MA Applied Linguistics - 2016/2017 MA-thesis

Declaration of authenticity

MA Applied Linguistics - 2016/2017 MA-thesis

Student name: LUKÁCS Bence

Student number: S3149463

PLAGIARISM is the presentation by a student of an assignment or piece of work which has in fact been copied in whole, in part, or in paraphrase from another student's work, or from any other source (e.g.

published books or periodicals or material from Internet sites), without due acknowledgement in the text.

TEAMWORK: Students are encouraged to work with each other to develop their generic skills and increase their knowledge and understanding of the curriculum. Such teamwork includes general discussion and sharing of ideas on the curriculum. All written work must however (without specific authorization to the contrary) be done by individual students. Students are neither permitted to copy any part of another student’s work nor permitted to allow their own work to be copied by other students.

DECLARATION

• I declare that all work submitted for assessment of this MA-thesis is my own work and does not involve plagiarism or teamwork other than that authorised in the general terms above or that authorised and documented for any particular piece of work.

Signed

Date 15.06.2017

How effective is the use of mobile messaging (WhatsApp, Viber etc.) for the improving of writing quality among language learners? A meta-

study

LUKÁCS Bence S3149463

MA in Applied Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts University of Groningen

Supervisors:

Sake Jager (primary supervisor) Rasmus Steinkrauss (second reader)

15.06.2017

Word Count: 17107

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of mobile messaging, such as WhatsApp, Viber and SMS, for improving the writing quality among language learners. 12 studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and a total sample size of 408 participants was analyzed. Based on the reported statistics, effect sizes were aggregated and produced a Cohen’s d of 1.523, which can generally be considered a significantly positive effect.

Additionally, the impact of moderator variables (i.e. the application used, length of the intervention and type of writing used during the intervention) was examined, and while all moderator variables showed no statistical significance, idiom practice was shown to be statistically significant, but because of the small sample size (N = 1) this result has to be interpreted with caution. Finally, the positive result presented in this meta-analysis must be approached carefully, because the research on mobile messaging and especially its impact on writing quality is still rather scarce, as implied by the limited sample size of studies included.

Research has not yet started to fully focus on the impact of mobile messaging on writing and how it can be assessed properly. Besides investigating how mobile messaging affects

learners’ vocabulary and grammar, it should be key to study the writing output as well.

Keywords: mobile messaging; writing improvement; effectiveness

Abbreviations

CALL…Computer Assisted Language Learning

MALL…Mobile Assisted Language Learning

CMC…Computer-mediated Communication

SCMC…Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication

SMS…Short Message Service

MM…Mobile Messaging

MIM…Mobile Instant Messaging

UPSR…Compulsory National Primary School Achievement Test in Malaysia

MC…Multiple Choice test

WRAT…Wide Range Achievement Test

INTRODUCTION ... 4

BACKGROUND ... 6

Computer Assisted Language Learning ... 6

Reading, Listening, Speaking in CALL ... 9

Writing Skills and CALL ... 10

Messaging and Chatting in CALL ... 16

From CALL to MALL ... 21

MALL use ... 22

MALL writing ... 25

METHODS ... 27

Data sources, data collection and search strategy ... 28

Search results ... 29

Initial search ... 29

Inclusion criteria ... 31

Studies selected ... 32

Coding the selection ... 36

Calculating effect sizes ... 36

Evaluating publication bias ... 39

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 40

Descriptive information ... 40

Overall effect size for writing improvement ... 42

Effect size of writing improvement for moderator variables ... 45

Evaluation of publication bias ... 49

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ... 50

Conclusions ... 51

Limitations ... 53

Implications ... 57

Introduction

Technology in all its forms has been evolving at a rapid rate in the past decades. This continual development has not only been noticeable in everyday life and in business, but also in the educational context. Tele-teaching with the help of visual aids and audio-technology (Hilt, Schremmer, Kuhmünch, & Vogel, 2001) has turned into various online tools and integrated applications for smartphones, such as various applications designed by the British Council, or applications created solely for language learning, such as Duolingo (Segev, 2014).

It is therefore crucial to not only look at technological development available, but also how learners move in, and adapt to, the modernized and increasingly technological

environment they are confronted with. In general, online learning and especially language learning, can indeed benefit from this increased connectivity and availability. Blake offers an optimistic outlook: “The medium stimulates students to spend more time engaged with the second language (L2) materials, which ultimately promotes greater learning” (2011, p. 21).

Since the term Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) was coined in 1996 by Chickering and Ehrmann, possible benefits offered by mobile devices are being mentioned throughout literature. The continued evolving of ubiquitous learning and the engagement with technology across all ages makes it necessary to investigate the use of mobile devices in education (Taj, Sulan, Sipra, & Ahmad, 2016).

This thesis will try to provide an addition, and hopefully an extension, to MALL research and try to place the focus on a context most relevant for (young) learners, by

conducting a meta-analysis focusing on writing improving with mobile messaging. In light of possession and usage data for mobile phones, it can be postulated that modern MALL

research should focus more on the real-life appliances (young) learners use to prevent certain

gaps in research to open up. Furthermore, it can be argued that synthetization of available data specifically regarding mobile messaging in its various forms (SMS and mobile messaging applications, such as WhatsApp and Viber) could illustrate possible benefits already encountered with CALL intervention and writing, as well continually press on for future research to focus on this topic, seeing how it entrenched it already is in the world of today’s (young) learners. For research to make assumptions and draw the appropriate conclusions it is advisable to investigate a large size of data and synthesize results, thus the author decided to investigate this field with help of a meta-analysis based on the following research question:

RQ: How effective is the use of mobile messaging (WhatsApp, Viber, SMS etc.) for improving the quality of writing among language learners?

The first section of this thesis will offer an overview about developments in the field

of technology enhanced language learning, beginning with the field of CALL and connecting

relevant findings with MALL research. It will then go on to describing the meta-analysis

methodology, as well as present the results in the following section. Finally, the thesis will

discuss the findings, and take a look at limitations of the current meta-analysis, as well as

provide recommendations for future research in this area.

Background

The following background section will give a brief overview of historical developments in the field of CALL and highlight how its use influenced teaching and learning of language skills. It will also focus on presenting the status of research on writing, chatting, texting (SMS) and instant messaging from the CALL point of view, and build a bridge to currently relevant research on MALL.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

The 20

and the 21

century has brought on a wide range of developments, be it societal, in terms of migration and technological, with computing, cellphones and mobile devices (see Caudill, 2007; Michalski, 1999; Buchanan, 2017). Any development of these types is bound to have its effects on education. Although migration necessitates that society deals with learning new and different languages, and technological development enhances education in a multitude of ways, generally globalization can be seen as the key driver of the development in these fields. One particular field, namely CALL, deals with both

aforementioned contexts.

But as one can imagine, it is nonetheless a fairly recent progression in which CALL took its place in the academic field, especially in research literature. CALL was long

considered an interdisciplinary field, because the innate structures it is built upon stem from

its early development, where the main goal was solely to find appropriate ways to incorporate

a computer into teaching various subject areas. Based on the continued broadening of its

application in language learning and the growth in knowledge around it, CALL became its

unique field of study (Levy, 1997). By reflecting upon CALL and the development of its

basis and its use-cases, it can become clear how MALL might take over this leading position

by refining computer enhanced language learning even further.

Levy specified by adding that “the nature of CALL at any particular time, is to a large degree, a reflection of the level of development of the technology” (1997, p. 1). Going hand in hand with technological developments were various stages in pedagogical approaches. In general, the history of CALL can be divided into three stages based on Warschauer and Healey (1998): behaviorist stage, communicative stage and integrative stage.

The first iteration of CALL can be connected to the behaviorist stage in the late 1960s and 1970s where, based on concepts of the Audio-lingual method, computer technology was used for simple and repetitive drills (Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002). In this approach, the technology merely functioned as an exercise machine without many possibilities for

appropriate feedback, interaction and scaling of exercises. On the other hand, extensive grammar drills and individual learning pace were considered to be among the benefits of the technology at that time (Warschauer & Healey, 1998).

In the 1980s, opportunities arose for increased use of computers at schools, where simultaneously the need to communicate in order to learn a language was evolving into its own concept of language teaching. More and more software was developed with a general focus on development and expression of meaning and furthering appropriate interaction between learner and material. This mostly included a focus on using forms with the help of software that enabled learners to recreate specific text passages and specific language situations. The focus shifted from learners passively using the computer to more interactive methods where the learners used computers to communicate with other learners (Pusack &

Otto, 1990).

Following the communicative stage, the focus continued to shift in the 1990s.

Suddenly, just communicating through a computer-mediated learning environment was

deemed to be not social enough and lacking a learner focus. This is where further

technological developments, namely the beginnings of social networking and community building with wikis and blogs, as well as the Internet, started playing a central role. The use of authentic material and communication in authentic social settings was implemented more and more. As a result of this development, computers could now offer opportunities for various task designs, e.g. task-based language learning, where also the different language skills could be integrated (Gündüz, 2005).

Notwithstanding the various iterations of pedagogical approaches in a CALL context, researchers rather quickly pointed towards the potential prospects of using computer

technology: “Micro computers used as word processors complement audio facilities, enabling the interactive teaching of all four language skills reading, listening, speaking and writing”

(Crystal, 1987, p. 377). Since those early assertions, research has undertaken a number of investigations into CALL and language learning. Grgurović, Chapelle and Shelley (2013) conducted a thorough meta-analysis in order to find out the effectiveness of computer technology on language learning and language development. CALL intervention generally showed a positive impact compared to traditional classroom environments. Although the study did not specifically focus on certain language skills, they did find corroborating results for many variables under investigation and the effectiveness of CALL. One of the

motivations for the current study is summarized by Grgurović et al. (2013):

Nevertheless, learning in real classroom conditions is important to study in order to learn the effects of real CALL use by real classroom learners whose purpose is to learn language. From an educational policy perspective, it is important to learn how new innovations in teaching affect learning. (p. 191)

It is still a key component to specifically try to focus on certain aspects of CALL

intervention methods, i.e. different language skills, or different applications and methods.

Since various interactive methods manifested through distinct usage of technology and computers, these methods in connection with specific language skills, among them writing, will be further described in the following section.

Reading, Listening, Speaking in CALL. Literature often described three main methods for the use of the computer for learning and practicing reading. Initially, a lot of times CALL applications required the learner to read instructions in order to fulfill the given tasks, which was described as incidental reading. Traditional CALL applications were largely used for mechanical drills and exercises with low levels of interaction that focused on

grammar and vocabulary knowledge (i.e. tutorial CALL), which in turn enabled learners to concentrate on reading comprehension in general (Hult, Kalaja, Lassila, & Lehtisalo, 1990).

Lastly, computer applications allowed for texts to be managed and changed throughout the learning process, necessitating that learners focus on the content and structure of a text instead of the linguistic structures (Gündüz, 2005, p. 202).

Technology can enhance listening practice for learners by providing tutorial CALL exercises, where learners can indeed hear correct pronunciations, grammar, vocabulary and language structures (Chun & Plass, 2005). Additionally, with appropriate setup, computers provide listening comprehension exercises to learners by not only giving audio output, but also offering testing, such as questionnaires or cloze texts. Another benefit of CALL, in combination with the internet, for improving listening skills is the opportunity to offer and engage with different native languages, dialects and sounds, which would be almost impossible to accomplish with a traditional classroom approach (Kramsch & Andersen, 1999).

As technology improved there are also more and more opportunities for learners to

actively use their language and produce speech. Computers can provide simulations, role-

playing and discussions for learners to engage in, while having to input audio instead of written material. Additionally, by providing learners with suitable environments with the help of simulations, their motivation can increase through simultaneous feedback from their communication partner. Although improving speaking skills requires either remote learning partners (e.g. tele-collaboration or eTwinning), specific technology with advanced speech recognition, or online-based environments, having a computer can open up various contexts in which oral production is desirable and necessary (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998; James, 1996;

Gündüz, 2005).

Writing Skills and CALL. With the main focus of this research being messaging and texting, it is important to take a closer look and outline the relationship between CALL and writing skills in general. It has been common for almost thirty years now for writing instructors to rely on computer enhancement in their language learning classrooms, where word processing was extended by technology to include easier revision methods and collaborative writing for students (Warschauer, 1996; Levy, 1990). Another milestone in writing and communication teaching and learning was the introduction of CMC, which allowed instructors to use the computer as a tool to facilitate communication among learners instead of them having to interact only with the machines. For writing practice, it not only opened the door for further collaborative writing tasks, but it enabled a completely different form of communication between teachers and learners as well, e.g. e-mail enabling teachers to reach more and more students at the same time. Finally, it was argued that the use of computers for writing practice improves learners’ motivation by providing them with a less formal and more personal space for their writing (Warschauer, 1996).

In these early stages of CALL writing research, Warschauer (1996) provided a

positive outlook on the use of CALL, generally showing an encouraging attitude and

motivation among learners. Even before these assertions, it was presumed that employing

CALL for the writing tasks turned simple and routine tasks into more interesting tasks by simple addition of the technology (Greenia, 1992; Scott & New, 1994). Regardless of various factors, such as gender and skill (typing and general computer-use), using computers for writing in the language learning classroom was well received among learners. One of the main reasons for this was the possibility for communication, especially with native-speakers.

Warschauer (1996) continued to elaborate and summarized by stating:

But it also involves students wanting to communicate with other non-native speakers in other parts of the world, as well as with their classmates and their teacher. The benefits of this communication are seen as many: feeling part of a community, developing thoughts and ideas, learning about different people and cultures, and students’ learning from each other. (p. 39)

Although research on motivation in an educational context is more than complex, this statement symbolizes how CMC played, and by extension CALL continues to play (in the form of mobile devices and texting, i.e. MALL) an important part in communicative language learning and lays out why language learners took positively to these new

environments. Regardless of the added possibilities of being able to communicate with other language learners across borders and vast distances, the general simplification of

communication enhances the entire learning experience.

Warschauer (1996) continued to elaborate by giving a more detailed explanation as to why learners showed a positive attitude by expressing that CMC empowered the learners.

Computers made it easier for learners to open up and enhance communication on a basic

level. Additionally, learners felt that computers help them to learn wherever and whenever

they want, thus making learning a more independent activity. Warschauer (1996) simply put

it as: “Using computers, they feel they can learn faster, become more creative, and write

better essays. They feel they have more control of their learning and more opportunities to practice English” (p. 39). So in addition to more varied communication, using CALL for writing also individualizes the learning process.

Research on the motivational factors for CALL writing continually presented similar positive assumptions and results, also at different educational levels, such as elementary school (see Fidaoui, Bahous, & Bacha, 2010). Apart from research on motivation and CALL, studies took on the general question of the effectiveness of CALL on writing by investigating the written output of language learners. A quite comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by Goldberg, Russell, and Cook (2003) spanning studies across a ten-year period provided a glimpse into effectiveness of CALL and writing.

This study is of key significance, because it compared computer technology

instruction with traditional pen and paper instruction, thus laying the groundwork for the

motivation of the current study as well. Goldberg et al. (2003) looked at the effectiveness of

CALL based on two important components and variables: the quality and the quantity of

student writing. Results showed a generally positive impact of CALL for the quantity of

writing among students, but Goldberg et al. (2003) could not elaborate further which

variables, e.g. technical knowledge, collaboration, feedback provided, had a statistically

significant impact. It solely seemed as though CALL intervention had a higher impact for

older learners, i.e. middle school and high school compared to elementary students (Goldberg

et al., 2003). Similar findings were revealed for the investigation of writing quality, where

Goldberg et al. (2003) found positive effects of CALL on the writing quality, which had the

same type of improvement in connection with the grade level of the students, i.e. with higher

grade level, from elementary school to high school, came a continuous increase in effect size.

Following up on these positive outcomes, another interesting study was conducted to assess writing improvement among students with the help of computers. Zheng, Warschauer, and Farkas (2011) also reported significant and positive outcomes. It has to be noted that Zheng et al. (2011) investigated the use of low-cost computers for fourth graders, and in addition to assessing the writing quality through writing tests, various surveys and interviews were analyzed. The main take-away was that the addition of a computer not only improved the writing scores among the entire student population, but had an especially positive impact on the scores of at-risk students (Zheng et al., (2011).

Li and Cumming (2001) also contributed to setting the baseline by conducting a longitudinal study on an individual subject which showed the positive impact of CALL on the writing process: technology made it possible for the learner to review his work more frequently, on the discourse level, as well as the syntactic level. Zaini and Mazdayasna

(2015) combined these questions and investigated the differences in effectiveness (by looking at learners trying to fix several error-types, such as tense, articles, plural forms and spelling) between traditional and CALL instruction and the quality of written output.

The results they presented demonstrated and underscored the positive impact of CALL on the quality of the writing output. Firstly, thanks to the immediate feedback offered by the CALL environment, the experimental group outperformed the control group.

Additionally, they found a significant difference among the results for the four variables

mentioned previously, i.e. the CALL environment helped learners with correcting their

errors, such as grammar, organization, word choice, usage and mechanics. Finally, even

though both groups presented quality work, the CALL group still outperformed the control

group based on their framework and measurement. This can again be traced back to the easier

access and opportunities offered by CALL to revise and re-write texts, combined with more

immediate feedback (Zaini & Mazdayasna, 2015).

When looking at writing quality, there is an additional part in which research

investigated and compared computer-enhanced with pen and paper writing products, namely assessment of writing. Li (2006) was critical about CALL research on writing, presenting arguments and studies for higher level revision during text creation, but also listing studies which showed the opposite, i.e. learners only made very basic and superficial revision during the writing process, which in turn also could not be connected to a higher quality on essays when tested. Similarly to studies mentioned above, Li (2006) also emphasized studies presenting higher quality written work by learners using computers compared to pen and paper methods. On the other hand, Li (2006) listed studies actually showing no significant differences between the two methods, which lead to research focusing more on the different variables included in the studies. Because of this high variance among studies and results, Li (2006) tried to provide a study with the focus on key variables, such as the ability of the learners and differences in tasks.

Li (2006) followed the definitions of lower and higher order thinking skills presented by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987). Basic lower level thinking skills are necessary for written production in general, and include the mechanical aspect of writing such as getting the text correct, using the appropriate punctuation, spelling and formatting. On the other hand, they describe higher order thinking skills as conveying meaning through written communication (Li, 2006). Interesting aspects among the results are the fact that writers using computers did indeed demonstrate more higher order thinking during production, but also spent more time on pre-planning their writing when tasked with a pen and paper test.

This can be troublesome when taking into account that despite widespread use of computers

for writing, many texts and examinations are still conducted via pen and paper. This not only

makes writing more difficult to assess, but also diminishes the quality, both of the assessment

method and the quality of written material by the learners. This goes to show how broad the

range of issues regarding CALL is. Despite its long-standing use in education, and especially with teaching and learning writing, learners still can not fully draw on their personal

experiences with the medium, if the teaching and the assessment do not translate from their learning experiences. As it will be shown at a later point, similar things can hold true for mobile use in general, but especially the immersion of mobile messaging and texting among (young) learners.

Since Warschauer (1996) started laying the groundwork for researchers to concentrate on writing research in CALL environments, quite a few comparative studies have been published, trying to depict differences between traditional classroom writing instruction and CALL writing instruction, as previously already has been alluded to in terms of effectiveness.

Sullivan and Pratt (1996) mentioned in the introduction to their study that language learners benefit more from CALL than native speakers. This could be ascribed to previous findings stating that second language learners have more anxiety towards writing compared to native speakers (Chaudron, 1988). Sullivan and Pratt (1996) made the assumption that with the help of CALL these worries could be dissolved, because learners learn in an environment that gives them more time to formulate their thoughts and ideas thus leading to more elaborate texts and a decrease in errors.

Sullivan and Pratt (1996) additionally presented a variety of results, among them a gain in writing for the CALL group, but on the other hand also a lack of significant

differences in terms of attitudes towards CALL writing and apprehension. In regards to the

previously mentioned assumption, Sullivan and Pratt (1996) found that the CALL group did

indeed show more engagement and interest in discussions, as well as more focus on the tasks

presented, compared to the traditional (oral) instruction group. Finally, it was concluded that

through the supplementary time spent on actual foreign language writing, i.e. the CALL

group lead their discussions via the medium as well, learners are bound to improve their writing, especially over a longer period of time (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996).

Let us now consider another step in the CALL writing development by further narrowing in on the central topic of this study, namely messaging and texting. As it was shown in the section above, CALL can increase learners’ motivation for writing by offering an environment where more varied and easier communication is possible, feedback situations are established easier and therefore the quality of writing can increase. Learners benefit from being able edit and revise their writing in a much more efficient manner than with pen and paper, and teachers can administer support through simultaneous feedback as well. But a certain limitation was also brought to light, where assessment does not entirely mirror real- life use of a certain medium and the technology. Having shown the possible benefits and disadvantages of using CALL for writing in terms of increased motivation, better

performance and real-life task/situation conversion, the following section will place its emphasis on the influence of chat rooms and instant messaging in the field of CALL research.

Messaging and Chatting in CALL. As computer technology continues to evolve,

certain programs and applications, such as emails, discussion boards and forums are

considered to be vintage for communication purposes. Nowadays participants in

communications require their programs and applications to work synchronously and

simultaneously. In that sense, online chat and messaging applications offer real-time

interaction compared to the above-mentioned tools. This in turn demands a quicker

processing of information by its users, be it reading of messages and extracting their

meaning, or formulating and producing written replies (Yuan, 2003).

Additionally, chatting has been found to help with comprehension and aid

communication in general, because the target language production is at the forefront when negotiating meaning (Pellettieri, 2000). Exemplar research has focused on revision, mainly self-revision, i.e. “Self-repairs are important because they can manifest how the learner monitors his/her linguistic production and what is monitored” (Yuan, 2003, p. 195). Using chat-communication can indeed support the language development when learners can connect grammatical and linguistic forms they learn in the classroom during communication online. Chatting can enable learners to notice their mistakes, i.e. self-repairs, and correct them in following exchanges. This means that by adding chat-communication to traditional classroom language learning, learners could immediately start and use communications they have learned in real-life situations (Yuan, 2003).

The self-repair mechanism could be key and although noticing is considered an important part for language development, there is doubt that chatting can offer enough specificity to forms when the method of communication suffers from time-constraints, in which case learners would be unable to properly understand and pay attention to their messaging (Iwasaki and Oliver, 2003). On the other hand, it can also be argued that with meaning and communication being at the center of successful interaction, learners are compelled to use appropriate forms either way since a “focus on form {…} overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise in lessons” (Long, 1991, p. 45).

Loewen and Reissner (2009) investigated this question by comparing face-to-face instruction with the help of a teacher with online interactions through chatting. For this issue, no real benefits or advantages of using chatting could be shown, instead a more supportive

instruction occurred with a teacher present, compared to un-moderated chat interactions, thus

leaving it open for now, if learners can implicitly enhance their knowledge of proper

linguistic structures (i.e. forms) through focus on meaning negotiation explicitly with chatting.

While beforehand it was uncertain how much influence a lack of focus on forms has on successful communication when using chat applications, Chung, Graves, Wesche, and Barfurth (2005) discovered how chatting did in fact not hinder learners to convey meaning and complex linguistic structures. Even though the focus in this case was not specifically on writing output, the main form of communication was done via written interaction in a chat application. They used a longitudinal study examining the use of chatrooms for the purpose of collaborating as part of a homework assignment, with the focus on tandem learning pairs.

The study centered around the question of how effective chatting can be and how it can enhance second language development among the two learners. The idea for the study grew out of necessity of wanting to connect Korean learners of English with Canadian learners of Korean.

Tandem learning can be defined as; “each partner is an expert in his or her first language (L1) and culture and a novice in his or her second language (L2) and culture”

(Chung et al., 2005, p. 51). This idea of tandem teaching and its connection with CALL can be connected to concepts mentioned in the beginning, where the benefit of being able to connect with language learners across distances opened up the way learners communicate and interact.

The study provided numerous valuable results to the key questions. The participants in the study could in fact use the chat-communication for meaningful and contextually relevant interactions. Even though the chat-jargon can differ between Korean and English, the chat-environment did not discourage the learners from explaining and defining meaning,

“which sometimes meant using completely different words, new spellings, or unique ways of

saying something” (Chung et al., 2005, p. 62). This was an important finding, especially when looking at previously mentioned questions of using meaningful linguistic structures (i.e. forms) during communication; on the contrary, the learners felt the need to help and support their learning partner for both to be successful in their communication. It appears the focus on forms was implicitly directed within the learning/peer groups during the process.

In a sense, the simultaneous communication made it necessary for the learners to immediately find a common ground and find suitable expressions (i.e. forms) in order to continue their interaction. Additionally, being able to learn from and with their peers, alleviated the learning anxiety, because they did not feel the kind of pressure they normally would in a traditional communication setting. The chatting environment also enabled the learners to find out which types of exchanges fit in which cultural contexts during interaction (Chung et al., 2005). In conclusion: “While teaching and learning from each other, managing and repairing their discourse in an ongoing effort towards mutual understanding, learners provided each other with the conditions to support complex language learning.” (Chung et al., 2005, p. 74)

Comparable with the previously presented research on CALL and writing, chatting not only underwent investigations around its effectiveness, but similar research was conducted on how learners’ attitude and motivation is influenced. What follows is a brief discussion about the factors of motivation and attitude towards language development with the help of CALL, specifically in the realm of chatting and instant messaging. Up to this point, research has mostly provided positive accounts of computer-enhanced writing.

Although chatting and instant messaging are another form of computer enhanced writing in

itself, it can be assumed that similar opinions about it are true. Mahfouz and Ihmeideh (2009)

conducted a very specific study about attitudes among language learners by examining how

Jordanian university students felt about using an online chat (instant messaging) for

interaction with native English speakers in order to improve their second language

proficiency, among it also their written proficiency. This study was especially interesting in a broader sense, because it was one of the few studies investigating language learners

communicating with English native speakers instead of other language learners. Additionally, the native speakers in this study had no familiarity with the learners or the university program and it was explained that the native speakers also did not intend to use the target language for teaching purposes, meaning the native communication partners were not persons involved in education and teaching per se. Mahfouz and Ihmeideh remarked: “Such scarcity of data is surprising, as SCMC is widely used worldwide and there is evidence that foreign language learners unconsciously imitate native speakers’ electronic discourse.” (2009, p. 210) It was reported that the language learners valued chat interactions with native speakers and felt that they could improve all of their language skills. Having the possibility to interact with native speakers through this medium provided authentic language input to the learners, especially in terms of experiencing different writing styles and correct grammatical features. Most

importantly: “The outcome revealed that students who frequently preferred to use instant

messaging rather than audio or video chat had stronger and more positive attitudes towards

using texting to improve their writing skills” (Mahfouz & Ihmeideh, 2009, p. 221). Having

discussed how CALL use influenced and enhanced writing, as well as taking a closer look at

chatting and messaging, the next section of this paper addresses how the CALL environment

evolved into the MALL environment and finally zeroes in on the main research question of

messaging and texting effectiveness on learning writing.

From CALL to MALL

For some, MALL might just symbolize a synonym for CALL, with the only

difference being that the technology behind it is entirely mobile-dependent. But upon closer examination, it becomes clear which differences make MALL stand out: smartphones and mobile devices offer instant access to the internet, and hand in hand with internet access comes a mass of applications. In addition, language learners are now in possession of devices that are capable of offering them ubiquitous learning environments, e.g. listening to a foreign language radio station and reading foreign language newspapers or using specifically

designed language learning applications, regardless of their location, be it on public transportation or waiting in line at the grocery store. Learners have the opportunity now to control and direct their own experiences and learning paths (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).

This concept can manifest itself better and more efficiently with evolving mobile technology compared to general CALL technology. Mobile devices shape the personal space and immediate surroundings of learners by possibly presenting context-specific and location- specific language learning opportunities. This could be an application showing a certain phrase to use or specific vocabulary useful for a situation the learner encounters, where the learner can shape his learning instantly and share and discuss with other learners (Kukulska- Hulme, 2012). A summary and a quite optimistic outlook hints at interesting new use cases:

Applications like these make use of technologies that detect a learners’ presence and

enable language-learning tasks, which may include media such as photographs,

sketches, maps, audio, and video clips, to be associated with a physical space for

subsequent retrieval. As technologies and learning practices develop, we are likely to

see more context-aware, pervasive learning environments that detect a learner’s

presence in a location and provide an appropriate learning experience. (Kukulska-

Hulme, 2012, p. 2)

This mobile technology looks to shape the way teachers and learners engage with material in general, and how both parties deal with place-independent learning. Although CALL paved the way for more personal learning spaces, MALL could open up an entirely new world or at least bridge the gap between formal classroom settings and informal

ubiquitous learning. The main questions surrounding MALL center around the influences and changes this technology can bring for the traditional classroom and the teaching aspect for educators.

As Kukulska-Hulme (2012) continued to elaborate, MALL applications can be divided into applications specifically designed for language learning and technology that supports language learning, e.g. automatic translation tools incorporated into word processing applications on mobile phones. Despite these encouraging trends, ideas and the outlook and the future, it remains difficult to find proper high-quality material and simultaneously show learners how to deal with these newfound possibilities and opportunities (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012). On the other hand, it might be easier to take the learners perspective first when looking at technology and use-cases. Certain applications show such high usage rates, that implicit improvement of language skills could be assumed. The following section will specifically begin to outline (written) communication tools and how (young) learners deal with technology and real-life communication situations.

MALL use. As previously mentioned, a good indicator for the possibly underlying

potential and changing environment is the growth of mobile phone/smartphone possession

and use among children. Among the many useful resources regarding this development, the

German JIM-study offers a valuable visualization and data presentation for the central

European market. The JIM-study has been conducted annually since 1998 and offers a

baseline study looking at children between the ages 12 and 19 (with a corresponding study

investigating 6 to 13 year olds and their relationship with media, called the KIM-study), and researches how they deal with media and information.

The starting point in this case can simply be the data for mobile-phone possession, where between 1999 and 2000, the percentage more than doubled from 14 to 49

(Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2000, p. 15), whereas in 2006 it was already at a staggering 99 % (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest, 2006, p. 8).

The most recent investigation did not report any change in the mobile-phone possession data, it did additionally describe 98% for smartphone and 65% for Tablet-PC possession

(Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest, 2016, p. 6). These data are also

comparable to studies conducted in other parts of the world, continually confirming this to be a world-wide phenomenon. The acma-study from 2007 posited comparable trends in both Australia and America. Around 72% of 12 to 14 year olds and around 88% of 15 to 17 year olds owned a mobile phone (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010, p. 3).

They could likewise present massive increases in mobile phone ownership among children.

Between 2004 and 2009, the percentage of mobile phone ownership almost doubled among 11 to 14 year olds and 15 to 18 year olds (Australian Communcations and Media Authority, 2010, p. 19).

Almost simultaneously with the rise in mobile device possession among children,

their habits changed as well. The JIM-study of 2000 did not even specifically present data

about the various use-scenarios for mobile phones, with most of the report being devoted to

the use of computers and the internet in general (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband

Südwest, 2000). However, the JIM-study of 2000 does mention the popularity of mobile-

messaging (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest, 2000, p. 54). In 2006, the

JIM-study contained a separate chapter about mobile-phones, continuously defining various

new possibilities and use-scenarios among the children. Children could use their mobile

phone to connect to the internet (81%) and mostly used it for mobile-messaging/SMS (85%, compared to a 63% frequency of using it for phone conversations) (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest, 2006, p. 52). Similar behavior was found in Australian and American youths, where it was discovered that the time allocation on the mobile phone was mostly split between 70% texting and around 30% talking (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010, p. 22).

These trends continued up to the point where in 2016, the mobile-messaging application WhatsApp was voted as the most important application (96% among girls and 92% among boys) (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest, 2016, p. 30). There are discernable trends in general global communication methods and habits. As the market research firm OVUM predict in their OTT Messaging Forecast: 2016-2020, messaging traffic could indeed double from almost 23 trillion messages by 2020. Although they imply that the popularity of various mobile messaging apps will lead to a higher total number and increase of messages than SMS, the numbers for both can be considered quite tremendous, even though SMS will never reach around 50 trillion messages, but provide a formidable sum of 5 trillion SMS (Clark-Dickson, 2016).

As already indicated, these data necessitate new concepts, ideas and conversations to be had in education. Even though mobile-phone usage, specifically mobile messaging, is prevalent in the lives of children growing up, there is still a lack of proper implementation and application in a learning context. Based on this premise, researchers have started to engage with MALL research and managed to broaden the field significantly. Despite these efforts, literature reviews still present a slightly one-sided collection of studies, with a noticeable lack of research on mobile messaging and writing (Burston, 2013; Darmi &

Albion, 2014). To conclude, Taj et al. (2016, p. 77) observed: “A collection of annotated

bibliography (Burston, 2013) brought forth interesting information. Bulk of research on

MALL has been published in diverse type of journals while only 10% research is reported in CALL journals. Absence of a MALL dedicated journal makes the meta-analysis studies more beneficial.” In order to support MALL research and help shaping the field, it is necessary to investigate intervention methods and technology already in use by young learners.

MALL writing. Finally, the core point of the current study deals with MALL and its impact on writing. It is not far-fetched to presume that, as previously already mentioned, mobile technology offers similar affordances and benefits for writing as does computer technology. One of the advantages mentioned in research is the immediacy and collaborative possibilities the use of mobile technology and mobile messaging offers. Winet (2016) offers a list of benefits that he and his students discovered over time during practical implementations of these applications: mobile technology offers students and teachers immediate responses to their written content, which turns monotonous writing tasks into a more fluid communicative practice; similar things are true for giving feedback, where the teachers and peers can react and point out mistakes before they are established and give proper feedback; students seemed to be more motivated to produce qualitatively good writing, because their writing is easily displayed; and finally, the ubiquitous nature of mobile technology disappeared the boundaries between strict school work and homework, thus relieving pressure from the students (Winet, 2016).

Mufanti and Susilo (2016) reported similar results based on their practical experiences

with mobile technology and mobile messaging. Their students showed to be more confident

when using mobile messaging after a few weeks into the mobile intervention. Even more

passive students engaged in written discussion and expanded their written input continuously,

because they had the positive surrounding of teachers and fellow students who would support

them in their writing process. Concurrently with these developments, students become more

autonomous in their learning, since they did not encounter any limitations on the scheduling

of their written content and assignments; students could learn and experiment whenever they intended to (Mufanti & Susilo, 2016). Additionally, their students enjoyed writing in English, because the open communication practices and learning communities established with the help of mobile messaging provided them with appropriate surroundings. This also lead to changes in their attitudes towards English, because the need to improve the target language came out of the necessity of wanting to communicate with other language learners, rather than being ‘forced’ to engage with the language for a certain grade (Mufanti & Susilo, 2016).

These accounts are ideal examples of the evolvement of teaching and learning through technology. Sweeny (2010) described the rationale and presented some practical ideas for incorporating these ‘new literacies’ into writing instruction. She directly addressed teachers: “As with any new endeavor, this process will most likely involve some trial and error as you become comfortable with the technologies and possibilities they offer (Sweeny, 2010, p. 129).” She also urged teachers to embrace and incorporate these emerging forms of technology into their teaching and communication in order to create a more meaningful and engaging writing environment for students (Sweeny, 2010). In summary, the positive impact and influence of mobile technologies and mobile messaging seems to be quite well

documented in certain areas, but it remains necessary to continue to cover all the bases. The

effectiveness of using mobile messaging for improving writing can be considered as one of

the basic pillars, which is why the present study set out to investigate their impact.

Methods

One of the many tools to assess effectiveness in an educational context is to conduct a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is comprised of synthesized data from multiple experimental studies. It has a number of attractive features as Felix (2005) described:

It uses statistical techniques for aggregating the results of multiple empirical studies to determine the direction and size of relationships between similar variables across these studies. {…} Important characteristics of meta-analysis are that they: use quantitative measures; do not prejudge research findings in terms of research quality;

seek general conclusions in relation to a common issue (p. 272).

Another advantage of conducting a meta-analysis is that it allows for generalizability for a specific topic. Such an investigation benefits from a wide-range of sampling

characteristics, while a single study is limited in its scope. Considering the topic at hand, this could be beneficial, because research into specifically the usage of mobile messaging in combination with writing improvement could be brought to the forefront. As Felix (2005) explained “sample size and population, study setting and timing, a meta-analysis, by including all the quantitative empirical studies relevant to the research, enhances

generalizability” (p. 272). This not only enables the researcher to cast a wider net, but also enables further follow-up research to start from a different baseline.

The search procedure for this meta-analysis is designed based on the method

developed by Cooper (2016), and the methodology follows procedures for meta-analysis by Lipsey and Wilson (2001), as well as Hedges and Olkin (1985). The methodology presented in this chapter was based upon the following points:

1. Definition of a research question

2. Formulation of selection criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of studies

3. Literature search 4. Coding the studies

5. Analyzing intervention effects 6. Analyzing moderating variables

7. Finalizing conclusion based on the results

As the research question was explained and discussed previously, the additional methodology will be separately described in the following pages.

Data sources, data collection and search strategy

One of the keys for a meta-analysis is a comprehensive literature review and literature search. In order to have a solid foundation of studies, no specific time period was added to the search in the electronic databases, because despite mobile-messaging applications, such as WhatsApp and Viber, being developed more recently, text messaging, i.e. SMS, can be thought of as the predecessor, thus being relevant for this meta-analysis. For the search in the journals a period approximately for the last five years (2010 to 2016/2017; i.e. including the most current issue) was chosen. Various relevant e-learning and CALL journals were manually searched such as Language Learning & Technology, ReCALL and CALICO Journal. The search included electronic databases such as Google Scholar, SmartCat (the search engine for the University of Groningen library), Learning & Technology Library (LearnTechLib), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Taylor & Francis Online and ScienceDirect. Additionally, the integrated Google Scholar feature ‘cited by’ which is presented for each search result, allowed for further broadening of the search basis,

consequently functioning as secondary literature. The author tried to extend the search field

by utilizing German-language electronic databases as well, but this ultimately did not result

in finding appropriate studies. Because of the otherwise limited number of languages spoken

by the author, the search was restricted to English-speaking literature.

Initially, the keywords and concepts chosen for the literature search had their organizational bases in other MALL-related studies (e.g., Burston, 2013; Sung, Chang, &

Yang, 2015; Taj et al., 2016), wherein individually, or in combination, three groups of

keywords were used: 1) mobile-messaging related, i.e. specific application name; 2) language skill related; 3) study type related. These groups of keywords amounted to various individual searches and combinations, and contained the following words per group: 1) WhatsApp, Viber, SMS, Short Message Service, Messenger, Mobile-Messaging, Texting; Text Message;

Instant Message; Instant-Messaging; 2) writing, written, learning; and finally for 3) effect, effectiveness. These groups were also integrated with Boolean operators (Cooper, 2016), especially using the “OR” operation and the “AND” operation within the search groups.

Examples of search units were comprised of ‘WhatsApp effectiveness’, or ‘mobile- messaging writing effect’, and similar combinations, where the individual groups were exchanged and continuously added. In addition to searches in online databases and journals, the reference lists of comparable MALL studies and meta-analyses were investigated for appropriate studies.

Search results

Initial search. As previously mentioned, the use of Boolean operators (Cooper, 2016)

became quite an important factor during the initial stage. This seems particularly substantial

when investigating an, at this point in time still rather new and specific intervention method

in the form of mobile-messaging, because researchers might formulate and mention the

method in use implicitly when describing their studies and do not necessarily promote or use

the actual name of the application at hand. In order to overcome this issue, the keywords

related to the mobile intervention method had to be revised after the initial stage and

extended by using more general terms in addition, or instead of, the specific application

names.

For the first strategy used, the search only included the keywords for the mobile-

messaging application. This strategy was used because of the general assumption that

applications, such as WhatsApp and Viber, have not yet broken through extensively in

research for them be overwhelmingly delivered upon by searching educational databases,

thus enabling the author to find appropriate studies more effectively. This also made it

possible for the author to gauge the extensiveness of relevant educational articles already in

the first stage. By continuously adding more of the key words, the list of possibly relevant

literature grew. The literature search, depending on the database used, yielded several pages

of results for the key combinations. After the first examination rounds spanning the initial

pages of the results, it was determined that in order to be more efficient and precise in

selecting studies, it would be made necessary to work through the titles of the presented

results before proceeding to the actual selection process. This was made obligatory because

despite adding Boolean operators (Cooper, 2016), as well as specifying the search words with

the help of the platform/database-specific operators (e.g. by using various advanced search

options: text search, phrase search etc.), the displayed results often still lacked the relevance

to the desired keywords. After clarifying this issue, the process was split into a two-step

selection: 1) reading the title, as well as the subtitle, if present; 2) when the entire title and the

keyword list still matched all of the above mentioned and entered keywords which initiated

the search, the author then proceeded to read the abstracts in order to judge if, and how the

article was related to the use of mobile-messaging for language learning. These first stages in

the search resulted in 70 studies. After this initial search was completed, the second part of

the screening based on the inclusion criteria was performed.

Inclusion criteria. Studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis were selected based on the following three criteria:

1. With the key variable being the use of mobile-messaging in any form, regardless of application, experimental groups in the studies had to use mobile-messaging as part of their treatment, be it either as part of an experimental and control group design, or a pre-test and post-test design.

2. The focus of the study was writing; studies were included where participants used some form of mobile-messaging (i.e. applications used on mobile

phones/smartphones) as treatment and intervention method, and subsequently were tested or investigated on their writing output in general, regardless of assessment or text type.

3. The selected studies included appropriate data and information to calculate effect sizes, such das means, standard deviation, t or F values, chi-square values and the number of participants. Studies, which did not provide sufficient information were excluded.

The second screening stage yielded 17 studies, but through the inclusion criteria 5 of those studies had to be excluded, because four them only satisfied two of the three inclusion criteria, namely not providing appropriate statistical data to be able to include them in meta- analytical calculations. Finally, a 5

study was excluded during the final screening, despite employing instant-messaging. This was made necessary because the study did not

specifically elaborate, if the messengers used (MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger) were also

used via mobile phones, instead the focus seemed to be on SCMC, and therefore could not be

considered sufficiently qualified to be included based on the set criteria.

Studies selected. Based to the above-mentioned inclusion criteria, the set was finally narrowed down to 12 studies, which were to be included in the meta-analysis. The following sub-section will offer a brief summary about each included study in order to facilitate the depth of further explanations and discussions.

The first study (No. 1; the numbers referred to in the parentheses can be found in Table 1 in the results section) was published in 2016 by Andujar, and is comprised of a thorough investigation of MIM and its benefits on second-language learners’ writing. The study includes analyses of various parts of the written language, such as grammatical, lexical, mechanical accuracy and syntactic complexity. Andujar (2016) conducted the study with the help of Spanish-speaking English learners, who were communicating through WhatsApp and finally measured their writing development by employing CEFR-based elements.

The second study (No. 2) was published as a report by James (2016) for the Cambridge University Teacher Research Programme. With a practical background as motivation for the study, James (2016) incorporated her Year 6 students’ use of mobile devices for communication in order to help them improve their writing for the UPSR. This was made necessary, because the test is conducted every school year and students did find the writing section of the test the most challenging.

Estarki and Bazyar published their study (No. 3) in 2016, which focused on changes in language learners’ writing performance by incorporating MALL. The subjects in the study were considered to be pre-intermediate English language learners based on previously

administered language proficiency tests. The study design comprised of using the mobile-

messaging application Viber for teaching writing and the participants were encouraged to use

their online discussion group for communication and interaction about the teaching material.

Awada (2016) published a report (study No. 4) about her investigation into the effects of WhatsApp on (critique) writing proficiency, as well as learners’ motivation towards mobile learning. Her participants displayed average English-language proficiency, and were enrolled at two English universities. The experimental intervention with the help of

WhatsApp included online discussions about various points in the critique-writing process, e.g. topic exploration, targeting a specific audience, thesis statement, generating concepts and ideas, as well as reflecting on strengths and weaknesses presented in the articles (Awada, 2016).

Study No. 5 was concerned with the general idea of using WhatsApp for developing language learners’ writing skills, and investigated its effectiveness (Fattah, 2015). The study participants were English-language students at a private university in Saudi Arabia. The main concepts under investigation were punctuation marks, sentence structure and the

conceptualization of ideas for writing. Mostly, the communication in the WhatsApp groups centered around students trying discuss given topics. The assignments ranged from

discussions to producing content necessary to create texts. Finally, the participants’

development was assessed via tests, which were specifically designed for examining the previously mentioned concepts.

Barhoumi (2015) investigated the effectiveness of mobile technologies, specifically WhatsApp, in a blended learning environment. The focus of the study (No. 6) was students’

use of online communication tools, such as WhatsApp and how it relates to Engeström’s

(1987) Activity theory. The experimental group used their WhatsApp group to discuss the

content they encountered in class; and finally the study reported on the students’ achievement

test scores.

The next study (No. 7) by Ashiyan and Salehi (2016) was concerned with collocation knowledge, and how WhatsApp is impacting the learning and retention process. Participants were comprised of Iranian EFL learners who did not hold a degree in English, but were nonetheless considered to be of intermediate language proficiency. The study did specifically examine the language learners’ collocation knowledge by conducting a specific assessment, which included MC, fill in the blank, as well as matching and completion exercises (Ashiyan

& Salehi, 2016). In this study, WhatsApp was used outside of the classroom, where the language learners practiced and repeated the collocations they were pointed towards in the classroom.

Baradaran and Kharaziyan published a study (No. 8) in 2016 focusing on the impact of using mobile technology on Iranian students’ writing skill. The participants, Iranian EFL learners, used WhatsApp for two distinct tasks; they not only submitted their assignments via the mobile technology, but also used it during the learning process, which included their work with the writing skill materials, e.g. recording, sending, as well as receiving (Baradaran

& Kharaziyan, 2016). The participants underwent a writing test before and after the intervention. The writing test “consisted of 3 paragraphs related to the course called

‘’Advanced Writing Course’’ (Baradaran & Kharaziyan, 2016, p. 137).

Study No. 9 by Kemp and Bushnell (2010) focused on text messaging among young learners, and tried to investigate its influence on their literacy. Participants were asked to write two texts on their mobile phones which reflected actual text-message conversations, and were assessed via the WRAT (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006), and two additional tests:

Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-

Revised (Woodcock, 1987).

Osman and Chung (2011) also investigated the use of text messaging among language learners. The study (No. 10) focused mainly on the use of text messaging for communication purposes, i.e. the language learners received text messages containing various types of content and input, and were additionally expected to reply to some of them. Their written assessment consisted of three parts: identifying paragraphs in a text, summarizing a text into one sentence and the correction of the tenses in a given text (Osman & Chung, 2011).

Hsieh, Wu and Marek (2017) examined the flipped classroom method for language learning in their study (No. 11). The participants in their study were comprised of Taiwanese university students, who had extensive English training up to that point. Hsieh et al. (2017) used a specific online learning platform called LINE, which also included text messaging possibilities, i.e. the LINE application for smartphones and mobile phones. In order to assess the language learners, the researchers used the Oral Idiomatic Proficiency rubric they

developed for the study (Hsieh et al., 2017). On the other hand, the intervention itself consisted of using the text messaging feature for engaging in discussions about idioms with groups and exchanging written material about specific topics.

The final study (No. 12) was published in 2016 by Hazaea and Alzubi and investigated how effective mobile technology is for a university EFL reading classroom.

During the study, the participants formed WhatsApp groups for general communication in English, but were encouraged to mostly use these groups for exchanging thoughts and ideas about material and teaching content. The assessment was based upon a passage from the course textbook and, apart from concrete reading tests, featured three tests involving various sorts of written output, such as re-organizing and re-working the text.

The following section is concerned with the coding process of the studies summarized

above, before moving to the methodological and statistical part of the meta-analysis.

Coding the selection. The following study characteristics were coded: the name of the researcher(s), publication year, number of research participants, the intervention tool (comprised of the messaging tools: WhatsApp, Viber, Text message, Instant message), the length of the intervention (standardized in ‘weeks’) and the type of writing the participants used. This was inferred through the method sections of each study and was comprised of:

Essay writing, critique writing, discussions and brainstorming, idiom practice and finally assignments, which was unfortunately not always specifically explained, but mostly contained participants engaging in activities in connection with the curriculum via mobile- messaging. Initially the education level/age group under investigation in the study was supposed to be coded as well, but since 10 of the 12 studies have this variable in common, and the remaining two studies each differ from each other, statistical calculations based on this moderator would not be worthwhile because of the small sample size of 2. Similar issues arose by coding the applications used, but in this case a sample size of 3 studies belonged to the other group. Here the researcher made the decision to combine WhatsApp and Viber into one common group for coding purposes, while contrasting this group with studies using SMS, i.e. text message. Initially study No. 11 could also be coded as belonging to the instant- messaging group, i.e. WhatsApp and Viber group, but after careful reconsideration it was determined that this research will use the definition proposed by the authors of the study, who did indeed refer to their intervention method as ‘text messaging’ (Hsieh et al., 2017). The results section will present a table with a general overview of the descriptive information about all the studies, but the education level/age group was ultimately not coded.

Calculating effect sizes. In order to make proper interpretations about the studies included, as well as be able to answer the research question, it is necessary to conduct

statistical calculations. In case of a meta-analysis, research uses the measurement of the effect

size. In basic terms, an effect size symbolizes the relationship or influence of a treatment on