main subject of this paper is examining the possibilities of applying mobile technol-ogies in language learning. The main aim was the design, implementation, and evaluation ofa system for learning the Japanese language based on web and mobile technologies, and oflearning objects that could be reusable in different contexts. The system should increasestudents’ interest in the Japanese language through providing features of mobility andflexibility in the learning process. In order to achieve this aim, learning objects areenvisioned as the central concept of the system since they are a good concept for structuringthe content in mobile learning when appropriately adjusted [10]. Another important conceptin the domain of presentation and interaction with the user is edutainment, which is aneffective technique for increasing the students’ interest and motivation for learning [26, 35,39]. The developed mobile application for learning the Japanese language was designed tobe flexible, easily expandable and adjustable to the specifics of the mobile environment.

For this research, the Japanese language was selected because it is a world-class languagewith barely any speakers in Serbia, where the research was conducted, but with a largepotential for expansion due to the widespread products of the Japanese culture—martial arts,origami, shogi, anime, manga, etc. Complex Japanese scripts also require special attentionand present a fertile ground for implementation of diverse approaches to learning.

The aim of the evaluation was to investigate the impact of the developed application on thelearners’ interest in language learning and to ascertain which system and application features hadthe most influence on the learners. The goal was to acquire data that would provide a basis forfuture improvements and generalization of the system. Numerous researchers have pointed outthat learners’ interest is one of the most important motivational factors for the quality of learning

Multimed Tools Appl

processes and learning outcomes [29, 30]. They concluded that if the learners’ interest in an areaof study increases, the recall of new information will also be increased [2]. Interest can beobserved through two main components: individual and situational interests. While the individ-ual interest refers to someone’s long term and stable affinity for a particular subject area or object,the situational interest is more affective and immediate [2, 29]. Situational interest is broughtabout by stimuli from the environment [29]. Consequently, if the environment for languagelearning is well designed, interesting and entertaining, it should increase the learner’s attention,and allow for a recall of more information.

1.1 Mobile technologies in language learning

Modern technologies can have an important role in language learning. In the domain of desktopcomputers, a number of comprehensive professional language applications are available. Webapplications often employ elements of social networking and allow for a free creation andexchange of learning resources. These applications can be used through a mobile web browser.However, the usefulness of these applications is limited due to the inability to use thecapabilities and hardware of users’mobile devices including the standard interface components[21], as well as due to the problems caused by limited connectivity. Mobile applications oftentake a supporting role and usually present educational content in smaller chunks.

A tendency of desktop, online and mobile applications to converge following thedevelopment of their respective platforms is apparent. With mobile platforms that bringmore power and an improved connectivity, new possibilities such as seamless and ubiqui-tous language learning unfold [38]. Learning is being pushed closer to the learners bybuilding systems which include nonstandard devices such as intelligent TV sets [14], whilethe mobile devices take over the role of creating seamlessly connected learning experiencesand make a pedagogical shift to a participatory student-centered learning [32, 36].

Mobile learning depends on the learner motivation and the ability to control their learning,which places the learners’ personal factors and behavioral patterns into an important position[45]. Well-designed mobile applications exert a motivating effect on language learners andgenerally offer enough studying opportunities in order to create a positive impact on thelearning process [49]. It has also been proven that providing an opportunity to learn in aninformal environment increases the amount of time students invest in learning [43].

In the past, the usability of mobile devices in language learning was limited by theirtechnical characteristics, primarily their low resolution screens, cumbersome input methods,limited memory, processing capacity, and sporadic Internet connectivity [9]. Technicalaspects and recommendations for maximum learning effectiveness were considered by manyresearchers [25]. However, modern devices and platforms mostly solve these problems andhave built-in GPS, cameras, sensors, accelerometers, and compasses that are valuablesources of context information [15]. Smartphone web browsers are capable of loading anddisplaying web pages in their standard form, which allows for an easy use of online learningapplications. The Internet also offers an array of services that can be used even if they are notdirectly intended for learning. Common examples are services like Google Translate, RSSfeeds in foreign languages, spell checkers, alphabet converters, etc. In the end, the learningprocess can be significantly enriched by including interactions with teachers and otherstudents. This can be implemented by using simple collaboration mechanisms like wikis,chat rooms, forums or more complex systems that provide a cyber face-to-face interactionand collaborative virtual learning environments [27].

The impact of mobile platforms on students’ learning habits was analyzed in a 3 yearresearch [46] where the students were allowed to interchangeably use PCs and mobile

Multimed Tools Appl

devices in the English language learning. Although the students mainly chose PCs, a trend ofgrowing popularity of mobile devices was observed. The conclusion was that the executionof the same activities on mobile devices required substantially more time, but some studentsstill kept using them. It was theorized that this stems from the fact that mobile devices areoften used on the move, for example in public transportation. Although this required agreater input of time on their part, it usually led to a conversion of previously unused timeinto a useful learning time.

A number ofworks deal with the use ofmobile devices in language learning and their integrationwith other modern technologies. In the study [50] the authors explore strategies and approaches tolearning in an environment where the formal classroom learning is combined with informallearning. The key element of the study is a mobile application that is used for content creationand interaction with other students. Further, another study suggests using a similar system thatcombines GPS-enabledmobile devices with the Internet in order to tag and describe locations in thestudents’ environment in the language they are studying. This made the students participate incontent creation and made learning easier by linking educational content with locations familiar tostudents [8]. The learning context plays an important part in both studies. The study [12] considersthe granulation of the learning context in detail, at the levels of location and individual objects, incombination with four approaches to displaying information with different levels of automation.

Considering technologies, the Android OS is currently a mobile operating system with thelargest number of users in the world. Android applications are used in various spheres of humanactivities [48]. The Android OS supports different technologies and resources in a way similar toregular desktop operating systems and enables the development of a high quality user interface.

1.2 Learning objects in mobile learning

Learning objects are a concept of e-learning that denotes small, compact educational unitsfocused on achieving a specific educational goal [11]. The nature of educational content forlanguage learning allows it to be finely granulated and distributed and makes it a good matchwith learning objects that can be used to enrich the learning process. Although differentauthors provide different definitions [34], most of them put the emphasis on their charac-teristics: smaller scope, reusability, relative independence, and the possibility of aggregation.Accordingly, the learning objects are suitable for use in a mobile environment.

Some definitions of learning objects attempt to define a universal framework for furtherdevelopment while others attach more importance to practical problems and concentrate oncertain characteristics of learning objects. An example is the IEEELOM standard which defineslearning objects as any entities, digital or non-digital, that can be used for learning, educationand training [23]. On the other hand, L’Allier defines a learning object as the smallestindependent structural experience that contains a goal, a learning activity and the knowledgeassessment [28]. In his work, Polsani criticizes both definitions [42], the IEEE’s for being toogeneral and impractical, and that of L’Allier’s for limiting the reusability of learning objects bydemanding a defined goal, method and mechanism of assessment beforehand. His definitiondescribes a learning object as an independent, self-contained unit of educational content that canbe reused in different learning contexts. A useful review and categorization of the existingdefinitions from open literature built around used terminology is given in McGreal’s work [34].

Most of the features that make learning objects powerful stem from their heavy reliance onmetadata. Metadata can describe the learning object content in several ways, comprising boththe technical and the educational descriptive data. Different metadata models and standards forlearning objects have been developed, IEEE LOM [23] being among the most prominent. Theuse of metadata allows for easier and automated searching and indexing of learning objects. It

Multimed Tools Appl

also opens up a number of possibilities related to the concept of semantic web, including theestablishment of relations between resources and semantic enrichment based on the valuescontained in the metadata fields. Multimedia can be part of educational content or represent itsingle-handedly in the form of instructional videos and interactive applets. Such content canespecially benefit from the use of metadata that allows for efficient management, organizationand retrieval. Metadata can describe technical characteristics of multimedia important for theirplayback on users’ devices, and the semantic features that describe the content at a higher level[44]. By embedding links and other resources into video clips, a higher level of multimedia andeducational experience can be offered to the learners in the form of hypervideo. The richness oftemporal, logical, semantic, and spatial relations between the content of different forms presentwithin a single hypervideo educational unit can provide a wider perspective to learners and iswell suited for presenting complex, dynamic systems [37].

Longmire’s recommendations consider the design and the structure of learning objects, namelythe language, terminology consistency, understandability, screen layout, avoidance of cross-referencing between objects, keyword searchability and uniform distribution of content [31].When the constraints of themobile environment are taken into consideration, it becomes necessaryto adjust learning objects to a certain extent, especially in the domain of their presentation.Churchill gives a set of recommendations about the design of mobile learning objects intendedfor presentation on small screens of mobile devices, mainly about different ways of displaying andrepeating the content on a limited surface while avoiding the complexity of the user interface [10].

2 The J-GO system

The J-GO system consists of two main components: a learning object repository and anAndroid mobile application. Both components interact with learning objects that representthe core of the system. A special, simplified model of learning objects was designed to be usedprimarily in the mobile environment, but also to be sufficiently compatible with other, existingformats and usable in different contexts. The learning object repository stores learning objectsand their metadata and allows clients to search and request individual objects. A simple webinterface for adding and editing learning objects was designed. The mobile application candownload objects from the repository and present them to the user. The application is onlyloosely connected to the repository and its main functionality is to work with standard learningobjects and display their content. Repository does not know of the application’s existence andwill serve any client that complies to its API. The model of the entire system is shown in Fig. 1.

2.1 Learning objects

A model of highly reusable mobile learning objects was designed as the initial part of thisresearch. An XML binding was defined, allowing for these objects to be serialized in theXML format. An online repository was created to handle storage and delivery of learningobjects. The language-learning context and the characteristics of the mobile environmentwere taken into consideration. The objects were designed for high reusability by removingcomplex interactions and by reducing the amount of context contained within them.

Learning objects can contain educational content of variable types and volume. Thiscontent is described using metadata, which is an integral component of learning objects.Figure 2 shows the model of educational content for learning objects that were developed.This model represents a basic, expandable template that defines learning objects that the J-GO application will natively support.

Multimed Tools Appl

Each learning object can contain a number of elements, and each element can contain anumber of smaller, “content” elements. Main elements are word and character groups, fun factsand tests. Word groups contain words, character groups contain characters, and tests containquestions. Fun facts are somewhat different from other educational content (words, characters,questions) and they are not intended to be delivered in groups since they are usually of largervolume. A simple aggregationmodel is supported. An object can contain other learning objects,but without any additional context information about their relationship.

In order to cater to possible specific requests, individual elements can be placed in a „simplelearning object” that contains a single element and a minimal amount of metadata. According to thedefinition of learning objects given in the IEEELOMstandard [23], these simplified objects can stillbe considered full-fledged learning objects, at the lowest, atomic level of aggregation. However,other authors criticize this definition [42], claiming that it is too impractical and broad, and limited inits usefulness. The J-GO application was not designed to work with these atomic objects directly,since the download of a large amount of individual objects would incur a large overhead caused byrepetitivemetadata unsuitable for such small elements likewords and characters. In order to accountfor all possible scenarios, the repository can simply generate these objects as needed from thedatabase that holds all of the educational content relevant to this system. Simple metadata can alsobe generated and attached automatically. On the other hand, regular learning objects first need to beconstructed by a human user (preferably a teacher) and stored in the repository.

The repository was developed using the PHP language and stores learning objects in aMySQL relational database. It can also accept and store objects of other formats, and referencethem by their path on the server, or store links to their original location. For transfer and storageoutside the repository, a simple XML format was defined. A single learning object mainlycorresponds to a single lesson in the learning context, and to a single XML file. Multimedia

Fig. 1 Model of J-GO system

Multimed Tools Appl

elements (images, audio, video) are referenced by their URLs and can be downloaded separatelyfrom the learning object. The application can download these elements later, or need notdownload them at all, based on the user’s preferences.

Fig. 2 Model of learning object content

Fig. 3 Web interface for learning object assembly

Multimed Tools Appl

Figure 3 shows a simple web interface developed for creating and editing learning objects.This interface allows teachers to assemble objects from available educational elements, to addmetadata records, and even to add new elements (words, characters, etc.) to the database.

Metadata is an important component of learning objects that allows storing, indexing andbrowsing of objects in a repository based on a certain criteria; aggregating them to createlarger, more complex objects; and their re-use in different contexts and applications. Themetadata model used in this work (Fig. 4) was developed by creating an application profileof the existing IEEE LOM [23].

The basic model was simplified for the needs of the J-GO application and the 3.Meta-Metadata, 6.Rights, 8.Annotation, and 9.Classification elements of IEEE LOM were re-moved. Other elements were kept, but in a reduced scope. Another change, suitable for thecontext in which the objects will be used, was made. It was assumed that learning objects inone language will not be useful to speakers of other languages, so the possibility of usingmultilanguage metadata was removed, further simplifying the underlying model. This wasdone by replacing all of the language-flexible LangString attributes defined in the IEEELOM with CharacterString attributes.

General data about a learning object are stored in the 1.General section. This includes thename and the identifier of a learning object, its description intended for those that will usemetadata (teachers, course builders), the language of content and metadata, keywords, therole in aggregation and the level of aggregation of an object. The last two elements usestandard LOMv1.0 vocabularies for their values. Information about the status of an objectwas removed from 2.Lifecycle, while the version was preserved. A complex array ofinformation about authors, dates and types of contribution was replaced with twoattributes—Author and Date. 4.Technical contains only the address of object and its format.Similarly, 5.Educational was simplified by keeping only the information about contentdifficulty and average amount of time needed for completion. Finally, 7.Relation was keptfor its role in defining the relations between aggregated objects and by marking the order inwhich the objects should be completed. Finally, the metadata for each learning object areserialized in XML format, along with the educational content. The binding of metadata toXML is consistent with binding defined in the IEEE 1484.12.3-2005 standard [24].

Fig. 4 Model of learning object metadata

Multimed Tools Appl

The J-GO XML files either contain or reference the entire educational content and metadataof a single learning object. This can be compared to the Package Interchange Files (PIF) definedby the IMS Content Packaging (CP) specification and expanded by Sharable Content ObjectReference Model (SCORM) standards and specifications (Fig. 5). PIF files are packages with aseparate manifest, containing a metadata specification among other things, and content. Thecontent is mostly comprised from browser-openable files, most often in the HTML format. Thecontent is rarely given in a form of links that lead to resources and is mostly packed inside thefile, as a structure of files and folders along with all XML and DTD schemas mentioned in themanifest. The J-GO XML files are more lightweight and since all multimedia resources arerepresented as links, the applications can decide when to acquire them. The PIF files are mostlyused to ensure interoperability between different LMS systems, generally serving a purpose oftransport packages. In such systems the user must have an Internet connection in order to viewthe educational content. This content is served in the form of HTML pages where it is mixedwith markup and style data, so it must be displayed using a web browser. In the J-GO system,the learning objects are delivered directly to the user and do not contain any additional markup.The Internet connection is only needed for initial download, and not for the actual use oflearning objects. The only downside to this system is the requirement that the user must have aspecial application that can parse the J-GO XML files. However, since the objects themselvesare described by simple markup, a conversion service could be designed that would take the J-GO objects, retrieve their external resources, and produce and pack equivalent HTML pageswith retrieved resources in a PIF file. This would ensure interoperability with a number oflearningmanagement systems, while still keeping the original format and all of its advantages inthe cases when the communication is done directly with the user.

Fig. 5 Comparison between IMS CP/SCORM and J-GO learning objects

Multimed Tools Appl

2.2 J-GO mobile application

The first step in the development process was to gather data about the students’ languageproficiency, learning habits, and modalities of mobile phone usage. The initial choice of theAndroid platform as the basis for development was validated by the fact that most of the studentshad Android smartphones. The results of the questionnaire also influenced our considerationsabout the amount of multimedia and interactivity that the application should possess. Theactivities designed in the first phase included displaying of words, kana and kanji characters, asimple activity targeted at performing writing exercises, a test of knowledge, reviewing userstatistics and the core lesson system that binds everything together. These activities roughlycorrespond to the types of educational content contained in the learning objects. Lessons are arepresentation of specific learning objects and present loosely structured content to the users.Other activities present the same content in tables or searchable lists in order to allow quickaccess and review of individual language elements. This allows the students to concentrate on theactivities and aspects of the Japanese language they prefer.Without forcing the students to followa certain learning path or use more advanced and complex activities, the application can be usedin different learning contexts depending on the needs and characteristics of the learner and thelearning process. The application provides the downloading of multimedia elements whenneeded and selectively caches them for a period of time. This optimizes the Internet connectionand the phone memory usage and alleviates some of the potential problems caused by badconnectivity that was, per results of the first questionnaire, a common problem for the students.

A common obstacle for most learners in acquiring the Japanese language proficiency isthe complex script that is substantially different from the Western writing systems. For thisreason, a lot of work was invested into developing a versatile activity for writing exercisesthat would be based around the touch-screen functionality available in most of the today’ssmartphones. It was shown that the skill of logographic handwriting is associated withreading and that finger movement helps learners remember the characters more easily [33].Another study pointed out that the use of advanced multimedia solutions that show writingguidelines and recognize and correct the users’ writing allow learners to achieve a fasterretention of characters [47]. The complexities of developing such a system limited us tousing a simpler version built on a self-learning principle—i.e., one without the automatedgrading performed by the application. The advantage of this simpler solution is that itpresents a simpler model of interaction, while still keeping a few unobtrusive functionalitiesthat can be utilized if the user desires.

The first version of the application was presented to five philology students who took partin a discussion about the possible improvements of the application. The presentation tookthe form of a group discussion where the students were encouraged to state their opinionsand discuss the interface and functionalities with both the presenter and among themselves,resembling a casual thinking aloud/constructive interaction approach to usability testing[18]. The process was also supported by an open-question questionnaire whose mainpurpose was to help guide the discussion. The comments received were mostly positiveand the application was viewed as a useful tool in assisting the Japanese language learning.The main criticism was about the perceived simplicity and the lack of multimedia content;the writing activity was considered as the most interesting one, and a suggestion was givento add audio clips of word pronunciation. The comments were taken into account and severalchanges to the application were made. In addition to a few smaller improvements to the userinterface targeted at improving the clarity and ease of use, two new elements with a strongmotivational character were added. The first was a memory game, targeted at improving theusers’ character retention through a game, while the second was a system of rewards. These

Multimed Tools Appl

rewards were designed to contain fun and interesting facts about Japan and different kinds ofmultimedia content. Following this decision, a new type of content, “fun fact” was defined inthe learning object content model. Mimicking social networking trends, the activity forviewing user statistics was improved to allow the selection of “rivals” with whom the userscould compare their progress.

Modifications that were made on the application did not influence its modular architecture.The core elements are the domain objects, which generally correspond to educational elementspresent in the learning objects. The structure and relationships of these objects are constant andindependent of the ways different modules choose to present them to the user. For instance,Kanji objects are used in several activities, including both the word and character reviewactivities, and the memory game activity that was implemented later on. A partial class diagramof application’s domain objects is shown in Fig. 6. Relationships between the LearningObjectclass and classes that represent educational content were omitted from the diagram for the sakeof brevity since they mimic the relationships in the learning object data model (Fig. 2).

Domain objects are persisted in the local database which is accessed through a broker. Thedatabase broker represents the interface to the database and all components of the applicationhave access to its functionality. It is responsible for loading the language resources from thedatabase when needed and keeping related records with them. The database is implementedusing the SQLite relational database management system that is strongly supported on theAndroid platform; however, the database broker abstracts all of the specifics of dealing with thedatabase allowing the underlying system to potentially be changed with no impact on theapplication core. Similar components abstract calls to the mobile OS and to the resources thatare stored online. The former component relies on Android’s shared preferences system to storesimple application data, its local file system to read data files and parse them (including theXML learning objects), and also performs dynamic loading and caching of images andprovision and temporary storage and releasing of audio clips of word pronunciation. The lattercomponent is tasked with the communication with online services. This includes the indepen-dent learning object repository, and another web service, which remotely stores user data for themobile application. This process is carried out in the background, independently from thecurrent state of the application and without blocking the interaction with the user. Thisseparation of core application from the specifics of the system was done in order to ensure abetter portability of the application to different platforms, since all of the system calls are hiddenfrom the application logic. Although differences between mobile platforms are such that direct

Fig. 6 Partial class diagram of domain objects used in the mobile application

Multimed Tools Appl

portability between them is extremely difficult [21], this type of architecture makes theapplication future-proof to an extent, allowing a painless transfer to new versions of the alreadyfragmented Android platform, and possibly easier transfer to present and future platforms thatmight support Java like BlackBerry and Ubuntu Mobile.

The activities are built as modules that encompass user interface and business logic. Theinterface uses basic elements provided by the Android OS. The dynamic interface providesan easy use of all functions provided by the application. As the learning process itself doesnot require any specific, complex processing in the domain of business logic, but insteaddepends on the quality of the presentation of language resources and interactivity, themajority of application logic is closely connected to the presentation.

When starting the application for the first time, the user is asked to answer severalquestions that will determine the initial set of learning objects to be downloaded and storedlocally. These questions include the language the learner uses, which is the main criterion oflearning object selection, and the desired difficulty and length of lessons, which is used toadditionally filter or aggregate its elements. After the download and installation of thelearning objects, the main screen of the application is shown to the user, with six tabs thatrepresent the different sections from which all activities can be accessed: Learn, Words,Writing, Tests, Profile, and Trivia.

The first tab, „Learn”, displays a list of available lessons. For each lesson there is a name, animage, and a number of content-describing icons. The state of completion of the lessons isdisplayed using background colors that make them easily distinguishable. Selecting one of thelessons displays its content to the user in the form of sections that need to be completed before atest of knowledge can be started. The screen initially shown to the user, the standard startingscreen of the application and the screen showing the lesson content are shown in Fig. 7.

The “Words” tab lists the words from all of the installed learning objects; the user canfilter these words using the text input field. Additional information can be shown for each ofthe words: the word written using Latin, kana and kanji scripts, its translation in the languagecurrently used, and the audio clip of the word being pronounced, if available (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7 Installation screen (left), starting screen (center), lesson content screen (right)

Multimed Tools Appl

The “Writing” tab offers access to several activities for listing and displaying details of kanaand kanji characters, setting up and starting a memory game as well as starting a writingexercise. Statistics concerning the usage of each activity are also given on this screen. Theactivities for kana/kanji browsing list these characters in tables, distributed over several pages,where the user can get additional information by selecting a character. All of the kana characterswere provided, along with a smaller set of about 60 elementary kanji characters. Additionalinformation about a character includes its pronunciation, stroke order, and an example showingits use in a word; kanji characters additionally display the meaning of the character and itspronunciations written in both Latin and hiragana scripts. In the memory game activity the usermust pair up the Japanese and the Latin writings of the Japanese characters. The size of thegame board is configurable and it is possible to select a set of the characters that will be used forthe game. The “Writing” tab and relevant activities are shown in Fig. 9.

The writing exercise allows the user to write freely on the empty screen using the touch-screen functionality, or to select and display a character in the form of a semi-transparent

Fig. 9 From left to right: “Writing” tab, hiragana table, kanji display activity, memory game

Fig. 8 Word list and word display activity

Multimed Tools Appl

guideline (Fig. 10). This activity can be adjusted to the users’ needs thoroughly by changingscreen/paint colors; width, color, and position of guidelines; and the transparency andconfiguration of its interface.

Of all activities provided in the J-GO mobile application, the writing exercise activity is themost complex. This activity relies on a number of classes in order to achieve its functionality,modularity, and independence from other activities (modules). These classes are shown in Fig. 11.The writing exercise is loosely coupled with other activities—it can be started by any otheractivity and it accepts two optional parameters: information about the context in which it isrunning and the array of characters that the user can display. If these parameters are not provided,the activity will fall back to default values. Context information is used to change the innerworking of the activity in some scenarios; for instance, if the user is working on a lesson when thewriting exercise is started, only certain characters will be displayed, and the user will not be ableto hide the guidelines during the exercise.

Fig. 11 Classes and components comprising the writing exercise activity

Fig. 10 Two writing exercise examples (left) and two activity configuration screens (right)

Multimed Tools Appl

The presentation is handled by several stacked layers. Each layer is implemented as acustom View class, the main element of the Android GUI, which contains the presentationlogic and controller logic for the layer. There are three main layers—PaperView, whichrepresents the paper and handles touch events; GuideView, which displays selected charac-ters as guidelines; and ControlsView, which interacts with the user and relays user com-mands to other Views.

Finally, the activity uses five classes to store its data. Paper, guideline and interfacesettings are stored independently, since they correspond to different layers. Interface state isalso persisted between sessions, along with usage statistics, which can be accessed by otheractivities.

The “Tests” tab allows the users to test their knowledge of words and kana/kanjicharacters using fully configurable tests. The settings include several parameters—thenumber of answers per question, the variant that determines which elements will be usedas questions and which as answers, the set of questions, and the total number of questionsthat will be presented to the user. A record is kept for every question, containing the numberof times the question was shown to the user and the user’s correctness percentage. Tests canpresent questions at random or select only questions with a lowest score. Tests that areincluded in lessons cannot be configured, but are instead adjusted to the correspondinglesson’s content and difficulty. The “Tests” tab, the configuration screen, and two differentinstances of the test activity are shown in Fig. 12.

The learning objects specify the question set and general rules for creation of tests withinlessons, but the actual implementation format is left to the applications that use the objects. Aformat of multiple choices was chosen for this activity. The test generation mechanism issomewhat complex since it needs to consider the learning context, the application context, andthe user context. Learning objects provide a variable amount of learning context. They candirectly specify a number of parameters for each question in the test, or just reference the targetcontent and let the application use it the way it sees fit. In the current J-GO implementation, thetests can be run as part of a lesson, when the rules are mostly defined by learning context, orindependently, where the application decides on the rules. Finally, the user context is taken intoconsideration by adjusting the question difficulty to the user’s level of competence.

The “Trivia” tab allows the user to view the previously unlocked interesting facts aboutJapan and the Japanese culture. These facts are grouped into several categories and are unlocked

Fig. 12 Starting tests independently, test configuration, and two test instances

Multimed Tools Appl

as the user makes progress in learning. When the user finishes a lesson, the fact relevant to thatlesson is unlocked; other than that, “free” facts are unlocked by the continued use of theapplication. These facts are mainly made up from text and links, but they can optionally containaudio and video clips. Figure 13 shows the moment the users unlocks a fact during a test, the“Trivia” tab with four fun fact categories and the activity that displays the unlocked fact.

Finally, the “Profile” tab displays the user’s achievements, the progress in learning andthe quiz results. In order to motivate the learners, registered users can choose a “rival” andhave all of their achievements compared (Fig. 14).

3 Evaluation

3.1 Procedure

The evaluation of the application and the underlying learning systemwas done by gathering thestudents’ opinions about the application, the analysis of data and the extraction of conclusions.The steps that preceded the evaluation were:

1. Using a questionnaire to determine if the students have an appropriate infrastructure forconsuming mobile educational services, what their habits in using mobile technologiesare, and what the level of their general language proficiency and the factors thatmotivate them to learn a new language are.

2. Developing a learning object model, content, and a repository with some bias towardsmobile delivery content.

3. Developing a mobile application that will use content from the system developed in theprevious step, while presenting it in an interesting and multimedia-rich way.

The application was provided to the students that participated in the research. Allinteractions with the students were conducted within the course titled Mobile business.

Fig. 13 Unlocking and viewing an interesting fact about Japan

Multimed Tools Appl

The application and all of its functionalities were presented during the students’ first class. Ashort lecture was given on the topic of Japanese writing systems—hiragana, katakana andkanji, in the context of different activities available in the application. A similar explanationwas provided in the help section of the application. After this, the students were given a linkfrom which they could download the application to their phones. The students had 2 weeksto test the application after which they were given the final questionnaire.

The main research questions were:

RQ1. What are students’ impressions about the interface and design of the application?RQ2. Will the application influence the students’ interest in learning Japanese language?RQ3. If we put the choice of the Japanese language aside, would the format of thepresented application be usable for other languages or areas of study?RQ4. Is the application a useful tool for Japanese language learning?RQ5. Which activities will be better accepted by the students?RQ6. What are teachers’ perceptions of students’ impressions on the mobile application?

Technical evaluation of the J-GO performance and battery usage was executed in acontrolled environment using a performance monitoring application to monitor executionon two different mobile devices.

3.2 Instruments

The main instrument was a questionnaire designed to gather the students’ opinions andcriticism concerning the application. This questionnaire contained 13 questions. Ten ques-tions used a Likert’s five-degree scale. These questions aimed to gather the students’impressions about the application’s design, functionalities, ease of use and interest in thiskind of learning. One question required the students to rank the eight main activities of theapplication, while the remaining two were open type questions for specifying potentialproblems in using the application or for suggestions and criticism.

Fig. 14 User statistics review, profile image change, friend finder

Multimed Tools Appl

Another questionnaire was intended for lecturers. It consisted of five questions related tothe lecturers’ perception as to students’ interest in the Japanese language.

3.3 Participants

The participants in the research were the students of the Faculty of Organizational Sciences,University of Belgrade, who attended an e-learning course titled Mobile business, during thewinter semester of 2012/2013. There were 41 of them, all between 23 and 26 years old, fromwhom 19 were male and 22 were female. Three lecturers gave their answers in the thirdquestionnaire.

The initial questionnaire, completed by the students before the development of the systemstarted, provided additional background data about them. The results have shown that 41students possess smartphones with an Android operating system. These students were theones that participated in the research. This is significantly higher in comparison with theresults of the previous research conducted on the same course 2 years earlier [5]. The mainactivities the students perform on their phones are surfing the web and visiting socialnetworking sites. As regards language learning, the students used their phones to acquirelearning resources (23 students) most of the time.

3.4 Technical evaluation of performance and battery consumption

Current smartphones posses advanced hardware, but hardware limitations can still hitapplication performance, especially on lower-end devices. In case of the J-GO application,this could have a negative impact on the learners’ satisfaction. Since mobile devices need tominimize dimensions and weight, battery capacity is severely limited and efficiency ofdevices and applications running on them is important to their usability. Applicationperformance depends on the amount of resources required for its operation; this is alsodirectly proportional to battery consumption. Different systems feature different powerconsumption levels, with GSM and the display being the largest consumers, and RAM,audio and flash subsystems having low power consumption [7]. The J-GO application wasdeveloped according to standard software engineering practices, using a standard set offeatures of the Android platform. It mainly presents information to the learners, withinteraction mostly being performed for navigation, which potentially suggests low hardwarerequirements. Other systems (file storage, database storage, connectivity) are used to a farsmaller extent. It is expected that this technical profile will not stress the learners’ phone toomuch, especially if the application is used as designed—on the move, in short time chunks.

Application performance is normally measured using some form of software benchmarking,while battery usage would ideally require physical access to different components of the mobiledevice and measurement of currents and voltages. This is demonstrated in [7]; however, authorsstate that only few devices are suitable for such a direct approach, and a different method thatrelies on the internal battery voltage sensor was utilized [3, 40]. In order to obtain a comprehen-sive result, performance on multiple devices should be analyzed, but different devices caninherently differ in hardware composition, built-in optimizations, OS versions, default anduser-added applications and services running in the background, and user settings like the displaybacklight level. The number and combination of these factors can produce an astronomicalnumber of combinations [40], so the only solution is to keep the factors as consistent as possiblebetween different devices. For the testing of the J-GO, a performance monitoring application wasused to monitor processor, memory, and network utilization, as well as battery consumption ontwo mobile devices in 1 sec intervals. Both devices featured similar characteristics—OS version

Multimed Tools Appl

4.0.3, screen resolution 320*480, Ardeno 200 GPU. The first device (hereinafterDevice 1) was from a middle-lower class, featuring 4-in. screen, 800 MHz processorand 1500 mAh battery, while the second device (hereinafter Device 2) was a lowerclass device with a 3.5 in. screen, 600 MHz processor and a 1230 mAh battery. Bothdevices were reset to factory settings before testing. Both devices were used without asim card, with screen brightness set to 0 % and Wi-Fi turned on. The monitoring wasperformed during the execution of a single lesson, for 9 min and 30 s, with exactlythe same steps being undertaken on both devices. Four activities were tested—wordlearning, kanji learning, writing exercise and test activity.

4 Results

4.1 Quantitative analysis

The results of the main questionnaire are given in the following section. The results concerningresearch questions 1–4 are given in Table 1, while the results regarding research question 5 areshown in Table 2.

RQ1. What are students’ impressions about the interface and the design of theapplication?

It is interesting to note that no student strongly disagreed to any of the questions related tothe quality of the application interface and design, and only a small number disagreed.However, this should be taken into account in further discussion and greater significanceshould be given to negative/neutral answers. Firstly, the application’s design and ease of usewere very well received among the largest percentage of students agreeing to the statementsgiven, although the lower percentage of strongly agreeing students suggests that there wasmore room for improvement.

RQ2. Will the application influence on the students’ interest in learning the Japaneselanguage?

There was clearly a definite impact on the students’ interest about Japan and the Japaneselanguage, but the response here was somewhat lower than with the questions about theapplication. It should be noticed that an increased interest in learning Japanese was notstatistically related to the previous interest in learning languages (F(3,37)=1.1316, p>0.05)nor usage of mobile technologies (F(3,37)=0.488, p>0.05).

RQ3. If we put the choice of the Japanese language aside, would the format of thepresented application be usable for other languages or areas of study?

The questions on applying similar mobile applications in learning other languages and areasof study received the most positive results. This is a possibility strongly supported by ourlearning object model. Therefore, it is expected that blending this and similar mobile applica-tions into a formal learning process would increase students’ knowledge and motivation.

RQ4. Is the application a useful tool for Japanese language learning?

Considering the usability of the J-GO application as either the main or the supporting toolin the Japanese language learning, the students did not find any option less favorable.Moreover, the students gave positive marks in both cases.

Multimed Tools Appl

RQ5. Which activities will be better accepted by the students?

The results of this research question are obtained by asking the students to assign activities acertain number of points on a scale 1–8 (8 points to the most interesting activity, 1 point to theleast interesting activity). The answers to this question have shown that the word review activitywas the most popular, with a character review activity following behind, being most often rankedas the second (Table 2). Other activities mostly got results that were somewhat opposite to theexpectations that were established during the development of the application. It was expected thatthe writing exercise will be ranked higher, along with reviewing of fun facts about Japan sincethey contained less educational content and more multimedia; this was expected to suit beginners

Table 1 Results concerning research questions 1–4

Question Stronglyagree(score = 5)

Agree(score = 4)

Neutral(score = 3)

Disagree(score = 2)

Stronglydisagree(score = 1)

Meanscore

Std.dev.

J-GO application issimple to use andeasy to understand

6 30 4 1 0 4 0.59

J-GO application’suser interface iswell designed andof good quality

5 31 4 1 0 3.98 0.57

Accessing differentactivities within theJ-GO applicationis simple and intuitive.

8 26 6 1 0 4 0.67

J-GO has increasedmy interest in theJapanese culture.

6 14 15 6 0 3.48 0.92

J-GO has increasedmy interest in theJapanese language.

9 15 12 5 0 3.68 0.96

I will continue to usethis application onmy phone (or—Iwould install it if Ihad an Androiddevice).

6 19 15 1 0 3.73 0.74

I would like to have asimilar applicationfor another language.

22 15 4 0 0 4.44 0.67

I would like to have asimilar applicationfor another areaof study.

17 20 3 1 0 4.29 0.72

This application is usefulfor independent studyof the Japaneselanguage.

12 24 4 1 0 4.15 0.69

This application is usefulas a supporting tool forthe formal Japaneselanguage learning.

11 23 7 0 0 4.1 0.66

Multimed Tools Appl

better. A possible explanation for this can perhaps be found in the fact that the students generallyhad no previous contact with the Japanese language, which led to the two more elementaryactivities being ranked higher. The lessons got both high and low grades, which shows thatstudents took at least two different approaches while using the application, and that the decision to

Table 3 Teachers’ perception on students’ impressions

Question Stronglyagree(score = 5)

Agree(score = 4)

Neutral(score = 3)

Disagree(score = 2)

Stronglydisagree(score = 1)

Meanscore

Std.dev.

Students exhibitbody posturesthat indicate theyare payingattention.

1 2 0 0 0 4.33 0.58

Students arefocused on thelearning activitywith minimumdisruptions.

0 1 2 0 0 3.33 0.58

Students expressthoughtful ideas,reflectiveanswers, andquestionsrelevant orappropriate tolearning.

3 0 0 0 0 5.00 0.00

Students exhibitconfidence andcan complete atask with limitedcoaching.

0 0 1 2 0 2.33 0.58

Students exhibitinterest andenthusiasmand use positivehumor.

3 0 0 0 0 5.00 0.00

Table 2 Activity ranking

Points Words Characters Memory game Tests Lessons Writing Fun facts Statistics

8 13 1 5 6 9 5 2 0

7 6 13 5 8 4 3 2 0

6 8 6 9 4 2 5 7 0

5 5 7 3 1 5 6 10 4

4 7 5 7 9 1 7 3 2

3 2 3 6 4 8 4 8 6

2 0 3 4 6 8 7 6 7

1 0 3 2 3 4 4 3 22

Total points 253 208 200 196 185 179 173 82

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Multimed Tools Appl

make lessons non-mandatory was correct. Reviewing statistics activity was, somewhat expect-edly, lowest ranked, possibly because of a small level of interactivity between the users.

RQ6. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the students’ impressions on the mobileapplication?

The teachers who participated in the experiment were asked to evaluate some aspects onstudents’ behavior while using the described mobile application for the Japanese languagelearning. Their answers are shown in Table 3. It can be concluded that the teachers perceivedthe students’ interests and enthusiasm as positive, while their focus and confidence weremuch lower. Again, this is probably because of the students’ low previous knowledge of theJapanese language.

4.2 Qualitative analysis

Two questions in the questionnaire were free form and asked the participants to state anyproblems they had encountered while using the application, along with any other suggestionsand criticisms. The feedback in the text form was provided in 34 of the completed assessments.Students’ comments and recommendations can be classified into several groups:

& Comments about the mobile application interface:

“Interface is simple and accessible, well designed.” (Participant A)“It could be a little less gray-black” (Participant B)“Somewhat nicer visuals could attract more users.” (Participant C)

& Comments about the educational content:

“The language itself is complicated.” (Participant D)“I think that, if not all of the hiragana and katakana characters are used, they shoulddefinitely be put in. And, maybe a little more of kanji characters should be added, sincethey are also important.” (Participant E)“Better support for synonyms would be desirable and a little richer vocabulary.”(Participant F)

& Comments about existing functionalities:

“Writing the characters is inconvenient for those that cannot use a pen on their touch-screen displays.” (Participant G)“Character pronunciation with audio is missing.” (Participant H)“The meaning of words should be offered in a context (collocations, entire sentences).”(Participant I)“I like it that the tests are split into two parts and that there is a test that shows only thekana/kanji/words that we are not good with.” (Participant J)“Activities are nicely conceived and interesting. Lessons could be a bit more extensiveto include entire texts and questions.” (Participant K)

& Comments about desired functionalities; students mostly asked for the grammar andreading sections:

“Adding grammar would be good, but keep it separated from word study.” (Participant L)“Add phrases that are used in real situations.” (Participant M)“It would be nice if a teacher could create and add his own lessons.” (Participant N)

Multimed Tools Appl

“I would perhaps add the basics of grammar to the Trivia section as well as someelementary mistakes that beginners make.” (Participant O)

& Other comments:

“The application is interesting, useful, and I think I could learn basic words using it.”(Participant P)“Create a version for iOS mobile operating system” (Participant Q)“I like the application. It allows quick introduction to the basic elements of thelanguage.” (Participant R)„The application is very good for beginners; it easily makes me interested.” (Participant S)

Although the numerical data showed that most students considered the application’s interface tobe simple to use and well designed, the comments prove that there is more room for improvementand that the interface should be made more colorful and vibrant but in an unobtrusive way topreserve the simplicity of the application use. Most comments were either about the simplerword/character review activities or about adding similar activities for grammar and sentences.After combining these comments with numerical data, a conclusion can be drawn that studentsprefer using those kinds of activities that employ simpler methods of interaction.

4.3 Performance analysis

The performance monitoring obtained the data about battery consumption, CPU, memory and datausage of the application by measuring corresponding values every second. The total batteryconsumption for theDevices 1 and 2 during the testingwas 19.38mAh and 20.59mAh respectively,with the display consuming 89.3 % and 88.6 % of that amount, and the J-GO’s processingparticipating with only 9.6 % and 10.4 %. Data connection was used only in the word learningactivity to download word pronunciation clips, and contributed 1.14 % and 0.97 % to the totalconsumption. The projected battery consumption for the J-GO was low, being under 9.11 % and9.73 % per hour of usage. Memory usage was stable throughout the entire monitoring session, withits values slowly changing within a 7 % margin from the measured average. The global average

Fig. 15 Power consumption and processor utilization of J-GO application while using different activities

Multimed Tools Appl

CPU usage was 11.43 % and 9.71 %, with spikes in usage achieving maximum 46 % on bothdevices. Power consumption and CPU usage in time and per activity are shown in Fig. 15.

The largest consumer of the tested activities was the writing exercise, likely due to the fact that itis the most complex one with the highest level of interaction with the user. This presented itself bothas a higher percentage of CPU utilization and as the corresponding increase in the CPU powerconsumption. Additionally, the display also contributed to the increased power consumption,presumably because of the white screen featured in the writing exercise activity. Additional testingwas performed with the default black-on-white and inverted white-on-black color schemes. Thedarker scheme used 25.4% and 18.5% less power for the displaywhen compared to the default one.Kanji learning activity had somewhat lower, but still significant consumption/utilization values,which can be attributed to the use of character images, and the need for scrolling in order to view allof the presented content. Since Wi-Fi was used in only one activity, it globally consumed a smallamount of battery capacity, but still featured significant spikes, approximately doubling the con-sumption when used.

5 Discussion

Numerous studies have shown that mobile devices improve the educational experience byadding new possibilities [22]. This study provides some empirical evidence on how studentsrespond to mobile learning technologies in the field of a L2 language learning. Thedevelopment of the J-GO system and application for the Japanese language learning havedemonstrated several points. First of all, the results have shown that the application had apositive impact on the students’ interest and that the students were motivated enough to useat least some of the activities provided. Using a format applied in the J-GO with severaldiverse and relatively independent activities that can be completed independently is shownto be a valid approach according to the positive results obtained. The completed, functionalsystem based on the mobile learning objects demonstrates their suitability in a time-constrained, location-flexible language learning and opens up possibilities for applicationin other educational areas. Thanks to its prevalence among students and technical capabil-ities, the Android platform was proven to be a good initial choice for educational applicationdevelopment. The performance and battery analysis shows that such applications are viableand well supported by Android phones’ hardware capabilities and that possibly even morepowerful learning applications could be developed without the counter-effect of narrowingthe target group too much.

The research results have shown that the students preferred simpler activities, which issimilar to the conclusion of [49] that mobile learning is better suited for short activities thatdo not demand intensive reading and individualized feedback. The same research also statesan opinion that, considering a more formal context of learning, students can be at firstmotivated using rewards, but that the main goal should be the students’ self-motivation.Since this research was centered on informal language learning, self-motivation was an evenmore important factor and informal rewards (interesting facts about Japan) were used. Theprinciples of informal learning and learning on the move make the J-GO applicable in thelifelong learning context, and its design has similarities with the practical design principlesconcerning such applications outlined in [16]. The authors state that the content should bepractical and micro (in size), activities should be micro and simple to use, and usabilityrequires consistency and simple interfaces. They also mention that the content should becontained in learning objects, but the description of the developed pilot system does not

Multimed Tools Appl

elaborate on either the technical or educational concerns. With similar design principles, theadvantages of the J-GO are mostly technical—the choice of an Android platform instead of aFlash-based solution limits portability, but allows for far better performance and multimediacharacteristics. Concerning the outlined principles, the J-GO’s consistency is better andlearner’s real-world needs are addressed through easily searchable word/character lists. Theusers are free to use the J-GO solely as a dictionary and avoid all learning activities, if that iswhat suits their needs.

An important advantage that our system has in comparison with other mobile languagelearning solutions is the use of flexible learning objects that opens up a number ofpossibilities for easy manipulation with the used educational content and integration withother systems. The main advantage of learning objects is their reusability. This propertyimplies that learning objects should be smaller in order to integrate into different contextswith ease. Similar conclusions and a model of multilevel content hierarchy are given byHodgins [17]. A comparison of this model with a hierarchy model used in the J-GO is givenin Fig. 16, where five levels of hierarchy are shown. Lower levels are simple and reusable,while higher build on them by adding more materials and context. Learning objects areconveniently placed at the middle, aggregating smaller “information objects” and serving asparts of larger units or lessons.

The model used in the J-GO system follows this model as shown in Fig. 16, with somemodifications stemming from the characteristics of the mobile environment and thelanguage-learning context. Mobile learning is characterized by limited learning time, learnerconcentration, and options for presentation and interactivity. This implies that the contentshould be distributed in smaller chunks and should allow the learners to direct the learningsessions as they wish. Accordingly, learning objects were kept to a smaller size. The choiceof words and characters as the primary learning materials has also had an influence on this

Fig. 16 Comparison of content hierarchy model described in [17] and model used in J-GO

Multimed Tools Appl

decision. Words and characters are light on context; they can be grouped by certain criteria,but in most cases do not demand any pre-knowledge. This has significantly lowered theamount of necessary context contained in learning objects.

In the content hierarchy used in the J-GO system, raw elements are combined to explain asingle concept—a word, a character, or a fact. This combination corresponds to „Informationobjects” in the multilevel hierarchy, and is labeled as a simple learning object in the J-GOhierarchymodel. This labeling is based on the simple learning objects shown in Fig. 2 that carryonly a single content element. A compilation of these objects, with some additional context andmetadata, produces a learning object. In the J-GO hierarchy this is the highest concrete level sothe J-GO learning objects mainly take the role of compact lessons. Aggregation of learningobjects allowed by the content model emulates the next level of hierarchy, but only to a certainextent. Aggregated learning objects in the J-GO behave in the same way as the normal learningobjects, since there is no additional context nor changes in their models of data and metadata.Finally, the highest level of hierarchy does not exist, but the entire J-GO system can be seen asproviding some additional context to the learner since it is designed for the Japanese languagelearning in particular. This, however, is not a characteristic of the J-GO learning objectsthemselves, so their precise position would be between the third and the fourth levels in thishierarchy. This gives them higher reusability at the cost of additional context, which isconsistent with previously made observations. This characteristic, however, allows for easierfuture upgrades and extensions to the J-GO learning object model.

The learning object model presented in this work concentrates on simplicity—its objectsare compact, and do not contain any multimedia, only reference it. There is not muchcontext, but this gives a lot of freedom to the client applications; this also brings additionalresponsibilities upon the application developers. An application needs to understand the J-GO format in order to present the content to the users. This limits the possibilities forintegration with different learning systems and with a broader target audience. A possiblesolution that we would like to investigate in our future research would be to develop one ormore independent conversion services that would operate on the data provided by the J-GOrepository. The J-GO learning objects would keep their role of “recipes”, packages ofreferences, while the role of presenting them would be transferred from user devices to aproxy service. This service could provide additional value by considering the capabilities ofuser devices and making an adaptation of multimedia content. This proxy-based contentadaptation could allow for a better scalability and different modalities of presentation [1].

Many papers describe principles of the design of mobile learning objects or attempt to giveadvice concerning educational content granulation, interface organization, and multimedia ad-justment for small screens. However, not many attempt to undertake the practical steps anddevelop a functioning mobile learning system. In [6], authors develop four prototype mobilelearning applications based on learning objects. Their learning objects are partially based on thenotion of cohesion (every LO has a single learning objective) and decoupling (no links to externalresources). While the former notion is applied in the J-GO to an extent permitted by the languageeducational content, the latter notion and the design decisions that stem from it are diametricallyopposite from those we adopted. Unlike the J-GO’s lightweight, textual, highly linked learningobjects, the authors apply Flash Lite technology, similar to [16]. Using Flash Lite means that boththe presentation and the content are intermingled together, and that presentation may vary greatlyfrom one object to another. The authors mainly proceed to discuss navigation, interface elements,and color schemes, without considering the problems of creation and delivery of such objects. Inorder to create Flash Lite objects, the creator would need to be proficient in both the design andprogramming; even if that is the case, it is likely that objects created by different individualswould look and behave differently. In case of the J-GO, the separation of concerns means that the

Multimed Tools Appl

content is developed independently from the presentation. Although this can create a problem ofinteroperability, it has the advantages of having smaller objects that are easier to transfer, of aneasier creation of content using simple interfaces (Fig. 3), and of a presentation better adjusted toindividual devices.

The adaptation of content for mobile screens needs to be accompanied by at least some level ofadaptability of user interfaces. User interfaces can provide options for their manual customization(adaptable) and/or contain intelligence that responds dynamically to changes in the environment inorder to enhance the users’ performance [19]. The J-GO application implements both approaches toan extent. In order to compensate for the writing exercise complexity, it was made fully adaptable.TheAndroid system itself provides adaptivity on amore general level and its functionswere utilizedin order to provide different interface layouts for different screen sizes, pixel densities, and aspectratios. This can help the application to function appropriately in different environments, but othermore advanced models of adaptivity that could improve actual educational process should beexplored. However, caution needs to be exercised since unpredictable adaptability can reduce easeof use and make it more difficult for users to construct a mental model of such systems [41].

The MEL application [43], although smaller in scope, has certain similarities to the J-GOone—it was also developed for the same platform, it has different game-like modes of learning anda strong multimedia component. Its limitation is that it was explicitly built around its content, zooanimals, and a single event, a visit to the zoo. The application presented in this paper is not a singlepurpose tool, but is instead designed to be easily integrated into a more all-encompassing learningprocess that includes both informal and formal learning. The J-GO is usable in different contextsand could potentially be integrated with any learning management system that supports learningobjects, such as Moodle, Blackboard, D2L and many others, using a simple conversion service.

This workmostly considered language learning in the context of the Japanese language and itsspecific features. The J-GO system was designed as a first step towards building a more generalmodel of learning objects that could be applied in different disciplines and areas of study. Themodel could, as a first step, be easily applied to other languages with minimum or even nochanges. Adjusting the model for other areas of study would likely require more consideration.The main question would be whether a specific “vocabulary” for learning object content shouldbe defined for each area and domain of use, or whether it would be better to define a few types ofgeneric content and use a richer set of metadata to describe it. Both approaches would providecertain advantages over the other, and even a combination of the two could be interesting for thefuture research. In any case, this idea is validated by the positive answers the students providedregarding the use of a similar application format for different areas of study. The application wasstructured around the learning objects, and its format is strongly influenced by them.

Since the participants were fourth year students of the Faculty of Organizational Sciences,University of Belgrade, attending the information systems and technologies study program,their remarks about the application interface and ease of use have a certain weight. However,since the main topic of the mobile business course is the mobile application development, itis possible that the application received a somewhat more positive evaluation owing to thestudents’ expectations to learn to design and implement applications of similar complexity.The greatest flaw of this research results from the fact that the most of the participants had noprevious knowledge of the Japanese language. This, however, allowed us to test theapplication’s impact on the users’ interest, and the results obtained were positive, especiallysince a number of students have stated they will keep the application on their phones afterthe completion of the research. Still, subsequent research should be aimed at a more specificgroup of the L2 Japanese language learners.

The ranking of learning activities has provided different results from those expected. Thehigh popularity of basic, simple word and character learning activities can somewhat be

Multimed Tools Appl

explained by the fact that most students did not have any previous knowledge and wereabsolute beginners. However, this is a failure on part of the application, since the learningcontext implies that the beginners would represent a significant number of the application’susers. Following this line of thought, the less popular activities should be made more easilyaccessible to beginners, and better search functionality should be provided in order to allowfaster access. Some improvements to the content model could also facilitate this by addingmore attributes for categorization of words/characters. The application could use theseattributes to separate, group, and sort content and improve the quality of search. Low scoresfor more interactive and multimedia-rich activities are likely caused by the same factors, butpartial fault could again be on the application and the content model. It seems that themultimedia content is better received when evenly and unobtrusively distributed across thelearning content. This content should probably be more evenly distributed to create a moreuniform user experience. Low scores for fun facts about Japan also suggest that multimediacontent should be optional and allow for graceful degradation when multimedia is omittedfor any reason (connection problems, user settings, etc.).

The results of the J-GO monitoring show that the application performs adequately; the CPUutilization on the tested phones did not exceed 50 % at any point, and was much lower onaverage. Since the tested phones are mid/lower class models older than 1 year, it can beextrapolated that the J-GO application will work well on most of the currently circulatingAndroid phones. This is supported by the fact that none of the students complained about theperformance of the application, although the novelty of the application for the participants mightmean that such conceptions would form only after a longer period of use. Better results achievedby the darker color scheme suggest that using primarily black color is a good choice for extendingthe battery life, and that perhaps the customizable theme for writing exercise activity should alsostart in white-on-black mode.

Although the research confirmed that students possess smartphones, predominantly with anAndroid OS, the number of students who own a feature phone is still significant. It can beexpected that this number will recede in the future, but also that other smartphone platforms likeiOS and Windows Phone will increase their market share. For this reason alternative, uniformmethods of delivering educational content, like using standard web technologies based aroundHTML5 [21] and accessing through web browsers, should be considered too [15].

Also, since learners can be very diverse in their characteristics and needs, mobile learningsystems can greatly benefit from an increased adaptability in any form. A substantialobstacle for the realization of adaptive learning systems is the need to reuse and adapt theexisting learning materials as well as the lack of interoperability between different systems[13]. These problems are further compounded in informal contexts where the user require-ments might vary from one session to another. By encapsulating educational content intolearning objects, some of these problems can be alleviated, while different resources andactivities can help satisfy the needs of individuals with different approaches to learning.

6 Conclusion

Mobile technologies have matured enough to take up a significant role in the domain oflanguage learning. Most of the studies in this field focus on a single aspect or a singleactivity of mobile language learning. In most cases, these applications are just a tool whoseplace in the educational system is predetermined by their design.

This paper brings several contributions. First, we developed a model of lightweightlearning objects intended for learning the Japanese language. This model is based on

Multimed Tools Appl

IEEE LOM, by simplifying and adjusting it for use in the mobile environment. Furthermore,a model of a system for storage and delivery of such objects to client applications ispresented. This system was implemented in the form of an Android application relying onthe repository for educational content. This mobile application presents another side of thisresearch, related to finding a proper balance of content, multimedia and interactivity. Thedesign of this application based on learning objects enables a seamless integration with otherparts of the learning environment and presents an example of good practice in designing anddeveloping mobile applications for language learning. The application offers a wide range ofactivities: it allows the learners to implement different approaches to learning and can beused in different learning contexts. With respect to the complexity of the Japanese scripts,several activities are specially designed for character learning. The diverse activities weredesigned in such a way to have a motivating effect on learners, which was confirmed in thequantitative and qualitative analyses.

Finally, an evaluation of the developed application is performed. The results have shownthat the students liked the design of the application and that it had a positive impact on theirinterest in Japan and the Japanese language. The students have mostly agreed with the notionof using a similar format for performing learning in different areas of study, indicating thatthe potential for re-use of the backing model is good.

The limitations of this research stem mostly from the fact that most participants were notfamiliar with the Japanese language at all, and did not explicitly intend to study it either. Furtherresearch should be targeted at the Japanese language learners with some level of proficiency andshould, preferably, compare the results of mobile learners with two other groups—those usingthe standard means of learning, and those using a different, web or desktop, J-GO clientapplication. Distributing the application using online means of distribution is a reasonable nextstep that could significantly broaden the scope of the research by introducing a larger number oflearners of the Japanese language that might participate in the research voluntarily. Since theselearners would not be personally present to fill out questionnaires or participate in interviews, amechanism for gathering usage statistics and delivering them to our server would have to beintroduced. The users would need to be presented with the option to opt-out of the research, anda privacy policy concerning recorded data would also have to be presented. This approach couldprovide a large amount of usage data, although it would be somewhat less reliable and wouldhave to be gathered over a longer time period. Further research should aim to integrate the J-GOwith an e-learning system. That would lead to an improvement in the quality of teachers’ workin the field of designing a mobile learning content.

Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Education, Science, and TechnologicalDevelopment of the Republic of Serbia, Grant no.174031.

References

1. Adzic V, Kalva H, Furht B (2011) A survey of multimedia content adaptation for mobile devices.Multimedia Tools Appl 51:379–396. doi:10.1007/s11042-010-0669-x

2. Alexander PA (2003) The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. EducRes 32:10–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008010

3. Ardito L, Procaccianti G, Torchiano M et al (2013) Profiling power consumption on mobile devices.ENERGY 2013, The Third International Conference on Smart Grids, Green Communications and ITEnergy-aware Technologies. Lisbon, Portugal, pp 101–106

4. Arnone MP, Small RV, Chauncey SA, McKenna HP (2011) Curiosity, interest and engagement intechnology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda. Educ Technol Res Dev 59:181–198. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9

Multimed Tools Appl

5. Bogdanović Z, Barać D, Jovanić B et al (2013) Evaluation of mobile assessment in a learning manage-ment system. Br J Educ Technol. doi:10.1111/bjet.12015

6. Bradley C, Haynes R, Cook J et al (2008) Design and development of multimedia learning objects formobile phones. In: Ally M (ed) Mobile learning in education and training. Athabasca University Press,Canada, pp 158–181

7. Carroll A, Heiser G (2010) An analysis of power consumption in a smartphone. Proceedings of the 2010USENIX conference on USENIX annual technical conference. USENIXAssociation, Boston, MA, pp 21–34

8. Cheng S-C, Hwang W-Y, Wu S-Y et al (2010) A mobile device and online system with contextualfamiliarity and its effects on English learning on campus. Educ Technol Soc 13:93–109

9. Chinnery GM (2006) Emerging technologies: going to the MALL: mobile assisted language learning.Lang Learn Technol 10:9–16

10. Churchill D (2011) Conceptual model learning objects and design recommendations for small screens.Educ Technol Soc 14:203–216

11. Cisco Systems (1999) Cisco systems reusable information object strategy: definition, creation overview,and guidelines. pp 1–45

12. De Jong T, Specht M, Koper R (2009) A study of contextualised mobile information delivery for languagelearning. Educ Technol Soc 13:110–125

13. Despotović-Zrakić M, Marković A, Bogdanović Z et al (2012) Providing adaptivity in moodle LMScourses. Educ Technol Soc 15:326–338

14. Fallahkhair S, Pemberton L, Griffiths R (2007) Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous languagelearning service via mobile phone and interactive television. J Comput Assist Learn 23:312–325.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00236.x

15. Godwin-Jones R (2011) Emerging technologies: mobile apps for language learning. Lang Learn Technol 15:2–1116. Gu X, Gu F, Laffey JM (2011) Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. J Comput

Assist Learn 27:204–215. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00391.x17. Hodgins H (2004) The future of learning objects. 2002 ECI Conference on e-Technologies in Engineering

Education: Learning Outcomes Providing Future Possibilities18. Holzinger A (2005) Usability engineering for software developers. Commun ACM 48:71–7419. Holzinger A, Geier M, Germanakos P et al (2012) On the development of smart adaptive user interfaces

for mobile e-business applications: Towards enhancing user experience—some lessons learned. In: MarcaD (ed) Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B). SciTec Press, Rome, pp 3–16

20. Holzinger A, Nischelwitzer A, Friedl S, Hu B (2010) Towards life long learning: three models forubiquitous applications. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 10:1350–1365

21. Holzinger A, Treitler P, Slany W (2012) Making apps useable on multiple different mobile platforms: Oninteroperability for business application development on smart phones. In: Quirchmayr G, Basl J, You Iet al (eds) Multidisciplinary research and practice for information systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,pp 176–189

22. Hwang G-J, Tsai C-C (2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications inselected journals from 2001 to 2010. Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

23. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (2002) Draft standard for learning object metadata. pp 1–4424. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (2005) IEEE Standard for Learning Technology—Extensible

Markup Language (XML) Schema Definition Language Binding for Learning Object Metadata25. Joseph SRH, Uther M (2009) Mobile devices for language learning: multimedia approaches. Res Pract

Technol Enhanc Learn 4:7–32. doi:10.1142/S179320680900060X26. Klopfer E, Sheldon J, Perry J, ChenVH-H (2012)Ubiquitous games for learning (UbiqGames):Weatherlings,

a worked example. J Comput Assist Learn 28:465–476. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00456.x27. Konstantinidis A, Tsiatsos T, Pomportsis A (2009) Collaborative virtual learning environments: design

and evaluation. Multimedia Tools Appl 44:279–304. doi:10.1007/s11042-009-0289-528. L’Allier JJ (1997) Frame of reference: NETg’s map to the products, their structure and core beliefs29. Lawless K, Brown S, Mills R, Mayall H (2003) Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: a look at

hypertext processing. J Lit Res 35:911–934. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3503_530. Lawless K, Kulikowich J (2006) Domain knowledge and individual interest: the effects of academic level and

specialization in statistics and psychology. Contemp Educ Psychol 31:30–43. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.01.00231. Longmire W (2000) A primer on learning objects. Learn Circ 1–532. Looi C-K, Seow P, Zhang B et al (2010) Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning:

a research agenda. Br J Educ Technol 41:154–169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x33. Matsuo K, Kato C, Okada T et al (2003) Finger movements lighten neural loads in the recognition of

ideographic characters. Cogn Brain Res 17:263–272. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00114-9

Multimed Tools Appl

34. McGreal R (2004) Learning objects: a practical definition. Int J Instr Technol Dist Learn 1:21–3235. Moreno-Ger P, Burgos D, Martínez-Ortiz I et al (2008) Educational game design for online education.

Comput Hum Behav 24:2530–2540. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.01236. Motschnig-Pitrik R, Holzinger A (2002) Student-centered teaching meets new media: concept and case

study. Educ Technol Soc 5:160–17237. Mujacic S, Debevc M, Kosec P et al (2012) Modeling, design, development and evaluation of a

hypervideo application for digital systems teaching. Multimedia Tools Appl 58:435–45238. Ogata H, Yano Y (2003) How ubiquitous computing can support language learning. Proceedings of

KEST. pp 1–639. Okan Z (2003) Edutainment: is learning at risk? Br J Educ Technol 34:255–264. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.0032540. Palit R, Arya R, Naik K, Singh A (2011) Selection and execution of user level test cases for energy cost

evaluation of smartphones. Proceeding of the 6th international workshop on Automation of softwaretest—AST’11. ACM Press, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, pp 84–90

41. Paymans TF, Lindenberg J, Neerincx M (2004) Usability trade-offs for adaptive user interfaces.Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent user interface - IUI’04. ACM Press, NewYork, New York, USA, pp 301–303

42. Polsani P (2003) Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. J Digit Inf 3. http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/89/88. Accessed 21 Sep 2013

43. Sandberg J, Maris M, de Geus K (2011) Mobile english learning: an evidence-based study with fifthgraders. Comput Educ 57:1334–1347. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.015

44. Schandl B, Haslhofer B, Bürger T et al (2011) Linked data and multimedia: the state of affairs. MultimediaTools Appl 59:523–556. doi:10.1007/s11042-011-0762-9

45. Sha L, Looi C-K, Chen W, Zhang BH (2012) Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of self-regulated learning. J Comput Assist Learn 28:366–378. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00461.x

46. Stockwell G (2010) Using mobile phones for vocabulary activities: examining the effect of the platform.Lang Learn Technol 14:95–110

47. Tsai C, Kuo C-H, Horng W-B, Chen C-W (2012) Effects on learning logographic character formation incomputer-assisted handwriting instruction. Lang Learn Technol 16:110–130

48. Vidas T, Zhang C, Christin N (2011) Toward a general collection methodology for Android devices. DigitInvestig Int J Digit Forensic Incident Respon 8:S14–S24. doi:10.1016/j.diin.2011.05.003

49. Wang M, Shen R, Novak D, Pan X (2009) The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behavioursand performance: report from a large blended classroom. Br J Educ Technol 40:673–695. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x

50. Wong L-H, Looi C-K (2010) Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and socialmeaning-making: two case studies. J Comput Assist Learn 26:421–433. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00357.x

Miloš Milutinović is a PhD student and a student associate at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences,University of Belgrade. As a teaching associate, he is involved in teaching courses covering the area of E-business, M-business, Internet technologies, Internet Marketing and Internet of Intelligent Devices. Hiscurrent areas of interest include electronic and mobile learning, mobile technologies and applications, Internettechnologies and Cloud Computing. He can be reached at milosm@elab.rs

Multimed Tools Appl

Aleksandra Labus PhD, is a teaching associate at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University ofBelgrade. She is involved in teaching courses covering the areas of E-business, Internet marketing, Internet ofthings, and Simulation and simulation languages. She received scholarship from the Ministry of education,Science and Technological Development, the Republic of Serbia. Her current professional interests include e-education, edutainment, and social media. She can be reached at aleksandra@elab.rs.

Vukašin Stojiljković is a PhD student and associate at the Institute for the Serbian Language of the SerbianAcademy of Sciences and Arts. His areas of interest include Applied Linguistics and Technology, Sociolin-guistics, Linguistic Anthropology. He can be reached at stefanvukasins@yahoo.com.

Multimed Tools Appl

Zorica Bogdanović PhD, is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University ofBelgrade. She is involved in teaching courses covering the area of E-business, Internet marketing, Simulationand simulation languages, Internet technologies and Risk management in information systems. Her currentprofessional interests include e-business, Internet technologies, and e-education. She can be reached atzorica@elab.rs.

Marijana Despotović-Zrakić PhD, is an associate professor and Head of Department for e-business andsystem management at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade. She teaches severalcourses in the fields of E-business, Internet technologies, E-education, Simulation and simulation languages,Internet marketing, Risk management in information systems, M-business, Internet of things. Her currentprofessional and scientific interests include e-business, internet technologies, internet marketing, e-education.She is a member of IEEE and ACM. She can be reached at maja@elab.rs.

Multimed Tools Appl