Key Factors in the Facilitation of MLearning Environments

The concept of m-learning continues to evolve as educators, executives and academics explore the integration, acceptance and theoretical and pedagogical implications of the technology. Yadegaridehkordi et.al (2011) outline a number of academic definitions that define it as a clear subset of e-learning, with a focus on the specific function of the devices (p1). Other literature, however has emphasised the external, connected and highly contextualised nature of the mobile learning environment (Pegrum, Oakley and Faulkner, 2013). Koszalka and Kuswani (2010) for instance claim that the focus of learning changes from learners as consumers of content, to learners as idea generators, producers of artifacts and sharers of new knowledge (p142). With such potential to change learning as we know it, it is vital to consider the key issues affecting the implementation of m-learning in 21st century learning institutions. As a subset of e-learning (Brown, 2005, p303), it is valid to assume that m-learning would most often utilise elements of e-learning frameworks for its integration into the education environment. Male and Pattinson (2011) outline a number of dimensions in their discussion of the construction of e-learning applications for mobile technologies. These dimensions can essentially be broken down into two key elements; sociocultural facets and pedagogical knowledge considerations, as well as specific interface and technical aspects of the application. Inan and Lowther (2010) constructed a conceptualisation for the integration of laptop programs which in effect could be utilised in a mobile learning environment. Their hypothesised path model (p938) examines teachers use of laptops and refers to their readiness and attitudes, professional development and technical and managerial support for the implementation of the technology. With some reference to these studies there are essentially three key constructs in the facilitation of an m-learning environment: 1) Infrastructure including technical and managerial coordination and implementation of needed support systems and technologies. 2) Sociocultural and internalised facets of both teacher and learner which according to Male and Pattinson involve teacher and learner attitudes, perspectives, and responses to the technology. 3) Pedagogical approaches that target the use of contextual spaces and learning styles specific to mobile technology. Whilst it is acknowledged that the infrastructure and technical and managerial aspects are fundamental in the initial design of an m-learning environment, exploration of these aspects is far too wide in scope for the purposes of this discussion. Instead teacher and student responses to the technology along with pedagogical considerations provide the basis for examination of effective facilitation of the m-learning environment.

In terms of teacher adoption, Uzunboylu and Ozdamli (2011) claim that Successful integration of mobile learning in education demands that teachers perception of such technologies should be determined (p544). As facilitators of learning and agents of change, teachers attitudes towards, and acceptance of new learning systems is paramount in their successful facilitation. Research in teachers perceptions of m-learning have been varied in response. Serin (2012) found that prospective teachers perceptions were comparatively low, with a lack of information stated as a key possibility. On the other hand, Uzunboylu and Ozdamli, in their development of the Mobile Learning Perception Scale found that, teachers exhibited above medium levels of perception towards m-learning (p544). Further to this, Messinger (2011) found that whilst teachers acknowledged the potential for increased motivation using mobile technologies, students were much more enthusiastic about the potential benefits to their education. Both the students and teachers agreed however that further professional development would greatly benefit teachers use of the technology. The research was significant in comparing student and teacher perceptions of current and future uses of mobile devices, with students themselves commenting on their perceptions of teachers knowledge and integration of the devices. This provided an insight into the lack of confidence that students had in their teachers facilitation of 21st Century learning experiences. With a lack of specifically focussed research in teachers responses to the integration of mlearning, much of the commentary is generalised in nature. There is however a small body of research centred on the learners acceptance of the technology. Liu, Han and Lee (2010) summarise an extensive range of research on the adoption of m-learning (pp214-216). Amongst a number of findings there are some key elements that could be applied more specifically to teachers attitudes such as; perceived self-efficacy, perceived quality and benefits, perceived usability, ease of use and social factors. In effect such elements centre on teacher confidence in their own ability, along with an informed approach to the benefits of mlearning in the classroom. Geer, Barnes and White (2008) claim that teacher confidence is a major factor in determining teacher and student engagement with ICT (p152) In addition they suggest that teachers need to have a vision on how technology will be utilised in the classroom to enhance learning. Essentially, such a vision and boost in confidence is not easy to resolve without adequate support systems and professional development. An Australian study by Pegrum et.al. (2013) found that teachers exhibited a number of responses to m-learning, from enthusiastic to disinterest to opposed (p75). Whilst none of the schools in the study forced teachers to embrace the technology, the researchers suggested four recommendations for assisting teachers with the development of their own learning: 1) Bracketed time for PD, 2) A focus on pedagogy ahead of technology in PD 3) Targeted and contextualised PD 4) Building a professional community of practise/ professional development network as a platform for PD

Establishing such a support system, along with realistic expectations for teachers could be a vital element in changing their attitudes and raising their confidence to embrace the new technologies. Further to establishing teachers adoption of m-learning, much importance needs to be placed on the learners perceptions, attitudes and influences in adapting to the technology. Tan et.al (2011) discuss the convergence of individual factors such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use along with social influences to determine key influences on learners acceptance of m-learning. Their adaptation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) examines these elements in regards to gender, age and past experiences. Not surprisingly younger subjects reported higher results in perceived ease of use, but in conflict with past studies, age and gender did not factor in any of the other elements. Whilst the study determined that perceived ease of use indicated a high intention to use the technology, the lack of discrepancy in perceived usefulness (for m-learning) encourages educators to reflect on the importance of facilitating a metacognitive approach to implementing m-learning. Students ingrained sociocultural attachments may play a significant part in their adoption of m-learning. Certainly many students are already so infinitely connected to the social networking aspects of mobile technologies that lack of its use may in fact be a considerable distraction. Rosen et. al (2011) examined the concept of externally driven task switching, suggesting that there are no neurological differences between external and internal switches and that students remain just as distracted thinking about checking a text message as they would in actually answering the message. They further suggest the initiation of a technology break in which students are allowed to reconnect with their devices for a period of two minutes for every 15 minutes of class time. Although this has been attempted with some reports of success, there has been a lack of commentary on the potential for adaptation of the findings for specific use in actual learning scenarios. Utilising such attachments may encourage teachers to establish more collaborative learning scenarios both within and outside of the classroom. An often overlooked theme in m-learning literature is the concept of motivation and engagement for the learner. Some researchers have commented on the power of learner engagement to initiate changes in the brain (Van Dam, 2013, p32). It is not unreasonable to assume that initially student engagement with mobile devices would have a significant impact on students application to their work. To be successful in the long term however, teachers must develop sustained strategies to continually enhance students interest in both the tasks and subject as a whole. Huizenga, et.al. (2009) found that students using mobile game based learning were more engaged and gained significantly more knowledge about medieval Amsterdam than those who received regular project based instruction (p332). The results, however, demonstrated no significant difference in terms of overall motivation for the subject of History as a whole. Further to this Swan et.al (2005) found that after initial excitement with their PDA devices, students enthusiasm diminished over a matter of weeks. These results suggest that motivation and engagement along with sociocultural factors must be converged with continued productive pedagogical practices to provide an effective mlearning environment. Jones et. al (2006) suggested six reasons for how the use of mobile devices might assist student motivation: control over goals, ownership, learning in context,

continuity, fun and communication. In the context of pedagogy these elements fall into two key dimensions that essentially intersect with each other: the dichotomy of individualisation versus collaboration, and the continuity of formal and informal learning experiences. Park (2011) in his review of Transactional Distance Theory refers to a new dimension of individual versus collective (or social) activities (p88) in his consideration of both social aspects of learning and forms of social technologies. In some research studies there appears to be a tension or dichotomy between the two constructs, despite both achieving highly positive outcomes. In a study by Swan, et.al (2005), students were using both the individual and collaborative features of the devices in metacognitively valuable ways. The problem, however, resided in the limited availability of continued personal devices for every student. Pegrum, et.al. explored the difficulties with sharing devices amongst secondary students from private schools who valued the personalised nature of them. Future resolutions included discussion of parent funded one to one and BYOD models. For both the educator and educational institutions this has implications for planning and implementation of the most effective strategies in an m-learning environment. Parks adaptation of Gay, Rieger, and Benningtons mobility hierarchy and technical affordances, (p82) place both individualisation of learning and collaboration on opposite ends of the spectrum. Park does later emphasize, however that dualism of individual versus collective (or social) is also something to be connected and balanced (p89). With positive outcomes reported in past studies of each of these components, a mediation of the two should encourage teachers to consider theoretical approaches to support their implementation of the devices. In essence a dualistic approach would need to utilise a blending of instructionism, constructivist, collaborative and sociocultural theories of learning (Keskin and Metcalf, 2011). Empowering students to organise their own learning, develop their own ideas and share and create information in a social and collaborative online environment should be a key priority for educators. The concept of learning spaces in the m-learning environment tends to raise questions about the continuity of informal and formal learning experiences. Popescu (2011) claims that It has been widely recognized that mobile learning is not just about the use of portable devices but also about learning across contexts (83). These contexts utilise formal, non-formal and informal engagement with the technology for lifelong learning (p82). Laurillard (2007) questions whether contexts between formal and informal learning can remain continuous in the use of learning spaces inside and outside of the classroom (p170). Certainly teachers need to be prepared to make sure that such continuity exists, whilst still empowering students to contextualise and control their own learning through use of mobile devices. At present case studies have yielded conflicting approaches by teachers at creating consistency between informal and formal learning opportunities. Oakley et.al. found that in one case study the teachers were resistant to using ipads in the classroom because of the perception that since they were used at home other tasks could be completed in class (p41). Contrary to this however, in another case study the students were encouraged to find informal learning spaces in the classroom and as a result students tended to engage in more personalised and independent learning experiences (p57). Whilst the benefits of creating

seamless learning experiences are clear, some researchers such as Squire (2009) encourage discussion about the erosion of the concepts of being online and offline for the younger generation. In effect these studies should assist teachers to make an informed approach to the analysis of the issues of a ubiquitous learning environment. As m-learning continues to evolve and impact the classroom environment, the perceptions and pedagogical approaches of both teachers and learners will determine the extent to which it becomes an accepted medium of learning. The connection between the spaces in which these learning experiences take place, along with motivation and engagement factors, will inevitably impact on the way that students accept approach and engage in using the devices. Through further research and discussion of the issues surrounding its integration, educators will gain an increased understanding of how it can be utilised to encourage deeper and more connected learning experiences. References
Brown, T. H. (2005). Towards a Model for m-Learning in Africa. International Journal on ELearning, 4 (3), 299-315. Retrieved via ProQuest Fethi A. Inan, A.F., & Lowther, D.L (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55 (3). 937-944. http://0dx.doi.org.library.newcastle.edu.au/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004. Geer, R., Barnes, A., White, B., & Ross, T. (2008). Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning environment: a case study. ACT on IcT: Proceedings of the Australian Council for Computers in Education Conference. (pp151-159). Canberra, Australia: Australian Council for Computers in Education. Retrived from http://arrow.unisa.edu.au:8081/1959.8/64247 Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (4),332344. August 2009doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00316.x Jones, A., Issroff, K. and Scanlon, E. (2006). Affective factors in learning with mobile devices. In M. Sharples (ed.), Big Issues in Mobile Learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative (pp 15-20). Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute Keskin, N.O., & Metcalf, D. (2011). The current perspectives, theories and practices of mobile learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (2). 202-208. Retrieved via ProQuest Koszalka, T. & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), 139157. Retrieved via ProQuest Liu, Y., Han.S., Akademi, B., & Li, H. (2010). Understanding the factors driving m-learning adoption: a literature review. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27 (4). 210-226. DOI 10.1108/10650741011073761 Male, G., & Pattinson, C.(2011). Enhancing the quality of e-learning through mobile technology: A socio-cultural and technology perspective towards quality e-learning applications. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28 (5), 331-344. Doi: 10.1108/10650741111181607

Messinger, J. (2011). M-Learning: an exploration of the attitudes and perceptions of high school students versus teachers regarding the current and future use of mobile devices for learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and These database. (UMI No: 3487951) Park, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12 (2). 78-102. Retrieved via ProQuest Pegrum,M., Oakley,G., and Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 66-81. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/64/25 Popescu, A. (2011). Assessment of mobile learning contribution and practices in a lifelong learning society. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4 (8). 8192. Retrieved via ProQuest Rosen, L.D., Lim, A.F., Carrier, L.M., & Cheever, N.A. (2011). An Empirical Examination of the Educational Impact of Text Message-Induced Task Switching in the Classroom: Educational Implications and Strategies to Enhance Learning. Psicologa Educativa, 17 (2). 163-177. Doi:10.5093/ed2011v17n2a4 Serin, O. (2012). Mobile learning perceptions of the prospective teachers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (3). 222-233. Retrieved via ProQuest Squire, K. (2009). Mobile media learning: multiplicities of place. On the horizon, 17 (1), 70-80. DOI: 10.1108/10748120910936162 Swan, K., Van t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., and Unger, D. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. In L. Schrum (ed), Considerations on Technology and Teachers: The Best of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education pp(67-82). Eugene, Oregon: ISTE Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Sim, J.J., Phusavat, K. (2012). Determinants of mobile learning adoption: an empirical analysis. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 52 (3). 82 ProQuest Uzunboylu, H., & Ozdamli, F. (2011). Teacher perception for m-learning: scale development and teachers perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27. 544556. Doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00415.x Van Dam, N. (2013). Inside The Learning Brain. T+D, 67(4), 30-35. Retrived from http://0web.ebscohost.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=269749d3-30b2-4d4587d5-21da618b4f69%40sessionmgr15&vid=6&hid=23 Yadegaridehkordi, E., Iahad, N.A., & Mirabolghasemi, M. (2011) Users' perceptions towards Mlearning adoption: An initial study. Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS). International Conference. (pp.1,6, 23-24). Doi: 10.1109/ICRIIS.2011.6125690