Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral...

Running head: SELF-REGULATION TO IMPROVE ORAL INTERACTION 1

Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral Interaction in

a High School in Junín

Luis Fernando Mendoza García

Guide: Karen Wigby, M.Ed.

Presented as Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Magíster en Pedagogía de los Idiomas

Nacionales y Extranjeros con Mención en la Enseñanza de Inglés. CES: RPC-SE-01-

N˚.014-2020. Cohort 2018 – 2020. Guayaquil, November 5th, 2020.

SELF-REGULATION TO IMPROVE ORAL INTERACTION 2

Abstract

This innovation demonstrated the development and improvement of the oral interaction in

twenty-two participants who self-regulated their learning through the implementation of

self-assessment by using mobile phones accompanied by a technological tool named Padlet.

The participants were twenty-two A1 English level students from a Millennium high school

in a rural zone in Junin, Manabi Province, Ecuador. Students recorded five video tasks that

were self-assessed with a rubric. Moreover, the teacher provided feedback after each video.

The instruments applied were an oral interaction rubric and a semi-structured interview.

The overall results show a significant improvement in oral interaction and positive effect

size (ES) of 1.09. Additionally, in the final part of the study, students expressed their

perspectives about their learning, challenges, likes, and dislikes during the innovation. The

results show that the use of self-regulation facilitated by mobile devices can help students

improve oral interaction and are useful for teachers to implement in classes to improve

spoken interaction.

Keywords: oral interaction, self-regulation, self-assessment, English as a Foreign

Language, Padlet.


Resumen

Esta innovación demostró el desarrollo y mejora de la interacción oral en veintidós

participantes que autorregularon su aprendizaje a través de la implementación de la

autoevaluación mediante el uso de teléfonos móviles acompañados de una herramienta

tecnológica denominada Padlet. Los participantes fueron veintidós estudiantes de nivel de

inglés A1 de una escuela secundaria Milenio en una zona rural de Junín, provincia de

Manabí, Ecuador. Los estudiantes grabaron cinco tareas en video que se autoevaluaron con

una rúbrica. Además, el docente proporcionó comentarios después de cada video. Los

instrumentos aplicados fueron una rúbrica de interacción oral y una entrevista

semiestructurada. Los resultados generales muestran una mejora significativa en la

interacción oral y el tamaño del efecto positivo de 1,09. Además, en la parte final del

estudio, los estudiantes expresaron sus perspectivas sobre su aprendizaje, desafíos, gustos y

disgustos durante la innovación. Los resultados muestran que el uso de la autorregulación

facilitada por los dispositivos móviles puede ayudar a los estudiantes a mejorar la

interacción oral y son útiles para que los profesores los implementen en las clases para

mejorar la interacción oral.

Palabras clave: interacción oral, autorregulación, autoevaluación, inglés como

lengua extranjera, Padlet.


Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral Interactions in

High School Students

English has an essential role in many aspects of life because it is an interaction

channel among a significant number of people (Kannan, 2009). Rao (2019) expressed that

English is a world language. Students need to acquire English communication skills to

succeed in their specific fields like education, business, or tourism. Robson (2013) stated

that English is spoken at a reasonable level by some 1.75 billion people worldwide. By

2020, the author forecasted that two billion people would be using English or learning to

use it.

According to Education First (2019), English Proficiency Index, two-thirds of Latin

American countries improved their English proficiency this year. Still, despite these

changes, Ecuador was placed at 81 out of 100 nations around the world. And in the range

obtained for Latin America, Ecuador is in the last place among 19 countries. It means it is

necessary to look for strategies to increase the English level in Ecuadorian learners.

In the field of education in Ecuador, the Ministry of Education (Ministerio de

Educación, 2014) has implemented several measures to improve the English language’s

teaching-learning in educational institutions. One of the first measures adopted was in 1992

with the compulsory teaching in Ecuadorian secondary education (British Council, 2015).

In 1992, through an agreement between the MinEduc and the British Council, an essential

curricular reform for English was carried out for public and private institutions to lead

students to improve their English knowledge level.

One of MinEduc (Ministerio de Educación, 2012) goals is to guarantee that learners

obtain a B1 English level when finishing high school. That is why this year, the Ministry of

Education launched a new National English Curriculum, the “Ecuadorian in-service

English Teacher Standards” divided into five domains which are: Language, culture,


curriculum development, assessment, and professionalism, and ethical commitment

(MinEduc, 2012).

Nevertheless, according to current research and other researchers (Bonifaz, 2020;

Davila, 2020; Rivera, 2020), the reality in some Ecuadorian institutions is different.

Students are not reaching the required standards, and English educators have noticed that

issue. Facts mentioned before confirming the ranges about their English skills usage and

knowledge development, especially in their speaking skills. Students still face many

speaking difficulties. Al Hosni (2014) inferred that oral interaction needs more training to

be managed.

Speaking a foreign language motivates learning, and my 9th-grade students are far

from reaching the national graduation requirement of B1 for English. At the beginning of

the study, students took a proficiency test. Their results were lower than expected for a

student in the level of education. Most of them a Pre-A1 result, and the highest score was

an A2 level. In many cases, some participants face challenges through each task to develop

the oral skills (Bueno et al., 2006). It demonstrated the necessity of a change.

Teachers have to understand ELLs’ (English language learners) problems and

implement various teaching strategies in their English classrooms to develop their learners’

speaking skills. Self-regulation has been chosen as the strategy to encourage students to

improve their learning. Shanker (2012) expressed self-regulation is the ability the child has

to see the difficulty, understand it, deal with it through the practice, and then return to the

beginning to recheck his/her job and do it properly.

Schunk and Greene (2018), in their study, mentioned that self-regulation is

considered an important strategy nowadays. Shunk and Greene (2018) indicated that few

studies internationally or in Ecuador document the use of self-regulation to help students

learn through most agree that it would be useful. Helping teachers and students use self-


regulation is becoming more critical, particularly in institutions implementing their virtual

learning environments every time more. Thus, this study focused on the students’ self-

regulation training and oral interaction improvement, as well.

Ontaneda (2019) and Saltos (2019) used self-regulation with mobile devices to

improve oral interaction using recorded spoken videos, also improving pronunciation and

fluency in learners in Ecuador. Tenelanda and Castelo (2016) focused on using cell phones

through audio and video recordings to improve pronunciation and intonation. They found

that learners felt more comfortable working by themselves, listening to these recordings in

their target language. They were also taught to self-assess, set goals, and make an action

plan to reach goals.

Students can create a virtual learning environment that encourages their learning,

mainly on the new teaching and learning approach (Qamar, 2016). Raja and Najmunnisa

(2018) stated that traditional procedures adopted to facilitate students’ learning of

communication depended on textbooks and lectures. However, to improve students’

learning, a student-centered methodology, supported by self-regulation and self-assessment,

was used to increase their English level.

The study took place in a rural Millennium School in Junin city, very close to

Portoviejo, Ecuador. The institution was created six years ago. The school is equipped with

an extensive and complete library and one computing lab. More than one thousand

students are studying there. The school received students from different small, rural schools

around the area, and many have a lack of knowledge in various subjects, especially in

English. Their academic background was impoverished when the school opened.

The innovation was implemented in the ninth year students as a new way to increase

their second language learning, taking advantage of the school’s resources. The general


research question was: What was the effect on oral interaction of self-regulation facilitated

by mobile devices in a rural high school in Ecuador?

Literature Review

The current study aimed to improve oral interaction by applying self-regulation in a

group of high school students. The Literature Review explored the innovation’s relevant

concepts using primary studies about the main topic, which focused on facilitating self-

regulation to improve young learners’ oral interaction through self-assessment supported by

mobile devices.

Self-Regulation and Self-Assessment

Self-regulation is the selective use of strategies by which learners transform their

mental processes into academic skills, adapting them to individual learning tasks

(Zimmerman, 2010). Brown and Harris (2014) said that self-regulation involves setting

goals, evaluating progress related to the target criteria, and improving learning results. Self-

regulation can engage students by making students more active in measuring their progress

and using feedback properly.

According to Laranjo (2016), self-regulation could be defined as the process by

which people incorporate behavior change into their everyday routines. Self-regulation is

related to self-monitoring, goal setting, reflective thinking, decision-making, planning, plan

enactment, self-evaluation, and management of the emotions arising from the behavior

change. Self-assessment must be taught as a component of self-regulation, a competency

developed in school (Brown & Harris, 2014).

Zimmerman (1990) stated that maybe self-regulated learners are aware when they

know a fact or possess a skill and when they do not. Unlike passive participants, self-

regulated students proactively look for new information when necessary and take the

required steps to reach a goal. When self-regulated learners find obstacles such as poor


study conditions, confusing teachers, or abstruse textbooks, fortunately, they find a way to

overcome these issues (p. 4).

Schunk and Greene (2018) recommended more training and teaching self-

regulation, a skill that enhances motivation, understanding, and setting goals to reach in

learners. However, there is still little evidence that demonstrates these skills are needed for

more time to be mastered in different learning areas. The authors also stated that self-

regulation must be taught systematically or comprehensively in some formal educational

environments to obtain metacognitive results through self-assessment procedures.

Panadero et al. (2016) defined self-assessment as a “wide variety of mechanisms

and techniques through which students describe and possibly assign merit or worth to the

qualities of their learning processes and products” (p. 804). Epstein et al. (2008) defined

“self-assessment” as “ongoing moment-to-moment self-monitoring” (p. 5). Self-monitoring

“is about the ability to notice our actions, curiosity to examine the effects of those actions,

and willingness to apply those observations to improve behavior and thinking in the next

steps” (p. 5).

According to the National Research Council (2001), self-assessment can examine

themselves to find out how much progress learners have gotten. It is related to helping each

one monitor his/her work or skills, analyze his/her weaknesses and strengths, and do a self-

assessment, set goals, and find relevant strategies to reach their goals. Desautel (2009), self-

assessment helps develop critical meta-cognitive skills that contribute to a range of

essential capabilities.

Sharma et al. (2016) expressed that self-assessment can increase learners’

motivation levels. Self-assessment leads to better academic performance while developing

critical thinking skills for the analysis of their work. It is about judging, evaluating, and

considering the qualities of one’s academic work or abilities (Panadero et al., 2014).


Brown and Harris (2014) have found that self-assessment makes students more

responsible for tracking their progress. Still, some psychological factors lead to dishonesty

for protecting their images for decision-making and summative assessment. In summative

assessment, many people care more about their reputation and how others will judge them

than really being honest (American Psychological Association, 2020).

Assessment of Speaking

Speaking assessment methods are centered on interviews and referred to as OPIs or

oral proficiency interviews. A well-known OPI is the American Council on the Teaching of

Foreign Languages or the ACTFL OPI (ACTFL, 2009). According to Ginther (2013),

interviewers preselect a set of responses to follow up on topics or comments that the

participant has introduced. The interviewer may rate the examinee performance

simultaneously. When an audio or video recording is made, responses can be measured

after the interview is completed. EPPI (2002) Assessment requires processes in which

learning is collected in a planned and systematic way to judge student learning.

The possibilities afforded by the implementation of technology give rise to

distinctions between different modes of speaking assessment. A direct speaking test refers

to assessing speaking through face-to-face oral communication with an interlocutor,

interviewer, or examiner. The direct speaking assessment contrasts with a semi-direct

speaking test, which indicates a machine-mediated review involving the test-taker uttering

responses into a recording device without a human interlocutor being present to elicit the

output (Qian, 2009).

To assess a speaking class, teachers need to emphasize comprehensible and useful

tasks. According to Richards (2006), meaningful practice is an activity where students must

practice exercises that resemble real-life situations. Learners also need interaction with


others to associate what they learned to authentic performance. Therefore, this process

increases learners’ participation and motivation to learn more.

According to Brown (2006), many factors are considered to assess speaking in the

classroom: fluency, pronunciation, communication abilities, and understanding, among

others. Richards (2006) explained that fluency is a process in which the speaker interacts

naturally in an understandable way despite limitations. Pronunciation refers to speaking a

specific word in a way that is understood by the receiver (Otlowski, 1998). On the other

hand, communication abilities involve the capacity to start and manage conversations, ask

questions, and interact with others (Brown, 2006). Expressing and having understanding is

the capacity to recognize who is speaking to another, under what circumstances, and for

what reason the learner speaks (Bashir et al., 2011).

Rubrics provide a visual way to organize feedback and be a quick and transparent

way for educators to promptly give learners feedback (Lipnevich et al., 2014). For the

Cambridge oral interaction, A1 rubric oral interaction is described as “…learners can

interact, but communication is focused on repetition at a slower rate of speech, rephrasing,

and repair. Learners can also ask and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to

simple statements on very familiar topics.” (British Council, 2015). Also, Louma (2009)

mentioned that learners could understand the issues and instructions addressed carefully

and slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions.

In this study, students used the text lesson’s vocabulary and structure. Grammar and

vocabulary are focused on accuracy and a variety of grammatical structures (Richards,

2017). Finally, pronunciation is related to stress and individual sounds. Students can

respond at the word, phrase, or more extended utterance level. Also, the student’s

pronunciation is understandable with errors that did not interfere with comprehension.


Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

Saidouni and Bahloul (2016) expressed that mobile and wireless technologies had

opened new visions into learning and teaching. Mobile-Assisted Language Learning

(MALL) is one of the practical approaches that try to support e-learning features in general

and enhance language teaching and learning using the technology to facilitate students’

self-assessment. Ally (2009) claimed that mobile learning refers to “The process of using a

mobile device to access and study learning materials and to communicate with fellow

students, instructors or institutions” (p. 58).

Currently, mobile and electronic devices store and report the information to practice

and training. According to Rivera (2020), “mobile devices were necessary to record spoken

interactions to assist in the learning process and to self-reflect on the video works” (p. 8).

The education needs to adopt current technological resources such as multimedia devices,

mobile phones, and social media to optimize English language instruction and train

teachers to connect with classroom language learners (Alqahtani, 2019).

Basantes et al. (2017) determined that mobile devices improved communication.

However, not all educational opportunities were explored. They concluded that educators

need to have the proper training on mobile technology in their classes. They stated that it is

necessary to instruct educators on developing in their learners the correct application of

mobile devices. If it is not correctly applied, it could be a distractor more than a helping

resource with a wide range of technological opportunities to meet.

Computers are resources in language learning, and a lot of learners can connect with

their devices. More than this, students have taken care of working with mobile devices in

the classroom; in some cases, students could lose their attention to class due to cell phone

navigation. “As facilitators, it is impressive to lead students in the technological age,” as

mentioned by Sharples et al. (2005 as cited in Turc, 2017).


According to Deni and Zainal (2018), Padlet is a ‘free’ web 2.0 tool-platform where

virtual walls can be created. A virtual wall functions like a notice or a whiteboard where a

user can post multiple files on word documents, images, audio files, or videos. The creator

of a wall controls the content, design, layout, and privacy of the walls.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Lessard-Clouston (2018) expressed that interaction is an excellent opportunity for

English learners to understand each other using communicative activities to make

knowledge more understandable. A useful approach to increase communication and

interaction is CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), which is defined as a language

teaching method that focuses on interactive proficiency in different contexts and purposeful

features of genuine communication in the classroom (Şeker & Aydın, 2011). This author

also stated that CLT is the leading teaching method as a foreign or a second language (EFL

or ESL) to get significant results.

Krashen (1982) said that acquisition needs meaningful interaction in the destination

language in a natural communication where speakers are concerned not with the form of

their utterances but with the context they are conveying and understanding. The author

expressed that students require a real communication environment to create compelling

experiences that enhance learners' oral skills.

El Sakka (2016) stated that there are several strategies the speakers use to develop

their speaking, such as elaboration and planning strategies, evaluation strategies, reflection

strategies, goal orientation, and self-talk strategies to improve interaction in learners.

Bridges (2019) defined the action plan as a document to support the project from the start

until the end. It is a detailed list of the work that must be applied to complete the

document’s objective. It outlines what resources you’ll need to achieve that objective and

what your timeline will be.


The literature presented in this action research has aligned primary studies of

different authors. Their methodologies and principles have been combined with various

procedures where investigators have shown that through the implementation of self-

regulation by mobile devices, students can interact more naturally, which will make

learners reflect on their learning to get long-term knowledge. The current study answered

the following questions:

Research Questions

1.- To what extent did oral interaction improve?

2.- To what extent did students’ self-assessment improve?

3.- What were the students’ perspectives of the innovation?

Innovation

This innovation’s primary purpose was to improve oral interaction in a group of

twenty-two ninth-graders from a rural high school in Manabi, Ecuador, from November

2019 to January 2020. After receiving the institution’s consent letter to implement the

innovation, students took the Proficiency test and obtained low results. Students were

taught to self-regulate using mobile devices during the six weeks that lasted this innovation,

including 30 class hours of classes. Cell phones were used to record videos and

conversations to reflect, self-assess, and make action plans for the teacher to grade.

Each student was also trained to self-assess their video tasks, set goals, and make an

action plan to improve and do it better next time. To store the information, students used

Padlet. Also, it was used for teachers and students to organize the recordings and self-

assessments. Planning their activities, the educator used Backward Design (Appendix A),

which focused on all activities on a transfer goal. Students were trained to self-assess by

watching videos in the Computer Lab to learn to use the rubric.


Students were required to record five videos in pairs based on their regular program

using teacher guidelines to create interactive dialogues, which helped students improve

their oral interaction. Students prepared the dialogs and scripts, practiced repeatedly,

recorded themselves using mobile devices to store them on Padlet, and then self-assessed

using a speaking rubric (Appendix B).

The activities that were chosen to self-assess depended on the results of the previous

task. Students applied some strategies like extensive readings, listening to some podcasts,

writing little scripts, and recording their voices to do better in their next work. When the

researcher noticed that the action plan worked, the activities continued beyond. At the

beginning of the study, students were not so adapted to work with these kinds of strategies,

so the researcher applied the SILL with the study participants.

To know how students learned English before, the researcher applied the Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). According to Oxford (2003), SILL has some

practical uses for various individuals and groups. Learners can employ the SILL to assess

their use of L2 strategies and determine whether their strategies are the most appropriate for

their own language learning goals and requirements.

Students received guidelines to create conversations based on each unit in their text.

The five videos had limited time between one minute, thirty seconds, and two minutes long.

An important aspect that students needed to consider during this innovation was the action

plan after each video recording.

Yousef et al. (2013) described two aims for acquiring communication strategies: “to

decrease students” anxiety, and “to increase students” willingness to participate in

conversations” (p. 207). These authors also commented about using some strategies like

Help-Seeking Strategies: they appeal for help and ask for repetition. Both encourage

learners to be engaged in oral communication by using expressions such as “Sorry, I do not


understand” and “Please repeat.” These expressions were used in class when learners did

not understand something.

Some students had an email account before beginning with the innovation, but a few

created them during the project. Moreover, participants were allowed to bring their devices

to the school to complete their videos. In this way, the work flowed much better, and at the

moment to assess their task, the rubric was easier graded and uploaded.

Although the school is in a rural environment, students were very adapted to

technology. They could manage cell phones and computers. Cell phones are handy

recording devices that also motivate students to improve their task better. The majority of

the students had a mobile device, so the activities could also be developed at home, using

and training their communicative skills with their Padlet, uploading recordings, interacting

with the app, writing, and reflecting on task. In the final part of the project, the teacher

interviewed some students with a semi-structured interview (Appendix C) made in Spanish

to know students’ perspectives about the innovation, considering their improvement, their

challenges, their effort, and overall their learning.

Methodology

This innovation was mixed-method two-phase action research. According to

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), “mixed methods research refers to techniques, methods,

approaches, and language of both quantitative and qualitative traditions.” (pp. 14-26).

Shorten and Smith (2017) stated that mixed research is a research approach where

investigators collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data in the same study. The

study lasted six weeks. Quantitative results were obtained from the pre and posttests

qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews to answer these research questions:

General: What was the effect on oral interaction of using self-regulation facilitated

by mobile devices in a rural high school in Ecuador?


Specific: And the following specific questions guided the research:

1.- To what extent did oral interaction improve?

2.- To what extent did students’ self-assessment improve?

3.- What were the students’ perspectives of the innovation?

Participants.

The participants were a group of 22 learners ages 13 to 15 who were in the ninth

year of General Basic Education (EGB). The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning,

also called (SILL), in its Spanish version, was used to collect demographics and to know

what strategies the students used previously for learning English. This inventory was

developed by Rebecca Oxford (Oxford, 2003) and it was applied not only to collect

demographic information but also to give the students ideas for strategies for learning

English.

The SILL was used to identify learners’ preferred strategies for self-regulation

before the innovation began (Oxford, 2003). SILL has the following categories: (a)

remembering more effectively; (b) using all your mental processes; (c) Compensating for

missing knowledge; (d) organizing and evaluating your learning; (e) Managing your

emotions; and (f) learning with others.

The required English level in the ninth year is A2. Still, according to results

obtained from the Kaplan International Proficiency Test before the innovation began, 64%

had a low A1 English level, 27% got a high A1, and finally, two students who represent 9%

got an A2 level. Most of these learners took the proficiency test in the English Lab. A pair

of students took it in their houses by their mobile devices or using their computers because

they were sick in those days. Students commented that they were nervous taking the

proficiency test, and answered some questions without reading all the instructions.


Ethical Considerations

Students need to be protected in their integrity as a group and as individuals. At the

beginning of the research study, the students were informed about implementing this

innovation project. Although their work was done in class time and following the course

content, it was necessary to ask parents because the recorded videos had a worldwide

audience, so it was required to obtain the written permission or acceptance from parents.

Pillay (2014) expressed that research ethics is an essential value where rights,

protection, and respect for participants are considered. The names of students and the

school were not used without permission. The videos were produced to self-assess

progress, but some students posted their videos on social networks. The institution

authorized the researcher to conduct this study. All the data collected were kept in the

researcher’s virtual folders without exposing anything related to names.

Instruments and Data Collection

The instruments were designed to collect the necessary information to answer the

three research questions: 1.- To what extent did oral interaction improve?; 2.- To what

extent did the students’ self-assessment improve?; and 3.- What were the students’

perspectives of the innovation? For the study, the independent variable was self-regulation,

and the dependent variable was oral interaction.

To answer research question one, video number 1 and video number 5 were used as

the pretest and posttest to grade their possible improvement. These videos measure

students’ range of vocabulary, pronunciation, and interaction. The videos’ length is 1:30 to

2:00 minutes, and the content was related to unit 5, following the guidelines from the

coursebook. The principal instrument to measure students’ possible improvement from

pretest grades to posttest grades was the speaking rubric, an adaptation from the Cambridge

Speaking A1 rubric.


According to the Council of Europe (2018), for Cambridge scales of speaking

assessment, three criteria were initially proposed as appropriate for the amount and type of

language that candidates produce for A1 Movers exams: Grammar & Vocabulary,

Pronunciation, and Interaction. Additionally, all these criteria have specific characteristics

to fulfill. The speaking rubric descriptors were adapted from the A1 level form Cambridge

English Preliminary (2016).

The rubric descriptors were three, and each one was assigned three points, plus one

point for the action plan. A1 learners interacted in a simple way to assess interaction, but

communication was dependent on repetition, rephrasing, and repair. Students were able to

ask for support if required. They use the criteria, called descriptors from now on. The

rubrics used during the innovation were the same during all the innovation. Even though

they had different grammar tenses, topics, titles, and subtitles, it is necessary to mention

that students self-assessed the same descriptors in every task.

The Vocabulary descriptor was focused on the accuracy and a variety of words.

Students used the text lesson’s vocabulary and structure. On another side, pronunciation

assesses the stress and individual sounds. Students responded to a word, phrase, or more

extended utterance level. The student’s pronunciation was understandable with errors that

did not interfere with comprehension. The last point of the total of ten was given for the

action plan. The action plan included checking and reflecting on the results, goal setting,

and strategies to reach the goal. Students selected strategies to improve before the next task,

like improving interaction, how, when, and what to do. After that, the researcher used SPSS

to calculate and compare the means of students’ pre and posttest and sub-skills and

calculated the standard deviation and effect size using an online calculator.

To answer research question number two, to what extent did students’ self-

assessment improve? The improvement was determined by comparing the students’ self-


assessment mean to the teacher’s (expert) result for the first and last speaking assessments.

If the students’ results became closer to the teacher’s results, self-assessment skills

improved or were satisfactory.

To answer research question number three, to know the students’ perspectives about

the innovation, the researcher used a semi-structured interview (Appendix C). The main

interview objective was to know about students’ perspectives of challenges and positive

aspects of their learning. Eight students were chosen to participate in it. The selection was

made, taking into consideration different levels of progress. In this way, the researcher

could have perspectives from all the levels of students’ learning. The participants had to

answer seven questions in Spanish. The interview was done in Spanish to allow students to

express their likes and concerns, their challenges, and the positive and negative aspects they

had to overcome during the innovation.

Reliability and Validity

Taherdoost (2016) mentioned that validity tells how well the collected data covers

the current task. It means that the study measures what is supposed to be measured. This

task is valid because the rubric has been adapted from the Cambridge assessment (2020),

those rubrics whose instruments are internationally recognized. Cambridge (2020)

expresses that useful language tests should include tasks that represent at least some aspects

of what happens in real contexts, such as giving presentations, engaging in tutorials,

creating conversations, and recording some dialogues.

Moreover, Taherdoost (2016) also expressed that reliability concerns the extent to

which a measurement of a phenomenon provides a stable and consistent result. Reliability

relates to repeatability. For example, a test is reliable if different users repeat the analysis,

and approximately the same results are obtained. Before the study, the researcher tested the

reliability with English colleagues. Descriptors were read and clarified.


The same happens with the validity of the instruments. Curran et al. (2011)

expressed that they applied a Delphi survey of experts prepared to validate the required

competencies in their study. They stated that “in the second phase, an assessment rubric

was developed based on the validated competencies and then evaluated for utility, clarity,

practicality, and fairness through multi-site focus groups with students and faculty at both

college and university levels” (p. 340). Something similar happened in the current research

because the rubric was validated with colleagues. In these sessions, every member

compared and contrasted opinions calibrating and clarifying the rubric.

The recently mentioned authors said that the rubric instrument might be used across

various professions and learning contexts. Besides this, the rubric is also adapted from the

Cambridge rubrics. Rubrics support their learning standards based on the common

European framework of reference for languages (Council of Europe, 2018), the level of

proficiency for this action research was A1. Muñoz et al. (2003) stated that logically, the

interpretations of a test score are affected by the set of tasks used to measure language

abilities and proper development; the logical estimation of validity also involved the

specification of the functions be used for assessment.

Results

To answer the research question number one to what extent did oral interaction

improve? The means of the pre-test and posttest were calculated, both tests were measured

with the speaking rubric. Table 1 shows the results.


Table 1

Pre and posttest results

Sample

N

Mean

M

St. Dv.

SD

Effect Size

d PRETEST 22 6.28 1.16

POSTTEST 22 7.56 1.18 1.09

Results were 7.56 in the posttest against a 6.28 obtained at the beginning in the

pretest. The 1.28 point increase obtained has been possible due to the self-regulation

process. Table 1 shows that the effect size for oral interaction improvement is 1.09, which

is a large effect size (ES), according to Brydges (2019), who expressed that researchers

usually use Cohen’s guidelines as references. Cohen’s d around 0.20 is considered small, if

it is 0.50 as a medium, and finally if it is 0.80 or more it is regarded as a large effect size. It

means that there is evidence that demonstrates that progress was caused by innovation.

Table Nº 2 reflects the improvement in every subskill comparing the pre-test against

the post-test´ results demonstrating a considerable improvement.

Table 2

RQ #1 Oral interaction improvement: sub-skills results

Table 2 shows the effect size of the innovation in each sub-skill. Grammar and

Vocabulary had a large effect size of 1.07, for the Pronunciation sub-skill, the result was

SAMPLE PRETEST POSTTEST Effect

Size

Sub- Skills N M SD M SD d

Grammar &

Vocabulary 22 1.80 0.43 2.26 0.43 1.07

Pronunciation 22 1.73 0.41 2.13 0.44

0.94

Interaction 22 1.75 0.38 2.18 0.40 1.10


positive as well with 0.94. Finally, for Interaction, the effect size was the most significant

with 1.10. All the speaking sub-skills were checked and analyzed to understand better the

results. Improvement was noticeable in every sub-skill.

For answering the second research question, to what extent did self-assessment

improve? The teacher’s overall results and student self-assessment results were compared

for videos one and five. If the students’ and teachers’ results were closer at the end, it was

interpreted that with practice the students’ self-assessment skills had improved. The

comparison of teacher’s and students’ results are shown in Table 3, and also in Figure 1 it is

noticeable how students and teacher´s grades improved in the last videos.

Table 3

Comparison of teacher’s and students’ assessment results

Items Mean Video 1 Mean Video 5

Students´ Grades 6.05 7.50

Teacher´s Grades 6.28 7.56

Difference in points 0.23 0.06

Table Nº 3 reflects the comparison between students’ mean scores against the teacher's

mean scores which demonstrates improvement at the end of the innovation.

In Figure Nº 1 there is a visual representation of the similarities of the scores at the

end for both teacher and students.


Figure Nº 1. Mean Comparison from Pre-test to Posttest.

.

The difference between the teacher’s scores and the students’ scores is relatively

small meaning that the pre-innovation training in self-assessment and using the rubric was

effective since the students’ and teacher’s scores demonstrated only a small difference from

the beginning.

To answer the research question number three to know the students’ perspectives of

the innovation, eight participants were chosen according to their progression in the group

were interviewed in Spanish using seven questions. Below is the interpretation of their

answers to understand their perspective of the innovation.

Question 1. What did you learn during the innovation? Students mainly said they

learned to self-assess their speaking, and when they saw their mistakes, they were able to

correct them. Others said that they improved in their fluency. Some of the students´

answers were, “In my opinion, my English improved a lot due to using it, and also

practicing.” (S2). (S3) said, “It was very hard to understand at the beginning, but I learned

more words in English because I practiced a lot with my cellphone and video recordings

helped me a lot to understand the language.” (S4) said, “I learned to speak in English

more fluently looking and listening to the videos recorded in Padlet.”

6.05

7.50

6.28

7.56

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

Mean Video 1 Mean Video 5

Mean Comparison from Video 1 to Video 5

Students´

Teacher´s


Question 2. What did you do to learn? Students talked about the strategies and

techniques used to improve their learning and the frequency that they applied in practicing

conversation, asking and answering questions, also with their pronunciation recording their

voices on the mobile phone, and practicing their listening as well. Answers also mentioned

that the constant practice of the tasks and videos improved that learning. Some of their

answers were, (S5) mentioned, “I listened to some music in my computer, and at the same

time I could read the subtitles in English.” (S6) mentioned, “I practiced speaking in a loud

voice for improving my pronunciation to record videos better.” Something which

especially called my attention was this answer: (S7) expressed, “Practicing with my

partners with on line conversations.”

Question 3. What did you like about the innovation? Students were diverse in their

answers, but all of them were happy for participating in the study, and talked about what

they liked more. Some of their answers were, (S1) said, “This way of learning (with

technology) is new. I tell my family now to listen to me speaking in English.” (S5) said, “I

loved to discover Padlet, it is amazing to store our tasks and all the lessons.” (S7) said,

“The principal thing was to see my videos online, and I enjoyed creating some imaginary

conversations with my partners.” (S8) answered, “I loved the opportunity to use cellphones

in classes to have real classes.”

Question 4. What were the challenges? The innovation sometimes looked harder for

some students because of time limitations, technology and lack of vocabulary. (S1)

expressed, “I felt that more than once, the videos became very demanding (of my time).”

(S3) mentioned, “Sometimes the internet was my worst enemy.” (S6) commented, “At the

beginning it was very complicated for me to record the videos without reading the paper,

but with the practice I did it better.” (S8) said, “For me, it was a little complicated to

understand the questions of my partner, but I had practiced more and more.”


Question 5. How did you feel using the rubrics to grade your own videos? Students

demonstrated a great commitment in all the innovation process, especially when they

graded themselves. Even in some cases, I talked to them because their self-assessment

grades were too low. Some of their answers were, (S1) commented, “it was good. I learned

a lot reading the descriptors, and I tried to be fair with myself.” (S5) expressed, “It was

good, and I liked the learning method.” (S7) said, “I felt a big responsibility, my job had to

be great and I needed to improve because English is my favorite subject.” (S8) mentioned,

“To tell you the truth, I felt very nervous every moment when I used the rubric. I thought

you were supposed to grade us, but after a while I got the idea.”

Question 6. Do you think your English level is adequate to have an English

conversation by yourself? Almost all the students answered in the same way. (S2)

mentioned, “I think my English level is adequate for talking with my partners.” (S5) said,

“I believe yes.” (S6) expressed, “I had some doubts at the beginning of the innovation, but

I trained to improve.” (S7) commented, “I don’t have the level yet, but I practice all the

time.”

Question 7. What would you like to learn in future English innovations? All of the

students agreed to have more self-regulation innovations for next academic period of

classes. They learned to set goals. They expressed that they wanted to improve their

English in a different way than before. Some of their answers were. (S2) expressed, “I

would like to improve my listening, to understand better different languages.” (S4)

answered, “I want to learn to speak faster than now.” (S7) said, “I want to have some

longer innovation to improve more.” (S8) mentioned, “I want to learn more things about

technology, the use and application of the apps.”

Students expressed their opinions and showed their perspectives about the

innovation, and overcame their challenges. Students were able to set goals, and they learned


how to self-assess during the training. Besides, they liked working with electronic devices

in the Computing Labs that was a useful resource to motivate students to improve their

learning.

Discussion

The use of self-regulation facilitated by mobile devices improved the oral

interaction in participants of this innovation. Additionally, results showed learners’

acquisition and responsibility during this interactive process. Students were worried about

doing a good job, especially for improving and developing oral skills. Ginther (2013)

mentioned that speaking could be one of the most challenging skills to develop. Therefore,

it was necessary to design some strategies to encourage students to participate in this

implementation focused on the self-regulation improvement in students.

As results confirmed for research question one, self-regulation improved oral

interaction with a large overall effect size of 1.09. According to Zimmerman (2002), self-

regulation is the selective use of strategies by which learners transform their mental

processes into academic skills adapted to individual learning tasks. Thus, students who

participated in the innovation worked with self-regulation components like self-assessment,

goal setting, and then making an action plan. Students were engaged and more active in

measuring their progress and using feedback assertively to be more independent in the next

steps of their training.

Participants were trained to self-assess speaking by assessing Cambridge videos,

plus practicing in the classroom where students finally understood what they had to do in

every step of the study. Students and the teacher analyzed the videos using the adapted

Cambridge speaking rubric, which confirmed that all of them improved oral interaction,

which means that students could learn in a short time to self-assess their work as reflected

on the results. They are ready to begin a new cycle.


Results for research question number two about the improvement in self-assessment

indicate that there was little change in students’ and teacher’s means from the beginning of

data collection to the end. (Video One: Students’ Mean: 6.05 - Teacher’s Mean: 6.28, and

Video Five: Students’ Mean: 7.50 - Teacher’s Mean: 7.56). The researcher concluded that

the training that took place before the innovation started was practical, and students were

able to learn in a short time to self-assess their work, reflect on the results and begin a new

cycle. These results indicated similarities with Bueno et al. (2006), which also expressed

the challenges to develop oral skills, and how participants faced the challenges through

each task to achieve.

Results for research question number three indicate that students lived different new

experiences. All this new way of learning was a change for some of them; for others, this

innovation was the step to improve their knowledge and to increase the motivation for

working and learning better. According to their answers, students improved their speaking

fluency and comprehension, but the most they knew was their ability to learn from their

mistakes. They overcame their troubles, concerns, and acquired new strategies to recover

from their errors through self-assessing their work and, finally, increasing their knowledge.

Students noted their concerns, questions, and motivations for improving each task

proposing new strategies to improve their previous activity’s vulnerable parts. Students

reflected on what to improve and how and when to do it. Students interchanged ideas with

their partners inside and outside classes. Lessard-Clouston (2018) said that interaction is an

excellent opportunity for people to understand others through interactive activities and

making knowledge more comprehensible. These interactions helped them to learn more and

more.

The innovation was a different process than usual, and learners were motivated.

Krashen (2013) expressed that if students feel better, they will learn better, which happened


in implementing this action research. Students showed enthusiasm and commitment to

accomplishing the work all the time. Therefore, self-assessment had moderated

improvement; it was trained from their first beginning. Results demonstrated that Brown

and Harris (2014) mentioned that self-assessment must be taught as a part of self-

regulation, a competency developed in formal education. Students received constant

training using technological resources like their mobile devices or Padlet where they could

look for information, overcame difficulties, read the teacher’s comments and feedback, and

tried to fulfill the gaps presented in the innovation.

As the teacher, I had the opportunity to see my students training in and outside the

school. I remember a pair of them practicing and trying to record a video in the city’s park.

I felt pleased. When I checked Padlet daily, I noticed that students commented more, and

they did more than required. Self-assessment was necessary to teach, as confirmed by

Desautel (2009), self-assessment helps develop critical meta-cognitive skills that contribute

to a range of essential capabilities. The reflective practice improves self-assessment, setting

the criteria to self-assess explicitly.

In most cases, learners inflate their grades. Still, students in this study even were

under graded by themselves. In this specific case, they were hard in grading themselves, but

seeing those results, they were very motivated, and they showed a very positive

perspective. They loved to use Padlet and their mobile phones for their video recordings,

grading, and giving feedback. Brown and Harris (2014) stated that teachers also evaluate

their performances and give feedback about students’ weaknesses based on the rubric

criteria. Training students to self-regulate continued during the whole innovation. That is

why at the final part of the innovation, students’ and teacher’s final grades just presented a

little divergence of 0.06 points. The students understood how to analyze their oral

interaction.


Conclusions

The investigation was part of a university project designed to improve oral

interaction in learners using self-regulation. When the study finished, the researcher

compared the results with similar studies concluding that students positively enhanced

every aspect of their learning processes such as their grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation,

and oral interaction due to self-regulation training.

Students took advantage of opportunities to improve oral interaction, learning to

self-assess by watching videos. They were nervous at the beginning of the innovation. Still,

after proper training, they could manage the tasks based on scripts and recording a

conversation where the oral interaction improved a little more in every task. They used the

speaking rubric and reflected carefully on rubric components to self-assess their work and

use feedback from the teacher.

Self-assessment was the primary strategy to promote self-regulation, and results

showed significant improvement in the tasks. Besides, the use of the SILL results allowed

the researcher to understand better how students learned before. Furthermore, by involving

the students actively in their learning, by sharing instruments like pre and posttests, the

rubric and reflections students could reach their goals. The use of Padlet was useful to

organize the researcher’s and students’ learning.

During the innovation, students were motivated to do a better job. Learners had the

advantage of using computers in the school English Lab and their own mobile devices. This

new way of learning was more attractive for students who felt the commitment to learn how

to self-regulate to efficiently improve their oral interaction by recording some videos and

training hard while gradually their speaking fluency improved.

Finally, as a conclusion of this action research, the teacher demonstrated that

implementing the self-regulation strategy using mobile devices was essential in the


participants’ oral interaction and self-assessment improvement. Even though time spent in

the innovation was short, it was based on the learning’s hard training and functional

development. Students could see their progression, as shown by the results. The work was

beneficial because students were engaged in doing their activities and improving a little

more.

Limitations

The limitations in this action research were present from the first moment when the

innovation began due to the sample’s small size. The small number of twenty-two

participants is a minimum sample size, and results cannot be generalized to another context.

Additionally, after finishing this innovation, another critical limitation was the limited time

set for applying this innovation. Additional time would provide more reliable and longer-

lasting results. Finally, the absence of a control group limited the possibility of comparing

this action research’s effectiveness.

Recommendations

As a recommendation of this action research, the author wants to express as

suggestions some advice to follow: First, it would be a good idea for all teachers to promote

oral interactions to teach self-regulation, not only in English. Second, if the innovation will

be part of some future study, it is recommended that it last longer with a control group to

strengthen conclusions. A third recommendation is for schools to facilitate the use of

technology because it engages students in learning. Also, schools should encourage action

research so the activities that can be facilitated by technology and learning can be better

understood.


References

Al Hosni, S. (2014). Speaking difficulties encountered by young EFL learners.

International journal on studies in English language and Literature (IJSELL), (2)6,

22- 30. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270340628

Ally, M. (2009). Mobile Learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training.

Athabasca University: AU Press.

Alqahtani, A. (2019). The use of technology in English language teaching. Frontiers in

Education Technology, 2, 1-68. Doi: 10.22158/fet.v2n3p168.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2009). Testing for

Proficiency. The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. Retrieved from

http://www.actfl .org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3348

American Psychological Association. (2020). People may lie to appear honest: Efforts to

avoid appearing dishonest may actually lead to lying. Science daily. Retrieved from

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200130081618.htm

Basantes, A., Naranjo, M., Gallegos, M., & Benítez, N. (2017). Mobile devices in the

learning process of the faculty of education science and technology of the technical

University of the north in Ecuador. Formación universitaria, 10(2), (79-

88). Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062017000200009

Bashir, M., Azeem, M., Ashiq, Dr, & Dogar, H. (2011). Factor affecting students' English

speaking skills. British journal of arts and social sciences. doi: 2. 2046-9578.

Bonifaz, D. (2020). Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral

Production. (Master´s thesis, Casa Grande University, Guayaquil, Ecuador)

Retrieved from http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/handle/ucasagrande/2274

British Council. (2015). Education Intelligence. English in Ecuador. An Examination from

Policy, Perceptions and Influencing Factors. Retrieved from


https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/English%20in%20Ecuador.

pdf

Bridges, J. (2019). How to Make an Action Plan. Project manager. Planning task

management. Retrieved from: https://www.projectmanager.com/training/make-

action-plan

Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of language learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. ISBN:

0-13-199128-0 Retrieved from: http://angol.uni-miskolc.hu/wp-

content/media/2016/10/Principles_of_language_learning.pdf

Brown, G. & Harris, L. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice:

Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontiers of Learning Research,

3, 22-30. doi: 10.14786/flr.v2i1.24.

Brydges, C. (2019). Effect size guidelines, sample size calculations, and statistical power in

Gerontology. Innovation in Aging, (3)4. Pp. 1 – 8. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igz036

Bueno, A., Madrid, D., & McLaren, N. (2006). TEFL in Secondary Education. TEFL in

Primary Education: Workbook. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Cambridge Assessment. (2020). Cambridge Assessment English. What is Validity?

Retrieved from: https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/blog/what-is-validity/

Cambridge. (2020). Cambridge English Assessment. Retrieved from:

https://bit.ly/1Q2RMOi

Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference: Learning,

Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with Descriptors. Retrieved from:

https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989

Curran, V., & Hollett, A., & Casimiro, L., & Mccarthy, P., & Banfield, V., & Hall, P., &

Lackie, K., & Oandasan, I., & Simmons, B., & Wagner, S. (2011). Development


and Validation of the Interprofessional Collaborator Assessment Rubric (ICAR).

Journal of interprofessional care, 25. 339-344. doi.

10.3109/13561820.2011.589542.

Davila, A. (2020). Self-Regulation to Enhance Oral Interaction. (Master´s thesis, Casa

Grande University, Guayaquil, Ecuador) Retrieved from

http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/handle/ucasagrande/2295

Deni, A. & Zainal, Z. (2018). Padlet as an educational tool: Pedagogical Considerations

and lessons learnt. doi: 10.1145/3290511.3290512.

Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a Thinking Thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and

classroom practice. Teachers college record, 111. 1997-2020. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286877377_Becoming_a_Thinking_Think

er_Metacognition_Self-Reflection_and_Classroom_Practice

Education First. (2019). English Proficiency Index. A Ranking of 100 Countries and

Regions by English Skills. Retrieved from: https://www.ef.com.ec/epi/downloads/

El Sakka, S. (2016). Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction for Developing Speaking

Proficiency and reducing speaking anxiety of Egyptian university students. English

language teaching, 9(22). doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n12p22.

Epstein, R. M., Siegel, D. J., & Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical practice: A

Challenge for medical educators,28. 5–13. doi: 10.1002/chp.149

Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre. (2002), A

Systematic Review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students'

motivation for learning. Review conducted by the Assessment and Learning

Synthesis Group, EPPI, London.

Ginther, A. (2013). Assessment of speaking, 10. doi: 1002/9781405198431.wbeal0882.


Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. In: Educational researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Retrieved from:

https://sites.uci.edu/socscihonors/files/2017/09/Mixed_Methods_Research.pdf

Kannan, R. (2009). Difficulties in learning English as a second language. ESP world, 8(5).

1-4.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon

Press Inc. Retrieved from:

http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf

Krashen, S. (2013). Second language acquisition: Theory, applications, and some

conjectures. Mexico City: Cambridge University Press.

Laranjo, L, (2016). Participatory health through social media. Chapter 6. Social media and

health behavior change Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from:

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809269-9.00006-2

Lessard-Clouston, M. (2018). Second language acquisition applied to English language

teaching. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322294293_Second_Language_Acquisiti

on_Applied_to_English_Language_Teaching

Lipnevich, A., McCallen, L., Miles, K. & Smith, J. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’ use of

exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional science, 42.

doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9.

Louma, S. (2009). Assessing speaking. Cambridge language assessment series. 5.

Retrieved from:

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/04875/frontmatter/9780521804875_frontmatt

er.pdf


Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador (2012). Ecuadorian in-service English Teacher

Standards. The English Language Learning Standards. Retrieved from:

https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-

content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/estandares_2012_ingles_opt.pdf.

Ministerio de Educación Ecuador. (2014). National curriculum guidelines. English as a

foreign language. Retrieved from https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-

content/uploads/downloads/2014/09/01-National-Curriculum-Guidelines-EFL-

Agosto-2014.pdf

Muñoz, A., Álvarez, M., Casals, S., Gaviria, S., & Palacio, M. (2003). Validation of an oral

assessment tool for classroom use. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, (5).

139-157. Retrieved from:

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-

46412003000100009&lng=en&tlng=en.

National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and

Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, DC: The National

AcademiesPress. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.17226/10019.

Ontaneda, M.L. (2019). Facilitating Self-Regulation by mobile devices to improve speaking

skills in a post baccalaureate technical school. Retrieved from


Otlowski, M. (1998). Pronunciation: What are the expectations? The internet TESL

Journal, (4)1. Retrieved from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Otlowski-Pronunciation.html

Oxford, R. L. (2003). The strategies inventory for language learning (SILL). Version 7.0

(ESL/EFL). Retrieved from: https://richarddpetty.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sill-

english.pdf


Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-

assessment: A survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in education

principles policy and practice, (21). 365-383). doi:

10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247.

Panadero, E., Brown, G. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment:

A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 803–

830. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2

Pillay, J. (2014). Ethical Considerations in Educational Research involving Children:

Implications for Educational Researchers in South Africa. South African Journal of

Childhood Education. 4(2), 194-212 Retrieved from:

http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajce/v4n2/12.pdf

Qamar, M. (2016). The Impact of learner autonomy on teaching oral skills (speaking skills)

in an EFL classroom. Journal of language teaching and research, 7(2). pp. 293-298.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0702.07 ISSN 1798-4769.

Qian, D. (2009). Comparing Direct and semi-direct modes for speaking assessment:

Affective effects on test takers, language assessment quarterly, (6)2. pp. 113-125.

doi: 10.1080/15434300902800059

Raja, F.U. & Najmunnisa, Dr. (2018). Comparing traditional teaching method and

experiential teaching method using experimental research. Journal of education and

educational development, (5)2. 276. Retrieved from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1200262.pdf

Rao, P. (2019). The Importance of speaking skills in English classrooms, (2). 6-18. An

international peer-reviewed English journal. ISSN: 2581-6500


Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge

University Press. Retrieved from: https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-

content/uploads/Richards-Communicative-Language.pdf

Richards, J. (2017). Helping learners develop grammatical accuracy, fluency and

complexity. Retrieved from:

https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2017/10/04/accurate-fluent-and-complex-

grammar/

Rivera, M. (2020). Facilitating self-regulation with Mobile Devices to improve Oral

Interactions. (Master´s thesis, Casa Grande University, Guayaquil, Ecuador)

Retrieved from http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/handle/ucasagrande/2275

Robson, M. (2013). British Council. The English Effect. The impact of English, what it's

worth to the UK and why it matters to the world. Retrieved from:

https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/english-effect-report-v2.pdf

Saltos, F. (2019). Facilitating self-regulation with mobile devices to improve speaking

skills in high school students in Ecuador (Master´s thesis, Casa Grande University,

Guayaquil, Ecuador) Retrieved from


Saidouni, K., & Bahloul, A. (2016). Teachers and students’ attitudes towards using mobile-

assisted language learning in higher education. Arab world English journal (AWEJ).

International peer reviewed journal, 3. 123-140. Retrieved from:

https://www.awej.org/images/AllIssues/Specialissues/CALLjuly2016/10.pdf

Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J.A. (2018). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and

Performance (2nd edition, pp. 1-15). New York. Taylor & Francis.


Şeker, E., & Aydın, İ. (2011). Communicative approach as an English language teaching

method: Van Atatürk Anatolian high school sample. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim

Dergisi. (1). (Pp. 39-49). doi: 10.14527/C1S1M5.

Shanker, S. (2012). Report of the 2012 thinker in residence: Self-regulation. Subiaco,

western Australia: Commissioner for children and young people western Australia.

Retrieved from: http://www.self-

regulation.ca/download/pdf_documents/Thinker%20in%20Residence%20report%2

02012.pdf

Sharma, R., Jain, A., Gupta, N., Garg, S., Batta, M., & Dhir, S. K. (2016). Impact of self-

assessment by students on their learning. International Journal of Applied & Basic

Medical Research, 6(3), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516X.186961

Shorten, A. & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base,

BMJ Journals. 20(3). 74-75. doi: 10.1136/eb-2017-102699

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; How to test the

validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International journal of academic

research in management. 5. 28-36. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3205040.

Tenelanda, D., & Castelo, M. (2016). International conference. ICT for language learning.

The use of mobile phones through audio and voice recordings to improve English

pronunciation and intonation. Retrieved from: https://conference.pixel-

online.net/ICT4LL/files/ict4ll/ed0009/FP/3188-ICL2041-FP-ICT4LL9.pdf

Turc, L. (2017). Mobile-Assisted language learning (MALL) rate issues. A biannual open-

source peer-reviewed TEFL journal. ISSN 1844-6159. Retrieved from:

https://rate.org.ro/blog2.php/1/mobile-assisted-language-learning-mall


Yousef, R., Jamil, H., & Razak, N. (2013).Willingness to Communicate in English: A Study

of Malaysian. Pre-Service English Teachers. English Language Teaching, 6(9) 205-

216). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p205

Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An

overview, educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17 doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2

Retrieved from

https://ciel.viu.ca/sites/default/files/self_regulated_learning_and_academic_achieve

ment_an_overview_0.pdf

Zimmerman, B.J. (2010). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into

practice, 41(2), 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Retrieved

from http://saifulislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Becoming-a-Self-

Regulated-Learner-An-Overview.pdf


Appendixes

Appendix A

Backward Design. Lesson Plan.

Available upon request.


Appendix B

Rubric



Appendix C

Interview Protocol


Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral...

Documents

Transcript of Facilitating Self-Regulation with Mobile Devices to Improve Oral...