Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Moving Toward the Effective Evaluation of Mobile Lear...
School of Linguistics, Adult and
Specialist Education
Organization/University University of Southern Queensland
Street A20...
Suffix
Division/Department School of Linguistics, Adult and
Specialist Education
Organization/University University of Sout...
evaluation from four aspects: (1) pedagogical learning, (2) pedagogical
teaching, (3) technical, and (4) organizational.
K...
1 Moving Toward the Effective Evaluation of Mobile Learning Initiatives
2 in Higher Education Institutions
3 Helen Farleya...
38 The University of Adelaide was one of the first Australian universities to provide mobile devices to
39 students on a la...
82 and frequently the potential pedagogical affordances of these devices are given less consideration.
83 Educators and cu...
127 podcasting provided supplementary material to the lecture. A less common use of podcasting was student-
128 generated,...
171 2.5 Interactivity
172 The interactivity enabled by mobile devices has been explored in higher education with generally...
215 and a connected society. Traxler (2010) noted that initial attempts to define mobile learning focused
216 exclusively o...
244 A Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework needs to consider a number of key issues such as the
245 technological support ...
284 4.1 The Evaluation of Technologies Framework: Ng and Nicholas (2013)
285 Ng and Nicholas 2013’s Evaluation of Technolo...
327 as formal learning in evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning as a paradigm shift in learning in the
328 highe...
366 • Pedagogical (learning): Exploration of the current expectations of mobile learning and insight into
367 current form...
393 2. Pedagogical (teaching): Educators from a variety of higher education institutions across the world
394 who have att...
436 The project team is also currently recruiting and conducting focus groups and interviews with educators
437 and studen...
480 Given this diversity, it becomes imperative to evaluate mobile learning initiatives to ascertain their
481 impact on l...
520 Dyson, L.E., A. Litchefield, E. Lawrence, R. Raban, and P. Leijdekkers. 2009. Advancing the m-learning
521 research age...
565 Hildmann, H., and J. Hildmann. 2009. A critical reflection on the position of mobile device based
566 tools to assist i...
612 Rogers, P.L. 2000. Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational
613 Computing Resea...
Index Terms:
e-Learning 7
Higher education 1
Mobile learning, higher education
Mobile devices 4–6
Mobile learning, higher ...
Author Queries
Query Refs. Details required
Q1 Please check if edit to sentence starting “A project to. . .” is okay.
Q2 P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Moving towards the effective evaluation of mobile learning initiatives in higher education

474 views

Published on

Mobile learning is viewed by many institutional leaders as the solution for a student cohort that is demanding an increasingly flexibility in study options. These students are fitting study around other aspects of their lives including work and caring responsibilities, or they are studying at a geographical location far removed from the university campus. With ubiquitous connectivity available in many parts of the world and with the incremental improvements in design and affordability of mobile devices, many students are using mobile technologies to access course materials and activities. Even so, there are relatively few formal mobile learning initiatives underway and even fewer evaluations of those initiatives. This is significant because without a rigorous evaluation of mobile learning, it is impossible to determine whether it provides a viable and cost-effective way of accessing courses for both the student and the institution. This chapter examines the broad groupings of uses for mobile devices for learning, before considering the evaluation frameworks that are currently in use. The characteristics, affordances and issues of these frameworks are briefly discussed. A project to develop a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework is introduced, which will consider evaluation from four aspects: 1) Pedagogical (Learning); 2) Pedagogical (Teaching); 3) Technical; and 4) Organizational.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Moving towards the effective evaluation of mobile learning initiatives in higher education

  1. 1. Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online Chapter Title Moving Toward the Effective Evaluation of Mobile Learning Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions Copyright Year 2015 Copyright Holder Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Corresponding Author Family Name Farley Particle Given Name Helen Suffix Division/Department Australian Digital Futures Institute Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street Y304, Toowoomba Campus, West Street City Toowoomba State QLD Postcode Q 4350 Country Australia Phone +61 7 4631 1738 Email helen.farley@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Murphy Particle Given Name Angela Suffix Division/Department Australian Digital Futures Institute Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street Y304, Toowoomba Campus, West Street City Toowoomba State QLD Postcode Q 4350 Country Australia Phone +61 7 4631 1638 Email angela.murphy@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Todd Particle Given Name Nicole Given Name Ann Suffix Division/Department
  2. 2. School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street A209, Springfield Campus, 4196 City Springfield Central State QLD Postcode 4300 Country Australia Phone +61 7 3470 4351 Email nicoleann.todd@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Lane Particle Given Name Michael Suffix Division/Department School of Management and Enterprise Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street T330, Toowoomba Campus, West Street City Toowoomba State QLD Postcode 4350 Country Australia Phone +61 7 4631 1268 Email michael.lane@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Hafeez-Baig Particle Given Name Abdul Suffix Division/Department School of Management and Enterprise Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street T336, Toowoomba Campus, West Street City Toowoomba State QLD Country Australia Phone +61 7 4631 1461 Email abdul.hafeez-baig@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Midgley Particle Given Name Warren
  3. 3. Suffix Division/Department School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education Organization/University University of Southern Queensland Street L416, Toowoomba Campus, West Street City Toowoomba State QLD Postcode 4350 Country Australia Phone +61 7 4631 5403 Email warren.midgley@usq.edu.au Author Family Name Johnson Particle Given Name Chris Suffix Division/Department Research School of Computer Science Organization/University Australian National University Street CSIT (108) Room N318 City Canberra State ACT Postcode 0200 Country Australia Phone 61 2 6125 4509 Fax 61 2 6125 0010 Email chris.johnson@anu.edu.au Abstract Mobile learning is viewed by many institutional leaders as the solution for a student cohort that is demanding an increasing flexibility in study options. These students are fitting study around other aspects of their lives including work and caring responsibilities, or they are studying at a geographical location far removed from the university campus. With ubiquitous connectivity available in many parts of the world and with the incremental improvements in design and affordability of mobile devices, many students are using mobile technologies to access course materials and activities. Even so, there are relatively few formal mobile learning initiatives underway and even fewer evaluations of those initiatives. This is significant because without a rigorous evaluation of mobile learning, it is impossible to determine whether it provides a viable and cost-effective way of accessing courses for both the student and the institution. This chapter examines the broad groupings of uses for mobile devices for learning, before considering the evaluation frameworks that are currently in use. The characteristics, affordances, and issues of these frameworks are briefly discussed. AQ1 project to develop a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework is introduced, which will consider
  4. 4. evaluation from four aspects: (1) pedagogical learning, (2) pedagogical teaching, (3) technical, and (4) organizational. Keywords (separated by “-”) Mobile learning - m-learning - Evaluation - Pedagogical approaches - Frameworks - Higher education - eLearning - Mobile devices
  5. 5. 1 Moving Toward the Effective Evaluation of Mobile Learning Initiatives 2 in Higher Education Institutions 3 Helen Farleya *, Angela Murphya , Nicole Ann Toddb , Michael Lanec , Abdul Hafeez-Baigd , Warren Midgleye and 4 Chris Johnsonf 5 a Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia 6 b School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, 7 QLD, Australia 8 c School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia 9 d School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia 10 e School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia 11 f Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia 12 Abstract 13 Mobile learning is viewed by many institutional leaders as the solution for a student cohort that is 14 demanding an increasing flexibility in study options. These students are fitting study around other aspects 15 of their lives including work and caring responsibilities, or they are studying at a geographical location far 16 removed from the university campus. With ubiquitous connectivity available in many parts of the world 17 and with the incremental improvements in design and affordability of mobile devices, many students are 18 using mobile technologies to access course materials and activities. Even so, there are relatively few 19 formal mobile learning initiatives underway and even fewer evaluations of those initiatives. This is 20 significant because without a rigorous evaluation of mobile learning, it is impossible to determine whether 21 it provides a viable and cost-effective way of accessing courses for both the student and the institution. 22 This chapter examines the broad groupings of uses for mobile devices for learning, before considering the 23 evaluation frameworks that are currently in use. The characteristics, affordances, and issues of these 24 frameworks are briefly discussed. AQ1 project to develop a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework is 25 introduced, which will consider evaluation from four aspects: (1) pedagogical learning, (2) pedagogical 26 teaching, (3) technical, and (4) organizational. 27 28 1 Introduction 29 Mobile learning is an emerging area of interest for higher education institutions, but both the theoretical 30 foundations and practical implications of mobile learning for those institutions are still being explored 31 (Kearney et al. 2012). Until fairly recently, research into the impact of mobile learning initiatives on 32 teaching and learning was still being undertaken on a fairly ad hoc basis within Australian universities. 33 Mobile learning initiatives are frequently championed by individual practitioners with little buy-in from 34 their institutions (Carter and Salyers 2013). Mobile learning is, however, being increasingly seen as a new 35 and compelling way to engage students. Consequently, a number of higher education institutions in 36 Australia have embraced the potential affordances of mobile technologies and implemented mobile 37 learning initiatives of varying sizes. *Email: helen.farley@usq.edu.au Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 1 of 18
  6. 6. 38 The University of Adelaide was one of the first Australian universities to provide mobile devices to 39 students on a large scale. The university handed out free iPads to all students enrolling in a science degree 40 in 2011, with the aim of providing students with flexible learning opportunities and teaching materials that 41 were more accessible, more relevant, and more frequently updated (Murphy 2011). The University of 42 Western Sydney (UWS) has more recently provided 11,000 iPads to all first year students and staff in 2013 43 to support learning and teaching innovation (Griffith 2012a). 44 These programs have attracted extensive attention both within the mainstream media and in academic 45 circles in relation to the potential pedagogical value of these initiatives. The National Tertiary Education 46 Union has been highly critical of the UWS program, citing that the initiative arose at the expense of some 47 language study courses which were abandoned. The university was also criticized for using expensive 48 iPad technologies, rather than cheaper notebooks using Android systems, which would potentially be 49 more useful for document processing and assignments (Griffith 2012b). These criticisms highlight the 50 types of concerns that may discourage institutional leaders from considering the wide-scale implemen- 51 tation of mobile learning projects. These concerns indicate that the readiness of students, educators, and 52 institutional leaders to effectively embrace the potential of mobile learning has yet to be fully be explored 53 in Australian higher education institutions. There is also significant variation in the literature regarding the 54 mobile technologies being used, the educational settings under investigation, and theoretical frameworks 55 to support the sustainability of mobile learning initiatives (Ng and Nicholas 2013). 56 Readiness is related to the concept of adoption phenomena. Readiness can be viewed as “behavioral 57 readiness,” “perceived readiness,” “organizational readiness,” technical readiness,” and “environmental 58 readiness.” For example, behavioral aspects can be directly borrowed from the previous adoption models 59 of Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010) in the context of 60 intrinsic motivation (Davis et al. 1992) and affect toward use (Thompson et al. 1991; Venkatesh 61 et al. 2003). Similarly, the concept of perceived readiness can be borrowed from a number of adoption, 62 innovation, and diffusion theories (e.g., see Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Davis et al. 1989; Rogers 2000). 63 The greater use of mobile technologies for learning and teaching has a number of significant implica- 64 tions for higher education institutions at a pedagogical, infrastructural, and policy level (Dahlstrom 2012; 65 see ▶ Learning to Teach with Mobile Technologies: Pedagogical Implications In and Outside the 66 Classroom by Kraglund-Gauthier, ▶ Framework for Design of Mobile Learning Strategies by Boude 67 Figueredo and Villamizar in this handbook). For example, prior to considering implementing these types 68 of initiatives, universities need to consider whether they are ready, i.e., whether current wireless internet 69 infrastructure should be upgraded or whether the format of current course materials is suitable for display 70 on mobile devices. The implications of providing students with mobile technologies as opposed to 71 encouraging students to bring their own device (BYOD) policies also require careful consideration. 72 This chapter provides an overview of the potential practical and theoretical implications of implementing 73 mobile learning initiatives at an institution-wide level. The chapter also presents an overview of current 74 models used to assist higher education institutions in evaluating the potential impact and benefit of mobile 75 learning initiatives. 76 2 Influence of Mobile Learning Initiatives on Teaching and Learning Within 77 Higher Education: Review of Current Use and Pedagogical Goals 78 When considering whether or not to implement mobile learning initiatives in higher education institu- 79 tions, it is easy for leaders and administrators to become fixated on the financial, logistical, or techno- 80 logical challenges or benefits. Cost, adaptability, and scalability are most frequently cited as the drivers 81 encouraging the adoption of mobile technologies in specific learning environments (Patten et al. 2006), Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 2 of 18
  7. 7. 82 and frequently the potential pedagogical affordances of these devices are given less consideration. 83 Educators and curriculum designers are faced with the challenge of identifying ways to use mobile 84 technologies for more than simply practical purposes and need to do more than simply alter the 85 presentation style of a traditional lecture or alter the physical locale of teaching and learning. Pedagogical 86 change must accompany the adoption of mobile devices (Jeng et al. 2010), and educators are faced with 87 the challenge of leveraging mobile devices in ways that are educationally appropriate rather than 88 technologically complex (Roschelle 2003). Research also needs to move on from the usability and 89 features of mobile devices to incorporate a broader pedagogical framework (Kissinger 2013). 90 Five aspects of the use of mobile learning have emerged from the literature: (1) altered delivery of 91 content and knowledge storage, (2) portability, (3) creativity, (4) bridging the knowledge and application 92 gap, and (5) interactivity. Mobile learning allows for an alternate delivery of content and knowledge to the 93 traditional lecture format with students sitting within a classroom passively listening to a knowledgeable 94 person at the front of the room. This is related to the issue of portability of devices students use for 95 learning. Portability also frees students from the traditional lecture situation and allows them to learn at a 96 location remote from the campus. Mobile devices also allow for greater opportunities for developing 97 creativity in students. Another positive aspect of mobile learning is the development of the link between 98 the interests and experiences of students with higher education – bridging the knowledge and application 99 gap. Finally, the aspect of interactivity also broadens the learning experiences of higher education students 100 beyond the traditional passive learning situation. These five aspects will be explored in more detail below. 101 2.1 Altered Delivery of Content and Knowledge Storage 102 In studies of iPads, particularly in higher education, these devices were found to be mainly used as 103 repositories of content and portals to delivery mechanisms such as iTunes U for course materials (Cooper 104 2012; Murphy 2011). Further, students preferred the use of the iPad when the material was integrated with 105 the curriculum (Manuguerra and Petocz 2011). Kissinger (2013) explored the learning experiences of 106 students using eBooks in higher education as a replacement to traditional textbooks and other reference 107 material and found students expressed feelings of competence and valued using the eBooks for their 108 learning. Students appreciated the portability of eBooks. Though recently, doubt has been cast on whether 109 students learn as effectively from eBooks as from printed materials (Flood 2014). Much work remains to 110 be done in this space. 111 In order to accommodate learning across a range of devices in a variety of contexts, course materials 112 should be provided in a number of common file formats. Students typically use a variety of mobile devices 113 using a range of operating systems (iOS, Android, Windows, Blackberry). For those students using laptop 114 computers, materials should be provided as PDFs, or in the .doc, .xls, or.ppt formats (Murphy et al. 2014). 115 To enable students to be able to annotate lecture slides (for face-to-face students) or to access notes 116 when on the go or when grabbing portions of time opportunistically (face-to-face and distance students), 117 notes should be provided in various formats that match the students’ study practices: not just in HTML, 118 .doc, and .ppt but also PDFs which can be annotated with many apps and can be used across various 119 platforms and with various applications (Murphy et al. 2014). Portability of information formats to 120 different brands of device, and the creative tools currently available on them, is a major concern. 121 2.2 Portability 122 Devices such as iPads have also been used for student learning in the field, such as with paramedic 123 students (Williams et al. 2011) making the most of physical portability of mobile devices. Podcasting also 124 moves students from the traditional place of the lecture to a chosen location (Dyson et al. 2009; Gkatzidou 125 and Pearson 2009). McGarr (2009) reviewed the literature and found that podcasting in higher education 126 was most commonly used to provide recordings of otherwise conventional lectures. In addition, Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 3 of 18
  8. 8. 127 podcasting provided supplementary material to the lecture. A less common use of podcasting was student- 128 generated, creative podcasts. 129 It would not be helpful to record lectures as podcasts with those subjects that require complex formulaeQ2 130 to be demonstrated and so on, but for most courses, this would be useful. Podcasts allow students to make 131 use of the time when they are on the go, moving between venues, while exercising, during a commute, and 132 so on. Again, podcasts should be provided in multiple file formats to allow use on a wide range of devices. 133 An educator does not necessarily need high-end hardware to record podcasts. Most smartphones have a 134 voice recorder and this will produce recordings of a sufficient quality for most purposes (Murphy 135 et al. 2014). 136 2.3 Creativity 137 A greater use of mobile learning for creative purposes rather than simple replacement of the traditional 138 learning environment is required. Eyadat and Eyadat (2010) named the connection between technology 139 and creativity in higher education “the missing link.” These researchers found that there was a significant 140 difference between the experimental (using technology) and control (receiving traditional teaching) 141 groups of students in their creativity levels. A creative problem solving framework and mobile tool was 142 employed by Wood and Bilsborow (2014) with higher education students, finding that students were more 143 confident to generate solutions to problems and did, indeed, demonstrate greater creativity and divergence 144 in their assignments. Similarly, Terkowsky and his colleagues found that students could work creatively in 145 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects using ePortfolios, remote access 146 laboratories, and learning environments accessed via mobile devices. The activities included facets that 147 were known to promote creativity, namely, learning by doing, producing a product, and fostering self- 148 reliance (Terkowsky et al. 2013). The sound and video recorders, cameras, and the ability to access web 149 2.0 tools for editing and sharing found in most modern mobile devices make it very easy for students to 150 create and share content, wherever they are and whenever they want. These affordances of mobile 151 devices, coupled with carefully designed activities, can foster creativity in students far beyond what is 152 generally encountered in the traditional, didactic classroom. 153 2.4 Bridging the Knowledge and Application Gap 154 Augmented reality mediated via mobile devices has been employed in order to better align student 155 experiences and interests with higher education learning and the application of that learning, as well as 156 encouraging creativity and novel solutions to problems. Augmented reality can facilitate problem solving 157 via presentation of scenarios and gameplay (Herro et al. 2013; Squire and Klopfer 2007). It can help 158 learners visualize complex structures, such as anatomical structures, by enabling them to virtually 159 manipulate or walk around an object (Wu et al. 2013). 160 Even so, using mobile devices for augmented reality gaming is not all positive as Hildmann and 161 colleagues found in a multinational comparison study. There were more participants strongly opposed to 162 the mandatory use of mobile devices in their higher education courses than were strongly supportive 163 (Hildmann and Hildmann 2009). The authors note, however, that the results may not be representative of 164 the wider university population. The five studies reported on included from 36 to 221 participants, a 165 relatively small sample. Problems of connectivity are particularly heightened when using mobile devices 166 for augmented reality and gaming (Herro et al. 2013; Hildmann and Hildmann 2009). Also, there can be 167 issues when the mobile devices have to interface with other technologies or require ubiquitous connec- 168 tivity for optimal performance (Wu et al. 2013). These technological difficulties can lead to students 169 disengaging from the learning activity, frustrated at the time spent in troubleshooting issues, and diverting 170 attention away from the learning. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 4 of 18
  9. 9. 171 2.5 Interactivity 172 The interactivity enabled by mobile devices has been explored in higher education with generally positive 173 results (Franklin 2011). For example, the use of microblogging services such as Twitter and other social 174 networking sites such as Facebook was incorporated into multiple higher education courses in New 175 Zealand over a four-year period with perceived success by students (Cochrane and Bateman 2010). 176 Again, these authors said that integration of mobile learning into subjects requires a paradigm shift on 177 behalf of the lecturers and this takes time. Cheung and Hew (2009) also noted that mobile devices were 178 most commonly used as communication and multimedia access tools which have resulted in technology 179 simply serving as a different means to the same instructional or learning goal. To effect real change, the 180 affordances of mobile devices which enable interactivity must be leveraged. 181 The levels of interactivity between lecturer and student have also been enhanced through the use of 182 mobile devices for immediate assessment of student understanding (Cochrane and Bateman 2010). Using 183 wireless technology and mobile devices such as iPod Touch and iPhone, for example, Stav and his 184 colleagues were able to provide a more flexible and cheaper system than “clickers” for students to use in 185 class (Stav et al. 2010). Using mobile devices in this way allows for more interactivity with the lecturer 186 than just a questioning of students when only one student at a time can respond. It also allows for 187 interaction by students who are normally too shy to respond in the classroom (Lam et al. 2011). 188 Based on the research literature in the domain of wireless, handheld devices in an educational 189 environment, mobile learning is not limited simply to retrieving information and resources. Mobile 190 learning can be much more sophisticated. For example, mobile learning can involve interactively linking 191 with other learners around the world, peer reviewing and learning in real time, and participating in a 192 learning environment irrespective of the location. Hence, mobile learning provides the ability for 193 participants to share resources in a live learning environment. Wireless, handheld devices in the higher 194 education domain have enormous potential to improve learning and the educational experience of 195 students, which is yet to be realized. However, these technologies and the evaluation of their use for 196 learning pose some challenges. 197 3 Challenges in Evaluating Mobile Learning Initiatives 198 With mobile learning, the focus is less on specific mobile devices and more on enabling students to engage 199 in learning from any location and at any time, regardless of the type of technology in use. Mobile 200 technologies have features and functionality that can be used to supplement and enhance both online and 201 blended learning environments and therefore have the potential to deliver a wide variety of new outcomes 202 for learners, lecturers, and the educational system. As a result, there is a need to determine the specific 203 requirements when considering learning design in the context of mobile learning. Hence, it is necessary to 204 validate the impact of mobile learning principles and initiatives on actual teaching and learning outcomes. 205 A common problem encountered in evaluation models for educational technologies such as mobile 206 devices is that many models focus only on isolated components of mobile learning. For example, models 207 may single out the device, the user, or the institutional context with little consideration of how all of these 208 may interact. These complex interactions need to be suitably expressed within any framework or model 209 under consideration. After a thorough review of the literature, Ng and Nicholas (2012Q3 ) indicated that there 210 is currently no appropriate model of sustainable mobile learning in institutions. 211 Fundamental to the evaluation of mobile learning is the need to conceptually define just what “mobile 212 learning” is. John Traxler (2007), professor of mobile learning at Wolverhampton University, noted that 213 “mobile” is far more than a mere qualification of the concept of learning. Instead, mobile learning has 214 emerged as a distinct concept complementary to other emerging concepts such as the mobile workforce Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 5 of 18
  10. 10. 215 and a connected society. Traxler (2010) noted that initial attempts to define mobile learning focused 216 exclusively on the mobile devices themselves, making particular reference to handheld or palmtop 217 electronic devices. The next definitions showed an increased focus on mobility, but that focus was largely 218 on the mobility of the technology. The following category shifted away from considering the technology 219 to instead underscore the mobility of the learner and the learning process. Those definitions of mobile 220 learning which only incorporate a description of the technology may become obsolete as mobile 221 technologies and the emerging features of these technologies are changing quickly (Farley et al. 2013). 222 There is a convergence of mobile technologies in single devices which can function as a phone, media 223 player, multimedia, and wireless computer with GPS capability and sensor capability. Further, the 224 explosion of mobile apps can potentially extend and leverage this growing list of multifunctional features 225 (Sharples et al. 2007). Another equally important convergence that has also been occurring is personalized 226 lifelong learning through the interplay between mobile devices and new ways of learning that are 227 emerging (see Table 1). 228 Table 1 provides examples of the interplay that can occur between new ways of learning and the current 229 and increasingly expanding multifunctionality of mobile devices. It is worth noting that mobile apps 230 further extend the ways which this multifunctionality can be leveraged for learning. Traxler (2007) makes 231 a good point in this regard, in that there are also constraints involved with mobile learning facilitated by 232 students using BYO mobile devices as not every student will have access to the latest mobile devices. The 233 technological diversity and limitations of mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets provide as 234 many challenges as well as opportunities for academics and institutions wanting to embrace mobile 235 learning in the delivery of the courses. Education and mobile learning are not at the forefront when these 236 types of mobile devices are designed, manufactured, and marketed with corporate, retail, and recreational 237 use in mind. Sharples et al. (2007) suggested that from a theoretical perspective, mobile learning must be 238 tested against the following criteria: 239 • Is it significantly different from current theories of classroom, workplace, or lifelong learning? 240 • Does it account for the mobility of learners? 241 • Does it cover both formal and informal learning? 242 • Does it theorize learning as a constructive and social process? 243 • Does it analyze learning as a personal and situated activity mediated by technology? t1:1 Table 1 Interplay between new learning approaches and mobile technologies creating new learning opportunities (Adapted from Sharples et al. 2007) New learning Multifunctionality of mobile devices Examples t1:2 1. Personalized 1. Personal Digital identity, contacts, calendar, photos, videos t1:3 2. Learner centered 2. User centered Learning can be contextualized to an individual’s preferences and technological capabilities of a mobile device t1:4 3. Situated 3. Mobile Learning can be situated to a user’s location t1:5 4. Collaborative 4. Networked Learning activities and outcomes can be shared with others regardless of their location, as long as they have mobile broadband internet access, either synchronously or asynchronously t1:6 5. Ubiquitous 5. Ubiquitous Mobile technologies are readily accessible to all across a range of mobile devices and different types of networks with internet access t1:7 6. Lifelong 6. Durable Increasing mobile learning can be stored permanently as part of the digital footprint of users t1:8 Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 6 of 18
  11. 11. 244 A Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework needs to consider a number of key issues such as the 245 technological support for mobile learning. Cochrane (2012) listed technological support as one of the 246 critical success factors for mobile learning projects, suggesting a series of introductory technical work- 247 shops and intentional Communities of Practice during the planning and implementation of mobile 248 learning initiatives (Cochrane 2012). Botcicki and colleagues (2011) recommended both technological 249 and social scaffolding were necessary for students to fully participate in collaborative mobile learning 250 opportunities. Technological support also needs to be considered in those instances where mobile learning 251 is being deployed in developing countries where the technical infrastructure and support are likely to be 252 limited. This aspect of mobile learning needs to be evaluated from the student, academic staff, and 253 institutional level perspectives. 254 Beyond investigating and describing the technological aspects of a mobile learning initiative, a number 255 of other questions need to be asked and represented in a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework: 256 • Are there sufficient mobile learning opportunities that can be delivered to students and do these mobile 257 learning opportunities leverage the multifunctionality of mobile devices such as smartphones and 258 tablets as the technological boundaries of mobile learning are becoming blurred? 259 • How do we accommodate the needs of students who do not have access to mobile devices and/or do not 260 have access to mobile broadband internet? 261 • How can institutions provide personalized mobile learning that accommodates the learning styles and 262 needs of individuals and their technological capability? 263 • How do we evaluate academic staff effectiveness in developing mobile learning opportunities which 264 leverage the multifunctionality capability of mobile devices including always on connectivity? 265 • How do we evaluate the effectiveness of mobile learning opportunities from a pedagogical perspective 266 and are these in line with the broad aims and objectives of academic institutions? 267 • Is institutional policy providing the impetus and support for academics to develop mobile learning 268 opportunities for its students? 269 • How do we accommodate the diversity of student populations in providing mobile learning 270 opportunities? 271 272 4 Development of Frameworks for Evaluating Mobile Learning in Higher 273 Education 274 A Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) eLearning program report, published in late 2010, stated 275 that the most significant issue in mobile learning is the absence of full-scale evaluations of mobile 276 technologies in the higher education sector (Wishart and Green 2010). The same report also bemoaned 277 the lack of a stable model from which to effectively research the role, drivers, and impact of mobility on 278 learning (Park 2011). There have been several attempts to theorize mobile learning, yet none have 279 succeeded in ensuring a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the swiftly developing landscape of 280 mobile learning initiatives, networks, and technologies. Some models are emerging directly in response to 281 the proliferation of mobile learning initiatives; others are adapted from existing evaluation frameworks for 282 other technologies. The section below will provide a brief, critical overview of a few of the mobile 283 learning frameworks and models identified in the research literature. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 7 of 18
  12. 12. 284 4.1 The Evaluation of Technologies Framework: Ng and Nicholas (2013) 285 Ng and Nicholas 2013’s Evaluation of Technologies Framework is focused on mobile learning in primary 286 and secondary schools, rather than in higher education institutions. Their research addressed how the 287 interactions between stakeholders and between users and devices influence the sustainability of a mobile 288 learning innovation in a particular institution. The emphasis is on how person-centered notions of 289 sustainability are important for innovation. This Technology Evaluation Framework explains the inter- 290 play between a range of players or stakeholders and provides a holistic picture of mobile learning which 291 considers the roles of the key stakeholders in the adoption of mobile learning (Ng and Nicholas 2013). 292 Though useful, there are significant implications in applying this model to mobile learning in the higher 293 education context. Individual educators are more likely to determine the successful adoption of any 294 mobile learning initiative, and typically, universities are much larger orders of magnitude and complexity 295 than individual schools. The Evaluation of Technologies Framework has emerged relatively recently and, 296 as yet, has had limited impact on the planning and implementation of mobile learning initiatives in higher 297 education. However, this may change given time. 298 4.2 A Critical Analysis: Frohberg, Göth, and Schwabe (2009) 299 Frohberg et al. (2009) critical analysis can’t really be considered a framework – no formal structure is 300 proposed. However, the authors identify the central benefits and values of 102 mobile learning initiatives, 301 before naming common pitfalls and making some recommendations. Frohberg and colleagues reviewed 302 the literature using a methodology based on the work of Sharples et al. (2007). A weakness of this 303 approach, by their own admission, is that this work is literature-based and not based on primary data. It is 304 also possible that key literature was missed because key studies could have been published in journals of 305 another discipline rather than in the educational technology or mobile learning journals (Frohberg 306 et al. 2009). It was also formulated before the emergence of tablets and smartphones. However, this 307 research makes an important point and concludes by saying that mobile learning is best used for learning 308 in context, rather than just information delivery which can be done by other means. The researchers also 309 suggest that advanced learners be targeted first (Frohberg et al. 2009). As the title suggests, this may 310 indicate the future of mobile learning, yet very few educators are ready for such a nuanced and advanced 311 view of mobile learning. 312 4.3 A Framework for Analyzing Mobile Learning: Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2007) 313 Sharples et al. (2007) argue that conversation is the driving process of learning. This research builds on the 314 work of Laurillard (2002) which previously built on the work of Pask (1975). This research is important as 315 a foundational work which is specific to mobile learning. However, this research was conducted before 316 tablets and smartphones become mainstream consumer devices, although it does refer to PDAs. This 317 research provided some useful insights by looking into individual mobile learning initiatives which is 318 appropriate given when it was written, well before the widespread adoption of mobile devices such as 319 laptops, tablets, and smartphones. 320 4.4 Pedagogical Forms for Mobile Learning: Laurillard 2007 (Based on Work in 2002) 321 Laurillard’s (2007) Conversational Framework has gained considerable traction in educational technol- 322 ogy research, but is not mobile specific. The basis of this framework in formal learning is that it rests on 323 two levels: (1) a “discursive” level between student and teacher which accommodates theory, concepts, 324 and description building and (2) an “experiential” level, also between student and teacher, but which 325 focuses on practice, activity, and procedure building; both levels are interactive. Interestingly, this 326 research also considers the importance of informal or unstructured learning which may be as important Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 8 of 18
  13. 13. 327 as formal learning in evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning as a paradigm shift in learning in the 328 higher education sector. 329 5 Developing a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework 330 Over the previous decade, a number of studies have been conducted across sectors to investigate the role 331 of mobile learning in learning and teaching (e.g., Elias 2011; Biggs and Justice 2011; Wong 2012). These 332 studies consistently demonstrate that there are a significant number of difficulties that hinder the adoption 333 of mobile learning, both at an institutional and at a user level, both educator and learner. Higher education 334 leaders are wary about investing heavily in new mobile technologies because of the rate with which they 335 become superseded. Consequently, only a small number of higher education institutions have deployed 336 well-resourced mobile learning initiatives. 337 Researchers at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), in partnership with researchers at the 338 Australian National University (ANU) and the University of South Australia (UniSA), are working to 339 develop a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework (MLEF). This is one of the five projects at USQ 340 funded under the Australian Government’s Collaborative Research Network funding secured by the three 341 partner institutions. The aim of the MLEF project is to support leaders and educators in higher education 342 institutions to provide sustainable mobile learning opportunities to students. This project will result in 343 three significant outcomes: 344 1. A standardized model to explore how mobile learning initiatives impact on learning and teaching in 345 higher education 346 2. A review and analysis of the broad spectrum of pilot studies and initiatives that have been implemented 347 in Australia and elsewhere and the kinds of approaches used to evaluate them 348 3. A Mobile Learning Evaluation toolkit: a set of principles, procedures, and methods that can be used to 349 promote the collection and review of information related to new mobile technologies, the objective 350 evaluation of mobile learning initiatives, and prioritization of proposed investments in mobile learning 351 within various learning contexts 352 In order to measure the educative value of a particular educational technology, Quinton et al. (2010) 353 recommended three areas of focus: pedagogical, technical, and organizational. For the purpose of this 354 project, this model will be adapted by further breaking down the area of pedagogical to pedagogical 355 (teaching) and pedagogical (learning), so that four primary themes will be explored during the data 356 collection and analysis activities. The challenges, needs, and issues will be examined at each level when 357 considering the implementation of mobile learning initiatives. Therefore, this project will focus on the 358 following four areas: 359 • Organizational: Clarification of the institutional policies and practices that currently support or hinder 360 the implementation of mobile learning initiatives 361 • Technical: Identification of the supporting technical infrastructure and technical support, as well as the 362 priorities, standards, and protocols that will impact on the success of mobile learning initiatives 363 • Pedagogical (teaching): Reflection on the strengths and inefficiencies of current mobile learning 364 practices as well as the barriers and critical success factors that impact on the adoption of mobile 365 learning initiatives Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 9 of 18
  14. 14. 366 • Pedagogical (learning): Exploration of the current expectations of mobile learning and insight into 367 current formal or informal mobile learning practices to identify gaps in current services and student 368 learning needs 369 In addition to the four areas above, this research has identified that the “readiness” of the institution and 370 the learning and teaching environment through the wireless handheld devices is a critical component for 371 the successful implementation of mobile learning initiatives. “Readiness” is defined as the extent to which 372 the educational institution is prepared to deploy and support mobile learning initiatives in terms of 373 technology, organization, management, and learning and teaching resources. Figure 1 is a diagrammatic 374 representation of the relationship between the various aspects of higher education impacting on mobile 375 learning initiatives. 376 The Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework project aims to create a flexible framework to fulfill the 377 foreseeable needs of users, both educators and learners, in the deployment, support, and evaluation of 378 mobile learning initiatives. An iterative approach will be employed, each phase incorporating the 379 learnings from the preceding phase, allowing the inclusion of emerging innovations as the project 380 progresses. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) methods will be employed in the develop- 381 ment of the project. This methodology has evolved through the broadening of participatory action 382 research (PAR) into evaluation (Lennie 2006). It employs a holistic approach, accounting for the diverse 383 perceptions and interpretations of project participants, collaboratively engaging them across all levels of 384 the project (Estrella 2000). These methodological underpinnings of the project will confirm that the 385 project outcomes are relevant across a wide range of real-world learning contexts. 386 5.1 Stage 1: Development of the Mobile Learning Evaluation Criteria 387 The focus of the first stage of the project will be on developing the preliminary evaluation criteria and 388 framework. The following groups, representative of the four foci of the framework 389 (pedagogical – teaching and learning – technical, and organizational), will be consulted to pinpoint the 390 needs, expectations, and challenges when considering the deployment of mobile learning initiatives: 391 1. Pedagogical (learning): Students at each of the three partner institutions who are interested in mobile 392 learning who will be able to contribute input on needs and preferences Pedagogical (Learning) Pedagogical (Teaching) Technical Organizational Student perspective Learning needs and desires Current and intended use Demographic and social context Educator perspective Beliefs and pedagogies Critical success factors/barriers Context and learning objectives Processes and policies Organizational barriers Resourcing Technological context Institutional strategy/vision Focus and commitment Leadership support Sector context R e a d i n e s s R e a d i n e s s Fig. 1 The relationship between various aspects of higher education impacting on mobile learning initiatives Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 10 of 18
  15. 15. 393 2. Pedagogical (teaching): Educators from a variety of higher education institutions across the world 394 who have attempted to implement mobile learning initiatives 395 3. Technical: ICT or learning systems that support representatives responsible for technical infrastruc- 396 ture, standards, and protocols 397 4. Organizational: Senior management at the partner institutions and higher education institutions across 398 the world who have implemented pilot studies or institution-wide mobile learning initiatives 399 400 As participatory action research forms a fundamental part of the project, participants will be invited to 401 review and comment on research findings and deliverables. Social media channels established as part of 402 this project and a project blog will be used to enable these interactions. 403 5.2 Stage 2: Validation of Evaluation Criteria and Development of Models and 404 Frameworks 405 The evaluation criteria will be validated during second stage of the project. This stage also sees the 406 confirmation and development of the framework. In order to ensure that the evaluation criteria are reliable 407 and representative of the Australian higher education sector, a large-scale survey will be deployed. Four 408 survey instruments will be developed, corresponding to each of the framework’s foci. Data collected 409 during the first stage of the project will serve as the item pool for the surveys. These surveys will measure 410 and describe institutional context, adoption drivers and barriers, user expectations and needs, pedagogical 411 criteria, and the perceived impact of mobile learning initiatives. The draft instruments will be sent to the 412 participants and a panel of experts for formal review. The first iteration of the survey instrument will be 413 piloted on a sample of students and educators at one of the partner universities. The data collected will be 414 analyzed using SPSS and the results will be used to refine the instruments. The data obtained from 415 participants completing the refined surveys will be used to calculate reliability and validity of the 416 instruments, validate the framework using techniques such as structural equation modeling (SEM), and 417 obtain the normative data. The data will also be analyzed in order to segment and profile the differences in 418 mobile learning by students and educators across various regions, demographics, age groups, and study 419 fields. 420 5.3 Stage 3: Finalization of the Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework 421 During the final stage of the project, the finalized Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework and resources 422 will be made available on the online website to be accessed freely by the education community. The 423 toolkit will also act as a resource for the community that will enable the identification of mobile learning 424 initiatives that have been demonstrated in pilot and experimental studies to contribute to high-quality 425 learning experiences and which can be reused and adapted across learning contexts. 426 The project is currently in the first stage: development of the mobile learning evaluation criteria. This 427 component of the research has included an extensive project management phase which involved devel- 428 oping the preliminary project website and blog and development of the project plan. During the initial 429 stages of planning the research activities and conducting a literature review, it was identified that few 430 researchers are in agreement about the definition, attributes, and affordances of mobile learning. This was 431 a gap in the research identified by the project team that requires redress in order to develop a theoretically 432 sound evaluation framework. Consequently, an online Delphi survey was developed to reach out to 433 experts in the mobile learning research community in order to develop a consensus definition of mobile 434 learning. The findings from the final phase of the Delphi technique will contribute to the foundation of the 435 Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 11 of 18
  16. 16. 436 The project team is also currently recruiting and conducting focus groups and interviews with educators 437 and students at the three universities (USQ, UniSA, and ANU). The interviews with mobile learning 438 pioneers will be held in the form of webinars that will be available for participants of the mobile learning 439 research community to attend. These webinars will also be made available as open educational resources 440 on the project website to be used and accessed freely, accompanied by a case study about the project. 441 Key learnings that have been identified during this phase are that educators and researchers have 442 differing ideas about what mobile learning means and that this disparity in understanding often hinders 443 adoption of mobile technologies for learning and teaching among educators. An additional learning is that 444 sufficient time for effective project management and planning is a key consideration when developing 445 large-scale research studies, and the amount of time required for these activities can be easily 446 underestimated. 447 6 Future Directions 448 Mobile learning has surfaced as a new learning paradigm, becoming an intense focus of research as the 449 technologies become ever more capable of supporting learning in both blended and mobile-only modes 450 (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2011; Engel et al. 2011). The ubiquitous connectivity of mobile technologies 451 enables new ways of communicating, erases physical boundaries, and allows for the formation and 452 support of distributed communities of learners (Garrison 2011, p.1). As the National Broadband Network 453 (NBN) becomes more widely available in Australia, enabling ultrahigh-speed connectivity and unprec- 454 edented levels of access, education will shift from face-to-face and traditional distance education models 455 to mobile models. This will enable educators to reach out to learners in regional, rural, and remote areas. 456 Mobile devices provided and supported by the university make network and information administra- 457 tion manageable. But devices are expensive for the institution, and students typically already own one or 458 more mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. These are devices that they bring to 459 campus and expect to use directly in learning and in support activities. Allowing the practice of bring your 460 own device (BYOD) enables the university to shift the costs of ownership and administration to the user 461 from the institution but faces the administration of the university wireless access network with security 462 risks from allowing a wide range of devices and systems access over its enterprise network, in common 463 with other noneducational institutions (Godfrey 2013). These concerns typically lead to the university 464 barring or restricting the use of some operating systems and applications that users normally rely on, 465 turning the normally seamless device and services into something visibly patchy and possibly crippled. 466 Ironically, these restrictions can mean that the learner may experience a worse mobile learning environ- 467 ment when on campus, despite being closer to the hub of face-to-face learning activities. For the 468 institution to reduce these access barriers for the sake of mobile learning will mean an increased cost in 469 network administration to maintain network security, undercutting the original promise of reduced cost 470 from BYOD and mobility. 471 However, slow institutions have been to adapt their provision of services and content; students are 472 using their own portable devices. They choose between their devices for specific purposes, preferring 473 smaller portable devices such as tablets for consumption (reading) and larger or more fixed devices 474 (laptops and desktops) for creation of content (writing) (Dahlstrom 2012) – and choosing smartphones 475 and tablets to support and manage their formal and informal learning activities, although possibly using 476 different apps for social and academic purposes (e.g., see ▶ Tutors in Pockets for Economics by Zhang 477 et al. in this handbook). In reviewing the literature, five aspects of the use of mobile learning have 478 emerged, namely, (1) altered delivery of content and knowledge storage, (2) portability, (3) creativity, 479 (4) bridging the knowledge and application gap, and (5) interactivity. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 12 of 18
  17. 17. 480 Given this diversity, it becomes imperative to evaluate mobile learning initiatives to ascertain their 481 impact on learning and to ensure their sustainability allowing for the considerable investment of time, 482 money, and resources. Though a number of evaluation frameworks exist, either emerging as a direct result 483 of the increased emphasis on mobile learning or through the adaptation of other eLearning frameworks, 484 none are sufficiently nuanced to address the issues and answer the challenges associated with deploying 485 mobile learning initiatives across a wide range of higher education contexts. Consequently, the latter part 486 of this paper describes a project underway at the University of Southern Queensland, the Australian 487 National University, and the University of South Australia that is more pragmatic in its approach. The 488 project will develop a Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework that will aid in the selection and 489 justification of mobile learning initiatives. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) methods 490 will be used to develop outcomes and deliverables. The resultant Mobile Learning Evaluation Framework 491 will consider the issues and challenges associated with deploying and sustaining mobile learning 492 initiatives from four distinct perspectives: (1) pedagogicalQ4 learning, (2) pedagogical teaching, (3) techni- 493 cal, and (4) organizational. 494 7 Cross-References 495 ▶ Framework for Design of Mobile Learning Strategies 496 ▶ Learning to Teach with Mobile Technologies: Pedagogical Implications In and Outside the Classroom 497 ▶ Tutors in Pockets for Economics 498Q5 Q6 References 499 Ally, Mohamed. 2013. Mobile learning: From research to practice to impact education. Learning and 500 Teaching Higher in Education: Gulf Perspectives 10(2): 1–10. 501 Biggs, B., and R. Justice. 2011. M-learning: The next evolution. Chief Learning Officer 10(4): 38–41. 502 Botcicki, I., C.-K. Looi, and L.-H. Wong. 2011. Supporting mobile collaborative activities through 503 Scaffolded Flexible grouping. Educational Technology & Society 14(3): 190–202. 504 Carter, L., and V. Salyers. 2013. E-learning as educational innovation in universities. In The Routledge 505 international handbook of innovation education, ed. L.V. Shavinina, 456–470. Abingdon: Routledge. 506 Cheung, W., and K. Hew. 2009. A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld 507 devices in K-12 and higher education settings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(2): 508 153–183. 509 Cochrane, T. 2012. Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British 510 Journal of Educational Technology 45(1): 65–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01384.x. 511 Cochrane, T., and R. Bateman. 2010. Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile 512 Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(1): 1–14. 513 Cooper, K.J. 2012. An iPad education? Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 29(3): 10–11. 514 Dahlstrom, E. 2012. Study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville: 515 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. 516 Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: 517 A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8): 982–1003. 518 Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in 519 the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(14): 1111–1132. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 13 of 18
  18. 18. 520 Dyson, L.E., A. Litchefield, E. Lawrence, R. Raban, and P. Leijdekkers. 2009. Advancing the m-learning 521 research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Educa- 522 tional Technology 25(2): 250–267. 523 Elias, T. 2011. Universal instructional design principles for M-learning. International Review of Research 524 in Open and Distance Learning 12(2): 143–156. 525 Engel, G., R. Palloff, and K. Pratt. 2011. Using mobile technology to empower student learning. Paper 526 presented at the 27th annual conference on distance teaching and learning, University of Wisconsin. 527 Estrella, M. 2000. Learning from change. In Learning from change: Issues and experiences in partici- 528 patory monitoring and evaluation, ed. M. Estrella, J. Blauert, D. Campilan, J. Gaventa, J. Gonsalves, 529 I. Guijt, D. Johnson, and R. Ricafort. London: IDRC (International Development Research Centre). 530 Eyadat, W.M., and Y.A. Eyadat. 2010. Instructional technology and creativity among university students: 531 The missing link. World Journal on Educational Technology 2(2): 87–99. 532 Farley, H., A. Murphy, and S. Rees. 2013. Revisiting the definition of mobile learning. Paper presented at 533 the proceedings of the 30th Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education 534 conference (ASCILITE 2013), Sydney. 535 Ferran-Ferrer, Núria, Muriel Garreta Domingo, Josep Prieto-Blazquez, Cesar Corcoles, Teresa Sancho- 536 Vinuesa, and Francesc Santanach. 2014. Mobile learning in higher education. In Increasing access 537 through mobile learning, ed. Mohamed Ally and Avgoustos Tsinakos. Athabasca: Commonwealth of 538 Learning/Athabasca University. 539 Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and 540 research. Reading: Addison-Wesley. 541 Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach. 542 New York: Taylor & Francis. 543 Flood, A. 2014. Readers absorb less on kindles than on paper, study finds. The Guardian. August 20. 544 Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper- 545 study-plot-ereader-digitisation 546 Franklin, T. 2011. Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational 547 Technology 10(4): 261–275. 548 Frohberg, D., C. Göth, and G. Schwabe. 2009. Mobile learning projects – A critical analysis of the state of 549 the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25(4): 307–331. 550 Garrison, D.R. 2011. Elearning in the 21st century, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Falmer. 551 Gkatzidou, S., and E. Pearson. 2009. The potential for adaptable accessible learning objects: A case study 552 in accessible vodcasting. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(2): 292–307. 553 Godfrey, J. 2013. New survey finds 85 percent of educational institutions allow BYOD despite security 554 concerns [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.bradfordnetworks.com/new-survey-finds-85- 555 percent-of-educational-institutions-allow-byod-despite-security-concerns/ 556 Griffith, C. 2012a. University to roll out 11,000 Apple iPads. The Australian. 20 December. Retrieved 557 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/university-to-roll-out-11000-apple-ipads/story- 558 e6frgakx-1226540975375 559 Griffith, C. 2012b. Union slams university plan to buy 11,000 iPads. The Australian. 21 December. 560 Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/union-slams-university-plan-to-buy- 561 11000-ipads/story-e6frgakx-1226541812872# 562 Herro, D., D. Kiger, and C. Owens. 2013. Mobile technology: Case-based suggestions for classroom 563 integration and teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 30(1): 30–40. 564 doi:10.1080/21532974.2013.10784723. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 14 of 18
  19. 19. 565 Hildmann, H., and J. Hildmann. 2009. A critical reflection on the position of mobile device based 566 tools to assist in the professional evaluation and assessment of observable aspects of learning or 567 (Game) playing. Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on Games-Based Learning, Graz, 568 Austria. http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/16315943/2009_Hildmann_Hildmann_A_critical_ 569 reflection.pdf 570 Jeng, Y.-L., T.-T. Wu, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Tan, and S.J.H. Yang. 2010. The add-on impact of mobile 571 applications in learning strategies: A review study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 13(3): 572 3–11. 573 Kearney, M., S. Schuck, K. Burden, and P. Aubusson. 2012. Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical 574 perspective. Research in Learning Technology 20(1): 1–17. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406. 575 Kissinger, J.S. 2013. The social & mobile learning experiences of students using mobile E-books. Journal 576 of Asynchronous Learning Networks 17(1): 153–169. 577 Kukulska-Hulme, A., J. Pettit, L. Bradley, A.A. Carvalho, A. Herrington, D.M. Kennedy, and A. Walker. 578 2011. Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and 579 Blended Learning 3(1): 18–52. 580 Lam, S.L., K. Wong, J. Mohan, D. Xu, and P. Lam. 2011. Classroom communication on mobile 581 phones – First experiences with web-based ‘clicker’ system. Paper presented at the Changing 582 Demands, Changing Directions: ascilite Hobart 2011, Hobart. http://www.leishman-associates.com. 583 au/ascilite2011/downloads/papers/Lam-full.pdf 584 Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning 585 technologies. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203304846 586 Laurillard, D. 2007. Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: Framing research questions. In Mobile 587 learning: Towards a research agenda, ed. N. Pachler, 153–175. London: IoE. 588 Lennie, J. 2006. Increasing the rigour and trustworthiness of participatory evaluations: Learnings from the 589 field. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 6(1): 27–35. 590 McGarr, O. 2009. A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture. 591 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(3): 309–321. 592 Manuguerra, M., and P. Petocz. 2011. Promoting student engagement by integrating new technology into 593 tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science 7(11): 61–65. 594 Murphy, A., H. Farley, A. Koronios, C. Johnson, M. Lane, A. Hafeez-Baig, . . . S. Dekeyser. 2014. 595 Embracing student mobility: Understanding, enabling and facilitating the mobile aspirations of higher 596 education students. Paper presented at the Digital Rural Futures Conference, Toowoomba. 597 Murphy, G.D. 2011. Post-PC devices: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in tertiary environ- 598 ments. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 5(1): 18–32. 599 Ng, W., and H. Nicholas. 2013. A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools. British Journal 600 of Educational Technology 44(5): 695–715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01359.x. 601 Park, Y. 2011. A pedagogical framework for M-learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile 602 technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12(2): 603 78–102. 604 Pask, G. 1975. Minds and media in education and entertainment: Some theoretical comments illustrated 605 by the design and operation of a system for exteriorizing and manipulating individual theses. In 606 Progress cybernetics and systems research IV, ed. R. Trappland and G. Pask, 38–50. Washington, 607 DC/London: Hemisphere Publishing. 608 Patten, B., I. Arnedillo Sánchez, and B. Tangney. 2006. Designing collaborative, constructionist and 609 contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers & Education 46(3): 294–308. 610 Quinton, S., M. Pachman, and R. He. 2010. Evaluation of the TELT platform: Essential elements and 611 methodologies. Trans. Teaching, L. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 15 of 18
  20. 20. 612 Rogers, P.L. 2000. Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational 613 Computing Research 22(4): 455–472. 614 Roschelle, J. 2003. Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer 615 Assisted Learning 19(3): 260–272. 616 Sharples, M., J. Taylor, and G. Vavoula. 2007. A theory of learning for the mobile age. In The Sage 617 handbook of e-learning research, ed. Richard Andrews and Caroline Haythornthwaite. London: 618 SAGE. 619 Squire, K., and E. Klopfer. 2007. Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the 620 Learning Sciences 16(3): 371–413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435. 621 Stav, J., K. Nielsen, G. Hansen-Nygard, and T. Thorseth. 2010. Experiences obtained with integration of 622 student response systems for iPod touch and iPhone into e-Learning environments. Electronic Journal 623 of e-Learning 8(2): 179–190. 624 Terkowsky, C., T. Haertel, E. Bielski, and D. May. 2013. Creativity@School: Mobile learning environ- 625 ments involving remote labs and E-portfolios. A conceptual framework to foster the inquiring mind in 626 secondary STEM education. In IT Innovative practices in secondary schools: Remote 627 experiments, ed. J.G. Zubíaand and O. Dziabenko, 255–280. Bilbao: University of Deusto. 628 Thompson, R.L., C.A. Higgins, and J.M. Howell. 1991. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model 629 of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15(1): 124–143. 630 Traxler, J. 2007. Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and 631 having writ. . .. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8(2): 1–12. 632 Traxler, J. 2010. Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education 633 31(2): 129–138. 634 Venkatesh, V., M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, and F.D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technol- 635 ogy: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425–478. 636 Williams, P., W.-L. Wong, H. Webb, and S. Borbosi. 2011. Mobile technologies in the field: 637 iPads – Rescuer or rescuee? Paper presented at the changing demands, changing directions: Ascilite 638 Hobart 2011, Hobart. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/Williams-concise.pdf 639 Wishart, J., and D. Green. 2010. Identifying emerging issues in mobile learning in higher and further 640 education: A report to JISC. University of Bristol. 641 Wong, W. 2012. Tools of the trade: How mobile learning devices are changing the face of higher 642 education. Community College Journal 82(5): 54–61. 643 Wood, D., and C. Bilsborow. 2014. “I am not a Person with a Creative Mind”: Facilitating creativity in the 644 undergraduate curriculum through a design-based research approach. The Electronic Journal of 645 e-Learning and Instruction 12(1): 111–125. 646 Wu, H.-K., S.W.-Y. Lee, H.-Y. Chang, and J.-C. Liang. 2013. Current status, opportunities and challenges 647 of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education 62: 41–49. doi:10.1016/j. 648 compedu.2012.10.024. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 16 of 18
  21. 21. Index Terms: e-Learning 7 Higher education 1 Mobile learning, higher education Mobile devices 4–6 Mobile learning, higher education 3–12 content and knowledge storage 3 creativity 4 evaluation models 5–7 framework 7–12 interactivity 5 knowledge and application gap 3 Pedagogical approach 2, 9–11 Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 17 of 18
  22. 22. Author Queries Query Refs. Details required Q1 Please check if edit to sentence starting “A project to. . .” is okay. Q2 Please provide other options for “complex formulae to be demonstrated and so on.” Q3 Please provide details for reference citation Ng and Nicholas (2012). Q4 Please check if “pedagogical learning, (2) pedagogical teaching” is okay as edited. Q5 Please cite references Ally (2013), Núria (2014) in text. Q6 Boude Figueredo et al. (2015), Kraglund-Gauthier (2015), and Zhang and Hu (2015) have been deleted from the reference list and treated as Cross-References. Please confirm if okay. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_17-1 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Page 18 of 18

×