Image by "nokhoog_buchachon" courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Research
Historical Research and Connections to Mobile Learning:
Connecting the use of mobile devices within educational contexts parallels the beliefs of Roman rhetorician Quintilian (Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). Quintilian contended that children under the age of seven could benefit from education if it was in the form of play. This is similar to the idea of mobile apps as many apps are in the form of games. This coincides with John Locke’s ideas on education as he believed that it should take place at home and be play-like (Beatty, 1995). If mobile technology integration was put into this context, it would be encouraged in moderation.
Locke was an advocate for engaging students in learning activities and adapting according to
individual learning needs (Beatty, 1995; Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). As mobile devices are engaging for students and can be easily adapted according to needs, it can be assumed that Locke would acknowledge that the mobile technologies would be an appropriate learning tool. Similar to Locke, Rousseau, believed that children should be educated in the home but he felt learning should be fun and enjoyable (Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). Therefore, mobile devices provide learning opportunities that parallel historical theories and philosophies of learning.
Current Research:
Mobile technologies have quickly permeated the way we operate on a day-to-day basis (Merchant, 2012; Squires & Dikkers, 2012). Due to their affordability, they are a vital consumer item and provide their users with multiple applications, tools, and internet access (Johnson, Adams, Cummins, Estrada, Freeman & Ludgate, 2013; Merchant, 2012). Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes (2010) argue that educators would benefit from a stronger focus on students’ everyday use of mobile devices in and outside of the classroom.
Worldwide, more smartphones will be sold than feature phones (as cited in Norris & Soloway, 2011). Horace Dediu, a futurist specializing in all things mobile, put up a simple, black-and- white website that contained a meter to tick off his prediction in terms of days, hours, minutes, and seconds until the sales of smartphones overtake the sales of feature phones. His prediction was June 8, 2012. He felt that once the tipping point occurred, smartphones will no longer need to be called “smartphones”—they can and will simply be called ‘phones' (as cited in Norris & Soloway, 2011).
Essentially, every person on the planet that has running water—also has a mobile phone. There are approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet. Approximately 2.6 billion people do not have proper sanitation facilities. For example, they do not have water for drinking. There are approximately 4.18 billion mobile phones in circulation worldwide. Therefore, by doing the math, if you have potable water, you have a mobile phone. No other modern technology on the planet has that level of adoption (Norris & Soloway, 2011).
Stevens (2012) states, "Most organizations now believe that m-learning is a permanent feature; that it is here to stay" (p. 1). Morton claims that mobile learning is the next generation and mobile devices will be a tool of choice for learning in a similar way to a preferred learning style (as cited in Stevens, 2012). In the cooperate world, Stevens contends, "Other customers are using tablet PCs as diagnostic devices and need to record their activity while on the move. The good thing about these mobile devices is that the touchscreens are intuitive" (as cited in Stevens, 2012, p. 4). Therefore, the cooperate world must provide their customers with the expected mobile technologies.
Erickson (2011) cautions that utilizing mobile learning devices within the classroom setting will eventually require the classroom furniture to be redesigned. If mobile learning becomes a prominent learning style, a lack of physical activity or gross motor skills may inhibit development. It is recommended that, "...varieties of furniture should be integrated in student's learning to support differing learning styles" (Erickson, 2011, p. 36). Therefore, movable furniture is encouraged in order to create an effective learning environment.
Solvbert and Rismark (2012) claim that mobile learning environments allow for the exploration of a variety of learning activities. They contend that we must address and envision our students as continually on the move, learning anytime and anywhere, and learning a variety of topics.
However, they caution, "To realize the valuable affordances provided by m-learning environments, educators will need to undertake complex pedagogical reasoning in their
planning and teaching and must take into account how students act within various learning spaces" (Solvbert & Rismark, 2012, p. 32).
Research Questions:
It is suggested that further research into the advantages of mobile learning take place as many of the existing studies have weak evaluation and research designs (Koszalka & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, 2010). It is also suggested that m-learning requires a strategically established research agenda. Therefore, detailed qualitative research exploring mobile devices in interdisciplinary contexts is essential as part of further research in this area (Rogers, 2011).
Further areas for research include:
Does m-learning actually improve student learning in all educational contexts?
Is mobile learning sustainable within the education system? Are there areas of concern as the devices age?
Does mobile devices provide further engagement? Or does the technology seem engaging due to novelty?
Focusing on special needs within a classroom setting, what improvements have been noted utilizing the technology? Further qualitative studies into the progress of special needs students are required to solidify this research.
Has mobile learning proved to increase interdisciplinary academic achievement? What age levels benefit most from this learning tool?
What challenges to businesses arise as transactions and account management is completed through the use of mobile technologies? Are these practices always cost beneficial or a survival tool within a competing market?
References
Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: The culture of young children from the colonial era to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Erickson, P. W. (2011). Mobile Learning. American School & University, 83(7), 34-37.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2010). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now?
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC horizon report K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf
Koszalka, T., & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education. 31(2), 139-157. doi:10.1080/01587919.2010.498082
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and
schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 770–782.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01352.x
Norris, C.A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in the age of mobilism. Educational Technology, 51(6), 3-10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/968114535?accountid9838
Ntuli, E., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2012). Teacher assessment of young children learning with technology in early childhood education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(4), 1-15. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA305370169&v=2.1&u=ucalgary&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Rogers, K.D. (2011). Mobile learning devices: Essentials for principals. Bloominton, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Schuele, M., & Kleeck, A. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1), 341-375.
Solvbert, A., & Rismark, M. (2012). Learning spaces in mobile learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 43(1), 23-33. doi: 10.1177/1469787411429189
Stevens, E. (2012). Mobile education - the future of learning. Training Journal, (32)4, 46-49. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921234474?accountid=9838
Connecting the use of mobile devices within educational contexts parallels the beliefs of Roman rhetorician Quintilian (Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). Quintilian contended that children under the age of seven could benefit from education if it was in the form of play. This is similar to the idea of mobile apps as many apps are in the form of games. This coincides with John Locke’s ideas on education as he believed that it should take place at home and be play-like (Beatty, 1995). If mobile technology integration was put into this context, it would be encouraged in moderation.
Locke was an advocate for engaging students in learning activities and adapting according to
individual learning needs (Beatty, 1995; Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). As mobile devices are engaging for students and can be easily adapted according to needs, it can be assumed that Locke would acknowledge that the mobile technologies would be an appropriate learning tool. Similar to Locke, Rousseau, believed that children should be educated in the home but he felt learning should be fun and enjoyable (Schuel & Kleeck, 2010). Therefore, mobile devices provide learning opportunities that parallel historical theories and philosophies of learning.
Current Research:
Mobile technologies have quickly permeated the way we operate on a day-to-day basis (Merchant, 2012; Squires & Dikkers, 2012). Due to their affordability, they are a vital consumer item and provide their users with multiple applications, tools, and internet access (Johnson, Adams, Cummins, Estrada, Freeman & Ludgate, 2013; Merchant, 2012). Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes (2010) argue that educators would benefit from a stronger focus on students’ everyday use of mobile devices in and outside of the classroom.
Worldwide, more smartphones will be sold than feature phones (as cited in Norris & Soloway, 2011). Horace Dediu, a futurist specializing in all things mobile, put up a simple, black-and- white website that contained a meter to tick off his prediction in terms of days, hours, minutes, and seconds until the sales of smartphones overtake the sales of feature phones. His prediction was June 8, 2012. He felt that once the tipping point occurred, smartphones will no longer need to be called “smartphones”—they can and will simply be called ‘phones' (as cited in Norris & Soloway, 2011).
Essentially, every person on the planet that has running water—also has a mobile phone. There are approximately 6.8 billion people on the planet. Approximately 2.6 billion people do not have proper sanitation facilities. For example, they do not have water for drinking. There are approximately 4.18 billion mobile phones in circulation worldwide. Therefore, by doing the math, if you have potable water, you have a mobile phone. No other modern technology on the planet has that level of adoption (Norris & Soloway, 2011).
Stevens (2012) states, "Most organizations now believe that m-learning is a permanent feature; that it is here to stay" (p. 1). Morton claims that mobile learning is the next generation and mobile devices will be a tool of choice for learning in a similar way to a preferred learning style (as cited in Stevens, 2012). In the cooperate world, Stevens contends, "Other customers are using tablet PCs as diagnostic devices and need to record their activity while on the move. The good thing about these mobile devices is that the touchscreens are intuitive" (as cited in Stevens, 2012, p. 4). Therefore, the cooperate world must provide their customers with the expected mobile technologies.
Erickson (2011) cautions that utilizing mobile learning devices within the classroom setting will eventually require the classroom furniture to be redesigned. If mobile learning becomes a prominent learning style, a lack of physical activity or gross motor skills may inhibit development. It is recommended that, "...varieties of furniture should be integrated in student's learning to support differing learning styles" (Erickson, 2011, p. 36). Therefore, movable furniture is encouraged in order to create an effective learning environment.
Solvbert and Rismark (2012) claim that mobile learning environments allow for the exploration of a variety of learning activities. They contend that we must address and envision our students as continually on the move, learning anytime and anywhere, and learning a variety of topics.
However, they caution, "To realize the valuable affordances provided by m-learning environments, educators will need to undertake complex pedagogical reasoning in their
planning and teaching and must take into account how students act within various learning spaces" (Solvbert & Rismark, 2012, p. 32).
Research Questions:
It is suggested that further research into the advantages of mobile learning take place as many of the existing studies have weak evaluation and research designs (Koszalka & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, 2010). It is also suggested that m-learning requires a strategically established research agenda. Therefore, detailed qualitative research exploring mobile devices in interdisciplinary contexts is essential as part of further research in this area (Rogers, 2011).
Further areas for research include:
Does m-learning actually improve student learning in all educational contexts?
Is mobile learning sustainable within the education system? Are there areas of concern as the devices age?
Does mobile devices provide further engagement? Or does the technology seem engaging due to novelty?
Focusing on special needs within a classroom setting, what improvements have been noted utilizing the technology? Further qualitative studies into the progress of special needs students are required to solidify this research.
Has mobile learning proved to increase interdisciplinary academic achievement? What age levels benefit most from this learning tool?
What challenges to businesses arise as transactions and account management is completed through the use of mobile technologies? Are these practices always cost beneficial or a survival tool within a competing market?
References
Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: The culture of young children from the colonial era to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Erickson, P. W. (2011). Mobile Learning. American School & University, 83(7), 34-37.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2010). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now?
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC horizon report K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf
Koszalka, T., & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education. 31(2), 139-157. doi:10.1080/01587919.2010.498082
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and
schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 770–782.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01352.x
Norris, C.A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in the age of mobilism. Educational Technology, 51(6), 3-10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/968114535?accountid9838
Ntuli, E., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2012). Teacher assessment of young children learning with technology in early childhood education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(4), 1-15. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA305370169&v=2.1&u=ucalgary&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Rogers, K.D. (2011). Mobile learning devices: Essentials for principals. Bloominton, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Schuele, M., & Kleeck, A. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1), 341-375.
Solvbert, A., & Rismark, M. (2012). Learning spaces in mobile learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 43(1), 23-33. doi: 10.1177/1469787411429189
Stevens, E. (2012). Mobile education - the future of learning. Training Journal, (32)4, 46-49. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921234474?accountid=9838