You are on page 1of 198

Student Perceptions Related to Mobile Learning in Higher Education

Dissertation
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
by
FRED J. CROOP
Prescott Valley, Arizona
December 2008
UMI Number: 3341141
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3341141
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2008
Fred J. Croop
Approval
Student Perceptions Related to Mobile Learning in Higher Education
by
Fred J. Croop
Approved by:
:hair: Dr. Aaron L.Givan, Ph.D. Ddte /
Member: Dr. Amy L. Peterson, Ed.D.
Member: Dr. Bart A. Reynolds, Ed.D.
uertiiied by:
School Deari^Dr. Agnes Parker, Ph.D. Date
Abstract
Student Perceptions Related to Mobile Learning in Higher Education
by
Fred J. Croop
Northcentral University, December 2008
This researcher addressed the need for a small university to gain an understanding of
student perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning in order to make decisions
regarding the role that mobile learning should play in teaching and learning at the
institution. Data were gathered and analyzed in order to answer research questions
regarding: (a) the level of student interest in mobile learning opportunities; (b) the
availability of mobile learning technologies; (c) the amount of experience with electronic
learning; and (d) the perceived advantages, disadvantages, and barriers related to the
expansion of mobile learning. An explanatory mixed-methods design utilizing surveys,
focus groups, and interviews was employed. Data were gathered from 638 survey
respondents and 34 students who participated in focus groups and an interview.
Quantitative data were analyzed by examining frequency distributions and cross-
tabulations of responses to closed-end survey items and qualitative data analysis was
employed to extract findings from open-end survey items, focus groups, and an
interview. It was found that the students wanted more mobile access through wireless
networks for laptop computers but were not interested in expanding mobile learning
iv
through the use of other mobile devices. The implication was that the university should
invest available resources in the expansion of wireless access on campus.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the sacrifices my wife, Charlotte, and my
granddaughter, Kolia, have willingly made in their unfailing support for my quest to earn
my degree. Thank you to both of you with all my heart.
The students and staff at Misericordia University have made it possible to
complete the study to which they all contributed in different and invaluable ways. In
particular, Jennifer Drouse helped me proof all my writing in countless iterations on her
own time and gave me confidence that what I submitted was as close to perfection as
humanly possible. Thank you, my family at Misericordia.
Drs. Suzanne LeBeau, Anthony Pelligrini, and Professor Bruce Carter were
excellent instructors from whom I learned a tremendous amount of theory that could be
put to immediate practical use. My advisor at Northcentral, Pamela Sallee, was
indispensable in keeping me on track and the best academic support person I have ever
encountered. And, no one could ask for any better committee members than Drs. Amy
Peterson and Bart Reynolds. Thank you, everyone at Northcentral University for making
this accomplishment possible.
My greatest appreciation, though, goes to my mentor and dissertation chair, Dr.
Aaron Givan. It would be hard to imagine ever having finished this endeavor without his
beyond-the-call-of-duty level of conscientiousness in keeping everything moving and his
encouragement when things got tough. His feedback on content and his guidance on what
direction to take when it was in doubt or in need of change were invaluable. Thank you,
Dr. Givan; you are the best.
Table of Contents
List of Figures x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Mobile Learning 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Research Setting 4
Background and Significance of the Problem 5
Research Methodology 11
Definition of Terms 12
Summary 14
Chapter 2: Review of Literature 16
Defining Mobile Learning 16
Dimensions and Characteristics of Mobile Learning 21
Potential Advantages and Opportunities Related to Mobile Learning 27
Mobile Learning Devices and Current Status of Mobile Technologies 36
Disadvantages and Limitations of Mobile Learning 44
Innovating with Mobile Learning 47
Barriers to Mobile Learning Implementation 50
Factors that May Drive the Need to Implement Mobile Learning 51
Research into Mobile Learning for Higher Education in the United States 53
Summary 54
Chapter 3: Methodology 57
Overview 57
vii
Restatement of Problem 57
Statement of Research Questions 58
Description of Research Design 59
Description of Materials and Instruments 63
Research Setting and Target Group 67
Selection of Participants 68
Procedures 70
Discussion of Data Processing 77
Reliability and Validity 83
Methodological Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations 86
Ethical Assurances 88
Chapter 4: Findings 90
Overview 90
Findings 91
Summary 134
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 135
Summary 135
Conclusions 140
Recommendations 150
References 151
Appendix A: Student Survey on Mobile Learning 162
Appendix B: General Plan for Focus-Group Sessions and Interview 170
Appendix C: Email Invitation to Students Requesting Participation 173
viii
Appendix D: Hard Copy Flier Posted on Campuses Alerting Students to Email
Invitation to Participate in the Study 175
Appendix E: Consent Form Signed by Participants of Focus Groups and Interview.. 177
Appendix F: Web Page Consent Form for Survey Participants 181
Appendix G: Email Reminders to Students about the Study 184
Appendix H: Email Request to Schedule a Focus-group Session 186
IX
List of Figures
Figure 1. Response Rates by Demographic Group 91
Figure 2. Agreement with only the Respondent Having the Option of Mobile
Learning 93
Figure 3. Agreement with all Students Having the Option of Mobile Learning 94
Figure 4. Agreement with all Students Having the Requirement to do Mobile
Learning 94
Figure 5. Agreement that Using a Wireless Laptop Can Represent Mobile Learning.. 97
Figure 6. Agreement that Using a Web-Enabled Cell Phone Can Represent
Mobile Learning 98
Figure 7. Agreement that Using a PDA In The Field Can Represent Mobile
Learning 98
Figure 8. Agreement That Using Text Messaging Can Represent Mobile Learning 99
Figure 9. Text Messsaging Of The 545 Respondents Who Text Message 100
Figure 10. Type of Students Who Text more than 10 Times a Day 101
Figure 11. Internet Access by the 406 Respondents Who Accessed the Internet
While Mobile 101
Figure 12. Amount of Time per Week Spent Participating in eLearning Activities... 103
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
A complete literature is included in Chapter 2. The research methodology is
included in Chapter 3. The findings are presented in Chapter 4, and the conclusions are
articulated in Chapter 5.
Mobile Learning
Through the use of information and communication technologies, post-secondary
students appear to be expanding the variety of physical locations where the pursuit of
learning is being accomplished (Alexander, 2004; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005;
Wagner, 2005). Wagner related that the label most commonly used for this phenomenon
is mobile learning. The topic of mobile learning may be significant to decision makers in
higher education for several reasons. Prensky (2004) warned that students will
increasingly demand to use wireless technology such as the cell phone to pursue
educational endeavors. In addition, Rushby (2005) recommended that educators
investigate the potential pedagogical advantages that mobile learning has to offer. Mobile
learning also may offer logistical pluses such as increased portability of educational tools
at a reduced cost (Motiwalla, 2007; Riva & Villani, 2005). Mobile learning and the
appropriateness of its use in higher education are addressed.
Statement of the Problem
The research problem addressed was that mobile learning is not supported at the
participating university. The academic administration of the university did not have any
information on the level of student interest in participating in mobile learning and the
learners' preparedness for mobile learning. Also unknown were the learners' perceptions
1
of what mobile learning might contribute to and distract from the teaching and learning
process and the students' input regarding the barriers to implementing mobile learning.
There are three current trends in the use of technology that may require leaders of
institutions of higher education to implement additional technology in order to
accommodate possible shifts in consumer preferences for consumption of higher
education. These three trends include the increasing demand for wireless access to data
and connectivity to others, the proliferation of mobile phones among the global
population, and the convergence of personal organization tools and mobile
communication (Alexander, 2004; Medoff & Kaye, 2005; New Media Consortium and
Educause Learning initiative, 2006). The multipurpose cell phone may soon become a
personal asset that the majority of higher education students may view as a technology
that would be as foreign to remove from learning activities as it would be for some
participants to discard eyeglasses and contact lenses (Prensky, 2004).
If the ubiquity of connectivity and intuitive reliance on the cell phone come to
pass, the smart phone will drive consumers of higher education to demand mobile
learning opportunities in live classes, blended courses (those with both live and online
components), and distance education offerings (Alexander, 2004; Prensky, 2004;
Wagner, 2005). Therefore, research in this area should be of interest to post-secondary
academic and technical professionals involved in facilitating multiple delivery formats,
and might actually be necessary at some point now or in the future in order to address a
paradigm shift the higher education community may not be able to ignore.
In a review of research related to the specifics of how mobile technologies might
contribute to teaching and learning in higher education, Kim, Mims, and Holmes (2006)
2
found that little research has been conducted on mobile learning. Therefore, while it
appears those charged with managing higher education would be well-served to be
proactive about planning and preparation for mobile learning in order to increase the
possibility and level of success in its implementation, very little research in this area has
been undertaken. Interviews already conducted with the administration of the
participating university have uncovered recognition for the need for advance planning
and preparation when rolling out a new teaching and learning initiative such as mobile
learning.
Academic decision makers at the university where the study was conducted
indicated concurrence with the contention that there existed a need to gather data
regarding mobile learning (M. King, personal communication, November 18, 2007; T.
O'Neill, personal communication, November 19, 2007). With regard to the status of
accommodating mobile learning at the university, it is significant to note that at the time
of commencing the research study that the institution had only one wireless network, in
the library building on campus, and the information portal through which all teaching and
learning activities must flow was accessible by only one mobile device operating system,
that of the Apple iPhone (V. Apanovich, personal communication, February 18, 2008).
Therefore, many activities that represented learning while mobile were not even possible
for most students and faculty of the university.
Student attitudes towards and perceptions of the use of mobile learning
technologies represented information regarding mobile learning that were vital in
determining its appropriate role at the university (T. O'Neill, personal communication,
November 19, 2007). The purpose of this research was to evaluate the level of student
3
interest in participating in mobile learning and to investigate in depth learners'
perceptions of what mobile learning might contribute to and distract from the teaching
and learning process. In addition, students' perceptions of what might represent barriers
to implementing mobile learning were studied, and the data gathered were analyzed in
order to determine if any possible relationships among student attributes and level of
interest in mobile learning appeared to be evident. The researcher produced a report that
will be used by the administration of the university in making decisions regarding mobile
learning.
Research Setting
This research was conducted at and for the benefit of a small university. The
university is a private institution of higher education founded in 1924 by the Religious
Sisters of Mercy and located in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The institution has
approximately 1,550 fulltime and 950 part-time students and offers 30 undergraduate, six
masters, and two doctoral degrees at its main suburban campus and through several
satellite operations in Pennsylvania. Main campus housing accommodates roughly 850 of
the fulltime students and a high percentage of all students maintain their principal
residence within a 60-mile radius of the institution of higher education. There has been
steady growth and expansion at the university for the last decade; however, it does not
have a large endowment and therefore is financially dependent on tuition.
At the time the study was conducted, no program at the institution was offered
entirely through distance education, although the number of distance education courses
offered through the World Wide Web using a popular Learning Management System
(LMS) was growing (B. Leggat, personal communication, September 13, 2007). Also,
4
there was a steady increase in the use of the LMS in live offerings, creating what are
typically called hybrid or blended courses (M. King, personal communication, September
13,2007).
Background and Significance of the Problem
Consumption trends in higher education. There are signs that people prefer to
have wireless access in using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
Griffaw (2006) related that Ipsos, an international market survey research company,
reported that in June 2006, one-third of the adults in North America who accessed the
Internet, did so wirelessly. Griffaw also reported that Ipsos found in its annual study of
global Internet trends that while the ownership of notebook computers that enable
mobility rose sharply in 2005, the number of desktop owners remained unchanged.
Increased demand for wireless access with computers doesn't represent the only
sign that people want more mobility in ICT. Use of another device that since its inception
has been mobile and wireless is also exploding. The cell phone is now used by more than
203 million people in the United States (Leo, 2006). A study by the advertising agency
Batten, Barton, Durstine, and Osborn Worldwide revealed that 75% of mobile phone
users have it with them and turned on all the time except when sleeping (Leo, 2006).
However, increasing mobile wireless computing and growing cell phone use do not
represent just related phenomena, these trends are on paths that may merge and become
inseparable in the near future.
In what may be the most significant of current ICT trends, the convergence of
wireless access to data, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) functions, and established cell
phone capabilities is taking place (Medoff & Kaye, 2005). The device that is evolving out
5
of this convergence is sometimes referred to as a smart phone (ARM, 2006; Pineda,
2004). The functions being added to the cell phone may at some point in the future make
life almost impossible to live normally without the device (Rainie & Skeeter, 2006).
Alexander (2004) argued the impact of the wireless, cell phone, and convergence
trends on higher education will be the creation of an anywhere, anytime approach to
education called mobile learning that should not be ignored by colleges and universities.
Furthermore, Wagner (2005) contended that m-learning, as mobile learning is often
labeled, represents a potentially powerful pedagogical opportunity. Wagner made a very
powerful contention that mobile learning is going to be thrust upon educators, "whether
we like it or not, whether we are ready for it or not, mobile learning represents the next
step in a long tradition of technology-mediated learning" (p. 44). Academic
administrators at colleges and universities would be prudent to investigate the possibility
and plan and prepare accordingly.
Neurology and mobile learning. Neuroplasticity has become a term that
educators, who are sincere in their struggle to cope with how the students of today learn,
have discovered. Neuroplasticity is the theory that the brain and the nervous system have
the capacity to alter pathways and connections in response to life experiences (Schwartz
& Begley, 2002). Applying this theory of brain plasticity, Oblinger and Oblinger (2005)
hypothesized that the brains of those who have grown up exposed almost continuously to
new forms of ICT have actually been rewired. Students with these new circuits really
can't respond to the tried and true traditions of teaching that emphasizes print media and
low interactivity with resources. The claim put forth by Oblinger and Oblinger is that it is
6
not laziness or ignorance that causes some young students to not be able to sit and read a
book.
The current young generation is growing up in a world dominated by
communication with others and access to information through the use of cell phones and
other mobile devices. Conversing on the fly, text messaging, accessing media and
information uninterrupted anywhere, and viewing text and other media on a small screen
may be affecting the manner in which young students prefer, and possibly will need, to
study and learn. It is very likely that managers of higher education will need to respond to
the preferences of learners, which may also be called the demands of consumers. These
leaders may also need to respond to the real learning needs of the rewired brains brought
about by the cell phone revolution.
Potential impact of mobile learning on higher education. Wagner (2005) argued
that educators in the United States realize that the demand for mobile learning is
inevitable. However, Wagner recognized the academic community has little knowledge
of the teaching and learning potential of mobile learning or what will be involved in
implementing it in higher education. The impact upon higher education of a global
society that is becoming more mobile can be seen in a 2005 survey of 1,600 randomly-
selected University of Wisconsin-Madison students. Many of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison students were quickly abandoning desktop computers in favor of
laptops and were very much desirous of stronger wireless signals so the learners could
work in places of their own choosing (Mattmiller, 2005). The post-secondary shift to
mobility can also be seen in some statistics that Oblinger (2006) borrowed from research
conducted by eMarketer in 2006 that (a) over 80% of college students have cell phones;
7
(b) 75% of college cell phone owners use text messaging most often on their phones; and
(c) 56% of college students own a laptop.
The implications for education if the mobile learning phenomenon materializes
will be staggering (New Media Consortium, 2006). Educators entrusted with managing
higher education will need to implement change if the cell phone and other mobile
learning technologies do indeed evolve as predictions in this document contend and being
mobile becomes a major force behind social and cultural reconfiguration. Kim, Mim, and
Holmes (2006) argued that to implement mobile technologies successfully, uninformed
enthusiasm needs to be curtailed and replaced with critical and careful analysis into how
available mobile learning tools should best be matched to specific educational goals.
Determining stakeholder attitudes and evaluations represents an initial step in
systematically exploring the proper use of mobile learning in higher education.
Planning for mobile learning in higher education. The culture of higher education
has enabled a tendency toward late, reactive, and hurried responses that have been poorly
planned and not driven by data (Sumansky, personal communication, November 19,
2007). This research was conducted in order to help contribute to gathering information
needed by decision makers in higher education in the United States so that mobile
learning can be approached with proactive sound planning based upon data.
In a study of the challenges faced by five colleges and universities in adding
distance education to the delivery of education, Broskoske and Harvey (2000) found that
administrators at each institution attributed transition difficulties to inadequate advance
planning and preparation. Educators at two of the institutions reported that planning was
undertaken two to three years after the offering of distance education started. These
8
respondents expressed the realization that experiences with the initiatives proved less
than satisfactory due in part to the absence of strategic planning before entering the
distance education arena. Common wisdom might dictate that the success of an endeavor
is jeopardized when there is a lack of strategic planning and advance preparation. Mellow
and Talmadge (2005) recommended that planning and preparation for the challenges of
change in higher education best starts with data collection. Furthermore, Frost, Lucas,
and Blankert (2004) contended that organizing and interpreting data are essential to
effective college and university strategic planning.
Mobile learning and the higher education institution of interest. The preferred
approach to keeping current with the dynamic nature of higher education includes
looking at the trends in education that are on the horizon. This should be followed by
taking steps to gather the information that would be needed to decide whether the shifts
and innovations should be adopted and, if so, how and when (Sumansky, personal
communication, November 19, 2007). At the university where the study was conducted,
efforts to monitor current trends have created an expectation that the cell phone is going
to have a dramatic effect on higher education. The Dean of Adult and Continuing
Education related that a consultant on campus indicated that the cell phone, a mobile
learning vehicle, is going to be the catalyst for significant changes in non-traditional
educational delivery (T. O'Neill, personal communication, December 5, 2006). The
mobile phone represents the most significant element of the mobile learning paradigm
(Prensky, 2004). At the start of the study, though, the academic administration at the
institution had no information on which to base a decision regarding the role of mobile
9
learning at the university, let alone any data that could be used to plan for any possible
implementation (Sumansky, 2007).
The administrators at the university determined research into student perceptions
of and attitudes toward this new paradigm in teaching and learning would contribute to
the investigation into mobile learning. The result expected from the study was the
emergence of critical learner attitudinal and evaluative patterns regarding mobile
learning. From the students, the specific logistics of mobile learning technologies
considered desirable and contributory toward learning from the learners' perspective
would be determined. The patterns that emerged from the research project would become
part of the basis for strategic planning and advance preparation for mobile learning.
Research Questions. Mobile learning is expected by some scholarly observers of
educational trends to be the next significant innovation in post-secondary education
(Alexander, 2004; Wagner, 2005). This research was foundational in nature with regard
to the population of study: students at a teaching-based, small, private university where
accommodating mobile learning had not yet been considered. Mobile learning
represented a new education technology. As such, and based upon input gathered from
academic decision makers at the higher education institution where the study was to be
conducted, the following represented the research questions that needed to be addressed:
1. What level of interest is there among higher education students for the
opportunity to learn while mobile?
2. What is the level of higher education student access to and use of technologies
typically employed in mobile learning?
10
3. What is the amount of higher education student experience with electronic
learning?
4. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential advantages of
mobile learning?
5. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential disadvantages of
mobile learning?
6. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential barriers to the
implementation of mobile learning?
Research Methodology
Design. The problem that faced the university, where the study was carried out
was that decision makers did not have information on the level of student interest in
participating in mobile learning, the learners' preparedness for mobile learning, and the
learners' perceptions of mobile learning. Information regarding student perceptions is
best gathered as qualitative data from as many students as possible, but the logistics of
collecting and analyzing in-depth qualitative data make maximizing the number of
participants difficult (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
To address the collection and analysis of the data needed in the most productive
manner possible that would yield the most useful results, a two-phase explanatory mixed-
methods design that incorporated aspects of both participant selection and follow-up
explanations models was utilized (Creswell & Piano-Clark, 2007). The first phase of the
study entailed sending an electronic survey to the entire student body at the university.
The survey was used for the researcher to gather quantitative data on interest and
preparedness levels along with demographics and qualitative data on student perceptions.
11
The survey served as an invitation to participate in the second phase of the research. The
data collected in the first phase were used to select participants and first-phase data
analyses guided the areas of inquiry for the second focus-group phase of the study. In the
second phase of the research, qualitative data were gathered and analyzed in order to
confirm, clarify, and/or explain the apparent issues, trends, and anomalies emerging out
of the previous phase.
Assumptions, delimitations, and limitations. The research methodology was based
upon the assumptions that virtually all research studies conducted relevant to mobile
learning had been published and were listed in at least one of the databases searched,
students would be truthful and accurate in responding, pilot testing would enable data
collection instruments and the general plans to be refined to acceptable levels of
reliability and validity, and the research design would not provide for the results to be
applicable at other institutions. The limitations that were integral to the study included:
(a) the sample of students who completed the survey were self-selected; (b) the data
collected represented the attitudes and perceptions in existence only during the period of
the study; (c) purposive sampling used to select participants for the focus-groups might
have affected data collected; and (d) students may not follow through in reality even
though they indicated they were interested in mobile learning.
Definition of Terms
Cellphone. The term cell phone is short for cellular phone and often referred to as
a mobile phone. A cell phone is a wireless telephone that uses radio waves to connect to a
radio antenna that provides telecommunication within a small geographic range called a
12
cell. Through many cells that often overlap, telecommunication is often uninterrupted,
(cell phone, 2007; Peters, 2007; Prensky, 2004).
Electronic learning. Electronic learning is sometimes abbreviated as e-learning
and refers to teaching and learning activities using electronic media and ICT
(Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007; Urdan & Weggen, 2000).
ICT. ICT is the abbreviation for information and communications technologies
which includes the Internet, mobile telephony, satellite communications, and digital
television over cable or aerials (Conlon, 2007).
Mobile learning. Mobile learning is sometimes referred to as m-learning. Mobile
learning is learning supported by access to requisite information repositories and/or
communication with potential learning collaborators that takes place in a location and at a
time that makes a learning activity either possible or more productive than would be
achievable at another location and/or time.
Mobile phone. A mobile phone is often referred to as a cell phone which is a
wireless telephone that uses radio waves to connect to a radio antenna that provides
telecommunication within a small geographic range called a cell. Through many cells
that often overlap, telecommunication is often uninterrupted (cell phone, 2007; Peters,
2007; Prensky, 2004).
Net generation. Sometime referred to as millennials, the net generation includes
individuals born between 1980 and 1994 who typically exhibit the attributes of
impatience, a sense of immediacy, expertise with electronic and mobile technologies, and
the ability to multitask (Carlson, 2005).
13
Non-traditional student. A student who meets at least one of the following
criteria: part-time enrollment (fewer than 12 credits per semester), 24 years of age or
older, did not enter college immediately after completing high school, meets the federal
definition of being independent, has one or more dependents, works a single job for 35 or
more hours per week during the fall or spring semesters (Misericordia University, 2007).
PDA. A personal data (digital) assistant is a self-contained personal tool that gives
the user computing ability and sometimes includes a telephone (Kiernan, 2006; Kim,
Holmes, & Mims, 2005).
Smart phone. A smart phone combines the functions of a cell phone, PDA, and
Web tool into one device (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007).
Traditional student. A fulltime (12 or more credits per semester) student under the
age of 24 who entered college immediately after completing high school, who does not
meet the federal definition of being independent, who does not have any dependents, and
does not work a single job for 35 or more hours a week during the fall or spring semesters
(Misericordia University, 2007).
-SMS. Short message service is sometimes referred to as text messaging and
represents the sending and receiving of text messages among communication devices
(Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007).
Summary
There is very little research to date on mobile learning to which leaders in an
institution of higher education can turn in order to prepare for the advent of mobile
learning. Colleges and universities in the United States are lagging behind other parts of
the world in the growth of mobile learning (Clyde, 2004). At this juncture, research
14
represents an appropriate method for concerned academic administrators at a university
in the United States to examine what may be needed in order to plan effectively and make
sound decisions regarding mobile learning. The research project conducted contributed to
helping the university administrators plan proactively for implementation of mobile
learning.
15
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
For those in education who use the term mobile learning, a variety of meanings
exists. Almost all relate in some way to the use of electronic technology to enable
students or trainees to better facilitate learning that is not fixed in one location. For a
number of generations of students, learners have carried texts, notebooks, and pencils
with them in order to study and learn while on the move. However, it does not appear that
the term mobile learning was ever used to describe any of these efforts to keep up with
schoolwork before electronic information and communication devices became relatively
portable. Rushby (2005) suggested one of the first examples of initiatives that gave rise to
the recognition of mobile learning as a distinct phenomenon was Apple Computer's
MessagePad PDA released in 1993 that ran the Newton operating system.
Mobile learning is often abbreviated as m-learning or mLearning (Alexander,
2004). In a review of the literature on mobile learning, the exact origin of the term could
not be pinpointed. However, the first extensive use of mobile learning as a label for
learning through the use of mobile devices surfaced in several pan-European mobile
learning projects that started in the late 1990s and the early 2000s (Keegan, 2002). At the
time of this writing, a consensus on a single definition of the term mobile learning does
not appear to be evident in the relevant literature.
Defining Mobile Learning
Defining mobile learning by example. Winters (2007) contended that mobile
learning has not yet been adequately defined and represents an example of a phenomenon
that means all things to all people. An endeavor is considered to be mobile learning, or
not, based upon the context of several factors situated within the learning experience
16
itself (Traxler, 2007). Students have been considered to be participating in mobile
learning through a variety of activities by researchers who have studied the use of mobile
devices in teaching and learning, by educators experimenting with the use of mobile
technology in educational environments, and by early adopters of what the adopters
themselves have defined as mobile learning.
Examples of mobile learning found in the relevant literature have included: (a)
using cell phones to teach English in Japan (Thornton & Houser, 2005) and Italian in
Australia (Levy & Kennedy, 2005) by requiring students to, throughout a typical day,
exchange text messages in English outside of class; (b) employing PDAs to access
PowerPoint and other course resources, participate in discussion boards, email other
students and the instructor, and share work (Ramsden, 2005); (c) relying upon SMS to
pose questions to students and receive responses via cell phones in facilitating daily
assessment of achieving learning objectives (Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007); (d)
utilizing PDAs to run class organization software (Sharpies, Corlett, Bull, Chan, &
Rudman, 2005); (e) using cell phones to teach literature though multimedia messaging,
Web searching, mobile posting to blogs, and content-related gaming (Shih & Mills,
2007); (f) distributing to students audio files that can be played on the learners' portable
media players to address false preconceptions and anxiety related to an information
technology class (Lee & Chan, 2005); and (g) facilitating the polling of students,
assessing comprehension, and fostering increased interactivity during a large business
communications class with the help of students' mobile phones (Fisher & Baird, 2006).
Lack of consensus on a universal definition of mobile learning. Attaching
meaning to the term mobile learning through citing examples of what scholars have put
17
forth in the literature as mobile learning is useful in attempting to define mobile learning.
However, having a generalizable definition from which to frame research and study
would be extremely helpful. Traxler (2007), though, credited the differences in personal
experiences and implementations by proponents of mobile learning for presenting a
challenge to the acceptance of a single definition of mobile learning. In spite of Traxler's
suggestion and the contention of Winters' (2007) that mobile learning has not yet been
defined, many researchers and writers interested in mobile learning have put forth
proposed definitions of mobile learning.
Different emphases have been chosen by the scholars who have penned the
various definitions of mobile learning that can be found in the relevant literature. Some of
the authors who have suggested definitions have emphasized the mobile technologies that
make nomadic learning possible (Aderinoye, Ojokheta, & Olojede, 2007; Kim et al.,
2006; Riva & Villani, 2005). Other writers, while listing the relevant mobile devices as
components of the definition, have chosen to focus on the experience of the learner in
regards to the location and the type of learning activity encountered in mobile learning
(Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007; Clark & Flaherty, 2002; O'Mailey, Vavoula, Glew,
Taylor, Sharpies, & Lefrere, 2003; Traxler, 2007).
Defining mobile learning based upon facilitating technologies. Aderinoye et al.
(2007) defined mobile learning as any learning carried out with the employment of a
mobile or wireless device. Similarly, Kim et al. (2006) and Riva and Villani (2005)
promulgated technology-focused definitions of mobile learning, but also enumerated
specific devices. The list developed by Kim et al. and Riva and Villani included cell
phones, web-enabled cell phones, PDAs, wirelessly network-connected PDAs, wirelessly
18
network-connected laptop computers, and wirelessly network-connected tablet personal
computers (tablet PCs). Expanding on that list, Alexander (2004) also included in his
definition MP3 players or iPODs, handheld gaming devices, Bluetooth-enabled devices,
wireless access points, digital cameras, USB drivers, and Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) tags.
In recent articles, authors have taken a more limited approach to what it means to
be mobile. For the purposes of determining the criteria for inclusion of articles in the
May/June 2007 special issue of Educational Technology on highly mobile computing,
edition editors van't Hooft and Vahey (2007) disclosed that the only devices qualified for
coverage were ones that would be expected to always be on a person but not carried
specifically to accomplish educational tasks. Similarly, Traxler (2007) suggested the
activities that should be considered as mobile learning should be those that would be
performed with devices carried by unconscious habit. Furthermore, van't Hooft coined
the term highly mobile which further limited devices to ones operated with one hand.
These recommendations, should they represent a trend that will take hold, eliminate
laptops and most tablet PCs from the list of devices considered mobile learning
appliances. But, for the time being, the inclusion of laptops and tablet PCs as mobile
learning devices is predominant in the relevant literature.
No matter what specific electronics have been proposed, it is noteworthy that the
authors cited in this section have framed the definition of mobile learning primarily in the
context of the mobile technologies that have the potential to facilitate mobile educational
activities. Contributors to the literature on mobile learning may not be giving adequate
consideration to one of the classic foundations of good instructional design of educational
19
technology as quoted by Snelbecker (1999), "Curriculum and instruction should drive
technology; technology should not drive curriculum and instruction" (p. 671). Richardson
(2006) concurred, proposing that innovators should not be thinking about what to do with
new technologies, but instead should be thinking about how to respond to the identified
needs and gaps in curriculum and instruction by using technology.
Defining mobile learning based upon location and type of activity. Pragmatic
emphasis on location guided O'Mailey et al. (2003) to indicate mobile learning entailed
any learning not constrained to a predetermined, stationary site and any learning
supported by mobile technology. Quinn (2000) took the position mobile learning
represents the overlap of mobile computing through wirelessly connected devices with
electronic learning accomplished through ICT. Kim and Ong (2005) concurred and used
the word convergence to describe the intersection of electronic learning and mobile
technologies. Therefore, per Kim and Ong, mobile learning is the product of the
convergence.
While mobile learning would not be possible without mobile technologies,
Traxler (2007) argued that to define mobile learning by the appliances used is doing a
disservice to the term by making mobile learning initiatives too technology-dependent
and very susceptible to obsolescence. Several authors in addition to Traxler have
acknowledged the same concern in discussions of what mobile learning represents
(Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007; Clark & Flaherty, 2002). The definitions put forth by
these other writers tend to emphasize the mobile activities learners can or do accomplish
as a part of mobile learning.
20
Mobile learning is whatever and occurs wherever the learner wants it to be in the
context of what is being learned, explained Traxler (2007). Being more specific, Clark
and Flaherty (2002) contended the most important aspect of the definition of mobile
learning relates to the learners having the capability to foster understanding and build
knowledge through communication and collaborative activities enabled by wireless
technology. While also touting the importance of defining mobile learning in the terms of
the communications it facilitates, Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2007) also stressed the
ability to support learning activities through expanding the times and places of access to
networked information as a staple of mobile learning.
Mobile learning defined in the context of research. Based upon evaluation and
analysis of the literature consulted and in an effort to synthesize the relevant points in
proper perspective, the following definition of mobile learning can be used for the
purposes of researching the role mobile learning can play in United States higher
education: Mobile learning is learning supported by wireless access to information
resources such as those available on the Internet and wireless communication with
learning collaborators that can take place in a location that is most conducive to achieving
learning outcomes. This author contended this definition puts the use of technology in its
proper place in the mobile educational process and does not tie mobile learning initiatives
to any specific technology or technologies.
Dimensions and Characteristics of Mobile Learning
Mobile learning as convenient and flexible. Mobile learning represents different
things to different people. Peters (2007) pointed out that some educators view the rise of
interest in mobile learning as hype related to just another fad that will come and go.
21
Peters also noted some academic leaders even regard mobile learning as a threat that
needs to be addressed accordingly. Contra to these negative viewpoints held by others,
Peters put together an argument that mobile learning represents one potential contribution
to the solution of the problem of the ever-increasing demand for time being placed on
students in a world becoming more complex with the passage of each day.
Trinder, Magill, and Roy (2005) pointed out mobile devices can be very efficient
and can be employed as effective learning tools to fill the gaps of time between the
demands of life in the world of today. Supporting this contention, Motiwalla (2007)
disclosed that some United States higher education students reported they had effectively
used wireless handheld devices to accomplish learning activities such as participating in
electronic class discussions and accessing instructor feedback with higher efficiency. The
increases in efficiency and effectiveness were gained through the ability to utilize time
periods that prior to employing mobile learning had been unproductive, such as while
waiting for the bus.
Kim et al. (2005) argued the convenience and flexibility to put to productive use
time that would otherwise be wasted is one of the most important elements of mobile
learning. However, the practical often impacts the substantive. Shih and Mills (2007)
found in a study of California State University students these convenience and flexibility
attributes of mobile learning had the effect of highly motivating the learners to contribute
more to their learning.
Mobile learning can be ubiquitous, localized, and personalized. In addition to the
practical convenience of mobile learning, Clark and Flaherty (2002) listed three other
dimensions: (a) ubiquity; (b) localization; and (c) personalization. With regard to the
22
second of Clark and Flaherty's four dimensions, Alexander (2004) contended the
ubiquity aspect of mobile learning is so crucial to the essence of the paradigm that he
proposed it would be more appropriate to call the topic ubiquitous learning. While
Alexander's proposed label never received further attention in the literature and the name
used almost exclusively has remained mobile learning, certainly some writers have
predicted mobile learning will eventually be everywhere at all times. The fact that the cell
phone is a device by which mobile learning can be accomplished makes this prediction
very credible. Leo (2006) reported more than 203 million people in the United States now
use cell phones. In addition, Leo noted that a study by the advertising agency Batten,
Barton, Durstine, and Osborn Worldwide found that 75% of mobile phone users have it
with them and turned on all the time except when sleeping.
The authors of the 2007 Horizons Report contended research conducted in order
to prepare the report indicated United States higher education has already reached the
point where cell phone availability and use among students can be labeled as ubiquitous
(The New Media Consortium, 2007). Keegan (2002) observed society has never seen a
technology spread so quickly and pervasively as the world has witnessed with the cell
phone; a phenomenon he attributes to the ubiquitous potential of the cell phone.
Realistically, while Clark and Flaherty (2002) proposed mobile learning is ubiquitous, the
term may more appropriately be limited to learning pursued through the use of cell
phones and not other mobile learning devices that do not yet possess, and possibly never
will, the potential to become truly ubiquitous.
The localization dimension of mobile learning to which Clark and Flaherty (2002)
referred relates to the ability through technologies, such as Global Positioning Service
23
(GPS) and Wireless Fidelity (wi-fi) hotspots, to selectively send a message to a wireless
mobile device based upon the exact location of the student carrying the appliance. Hsu,
Ke, and Yang (2006) have developed a comprehensive learning framework for museums
that includes a localization component that informs and augments what learners are
experiencing through different cell phone messages based upon where the learners are
located in museums. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art uses the cell phones of
visitors to accomplish the same feat (The New Media Consortium, 2007).
The ability to personalize the mobile learning experience, the fourth dimension
suggested by Clark and Flaherty (2002), was also recognized as an important advantage
of mobile learning by Kukulska-Hulme (2005b) and Peters (2007). Alexander (2004)
postulated learning through mobile devices is much more personal than learning via
desktop computers. The capability of sending a personalized message to the mobile
device of an individual student includes a timing advantage over sending the
communication to the desktop of the student. The timing of when the student will receive
the communication through his or her mobile device can be controlled more effectively.
If the mobile appliance is a cell phone, it is a strong likelihood the recipient will get the
personalized message immediately, when the instructor wants him or her to read or hear
it. Clark and Flaherty pointed out with traditional channels for delivering messages the
teacher has to wait until the learner logs into a course web site or attends a live class.
Peters (2007) contended this personalization is also what the learners want as a
consumer expectation. The author found this expectation is common among students of
the 21st century and she described it as just-for-me demands. The control by the learner
and related personal nature of mobile learning was also emphasized by Seppala and
24
Alamaki (2003) in noting a student can, no matter what mobile device is employed,
access an information network at a time of his or her choosing. In a study of over 3,000
students conducted by Tomasino, Doubek, and Ormiston (2007), the researchers reported
the participants confirmed a more personal atmosphere is created in a mobile learning
environment. Another example of the personal approach being effected through mobile
learning is an instructional design model created for mobile learning by Shih and Mills
(2007). The designers included the opportunity for students to create, while on the move,
a personal text, audio, or video diary of learning experiences.
Other dimensions, characteristics, and significant attributes of mobile learning.
Motiwalla (2007) argued mobile learning is a teaching and learning mode that is still in
its earliest stages of development. It is this beginning status to which Traxler (2007)
attributed the fact that in the literature no consensus on an accepted framework of
dimensions and characteristics is evident. Kukulska-Hulme (2005b) contended the
rapidity with which changes and advancements in mobile learning are taking place also is
contributing to the lack of a universally-accepted list of components and attributes related
to mobile learning.
It is difficult to pin down a moving target in a field Nyiri (2005) described as an
organic learning environment. There appears to be no uniform definition of mobile
learning. Consequently, there exists in the literature a variety of proposed organizations
of the elements of mobile learning. Winters (2007) put forth one delineation of the
characteristics of mobile learning in which the following four distinguishing features
were included: (a) construction of knowledge occurs in a variety of contexts; (b) building
of understanding is accomplished by the learners; (c) contexts are driven by temporal and
25
location factors; and (d) patterns of learning activities are different from what they would
have been if not supported by mobile learning. Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2005)
asserted that learning is situated; experiential; contextualized; current; and occurs in the
presence of authentic content.
Clark and Flaherty (2002) called the four aspects they proposed dimensions, while
Winters (2007) used the term characteristics for the four items she detailed, and
Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2005) described the five points in the list they produced
significant attributes. While there are clear differences among many of the 13 items listed
in these three delineations, among some items there appear to be only nuances in
meaning with much overlap. Some of the points made by Clark and Flaherty, Kukulska-
Hulme and Traxler, and Winters would not be dimensions, characteristics, or attributes in
every instance of an educational activity that fits into the definition of mobile learning.
Mobile learning and electronic learning and distance education. Mobile learning
takes many different forms and has not yet been distinctly defined (Traxler, 2007;
Winters, 2007). Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2005), though, reported that a distinct
culture associated with mobile learning is growing. Most often in the literature mobile
learning is depicted as a subset or subdivision of electronic learning (Chinnery, 2007;
Peters, 2007). While Peters defined electronic learning as delivery of educational content
utilizing a web-based LMS, Urdan and Weggen (2000) included all electronic media, not
just the World Wide Web.
Keegan (2002) expressed a view that electronic learning is a component of
distance education. This depiction that mobile learning represents a subset of electronic
learning, and that electronic learning comprises a type of distance education may be over
26
simplistic, though. Many times mobile learning activities are components of blended or
hybrid courses; offerings that combine traditional live class sessions and electronic
learning. Hybrid courses are not considered distance education.
A synthesis of the potential characteristics and dimensions of mobile learning.
Synthesizing what has been written about mobile learning, it appears a description of the
dimensions and characteristics of the teaching and learning platform might best be put in
the context of the potential educational and practical opportunities that can be achieved
through learning on the move. An enumeration of the dimensions and attributes should
not indicate what the characteristics of mobile learning are, but rather disclose what the
characteristics can be. In preparing this synthesis, some observations on mobile learning
found in the literature outside of the listings proposed by Clark and Flaherty (2002),
Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2005), and Winters (2007) should be considered.
Mobile learning was found to be expedient and immediate by Kim et al. (2005),
collaborative by Riva and Villani (2005) and Vavoula (2005), and student-centered by
Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007). The product of these observations when added to the
characteristics previously discussed is a synthesis of the elements that mobile learning
has the potential to possess. The list of possible dimensions and attributes includes
convenience, flexibility, expediency, immediacy, ubiquity, location-customization,
personalization, learner-centeredness, collaboration support, constractivist-orientation,
currency, and contextual or experiential or situational authenticity.
Potential Advantages and Opportunities Related to Mobile Learning
Many authors have written about the potential advantages and opportunities
afforded by mobile ICT and mobile learning. Some proponents of mobile learning have
27
focused more on the logistical aspects of the use of mobile devices for learning, and some
published educators have emphasized the pedagogical side. In painting a picture of
mobile learning, though, it is difficult to separate where the consideration of the practical
matters made possible by the enabling technologies end and where the more theoretical
and applied educational value begins.
More portability at a lower cost. Kukulska-Hulme (2005b) argued a fascinating
potential for effective learning has been created by the mobile learning activities
accomplished through the advent of pocket-sized ICT devices. As technology advances,
the size of mobile ICT appliances will keep getting smaller, predicted Chinnery (2006).
Motiwalla (2007) contended this miniaturization will lead to expanding use of handheld
mobile devices for learning. Expounding further, Motiwalla expressed anticipation that
the increased use of mobile ICT in education will have a substantive positive effect on
the quality of learning. Investigators and participants in studies have often noted it is the
portability of mobile devices made possible by decreasing size that makes mobile
learning more possible in more situations (Balasundaram & Ramadoss, 2007; Jones,
Issroff, Scanlon, McAndrew, & Clough, 2007; Riva & Villani, 2005). In fact, Prensky
(2001b) professed that in a school setting portability was by far the most important factor
in decisions made by students with regard to what learning tools to carry and use.
Another practical consideration is the cost factor. Riva and Villani (2005) touted
the lower investment by the learner in most mobile hardware relative to the higher cost of
desktop computers as a plus associated with the mobile learning platform. This reduced
cost of mobile devices along with increasing availability have prompted Attewell (2005)
28
and Nyiri (2005) to declare the digital divide between learners who have access to
information technology and learners who do not have access is disappearing.
The availability of mobile technologies made more practical by the increased
portability of appliances and the relatively low and continuously decreasing cost of
mobile ICT have made possible approaches to learning activities that would not
otherwise have been feasible or as productive. Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2005) and
the student participants in studies conducted by Jones et al. (2007) and Tomasino,
Doubek, and Ormiston (2007) related that continuous access to the Web, Internet, other
networks, peers, and the instructor is a powerful learning benefit enabled by mobile
hardware, software, and telecommunications. The portability, cheapness, and the
resulting ubiquity of mobile appliances coupled with the constant connection to resources
and other individuals has lead to the ability to capture data first hand in real time
authentic experiences (Kim et al., 2005; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler; Riva & Villani,
2005). This would appear to be especially valuable for fieldwork in the many disciplines
that require such activity, including but not limited to medical fields, sociology,
psychology, education, and natural science (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler).
Increased learner motivation and engagement. An important aspect to
establishing a productive learning environment is adequate motivation and engagement of
the students. Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2007) found students more interested in
participating when interactions were facilitated by mobile learning. This finding supports
the contention of Kukulska-Hulme (2005c) that the level of usability afforded by mobile
appliances has an effect on the engagement of participating students. It was higher
energy, attributed to the use of mobile learning, which yielded more interaction and
29
communication among the adult students participating in a study conducted by Vavoula
(2005). In other research that gathered reactions to mobile learning from focus groups
composed of students, Jones et al. (2007) reported the fun and coolness nature of mobile
learning motivated greater participation in learning activities. Similar findings on the
learner engagement potential of mobile learning were reported from a large study of over
3,000 students conducted by Tomasino et al. (2007).
Increased collaboration. Increased interaction, communication, and sharing of
information with peers and instructors, when compared to a sans-mobile learning
environment, have been cited by researchers, participants in research, and proponents of
mobile learning as both a result and a cause of higher levels of student engagement and
motivation (Vavoula, 2005). In a study of students at a United States university, Shih and
Mills (2007) found an engagement model of mobile learning significantly increased
student/instructor interaction while Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2007) discovered text
messaging fostered not only more student interaction with instructors but also more
interaction with other students. Also, in African education Brown (2005) promoted a
model of mobile learning the author claimed contributed to success through increased
participant interaction and communication. Similarly, communication and reflection were
the activities a mobile virtual learning environment appeared to stimulate to a great
degree in an experiment managed by Ramsden (2005).
Mobile learning grows out of the desire for communication and not vice versa,
Nyiri (2002) hypothesized. This communication often leads to or is in the form of sharing
information, discovered Jones et al. (2007). It is this sharing that Balasundaram and
Ramadoss (2007) contended is a significant advantage of mobile learning. Kim et al.
30
(2005) also emphasized the benefits to learning contributed by the easy and quick sharing
of information and discoveries by students among fellow learners facilitated by mobile
learning.
The activities of interacting, communicating, and sharing information with peers
leads to increased collaboration and the more likely an outcome of knowledge being
constructed by the mobile learners. Fisher and Baird (2006) argued the mobile learning
environment represents nothing more than a new paradigm for interaction,
communication, and the sharing of knowledge that millennial students in higher
education are able to use intuitively to create new knowledge. Educators in higher
education can utilize mobile learning to get students to think together, contended Fisher
and Baird. Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2007) observed sharing activity takes place
naturally in mobile learning which makes collaboration happen with less effort and
therefore with more frequency. Increased collaboration and social interaction represents
possibly the most important pedagogical advantage offered by mobile learning.
Collaborative learning offers a potential inroad into the minds of contemporary
college-age students. Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) cited findings that indicated Net
Generation students, the current age group of most higher education enrollees, embrace
working in teams, and McNeeley (2005) argued group interactions are an integral
component of learning. In addition, attacking a problem, project or task as an individual
is not the common or preferred approach in industry right now, so the team building skills
acquired through collaborative learning also represent relevant assets students will need
in their careers.
31
Collaboration as a learning tool is not new. Vygotsky (1978), in the 1930s,
postulated that the cognition of learning could not be separated from the social context of
the educational experience. This Soviet psychologist later became known as a social
constructivist when, after his death, constructivism emerged as a theory of learning. This
theory was developed and is continually being updated and refined by many scholars
including Bruner (1960), and is based upon the hypothesis that effective learning must be
active and relies upon the cognitive abilities of the learner to use what he or she already
knows. Learning is obstructed if the teacher restricts the input to only the information the
teacher provides. Consequently, the proponents of constructivism believe the knowledge
and skills the student builds or constructs on his or her own is understood and retained
much more effectively.
Social constructivism takes this construction of one's own knowledge one step
further and argues the social interactions and context encountered in the learning process
actually represent the knowledge integration process itself (Sun & Lin, 2004). Vygotsky
(1987) stated, "In other words, what a child is able to do in collaboration today he will be
able to do independently tomorrow" (p. 211). However, Bruffee (1995) contended the
need for collaborative learning does not stop after childhood as higher education should
use the technique to help post-secondary students join knowledge communities and
assimilate into the prevailing culture of society.
Collaboration can take place face-to-face, synchronously over a distance,
asynchronously, or in a combination of two or three of these different logistical
facilitations. Technology has to be employed to overcome the constraints of time and
location in the latter two and also can be used to enhance the effectiveness of real time
32
same place group activity. Nakahara, Hisamatsu, Yaegashi, and Yamauchi (2005) found
allowing students to collaborate while on the go outside of class increased participation
and learning. Similarly, Lee (2004) found that post-secondary students believed their
mobile phone-based participation in discussions helped build a better learning
community. Mobile learning is a platform used to take advantage of the vast potential of
collaborative learning activities that fit into the constructivist and social constructivist
models of teaching and learning.
While collaboration represents an extremely effective learning activity in many
educational endeavors, there are times when learning as an individual may be more
appropriate or in some cases necessary. Attewell (2005), Luckin, Brewster, Pearce, du
Boulay, and Siddons-Corby (2005), and Swan, Kratcoski, and van't Hooft (2007)
expressed a recognition that the flexibility provided in a mobile learning environment is a
powerful advantage of the platform. These authors found that mobile learning can
improve both autonomous and collaborative learning. These authors attribute this
achievement to the technologies that allow the learner to switch between learning
activities being carried out as an individual or as a member of a collaborative group of
learners.
Mobile learning can complement other learning platforms. Mobile learning has
the potential to be a valuable educational tool when used to complement other learning
approaches. While it is intuitive to visualize mobile learning as a distance education
platform, most authors in the literature have recommended that the idea of conducting a
whole course offering through mobile technology is unsound. While Traxler (2007)
declared the combination of mobile learning with distance education has the potential to
33
yield significant learning gains, the author does not recommend a pure mobile learning
distance education environment. In line with this recommendation, Aderinoye et al.
(2007) suggested using mobile devices to deliver distance education in Nigeria was
impractical and instead developed plans to rely on the technology primarily for
administrative functions.
Rekkedal and Dye (2007) asserted that mobile learning affords students flexibility
needed in pursuing educational goals. However, the same researchers opined mobile
devices should be used only when on the move, and all distance education students
should rely primarily on a desktop computer. Abernathy (2001) related mobile learning is
at its best when employed in blended or hybrid courses where some of the interaction is
face to face in the classroom and some of the interaction is conducted electronically.
Walker (2007) noted that adding mobile learning to a live course is a common manner in
which to implement the teaching and learning platform. Kukulska-Hulme (2005a)
suggested making mobile learning a part of blended courses elevates the level and quality
of interactivity. In the literature mobile learning is promoted as a valuable asset when it is
used to complement more traditional educational paradigms. Motiwalla (2007)
emphasized mobile learning should never be chosen to replace classroom or electronic
learning.
Mobile learning is student focused. There can be found in the literature on mobile
learning other potential advantages and opportunities that can be garnered through its use.
Mobile learning, by its very nature, is student focused which Kukulska-Hulme and
Traxler (2005) pointed out makes it a good vehicle for the constructivist teaching and
learning. Consolidating data captured using mobile devices in constructing knowledge
34
and understanding is sometimes based upon personal diaries of learning maintained by
students using mobile technologies (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005a). Making available on the
World Wide Web a diary of descriptions, reactions, and opinions related to learning
experiences is commonly referred to as blogging. If the entries to the blog are posted
from a mobile device, the website is termed an mblog or moblog (Chinnery, 2006).
Fisher and Baird (2006) touted the educational advantages of students being able to
immediately post through mobile technology personal reactions to learning experiences
in the field. The postings might also be accompanied by multimedia captured with mobile
appliances.
Other potential advantages of mobile learning. Other advantages, opportunities,
and applications related to mobile learning piloted, implemented, or proposed by
educators include: (a) Rainger (2005) argued mobile learning possesses great potential
for advancing assistive technology and is well-suited for students with disabilities; (b)
Peters (2007) suggested mobile learning can be utilized to provide effective personal
tutoring; (c) retention and recall were found to be enhanced by the use of mobile learning
in an experiment conducted by Thornton and Houser (2005); (d) Attewell (2005)
recommended mobile learning to help address literacy and numeric skills; and (e)
Prensky (2001b, 2004) and Chinnery (2006) focused on the advantages mobile audio
media can offer for educational purposes.
Mobile learning can contribute to the achievement of learning objectives. Rushby
(2005) stressed that it is the pedagogical opportunities that represent the most important
aspects of mobile learning and the convenience and popularity factors for the students are
overemphasized in evaluating the new learning platform. Rushby added mobile learning
35
has the potential to be used to create a learning environment complete with the elements
that are key to fostering peak learning outcomes. Supporting this contention was the
finding of a study conducted by Shih and Mills (2007) that the quality of learning for
students using mobile learning existed at a level equal to or better than the level expected
in an educational model that would not include mobile learning.
Proponents of mobile learning have preached the potential advantages and
opportunities mobile technologies offer to the learning process. The potential of mobile
learning should be framed in the contributions the paradigm can make to the teaching and
learning process; not cast only in the allure of technologies that enable mobile learning.
However, it is difficult to explore the pedagogical doors that can be opened with mobile
learning without considering the technologies that make nomadic learning possible.
Mobile Learning Devices and Current Status of Mobile Technologies
Convergence of functions into one device. Yarnell, Cariere, Stanford, Manning,
and Melton (2007) proclaimed portable media now represent basic social commodities.
However, which mobile media devices individuals possess and which media people
manage while on the move are changing constantly. The concept and trend of
convergence is interplaying with what is becoming, and will continue to change in regard
to, typical media and media devices a person considers essential to have on his or her
person most of the time. Technological advances have yielded mobile devices that in an
easily portable single package can now include as standard features telephone
communications, Web access, multimedia viewing and creation, media storage, and text
messaging (The New Media Consortium, 2007).
36
Currently, the device that best represents this convergence of functions is the cell
phone. Prensky (2004) noted an evolution that has been occurring includes a trend for
cell phone designers to add calculation and data functions and a tendency for computer
designers to incorporate communication facilities. Prensky further expounded that the
more popular of the two is the former. Prensky predicted that expanding cell phone
capabilities coupled with increased capacity to miniaturize is setting the stage for a world
where it will be typical for most individuals to carry full-featured mobile devices at all
times.
While the future may hold promise for a device that can handle all information,
communication and media manipulation needs, the current state of mobile devices offers
only a partial convergence of functions. At present, the devices typically used to
implement mobile learning include the cell phone, the Web-enabled cell phone, the smart
phone, the PDA, the wirelessly network-connected laptop computer, the wirelessly
network-connected tablet PC, the Ultra-mobile Personal Computer (UMPC), MP3
players and iPODs, and digital cameras.
The cellphone. The term cell phone is used in the United States to specify a
device that in almost the entire balance of the world is known as a mobile phone (Peters,
2007; Prensky, 2004). Several authors have argued strongly that the cell phone represents
the true potential of mobile learning. Prensky pointed out the number of individuals
carrying cell phones vastly outnumbers people carrying any other device that enables
mobile learning. Concurring, Traxler (2005b) argued pioneers in mobile learning would
be most productive if efforts were directed toward the technology that has the greatest
ownership, the cell phone. Prensky predicted the combination of increasing cell phone
37
capabilities with falling prices for cell phone use means the wide ownership of cell
phones inevitably will evolve into a new reality; all students will carry a cell phone at all
times as a personal asset. Based on a survey of 107 students in Texas where all were
owners of cell phones, Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) proposed the first device that
should be researched as a vehicle to implement mobile learning should be the cell phone.
The basic cell phone provides for the use of voice and text communication media.
Voice communication can be used for teaching and learning related to reading, foreign
languages, drama, poetry, and public speaking (Chinnery, 2006; Prensky, 2001b, 2004).
Significant with regard to the voice capability of cell phones is the tendency for current
students to be connected almost continuously with fellow students (Fisher & Baird,
2006). Fisher and Baird proposed collaboration can be accomplished through voice
communication. However, the function of the basic cell phone used most often in mobile
learning implementations that has received the greatest support by mobile learning
proponents is text messaging, also known as Short Message System (SMS).
Rheingold (2002) pronounced that cell phone facilitated text messaging is a use of
mobile technology that is quietly contributing to a revolution in how society
communicates and functions as a whole. Agreeing, Traxler (2005a) postulated text
messaging has the potential to create significant social consequences and is in the process
of dramatically changing cultural and behavioral norms. The impact of this societal trend
can be seen in one of the findings of a study of 285 United States university freshmen
where Harley, Winn, Pemberton, and Wilcox (2007) documented text messaging was by
far the most prevalent form of electronic communication in the sample of participants.
38
Text messaging can be used in education to facilitate pop quizzes, opinion polls,
foreign language practice, games, and discussions (Prensky, 2004). Kukulska-Hulme and
Traxler (2005) observed that a migration is taking place where discussions traditionally
handled through CMC are now being conducted using text messaging. More prolific and
higher quality postings to course-related discussion boards as compared to more
traditional Web postings using a computer were made possible with cell phone text
messaging in two separate experiments conducted by Nakahara et al. (2005) and Wei,
Chen, Wang, and Li (2007). Text messaging was also used very successfully to increase
student satisfaction with and participation in mentoring beyond what had been possible
with computer-facilitated mentoring in another experiment conducted in Taiwan (Wei &
Chen, 2006). Balasundaram and Ramadoss (2007) predicted the growing popularity
among youth of what now represents the most widely used mobile technology, text
messaging, is going to hasten the adoption of mobile learning as an accepted teaching and
learning paradigm. The significant potential for mobile learning of the text messaging
phenomenon is made possible with just a basic cell phone.
Web-enabled cellphone. Through convergence, cell phones are continuously
evolving into mobile devices that can provide a multitude of functions. Classifying cell
phones into categories beyond the basic voice and text-only phone would be artificial and
outdated as soon as the classification was completed. However, one function, if included
in the features of a phone, has significant implications for mobile learning. That function
is access to the World Wide Web, and a phone that includes this capability can be labeled
a Web-enabled cell phone. Rheingold (2002) declared that, along with text messaging,
having mobile access to the Web is revolutionizing society. Fisher and Baird (2006)
39
concluded online learning is significantly improved when Web-enabled mobility is
included in the instructional design. Much of the pedagogical potential of and many of
the educational opportunities provided by mobile learning are made possible through
mobile access to the Internet, and specifically the Web.
The smart phone. Beyond access to the Web, a cell phone can have a growing list
of other features. Personal digital assistant functions, data storage ability, computing and
calculation capabilities, digital still and video photography, audio playing ability, and
emailing are some of the most typical operations a cell phone can handle in addition to
voice and text communication and Web access. The term smart phone is sometimes used
to denote a cell phone that has some or all of these features (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil,
2007).
A very good example of utilizing several smart phone features in a well-planned
sound structure is the instructional design model for mobile learning (Shih & Mills,
2007). That model capitalizes on the strengths of mobile learning through the use of the
cell phone in order to increase the motivation and engagement of the students. The steps
built into the model included: (a) the instructor sends a multimedia message to the cell
phones of the students to trigger a learning event; (b) the students conduct Web searches
on the topic received; (c) the students discuss the topic with each other using text, voice,
and video cell phone communications; (d) the students produce a personal text, audio,
and/or video diary of learning that is uploaded to a server; and (e) the students apply what
was learned to a cell phone communicated scenario or game.
The PDA. A PDA is a handheld computing device (Kim et al , 2005). PDAs
represent devices that are part of the convergence trend described in this proposal.
40
Kiernan (2006) outlined the variations of the functions available in different PDAs
commonly used in higher education. Kiernan related the difference between the cell
phone and PDA is difficult to determine as manufacturers release new versions of smart
phones and PDAs, with the latter having cell phone capabilities built in.
More powerful personal productivity software, such as word processors, and
higher capacity data storage have represented the most common advantages that PDAs
have had over cell phones. Prensky (2004) noted much of the early research into mobile
learning was conducted using PDAs. However, Prensky questioned whether the emphasis
on PDAs as a mobile learning vehicle should continue in light of the fact that when
Prensky last checked, there were at least 30 times as many cell phones in the hands of
potential learners as there were PDAs.
The wirelessly network-connected laptop computer. The wirelessly network-
connected laptop computer has evolved to the point where, essentially, it is as powerful
as a desktop computer. Use of a laptop enables the same functions as a desktop but with
the added feature of portability. There are signs the laptop is replacing the desktop as the
computer of choice. Ipsos (2006) reported in its annual study of global Internet trends
that while the ownership of notebook computers that enable mobility rose sharply in
2005, the number of desktop owners remained unchanged (Griffaw, 2006). It is important
to note laptops have traditionally been employed in education to accomplish mobile
computing but not necessarily mobile learning. The difference between the two terms can
be understood by looking at a definition of each.
Soefijanto (2005) defined mobile computing as computing being accomplished
through the employment of a portable or handheld computer connected to a wired or
41
wireless network used by a person able to move about geographically. Mobile learning
entails using a wider range of devices, such as the cell phone, and also emphasizes
wireless connectivity in supporting anywhere, anytime learning (Clyde, 2004; Yu, Wang,
& Che, 2005). Mobile computing is limited to computing with devices that need only
support computing, while mobile learning encompasses the use of any technology that
supports nomadic learning and typically includes not only computing but often entails
communicating and collaborating with other learners, instructors, and sometimes experts.
The use of laptop computers in higher education classrooms has met with some
significant resistance and negative results. Law professors at the University of Memphis
and the University of Pennsylvania have banned the use of wireless laptops in classrooms
(USA Today, 2006; MSNBC, 2006). Also, Bentley, the Anderson School of Management
at UCLA, and other colleges or universities have switches in classrooms so professors
can turn off wireless Internet access (Mc Williams, 2005). In a preemptive move, decision
makers at some higher education institutions, Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge
included, have decided against installing wireless Internet access in the first place
(Young, 2006). In a relevant example of an about face, a computer systems professor at
the University of Houston who was an avid proponent of wireless Internet access by
laptops in the classroom, after having experience with it now campaigns against it
(McWilliams).
The tablet PC, the UMPC, and other mobile learning devices. The tablet PC is
mentioned often in the literature as a device that can be used to facilitate mobile learning.
A tablet PC is a laptop computer designed for the principal input method to be
handwriting rather than keyboarding (Peters, 2007). Grisham (2005) related while the
42
tablet PC, when first introduced, typically lacked a keyboard, acceptance of the tablet PC
has increased significantly since most models now include a keyboard. Rivero (2006) has
found the tablet PC addresses one of the concerns educators have had with the use of a
laptop in the classroom. There is no laptop screen flipped up and occupying space
between the student and the teacher when a tablet PC is being used in the horizontal
writing position.
Grisham (2005) hypothesized the act of handwriting notes by students allows the
mind to work more effectively in internalizing difficult information. Other than these
advantages, tablet PCs represent essentially the same opportunities to accomplishing
mobile learning as do laptop computers. A relatively new mobile computer is the UMPC
which incorporates all the functions of a tablet PC into a much smaller and portable
device (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007). Of course, the advantage to the UMPC is its
increased portability. Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil noted the size reduction of UMPC
models available from vendors comes at a relatively high cost often with the sacrifice of
some processing power and/or data storage capacity.
The technology is outpacing the use of mobile devices. The technology used to
support mobile learning is advancing quickly and dramatically, but the use of the
increasingly powerful technology in facilitating mobile learning is not evolving as fast. In
a survey of students in Texas conducted by Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007), 94 out of
107 respondents indicated they possessed the technology and were technically prepared
to use mobile devices for learning. However, not one of the participants was doing so.
Motiwalla (2007) lamented that compared to the advanced data processing and
43
communication capabilities that information and communication technologies offer to
education, mobile learning is still mired in its very beginning stages of existence.
Disadvantages and Limitations of Mobile Learning
Limitations of input/output functions. There are limitations and disadvantages
related to the use of mobile learning, some technical in nature and some pedagogical in
essence. Those related to technical issues far outnumber those related to non-technical
concerns. The technical limitations and disadvantages of the devices typically used for
mobile learning disclosed in the literature predominantly relate to the input and output
functions of the appliances. Motiwalla (2007) and Ramsden (2005) found entering text
using the keyboards on mobile appliances to be difficult and represents dissuasion to
using the devices in learning activities. Heath, Herman, Lugo, Reeves, Vetter, and Ward
(2005) wrote about the inability with many mobile devices for the learner to send output
to a printer. The most prevalent output limitations, though, that many researchers and
users of mobile learning devices documented, centered on the screens of many mobile
appliances.
Detrimental to effective use in mobile learning was the small size of the viewing
screens (Heath et al., 2005; Riva & Villani, 2005; Trinder et al., 2005). Screen concerns
also included difficulty in reading when in sunlight (Fozdar & Kumar, 2007) and
problems in viewing Web content encountered with many websites (Ramsden, 2005). In
a dissenting view of the input/output problems pervasive in the literature on mobile
learning, Prensky (2004) hypothesized the youth of today are not limited by the small
size of screens and keypads. Digital natives, Prensky's term for higher education students
of the current era, are able to visualize mobile device screens as infinite windows and are
44
very dexterous in using thumbs to enter text. Fisher and Baird (2006) noted that screen
size was indeed a problem but with careful format and layout design can mitigate the
issues associated with tiny screens. Also, while not a solution that is currently available,
the authors of the 2007 Horizon Report (The New Media Consortium, 2007) disclosed
keyboard and screen projection technology for mobile devices is in development that
should, when released, make input and output functions more manageable for mobile
learners.
Reliability, speed, and storage capacity issues. Second in prevalence to
input/output concerns, issues relating to unreliability and slowness stand out as
limitations and disadvantages associated with mobile learning. Kukulska-Hulme (2005c)
found bouts with the inability to rely on the devices and mobile network connections
have made it difficult for mobile learning to move more quickly into mainstream
education. Even when mobile devices are working properly, Ramsden (2005) and
Motiwalla (2007) noted that most operate at a speed much slower than a desktop
computer wired to a high speed Internet connection. Ramsden suggested user
expectations are based upon the level of performance experienced at a desktop and the
slower mobile learning technology is a serious limitation on creating a widely accepted
mobile learning environment.
Rekkedal and Dye (2007) blamed the relatively low processing power of mobile
devices and the limited bandwidth of wireless cellular and broadband network
connections for slowness. Concerns over narrow bandwidth were also expressed by Riva
and Villani (2005). Kukulska-Hulme (2005c, 2007) denoted smaller memory storage as a
factor contributing to the slow nature of mobile device facilitated learning activities. If
45
advances in mobile device architecture and network speeds continue to be made at the
same pace as in recent years, the slowness and unreliability of mobile technology may
become less of a limiting factor of the mobile learning platform.
Other technical limitations and disadvantages. In addition to input output,
reliability, and speed concerns, a variety of other limitations and disadvantages associated
with mobile learning have been noted with much less frequency in the literature. These
other concerns include: (a) short or inadequate battery life (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil,
2007; Kukulska-Hulme, 2005c; Riva & Villani, 2005); (b) the lack of a standard mobile
operating platform and a risky security environment (Riva & Villani); (c) difficult-to-use
interfaces (Mottiwalla, 2007); (d) difficult or impossible cut and paste operations
(Kukulska-Hulme); and (e) inability to mark text (Yarnell, Cariere, Stanford, Manning, &
Melton, 2007).
Pedagogical limitations associated with mobile learning. The pedagogical issues
and the disadvantages related to mobile learning expressed in the literature include: (a)
the use of text messaging by its nature may contribute to students not knowing and/or not
caring how to spell (Attewell & Savill-Smith, 2004); it may be easier to cheat (Corbeil &
Valdes-Corbeil, 2007); (b) the students might be overwhelmed with information overload
(Motiwalla, 2007); and (c) if not used properly mobile learning can be counterproductive
(Fozdar & Kumar, 2007). With regard to the last issue concerning the misuse of mobile
learning, Motiwalla cautioned that sound instructional design must precede the
implementation of mobile learning in order to avoid applying mobile technologies in a
format that is not pedagogically appropriate.
46
Innovating with Mobile Learning
European, Asian, and African mobile learning innovations. A migration to mobile
telephone-enabled education can already be seen on the continents of Africa, Asia, and
Europe (New Media Consortium, 2006; Wagner, 2005). With regard to Europe, Clyde
(2004) reported that two different but similarly named programs, M-learning and
MOBILearn, have utilized course materials developed specifically for Web-enabled
mobile phones. The objective of the M-learning program is to reach young education-
resistant adults through the cell phones these disenfranchised learners cherish (Monahan,
McArdle, & Bertolotto, 2007). Monahan et al. explained the dual focus of the
comprehensive European MOBILearn project is first on converting resources and
instruction that have already been developed for Web-based electronic learning platforms
to a format that can be used effectively on mobile devices. Second, innovators are
creating mobile learning-specific pedagogy. In other less ambitious but noteworthy
mobile learning innovations on the continent of Europe, Power and Thomas (2007) have
promoted the use of PDAs by rural teachers and Fisher and Baird (2006) are aggressively
gathering student input to expand and improve existing mobile learning in Ireland.
In Japan, educators are taking advantage of the expanding multimedia capabilities
of mobile phones and experimenting with animated graphics and two-minute videos
delivered to learners' cell phones (New Media Consortium, 2006). Also involved in
exploring mobile learning in Japan, Thornton and Houser (2005) put forth data that
painted a picture of constant and almost universal Web-enabled cell phone use by
Japanese citizens in the age group that would traditionally attend colleges and
universities. The investigators also reported that overall, there are five times as many
47
mobile phones in Japan as there are personal computers. Based upon this pervasiveness
of mobile phones in Japan, Thornton and Houser conducted a study where native students
were taught English as a second language through varied mobile learning presentations.
Thornton and Houser's intervention resulted in learning gains.
The driving force behind the increasing use of mobile learning in Asia is not
always the instructors. Nagaki, Kobayashi, and Nakagawa (2004) found in a survey many
elementary students in Japan use the mobile phone on their own to learn. Also, Fozdar
and Kumar (2007), in questioning undergraduate students in India, discovered
employment of mobile technology in learning was present and growing. Undergraduate
students were also using mobile devices to take advantage of library services in Malaysia
(Karim, Darus, & Hussin, 2006).
On another continent, Brown (2005) argued expansion of African educational
opportunities will need to be accomplished through wireless mobile learning. Brown
reported that extensive relevant research, investigation, and planning around mobile
learning initiatives are moving forward quickly. In another example of African mobile
learning innovation, Aderinoye et al. (2007) are implementing the use of mobile devices
to support distance education in Nigeria.
Mobile learning innovations in the United States. Walker (2007) observed mobile
learning projects in Europe are emerging in plentiful numbers. Unfortunately, though,
Clyde (2004) lamented educators in the United States are lagging far behind the cell
phone initiatives, actual and planned, found in many countries of Europe and other
continents. Wagner (2005) argued educators in the United States, in watching what is
happening in other parts of the world, realize that mobile learning is on the horizon but
48
are not actively readying themselves for its arrival. Prensky (2004) warned while cell
phones are being banned in United States educational environments, millions of students
in Asia and Europe are using mobile phones to effectively learn foreign languages and
other topics through learning activities embedded throughout the day and enabled by
mobile technology typically possessed by the students.
In analyzing American efforts, Jones, Johnson, and Bentley (2004) reported most
of the research on the application of handheld mobile technology in United States higher
education has been conducted by individuals involved in having students use the
technology in order to study how the cell phone and the handheld computer can enhance
pedagogy. Traxler (2005 a), in reviewing studies related to mobile learning that were
conducted between 2000 and 2004, spotted a trend away from trying the technology just
because it was relatively new, to applications aimed at specific subjects. This shift can be
seen in the pilots, studies, experiments, and implementations involving mobile learning in
the United States. For example, Hackemer and Peterson (2005) detailed a PDA initiative
at the University of South Dakota commenced in 2001 with handhelds being required of
all students. In 2005, the project moved into being driven by proposals from specific
disciplines on how to utilize the technology in those disciplines. Currently, Sexton, Lu,
and Ma (2007) found mobile learning has made its most significant strides in United
States higher education within the subjects of nursing, medicine, and law. Also, Yarnall
et al. (2007) reported mobile learning was applied to writing across the curriculum in a
few United States implementations.
There are some current United States mobile learning initiatives that are not
subject specific described in the literature. Motiwalla (2007) has been working on a
49
pedagogical framework for mobile learning as it would apply to any discipline. Shih and
Mills (2007) have developed, and are in the process of refining through application in
California higher education, a universal mobile learning instructional model. In what has
been described by the innovators as a technology-oriented initiative, Tomasino et al.
(2007) provided an update on a continuing project involving over 3,000 students using
mobile learning in Texas that is not subject-specific.
Barriers to Mobile Learning Implementation
Hackemer and Peterson (2005) and Peters (2007) declared the infrastructure
necessary to implement mobile learning is not in place. This appears to be the most
significant obstacle to implementing mobile learning in United States higher education.
Specific barriers to implementation of mobile learning mentioned in the literature that
related to the possible lack of necessary infrastructure include: (a) inadequate technical
support; (b) absent faculty training; (c) incremental costs of implementation; (d) mobile
technology not designed with educational purposes in mind; (e) relatively older age of
higher education faculty; (f) lack of the requisite technical ability in higher education
faculty; and (g) the tendency of higher education to change very slowly (Clark &
Flaherty, 2002; Hackemer & Peterson; Peters; Ramsden, 2005; Traxler, 2007).
The lack of infrastructure may possibly be related to an observation made by
Kukulska-Hulme (2005a). Mobile learning is evolving from electronic learning, a field
that itself has not yet stabilized. Citing these barriers, Traxler (2007) expressed a serious
concern that sustainable mobile learning may not be implemented widely in United States
higher education for quite a while.
50
Factors that May Drive the Need to Implement Mobile Learning
There are two interrelated factors presented in the literature on mobile learning
that may make the need to implement the platform in higher education inevitable: (a) the
consumers of higher education may demand the option of using mobile learning; (b)
traditional age college and university attendees may actually need to use mobile learning
to effectively process educational content; and (c) life experiences with technology.
Many of the students currently in higher education are members of a generation of
learners referred to as the millennial generation (Sweeney, 2006) or digital natives
(Prensky, 2001a) or the Net generation (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). This is a significant
group, as Sweeney noted the millennial generation, people born between 1979 and 1994,
represents the second largest generation of individuals, next only to the baby boomer
generation. Individuals of the millennial generation have grown up with heavy exposure
to information and communication technologies. Based upon continuing research in the
field of neurobiology, theories about how this extensive interaction with electronic
stimuli affect the physical structure of the brain and the possible resulting impact on
learning styles are being put forth and are being tested (Prensky, 2001b). Prensky (2001b)
explained that this is known as neuroplasticity and the current hypothesis is the brain is
actually reorganized if an individual's constant attention is sharply focused on processing
information and/or communicating using electronic technology.
An example of how neuroplasticity might affect learning is in how students
communicate and collaborate with their peers. Fisher and Baird (2006) noted current
traditional age students have interacted with each other extensively through instant
messaging, text messaging, and similar telecommunication and Internet technologies. As
51
a result, these learners appear to be able to collaborate with peers just as effectively, or
even more effectively, in a virtual interface as compared to a face to face environment.
Fisher and Baird argued these individuals are constantly connected through technology to
their peers and decision-makers in higher education need to consider how this may
require a change in teaching and learning methods due to the nuances of digital learning
styles. Prensky (2001a) contended adaptation to the new modes of learning that are
intuitive to these students is imperative if learning is to be effective. The arguments put
forth by Fisher and Baird and Prensky support the possibility that the brains of some, or
possibly many, students might actually be wired to learn in some educational situations
only if collaboration and communication are carried out through mobile learning using
cell phones.
Students who might be able to learn better or possibly only, through mobile
learning activities in certain educational scenarios might demand to be able to participate
in those activities using a mobile learning platform. Consumer demand is the other factor
that may make implementation of mobile learning inevitable. However, the demand
probably will not be driven only by the effects of neuroplasticity. Higher education is
taking on more of the characteristics of a commodity, and the mobile technology that is
now an inseparable part of work and life itself is creating an atmosphere among students
permeated by questioning why teaching and learning must take place face to face in a
fixed location (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005b; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005).
An outgrowth of the challenge of what has been the status quo is an increasing
interest in mobile learning. Alexander (2004) contended students are looking to expand
what constitutes learning spaces and Sweeney (2006) argued the millennial generation
52
wants to be able to control both time and space. Mobile learning represents a platform
that will satisfy these demands by Net generation consumers of higher education.
Researchers van't Hooft and Vahey (2007) proposed educational leaders must make the
connection between the realities of students' lives in the current age of information and
communication technologies. Teaching and learning approaches must match learners'
expectations and needs.
Maybe for those in the academy who may be trying to ignore the potential impact
of cell phones, some analogies closer to home may be more compelling. The invention of
the printing press put books in the hands of students replacing the reliance on story-
telling as the means to teach and learn. Television drove educators to supplement books
with multimedia or risk the chance of being less effective with a new audio-visual
generation of learners. And, of course, the Internet revolution has caused tremendous
upheaval in how teachers need to practice their craft and those who have not embraced
the additional electronic resources have been viewed as dinosaurs.
Research into Mobile Learning for Higher Education in the United States
Kim et al. (2006) indicated higher education in the United States is in the earliest
stages of investigation into the field of mobile learning. In a comparison that supports this
assertion, Chiang, Lin, and Sun (2007) found 43 graduate dissertations and theses on
mobile learning in Taiwan during a recent six-year period, while a search of ProQuest
and WorldCat Dissertations and Theses databases in December 2007 found only three
graduate dissertations and theses completed in the United States based on the topic of
mobile learning. With regard to the educational level of investigative focus, Franklin et
al. (2007), in reviewing the research conducted on mobile learning in the United States,
53
found most of the studies and surveys conducted were with elementary and secondary
students.
Kukulska-Hulme (2005c) proposed the first task that should be undertaken in
setting out to design teaching and learning in a new paradigm is to gain an understanding
of the student audience and the characteristics of its members. Specific to mobile
learning, Jones et al. (2007) argued it is also vital to obtain data on the learners' use of
technologies that would enable a mobile platform. In countries other than the United
States, this type of research has been or is currently being conducted. For example,
Lubega, McCrindle, Williams, Armitage, and Clements (2004) facilitated numerous
brainstorming focus group sessions in the United Kingdom to obtain information on the
learners' attitudes toward the potential use of mobile phones in educational activities. The
rich findings were used to tailor mobile learning to address the attitudes toward and
perceptions of the participants with resulting success in implementation. Kukulska-
Hulme (2005a) recommended gaining an understanding of user preferences is an area of
research that is needed in the field of mobile learning.
Summary
Mobile learning is a new teaching and learning platform, especially in the United
States. This position of being on the cutting edge coupled with the wide variety of
activities that have been associated with mobile learning have precluded the arrival of a
consensus on the definition of mobile learning. A synthesis of the definitions proposed in
the relevant literature can yield the following definition: Mobile learning is learning
supported by wireless access to information resources such as those available on the
Internet and wireless communication with learning collaborators that can take place in a
54
location that is most conducive to achieving learning outcomes. Examples of activities
that have been presented in the literature as representing mobile learning, a form of
electronic learning, include the use of: (a) cell phones to teach second languages and
literature; (b) PDAs to access course resources and interact with fellow learners; (c) cell
phones for quizzing students; (d) PDAs to run class organization software; (e) portable
media players for listening to course audio files; and (f) cell phones to poll students on
opinions, the responses to questions, and levels of understanding.
Mobile learning is touted by proponents as being convenient, flexible, ubiquitous,
student-focused, easily personalized, an excellent tool to foster increased collaboration,
and well-suited for the constructivist learning paradigm. Many supporters of mobile
learning have written in the literature about the recognition of the high portability of
mobile devices that makes the appliances useful for academic fieldwork. Also noted is
the typical relative lower cost of mobile technology that makes the access to electronic
learning more widely available to students. However, there are limitations to using
mobile technology in teaching and learning revealed by those who have piloted the use of
mobile devices in education. The most mentioned disadvantage of mobile learning in the
literature deals with the constraints of present input and output capabilities of the devices
used. Other concerns include unreliability, slowness, and limited data storage capacity.
Most of those who have experimented with or have piloted mobile learning have
done so using PDAs. Several published writers of relevant literature, though, have
contended that the true potential of mobile learning lies in the use of the device that is
predicted to soon be an integral part of life for almost the entire global population, the
cell phone.
55
Scientists are investigating the possibility that the extensive use of ICT, including
mobile appliances, may actually be changing the organization of the brain of the user.
This restructuring, known as neuroplasticity, may make it impossible for students in
higher education to learn as effectively as possible without the use of mobile learning. It
would appear prudent that educators in the United States, including those in higher
education, should pursue the study of how mobile learning might contribute to teaching
and learning.
56
Chapter 3: Methodology
Overview
This chapter provides the rationale for the choice of the research design, data
collection approaches, and data analysis. The purpose of the research was to provide the
administrators of the small university where the research was conducted with answers to
questions regarding student perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning. The
results of the research were needed to make decisions related to the approach the leaders
of the institution should take with regard to implementation and support of mobile
learning.
An explanatory mixed-methods design represented the appropriate approach to
the research study that was focused on contributing to the knowledge needed in the
preliminary and very early stages of planning for the new educational initiative. In
addition, at the conclusion of this chapter the ethical implications involving the use of
human participants in the study are discussed. Recognition of the approval by the
Institutional Review Boards of Northcentral University and the institution where the
participants were students is included.
Restatement of Problem
The research problem was that mobile learning is not supported at a small
university. The academic administration of the university did not have any information
on the level of student interest in participating in mobile learning and the learners'
preparedness for mobile learning. Also unknown were the learners' perceptions of what
mobile learning might contribute to and distract from the teaching and learning process
and the students' input regarding the barriers to implementing mobile learning.
57
Kim et al. (2006) argued to implement mobile technologies successfully,
uninformed enthusiasm needs to be curtailed and replaced with critical and careful
analysis. Leaders of institutions of higher education should be proactive about mobile
learning in order to increase the possibility and level of success in its implementation.
Students will be one of the principal groups of stakeholders who will be
significantly affected by the role mobile learning should play in higher education. The
review of literature detailed in Chapter 2 revealed that the vast majority of higher
education students in the United States have not had any experience to date with mobile
learning. While other research will be necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the potential future of mobile learning in United States higher education, the study of
the attitudes and perceptions of university students represents a critical component.
Therefore, gaining an understanding of the attitudes towards and perceptions of mobile
learning held by these learners was chosen as the most useful research pursuit at this
early juncture in assessment by higher education administrators of the viability and
potential of mobile learning.
Statement of Research Questions
Mobile learning is expected by some scholarly observers of educational trends to
be the next significant innovation in post-secondary education (Alexander, 2004;
Wagner, 2005). This research was foundational in nature with regard to the population of
study (i.e., students at a teaching-based small private university where accommodating
mobile learning has not yet been considered). Mobile learning represented a new
education technology. As such, and based upon input gathered from academic decision
58
makers at the higher education institution where the study was conducted, the following
represented the research questions that needed to be addressed:
1. What level of interest is there among higher education students for the
opportunity to learn while mobile?
2. What is the level of higher education student access and use of technologies
typically employed in mobile learning?
3. What is the amount of higher education student experience with electronic
learning?
4. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential advantages of
mobile learning?
5. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential disadvantages of
mobile learning?
6. What do higher education students perceive to be the potential barriers to the
implementation of mobile learning?
Description of Research Design
Mixed-methods research design. Gall et al. (2003) argued that the nature of a
research problem and availability of prior research on a research topic should determine
the choice of a research approach. Some of the information needed to be gathered from
participants in order to address the research questions in this proposal included the
perceptions of students with regard to the potential advantages, disadvantages, and
barriers related to mobile learning. It was expected that gathering open-ended input from
the participants would yield the richest data for use in attempting to answer these
59
questions on student perceptions. The responses to this open-ended inquiry would be in
the form of qualitative data.
Creswell and Piano Clark (2007) enumerated several specific mixed-methods
research designs from which the authors recommended a researcher deliberately choose a
single design that matches the research problem. Per Creswell and Piano Clark, three
factors should be considered in selecting a mixed methods design: (a) concurrent
collection of mixed data or sequential collection in two distinct phases; (b) emphasis on
one type of data or equal weighting; and (c) mixing of the data collected by merging,
embedding, or connecting.
With regard to the first factor, specific research questions of the study at hand
were best answered in an approach implemented in two phases. The first phase served to
gather data from as many of the students at the university as possible. These important
data included quantitative measures of the level of interest in mobile learning, amount of
experience with electronic learning, prevalence of mobile technology use, and
demographic information. Also collected in the initial phase was qualitative input on the
perceived potential advantages, disadvantages, and barriers related to mobile learning.
Finally, the inclusion of a distinct first phase allowed the entire student population of the
university to volunteer for an in-depth, qualitative data-gathering activity that was the
focus of a separate follow-up phase of study. Therefore, data collection was sequential in
two distinct phases.
With regard to the second factor, the more important type of information that
needed to be gathered in order to answer the research questions and provide the
university with a basis for making decisions related to mobile learning were the
60
qualitative data on student perceptions. Therefore, in choosing a specific mixed-methods
research design, the gathering of qualitative data was weighted more heavily. For the
third factor, data collected in the first phase of the study were used to guide data
collection in the second phase with regard to participant selection and in-depth follow-up
on first-phase findings. This relationship represented the connection between the data of
the two phases.
The mixed-methods design that most closely matched the combination of three
factors was the explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Piano-Clark, 2007). The
only deviation that interfered with the fit being perfect was that Creswell and Piano Clark
noted that typically quantitative data are emphasized in the explanatory mixed-methods
design. Creswell and Piano Clark denoted two variants of the explanatory mixed-methods
design, the participant-selection and the follow-up explanations models. Aspects of both
models apply to the research project at hand. Data collected in the first phase of the study
were used to select participants for the second phase and the purpose of data collection in
the second phase was to confirm and/or clarify, through follow-up explanation, data
gathered in the first phase. Based on these considerations, the study was structured in an
explanatory mixed-methods design including aspects of participant selection and follow-
up explanations models.
Data collection through survey and focus group techniques. Gall et al. (2003)
listed and discussed six data-collection techniques used in educational research: (a)
testing of participants; (b) obtaining self-reported information from participants; (c)
collecting questionnaires completed by participants; (d) interviewing participants; (e)
observing participants; and (f) analyzing of content in documents and communications
61
created by participants. Gall et al. argued the choice of the approach, or combination of
approaches, employed to collect data in a study should be driven by the nature of the
questions that that need to be answered. Each data collection technique possesses
attributes that can be evaluated in the determination of its applicable and relative
usefulness in gathering a specific type of information.
Since a testing approach to data collection is typically used to assess participants'
performance and ability, this approach was not applicable to the research as no data of
this nature was gathered. The information portal system at the university where the study
was conducted can be accessed by only one existing cell phone or PDA operating
platform, Apple's iPhone, and there is only one wireless network system operating on the
main campus, servicing only the library building. Based on these circumstances, no
significant existing use of mobile learning among the participants was expected to be
discovered. This scenario made observation and content analysis data collection methods
inappropriate for the study.
The data collection techniques most appropriate with regard to information
needed to provide answers to the research questions included self-reporting,
questionnaires, and interviews. The investigation was conducted in two phases. In the
first phase, the administration of an electronic survey was used to collect participant self-
reported and questionnaire data. The survey, discussed in detail later in this chapter, was
used to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose of the first phase of
study was four-fold. First, the higher education students provided some fundamental
information on the impressions of mobile learning and the frequency of different levels of
interest in participating in this teaching and learning mode of delivery. Second, the
62
learners identified perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning that were
investigated further in a second phase of the study. Third, respondents indicated in the
survey if they were willing to participate in focus-group sessions. From these volunteers
and based upon responses to survey items, the best candidates were chosen for in-depth
focus-group sessions. And finally, the survey activity yielded information on the
demographics of the respondents.
In the second phase of the research process, a sample of the respondents to the
survey were invited to participate in focus groups. The rationale for the choice to employ
focus groups with interviews serving only as an alternative for those volunteers who
could not schedule participation in a group session is discussed later in this chapter. The
second phase represented a qualitative research approach the principal objective of which
was to obtain in-depth insight into the perceived advantages, disadvantages, and barriers
held by the higher education students who participated.
Description of Materials and Instruments
Survey instrument. The content of the online survey instrument is provided in
Appendix A. The survey instrument was designed to be as short as possible so that its
brevity could contribute to achieving the maximum possible response rate from the
students to whom it was sent. The research to which the survey contributed is about a
teaching and learning tool not yet used at the university where the study was conducted.
Therefore, the survey started with a concise definition of mobile learning in order to
educate the participant on what the term denotes.
The first four items on the survey depicted examples of mobile learning with the
participant responding through multiple-choice as to whether each activity described
63
represents an example of mobile learning. These four items had been included to both test
the level at which the participant understood the definition of mobile learning and to
subtly provide some examples that would reinforce the correct understanding. The
responses to the four items were compared to address the reliability of the understanding
of the definition of mobile learning by the participant.
In responding to the fifth item each participant evaluated, with a Likert-type scale
response, his or her personal level of interest in the option of using mobile learning for
learning activities. Item six was also a Likert-type scale item that allowed the respondent
to provide an indication of his or her agreement or disagreement that other students
should be given the option of using mobile learning for learning activities. The primary
purpose of including this item and item number seven, that allowed the respondent to
provide an indication of his or her agreement or disagreement that all students should not
be given an option, but instead be required to use mobile learning, was to evaluate the
reliability of the survey instrument in regard to gathering information on the student's
attitude toward mobile learning. In items five through seven the words that distinguished
to whom the statement applied and whether the activities would be required or optional
were displayed in uppercase letters to help ensure that respondents realized the
differences.
Items eight, nine, and 10 of the survey were unstructured fill-ins that allowed the
participant to input his or her perceptions of the advantages, disadvantages, and barriers
regarding the implementation of mobile learning. The primary purpose of these three
items was to in this first phase of the study to capture from as many individuals as
possible qualitative data on these perceptions. While the inclusion of three unstructured
64
questions on a survey did not provide the advantages of in-depth and dynamic
information-gathering possible in focus groups, the inclusion did allow for the
exploration of the thoughts of a much wider audience than was possible with the
logistical limitations of focus groups. Also, the responses to items eight, nine, and 10
addressed one of the purposes of using the survey approach as this first of two data-
gathering activities employed in this study. That purpose was the discovery of student
perceptions of mobile learning that needed to be investigated further and explained more
fully in the second focus-group/interview phase.
The responses to multiple choice items 11, 12, and 13 served to classify the
participant in three ways: as a traditional student or a non-traditional student per criteria
of the host institution; as a male or female; and as a resident, commuter, or distance
education student. Multiple choice items 14 through 18 were included to gather
information on the participant's use of the technologies that represent those typically
employed in mobile learning. University administrators plan to use this information to
analyze the feasibility of rolling out mobile learning initiatives at the host institution.
Optional fill-in items 19 and 20 allowed the participant to indicate whether he or she was
willing to be interviewed, and if yes, provided for the capture of name and contact
information.
Focus-group and interview formats. The purpose of the study was to gather
insight into the attitudes and perceptions of students. Gall et al. (2003) indicated
qualitative researchers have found the use of focus groups to gather data on feelings,
perceptions, and beliefs has yielded findings that the authors contended would not have
been revealed with personal interviews. It is the interactive exchanges among the
65
participants with the facilitator being able to take a more passive role in a session that
Gall et al. argued make the focus-group approach superior to the individual interview
when the purpose of the research is to gain insight into phenomena of this nature.
Therefore, a focus-group approach was used to gather in-depth data on higher education
students' attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile learning.
There existed a concern about whether the logistical problems associated with
scheduling focus-group sessions might make it difficult for all those chosen to
participate. This concern was addressed by allowing personal interviews be offered as an
option. Every effort was made to include in focus groups the individuals who were
chosen to be part of the sample. Having available the alternative format of a personal
interview held at the convenience of the participant helped to ensure willing participants
with rich insights to share were not left out of the data-collection process in the second
phase of the study.
An informal conversational approach was used as the format for both focus-
group sessions and any personal interviews. Information discovered in the literature
review, feedback gathered through the pilot study of the general plan for focus groups,
and data obtained through the survey phase of the main study were considered in
determining the topics that comprised the general plan. A general plan was developed for
focus-group sessions. The general plan can be found in Appendix B.
This principal investigator was the only facilitator of focus groups and the only
interviewer involved in the sessions conducted. Accordingly, there was no need for
facilitator/interviewer training or interview guide preparation. Of course, in an informal
conversational approach to obtaining data in a qualitative research activity, the
66
interactions that took place in each session were allowed in part to guide the direction and
format of the respective focus-group or interview process.
Research Setting and Target Group
The university where the study was conducted is a small private higher education
institution founded in 1924 by, and still sponsored by, the Religious Sisters of Mercy, a
Roman Catholic order of nuns. The institution of higher education is located on a
suburban campus in northeastern Pennsylvania but also encompasses several satellite
operations that serve non-traditional learners. The institution offers 30 bachelor degrees,
five master degrees, and two doctoral degrees.
All students enrolled at the university for the Fall 2008 semester were invited to
participate in the survey phase of the study. That population included 2,515 students of
which 1,495 were traditional students and 1,020 were non-traditional students, and 1,788
were females and 727 were males; 861 were resident students, 1,628 were commuter
students, and 26 were distance education students. In using these data, a limitation
regarding the university coding of some non-traditional students should be considered.
That limitation is discussed under that heading later in this chapter.
Generational breakdown was: 1,832 of the students were the Millennials (born
between 1980 and 1994); 425 of the students were Gen Xers (born between 1965 and
1979); 185 of the students were Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964); and 73 of
the students were of generations older than Baby Boomers (born before 1946). Finally,
the distance of the principal residence from main campus was distributed as follows:
1,464 students lived within 30 miles of the main campus; 449 students lived more than 30
miles but within 60 miles of the main campus; 227 students lived more than 60 miles but
67
within 90 miles of the main campus; 160 students lived more than 90 miles but within
120 miles of the main campus; 177 students lived more than 120 miles but within 240
miles of the main campus; and 38 students lived more than 240 miles from the main
campus.
Selection of Participants
The invitation to participate in the first phase of the proposed study on mobile
learning was emailed to all students registered for classes at the university for the Fall
2008 semester. The investigation into student attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile
learning was of the explanatory mixed-methods design that is partially based on the
participant selection model (Creswell & Piano-Clark, 2007). The initial phase included
the collection of quantitative data, a significant purpose of which was for use in the
selection of participants for the follow-up qualitative phase of data collection. This
professor conducted the applied research primarily for use by administrators at the
institution where the study was conducted. Accordingly, there was no plan to generalize
the findings to any population and results are reported very carefully so as to portray the
information discovered as being applicable to only the participants in the study.
In the two-phase approach to the study on mobile learning, the initial survey
activity was conducted using what can be described as a self-selected sample of
university students. All students were eligible to respond, and proactive attempts were
made to attract as many students as possible in contributing to the body of information
gathered. The emailed invitation to participate in the study was sent to a sample frame of
all students registered. The invitation that was sent can be found in Appendix C. To be
thorough in ensuring all students could be included if they chose, printed fliers were
68
posted on the bulletin boards on the main and satellite campuses. The content of the flier
can be found in Appendix D. The efforts of the first phase of the research study generated
638 completed surveys, approximately a 25% response rate.
The second focus-group/interview data-collection phase of the study was
employed to capture rich and in-depth information. The respondents to the survey in the
first phase of the study indicated willingness, or not, to be participants in the follow-up
phase and if willing, provided contact information. A sample of 34 of these volunteers
was selected for participation in focus groups. The selection process was purposely
approached in an effort to choose individuals so that all demographic groups were
included in focus groups. In addition, priority was given to volunteers who had given an
indication in their survey responses, especially to the unstructured items, of having much
to offer in explaining student attitudes on mobile learning.
The drafter of research design must consider the investment in time and money
and the difficult logistics of conducting qualitative research in determination of sample
size. A researcher who has invested a lot of energy and time into a study desires to
generate findings that reveal as much information as possible. There needs to be a
practical balance between cost and benefits in deciding upon how many participants
should be included in focus-group sessions. A target sample-size range of 20 to 30 was
desired for the second phase of this investigation into higher education student attitudes
towards and perceptions of mobile learning. The actual number of students who
participated was 34.
69
Procedures
Pilot testing of the survey and the general plan for focus-groups/interviews.
Alreck and Settle (2004) recommended a survey be refined through the use of focus-
group testing. Also, Gall et al. (2003) suggested pilot-testing of a survey questionnaire
provides information on and a means to enhance the reliability and validity of the
instrument. The use of focus-group testing can be employed to improve both survey and
focus-group/interview data collection approaches. Information collected in a pilot test
was used to refine consent forms, electronic communication, the survey instrument, the
plan for focus-group/interview sessions, and the process for focus-group sessions. Some
reordering in the wording of the invitation to participate in the survey phase of the study
and a different context in which to view the first four items on the survey as will be
described later in this section resulted from the pilot study. The preliminary focus group
plan was not modified.
The pilot test was conducted through the cooperation of five students. The
specific students who were asked to participate appeared to be representative of typical
students in regards to reading comprehension and those selected exhibited no apparent
preconceptions regarding mobile learning. Each student was offered a $25 gift certificate
for his or her time and effort in the conduct of the pilot test. The five students were: two
male traditional students; one female traditional student; one male non-traditional
student; and one female non-traditional student. Of the three traditional students, one was
a resident and the other two were commuters.
The location for the first part of the pilot test was a computer lab on campus. The
students were asked to show up at the lab prepared to devote as much as two hours to the
70
pilot test activity. The volunteers were asked to refrain from talking to each other during
this first part of the pilot test. The principal investigator sat a computer station and
emailed to the five participants the proposed invitation to participate in the study. The
students were instructed to read the announcement and click on the link to the electronic
consent form. The students read the consent form and clicked on the agree button that
took them to the Zoomerang survey. The students completed the survey online and hit the
submit button. The time it took for each student to read the consent form and complete
the online survey was recorded. After all five students were done, everyone moved to a
conference room for the next part of the pilot test.
The conference room session was recorded and the principal investigator took
notes. In the conference room, the participants were provided with hard copies of the
invitation, the survey consent form, and the survey itself. The participants were asked if
they understood the invitation, the consent form, the definition of mobile learning on the
survey and the meaning of the items on the survey. All aspects related to understanding
of all forms and items on the forms, responding to consents and items, motivation to
participate and to continue participating in the survey activity, time requirements to read
and complete all electronic forms, and other issues raised by the pilot test participants
were thoroughly discussed.
The most significant feedback provided by the participants in the pilot test was in
regard to the order of the wording of invitation to participate in the survey and the
manner in which to view the information to be gathered from the first four items on the
survey. The participants in the pilot study emphatically stated that with regard to access
to information and communication technology at the institution, students were
71
preoccupied with several basic issues of availability and support that were related to more
traditional access to technology and support of mobile learning primarily through
wireless networks for laptop computer use. These five individuals strongly recommended
the reordering of the wording in the email invitation to the survey in such a way as to
emphasize the use of laptops in mobile learning. To not do so, they indicated, would
result in very few students taking the time to complete the survey. The pilot group felt the
information on cell phones and PDAs should still be collected, but that the emphasis
should be put on the availability of using laptops wirelessly.
The first four items on the survey were descriptions of examples of mobile
learning that followed a definition of mobile learning on the instrument. As explained
earlier in this chapter, the purpose of these items was to test the respondents'
understanding of what mobile learning represented and the reliability of the survey. The
input from the participants in the pilot test on these items stemmed from the same issue
that prompted them to recommend a reordering of the wording of the email invitation.
They stated that no matter what definition of mobile learning was used, students, due to
frustration with the current access to wireless networks at the university, would not be
able to look past using laptops to accomplish mobile learning to the use of cell phones or
PDAs. The five members of the group recommended that the use of these five items as a
means of evaluating the reliability of the instrument should be approached with caution.
However, they suggested the items should remain on the survey and be viewed more to
assess any differences between the current interest in using wireless laptops for mobile
learning as compared to the interest in using cell phones and PDAs. Therefore, the survey
instrument was not modified based upon the feedback gathered in the pilot test.
72
Next, the proposed consent form for the focus-group interview activity (see
Appendix E.) was distributed, and the participants were asked to provide the same
feedback on it. Finally, the participants were taken through the focus-group process and
reviewed the questions that comprised the general plan. Feedback from and reactions by
the students to the focus-group approach and questions were recorded and notes were
taken. Based upon the feedback of the group, no change in the consent form or the
general plan for the focus group sessions was made. The principal investigator asked for
any final comments, thanked the participants for their invaluable contributions to the
study, and distributed the gift certificates.
Data-gathering procedures. Approval of the protocol was obtained from the
Institutional Review Boards of Northcentral University and the university where the
study was conducted before the commencement of pilot testing and the main study. After
approvals were obtained, the first step in gathering information was taken by emailing to
all registered students an invitation to complete the survey.
All students at the university where the study was conducted must use their
university email in order to matriculate at the institution. Therefore, all students
registered for classes in the Fall 2008 semester received the invitation. The email that
represented an invitation to participate in the study can be found in Appendix C. In order
to stimulate as much participation in the survey as possible, hard copy fliers reminding
students they had received the electronic invitation to participate in the study and
encouraging them to complete the online survey were posted on bulletin boards on the
main and all satellite campuses. The content of the flier can be found in Appendix D.
73
Based on the technology used, the recipients of the email invitation could not
reply to it. Therefore, in order to allow the students the ability to accept the invitation to
participate, a hypertext link was included in the message. The hypertext link in the email,
if clicked on by the students, took them to the electronic consent form to participate in the
survey component of the study (see Appendix F). The survey form was stored on a server
at Zoomerang with access to it possible only through the consent form. Clicking on the "I
Agree" button was the only way to access the Zoomerang survey. Therefore, the student
had to give his or her consent to participate in order to access the survey. Hence, the fact
that the student accessed the survey was proof in itself that he or she had given consent.
The online survey was made available to the students for a 17-day period. With
seven days left in the 17-day window, an email reminder was sent to all students asking
that if they hadn't already completed the survey, to consider doing so. Five days later a
second reminder also let them know the survey would be available for only another two
days. The emails that represented the reminders can be found in Appendix G.
This principal investigator had access to student responses to the survey in
electronic format at the conclusion of the 17-day survey period. Discussion of the data
collected in this first phase of the study is presented in the next chapter. Print outs of the
names and email addresses of those individuals who agreed to participate in focus groups
were produced from the Zoomerang site. From this group of volunteers, based upon
selection criteria previously discussed, 34 individuals were invited to be participants in
focus groups.
Focus group size is critical to collecting data that are as rich as possible. If a
group is too large, some information may be lost for at least two reasons. Some
74
individuals may be reluctant, or not get a chance, to speak, and the time required for more
people to speak and interact may shortchange discussion of some items, especially those
planned for the end of the session. If the group is too small, optimal synergistic
interaction may not take place and the logistics of setting up numerous focus-group
sessions may make the data collection process more difficult.
Brown (1999) suggested the number of individuals involved in a focus session
should range between four and 12. Brown also recommended that if the groups are not
homogeneous, groups of four and five may not allow some constituencies to adequately
represent unique views. Participants of different demographics with varying attitudes
toward, perceptions of, and interest in mobile learning interacted with each other during
most group sessions. In these respects, most groups were not homogeneous. Focus-group
sizes of six were planned, however, the realities of scheduling resulted in group sizes that
ranged from four to 10.
Accomplishing the goal of having heterogeneous groups of the optimal size was
difficult in a situation where volunteers had different schedules and, of course, could not
be forced to attend a session at a specific time. In order to deal with this limitation, an
email (see Appendix H) was sent to each participant with five different times that
sessions were scheduled to be held on several different nights, days, and a weekend. The
volunteers were asked to indicate all the times that fit into their schedules and were asked
to reply as soon as possible. Reminder emails were sent. This principal investigator put
together groups, based upon the available times participants listed in their responses.
Each volunteer who was able to be placed into one of the heterogeneous groups of
four to 10 individuals was contacted through email with an invitation to the specific
75
session and asked to confirm if he or she planned to attend. Any session times that did not
work were eliminated and for the remaining volunteers a shorter list of alternate times
were provided through email. Additional sessions that met the criteria were scheduled.
Some volunteers who, even though on the survey expressed a willingness to participate in
a focus group, didn't make arrangements to attend a session and some did not respond to
an offer for an interview. These individuals were replaced with others from the same
demographic groups. In the end 33 students participated in focus groups and one person
was interviewed individually. The focus-group participants represented the following
demographics and percentages of the total population: three non-traditional male students
(9 % of the focus-group/interview participants representing a 9 % demographic), nine
non-traditional female students (26 % of the focus-group/interview participants
representing a 30 % demographic), five traditional male resident students (14 % of the
focus-group/interview participants representing a 11 % demographic), four traditional
female resident students (13 % of the focus-group/interview participants representing a
20 % demographic), five traditional male commuter students (14 % of the focus-
group/interview participants representing a 10 % demographic), and four traditional
female commuter students (23 % of the focus-group/interview participants representing a
20 % demographic).
There were five focus-group sessions that were held in rooms on the main
campus. The start times of the sessions were delayed until everyone arrived, none longer
than 10 minutes. Participants were allowed to talk to each other about anything they
wanted from the time they arrived until the sessions started. All activities and occurrences
during the sessions were thoroughly documented. The approach used for the focus-group
76
sessions was described earlier in this chapter, and the general plan that guided the
sessions can be found in Appendix B.
A personal interview was scheduled for a participant who could not attend a
focus-group session. This moderator conducted all focus-group sessions and the
interview. Two recorders were used for each focus group and each interview session, just
in case one failed. Focus-group sessions and the interview took place between September
29 and October 17, 2008. This principal investigator personally transcribed notes taken
and the dialogue of the sessions themselves into a text file. At that point, the data
gathering process was complete and the data from the surveys, the focus-group sessions,
and the personal interviews were stored electronically and became ready for data
analysis.
Discussion of Data Processing
Data format. At the commencement of studying the data collected in the first
phase of the study, the responses captured through the survey phase were stored in a
Zoomerang file on a secure server and in an electronic spreadsheet file on the personal
computer of the principal investigator. The data provided by the students to the
unstructured questions on the survey were also stored as text files on the principal
investigator's personal computer. After data collection in the second phase of the project,
the dialogue recorded in each focus-group and interview session was transcribed into a
text file. Accordingly, there were separate files for each individual source of data. Data
were aggregated into larger files during the data analysis process after the second phase
of the research, but the original files remained intact and, as such, provided
documentation of where each piece of data was discovered.
77
Analysis of quantitative survey data. The survey instrument began with a
definition of mobile learning, and the first four items to which students responded were
descriptions of educational activities that represent authentic examples of mobile learning
(see Appendix A). Those completing the survey had the choice of indicating that these
activities represent mobile learning or do not represent mobile learning. Any responses to
these first four items that communicated any of these activities are not representations of
mobile learning were analyzed to determine if to what degree the definition of mobile
learning was not understood. The general plan was modified slightly due to some specific
aspects of misunderstanding of what mobile learning represents based upon some wrong
choices to these four items.
The overall percentage of correct responses to the first four survey items was used
in part to assess the validity of the instrument; in other words, did the survey really
measure attitudes toward and perceptions of what mobile learning represents in higher
education. If individuals provided more than one wrong response out of the four, there
existed a question of whether the instrument was valid with regard to collecting data on
mobile learning from that person. Also, wrong responses were analyzed and considered
in assessing the reliability of the survey and in how interpretation of the results should be
handled. The discussion of validity and reliability of the survey is presented later in this
chapter.
Items five through seven, inclusive, of the survey (see Appendix A) gathered
ordinal data on Likert scales regarding the interest the respondent expressed in utilizing
mobile learning to carry out some course activities. Zoomerang provided the ability for
the user to produce frequency distributions and cross-tabulate the results on different
78
survey items. The results on items five through seven were tabulated in frequency
distributions and were used to assess the level of interest in learning while mobile. The
findings with regard to the level of interest are presented in the next chapter of this
document.
The responses to survey items 11 through 18, inclusive, provided demographic
information, data on the availability and usage of typical mobile learning technologies,
and experience with electronic learning. These data were also cast into frequency
distributions. Cross-tabulation of several different combinations of frequency
distributions of the responses to various items was undertaken to discover findings of
interest. The findings based upon these explorations are presented in the next chapter of
this document.
Analysis of qualitative survey data. The responses to unstructured fill-in items
eight, nine, and 10 of the survey (see Appendix A) represented rich qualitative data that
were analyzed as such. The text files populated by the entries made by the students in
response to requests for input on the potential advantages, disadvantages, and barriers
related to implementing mobile learning were manipulated by both a word processor and
qualitative data analysis software in order to find what Auerbach and Silverstein (2003)
referred to as repeating ideas. Per Auerbach and Silverstein's taxonomy, repeating ideas
were then grouped into themes and then themes were aggregated into theoretical
constructs.
These phase one qualitative findings were further analyzed in concert with the
same type of analysis of the focus-group/interview patterns. The analysis of the focus-
group/interview data is fully discussed in that section of this chapter on methodology and
79
the findings are presented in the next chapter of this document. Items 19 and 20 on the
survey did not collect data that can be analyzed and were included exclusively to obtain
contact information necessary to facilitate the formation of focus-groups.
Use of initial phase data analysis to guide follow-up focus group phase. At the
conclusion of the first phase of the study, the frequency distributions and cross-
tabulations of the quantitative data and the patterns emerging out of the qualitative data
were analyzed in order to determine mid-study results that warranted further investigation
in the second phase of the research. The preliminary general plan for the follow-up focus
group activity was modified accordingly in order to confirm and clarify the apparent
quantitative results and qualitative patterns distilled from analysis of survey data.
Specifically, a more general question regarding eLearning support at the university was
added to the beginning of the plan and the next area of discussion questions was rewritten
to focus more on the use of laptop computers and wireless networks on campus to
accommodate mobile access. A third change in the plan was to introduce the questions
regarding mobile phones and PDAs with a discussion of news items regarding two major
universities in the United States that starting in the Fall 2008 semester issued iPhones to
all freshmen in order to support mobile learning.
As discussed in other sections of this chapter, data gathered through surveying
were also used to select the students who were invited to participate in the focus groups
of phase two. This approach reflected the design for the research, an explanatory mixed-
methods approach that included aspects of both the participant selection and follow-up
explanations model (Creswell & Piano-Clark, 2007).
80
Analysis of focus-group and interview data. The dialogue of each focus-group
and interview session was transcribed and saved as a text file. Each file was studied by
employing what Gall et al. (2003) labeled as the interpretational analysis approach.
Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) outlined in a straightforward and concise manner the
steps in a bottom-up qualitative data analysis process that closely resembles Gall et al.'s
interpretational manipulation of qualitative data. Auerbach and Silverstein's approach
was followed, the first step of which was to delete any text not related to the research
issues being studied. The remaining 30,554 words of text represented the relevant
qualitative data that were analyzed.
The first operation performed on the relevant text was to search out and locate
repeating ideas (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). All the repeating ideas found in each
session file were accumulated separately. Next the ideas found in all the text files were
aggregated. In doing so, frequency and location information were associated with each
repeating idea. The higher the number of times an idea was repeated, the more the
possibility it represented an important discovery. The location label was used to identify
any ideas that may have come out of only one session and needed to be investigated
further to ensure the idea was not just the result of the group dynamics (Auerbach &
Silverstein) of a single focus group or the isolated personal belief of one participant who
was interviewed individually. At this point in the process, a list of repeating ideas
resulted.
The next step in the bottom-up qualitative data analysis approach promulgated by
Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) is to reorganize repeating ideas into groups that appear
to have common themes. Several variations of reorganization were thought through
81
before a final and best grouping of repeating ideas into themes was chosen. With the
specific thrust of this research being the investigation of the attitudes toward and
perceptions of mobile learning, there was a modification of Auerbach and Silverstein's
suggested hierarchy. An additional layer of categorization was created, grouping themes
within the pragmatic areas of the study's research questions: (a) interest in participating
in mobile learning; (b) perceived advantages of mobile learning; (c) perceived
disadvantages of mobile learning; and (d) perceived barriers to implementing mobile
learning. The final step followed in Auerbach and Silverstein's (2003) approach to
qualitative data analysis was to aggregate related themes into more abstract theoretical
constructs.
The task of data analysis was undertaken through a manual approach using the
tools available in a word processor, such as the find and sort functions. However, there
was a concern that patterns or themes might be missed and the task may have become
overwhelming once the volume and specific characteristics of data were finalized.
Therefore, both a manual analysis using a word processor and follow-up or parallel
analysis employing qualitative data analysis software were employed. This dual coverage
of the data helped to ensure there was the lowest possible probability that potential
discoveries were overlooked.
Merging two sets of qualitative data. Qualitative data on student perceptions
regarding the potential advantages, disadvantages, and barriers related to mobile learning
were collected from respondents through surveys and analyzed in phase one of the study.
Follow-up qualitative data were collected through focus groups in which 33 students
participated and from one interview. These data were analyzed in the second phase of the
82
study in order to confirm, clarify, and/or explain the apparent results of the first phase.
After the data collection and analysis in the two phases were completed, the two sets of
qualitative data were merged for the purposes of interpretation and discussion.
Reliability and Validity
A survey was used in the initial phase of the study to collect data on the
perceptions and attitudes of higher education students toward mobile learning. Those
completing the survey first read a definition of mobile learning and in the first four items
to which they responded they indicated whether examples of activities that coincided
with the definition and represented mobile were indeed mobile learning. The original sole
purpose of these items was to assess the reliability of the instrument to measure the
higher education students' attitudes and perceptions toward mobile learning as the
construct was defined in the literature on the subject. Feedback gained through the pilot
test process added a second and, according to the focus group participants, more relevant
purpose to these first four items on the survey. That additional purpose was to gather
information on the distinction that students at the host university would make between
mobile learning using laptops with access through wireless networks and mobile learning
that might be facilitated with cell phones and PDAs. Discussion of the findings related to
this second purpose of the first four survey items can be found in the next chapter of this
document.
With regard to the assessment of survey reliability in assessing the students'
reactions to mobile learning as it was defined in the survey; 91% responded correctly on
the item regarding the use of a wireless laptop, 71% responded correctly on items two
and three regarding accessing the Web with a cell phone and capturing field work with a
83
PDA, and 51% got it right about learning facilitated by text messaging on the fourth item.
The survey was purposely designed with these actual examples of mobile learning in
descending order, based upon the literature reviewed, of how long each activity has been
established in practice. The results on the first four items of the survey appear to indicate
that a broad definition of mobile learning is not completely understood by the students at
the university where the study was completed. Only 37% of the 638 respondents correctly
identified all four examples of mobile learning as such and therefore the survey needs to
be used cautiously if its purpose is to measure the comprehension of an all-encompassing
definition of mobile learning.
The data captured by the use of the survey on different implementations of mobile
learning can be analyzed separately regarding each general approach. Interpretations
derived on this basis have the potential to more accurately pinpoint distinct attitudes and
perceptions of higher education students toward nuances of mobile learning than an
instrument designed to study the reactions of students to the construct taken as a whole.
The findings and conclusions presented in the next two chapters have been determined
using an approach of this manner and portrayed in this context. Also, the general plan for
the second-phase focus groups was modified in order to capture additional information on
how learners might view different implementations of mobile learning with varying
attitudes and perceptions.
Qualitative data analysis was emphasized in the mixed-methods study and
qualitative data were collected in both phases of the research process. Rudestam and
Newton (2001) observed researchers pursuing a qualitative approach often employ the
all-encompassing term trustworthiness to denote what traditional researchers label as
84
validity, reliability, and objectivity in quantitative research. Auerbach and Silverstein
(2003) substituted the term justifiability of interpretations for reliability and validity. The
evaluation of trustworthiness and justifiability of interpretations related to the study of the
attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile learning held by higher education students
was multifaceted.
Both a manual analysis of data using a word processor and follow-up/parallel
analysis employing qualitative data analysis software was employed. Rudestam and
Newton (2001) designated reliability in a qualitative study includes the ingredient that the
data are coded consistently so another person, if given the opportunity to study the raw
data, would support the list of themes put forth by the principal investigator. Even though
accomplished by the same analyst, the two separate analyses of the data can be argued
contributed to the reliability of the qualitative component of the study. The results of the
additional coding of data through the use of qualitative data analysis software in effect
became an evaluation of the first coding. The patterns found in the second coding were
incorporated with those of the first so not only were the data analyses evaluated but also
the dual coding itself represented an increase in the reliability of the results.
With regard to internal validity, Rudestam and Newton (2001) specified reliance
on multiple sources of data can be employed to corroborate findings. Guba and Lincoln
(1989) suggested that credibility represents a more appropriate designation than internal
validity with regard to the construct when evaluating qualitative research. A pilot test
with five participants and two separate data collection devices in the main study, surveys
and focus-groups/interviews, were used to gather data. The information discovered from
these multiple sources of data and the results of analyses, also known as triangulation,
85
were compared as an evaluation of the accuracy of the data collection and credibility of
data analysis.
Rudestam and Newton (2001) listed peer debriefing as another method to add
what Guba and Lincoln (1989) refer to as credibility to qualitative research. Auerbach
and Silverstein (2003) described a similar construct labeled communicability. The
deliverable of the research project was a resource that the academic administration of the
university where the study was conducted will use to assess students' attitudes with
regard to the appropriateness and necessity of mobile learning as a teaching and learning
tool. This was in the form of a report with analyses contained in it that provided
educators at the institution with insight into the students' perceptions with regard to the
demand, advantages, disadvantages, and barriers related to the possible implementation
of mobile learning.
Methodological Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations
Assumptions. An assumption on which this research was based is that students
were truthful and accurate in responding to survey items and in speaking their own minds
in interacting as participants in focus-group and interview sessions. Another assumption
was that the pilot testing enabled the survey instrument and the general plan for the
focus-group/interview sessions to be refined to levels of reliability and validity that
exceed the minimum necessary for the findings to provide the academic administration of
the host university with a firm basis on which to make decisions regarding mobile
learning. A final assumption is that the results of the study are intended to be used to
make decisions on mobile learning at the university where the study was conducted and
the research design does not provide for the results to be applicable at other institutions.
86
Delimitations. The study was designed to be conducted with students of only one
higher education institution. In addition, the survey approach to collecting data was
accomplished through an online interface, and no hard copy surveys were administered.
Limitations. The sample of students who completed the survey were not randomly
selected by the principal investigator, but instead resulted from self-selection by the
participants. The data collected represented the attitudes and perceptions in existence
during the period of the study only at one university and may be different than those held
by the students if the data were collected in other terms or at other institutions. The
findings of the study cannot be generalized beyond the sample.
Purposive sampling was used to select participants for the focus-group/interview
data collection activities, and if it had been logistically possible to include all who
volunteered, the data collected might have been different. Finally, students may have
been more likely to indicate they would participate in mobile learning activities while
sitting in a focus-group or interview session then they would be to actually participate
when presented with an authentic opportunity to do so if mobile learning is implemented
at a later date.
Two limitations with regard to the demographic data need to be noted. First, in
reviewing individual responses to the survey it was discovered that in the university
database not all eligible students were classified correctly as non-traditional. Full-time
students by default are identified as traditional in the system. It appears there is a data
input problem that causes some non-traditional students to be classified as traditional
because the default status was not overridden for these students. The number of non-
traditional students misclassified is not known, but it is appears to be a small number.
87
However, the composition of the total population of students needs to be viewed carefully
with regard to traditional versus non-traditional status. Second, the high response rate of
the few distance education students at the university, prompted an investigation into the
individual responses for the 19 distance education students who completed the survey. Of
those 19, 10 entered their names and when the records for these 10 were reviewed it was
discovered that seven did not meet the definition of a distance education student. It
appears some students think of themselves as distance education students but really are
not. Survey results captured from those who identified themselves as distance education
students need to be viewed carefully when this demographic is of interest.
Ethical Assurances
Student participation in all data collection activities was entirely voluntary.
Consent was obtained electronically for those who agreed to complete the survey and
obtained in signed hard copies for those who agreed to participate in focus-
group/interview sessions. Procedures for data collection activities were designed so a
volunteer could withdraw from survey completion or focus-group/interview participation
at any point with no risk or negative consequence. Those completing the survey had the
opportunity to do so anonymously, and the information obtained from those who
identified themselves on the survey or participated in focus-group/interview sessions
have been held in strict confidence by the only person who has access to it, the principal
investigator. The data collection activities put the participants in no risk of physical harm,
and the non-threatening information asked of them posed an extremely remote risk of
generating any mental distress.
88
The knowledge the study was designed to create will not be of direct immediate
benefit to the participants. However, future students at the university and possibly the
study participants who have several years of matriculation remaining should be impacted
positively by the better-informed planning and decision-making that should result. All the
students at the university encountered very little, if any, risk associated with the conduct
of the study. Specifically, the email, portal, and data storage systems that were utilized
were in no way configured so that the privacy of students and confidentiality of
information were jeopardized. All students at the university where the study was
conducted were invited to participate, and no participant population was treated unfairly
in self-selective and purposive sample composition.
89
Chapter 4: Findings
Overview
The research conducted on the attitudes and perceptions of higher education
students toward mobile learning was carried out in two phases. The first activity was a
survey that all students enrolled for the Fall of 2008 semester were invited to complete
online. The survey instrument collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The results
of this initial phase were analyzed at the completion of the survey period and those
findings were used in part to refine the plan for the second focus-group phase of the study
that preliminarily had been developed based upon the information gathered in the
literature review conducted. The data gathered in the second phase of the research was
entirely qualitative and were analyzed at the conclusion of the focus-group period.
Finally, all sets of data, the quantitative and qualitative from the survey process and the
qualitative from the focus-group activities were analyzed in concert. This chapter
presents the findings and analyses that resulted from this approach.
As Figure 1 illustrates, the demographic items included in the instrument revealed
that: 407 of the respondents identified themselves as traditional students for a 27%
response rate from that group; 206 identified themselves as non-traditional, a 20%
response rate; 409 identified themselves as females, a 22% response rate; 218 checked
that they were males, a 29% response rate; 298 indicated they were resident students, a
34% response rate; 317 responded that they were commuters, a 19%) response rate; and
19 identified themselves as distance education students, a 73% response rate. In
evaluating these response rate percentages, consideration of a couple of limitations
regarding the university coding of some non-traditional students and some respondents'
90
Figure 1.
Response Rates by Demographic Groups
Distance education students
Commuter students
Resident students
Males
Females
Non-traditional students
Traditional students
Total student body
I
J
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Response rate
Responses
Population
Total
stud
ent
25%
638
2,515
Tradi
tiona
I
27%
407
Non-
tradit
ional
20%
206
1,495j1,020
Fern
ales
22%
409
1,788
Male
s
29%
218
727
Resi
dent
stud
34%
298
861
Com
mute
r
19%
317
1,628
Dist
ance
educ
73%
19
26
self-classification as distance education students should be considered. Those limitations
are presented under that heading in chapter 3.
Findings
Findings of the Quantitative Data Collected in the Survey of Students.
Manipulation and analysis of the 15 items of quantitative data captured from the 638
respondents who completed the survey on mobile learning were accomplished primarily
using cross-tabulation of the results of different items and isolation of the results of those
students who provided specific responses to specific items. The latter analysis technique
91
is known as the filter function of the Zoomerang survey interface. In all, 38 cross
tabulations and 50 isolations of responses through filtering were performed on the
quantitative data and thoroughly studied for significant patterns. The three general areas
of information gathered related to interest in having mobile learning opportunities,
attitudes regarding different variations of mobile learning activities, and student use and
availability of technologies that are often associated with participating in mobile learning.
In addition, demographic data were collected and used in further refining interpretations
of the data on the three general areas in order to put the results in context.
Three items on the survey required the respondents to provide a measure of
agreement with and support of increasing levels of opportunity or the requirement to
pursue learning with mobile technologies. The first item captured data on the degree of
agreement with optional availability to the respondent of completing learning activities
while mobile as follows: How much do you agree with this statement? I am interested in
THE OPTION of carrying out some of my class learning activities though mobile
learning using a laptop with a wireless network connection, cellphone, or PDA. The
responses to this item are presented in Figure 2.
With 80% of the respondents indicating that they would like the option of
completing class activities through mobile learning and only 7% expressing disinterest in
the option, the overall results on this item would suggest strong support for mobile
learning opportunities among the 25% self-selected sample of the enrolled students.
However, even greater support is reflected in the responses to the next item on the survey
which added the opening of access to mobile learning for all students and was worded on
the survey as follows: How much do you agree with this statement? ALL students should
92
Figure 2.
Agreement with Only the Respondent Having the Option of Mobile Learning
Strongly disagree -rj I
Disagree -;
Neutral -g^z;-^\
Agree
:
:^r7'""7"
:
:TZ....,:: ' ' " " - ; ""'"i
_ ' '""" " j I i
Strongly agree T-*r> ; ' -A rr> 1 I
I '"" " i v - ' ~- ;
0 100 200 300
m Percentage of Total
Responses
Strongly
agree
43%
273
Agree
37%
235
Neutral
13%
82
Disagree
4%
27
Strongly
disagree
3%
18
be given THE OPTION to carry out some class learning activities through mobile
learning using a laptop with a wireless network connection, cellphone, or PDA. As can
be seen in Figure 3, 82% agreed with the statement and only 4% disagreed. This might be
a reflection of a belief of many who work at the university that students hold a very high
regard for the well-being of their peers.
A third item was included on the survey to test the sensitivity respondents had to
being forced to participate in mobile learning. The wording of the item was as follows:
How much do you agree with this statement? ALL students should be REQUIRED to
carry out some class learning activities through mobile learning using a laptop with a
wireless network connection, cellphone, or PDA. It was expected that there would be an
overwhelming negative reaction to making mobile learning a requirement. Figure 4
presents the tabulation of the responses to this item. Certainly, there were more students
who disagreed with the requirement, but the fact that fewer than half opposed the
93
Figure 3.
Agreement with All Students Having the Option of Mobile Learning
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Percentage of Total
Responses
Strongly
agree
43%
271
Agree
39%
248
Neutral
15%
93
Disagree
3%
19
Strongly
disagree
1%
4
possibility, almost one quarter supported the idea, and almost one third were neutral and
therefore not opposed, indicating much less negative reaction than was anticipated.
Figure 4.
Agreement with All Students Having the Requirement to do Mobile Learning
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
0 50 100 150 200 250
m Percentage of Total
Responses
Strongly
agree
9%
59
Agree
15%
93
Neutral
32%
201
Disagree
33%
208
Strongly
disagree
12%
74
Cross tabulations of responses regarding the level of interest in mobile learning
with all demographic data and sub groups within demographic data (ex. interest and non-
94
]
1 3
,;. - . ...,.%
' 1
1
I
1
1
{
I
I
1 1 1 _ L ^ L L = 1 ;
x:,T7^ " r
traditional female commuter students) were run and studied. Also, interest in mobile
learning was cross-tabulated with mobile learning-related technology availability and use.
Interest levels appeared consistent across all groups with the exception of resident
students versus commuter students. While 80% of all respondents expressed agreement
with having the option to participate in mobile learning, only 75% of resident students
concurred but 85% of commuter students were in favor of having mobile learning
available. It was decided that this apparent higher level of interest among commuter
students for the option of learning while mobile would be investigated further in focus
groups during the second phase of the study.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the first three items on the survey were originally
designed to assess the reliability of the instrument in measuring student attitudes toward
and perceptions of mobile learning as defined at the beginning of the survey. The focus
group that participated in the pilot test expressed the belief that students were so
preoccupied with the lack of the ability to connect to the Internet using wireless networks
that the use of PDAs and cell phones for learning would represent activity the students
would not be able to envision. The pilot test participants, though, encouraged retention of
the items on the survey, but for the purpose of distinguishing any differences in students'
attitudes and perceptions among the use of wireless laptops, PDAs, and cell phones. It
was decided that these four items would be used for both assessing reliability of the
survey instrument, the interpretation of which is discussed in Chapter 3, and to pinpoint
any nuances in student reactions to various mobile learning technologies and uses. The
findings and interpretations of this latter purpose of these items are discussed here.
95
The definition of mobile learning that students read at the beginning of the survey
appeared as follows: Mobile learning is the use of portable devices like wireless laptops,
cell phones, and PDAs to facilitate the teaching and learning process in physical spaces
that accommodate the convenience or demands of the learner and/or allows learning to
take place at a location conducive to fulfilling learning objectives. Mobile learning is
sometimes referred to as m-learning. The request to identify descriptions of educational
activities as mobile learning or not based upon the descriptions of mobile learning found
in the literature review included in the first four items of the survey included the
following wording: Based upon your understanding of this definition of mobile learning,
indicate whether you believe the following activities would be examples of mobile
learning: 1. Using a laptop computer that is connected wirelessly to the Internet while
outside of class in the process of completing a research paper assignment; 2. Using a
Web-enabled cellphone to read postings by other students and to post your own
contribution to a discussion board that is a required activity of a class you are taking; 3.
Using a PDA to record observations in the field for research, internship, or clinical
experiences; and 4. Being sent a text message in a foreign language on your cellphone
by the instructor of a foreign language course which you are taking and being expected
to text message a response in the same foreign language.
The predictions of the focus group participants on how students would respond to
the examples of mobile learning in the first four survey items proved to be accurate. Only
8% of the respondents did not correctly identify using a wireless laptop to complete an
out-of-class research assignment as mobile learning (see Figure 5), while 27% were not
able to confirm that using a Web-enabled call phone to participate in asynchronous
96
course discussions or using a PDA (see Figure 6) to record observations in the field (see
Figure 7) were examples of mobile learning. Recognition that using text messaging to
help learn a foreign language as mobile learning (see Figure 8) was much less prevalent
with 45% of the students responding that this activity was not an example of the
construct. It was decided to explore in the focus groups what might represent the
explanation for the different success rates in identifying correctly different examples of
mobile learning.
Figure 5.
Agreement that Using a Wireless Laptop Can Represent Mobile Learning
No response
Not sure -|
No 7i
Y e s _: *r'' ;; ; ' " i
0 200 400 600 800
Percentage
Respondents
Yes
91%
582
No
5%
34
Not sure
3%
20
No response
0%
2
Of the technologies that can be used for mobile learning, 90% of all respondents
had access to a cell phone capable of text messaging and 75 % of those completing the
survey had access to a Web-capable mobile device. Those who responded that they
possessed the text-messaging mobile phone represented the demographic groups in very
close proportion to how many from each group completed the survey.
97
Figure 6.
Agreement that Using a Web-enabled Cell Phone Can Represent Mobile Learning
No response
Not sure
No
Yes
a
-._... .1
WS*~-~r-.>*A
:..::. - : \ I . A . ; : = " * . . ' ' " : i
100 200 300 400 500
Percentage
Respondents
Yes
71%
450
No
19%
123
Not sure
8%
53
No response
2%
12
Figure 7.
Agreement that Using a PDA in the Field Can Represent Mobile Learning
No response
Not sure
No
Yes
3
:: . , . i
100 200 300 400 500
Percentage
a Respondents
Yes
71%
450
No
15%
97
Not sure
12%
75
No response
2%
14
Those with this texting technology, though, reflected a slightly higher interest in the
option of participating in mobile learning than the entire sample of 638 (83% versus
98
80%). However, there were notable attributes of those in the 10% who didn't have access
to a text-message capable cell phone
Figure 8.
Agreement that Using Text Messaging Can Represent Mobile Learning
No response
Not sure
No
Yes
0 100 200 300 400
Percentage
Respondents
Yes
51%
326
No
34%
217
Not sure
11%
72
No response
3%
22
compared to all who provided survey responses. This group indicated a much lower
interest in learning while mobile (57% versus 80%) with a much higher representation of
non-traditional students (50% versus 33%), more commuters (57% versus 50%), and a
much lower possession of Web-enabled mobile devices (24% versus 50%). The only
notable observations that surfaced through the responses on access to a mobile Web-
enabled device were that the 75% with access expressed more interest in learning while
mobile (84%> versus 80%) and their counterparts indicted a much lower interest (67%
versus 80%).
Those who could text message did so quite often. Text messages were sent by
96% of those able to communicate in this manner with 88% of those texting at least daily
and 62%) sending and receiving more than 10 messages per day, as depicted in Figure 9.
99
= >
, - . . . . 1
]
>', i . . . ; ' - : , . < * . - ; -.
!
" : * J !
1 1 . ,
Figure 10 illustrates that many of those who texted more than 10 times per day were
traditional students, 74%, composed of 50% traditional on-campus residents and only
24% traditional commuters. The percentage of those who possessed an Internet-capable
mobile device who actually used it to access the Internet was 96%. As Figure 11 shows,
the Internet was accessed while mobile on most days by 84% of those who did so and by
41% at a frequency of more than 10 times per day.
Figure 9.
Text Messaging of the 545 Respondents Who Text Message
More than 10 times per day
Daily but fewer than 10 times
per day
Weekly
100 200 300 400
Percentage
Respondents
Weekly
12%
65
Daily but fewer
than 10 times
26%
144
More than 10
times per day
62%
336
The results of the survey indicate that almost all of the learners who provided data had
the requisite technology necessary to carry out learning while mobile. The data also
document that users took advantage of mobile access to communication and Internet
information quite often for purposes, apparently, that very rarely had anything to do with
learning. Only those cell phone and PDA users with an Apple iPhone could access that
university's portal and therefore its learning management system and those using laptops
could complete learning activities wirelessly only if in the library building. However, it
100
appears a significant level of technology is in place at the university on the user side for
mobile learning to be implemented. Also, the prevalent use of mobile technology by the
Figure 10.
Type of Students Who Text more than 10 Times per Day
Non-traditional students
Traditional commuter students
Traditional resident students
50
100 150
200
Percentage
a Respondents
Traditional
resident
50%
168
Traditional
commuter
24%
80
Non-traditional
students
26%
88
Figure 11.
Internet Access by the 406 Respondents Who Accessed the Internet while Mobile
More than 10 times per day
Daily but fewer than 10 times
per day
Weekly
(
Percentage
Respondents
~ t '
" ? ' '
1
i
i !
\
!
I
) 50
Weekly
16%
64
. / . , " ' .-:...|
! |
1
100 150 200
Daily but fewer
than 10 times
43%
177
More than 10
times per day
41%
165
101
students probably indicates a familiarity that will require little training and support
needed for quite a few users to take advantage of mobile learning opportunities if made
available by the university.
The administrators at the university had requested that an item be included on the
survey that would collect data on the amount of eLearning in which students were
involved during a week. It was decided that this represented information that was relevant
to how prepared students would be to move to mobile learning. The following item was
included in the survey: Whether you do so using a computer connected to the Internet
through wiring or wirelessly, how often do you typically participate in electronic
learning activities (such as discussion boards, email, chats, online group or individual
class projects) for the courses you take? 1. Essentially never; 2. Under 5 hours per week;
5 to 10 hours per week; 3. Over 10 hours per week; and 4. No response. Figure 12
depicts the distribution of the amount of time the students indicated they spent on.
eLearning.
A full 20 % of the respondents indicated they were not participating in eLearning
activities. The determination of whether teaching and learning using the learning
management system that the University had in place is made by the instructor for each
course and/or the program faculty of which the course is a component. Some programs at
the university require use of course Web sites for selected courses and some instructors
utilize eLearning out of choice. The 20% of the students who responded that they never
use eLearning must not have been in any course during the Fall 2008 semester where the
instructor and/or the program required eLearning. These individuals comprised a
representative cross-section with regard to the demographic make-up of the entire group
102
Figure 12.
Amount of Time per Week Spent Participating in eLearning Activities
No response
Over 10 hours
5 to 10 hour<5
Under 5 hours
No hours
J
. . . i
" < - '->---h~.
: L . ' 7 $
: : ;..: . .-.: ..., v^. ^. , . ' ' . : , . . vr: :
. , . - . - ' > ;
;

i
i (- ' * ' * . . ' i . - <-' * , ' ; s "*'' . \ i
L_
1
!
50 100 150 200 250 300
Percentage
Respondents
No hours
20%
125
Under 5
hours
43%
275
5 to 10
hours
24%
151
Over 10
hours
11%
69
No
response
2%
13
of respondents. It can be argued that for these people who were not participating in
eLearning, the jump to mobile learning would represent a difficult transition.
It was also the case that proportionately representative cross-sections, with regard
to demographics, of the 43% of respondents who clicked that they use eLearning fewer
than 5 hours per week and the 11% who participate in eLearning between 5 and 10 hours
weekly were found in the results. However, when usage increased to more than 10 hours
per week, the proportion of learners who were non-traditional students was higher than
the relative number of non-traditional students in the group who completed the survey
(46%) versus 33%). This was probably the case because non-traditional students by
university policy are allowed to take distance education courses through the learning
management system anytime during the academic year but traditional students are
prohibited from taking online courses except during the summer. Traditional students use
103
eLearning as an augment to courses they take live during the fall and spring semesters
and by university policy this would be the same for any mobile learning activities.
Findings of the Qualitative Data Collected in the Survey of Students. Three open-
ended items were incorporated into the survey of students in the first phase of the study.
Those three requests for feedback were items eight, nine, and 10 put forth to the students
in the following words: 8. Please take the time, if you can, to list up to three (3)
advantages you believe mobile learning would offer to you as a student.; 9. Please take
the time, if you can, to list up to three (3) disadvantages you believe mobile learning
would create for you as a student.; 10. Please take the time, if you can, to list up to three
(3) barriers you believe would make implementing mobile learning difficult. Respondents
had as much room in the textboxes in the electronic survey as they needed to provide
feedback on these items and 481 entered advantages, 451 listed disadvantages, and 406
offered what they believed to be barriers. These qualitative data were analyzed
immediately after the survey period closed. The manner of analysis is described in
Chapter 3.
In the analysis of the 8,695 words entered on the perceived advantages of mobile
learning by the 481 individuals who provided the input, 37 repeating ideas were
extracted. These ideas were then grouped into themes that were comprised of those found
in the review of the literature conducted in preparation for the study and additional
themes arising out of the attitudes and perceptions provided by the students who
completed the survey. There are 15 themes of advantages listed in the literature review
included in Chapter 2, seven of which the respondents to the survey did not enter any
related ideas. Those seven advantages not mentioned in the qualitative survey data
104
included: increasing collaboration; mobile learning complementing other learning
platforms; providing effective personal tutoring; improved retention and recall;
addressing literacy and numeric skills; representing an effective audio medium; and the
cell phone representing the true potential of mobile learning for reaping advantages.
The eight advantages promulgated in the literature to which the survey
respondents entered related repeating ideas included: convenience; making learning
possible that without mobile learning would not be available; providing more portability
at a lower cost; increasing learner motivation and engagement; emphasizing student-
focus; accommodating students with disabilities; contributing to learning and pedagogy;
and recognizing students are accustomed in their non-academic life to using mobile
technology and will relate to and possibly demand using it for learning. There were five
themes of advantages that the students through their feedback added to those found in the
literature: increasing comfort; being able to work undisturbed; being better prepared for
the real world of the present and future; being friendly to the environment; and
recognizing mobile learning as a good backup technology. Therefore, all together 12
themes related to advantages emerged from the qualitative data collected through the
survey.
By far, the most frequently reported advantage of mobile learning reported by the
481 individuals who provided input was convenience. The word convenience itself was
used by 104 respondents and 61 others expressed ideas that were grouped under the
theme of convenience. Some of the specific aspects of convenience made available
through mobile learning that were mentioned repeatedly included: work can be done
anytime; virtually unlimited mobility; less to carry; saves space; commuter students will
105
not have to use computer labs on campus; all students will not have to deal with recurring
problems in the computer labs on campus; increased flexibility and freedom; less travel;
gas savings; more ease in making up missed classes and work due to athletic events,
illnesses, etc.; people always have their cell phones on them; and sick students can use
mobile learning to avoid being in class and making other students ill.
Related to the convenience that mobile learning affords, being able to undertake
learning activities and assignments in comfort was mentioned often by the students of the
university. Comfort was kept as a separate theme due to the manner it which was
described as being a distinct aspect of working through wireless devices. From being able
to work with feet up to having the opportunity to work outside in nice weather, many
respondents encouraged the expansion of mobile learning to allow them to choose
comfortable positions and locations not possible when a wired connection is the only way
to connect. Another point that might be related to convenience expressed by many of
those surveyed was the ability to choose a place to work undisturbed. The computer labs,
the library, and work stations in the dormitories where Internet access is available all
represent perpetually busy, often times hectic, and sometimes noisy work environments.
Mobile learning makes concentrating possible in a quiet place of choice while completing
assignments.
Another very prevalent theme in the survey data on advantages emerged from
numerous entries regarding the potential of mobile learning related to learning and
pedagogy. There were quite a variety of comments that contributed to the pedagogy
theme, but all emanated from beliefs that learning could be enhanced in some way
through mobile learning. Increased access to research and information, having available
106
information beyond that in a textbook, more avenues open for exploration, support for a
variety of learning styles, the ability to apply what was learned throughout the day, the
need to analyze the validity of information, fostering of the desire to draw personal
conclusions, creation of an environment of independent learning, participation in more
active learning, immediacy of collaboration and sharing with peers and teachers,
increased focus by students when using laptops and mobile devices were some of the
many advantages put forth by students with regard to the potential of mobile learning to
improve overall learning.
Those completing the survey agreed with the potential of mobile learning to
heighten learner motivation and engagement in the academic process. The respondents
described mobile learning as fun, engaging, cool, and not as boring as a textbook. Mobile
learning represents a new type of learning that can foster initiative, instill a stronger sense
of learning, and increase participation in academic activities by incorporating
"technology we understand." As one student wrote, mobile learning "puts some
responsibility into my hands and therefore I may look at the assignment differently and/or
put more effort into it." The following statement of another student is also very
interesting; "Most people will remember little things on an item they enjoy using."
Many of the mobile learning advantages noted by the survey respondents were
related to and grouped together under the theme of helping participants to authentically
prepare for living and working in the real world of the present. Some of the insightful
quotes of statements and phrases extracted from the responses include: "The world is
becoming more technologically advanced and it is necessary that college students keep
up so they will be prepared entering the job market."; "able to prepare for mobile-type
107
professions"; "Use technology now that is becoming widely-used in business."; "real life
experiences"; "It teaches real world tech skill."; "It is the technology of today.";
"technology for our age"; and "State-of-the-art!" Other students were more emphatic in
their input: "It is the American way to live with all this technology, start using it!";
"Mobile learning encourages students to work by allowing them work on equipment
often used by students as mere 'toys.'"; "understand how to use as learning tool, not just
a toy"; "The real world is becoming more mobile, so get used to it!"; "Technology is
rapidly advancing, so should teaching."; and "We would be a leading-edge campus in the
learning process."
In the literature reviewed in preparation for the study, it was noted that mobile
learning often makes the pursuit of education possible that otherwise might not be doable.
Some of the students touched on this aspect of mobile learning in noting that with it a
person might be able to take more courses in a semester; athletes could keep up with class
work while going to, at, and coming home from events; real-time groups meetings would
be more accessible in spite of the conflicting schedules of members; missed work could
be made up; mobile learning could represent a way in which to deal with conflicts of all
nature; and students could be home with families and continue education. One comment
related to the possibility of pursuing education in spite of obstacles focused on the use of
cell phones: "People always have their cell phones on them."
Ideas that were repeated less frequently in the input fall in line with some of the
advantages mentioned in the literature. Students at the university noted that mobile
learning represented increased portability, but unlike in the literature the students did not
feel this was at a reduced cost. The view of mobile learning being student-focused was
108
evident in student responses that recognized some students do better online than face-to-
face, students can better work at their own pace, and there would be less embarrassment
when behind and catching up through mobile learning. A couple of themes arising out of
university student input stressed the environment-friendly nature of learning through the
screens of mobile devices sans paper and that mobile learning devices represent a good
back up when other technologies go down. And, while it was not a repeating idea as only
one student mentioned it, the possibility discussed in the literature of mobile learning
providing more access for those with physical limitations was put forth.
Finally, in the qualitative data that were gathered with regard to student beliefs
and perceptions regarding the advantages of mobile learning, many pieces of input
supported the theme that students are accustomed in their non-academic life to using
mobile technology and will relate to and possibly demand using it for learning. Students
indicated they would prefer the ability to employ mobile learning because it makes it
easier to multi-task, it incorporates technology they understand, it increases their access
to the Internet, they can type faster than write, it represents a modern and more advanced
technology, they could spend less time traveling and more time learning, it is quicker in
many aspects, and it is a time-saving and time-efficient modality. In addition, some of the
students' comments listed earlier under the theme of helping participants to authentically
prepare for living and working in the real world of the present, it appears, also reflect the
desire and demand for the opportunity to pursue educational activities while mobile.
In the analysis of the 7,152 words entered on the perceived disadvantages of
mobile learning by the 451 individuals who provided the input, 30 repeating ideas were
extracted. These ideas were then grouped into themes that were comprised of those found
109
in the review of the literature conducted in preparation for the study and additional
themes arising out of the attitudes and perceptions provided by the students who
completed the survey. There are 15 themes of disadvantages listed in the literature review
included in Chapter 2, four of which the respondents to the survey did not enter any
related ideas. Those four disadvantages not mentioned in the qualitative survey data
included: keyboard limitations, limited cut and paste functions, inability to mark text, and
poor spelling encouraged text messaging. Since almost all of the students had not used
any device other than a laptop in any mobile learning experience, the absence of the first
three themes might be expected as laptops don't suffer from these limitations. It is not a
surprise that the students do not see that communicating through mobile learning
encourages poor spelling. It appears many students do not recognize that the way they
text message and instant message is a problem with regard to the way they form words
and ideas using shortcuts. There were also three literature-based themes of disadvantages
that drew out a comment from only one respondent each. These three areas included: no
hard copy, small screen size, and smaller memory. Again, this limited recognition could
be expected from people who have not used cell phones or PDAs for mobile learning.
Of the remaining disadvantages found in the literature, the theme that elicited the
most repeating ideas was that if mobile learning was misused by students,
counterproductive results could occur. The concerns expressed regarding misconduct and
misuse were wide-ranging in nature. Some students were concerned that incorrect
information could be found, relied upon, and circulated among learners. A level of
accuracy might be sacrificed. There was a suggestion that students might rely on
technology too much and stop using the library. Misbehaviors were anticipated. It would
110
be easier to miss class and absences might increase. Technical problems could be used to
create even more excuses for not doing work, especially group work. The respondents
warned that some students would be distracted by non-academic uses of mobile learning,
others may become lazy, and users may not take academic work seriously. Comments
suggested that a lack of self-discipline in some students would help create or exacerbate
these problems. And, there were worries that mobile technology would raise stress levels
higher than what the students felt were already inherent in their university academic life.
Three of the themes related to the disadvantages of mobile learning that came out
of the literature review conducted received less attention than potential misuse of mobile
learning by students, but were still hit heavily. Unreliability of the technology, lack of a
standardized operating platform, and the higher level of several risks associated with
wireless connectivity all appeared to be of significant concern. Unreliability related to the
fragile nature of mobile devices, technical issues, messages getting lost or delayed and as
one person put it, "more electronics = more problems." Different operating systems, too
many varieties of cell phones, and experience with devices changing too often and too
rapidly sums up most of the concerns regarding the lack of a standard mobile learning
platform. Other anticipated risks included: one student stealing information from another;
in general, mobile operating security is not strong; more vulnerability to viruses; wireless
pirating of educational materials; theft of devices; and everything communicated is
traceable even when intended for only a specific person.
The disadvantages of the slower speed with which mobile devices usually operate
when connected, short battery lives, and information overload for the users were found in
the literature review conducted and verified by numerous respondents to the survey. The
111
final disadvantage covered in the literature was mentioned often in the responses to the
survey item; it may be easier to cheat and be dishonest with mobile learning than in more
established and traditional modalities of education. One student best expressed the
comments of several by entering the question: "Is it really the student (or someone else)
doing the work?" Some of those completing the survey cautioned that the possibility to
commit ethical violations would be higher in mobile learning situations and the urge to
cheat might be greater in some students when participating in mobile learning. Many
indicated that no matter how it is accomplished, it would be easier to cheat on exams
when taking tests while mobile.
Before discussing the themes of mobile learning disadvantages that the university
students added through their comments to those found in the literature, a point regarding
how the analysis on these data and the input from students on the barriers to
implementing mobile learning needs to be disclosed. In the literature there exists a fairly
clear distinction between issues that represent disadvantages in using mobile learning and
issues that comprise barriers to implementation of the approach. However, during
analysis of the data it was apparent that the survey respondents who offered feedback on
these two items blur the boundaries between what represents a disadvantage and what
comprises a barrier. This was not unanticipated and is understandable. Depending upon
what technology is possessed, understood, and with which there has already been
experience or not, one student may view an issue as a barrier and another as a
disadvantage. Therefore, in the analysis of survey qualitative data, some points made by
students in response to the request for input on disadvantages were ultimately grouped
112
with themes regarding barriers and some feedback on barriers ended up in the findings on
disadvantages.
In the first iteration of grouping repeating ideas on the disadvantages of mobile
learning that were not related to those found in the literature, eight themes emerged.
When this analysis was integrated with the analysis of the input on barriers, because of
switching and merging, only five additional themes on disadvantages remained. The two
mentioned the most often had to do with concerns over reduced or eliminated face-to-
face interaction with teachers and with other students. The comments about not being in
the presence of the teacher related to having less one-on-one, not being able to ask
questions and get answers in person, realizing a diminished personal relationship, and
missing information provided in class. Some notable quotes from sentences and phrases
offered by the students included: "Some students need the pressure of class."; "Personal
interaction is still needed."; "Interactive discussions are better."; "more like reading a
book and therefore less personal interaction"; "non personal"; and "Certain courses (like
nursing dealing with interactions with patients) require face-to-face." In the concern
expressed over reduced face-to-face interaction with other students, missing social
interaction with peers was also mentioned.
The next two themes of disadvantages might have the same roots. One is a worry
that teachers may misuse mobile learning and the second is that the workload on the
students may increase. What appears to be evident in the comments categorized into these
two themes is that students worry teachers will be able and tempted to use mobile
technology to infringe upon the formers' personal lives by taking away free time and
requiring work to be done at what the students feel are inappropriate times. Privacy is
113
also an issue with concerns being expressed over teachers having students' cell phone
numbers with a representative statement being: "It violates boundaries of classroom and
personal life." "Professors may have unreasonable expectations." was one entry and
"more responsibility" was a phrase put forth in the data that had to do with an
anticipation of an increased workload. Also mentioned were aversions to being on
electronic devices constantly and working 24/7 on school stuff. Interestingly, two aspects
of mobile learning that were entered in an earlier item on the survey as positives by some
respondents, the ability to multitask and increased independence, were mentioned here by
others as disadvantages of mobile learning. Overall, a number of students seemed to be
worried about having too much to do outside of class.
The final theme of disadvantages evolved through the data analysis process from
a combination of a preliminary theme expressed by students as a disadvantage and a
preliminary theme that had been found in the literature as more of a barrier. The resulting
disadvantage theme relates to the fact that mobile learning technologies have not been
designed with education in mind and as a result confusion and miscommunication can
occur when mobile technologies are employed in teaching and learning. The students
shared concerns over not seeing user-friendly operating systems out there and current
technology not meeting expectations. They also worried about the appropriateness of
mobile learning for visual learners along with the problem for all students in adequately
communicating without confusion when the opportunity to see body language, facial cues
or hear voice inflections is absent. "You can't explain fully how you feel if the class is
being conducted online." was one relevant comment. On the practical side, the need for
114
extra electrical outlets in classrooms and other places in which mobile learning might
happen was expressed by the respondents.
In the analysis of the 5,941 words entered on the perceived barriers to the
implementation of mobile learning by the 406 individuals who provided the input, 32
repeating ideas were extracted. These ideas were then grouped into themes that were
comprised of those found in the review of the literature conducted in preparation for the
study and additional themes arising out of the attitudes and perceptions provided by the
students who completed the survey. There are seven specific themes of barriers listed in
the literature review included in Chapter 2, all of which come under the overarching
theme that in many higher education institutions the infrastructure is not currently in
place to support mobile learning. One of the literature-based barrier themes was folded in
a theme on disadvantages as discussed in that section of this chapter. Another theme on
barriers derived from the literature was not addressed directly by any respondents to the
survey; the typically slow pace of change in higher education.
Based upon the survey data collected on barriers and some of the data related to
barriers collected in the survey item on disadvantages, it was decided to collapse three
literature-based themes on the barriers to implementing mobile learning into one theme.
The resulting theme relates to the attributes and experiences of faculty in higher
education related to the possibility of implementing mobile learning. This theme deals
with the relatively older age of faculty who, it appears to the students, generally lack the
requisite technical ability and have not had enough training in the use of technology.
Respondents noted that not all teachers currently use more established technologies and
as one person put it: "Usually the students are more advanced than teachers
115
technologically." Students expressed the opinion that teachers who currently use
technology, do not employ it properly. There was a belief expressed repeatedly in the
data that many professors would not be enthusiastic about mobile learning and finding
faculty who would be able to teach using mobile learning would be difficult. It was also
suggested that teachers are not accustomed to ICT communication styles and would not
be very effective in using ICT for instructional purposes.
There were a few respondents who addressed the issue of cost to the university as
a barrier. However, the theme with which there were numerous points made related to
inadequate technical support for currently-used technologies, let alone for any new
implementation of mobile learning. One student entered: "Even with the wireless on
campus in the library, there is difficulty getting connected." There was a general belief
that a lack of Information Technology (IT) support exists and it would be a challenge to
engage IT support from a distance.
Definitely, and by far, the number one potential barrier to the implementation of
mobile learning at the university stressed by survey respondents was the cost that might
be incurred by students. Many of those enrolled in the private university who responded
to this survey item stated in no uncertain terms that the cost of tuition and books was
already at or beyond their financial means and that if there were any additional cost
associated with implementing mobile learning, it would need to be absorbed by the
institution. One astute individual, though, noted that a tuition increase for the purposes of
implementing mobile learning would be out of the question. Additional costs that raised
concern included the cost of a device if not already owned, the cost of upgrading
technology as it evolves, the cost of sending and receiving text messages, the cost of
116
having Internet access through a mobile phone, and the cost of cell phone plans in
general.
A significant response regarding the barriers to implementing mobile learning was
not in the form of perceptions of what represents a barrier, but in this case the response
itself was a barrier in the form of an attitude expressed by those providing input. Many of
the entries conveyed resistance to any change from traditional and/or classroom-based
education. The strong feelings about this barrier are best understood reading quotes from
the respondents. The following comments illustrate the attitude expressed by those who
were resistant: "Tuition is paid to be in class."; "Class work is for the classroom."; "Is
this what education is really becoming?"; "will take away from traditional learning";
"paying for class and should have a teacher"; and "What happens if we get rid of
teachers?" Some of the feedback about what barriers to implementing mobile learning
may exist was less reactionary: "There may be resistance to technology by non-traditional
students."; "Some people don't agree with change."; "For older students there is a lack of
desire to learn something different."; "people who do not want to change"; "people who
refuse to follow the trend"; "peoples' opinions about mobile learning"; "getting a general
consensus on using it"; "student resistance to working on class work outside of class";
and "goes against the morals of some students who may believe the world is becoming
too centralized and yet disconnected at the same time - a dangerous combination." Some
individuals, though, were resistant only if mobile learning were to be made mandatory:
"would be bad if it is the only source of education"; "Required mobile learning would be
bad." and "fine as optional - bad as required."
117
Another theme about barriers to implementing mobile learning also can be viewed
as a group of concerns relevant only if mobile learning were to be made a requirement.
The label for this theme is, students don't have mobile learning technology. Respondents
noted that not everyone has laptops or cell phones or PDAs. One student asked what
would happen to people who use a desktop but do not have access to a laptop. There was
also the observation made that most people don't have access to the Internet through their
cell phones. There were still concerns even if mobile learning were to be offered only as
an option; these concerns centered on the creation of inequality among the students.
People without the technology would be at a disadvantage, some respondents argued.
One person indicated that adult learners would benefit more from mobile learning.
It wasn't only the faculty, respondents to the survey felt, who were not prepared
in multiple ways to implement mobile learning. The students indicated that many of them
as learners do not possess the requisite skills and some individuals put forth the caution
that the students would be difficult to train on the use of mobile learning. In many
students the takers of the survey observed, a level of computer skill is not present that
would be adequate to support the addition of mobile learning to the mix. In addition, with
regard to this theme, it was stated that it would be a tough transition for some students.
One notable quote was: "It is a hard transition from never using technology in high
school to having an overload of technology in college."
A significant number of comments appeared to be complaints about the lack of
wireless networks on campus and nothing should be attempted with regard to mobile
learning until this limitation is rectified. The attitude on this barrier to the implementation
of mobile learning is best summed up by the following quote of one phrase entered:
118
"need to put wireless networks in place before going any further with mobile learning."
Beyond the recognition of the need for more wireless networks on campus, under this
same theme, cell phone dead zones and network firewalls were also mentioned several
times as impediments to utilizing mobile learning.
There were two other less frequently mentioned themes of repeating ideas with
regard to barriers. It was noted that the university does not have policies in place that will
allow certain mobile learning activities. Cell phones in most cases cannot be used or even
turned on in class. The students envisioned a tough sell to administration with regard to
whether the implementation of mobile learning would be worth the time and effort. The
other theme had to do with the problem that many phone company mobile plans do not
provide the level of service that would be required to pursue mobile learning.
Based upon survey findings, the general plan for the conduct of the focus group
sessions to be held in the second phase of the study was mapped out to investigate further
those patterns in the data of the first phase that needed explanation or additional
clarification. It was decided to attempt in the collection of qualitative data in the second
phase of the research to gather input on: (a) perceptions of information technology
support at the university; (b) the reasons laptop computers are not used more by students
of the university; (c) what might be envisioned benefits of mobile learning beyond
convenience and comfort; (d) anticipated barriers to the implementation of mobile
learning at the university beyond the cost factor; (e) what might the reasons commuter
students seem more interested in mobile learning than resident students; (f) to what extent
is eLearning used in classes and perceptions of eLearning held by the students; (g) what
are students' reactions to comments in the survey that participating in mobile learning
119
would better prepare students for careers; (h) why in the survey there appears to be strong
resistance to mobile learning by some students; (i) how do students view differently
laptops, cell phones, and PDAs as devices that can be used to facilitate mobile learning;
and (j) what are other perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning held by the
students of the university. The resulting general plan that was used to guide focus group
sessions can be found in Appendix B.
Findings of the Qualitative Data Collected in the Focus-Group Activity. Out of
the focus group sessions a point that was often touched upon and became clear was that
many of the participants had experienced frustrations with limitations and in some cases
problems that became obstacles with using information technology for learning at the
university. With regard to the wireless access provided in the library on campus several
people related experiences with not being able to connect, being disconnected every half-
hour or so and having to log back on, and similar frustrations. One participant in referring
to using his laptop stated very plainly, "I have taken it to the library before but it is kind
of useless." Others complained of a variety of problems including using the overcrowded
computer labs on campus where the technology was described as being unreliable and the
frustrations with the Learning Management System (LMS) in the way that it interfaces
with the portal through which the student must enter in order to get into the LMS and
courses being taken. Examples of assignments not being accepted for submission,
suddenly not being able to log on without any warning or explanation of why it happened
afterwards and similar problems were provided by focus group members.
Many students who provided input through the focus groups indicated that they
would probably carry laptops and would prefer to use them in classes if there were
120
wireless access available in the class rooms. Some stated that they would like to type
notes rather than writing them, but without also having Internet access it just wasn't
worth carrying the notebook. In discussing the possible use of laptops in class, several
students expressed the belief that many instructors would not be supportive of students
having notebook computers in class. One traditional student was heard to say, "I would
like to take notes on my laptop rather than writing but there are a lot of teachers against
you bringing a laptop to class. If we were allowed I would bring the laptop for a lot of
classes because it would be easier than writing all those notes in those classes."
Another concern expressed with regard to bringing laptops into the classroom was
the limited number of electrical outlets usually located on the walls in most rooms. "I
would like to have the opportunity for us to bring laptops but I would need somewhere to
plug in my computer and if you have 30 people in a class and they all bring their laptops,
I doubt there are a lot of places to plug in for power." This was a matter of inconvenience
per many of the participants in the focus groups that would dissuade them from bringing
laptops to class. In response, a transfer student described how outlets were placed in the
classrooms at her previous institution and she stated that if the university she was now
attending would renovate classrooms in the same manner, there would be no problem
with having adequate power sources.
One of the aspects of using laptops in class that elicited significant discussion was
the comparison of reading a textbook in hard copy versus viewing it on a laptop screen
from a digital file. The preferences expressed were split almost evenly among those
would opt for a printed copy, those who would like to read from a screen, and those for
whom it did not matter. The delineation among the three groups was clearly along the
121
dividing line of traditional students, who preferred the laptop or didn't care, and non-
traditional students who felt much more comfortable with a hard copy. A traditional
student stated, "We were growing up when computers were coming in; I think we are
more into reading computers than a book." and another professed, "I just read it on the
computer because like I said, I am green-friendly." A contribution to the discussion that
represented the non-traditional demographic was, "I like a book; I like to read that way."
And the aspect of convenience unrelated to classroom use of the laptop was evident,
though, with one student stating, "If the book is electronic, you can travel with it in the
car and it is easier to read than the heavy books; even though a laptop is bigger than a cell
phone, it can substitute for all the books and it is a good thing." A drawback to reading on
the laptop, also interjected with regard to use outside the classroom, was the glare off the
screen on a sunny day that makes it more difficult to read.
Even though not asked or guided to do so by the moderator, focus-group
participants could not resist emphasizing the convenience and comfort advantages they
see in mobile learning. Most of the comments reinforced the points made on convenience
and comfort by the takers of the survey conducted in the first phase of the study.
Convenience perceived to be offered through mobile learning appears to be a significant
factor in the way higher education students view the educational modality. On the other
had, one student expressed a thought that ran counter to the attraction of getting
comfortable with a mobile technology device. The traditional student stated, "When you
are sitting at a desktop computer you pay more attention when you are actually sitting up
and looking at a screen."
122
As part of the general plan for focus groups, volunteers were asked to put aside
convenience and comfort considerations and disclose any benefits to learning they could
envision might be possible through mobile learning. Again, it was difficult for them to
get beyond the concrete and practical aspects of mobility. First, through mobile learning
they could see where learning would be possible where it might not be without mobile
technology. Making up or keeping up with learning when class has been missed due to
illness, weather has prohibited getting to class, and athletic events have taken students on
long bus rides was very important to the participants. Also, being able to post to online
discussions using mobile devices while on the go between classes was mentioned as an
example of enabling active learning that might otherwise not be possible. And several
students appeared to be looking out for the best interests of the university in suggesting
that mobile learning and expansion of wireless networks that would facilitate mobility
would make the institution more competitive in attracting students. Two enlightening
comments made were, "Having iPhones for students would be a big thing pushing
people, you know, one way or the other for attending. It would be a competitive
advantage. If a nearby university were to offer the iPhone to freshmen you would see a
lot of people going there instead of coming here just because they are getting more." and
"When I give campus tours to students who are thinking about coming here, and their
parents, it is one of the first questions they give; are we wireless? And I tell them no, just
two buildings."
When pressed by the moderator for any benefits that mobile learning might offer
that would enable the students to learn more effectively, the following feedback was
provided by the focus groups. Several traditional students stated that being able to be
123
connected to the Internet in class through the use of a laptop would encourage more
participation in class discussions and allow students to find on the fly articles and other
resources that would enhance those discussions. It was also noted that everyone in the
class with a laptop would be able to look at the same article. In another view, a traditional
accounting major recommended that it would be more professional to work on problems
in class on the computer and be able to connect to other students in the class for group
work than to do problems by hand. And one person admitted that he did not like raising
his hand in class and the ability to have a connected mobile device with him would
motivate him to participate more through a wireless connection. Even though these
suggestions represented potential contributions to learning that might be made possible
by mobile technology, it is important to note that the focus group members at the
university still could not see past current technology limitations at the institution to using
mobile devices outside of the classroom setting.
As with the preoccupation regarding convenience and comfort as the most
significant advantages offered by mobile learning, even when asked not to, focus group
members also had a hard time not talking about cost as the most important barrier to the
implementation of mobile learning at the university. From a very direct statement, "It
costs too much." to the more subtle "I don't know that every student would be able to
afford the cost of the monthly bill." and questions such as, "Does the university pay the
cost of access or not?" those giving feedback in the sessions provided quite a few
unsolicited comments on cost as a barrier. It did not help to get the students to think about
non-financial issues when the top local, national, and international news item almost
124
every day during the data collection period was the worst economic downturn in 75
years.
In spite of the comment by one person who stated, "That's the only down thing I
have right now, the cost." others were persuaded to express their opinions on another
barrier to mobile learning that did not involve the cost to the student. In line with the
pattern of attitudes that was first highlighted in the pilot study and reinforced in the
survey, the lack of wireless networks and mobile access to the Internet on campus was
the barrier next to the cost loomed as the most significant roadblock to what the students
envisioned as mobile learning. Related to this was the fact that all students with a Web-
enabled cell phone in the focus groups except one, due to how the university system
software was coded, could not enter the university's information portal with their mobile
phones. Still, it was the use of a laptop, not a cell phone or PDA, that predominated the
discussion of mobile access. "I brought my laptop to school with me and when I wanted
to do something I couldn't do it anywhere but in the library. I just don't want to lug it
across campus to get wireless access." "We don't carry laptops because we don't have
wireless access here. When you pull out your laptop you are on the Internet 80% of the
time and if you are not on, what is the point of having it with you." "I keep my laptop in
my dorm room. If there were more wireless Internet access I think I would use the laptop
more outside my room." "I live in the townhouses on campus and with a laptop I can't go
into our living room with a computer because you always have to have a wire connected
and it is something that needs to be changed." During the focus group sessions there were
an overwhelming number of comments of this nature made on the lack of mobile access
at the university.
125
Focus-group feedback on why commuter students appeared in the survey to be
more interested in mobile learning than resident students not surprisingly pointed to
logistics as the probable cause. Commuter students are more inconvenienced by the cost
and time invested in traveling to class and look to mobile learning as a possible route to
some relief. Also, many of the comments about the lack of mobile access on campus
came from commuters who want to make better use of their time between classes and
mobile learning would help them do so. In addition, students complained of traveling in
and showing up for a class only to find out it was canceled. With mobile access either
before or while in transit, the student could be notified by a text message or could use a
cell phone to check for cancellations. With constant network access, albeit wired, in on-
campus housing and less invested in a walk to class, the resident students were not as
driven to look for mobile learning as a relief.
"I only use the university's learning management system in one class." "40% of
my teachers use the learning management system but the other people just kind of ignore
it." "We have smart boards in the classrooms and many of them (professors) don't know
how to use them. I have seen only one person use the smart board." These quotes are
responses by members of the focus groups to a question about the apparent low usage,
per the survey results, of the university's learning management system. Students in the
groups indicated they liked the use of the learning management system. One student
recommended, "It should be required to at least post and stuff like that online." Some
students felt the low utilization of the learning management system was due to lack of
experience with or disinterest in instructional technology with a lot of the faculty and
126
other students surmised it was more deliberate resistance by the professors to the use of
instructional technology.
According to the participants in the focus groups, many of the faculty members at
the university exhibit an adversity to a variety of information, communication, and
instructional technology. The students related that a lot of teachers don't accept email and
even more faculty have issues with cell phones where some students talked about
instructors who will not allow phones to even be on vibrate; the devices must be turned
off completely. Overall, there were a number of people in different sessions who
communicated basically the same idea; a big thing that would hold up mobile learning
efforts at the university would be the professors. Also, with regard to teachers, some
students in the focus groups also had some concerns about the boundaries between class
responsibilities and personal life becoming blurred by unrealistic expectations of the
academicians. "Some college instructors underestimate how busy college students are."
stated one traditional student and another worried, "When I am not in class I don't think I
should have to respond to my teacher." However there was one person who responded to
these concerns in one of the focus group sessions, "It would not be a bother to have
teachers text message me because with text messages you can see who it is."
Resistance to expansion of mobile learning using cell phones and PDAs would
not come from only the faculty, but, based upon comments made in focus group sessions,
also from some students. Many participants just could not see where the university or its
students would benefit from making mobile learning possible through the use of mobile
devices other than laptops. Some giving feedback, though, were much more emphatic in
their opinions on the use of any mobile learning technology, including laptops. The
127
following reactions were expressed by non-traditional students, "I am of the generation
that I am happy to be at home and have a computer and use that." and "I like to sit down
and have a conversation rather than the other way; that is just who I am." and "I was very
happy with paper and pencil doing my outline before I sat down and put it on
PowerPoint." It appears if mobile learning were to be required by an instructor in the near
future, there might be resistance by the students.
There were quite a few traditional students in the focus groups who were critical
of the status of information technology in general and specifically to the wireless access
aspect of mobile learning at the university. Two dramatic statements with regard to the
lack of progress made in this area by the university were, "I feel we are behind. I feel
other people also feel we are behind but they just accept it and make due with what is
available." and "If we had wireless we would be like every other campus in the United
States. We are behind everyone else." But probably the most credible input with regard to
this criticism came from several people who had attended other institutions and found
established wireless access and other mobile learning opportunities at those schools that
the students took for granted until they came to their present university. One person
interviewed was not a transfer student, but contributed an even more eye-opening
experience, "I will say that in my high school we did have laptops; we were required to
have them and we had Internet access and that sort of thing. So, I had my laptop with me
at all times in high school. I took notes on the laptop which I also think is very green-
friendly now that I am using notebooks, it's, you know, more not green-friendly, whereas
if I just had them on my laptop I could go and read them on my laptop; I wouldn't have to
print them out; I wouldn't have to waste paper, that sort of thing. So I do think that is a
128
major component that we have to look at as well. I used the opportunity to use a laptop in
high school to its fullest advantage and I did like having that laptop in class." Again,
more data that would appear to explain why the students at the university have a difficult
time making the jump to using cell phones and PDAs for learning when the support for
and use of network-connected laptops is not at a level that might be found at other
institutions of higher education.
The discussion within focus groups prompted by the question of whether students
look at the use of cell phones and PDAs for mobile learning in a distinctly different way
from using wireless laptops was extensive and very enlightening. While the participants
admitting using cell phones to a great degree in their personal lives, their reactions to
using the devices to facilitate learning and class activities ranged from an inability to
envision the practice to staunch resistance to using cell phones for class work. Even
though most of the traditional students related that they text message to a great extent and
most have phone plans that allow for unlimited or virtually unlimited texting, other than
receiving alerts on class cancellations and similar notices, very few of the traditional
learners were receptive to the possibility of using text messages to facilitate collaboration
with other learners or teachers for pedagogical purposes. The traditional segment of the
student population, per its representation in the focus groups, use cell phones to access
the Internet, but in almost all cases the phone plans do not provide for unlimited Web
access so the students log on only when necessary. They could not see where they could
afford the cost of unlimited Internet access on their cell phones.
Non-traditional students did not use text messaging very much and were not
inclined to jump into this avenue of communication even for personal purposes, let alone
129
academic work. There were a couple of non-traditional students who had data services on
their phones provided by their employers and these individuals appeared through their
comments to be more receptive to using their Web-enabled phones to keep up with
courses that utilized the university's learning management system. Only one person,
though, had been able to do this because she was the only non-traditional student who
was using an Apple iPhone, which utilized the only operating system that could interface
with the information portal of the university. It appeared that her comments in the session
in which she participated enlightened both the non-traditional and traditional students
present. "I have an iPhone and here at school I have had a very difficult time getting wi-fi
to use with a laptop but I can use my iPhone; I can use my cell phone carrier coverage. I
can get on the Internet and the Web and it is very convenient for doing my online courses
and even at home I can sign in on my iPhone and because I am a non-traditional student I
am thankful for it and it is working for me. I am a Mac person and it all works for me
including getting into the University's portal and my course sites through the university's
learning management system. I would be very limited without my iPhone to use for
school. I have a comment on class; when I have a take-home assignment or have
problems I am doing at home and I have a question; you might want some help, and with
the iPhone you text message them and get an immediate response. I know myself when I
am trying to do something and I can't figure it out or you know I am missing something I
have that ability to call up the teacher or even when, you know, emailing or text
messaging with; are you OK, do you understand this?"
Giving the focus-group participants concrete, but very general, examples of cell
phone use in higher education appeared to stimulate more thought into the pros and cons
130
to increased mobile learning activity through the phones. The moderator, per the general
plan, read a short news article about two major universities in the United States that had
at the beginning of the current semester issued Apple iPhones to all freshmen that the
students were to use to keep up with both the instructional and logistical responsibilities
of university attendance. Once the discussions got past who would bear the cost of the
phone plans, reactions to the move of the two universities elicited useful and objective
feedback on the possibilities and the drawbacks such an initiative would have for students
at the university where the study was conducted.
Some comments that were supportive of providing smart phones to university
students that were representative of the thoughts expressed in the sessions were, "Having
iPhones given to freshmen entering college, I would have loved to have that
opportunity." "It would be easier to sit in class with your iPhone than your laptop; it is
easier to manage; it is smaller." "With the school issuing the phone, freshmen would have
unlimited freedom in doing the work they need to do and on the same format and that is a
huge plus. You don't have to worry about Mac versus Linux, etc." The iPhone example
also brought forth some more general statements on the use of cell phones and PDAs, "I
do think text messaging is a good idea." "So, I mean there are drawbacks but I think the
students who could use it to its fullest advantage would appreciate it." "So text messages
to some is a really good thing; I would enjoy that." "You know, sometimes a computer is
not available in the lab and I always have my cell phone with me; I would be able to do
things if the university provided it and access to the Internet." "If teachers required us to
use a cell phone it would be great in some ways." Students also mentioned increased
collaboration with peers, the ability to do things when there is a power outage, and being
131
able to receive text message alerts when a student or teacher has made a posting to an
online discussion as advantages they could see if cell phones were used more often in
mobile learning.
The drawbacks put forth by the members of the focus groups were of substance
and important. On the practical side, entering long passages with a small keyboard,
working too long on the small screen, and relying on a device that is so fragile were
recognized by the participants. However, it is important to note that more people
indicated they would not have a problem with the small screen size of a cell phone than
people who expressed a concern about the size of screen. The downside mentioned most
often was that students would be tempted to use the phones for personal emailing and
texting, playing games, watching sports, or surfing the Web while in class or at other
inappropriate times that would be a distraction for both the offenders and other students
around them. A couple of focus-group members singled out freshmen as being the most
susceptible to this negative and it could lead to an increased attrition rate among the
newer students at the university. In separate contributions, one by a traditional student
and one by a non-traditional student, two participants expressed concerns that traditional
age students need to learn how to communicate both orally and in non-digital written
form and cell phone use especially for text messaging would detract from students
learning to interact with people in more traditional ways. Related to this, there were some
comments on the disadvantage to text messaging and emailing regarding the lack of
context and perspective that occurs when body language and facial expressions can be
observed. Finding a balance is the key, recommended one traditional student.
132
On a different note regarding the negatives, one person suggested it would be
monotonous to work on a cell phone so much. However, the other major concern put
forth by several discussants was over the preparedness of the students for using cell
phones effectively for mobile learning. "Some students need to be re-educated." "A
barrier would be using it and using it properly. There would need to be an intro course on
that." "So, I think it should be switched but slowly until everyone is caught up with how
it is done." Non-traditional students expressed very personal concerns over being
prepared to use the cell phone for learning, "My learning curve on technology was very
steep. Now I can upload and download." "I would be afraid that that would hinder my
learning." And, the fear of being required to learn how to use the cell phone for mobile
learning appeared to be the most likely reason for several non-traditional students stating
what can be best summed up by quoting one of them, "We can't see an overwhelming
reason to need more mobile learning in what we are doing here at the university."
In the final area of results from the survey that it was determined should be
studied further in the focus-group follow-up phase, participants in the sessions were
asked to react to the concern found in the survey results that some students felt that
without using mobile technology for learning during their college years, the graduates
would not be fully prepared for working in the technology-driven world of the present.
Most of the input on this item came from non-traditional students who were established
in full-time jobs and from one traditional student who did an internship the summer
previous to the session. These people confirmed that the concern was legitimate. Some of
the experiences they related were expressed as follows, "We use wireless laptops and
PDAs at work." "When I was on internship, PDAs were used a lot." "But doing it with
133
pencil and paper at work really doesn't happen anymore. I think all the rest of us use
PDAs in our clinicals and we would be lost without it." "We and our supervisors are
using a lot of technology where we work." "We work with a psychiatrist who travels. He
uses a laptop and when he is having a conversation he remotely accesses their records
and has everything available." "We have girls out in the community and they are in
patients' houses and they have wireless so there is technology in health care through
mobile technology that wasn't there previously." Even though they had not been out in
internships, two traditional students suggested that with mobile learning you can teach
students to be efficient at work and that multi-tasking is a big thing right now and it is
one of the key things that companies are looking for and the university should be
teaching it."
Summary
This chapter has presented the quantitative findings generated by the initial first
phase survey activity of the study conducted on student perceptions of and attitudes
toward mobile learning, the findings based upon the analysis of the qualitative data
collected through the survey process, and the findings produced by analyzing the
qualitative feedback captured in the focus-group sessions and the interview conducted
during the second phase of the research. In analyzing the qualitative data, repeating ideas
were grouped into themes. Next in the data analysis process, findings that resulted from
all data were aggregated into constructs that were used to answer the research questions
that drove the study and to formulate conclusions, recommendations, and determination
of potential areas for future research. Those conclusions, recommendations and areas for
future research are presented in Chapter 5.
134
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
Traxler (2005) argued that mobile learning is whatever the learner wants it to be
and occurs whenever it is best conducted in the context of what learning is being
accommodated. The research summarized in this chapter addresses Traxler's contention.
The investigation conducted involved the collection and analysis of quantitative and
qualitative data on student perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning gathered
from a self-selected sample of 25% of the students registered at the university where the
study was conducted. The conclusions and recommendations based upon the findings are
driven entirely by learner input. According to Traxler's argument, these data represent the
most relevant information that should be considered in decisions by the administration of
the university makes with regard to the role mobile learning should play in teaching and
learning at the institution.
Thorough and concise explanations of the discoveries, conclusions, and
recommendations are provided in this chapter. However, to emphasize the two most
important conclusions, that from the students' perceptions and attitudes eclipse the
balance of the discoveries, two simple statements can be made at the beginning of this
summary. 1. The students very strongly desire much more wireless network access be
installed on the university campus so that they can accomplish mobile learning through
the use of their laptop computers. 2. The students are not interested at this time in
pursuing the expansion of mobile learning accomplished through the use of mobile
devices other than a laptop computer, the cell phone included.
135
Per the data collected, there appears to be an overwhelming number of students at
the university who strongly desire to be able to access the Internet, the information portal
of the university, and their classes that are on the learning management system from
anywhere on campus at times that suit the learners' hectic schedules. Commuter students
need to be able to gain network access in between classes without having to rely on an
often crowded computer lab or trying to fit in the time before their next class to walk the
few places on campus, such as the library, where wireless access is available. All on-
campus students, commuters and residents alike, want to get online where and when it is
convenient, comfortable, and most importantly in a place where they can work
undisturbed and without disturbing others.
This desire for more mobile access on campus, which almost came across in the
research with the intensity of a demand, falls in line with an argument put forth by Peters
(2007). Peters contended that mobile learning represents one potential contribution to
alleviating the problem of the ever-increasing demand for time being placed on students
in a world becoming more complex with the passage of every day. In this vein, students
echoed the point made by Trinder, Magill, and Roy (2005) that mobile devices, that
would include wirelessly-connected laptops, can be employed as effective learning tools
to fill in the gaps of time between the demands of life and school. The university where
the study was conducted appears to be at the same point with regard to this student
demand as was found with the students of a much larger university in a survey
administered in 2005 to 1,600 randomly-selected enrollees. Many of the students at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison where the 2005 study was conducted were abandoning
desktop computers in favor of laptops and were strongly desirous of stronger wireless
136
signals so that the learners could work in places of their own choosing (Mattmiller,
2005).
Kim et al. (2005) argued the convenience and flexibility to put to productive use
time that would otherwise be wasted is one of the most important elements of mobile
learning. However, the practical often impacts the substantive. Shih and Mills (2007)
found in a study of California State University students these convenience and flexibility
attributes of mobile learning had the effect of highly motivating the learners to contribute
more to their learning. Concurring, the students who were a part of the current study
suggested that increasing mobile learning would increase motivation and deepen
engagement with regard to learning. In addition, the increase in wireless access on
campus would help the environment by reducing printing and would make the university
more competitive in attracted students. It cannot be overstated that based upon the
perceptions and attitudes of the students involved in the study the results of which are
summarized here, the current state of wireless access on the university campus is
inadequate and expansion of access points needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Several authors have argued strongly that the cell phone represents the true
potential of mobile learning. Prensky (2004) pointed out the number of individuals
carrying cell phones vastly outnumbers people carrying any other device that enables
mobile learning. Concurring, Traxler (2005b) argued pioneers in mobile learning would
be most productive if efforts were directed toward the technology that has the greatest
ownership, the cell phone. Prensky predicted the combination of increasing cell phone
capabilities with falling prices for cell phone use means the wide ownership of cell
phones inevitably will evolve into a new reality; all students will carry a cell phone at all
137
times as a personal asset. Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) proposed the first device
that should be researched as a vehicle to implement mobile learning should be the cell
phone. These arguments, recommendations, and predictions represented the
underpinnings of the emphasis in the current study on determining the role that higher
education students believe the cell phone should play in teaching and learning. However,
the data collected at the small university where the study was conducted do not support at
this time that the cell phone should play a major role in facilitating mobile learning.
Motiwalla (2007) argued mobile learning is a teaching and learning mode that is
still in its earliest stages of development and Kim et al. (2006) indicated higher education
in the United States is just beginning investigation into the field of mobile learning.
Being in the first years in the evolution of mobile learning may help to explain the
findings in the study with regard to the use of the cell phone in accomplishing mobile
learning. The students who provided the data simply do not view the cell phone as an
instrument that can be used for learning; they think of the cell phone as an indispensable
part of their personal lives, but not as a course tool. Beyond not thinking of a cell phone
as a possible learning device, when the students were pressed to consider using the cell
phone for academics they were opposed to the idea. The primary concern that fueled their
resistance was the additional cost to them that might be incurred for the phones and the
telephone company phone plans. However, even when the scenario was presented that the
university may absorb the cost of cell phones and plans, the participants in focus groups
were still against the use of cell phones for coursework. They conveyed that the current
state of cell phone technology is not appropriate for education, the interactions facilitated
by mobile learning through activities such as text messaging would be too impersonal,
138
and the possible expectations of teachers employing mobile learning with cell phones
may become unrealistic.
This opposition by the participants in the study, though, was tempered by the
consideration of using the cell phone as an option or alternative in undertaking learning
activities. However, the choice to use a cell phone should be made by the student, it was
noted by those studied. There should be no way that a teacher should be able to call or
send a message, other the notice of a class cancellation, to a student. In the event that it is
convenient for the student or it is the only way possible to participate in learning
activities, such as when there is a power failure, it would be advantageous for the student
to be able to use a cell phone for mobile learning purposes. Unfortunately though, the
information portal at the university cannot be accessed by the operating systems on the
cell phones of almost all the students at the institution, so mobile learning by cell phone
is not an option. The students would like to be able to access the portal using their cell
phones if they choose.
In spite of their resistance to being required to learn using cell phones, the
students involved in the study admitted that they worry that they may not be fully
prepared to enter their careers if they have not participated in mobile learning while at the
university. Prensky (2004) warned while cell phones are not being employed in United
States educational environments, millions of students in Asia and Europe are using
mobile phones to effectively learn foreign languages and other topics through learning
activities embedded throughout the day and enabled by mobile technology typically
possessed by the students. This differential between the use of mobile learning by
students in the United States and those abroad may at some point in the future create a
139
drive among the host university students for more mobile learning, but it appears that
day, if it comes, is relatively far off.
Conclusions
Research Question 1
What level of interest is there among higher education students for the opportunity to
learn while mobile?
The students who responded to the survey indicated a high level of interest in
having the opportunity to learn while mobile. When asked their agreement with the
statement that all students at the university should be given the option to carry out some
class learning activities using a laptop with a wireless network connection, a cell phone,
or a PDA, 82% of the respondents agreed and only 4% disagreed. While the survey
sample was not random and statistical inferences cannot be made, since the response rate
on the survey was 25% of all students at the university, it is noteworthy that the 519
learners who agreed represent 20% of the entire student body. However, this high level of
agreement must be examined closer in order to assess what it means in reality with regard
to student interest. Three different mobile technologies that could be used to learn while
mobile were combined in this single inquiry and the analysis of other data collected
appears to indicate that level of agreement may be different for each of the three devices
listed. Also, interest was higher for the commuter students who responded than for the
resident students.
The responses to other items on the survey appeared to reflect a pattern of more
students including the use of a wireless laptop in what they defined as mobile learning
than the number of students who envisioned including other devices in the definition,
140
especially cell phones. This apparent differentiation by the students of the university was
investigated in the subsequent focus-group phase of the study. Based upon the feedback
from the members of the focus groups, there is a different view of mobile learning with a
laptop compared to learning while connected via a cell phone or PDA. The students relate
much less to using a cell phone, especially in regard to text messaging, for class activities
than using a wireless laptop. It appears that there is not a significant level of interest at
this time in pursuing mobile learning unless it is through the use of a wirelessly-
connected laptop. This disinterest is consistent across all the demographic groups within
the student body. However, enthusiasm runs very high with regard to having more ability
to learn while mobile if using a laptop.
The analysis of focus-group data appears to indicate the higher level of interest in
mobile learning by commuter students is due to a greater need to be able to keep current
and accomplish learning activities while mobile because they don't maintain a residence
on campus. For those students living at the university, a dormitory or a townhouse
provides a place to work in between classes. Also, the resident students don't deal with
traveling to class and the commuters see a need for staying connected while en route to
and from campus. With regard to the commuter need for mobile learning while on
campus, it appears that it is having wireless access to the Internet for their laptop
computers that will best serve the purpose. For the commuting to and from campus, it is
text message alerts for announcements, but not class activities that the non-resident
students look at as the mobile service they need.
141
Research Question 2
What is the level of higher education student access to and use of technologies typically
employed in mobile learning?
The capability to access the World Wide Web while mobile was present in 75%
of the students who completed the survey and 90% of the respondents possessed a cell
phone capable of text messaging. Daily mobile use of the Web was done by 84% of those
who had the ability to do so and 88% took advantage every day of the text messaging
their phones afforded them. The results of the survey indicate that almost all who
responded could in some form participate in mobile learning and used the applicable
technologies quite often. In fact, a high percentage of students who completed the survey
took advantage of mobile ICT very frequently with 62% texting and 41% using a mobile
device to access the Web more than 10 times every day.
Research Question 3
What is the amount of higher education student experience with electronic learning?
The survey results and the qualitative data collected through focus groups paint a
picture of underutilization of the university's learning management system and a low
level of eLearning by the students at the institution. A full 20% of the respondents to the
survey indicated they were not participating in any eLearning activities during the
semester in which they completed the survey and 43% put in fewer than five eLearning
hours a week. In the focus group sessions, repeated comments were made about teachers
not using eLearning and some basic classroom technology. The students appeared to
portray a significant portion of the faculty as either resistant to the use of available
142
technology and/or unable to take advantage of instructional technology beyond
PowerPoint presentations.
Research Question 4
What do higher education students perceive to be the potential advantages of mobile
learning?
The literature on mobile learning contains many advantages that should be
afforded by this type of teaching and learning activity. Some of these advantages were
discovered through studying the outcomes of limited experiments with mobile learning
and some have been touted by proponents of mobile learning as being inherent in the act
of learning while mobile. In a different approach, it was the gathering of perceptions and
attitudes held by university students towards the potential of mobile learning that was the
focus of the study conducted by this researcher. Some of the advantages in the literature
were reinforced by the higher education students in the study, some of the advantages
were not on the radar of these learners, and some perceived advantages can be added to
that already in the literature on mobile learning. The specific findings on individual
advantages are discussed in Chapter 4. For the purposes of answering the research
question on advantages, constructs of higher education student perceptions and attitudes
toward mobile learning have been built by combining related advantages. The six
constructs that result are: (a) advantageous logistics; (b) enhanced motivation and
engagement through an approach to which students relate; (c) relevant preparation for
careers; (d) improved learning through more access to information and communication,
friendliness to the environment; and (e) competitive advantage for an institution of higher
education.
143
The demands made on higher education students have never been more than in
the present college environment and current personal lives faced by those pursuing port-
secondary education. Learners are continuously searching for means by which to keep up
with educational pursuits while being able to fit in aspects of satisfying personal needs.
And for many people, the responsibilities of work and family are also included in the
mix. Mobile learning represents the potential to these college and university attendees to
make better use of time when and where it works best for each individual. In the study
conducted, the advantages mentioned most often that address the logistics with which
these individuals struggle include convenience, making productive educational moments
that otherwise would not be possible, comfort, and being able to work undisturbed. Some
participants in the study also put forth access for the physically-challenged, increased
focus on students, and the if-all-else-fails back-up potential of mobile technology as
additional logistical advantages of mobile learning. By far, out of a necessity to deal with
the increasing demands of life in the world of today, the logistical advantages offered by
mobile learning comprise the most significant group of perceived advantages gained by
being able to learn while mobile.
The college and university students of today appear to take for granted the
technology that allows them to stay in touch anywhere at anytime. The millennial
students and even many of those learners born more than two decades ago relate to the
capabilities made possible by advances in communication advances during recent years.
The students who participated in the study suggested that a construct of advantages
possible through expanding mobile learning would be increased motivation to learn
among the students coupled with deeper engagement by those involved in educational
144
activities. These gains in motivation and engagement would be made possible because
the students relate to mobile technology and the learning environment created through its
use. In essence, more buy-in by these learners would be made possible by participating in
mobile learning.
Students in the study expressed concern that they were not experiencing uses of
technology, including mobile learning, during their college years that they observed are
relied upon heavily in the career lives of those already in the workforce. This lack of
exposure prompted the students to believe that they would not be adequately prepared for
entry into their post-graduation lives. The participants perceived mobile learning to be a
necessary component of preparation for the real world influenced so heavily by
information and communications technology.
The improvement of learning brought about by the expanded availability of
access to information and communication through the employment of mobile learning
represents a construct that came out of the data collected from the university students in
the study. Being able to access research databases, professional services, other students,
teachers, and the Web anytime no matter what the location would contribute to the
quality of learning. Two more constructs of the advantages offered by mobile learning
were mentioned less often by study participants but address issues that may be much
more important than the quantity of remarks might reflect. First, using mobile learning
properly can be much less damaging to the environment than some of the printout-
intensive traditional educational activities. Second, according to the claims of the
students, a university is at a distinct competitive advantage with regard to attracting
145
students if wireless networks that facilitate mobile learning are available in key areas of
the campus.
Research Question 5
What do higher education students perceive to be the potential disadvantages of mobile
learning?
After being thoroughly analyzed, the specific disadvantages that were addressed
by the participants in the study of the student perceptions and attitudes toward mobile
learning in higher education were grouped into three constructs. The constructs with
regard to the disadvantages related to learning while mobile that emerged from the
findings of the study include: (a) the current state of mobile technology is not appropriate
for education; (b) the interactions facilitated by mobile learning are too impersonal; and
(c) the possible expectations of teachers employing mobile learning maybe unrealistic.
Included in the first construct on the disadvantageous current state of the
technology are concerns that: (a) use of mobile devices may be counterproductive to
learning due to the distractive nature of the appliances; (b) mobile devices other than
laptops are unreliable, possess higher security risks, operate at slow speeds, have short
battery lives, and do not adhere to one standard operating system; (c) the temptation and
the ability to cheat are higher; and (d) so much access may lead to information overload.
The participants in the study found the use of laptops in the classroom would be
susceptible to the distraction factor, but if used outside the classroom wirelessly-
connected laptops would not present the drawbacks of cell phones or other mobile
devices. A significant finding of the study was that according to the students surveyed
146
and included in focus-group and interview sessions, there are very few technology-related
disadvantages to using laptops to pursue mobile learning through wireless networks.
Sacrificing face-to-face live interaction with teachers and other students is of
great concern to the students who participated in the study. A significant number of those
who provided data do not want any mobile learning expansion to take the place of the
ability to be in class with all that is experienced in the live classroom. Part of this concern
is the inability to witness firsthand facial cues, voice inflections, and body language along
with the confusion and miscommunication that may result from the virtual interaction
that takes place in mobile learning communications.
The students in study did not react favorably to some of the examples of mobile
learning in practice that were presented to them. These instances of mobile learning all
involved the use of cell phones and specifically the activity of text messaging. The
students wanted to control the time and place outside of class where they would be
involved with work and activities associated with the courses they take. Having access
through a laptop was acceptable because the student controlled the time and place of
using the laptop for mobile learning activities. The cell phone, though, is always with
them and always turned on ready to receive calls or messages. Therefore, its use makes it
possible for teachers to contact the student at times and in places not of the student's
choosing. This possibility violates the boundary between academic responsibilities and
non-academic life that students want to control. The anticipated additional workload that
may be created by professors who would use mobile learning was also an unacceptable
possible outcome of any initiative in this area. This disadvantage also was related to cell
phone use only and not to mobile learning via laptops.
147
Research Question 6
What do higher education students perceive to be the potential barriers to the
implementation of mobile learning?
Nowhere is one of the major discoveries about the perceptions of and attitudes
toward mobile held by the students in the study more evident than in the resulting
constructs of barriers to the implementation of mobile learning. It was revealed in the
study that the students are very interested in having mobile learning opportunities
expanded through making much wider wireless access available on their campus for the
purpose of using laptop computers. The intensity of this interest borders on needing to
interpret it as a demand, rather than a desire. However, the students in general are not that
interested in using cell phones or other mobile devices that are not laptops to learn while
mobile. Except for one barrier included in one construct, all barriers envisioned by the
students relate to mobile learning that would not be accomplished through the use of a
wirelessly-connected laptop computer. That one barrier to using laptops, even though
only a single issue, emerged as much more of a frustration for students than the level of
concern arising out the balance of all the barriers to mobile learning sans laptops
combined. The four constructs of barriers to the implementation of mobile learning per
the perceptions and attitudes of students in the study are: (a) the cost of using cell phones
for mobile learning; (b) the resistance to the use of cell phones for mobile learning; (c)
the lack of readiness for cell phone use in mobile learning; and (d) the inadequate
infrastructure in place at the university for all mobile learning technologies.
Very simply and clearly the students providing the feedback believed that if the
university did not bear the cost of cell phone purchases and the phone company cell
148
phone plans, the students would not be able to finance the cost of mobile learning through
the use of cell phones. The students were also, for the reasons mentioned in the
discussion on disadvantages of mobile learning, highly resistant to participating in mobile
learning if it were to be accomplished through the use of a cell phone. In addition, the
students perceived their teachers as also being very resistant. The students believed both
learners and faculty were not ready for the jump to cell phone-based mobile learning. The
picture painted by the participants in the study did not appear to include learning with the
use of a cell phone, at least in the near future.
The barrier construct of inadequate information technology infrastructure at the
university turned out to be a combination of obstacles to the use of both cell phones and
laptops for mobile learning. With regard to the barrier to cell phone use, the problem was
that almost all cell phones carried by the students could not access the information portal
of the university. Even though they didn't want to be required to use cell phones, the
students requested if they chose to or needed to occasionally use their Web-enabled cell
phones to access information on the portal or participate in the their courses that are
available through the university learning management system, they would not encounter a
technical roadblock in doing so. Also included in the infrastructure barrier was a bevy of
complaints typical of what is heard on many college campuses, frustrations with technical
support and problems with technology not working all the time. But, the infrastructure
barrier of most importance, per the students, had nothing to do with cell phones. The
students found not having wireless access throughout the campus to be a serious barrier
to the form of mobile learning they did want, using their laptops to keep up with
149
information on the portal, access the Internet, and participate in their courses within the
university learning management system.
Recommendations
Current Recommendations to the Administration of the University where the
Study was Conducted. The administration of the university should as soon as possible
increase wireless network access eventually resulting in the entire campus, including
outdoor spaces, being covered by wireless access points. The administration should
investigate the actions that would need to be taken to make the information portal at the
university accessible by the cell phone operating systems used by the majority of the
students at the university.
Recommendations for Further Research. A study of teacher perceptions of and
attitudes toward eLearning and mobile learning would provide valuable insight into
whether a low level of eLearning that the students described is really the case. Also,
teacher input would be indispensable in determining if initiatives to increase eLearning
and mobile learning activities are warranted and if so, how to approach the initiatives.
150
References
Abernathy, D. (2001). Get ready for m-learning. Learning Circuits. Retrieved January 17,
2007, from http://www.astd.org/ASTD/Resources/dyor/article_archives.htm
Aderinoye, R. A., Ojokheta, K. O., & Olojede, A. A. (2007). Integrating mobile learning
into nomadic education programmes in Nigeria: Issues and perspectives.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved
September 23, 2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE
Review, 39(5), 29-35. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0451 .pdf
Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook. Boston: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
ARM (2001, June 2006). Convergence-based innovation drives consumer demand. ARM
Ltd. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from
http://www.arm.com/news/hottopics/13469.html
Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-
learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved
September 24, 2007, from http://www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/The%20m-
learning%20proj ect%20-
%20technology%20update%20and%20project%20summary.pdf
Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). Mobile learning and social inclusion: Focusing
on learners and learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/pdf/1440.pdf
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding
and analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Balasundaram, S. R., & Ramadoss, B. (2007). SMS for questioning and answering in the
m-learning scenario. Journal of Computer Science, 3(2), 119-121. Retrieved April
25, 2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Broskoske, S. L., & Harvey, F. A. (2000). Challenges faced by institutions of higher
education migrating to distance learning. Proceedings of Selected Research and
Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, 23, 37-42.
Brown, J. B. (1999). The use of focus groups in clinical research. In B. F. Crabtree, & W.
L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 109-124). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
151
Brown, T. H. (2005). Towards a model for m-learning in Africa. International Journal on
ELearning, 4, 299-315. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from ProQuest database.
Bruffee, K. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning.
Change, 27(1), 12-18.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carlson, S. (2005, October 7). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i07/07a03401.htm
cell phone. (2007). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved October 27,2007, from
Encyclopedia Britannica Online at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9360134
Chiang, F. K., Lin, C. C, & Sun, C. S. (2007). Content analysis on the trends and issues
of theses and dissertations of mobile-learning in Taiwan. InternationalJournal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(2), 59-61. Retrieved September 23, 2007,
from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning.
Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 9-16. Retrieved September 18, 2007,
from http://llt.msu.edu/vollOnuml/emerging/default.html
Clarke III, I., & Flaherty, T. B. (2002). Mlearning: Using wireless technology to enhance
marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 67-76. Retrieved April
25, 2007, from Educator's Reference Complete database.
Clyde, L. A. (2004). M-learning. Teacher Librarian, 32(1), 45-46.
Conlon, A. (2007). Definition of terms. Dublin: Internet Advisory Board. Retrieved
October 30, 2007, from http://www.iab.ie/FAQs/DefinitionofTerms/
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning?
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 51-58. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/egm0726.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Piano-Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
152
Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2006). Making mlearning work: Utilizing mobile technology
for active exploration, collaboration, assessment, and reflection in higher
education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1), 3-30. Retrieved
April 25, 2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Fozdar, B. I., & Kumar, L. S. (2007). Mobile learning and student retention. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved September
23,2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Franklin, T., Sexton, C, Lu, Y., & Ma, H. (2007). PDAs in teacher education: A case
study examining mobile technology integration. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 15(1), 39-57. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from the
WilsonSelectPlus database.
Frost, J., Lucas, C, & Blankert, J. (2004). Strategies and tools used to collect and report
strategic plan data. Online Submission. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from the ERIC
database.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn, & Bacon.
Grisham, C. (2005). Tablet PCs find home in higher ed. BizEd, 4(3), 48-50. Retrieved
October 7, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hackemer, K., & Peterson, D. (2005). University of South Dakota Palm initiative. In A.
Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators
and trainers, (pp. 157-172). London: Routledge.
Harley, D., Winn, S., Pemberton, S., & Wilcox, P. (2007). Using texting to support
students' transition to university. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 44(3), 229-241. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from the ProQuest
database.
Heath, B., Herman, R., Lugo, G. Reeves, J., Vetter, R., & Ward, C. R. (2005).
Developing a mobile learning environment to support virtual education
communities. T.H.E. Journal 52(8), 33-36. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from
http://thejournal.com/articles/17186
Hsu, T., Ke, H., & Yang, W. (2006). Knowledge-based mobile learning framework for
museums. The Electronic Library, 24(5), 635639. Retrieved September 23, 2007,
from the ProQuest database.
153
Jones, A., Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., McAndrew, P., & Clough, G. (2007). Affective factors
in learning with mobile devices. Big Issues in Mobile Learning. Nottingham:
Learning Science Research Institute at the University of Nottingham. Retrieved
April 25, 2007, from http://mlearning.noe-
kaleidoscope.or/public/news/KALEIDOSCOPE%20REPORT_07_Big_Issues_In
_Mobile_Learning.pdf
Jones, C. G., Johnson, D. W., & Bentley, J. (2004). Role preference: Are handheld
computers an educational or personal technology? Journal of Information Systems
Education, 15(1), 41-53.
Karim, S. A., Darus, S. H., & Hussin, R. (2006). Mobile applications in academic library
services: A students' feedback survey. Campus-wide Information Systems, 23(1),
35-51. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from the ProQuest database.
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From elearning to mlearning. Retrieved April
24, 2007, from the ERIC Document Service ED 472435.
Kiernan, V. (2006, March 17). Tiny technology comes to the aid of college
administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(28), A43-A44. Retrieved
October 7, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Kim, G., & Ong, S. M. (2005). An exploratory study of factors influencing m-learning
success. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(1), 92-97. Retrieved
January 17, 2007, from the ProQuest database.
Kim, S. H., Holmes, K., & Mims, C. (2005). Mobile wireless technology use and
implementation: Opening a dialogue on the new technologies in education.
TechTrends, 49(3), 54-63, 89.
Kim, S. H., Mims, C, & Holmes, K. P. (2006). An introduction to current trends and
benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. AACE Journal,
14(1), 77-100.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005a). Conclusions. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.),
Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 189-196). London:
Routledge.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005b). Introduction: What is mobile learning? In A. Kukulska-
Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers, (pp. 1-6). London: Routledge.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005c). Mobile usability and user experience. In A. Kukulska-
Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers, (pp. 45-56). London: Routledge.
154
Kulkuska-Hume, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: What have we
learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2).
Retrieved September 23, 2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete
database.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning and teaching. In A.
Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators
and trainers, (pp. 25-44). London: Routledge.
Lee, C. B. (2004, October). Exploring the potential of WAP technology in online
discussion. Paper presented at the 27
th
annual meeting of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL. Retrieved October
27, 2006, from the ERIC database.
Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2005). Exploring the potential of podcasting to deliver
ubiquitous learning in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 18(1), 94-115. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/studserv/sec/papers/chan.pdf
Leo, P. (2006, March 16). Cell phone statistics that may surprise you. Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from
http://www.eng.vt.edu/pdf/upload_files/Cell%20phone%20statistics.pdf#search=
%22cell%20phone%20statistics%22
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-
Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers, (pp. 76-83). London: Routledge.
Lubega, J., McCrindle, R., Williams, S., Armitage, U., & Clements, I. (2004). Uses of
mobile phones in higher education. In B. Cantoni & McLaughlin (eds.)
Proceedings of Ed-Media 2004.
Luckin, R., Brewster, D., Pearce, D., du Boulay, B., & Siddons-Corby, R. (2005).
Whether it's m-learning or e-learning, it must be me learning. In A. Kukulska-
Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers, (pp. 116-124). London: Routledge.
Mattmiller, B. (2005, September 6). Student survey shows surging demand for wireless
access. University of Wisconsin - Madison. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from
http://www.news.wisc.edu/11486.html
McWilliams, G. (2005, October 14). Laptops in classrooms not working out as hoped.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.post-
gazette.com/pg/05287/588740.stm
155
Medoff, N. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2005). Electronic media, then, now, and later. Pearson:
Boston, Mass.
Mellow, G. O., & Talmadge, R. A. (2005). Creating the resilient community college.
Change, 37(3), 58-66. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from the Academic Search
Premier database.
Misericordia University (2007). Information Systems Programming Manual. (Available
from the Information Technology Department of Misericordia University, 301
Lake Street, Dallas, PA 18612)
Monahan, G., McArdle, G., & Bertolotto, M. (2007). mCLEV-R: Design and evaluation
of an interactive and collaborative m-learning application. InternationalJournal
of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(2), 47-52. Retrieved September 23,
2007, from the Educators' Reference Complete database.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers and
Education, 49, 581-596.
MSNBC (2006, May 3). More professors ban laptops in class. MSNBC.com. Retrieved
August 21, 2006 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12609580/
Nagaki, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Nakagawa, H. (2004). Attitude survey for pupils about
using cellular phones in classrooms. In B. Cantoni & T. McLaughlin (eds.)
Proceedings of Ed-Media 2004.
Nakahara, J., Hisamatsu, S., Yaegashi, K., & Yamauchi, Y. (2005). iTree: Does the
mobile phone encourage learners to be more involved in collaborative learning?
Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://beatiii.Jp/e/papers/iTree_cscl-2005.pdf
New Media Consortium and Educause Learning Initiative (2006). The 2006 horizon
report. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from http://viewfromthe
right.org/2006_Horizon_Report.pdf
New Media Consortium and Educause Learning Initiative (2007). The 2007 horizon
report. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf
Nyiri, K. (2002, August). Towards a philosophy of m-learning. Paper presented at the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Workshop on Wireless and
Mobile Technologies in Education, Vaxjo, Sweden.
Nyiri, K. (2005, April). The mobile phone in 2005: Where are we now? Paper presented
at the Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age Conference, Budapest,
Hungary. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from
http://www.fil.hu/mobil/2005/Nyiri_intr_tlk.pdf
156
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age of IT: First steps toward understanding
the Net Generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net
Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20). Educause. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from
http://www.educause/educatingthenetgen/
Oblinger, D. G. (2006, March). Does mobility encourage successful learning? Focus
session conducted at Mobility and Mobile Learning: The Next Phase of Anytime,
Anywhere Learning, Adelphi, MD. PowerPoint presentation retrieved June 20,
2006, from http://www.educause.edU/ir/library/powerpoint/ELI6204.pps#l
O'Mailey, C, Vavoula, G., Glew, J. P., Taylor, J., Sharpies, M., & Lefrere, P. (2003).
MOBILearn WP 4: Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile
environment. Retrieved September 19,2007, from
http://www.mobileani.org/dowiiload/results/guidelines.pdf
Peters, K. (2007). m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved
September 23,2007 from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Pineda, L. (2004). Finding the right pathway to wireless and consumer electronics
convergence. Electronic Design, 52(13), 56. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from the
Academic Search Premier database.
Power, T., & Thomas, R. (2007). The classroom in your pocket? Curriculum Journal,
18(3), 373-388. Retrieved September 24,2007, from
http://www.open.ac.uk/deep/PubIic/web/publications/pdfs/TPowerRThomas2006-
BERA.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Retrieved September 23, 2007, from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part 1 .pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think
differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives)/o20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Prensky, M. (2004). What can you learn from a cellphone? - Almost anything! Retrieved
September 23, 2007, from http://www.marcprensky.com/wiiting/Prensky-
What_Can_You_Learn_From_a_Cell_Phone-FINAL.pdf
Quinn, C. (2000). mLeai*ning: Mobile, wireless, in-your-pocket learning. LINE Zine.
Retrieved September 23, 2007, from
http ://www. linezine. com/2.1 /features/cqmmwiyp .htm
157
Rainger, P. (2005). Accessibility and mobile learning. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J.
Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 57-
69). London: Routledge.
Ramsden, A. (2005). Evaluating a low cost, wirelessly connected PDA for delivering
VLE functionality. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A
handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 84-91). London: Routledge.
Rekkedal, T., & Dye, A. (2007). Mobile distance learning with PDAs: Development and
testing of pedagogical and system solutions supporting mobile distance learners.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved
September 23, 2007, from the Educator's Reference Complete database.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for the
classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Riva, G., & Villani, D. (2005). CyberEurope. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 85(5),
510-511. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Rivero, V. (2006). The secrets of their success. THE Journal, 33(\\), 44-50. Retrieved
October 7, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive
guide to content and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rushby, N. (2005). Editorial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 709-710.
Retrieved April 24, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the
power of mental force. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Seppala, P., & Alamaki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 330-335. Retrieved April 25, 2007, from the
ProQuest database.
Sharpie, M., Corlett, D., Bull, S., Chan, T., & Rudman, P. (2005). The student learning
organiser. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A
handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 139-149). London: Routledge.
158
Shih, Y. E., & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the new standard with mobile computing in
online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 8(2). Retrieved September 23, 2007, from the Educator's Reference
Complete database.
Snelbecker, G. E. (1999). Current progress, historical perspective, and some tasks for the
future of instructional theory. In C. E. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-Design
Theories and Models: New Paradigms of Instructional Theory, Volume II. (pp.
653-674). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Soefijanto, T. A. (2005). College professors' perceptions of advantages and
disadvantages of mobile computing. Dissertations Abstracts International,
65(12), 4535A. (UMI No. 3157412). Retrieved February 6, 2007, from the
ProQuest database.
Sun, C, & Lin, S. S. J. (2004). Coral-View: A network-based design environment for
collaborative learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31, 151-165.
Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., & van't Hooft, M. (2007). Highly mobile devices, pedagogical
possibilities, and how teaching needs to be reconceptualized to realize them.
Educational Technology, 47(3), 10-12.
Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Retrieved May 4, 2007,
from http://libraryl.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-
Behaviors.doc
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228.
Tomasino, C, Doubek, K., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Can handhelds make a difference?
Lessons learned from large and small scale implementations. Educational
Technology, 47(3), 29-32.
Traxler, J. (2005a). Case studies: Introduction and overview. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J.
Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 70-
75). London: Routledge.
Traxler, J. (2005b). Institutional issues: Embedding and supporting. In A. Kukulska-
Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers, (pp. 173-188). London: Routledge.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussion, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving
finger writes and having writ... International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved September 23, 2007, from the Educator's
Reference Complete database.
159
Trinder, J., Magill, J., & Roy, S. (2005). Expect the unexpected: Practicalities and
problems of a PDA project. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile
learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, (pp. 92-98). London:
Routledge.
Urdan, T., & Weggen, C. (2000). Corporate e-learning: Exploring a new frontier. San
Francisco, CA: W. R. Hambrecht & Co.
USA Today (2006, March 16). Law professor bans laptops in class over student protest.
USA Today. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-21-professor-laptop-ban_x.htm
van't Hooft, M., & Vahey, P. (2007). Introduction to special issue on highly mobile
computing. Educational Technology, 47(3), 3-5.
Vavoula, G. N. (2005). D4.4: A study of mobile learning practices. Sestri Levante, Italy:
MOBILearn. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from
http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/public_deliverables/MOBILearn_D4.
4_Final.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech, In R. Rieber & A. Carton. (Eds.), L. S.
Vygotsky: Collected works: Vol. i(pp. 39-285) (N. Minick, Trans.). New York:
Plenum.
Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSEReview, 40(3), 40-52.
Retrieved October 10, 2006, from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0451 .pdf
Walker, K. (2007). Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. Big Issues in Mobile
Learning. Nottingham: Learning Science Research Institute at the University of
Nottingham. Retrieved April 25, 2007 from http://mlearning.noe-
kaleidoscope.or/public/news/KALEIDOSCOPE%20REPORT_07_Big_Issues_In
_Mobile_Learning.pdf
Wei, F., & Chen, G. (2006). Collaborative mentor support in a learning context using a
ubiquitous discussion forum to facilitate knowledge share for lifelong learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 917-935. Retrieved September
23, 2007, from the WilsonSelectPlus database.
Wei, F., Chen, G., Wang, C, & Li, L. (2007). Ubiquitous discussion forum: Introducing
mobile phones and voice discussion into a Web discussion forum. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(2), 125-140. Retrieved September
23, 2007, from the WilsonSelectPlus database.
160
Winters, N. (2007). What is mobile learning? Big Issues in Mobile Learning.
Nottingham: Learning Science Research Institute at the University of Nottingham.
Retrieved April 25, 2007, from http://mlearning.noe-
kaleidoscope.or/public/news/KALEIDOSCOPE%20REPORT_07_Big_Issues_In
_Mobile_Learning.pdf
Yarnall, L., Cariere, S., Stanford, T., Manning, C, & Melton, R. (2007). What happens to
writing across the curriculum with handheld devices? Educational Technology,
47(3), 26-29.
Young, J. R. (2006, June 2). The fight for classroom attention: Professor versus laptop.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(39), A27. Retrieved August 21, 2006,
from http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i39/39a02701 .htm
Yu, S., Wang, M., & Che, H. (2005). An exposition of the crucial issues in China's
educational informatization. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 53(A), 88-101. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from the ProQuest
database
161
Appendix A
Student Survey on Mobile Learning
Background information for survey items 1 to 4: Mobile learning is the use of portable
devices like wireless laptops, cell phones, and PDAs to facilitate the teaching and
learning process in physical spaces that accommodate the convenience or demands of the
learner and/or allows learning to take place at a location conducive to fulfilling learning
objectives. Mobile learning is sometimes referred to as m-learning. Based upon your
understanding of this definition of mobile learning, indicate whether you believe the
following activities would be examples of mobile learning:
1. Using a laptop computer that is connected wirelessly to the Internet while
outside of class in the process of completing a research paper assignment
0 Yes
0 No
0 Not sure
0 No response
2. Using a Web-enabled cell phone to read postings by other students and to post
your own contribution to a discussion board that is a required activity of a class
you are taking
0 Yes
0 No
0 Not sure
0 No response
163
3. Using a PDA to record observations in the field for research, internship, or
clinical experiences
0 Yes
0 No
0 Not sure
0 No response
4. Being sent a text message in a foreign language on your cell phone by the
instructor of a foreign language course which you are taking and being expected
to text message a response in the same foreign language
0 Yes
0 No
0 Not sure
0 No response
Survey items 5 through 10 are questions and requests for your input and are designed to
gather information about your perceptions of and attitudes toward mobile learning:
5. How much do you agree with this statement? I am interested in THE OPTION
of carrying out some of my class learning activities though mobile learning using
a laptop with wireless Internet connection, cell phone, or PDA.
0 Strongly agree
0 Agree
0 Neutral
0 Disagree
0 Strongly disagree
164
6. How much do you agree with this statement? ALL students should be given
THE OPTION to carry out some class learning activities through mobile learning
using a laptop with wireless Internet connection, cell phone, or PDA.
0 Strongly agree
0 Agree
0 Neutral
0 Disagree
0 Strongly disagree
7. How much do you agree with this statement? ALL students should be
REQUIRED to carry out some class learning activities through mobile learning
using a laptop with wireless Internet connection, cell phone, or PDA.
0 Strongly agree
0 Agree
0 Neutral
0 Disagree
0 Strongly disagree
8. Please take the time, if you can, to list up to three (3) advantages you believe
mobile learning would offer to you as a student.
9. Please take the time, if you can, to list up to three (3) disadvantages you believe
mobile learning would create for you as a student.
165
10. Please take the time, if you can, to list up to three (3) barriers you believe
would make implementing mobile learning difficult.
Survey items 11 through 18 are designed to allow your perceptions of and attitudes
toward mobile learning to be put into context with regard to your attributes as a learner:
11. Do any of the following apply to you: 24 or more years old; taking under 12
credits this semester; are independent for financial aid purposes; have a
dependent(s); work a single steady job for 35 or more hours a week; did not start
college full-time within 4 months of graduating from high school?
0 Yes
0 No
0 No response
12. Please indicate your gender. If you do not wish to disclose your gender please
choose no response.
0 Female
0 Male
0 No response
166
13. Please indicate whether you are a resident student (living in a university
dormitory or townhouse), a commuter student (living off campus but attending
classes at the main or any of the satellite campuses), or a distance education
student (taking courses entirely online and not attending classes on any campus).
0 Resident
0 Commuter
0 Distance education student
0 No response
14. Do you have access to a cell phone that is capable of text messaging on a
regular basis (a majority of the time)?
0 Yes
0 No
0 No response
15. How often do you use text messaging?
0 Never
0 At least once a week but not every day
0 On most days but not usually more than 10 times in a day
0 Usually 10 times or more on most days
0 No response
167
16. Do you have access to a Web-enabled cell phone or PDA or a wireless laptop
computer on a regular basis (a majority of the time)?
0 Yes
0 No
0 No response
17. How often do you use a Web-enabled cell phone or PDA or a wireless laptop
computer to access the Internet?
0 Never
0 At least once a week but not every day
0 On most days but not usually more than 10 times in a day
0 Usually 10 times or more on most days
0 No response
18. Whether you do so using a computer connected to the Internet through wiring
or wirelessly, how often do you typically participate in electronic learning
activities (such as discussion boards, email, chats, online group or individual class
projects) for the courses you take?
0 Essentially never
0 Under 5 hours per week
0 5 to 10 hours per week
0 Over 10 hours per week
0 No response
168
The researcher conducting this survey plans to follow up on the results with some
focus-group sessions and/or individual interviews in order to gather additional
information on learner perceptions and attitudes toward mobile learning. Your
willingness to participate in this follow up activity would contribute immensely to the
usefulness of the research and would be greatly appreciated by the researcher. If you are
willing and able to be a part of a focus-group session or be interviewed for about an hour
at your convenience for which you would receive as a token of appreciation for your time
and valuable insight a $ 20 gift certificate, please enter your full name and your email
address below.
19. Full Name
20. Email address
Please hit the "Submit" button below to complete this survey.
Submit.
169
Appendix B
General Plan for Focus-Group Sessions and Interview
1. Welcome all present and thank everyone for taking the time to contribute their
insight regarding mobile learning.
2. Hand out two copies of the focus-group/interview consent form (see Appendix E)
to each participant and after briefly explaining its purpose, provide adequate time for
each person to read and sign the form. Collect one copy of the form from each
person and ask anyone who did not sign the form to leave the session.
3. Read and ask: "In the survey on mobile learning that you completed, a lot of the
feedback from respondents focused more in information technology (IT) access and
support rather than on mobile learning specifically. How do you feel about IT at the
university?"
4. Read and ask: "One doesn't see laptops used in class or carried by students on
campus. Why do you think this is? Can you see a use for laptops in class?"
5. Read and ask: "The cost of mobile technology was viewed as a significant barrier
to implementation of mobile learning at the university. What other barriers do you
believe stand in the way of expanding mobile learning?"
6. Read and ask: "The survey reflected a greater interest in mobile learning by
commuters than by resident students. Do you think that is true, and if so, why?"
7. Ask: "How much is our learning management system used in the courses you
take? What is your opinion of its use?"
8. Read and ask: "The survey results reflected some resistance to expanding mobile
learning at the university beyond the concern over cost of the technology. Do you
think there is resistance and if so, what do think is causing it?"
171
9. Read and ask: "Mobile learning can be accomplished using wirelessly connected
laptops, cell phones, and PDAs. For example all freshmen at two large and major
universities in the United States were given Apple iPhones this semester in order to
facilitate all aspects of matriculation including mobile learning. What do you think
of using each of these devices, laptops, cell phones, and PDAs in pursuing your
education?"
10. Read and ask: "Quite a few respondents to the survey expressed a concern that
without experiencing mobile learning while in college they might not be adequately
prepared for careers of today. What is your reaction to this concern?"
11. If time remains, ask: "What other input on mobile learning that we did not get a
chance to touch on do you have to offer?"
12. Thank everyone for participating and distribute the $20 gift certificates.
172
Appendix C
Email Invitation to Students Requesting Participation
Subject: Wireless Networks and Mobile Learning at your University
Greetings University learner,
The use of laptops connected wirelessly to the Internet, cell phones, and personal digital
assistants (PDAs) in higher education is growing. This is often labeled mobile learning
and a study is being conducted at our University into the student attitudes toward and
interest in conducting learning activities while outside the classroom through wireless
networks for laptops and via cell phones and PDAs. Your input would be invaluable and
very much appreciated. All that is needed at this point is for you to complete a 20-item
online survey. Completing the survey typically takes between 5 and 10 minutes. If you
are willing to contribute to information that our University can use to determine how
wireless networks and mobile learning should play a role in teaching and learning, please
click
http://www.musurvey.org
to consent to be a participant in the survey study. Thank you for your help and if you
have any questions please contact Fred Croop, (position at university inserted here) at
(email address inserted here)
Thank you,
Fred Croop
174
Appendix D
Hard Copy Flier Posted on Campuses Alerting Students to Email Invitation to Participate
in the Study
To: All Students
Notice Regarding Wireless Networks and Mobile
Learning
You Have Been Sent an Email Invitation to
Participate in a Survey on the Use of Wireless
Networks, Laptops, Cell Phones, and PDAs at the
University.
Please Help Influence the Future of Wireless
Networks and Mobile Learning at the University by
Taking the
5 to 10-Minute Online Survey.
Thank You,
Fred Croop
(position listed)
(email address listed)
176
Appendix E
Consent Form Signed by Participants of Focus-Groups and Interview
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD AND PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILE
LEANRING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A RESEARCH STUDY
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of a focus-group session or be interviewed
regarding "Student Attitudes toward and Perceptions of Mobile Learning," research being
conducted into the attitudes and perceptions of higher education students regarding the
use of communication technologies (example: cell phone) and computing technologies
(examples: wireless laptops and personal digital assistants (PDAs)) to facilitate teaching
and learning. Before we start the session or interview, please read the consent form below
and sign where indicated at the bottom of the page if you understand the statements and
freely consent to participate in this study. A copy of this consent form is included for you
to retain for your records.
Consent Form
This study involves a short survey you have already completed and a one-hour
focus-group session or interview with the principal investigator in which you and some
others have been asked to participate. The study is being conducted by Fred J. Croop of
your University in relation to academic work associated with Northcentral University and
it has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of your University and
Northcentral University. No deception is involved, and the study involves no more than
minimal risk to participants (i.e., the level of risk encountered in daily life).
The survey data provided by you and others have been aggregated and analyzed
to create information on the attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile learning held by
students in higher education. Near the end of the survey you agreed you would be willing
to be part of a focus group or be interviewed by the principal investigator in order to
178
provide additional information on your attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile
learning. You have been chosen as part of the sample of participants to be part of a focus
group or to be interviewed. Being a part of a focus-group session or being interviewed
will require a one-hour commitment for which you will receive as a token of appreciation
for your time and valuable insight a $ 20 gift certificate.
Agreeing to be a part of a focus group or to be interviewed is very much appreciated
but is entirely voluntary. The information you provide in the focus-group session or
interview will be confidential, being recorded, listened to, transcribed, and analyzed in
most cases by only the principal investigator, Fred Croop. There is a possibility members
of the (IRBs) mentioned in the first paragraph and/or Dr. Aaron Givan, Professor of
Education at Northcentral University may review samples of the data collected to ensure
fair treatment of participants or accurate interpretation of data.
Those involved in a pilot study of the focus-group/interview activity have found
participation in this research enjoyable and have reported no adverse reactions.
Participation in this study, while vital to the research of the principal investigator, is
strictly voluntary. Refusal to take part in the focus-group session or interview involves no
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, and you may withdraw
from the focus-group session or interview activity at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
The findings of the research involving the survey and the focus-group activity
described will be used by the principal investigator in completing a doctoral dissertation.
The results will also be used by the administration of your University to make decisions
regarding the role mobile learning should play in teaching and learning at the institution.
179
There is also the distinct possibility the findings revealed in the study will be used by the
principal investigator in writing articles about mobile learning in higher education that
would be submitted for publication in scholarly academic journals.
If you have questions about this study or your rights, or if you wish to lodge a
complaint or concern, you may contact the principal investigator, Fred Croop at
(University telephone number inserted) or, (name of IRB chair inserted), Chair of your
University IRB at (University telephone number inserted).
If you are 18 years of age or older, understand the statements above, and freely
consent to participate in the study, please sign where indicated below. (If you are under
18 years of age and want to participate in the focus-group/interview activity, a parent or
guardian will also need to sign this consent form.)
Participant Principal Investigator
Date
180
Appendix F
Web Page Consent Form for Survey Participants
Informed Consent to Complete a Short Survey
This study involves the completion of a short survey by all the students at your
University who willingly agree to provide some general demographic data and
fundamental information on their attitudes and perceptions regarding mobile education.
In addition, some of the individuals who complete the survey, and agree to, have been
asked to participate in a one-hour focus-group session or personal interview with the
principal investigator. The study is being conducted by Fred J. Croop of your University
in relation to academic work associated with Northcentral University and it has been
approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of your University and Northcentral
University. No deception is involved, and the study involves no more than minimal risk
to participants (i.e., the level of risk encountered in daily life).
Completing the 20-item survey typically takes less than 10 minutes of your time.
The survey data provided by you and others will be aggregated and analyzed to create
information on the attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile learning held by students
in higher education. Near the end of the survey you will be asked if you would be willing
to be part of a focus-group session or be interviewed by the principal investigator in order
to provide additional information on your attitudes toward and perceptions of mobile
learning. If you agree to the possibility of being interviewed and you are chosen as part of
the sample of participants to be included in focus-group sessions, you will be contacted
by the principal investigator with times focus-group sessions will be held. If you cannot
schedule any of the focus-group sessions or if you would prefer, the principal investigator
will attempt to make arrangements for a one-on-one interview with the principal
investigator. Being a part of a focus-group session or being interviewed will require a
one-hour commitment and if you are part of a focus-group session or interviewed you
would receive as a token of appreciation for your time and valuable insight a $ 20 gift
certificate.
Agreeing to possibly be part of a focus group or being interviewed is very much
appreciated but is entirely voluntary. If you choose to not enter your name and email
address at the end of the survey, the information you provide in the survey will be strictly
anonymous. If you choose to enter your name and email address at the end of the survey,
the information you provide in the survey and in any subsequent focus-group activity or
interview will be confidential, with access to it being limited to, in most cases, only the
principal investigator, Fred Croop. There is a possibility that members of the (IRBs)
mentioned in the first paragraph and/or Dr. Aaron Givan of Northcentral University may
review samples of the data collected to ensure fair treatment of participants or accurate
interpretation of data. You should be aware, though, that the survey information is not
being collected via a "secure" https server of the kind typically used to handle credit card
transactions, so there is a small possibility that responses could be viewed by
unauthorized third parties (e.g., computer hackers).
Those involved in a pilot study of the survey and focus-group/interview activities
have found participation in this research enjoyable and have reported no adverse
reactions. Participation in this study, while vital to the research of the principal
investigator, is strictly voluntary. Refusal to take part in the survey, a focus group, or an
182
interview involves no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, and
you may withdraw from the survey, focus group, or interview activities at any time
without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
If you have questions about this study or your rights, or if you wish to lodge a
complaint or concern, you may contact the principal investigator, Fred Croop at
(University telephone number inserted) or, (name of chair of IRB inserted), the Chair of
your University IRB at (University telephone number inserted).
If you are 18 years of age or older, understand the statements above, and freely
consent to participate in the study, click on the "I Agree" text link to begin the survey. (If
you are under 18 years of age and want to participate in the study please contact Fred
Croop at (University telephone number inserted)).
Consent form adapted from a template made available by the Social Psychology Network
and was retrieved on August 22, 2007, from
http://www.socialpsycholoRV.org/consentform.htm
I Agree
I Do Not Agree
Note: Clicking on I Agree took the student to the Zoomerang survey. Clicking on I Do
Not Agree took the student to home page of the University. The Web page consent form
was stored on the server of a Web hosting service.
183
Appendix G
Email Reminders to Students About the Study
Subject: Reminder: Your input on Wireless Networks/Mobile Learning at our University
is critical.
Last week you received an invitation to participate in a short online survey, the results of
which will be used to help guide the discussion of how wireless access on the main
campus and cell phone access on and off campus might be beneficial to University
learners. If you have not yet taken the five minutes it would take to complete the survey,
please consider doing so now by clicking on the link below or pointing your browser to
musurvey.org. Your input is critical to determining the need for expansion of
opportunities to learn while mobile. If you have already completed the survey, thank you
very much.
To be taken to the consent form to agree to take the survey, click on:
http://www.musurvey.org
Subject: One last chance to do wireless survey closing at noon on Tuesday
If you have completed the survey on wireless networks and mobile learning, thank you
very much. Your input will drive the direction of this very important and expanding area
of learning support at your University.
If you have not yet gotten a chance to complete the survey, you have one last chance to
ensure that your opinion is included in the discussions. The survey needs to be closed
Tuesday, September 16 at noon and I encourage you to take the five minutes it requires to
complete the short online survey before then. You can find the link to the consent form to
take it at:
http://www.musurvey.orR
185
Appendix H
Email Request to Schedule a Focus-Group Session
Subject: Please Respond with Availability for Focus Group on Mobile Learning
From: Fred Croop
Thank you very much for the valuable information you provided when you recently
completed an online survey on wireless networks and mobile learning. In that survey you
volunteered to take part in a focus-group session on mobile learning for which you would
be rewarded with a $ 20 gift certificate. You have been selected as one of the individuals
to be invited to participate in a one-hour focus-group session. Your contributions in a
focus-group session will be invaluable to this researcher and the future of mobile learning
at your University. The times for those sessions are as follows:
Sunday evening, September 28, 6:30 to 7:30
Monday midday, September 29, 12:15 to 1:15
Monday evening, September 29, 6:00 to 7:00
Tuesday evening, September 30, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday morning, October 4, 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Lease reply email and indicate the sessions that represent your first preference, second
preference, lower preference or that you are not available for any session listed. Please
submit your responses as soon as convenient and I will set up the focus groups based
upon the research guidelines I must follow and get back to you with details on when and
where the session I hope you can attend will take place. Again, thank you for your
willingness to contribute.
187

You might also like