In the decade and a half since the beginning of the new millennium, mobile computing technologies have evolved rapidly, enabling increasingly sophisticated methods of communication and interaction. As a result of the incremental improvements in design, tendency towards reduced size, increased functionality, improvements in data storage capability, and the reliability and ubiquity of the networks that support them, mobile technologies are increasingly perceived as essential to the conduct of people’s everyday lives (Evans-Cowley, 2010).

1. Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Evaluation of Mobile Teaching and Learning Projects, an Introduction
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
Abstract In the decade and a half since the beginning of the new millennium, mobile
computing technologies have evolved rapidly, enabling increasingly
sophisticated methods of communication and interaction. As a result of
the incremental improvements in design, tendency toward reduced size,
increased functionality, improvements in data storage capability, and the
reliability and ubiquity of the networks that support them, mobile
technologies are increasingly perceived as essential to the conduct of
people’s everyday lives (Evans-Cowley 2010).

3. 1 Evaluation of Mobile Teaching and Learning Projects, an Introduction
2Q1 Helen Farley* and Angela Murphy
3 Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia
4Q2 In the decade and a half since the beginning of the new millennium, mobile computing technologies have
5 evolved rapidly, enabling increasingly sophisticated methods of communication and interaction. As a
6 result of the incremental improvements in design, tendency toward reduced size, increased functionality,
7 improvements in data storage capability, and the reliability and ubiquity of the networks that support
8 them, mobile technologies are increasingly perceived as essential to the conduct of people’s everyday
9 lives (Evans-Cowley 2010).
10 In the educational context, ubiquitous connectivity and the portable nature of these devices facilitate
11 access to collaborative and contextualized learning experiences which translate into greater ownership of
12 learning processes (Wong 2012a). Furthermore, these technologies are becoming ever more affordable,
13 presenting unique opportunities for facilitating the flexible delivery of contextualized learning experi-
14 ences for diverse student cohorts. However, despite the enhanced capabilities of mobile technologies, the
15 field of mobile learning is failing to keep pace in terms of pedagogical considerations (Traxler 2007). This
16 is evidenced by the relative paucity of theoretical frameworks that focus on the impact of mobile
17 technologies on learners and their experiences of mobile learning (Kearney et al. 2012). Consequently,
18 most mobile learning initiatives are piecemeal, are poorly supported by the institution, and are not
19 sustained beyond the original project funding or continue once the project leader leaves the institution
20 (Mueller et al. 2012).
21 A significant challenge facing most educational institutions is identifying strategic and operational
22 priorities for investment in mobile learning capabilities within a rapidly changing field while maximizing
23 the educational outcomes for students and minimizing institutional costs. Over the past 10 years, a number
24 of pilot or experimental research studies have been conducted across sectors to investigate the impact of
25 mobile technologies on learning and teaching (e.g., Elias 2011; Biggs and Justice 2011; Wong 2012b).
26 One of the most consistent conclusions of these studies is that there are still a number of barriers that
27 influence the adoption of mobile learning initiatives in education, both at an institutional and at a user
28 level. Higher education institutions are cautious about investing extensively in mobile technologies
29 because of the rate of emergence of new models and the speed with which devices become obsolete.
30 Few higher education institutions have therefore implemented well-financed and highly visible mobile
31 learning initiatives that are operationalized within policy and practice.
32 A report conducted for the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) e-learning program in late
33 2010 indicated that the most prominent issue in the field of mobile learning is the lack of full-scale
34 evaluations of mobile technology in higher education (Wishart and Green 2010) and the absence of a
35 stable platform from which to effectively research the role, drivers, and impact of mobility on learning
36 (Park 2011). Several attempts to conceptualize mobile learning have been made (e.g., Traxler 2007; JISC
37 InfoNet 2011; Pachman et al. 2011; Vavoula and Sharples 2009), yet none have been sufficiently targeted
38 to ensure comprehensive and rigorous coverage of the rapidly developing and changing landscape of
39 contemporary mobile learning networks and technologies.
40 This section explores some of the issues involved with the evaluation of mobile learning initiatives but
41 further looks at the ways in which these challenges are addressed in a variety of learning and institutional
*Email: helen.farley@usq.edu.au
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 1 of 6

4. 42 contexts. This section begins with the chapter, “▶ Moving Towards the Effective Evaluation of Mobile
43 Learning Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions,” providing an overview of the mobile learning
44 evaluation frameworks that already exist. The chapter opens with an exploration of current use and
45 pedagogical goals of various mobile learning initiatives. The authors then turn their attention to identi-
46 fying the challenges in evaluating mobile learning initiatives. This sets the scene for their critical
47 consideration of a number of frameworks including the Evaluation of Technologies Framework (Q3 Ng
48 and Nicholas 2013); Critical Analysis (Frohberg et al. 2009), a Framework for Analysing Mobile
49 Learning (Sharples et al. 2007), and Pedagogical Forms for Mobile Learning (Laurillard 2007, based
50 on work in 2002). The chapter concludes with the proposal of a new framework derived from data
51 collected as part of a 3-year funded project in an Australian regional university.
52 Though mobile technologies have been widely adopted by students (e.g., see Murphy and Farley
53 2012), educators are still struggling with when and how these technologies should be used for learning.
54 Melissa Nursey-Bray in her chapter, “▶ Moving with Mobiles: Using IT in the Classroom as Against
55 Online: A Comparative Reflection from South Australia,” explores these issues. This chapter investigates
56 how mobile devices can be used to deliver online content but goes further by exploring how mobile
57 devices can be used to transform face-to-face teaching methods using a South Australian case study.
58 Tairan Kevin Huang, Jin Cui, Corinne Cortese, and Matthew Pepper delve into how emerging mobile
59 technologies can be used for Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) in their chapter, “▶ Internet-Based Peer
60 Assisted Learning: Current Models, Future Applications and Potential.” The authors posit that emerging
61 technologies can be leveraged to accommodate learning in light of the changing student lifestyle. In this
62 chapter, a number of models for PAL are examined along with the technological requirements of
63 establishment and maintenance of Internet-based PAL programs.
64 In her chapter, “▶ Service-Learning Application in an m-Learning Course,” Margaret Sass begins by
65 investigating the rationale and pedagogical intent behind mobile learning or m-learning. These ideas are
66 then transferred into the domain of service learning, whereby learning takes place within the context of the
67 community in response to community needs in order to facilitate a powerful learning experience for the
68 student. Social media can be used effectively to this end, providing a quality learning experience using a
69 platform with which students are already comfortable.
70 The next chapter focuses on the evaluation of specific mobile learning initiatives in higher education.
71 The chapter by Aimee Zhang, “▶ Student Feedback in Mobile Teaching and Learning,” describes a
72 mobile learning project titled Tutors in Pockets. In this project, a mobile application or “app” was
73 developed for iOS and Android mobile devices. The app was used in undergraduate economics education
74 in an Australian university. The effectiveness of the app use in this context was evaluated using both
75 quantitative and qualitative measures.
76 Emerging technologies bring with them opportunities to leverage the affordances of these technologies
77 for learning. Though it is tempting to recreate old ways of teaching in new ways on these technologies, it is
78 potentially more effective to evolve new ways of learning altogether. One of the ways that many educators
79 are engaging students in new ways is through gamification, leveraging gaming elements to enhance
80 learning. Izabel Rego, in her chapter, “▶ Mobile Language Learning: How Gamification Improves the
81 Experience,” explores how gamification can be used to promote student learning through enhanced
82 engagement. The focus of her chapter relates to language learning using mobile devices. To this end,
83 she explores the affordances of a number of mobile applications, specifically Language Learning Game
84 (LLG), Duolingo, and LingoBee.
85 When e-learning first became popular in education, many educators simply placed PDFs of hardcopy
86 materials onto a webpage or learning management system. Very little account was taken for optimizing
87 the materials or content for the online environment. Much the same is happening with assessments, where
88 e-learning and paper-based assessment systems are merely transposed to the mobile learning
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 2 of 6

5. 89 environment. The chapter, “▶ Transforming Assessments into the Digital Domain” by Rodney J. Clarke,
90 explores how assessments can be optimized for use with mobile devices using genre theory. This
91 exploration makes use of a specific case study from a first-year information systems subject.
92 One of the difficulties with emerging technologies is that they come and go. Just a few years ago, the
93 personal digital assistant or PDAwas hailed as the game-changing device that could revolutionize mobile
94 learning. At the time of the PDAs’ peak of popularity, tablets were not visible in the device market. Since
95 their release in 2010, iPads have changed all that. Along with their popularity for social networking and
96 entertainment, educators have been finding innovative ways of using iPads for education. In a few select
97 institutions around the world, iPads have been distributed to students and educators on a large scale. The
98 chapter from Lynnae Rankine-Venaruzzo and Dennis Macnamara, “▶ iPads as Institutional Game
99 Changers,” explores how such an implementation can be achieved with optimal results. The chapter
100 explores a number of avenues of approach such as staff capacity building in designing interactive mobile-
101 enabled learning activities and assessment tasks and showcasing good practice among others.
102 References
103 Biggs, B., and R. Justice. 2011. M-learning: The next evolution. Chief Learning Officer 10(4): 38–41.
104 Elias, T. 2011. Universal instructional design principles for M-learning. International Review of Research
105 in Open and Distance Learning 12(2): 143–156.
106 Evans-Cowley, J. 2010. Planning in the real-time city: The future of mobile technology. Journal of
107 Planning Literature 25(2): 136–149.
108 JISC InfoNet. 2011. Mobile learning infokit. Retrieved from https://mobilelearninginfokit.pbworks.com/
109 w/page/41122430/Home
110 Kearney, M., S. Schuck, K. Burden, and P. Aubusson. 2012. Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical
111 perspective. Research in Learning Technology 20. Retrieved from http://www.
112 researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14406/html
113 Mueller, J., E. Wood, D. De Pasquale, and R. Cruikshank. 2012. Examining mobile technology in higher
114 education: Handheld devices in and out of the classroom. International Journal of Higher Education
115 1(2): 43–54.
116 Murphy, Angela, and Helen Farley. 2012. Development of a framework for evaluating the impact and
117 sustainability of mobile learning initiatives in higher education. In ASCILITE 2012: 29th annual
118 conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Future
119 challenges, sustainable futures, Sydney, 25–28 Nov.
120 Pachman, M., A. Logunov, and S. Quinton. 2011. TELT evaluation framework – Refinement of TELT
121 survey instrument (2nd iteration). Sydney: University of New South Wales.
122 Park, Y. 2011. A pedagogical framework for M-learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile
123 technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12(2):
124 78–102.
125 Traxler, J. 2007. Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile education: The moving finger writes and
126 having writ. . . International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8(2). Retrieved from
127 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346
128 Vavoula, G., and M. Sharples. 2009. Meeting the challenges in evaluating mobile learning: A 3-level
129 evaluation framework. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 1(2): 54–75.
130 Wishart, J., and D. Green. 2010. Identifying emerging issues in mobile learning in higher and further
131 education: A report to JISC. University of Bristol.
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 3 of 6

6. 132 Wong, L.H. 2012a. A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational
133 Technology 43: 19–23.
134 Wong, W. 2012b. Tools of the trade: How mobile learning devices are changing the face of higher
135 education. Community College Journal 82(5): 54–61.
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 4 of 6

7. Index Terms:
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) e-Learning program 1
Mobile learning initiatives, higher education 2
Online content, mobile devices 2
Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) 2
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) 3
Social media 2
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 5 of 6

8. Author Queries
Query Refs. Details required
Q1 Please check if author affiliation is okay.
Q2 Please provide “Abstract”.
Q3 Please provide details of Ng and Nicholas (2013), Frohberg et al. (2009), Sharples et al. (2007),
Laurillard (2007) in the reference list.
Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_23-1
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Page 6 of 6