Handbook of

Mobile Learning

This handbook provides a comprehensive compendium of research in all aspects of

mobile learning, one of the most significant ongoing global developments in the entire
field of education. Rather than focus on specific technologies, expert authors discuss
how best to utilize technology in the service of improving teaching and learning.

For more than a decade, researchers and practitioners have been exploring this area of
study as the growing popularity of smartphones, tablets, and other such devices—as well
as the increasingly sophisticated applications they use—has allowed educators to
accommodate and support an increasingly mobile society. This handbook provides the
first authoritative account of the theory and research that underlies mobile learning,
while also exemplifying models of current and future practice.

Zane L. Berge is Professor of Education at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Lin Y. Muilenburg is Assistant Professor of Educational Studies at St. Mary’s College

of Maryland.
This page intentionally left blank
 Handbook of
Mobile Learning
Edited by Zane L. Berge
and Lin Y. Muilenburg
First published 2013
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Handbook of mobile learning/edited by Zane L. Berge and Lin Y. Muilenburg.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Mobile communication systems in education. I. Berge, Zane L., editor of compilation.
II. Muilenburg, Lin Y., editor of compilation. III. Crompton, Helen. Historical overview
of mLearning.
LB1044.84.H36 2013
371.33—dc23 2012041546

ISBN: 978–0–415–50369–3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978–0–415–50370–9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978–0–203–11876–4 (ebk)

Typeset in Minion
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
 CONTENTS

About the Authors xx

Preface xxxi
Part I Foundations and Future 1
1. A Historical Overview of M-Learning: Toward
Learner-Centered Education 3
Helen Crompton
Through the study of recent histories, this chapter provides a historical
view of the field of electronic learning. The chapter begins by explicating
the philosophical, pedagogical, and conceptual underpinnings regarding
learning, particularly toward learner-centered pedagogies. This is followed
by a discussion of the technology, covering the evolution of the hardware/
software, its adoption into society, and how these technological
advancements have led to today’s new affordances for learning.
2. M-Learning as a Subfield of Open and Distance Education 15
William C. Diehl
The use of mobile devices for educational purposes is increasing, and
m-learning has the potential to revolutionize the way that people learn,
but the use of technology to connect learners with content and with
teachers at a distance is not new. Like mobile devices, technologies such
as the printing press, radio, and television—and systems such as the
postal service—have also increased the opportunities for both planned
and spontaneous individual informal learning. This chapter provides
historical context, presents m-learning as a subfield of distance education,
and focuses on early technologies and social movements within the field.
3. A Summary and Critique of M-Learning Research and Practice 24
Thomas Cochrane
This chapter overviews a short, recent history and critique of mobile-
learning research, indicating the research gaps that future m-learning

v
vi • Contents

research needs to fill, and situates the research literature within the
context of current mobile-learning practice. Although still a relatively
young field of academic research, the first decade of mobile-learning
research has established a solid foundation on which to build as we move
into a second decade of research that can provide the basis for the
development of theoretical frameworks as we reflect upon an increasing
body of longitudinal research. Rather than continually reinventing the
wheel with a series of short-term case studies, mobile-learning research
needs to take a more strategic approach that focuses upon how pedagogy
can be reinvented using mobile devices as a catalyst for change.

4. A Sociocultural Ecological Frame for Mobile Learning 35

Norbert Pachler, Ben Bachmair, and John Cook
This chapter provides an overview of the sociocultural ecology of mobile
learning developed by the London Mobile Learning Group, an inter-
national, interdisciplinary group of researchers. It discusses the main
features of the theory, including the notions of the mobile complex,
cultural resources, appropriation and user-generated contexts, and the
interplay of its constituent parts, namely structures, agency, and cultural
practices. The chapter also presents aspects of a mobile-learning project
with at-risk learners.

5. Mobile Learning: New Approach, New Theory 47

Helen Crompton
The unique attributes of mobile learning (m-learning) provide a new
approach to learning, which requires a new theory. This chapter begins
by explicating how m-learning is unique from conventional, tethered
electronic learning and traditional learning. This is followed by a
summary of criteria for consideration while creating an m-learning
theory, with an analysis of the early proposed theoretical models for
m-learning. Finally, the themes emerging from the proposed theoretical
models are identified as context, connectivity, and time, which are nested
within the concept of personalization, to make the argument that these
are the essence of m-learning.

6. Framework for Mobile-Learning Integration Into Educational Contexts 58

Adelina Moura and Ana Amélia Carvalho
This chapter describes a framework for the integration of mobile
technologies in education, based on mobile-learning research;
constructivist approaches; Activity Theory; and the ARCS Model. This
framework was applied to the Mobile Generation Project that the authors
present. The study that was developed analyzed how students integrated
mobile phones as a mediation tool in learning activities. The results
obtained show that the students accepted using their own mobile phones
and appropriated them to support their school practices.

7. Learning and Teaching as Communicative Actions: A Theory for

Mobile Education 70
Scott J. Warren and Jenny S. Wakefield
Over the course of the last few decades, educational theory and research
have been focused on the examination of individual and social
 Contents • vii

construction of knowledge through interaction with peers and on ill-

structured problems. What is often missing as we seek to transition
face-to-face educational experiences to mobile ones is theory that
recognizes the importance of human communication as the center of
teaching and learning experiences. The goal of this chapter is to introduce
learning and teaching as communicative-actions theory, which is here
offered as one theoretical support structure for using mobile devices and
applications to support learning. This theory expands upon the pragmatic
communication and social works of Jürgen Habermas. This chapter
further connects this theory to how social-media tools may be
understood to act in the service of instruction and learning.

8. A Future for M-Learning 82

Clark N. Quinn
M-learning, largely, is not about courses on a mobile device, so what,
then, is it? The author looks at trends in mobile devices, considers
performance support in addition to formal learning, explores learning in
more depth, and considers some missed opportunities that mobile
devices can now support. Looking at making learning visible and meta-
learning, the chapter extends the vision of how mobile devices can
support individual development. The chapter concludes by describing a
potential, future learning experience.

9. Seamless Learning: An International Perspective on Next-Generation

Technology-Enhanced Learning 95
Marcelo Milrad, Lung-Hsiang Wong, Mike Sharples, Gwo-Jen Hwang,
Chee-Kit Looi, and Hiroaki Ogata
This chapter presents and discusses results and reflections based on recent
developments and experiences in Europe and in Asia regarding how novel
educational design patterns, mobile technologies, and software tools can
be combined to enhance learning. The authors propose and recommend
possible directions for the design of future educational activities and
technological solutions that can support seamless learning. To that end,
the chapter discusses how the notion of seamless learning could be used
to tackle some of the challenges our educational systems are facing in
connection with the introduction of mobile technologies into classrooms
settings, innovative educational practices, and sustainability.

10. Substantive Educational Change is in the Palm of Our

Children’s Hands 109
Cathleen A. Norris and Elliot M. Soloway
Mobile technology is bigger than the Internet; the changes mobile
technology is bringing have only begun to be felt. In K–12, too, mobile
technology will engender the biggest change in pedagogy and curriculum
in over 100 years. The key value of m-learning is student empowerment:
each student can immediately and directly—without teacher or textbook
mediation—connect to the world’s store of information, people, events,
locations, organizations, data, etc., 24/7. Finally, everyday teachers, for
whom teaching is a profession, not a mission, can implement a learn-by-
doing pedagogy in their classrooms. This chapter explores this vision in
terms of opportunities and challenges.
viii • Contents

11. The Future of Mobile Apps for Teaching and Learning 119
Ferial Khaddage and Christoph Lattemann
Despite all the capabilities of mobile applications’ (apps) integration in
most areas and fields, they are yet to have a central role in higher
education. The barriers to their adoption are not technical factors but
organizational and social. Universities are still not recognizing and
rewarding effort put into improving teaching and learning, whether by
utilizing or by developing mobile apps for educational purposes. Major
changes to the organization of higher education are needed if mobile app
technology is to enter the mainstream. In the long term, developments in
cloud-based computing and offline chrome access to mobile apps will
have far-reaching consequences. The main purpose of this chapter is to
emphasize the use of apps in higher education. It is intended as a guide to
the integration of mobile apps into instruction and how this could shape
the future of higher education. A preliminary study on students’ use of
mobile apps for educational purposes is also described.

12. Mobile Learning Across Developing and Developed Worlds:

Tackling Distance, Digital Divides, Disadvantage, Disenfranchisement 129
John M. Traxler
Throughout the first decade of m-learning, projects and programmes
have attempted to use mobile technologies to address educational
disadvantage in the developed world and to address distance in the
developing world, in the broadest sense using the technologies to tackle
the digital divides that separate learners from learning. This chapter is
probably the first to explore such projects and programmes in an
integrated fashion and to look at the factors that support and report
them.

Part II Learning and Learner Support 143

13. Mobile Learners: Who Are They and Who Will They Become? 145
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
It is instructive to identify who has been targeted in mobile-learning
initiatives and projects over the years, and to recognize that some groups
of learners have attracted less attention than others. The chapter provides
an analysis of target learner groups in reported mobile-learning projects
and studies, as reflected in ten years of mLearn conference proceedings.
The analysis reveals seven key target learner groupings. The author
observes that five other possible target groups are largely missing from
this literature. This realization should help the mobile-learning research
community and other stakeholders to develop more transparent and
thoughtful educational futures.

14. Mindtools for Supporting Mobile-Learning Activities 155

Gwo-Jen Hwang
While engaging students to learn across multiple contexts or in a
particular context, the provision of learning supports is both important
and necessary. In this chapter, two types of Mindtool for supporting
mobile-learning activities are introduced, concept map-oriented
 Contents • ix

Mindtools and expert system-oriented Mindtools. The former are used to

help students organize and visualize their knowledge by linking the new
experiences with their prior knowledge, and the latter have been
employed to help students identify and differentiate a set of learning
targets based on the common and distinct features of those targets.

15. Rethinking Scaffolding in Mobile Connectivist Learning Environments 166

Ozlem Ozan and Mehmet Kesim
This chapter discusses “scaffolding” as it relates to Berge’s “learner
support” strategies, Siemens’ “connectivism” approach, and mobile
applications. Mobile applications can be used to address the four basic
types of scaffolding: instructional scaffolding for learners in a network,
social scaffolding to create connections and interact in a network, technical
scaffolding to assist with utilization of tools belonging to the networked
society, and managerial scaffolding to allow learners to manage their
educational process in an informal learning environment by using mobile
applications.

16. A Mobile Pedagogy Approach for Transforming Learners and Faculty 176
Scott Hamm, George Saltsman, Breana Jones, Stephen Baldridge,
and Scott Perkins
The accelerating use of mobile technologies outside education illustrates
great promise for use inside education. This chapter examines the
struggle within education to define m-learning and how to situate it
within existing theoretical frameworks. Nevertheless, despite these
definitional struggles, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate m-
learning’s effectiveness in early mobile-learning deployments. Using the
campus-wide mobile-learning implementation at Abilene Christian
University as a case study, three themes of emerging practice are
identified, and suggestions for a more student-centric, truly mobile-
learning model are examined.

17. The Power of the Personal: Discovering the M in M-Learning 187

Colleen Carmean, Jill L. Frankfort, and Kenneth N. Salim
This chapter moves beyond the definition of m-learning as everything
learning but with personal electronic devices and asks the reader to imagine
new possibilities that m-learning provides. The authors consider the
potential of new experiences built into mobility + design and explore a
formula for determining affordance where mobility is uniquely leveraged
for the learning experience. The chapter then shifts from theory to
practice and discusses a collaboration between Persistence Plus and
University of Washington–Tacoma to explore how mobility and the real-
time personalization of learning can enhance the resiliency, persistence,
and success of college students.

18. Social Versus Individual Flow in Mobile Learning 196

Ah-reum Lee and Hokyoung Ryu
Mobile learning has been built upon the premise that we can transform
traditional classroom or computer-based learning activities into a
connected form of learning, but few analytic observations on what
x • Contents

triggers this collaboration have so far been made. However, social flow,
which extends Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory, may help partially explain
the triggering mechanism of collaborative m-learning. This chapter
discusses how the concept of social flow in a collaborative learning space
might sketch out what triggers an optimal learning experience in
collaboration, and what can be additionally achieved.

19. The “Reflective Student”: The Use of Mobile Devices Through

Seamless Educational Spaces and Authentic Learning Scenarios 209
Maria Cinque
The chapter presents different mobile-learning projects that were run in a
university hospital and a catering school. In both cases, mobile devices
were used during on-the-job training. In this context, learning takes place
through direct experience, although “controlled,” and its effectiveness is
based, not simply on the imitation of a practice, but on metacognitive
activity and critical reflection. The mobile-learning projects carried out
have shown how the use of mobile technologies make explicit the tacit
knowledge embodied in training activities and enhance creative and
critical skills, making traditional learning less formal. Through this
perspective, m-learning overcomes the purely institutional context,
becoming a tool to support the learning that takes place—more or less
intentionally—in daily life.

20. Museums: Gateways to Mobile Learning 224

Denise M. Bressler
In museums, learners have always been mobile, moving from exhibit to
exhibit. Now, museum learners are still mobile, they just may not be in
the museum anymore. Using newer technologies such as geo-referenced
data and augmented reality, museums are providing their content, while
the mobile learner provides the context. This chapter will discuss the
evolution of mobile-based museum initiatives, showing a progression
from spectator culture to participatory culture. As museums find better
ways to engage mobile learners, research is showing improved learning
through active sociocultural engagement. With each new mobile
initiative, museums are increasingly becoming the ideal gateway for
m-learning.

21. E-Book Readers and PDAs for Work-Based Learners 234

Ming Nie, Terese Bird, and Palitha Edirisingha
This chapter addresses m-learning in higher education for work-based
learners. The authors focus on e-book readers and PDAs and their use by
work-based learners at the University of Leicester, UK. The chapter
discusses the impact of the two devices on learners’ mobility, learner
support, learning time and cost, and learning design. Additionally
discussed are approaches to implement m-learning widely at an
institutional level and highlight future opportunities presented by new
devices such as iPads. The authors conclude that the two devices trialled
are effective in supporting work-based learning. Institutions should
develop strategies for m-learning, particularly with regard to work-based
and distance learners.
 Contents • xi

Part III Teaching and Instructional Design 245

22. M-Learning as a Catalyst for Pedagogical Change 247

Thomas Cochrane
This chapter argues that m-learning can be used as a catalyst for
pedagogical change when founded upon appropriate learning theory and
when explicit pedagogical change is designed for. Examples are explored
that demonstrate the impact of m-learning upon four different higher-
education contexts, and draw out an example framework for supporting
the design of pedagogical change enabled by m-learning.

23. Flipped Classroom Meets Mobile Learning 259

Aaron J. Sams
The flipped-classroom concept overlaps with m-learning in many aspects.
In fact, many of the common criticisms of the flipped classroom can be
easily addressed when viewed through the lens of m-learning. By
addressing the best use of class time, the role of the teacher in relation to
the student, and three common criticisms of the flipped-classroom
concept, a teacher can leverage technology to meet the needs of students
in middle-school and high-school classrooms.

24. Team and Community Building Using Mobile Devices 268

Jackie Gerstein
This chapter discusses and describes how students’ own mobile devices
can be used for building community and teamwork within a variety of
classroom settings: face-to-face, blended, and virtually. This discussion
has four components: evidence to support the importance of promoting
community in the classroom, research that supports the use of student-
owned mobile devices for classroom-based community-building,
team-building activities using mobile devices, and the results of an end-of-
course student survey about using mobile devices for community building.

25. Mobile Teaching and Learning in the Classroom and Online:

Case Studies in K–12 285
Michael M. Grant and Michael K. Barbour
In this chapter, the authors describe two projects to integrate mobile
teaching and learning into K–12 schooling. First, the chapter considers
the rationale for increased use of mobile devices with today’s students,
and describes a professional development program to deploy iPads to
classroom teachers. Next, the authors discuss the growth of K–12 online
learning and describe a project for students enrolled in an online
Advanced Placement course that was delivered through a mobile-learning
content-management system. Last, the chapter discusses some of the
lessons learned from these pilot projects and some of the promise and
challenges of mobile teaching and learning.

26. Using Mobile Technology to Enhance Teaching 293

Andrew M. O’Loughlin, Siew Mee Barton, and Leanne Ngo
This is a study of mobile technology that reflects five lecturers’
experiences of using an iPad in order to support classroom teaching.
xii • Contents

The study has been conducted over an 18-month period, from December
2010 to June 2012. This chapter identifies an important gap in both the
literature and practice, as little research has been conducted into the
lecturer’s use of mobile technologies in the classroom. The chapter
concludes by presenting seven principles for successfully managing the
introduction of mobile technology into an organization.

27. Teachers’ Tools: Designing Customizable Applications for

M-Learning Activities 307
Sara Price, Paul Davies, and William Farr
Mobile technologies are potentially important tools for teaching and
learning, but their successful integration into educational contexts is
currently limited. Teachers’ beliefs play a crucial role in the adoption of
new technologies and teaching approaches. Based on the design and
development of a customizable smartphone application for supporting
geospatial approaches to science teaching, this chapter explores how a
participatory design approach and the end product play a role in belief
change around smartphone technologies and geospatial science concepts.
Issues around the design process, challenges for implementing customizable
tools into teaching practice, and future research directions are discussed.

28. iPad Human Interface Guidelines for M-Learning 318

Sabrina Huber and Martin Ebner
This chapter discusses whether and to what extent the development of
iPad/iPhone apps for learning and teaching, following the Human
Interface Guidelines, really improves individual learning and teaching
success. There is a strong relationship between good interface design and
the ease-of-use of learning apps. Through careful user observations of
students’ and teachers’ needs, the authors provide a first guideline of how
to use tablets in classrooms.

29. Three-Dimension Design for Mobile Learning: Pedagogical, Design,

and Technological Considerations and Implications 329
Xun Ge, Dingchung Huang, Huimin Zhang, and Beverly B. Bowers
The purpose of this chapter is to propose a three-dimensional conceptual
framework (i.e., pedagogical, design, and technological) that addresses the
need for an updated design framework to guide instructional design
practice for m-learning and other emerging teaching technologies. The
framework is illustrated through the exemplar of a simulated learning
environment, Putting It All Together, which was designed to support the
professional development of nurse learners. This chapter discusses the
design of the learning object for both Web and mobile devices,
consideration of theoretical assumptions, underlying pedagogical
implications, instructional design and multimedia learning principles,
as well as technology affordances.

30. Mobile Assessment: State of the Art 346

Stavros A. Nikou and Anastasios A. Economides
This chapter presents the state of the art on computer-assisted assessment
using mobile devices. The aim of this survey is to identify and synthesize
 Contents • xiii

the relevant world literature regarding mobile devices-based assessment.

It describes the progress made in the field of mobile assessment (m-
assessment), explaining current practices and addressing different aspects
associated with design and implementation issues, as well as the
affordances and constraints of this emerging field.

31. mMOOC Design: Ubiquitous, Open Learning in the Cloud 356

Inge de Waard
In the mMOOC-design chapter, an overview is given of what a Massive
Open Online Course (MOOC) is and how it can be optimized for
mobile-device delivery and interaction. The chapter starts with an
overview of contemporary, educational challenges in this Knowledge Age,
after which the mMOOC design is described. The mMOOC design
combines characteristics and strengths of both m-learning and the
MOOC format. By using emerging technologies (selecting mobile social
media, enabled mobile multimedia) and stimulating content dialogue and
self-regulated learning, the course design allows learning to take place in
the cloud and be directed by the learners.

Part IV Policies, Administration, and Management 369

32. Becoming a Mobile Insititution 371

George Baroudi and Nancy Marksbury
This chapter is a case study reporting on one university implementation
of mobile-device adoption in a 1:1, device-to-student initiative. Twelve
thousand iPads were distributed to students, faculty, and staff, one of the
largest deployments worldwide. From a change-management perspective,
the authors describe the technological and sociocultural challenges other
enterprises are likely to face in a wide-scale deployment. Cultural
observations with respect to patterns of technology adoption among
various constituents are considered. Suggestions for using these
observations to design strategies and solutions are discussed.

33. A Framework for Implementing Mobile Technology 382

Ryan M. Seilhamer, Baiyun Chen, and Amy B. Sugar
This chapter presents the experiences and lessons learned in developing
and utilizing a mobile implementation framework at the University of
Central Florida. Data gathered from the pilot research guided the
stakeholders to facilitate the marketing, training, and support systems for
implementation of this mobile technology at a very large university. The
authors share a case study of planning, pilot testing, and release of the
Mobile Learn product, and their lessons learned shed light on
technology-innovation implementation, especially mobile-technology
implementation, for other higher-education institutions.

34. So We Had This Idea: Bring Your Own Technology at Brebeuf Jesuit 395
Jennifer LaMaster and J. D. Ferries-Rowe
In a mandatory BYOT model, every student is expected to have a device
that will allow the student to consume, create, and communicate. The
type of device is one part of what a student discerns: tablets,
xiv • Contents

smartphones, laptops, cameras, and e-readers all have a place in a

learning environment. Although specialized functions (feature-length
video production, probe-based science labs, digital music creation, etc.)
will still be maintained in a traditional lab format, basic technology
integration such as Internet research, writing, e-mail, and other uses
will be conducted on the device in each student’s personal control.
The model empowers students. They evaluate the goal of the assignment,
choose the proper tools for their learning style, use tools with which
they are familiar, and develop personal responsibility. Moreover,
students, teachers, and technology staff together focus on learning
objectives, rather than the maintenance of uniform carts of technology
that may or may not fit the learning needs of any particular student or
class.

35. Toward a Holistic Framework for Ethical Mobile Learning 405

Laurel E. Dyson, Trish Andrews, Robyn Smyth, and Ruth Wallace
As more universities, colleges, and schools adopt m-learning, concerns
have been voiced regarding the emergence of unethical behavior. This
paper examines a range of ethical issues and analyzes the reasons for
them. A framework for an ethical approach to m-learning is put forward,
in which harm minimization is balanced with both the need to prepare
students for living in a mobile world and the benefits of an approach to
learning that has advantages for students from diverse backgrounds. A
case is made for the adoption of an ethic of responsibility by educators,
administrators, and students.

36. Copyright and Fair Use in M-Learning 417

Patricia Aufderheide
This chapter provides a basic grounding material for creators, students,
and teachers on copyright and fair use for m-learning in a U.S.
environment. Elements of this background are also useful to international
creators. It summarizes the basic premise of U.S. copyright policy, which
is not to protect copyright holders but to encourage the ever-expanding
pool of culture; how this policy works in practice, including the crucial
right of fair use; features that keep people from employing fair use; the
utility of community-based codes of best practices in fair use; and an
application of that experience to the m-learning environment.

37. Accessibility in M-Learning: Ensuring Equal Access 427

Jodi B. Roberts
A shift is occurring in distance education in which learning can occur
anytime and practically anywhere a learner and/or instructor has an
Internet connection. M-learning has the ability to reach populations of
learners who might not otherwise have access to educational
opportunities. This chapter is broken into three sections: (a) accessibility
laws, (b) accessibility and universal design principles, and (c) accessible
m-learning recommendations. Education administrators and faculty who
oversee, develop, and deliver materials for use with mobile technologies
can use the information to begin the proactive discussion of accessibility
and m-learning, in order to be in compliance with federal mandates.
 Contents • xv

38. The Role of Academic Libraries in the Development and Support

of Mobile-Learning Environments 436
Rachel Wexelbaum and Plamen Miltenoff
Academic librarians play a role in the development and support of
m-learning resources and services in higher education. As mobile devices
become ubiquitous, and as information becomes easier to acquire
through search engines on such devices, librarians must reconsider their
resources and services to become an integral part of the mobile-learning
environment. This chapter will address the history of academic library
resources and services designed for m-learning environments, attitudes
that academic librarians have toward technology that influences their
work, and the need for stakeholders in m-learning adoption to include
academic librarians in the development and implementation process.

Part V Cases and Perspectives 445

39. Mobile-Learning Strategies for K–12 Professional Development 447

Dustin C. Summey
This chapter draws connections between professional development and
the use of mobile technologies by teachers, teacher leaders, and
administrative leadership. The chapter begins by examining the
characteristics of effective professional-development initiatives and
continues with a survey of professional-growth models and delivery
formats. Throughout the discussion, mobile-learning strategies are
described that complement and enhance all aspects of professional
development in the K–12 environment, with the ultimate goal of making
a positive impact on student learning. The chapter concludes with an
overview of common problems encountered when integrating mobile
devices into teaching and learning.

40. An Exploration of Mobile Learning to Enhance Student

Performance in High-School Mathematics 459
Vani Kalloo and Permanand Mohan
This chapter discusses the exploration of m-learning for assisting high-
school students in improving their mathematics skills. A study was
conducted to determine if there were benefits to using m-learning for
learning mathematics. At the end of the study, most of the students were
able to improve their performance after using m-learning for three weeks.
Therefore, it was determined that the results revealed that this method of
learning has presented to be beneficial and does warrant more research in
the future.

41. Becoming a Digital Nomad: Transforming Education Through

Mobile Devices 473
Sharon Stoerger
The research suggests that the use of mobile devices is becoming more
widespread. Millions of Americans own and use devices such as
smartphones and tablets, and these numbers are on the rise. Because they
are easy to transport in a pocket or a purse, individuals have made the
use of their mobile device part of their daily routine. When coupled with
xvi • Contents

education, mobile devices enable ubiquitous learning opportunities that

extend beyond the four walls of the classroom. The purpose of this
chapter is to examine the concept of learning via mobile devices and its
potential to transform our current education system.

42. Mobile-Medicine Praxis 483

Richard Brandt and Rich Rice
Telemedicine is an emerging field of study and a medical protocol.
Today, in rural areas especially, medical praxis is relatively less reliant on
medical care from physicians in the nearest metropolis; instead, advances
in communication technologies and creative health care providers are
facilitating high-quality health care delivery at a distance. Mobile
medicine, in particular, is an effort to leverage inexpensive, ubiquitous
mobile technologies in the practice of teledermatology. In the case study
discussed, peer-to-peer collaborative consultation has been redefined to
include the patient from the bedside. The implications for rural health-
care clinics and medically underserved communities, including those
globally, are significant.

43. A Mobile Knowledge Management System for Military Education 497

Ioana A. Stănescu and Antoniu Ştefan
This chapter addresses the challenges of military education and presents a
mobile knowledge management system developed by Advanced
Technology Systems and implemented within the Advanced Distributed
Learning Partnership Lab, established at the Carol I National Defence
University in Bucharest. This research explores the development
challenges and describes the core functionalities of this system, which
aims to enable and enhance accessibility, user-friendliness, and
adaptation of knowledge capture, storage, and acquisition in the mobile
arena.

44. M-Learning During Emergencies, Disasters, and Catastrophes:

An Australian Story 511
Julie A. Willems
In emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes, the saving of lives becomes
paramount. Often, the only opportunity to communicate vital
information in formal (official) or informal (“backchannel”) ways and/or
to participate in formal or informal training or learning in the field is via
portable mobile devices and, more recently, wireless, Internet-enabled
mobile devices (smartphones) and social-network connections. The m-
learning that takes place via these portable technologies under such
conditions can provide learning opportunities for the various stakeholder
groups involved that are “just enough, just in time, just for me”
(Rosenberg, 2001).

45. Improving Students’ Modern Language Speaking Skills Through

Mobile Learning 524
Harry Grover Tuttle
Through the use of the mobile-learning tool of smartphones, modern-
language students can improve their spontaneous speaking, which is a key
 Contents • xvii

component of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign

Languages’ communication learning goal. Furthermore, with m-learning,
the students can talk about up-to-moment, real-world situations (culture)
in the target language. The author identifies many different mobile-
assisted language learning activities for student speaking, speaking about
culture, and assessing speaking.

46. How Mobile Learning Facilitates Student Engagement: A Case

Study from the Teaching of Spanish 534
Elizabeth A. Beckmann and M. Daniel Martìn
This chapter explores the concept that teaching strategies that encourage,
incorporate, or require the use of mobile-learning devices can lead to
improved learning outcomes. Using evidence primarily from a case study
at the Australian National University, the authors explain why and how
student-centered teaching supports, and indeed requires, increasing use
of mobile technologies. Six years of innovative undergraduate teaching of
Spanish has shown that facilitating m-learning allows teachers to
maximize students’ exposure to, and engagement with, language
resources, as both listeners and speakers. A major outcome has been a
level of sophistication in students’ demonstrated language capabilities
much greater than normally expected at this level, as evidenced in their
creative production of “radio programs” and other podcast material for
assessment.

47. Architecture of a Device-Independent Collaborative Language

Learning Game 545
Andreas Christ, Patrick Meyrueis, and Razia Sultana
M-learning covers a wide range of possibilities opened up by the
convergence of new mobile technologies, wireless-communication
structure, and distance-learning development. Language acquisition is
one of the most important sectors of m-learning. In this chapter, a
software architecture has been proposed as a tool that will support adult
learners to learn a new language by providing a chance to practice the
desired language very often, without requiring a lot of time, and the
learners will be able to use the tool in their own existing devices, such as
a mobile phone.

48. An International Perspective on Mobile Learning 561

Diana J. Muir
When considering m-learning in the international arena, the definition of
m-learning takes on broader meaning. Developed countries have
advantages such as infrastructure, connectivity, and technology, which
make m-learning readily available. In former communist and developing
countries, cost, connectivity, availability of mobile devices, bandwidth,
and technology-transfer restrictions become major issues (Nation Master,
2012). All can be overcome if a few adjustments in curriculum
development and delivery method are made. Local culture, needs, and
resources must be considered, language barriers can be overcome, and
cost can be mediated. All is possible with an understanding of new
technology and methodology.
xviii • Contents

49. M-Powering the Poor Through Mobile Learning 571

Sheila Jagannathan
One of the most interesting developments of the past few years is the
rapid spread of mobile phones throughout the developing world. Even
the poorest farmer or slum dweller is now able to communicate, receive
information, and get connected to the larger world. With three-quarters
of the world’s population living within the range of a cell-phone tower,
the opportunity to benefit from mobile applications to facilitate
“anytime, anywhere” learning, especially outside formal educational
systems, is immense. This chapter discusses the opportunities for
innovative uses of m-learning (blended with social media, crowd-
sourcing, and geospatial tools) to achieve mobile transformation
(m-transformation) around the world, and illustrates the important
role pedagogical techniques play in making this happen.

50. Acceptance of Tablet Devices for Learning and Teaching in

Institutions of Higher Learning: The Malaysian Perspective 582
Zoraini Wati Abas and Raja Maznah Raja Hussain
The chapter provides a Malaysian perspective of using tablet devices for
learning and teaching in universities. The study determined the current
use of tablet devices among academicians and their opinions on
introducing tablet devices in the university. Based on 44 responses from
17 institutions, iPads were the most common device purchased. The most
common reason for purchasing was to experiment with new technology
and to have a mobile device. These were mainly used to gain information
and e-mail. Less than half of the respondents used tablets for teaching.
Most agreed that students should own tablets based on special purchasing
schemes.

51. Teachers as Learners: Concerns and Perceptions About Using Cell

Phones in South African Rural Communities 592
Mpine Makoe
The purpose of this study is to look at how practicing teacher-education
students who live and work in rural South Africa perceive the use of cell
phones in enhancing interaction in teaching and learning. The Concerns-
Based Adoption Model is used to provide a framework for understanding
stages of change that teachers have to go through in considering using cell
phones for education. Although a majority of teachers reported that they
personally own or have access to a cell phone, they have never thought of
using it in their classrooms.

52. From Mxit to Dr Math 603

Adele Botha and Laurie Butgereit
This chapter tells the story of the design and development of a sustained
online math tutoring service for learners in South Africa from 2007 to
2011. The focus is on what was learned in adapting a mobile instant-chat
service to cope with the challenges of tutoring mathematics through
technology that does not allow for math symbols or graphics; on an
instant-chat system that is predominantly used for socializing; with a
technology that is banned in most schools; through volunteers that are at
 Contents • xix

distributed locations to deliver a service that would be free to the end

user.

53. Mobile Learning Games for Low-Income Children in India:

Lessons from 2004–2009 617
Matthew Kam
The cell phone’s ubiquity in developing countries has made it widely
hyped as a highly appropriate e-learning device in these regions.
However, the evidence base remains scant. This chapter summarizes 5
years of research on designing and evaluating mobile-learning games with
low-income children in the urban slums and villages in India, based on
research that I carried out when I was at the University of California,
Berkeley, and Carnegie Mellon University. The chapter next reports that
children experienced significant post-test gains associated with the
mobile-learning games designed by my research team. Furthermore, even
in the absence of supervision from adults, rural children were expected to
voluntarily cover nearly one-third of the vocabulary that they should
acquire under ideal “industrialized country” conditions.

Index 629
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Zoraini Wati Abas is a Professor and Program Coordinator of the Doctor of Education
program at the Open University Malaysia. Her interests are in instructional design
and emerging learning technologies.
Trish Andrews is a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Queensland
and a member of the anzMLearn executive. Dr. Andrews’s interests include m-
learning for distance learners and the adoption of m-learning.
Patricia Aufderheide is University Professor in the School of Communication at
American University in Washington, DC, and founder–director of the Center for
Social Media there. She is the co-author with Peter Jaszi of Reclaiming Fair Use: How
to Put Balance Back in Copyright (University of Chicago Press, July 2011) and author
of, among others, Documentary: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press,
2007), The Daily Planet (University of Minnesota Press, 2000), and Communications
Policy and the Public Interest (Guilford Press, 1999). She heads the Fair Use and Free
Speech research project at the Center, in conjunction with Professor Peter Jaszi, in
American University’s Washington College of Law.
Ben Bachmair was Professor of Pedagogy, Media Education, and Instructional
Technology at the University of Kassel, Germany, until his retirement in 2008. His
specialisms include: mass communication and education, media and learning, media
socialization and media reception, and media within cultural development.
Stephen Baldridge currently serves on the Social Work faculty of Abilene Christian
University, where he directs the undergraduate social work program. His research
interests include family dynamics, childhood behavior, and using technology in
higher-education classes. Stephen consults with school districts around the nation,
helping them implement mobile technology in the tracking and treating of student
behavior.
Michael K. Barbour is an Assistant Professor in Instructional Technology and
Educational Evaluation and Research at Wayne State University. He has been

xx
 About the Authors • xxi

involved with K–12 online learning in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand
for over a decade, as a researcher, teacher, course designer, and administrator. His
research focuses on the effective design, delivery, and support of K–12 online
learning, particularly for students located in rural jurisdictions.
George Baroudi is Vice President for Information Technology, CIO, and Chief Business
Process Improvement Officer for Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA. Mr.
Baroudi is an electrical engineer by training. He entered the IT field at the time
of the desktop revolution, when desktops began replacing mainframe systems.
The mobile revolution, as mobility replaces desktop computing, extends the
continuum.
Siew Mee Barton is a Lecturer in the School of Marketing and Management at Deakin
University and is the joint Unit Chair for Business Communications.
Elizabeth A. Beckmann is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Higher Education, Learning
and Teaching at the Australian National University. Dr. Beckmann’s teaching and
research are related to the professional development of academics as teachers, and
student responses to technology-enhanced learning.
Terese Bird is Learning Technologist at Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University
of Leicester, UK. Her work involves supporting academics to use technology in their
teaching.
Adele Botha is a principal researcher at the CSIR Meraka Institute and research associate
at the University of South Africa. Her research is in the use of mobile technologies
for goal-oriented interactions in a developing context.
Beverly B. Bowers is Associate Professor and Assistant Dean for the Center for
Educational Excellence at the OU College of Nursing, where she promotes faculty
development and integration of technology into teaching and online learning.
Richard Brandt, PA-C, MPAS, is a Physician Assistant with over 12 years of clinical
experience in medical and surgical dermatology. He has served as a sub-investigator
(Sub-I) on multiple clinical-research studies, an adjunct faculty member in Physician
Assistant Studies, a moderator for Dermatology PA meetings, and an educator while
performing P2P and student lecturing. Additionally, he is a doctoral student in Texas
Tech University’s Technical Communication and Rhetoric program, studying new
media and m-learning in medicine.
Denise M. Bressler, having been a museum professional for over six years, is now a
graduate student at Lehigh University, USA. Bressler’s doctoral work focuses on
mobile technologies and science education.
Laurie Butgereit is the technical lead behind the Dr Math tutoring project. She is a
principal technologist at the CSIR Meraka Institute in South Africa.
Colleen Carmean serves as UWT’s strategist for e-learning and emerging technologies.
Her work lies in the research and design of shared-knowledge systems, including
environments for new, mobile, and social media. She teaches critical thinking and
applied computing, and is currently doing research on engagement practices in
e-learning.
xxii • About the Authors

Ana Amélia Carvalho is Professor of the Faculty of Psychology and Education, University
of Coimbra, Portugal. Dr. Carvalho’s teaching and scholarship involve educational
technology in Masters and PhD programs, in face-to-face and distance-education
courses.
Baiyun Chen is an instructional designer for the Center for Distributed Learning at UCF.
Her current research interests mainly focus on the use of social-media technologies,
their impact on teaching and learning, and design and evaluation of e-learning
systems.
Andreas Christ is Professor and, since 2007, Vice President of the Offenburg University
of Applied Sciences. Also, as Head of the Information Center, he is responsible for the
deployment of, and support for, e-learning and electronic media for education and
research purposes. His professional interests include technologies for mobile Internet.
Maria Cinque works in the Department of Educational Research of Fondazione Rui and
teaches learning and communication skills at Campus Bio-Medico University in
Rome. Her main research interests focus on m-learning, technology-enhanced
learning and creativity, and talent management and development.
Thomas Cochrane is Academic Advisor in eLearning and Learning Technologies at the
Centre for Learning and Teaching at AUT. Dr. Cochrane’s PhD thesis was titled,
“Mobilizing Learning: Transforming pedagogy with mobile web 2.0.”
John Cook is Professor of Technology-Enhanced Learning. He has an interest in five
related areas: informal learning, m-learning in all sectors, augmented contexts for
development, user-generated contexts, and work-based learning.
Helen Crompton is a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, USA. Crompton’s PhD foci are educational technologies, specifically mobile
technologies, and mathematics teacher preparation. Crompton is an officer in the
SIG Mobile Learning for the International Society for Technology in Education.
Paul Davies is a lecturer in science education. His teaching is focused on initial teacher
training, where he specializes in biology education. He has a particular interest in
the development of teacher subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge.
Inge de Waard is e-learning coordinator and researcher at the Institute of Tropical
Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium, and researcher at Athabasca University. Inge explores
and embeds innovative, educational solutions fitting local infrastructure and learning
contexts. She is an international speaker and collaborates with educational institutes
in several developing regions to set up technology-enhanced learning.
William C. Diehl is an independent consultant, an instructor at The Pennsylvania State
University, and the interviews editor for The American Journal of Distance Education.
His work focuses on emerging technologies, historical foundations, and theory of
open and distance education.
Laurel E. Dyson is a Senior Lecturer in Information Technology at the University of
Technology, Sydney, Australia, and President of anzMLearn, the Australian and New
Zealand Mobile Learning Group. Dr. Dyson’s interests include m-learning and
mobile technology use in indigenous communities.
 About the Authors • xxiii

Martin Ebner is Head of the Social Learning Department of the Computer and
Information Services, as well as Senior Researcher at the Institute of Information
Systems Computer Media.
Anastasios A. Economides is a Professor of Computer Networks and Telematics
Applications, and Chairman of the Information Systems Postgraduate Program at
the University of Macedonia, Greece. He is the director of CONTA (Computer
Networks and Telematics Applications) Laboratory. He has published over 200
peer-reviewed papers on computer networks, e-learning, and other e-services.
Palitha Edirisingha is lecturer in learning technology at Beyond Distance Research
Alliance, University of Leicester, UK. Dr. Edirisingha’s teaching and research involve
investigating the impact of technology on teaching and student experience.
William Farr is a Research Fellow in human–computer interaction, having trained in
psychology and informatics for hard-to-reach user groups. His PhD work focused
on using tangible user interfaces for children with autism, in collaboration with
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich.
J. D. Ferries-Rowe received his bachelor’s degree from Bradley University. He has served
in a number of roles, including English teacher, debate coach, Academic Assistant
Principal, and the ambiguous Coordinator for Special Projects. He has been a presenter
at a number of conferences, consults with public and private schools, and is currently
the National Coordinator for Technology Specialists for the Jesuit Secondary
Education Association. Areas of interest and research include: flipped classrooms,
social media, strategic planning for schools, and comic books. Follow him @jdferries.
Jill L. Frankfort is a co-founder of Persistence Plus. Forging connections among
behavioral psychology, mobile technology, and student success, she is working to
transform student support systems and college completion strategies. Previously, she
was a director at Jobs for the Future, where she worked with colleges and districts
to improve the educational outcomes of students.
Xun Ge is Professor of Instructional Psychology and Technology and Chair of the
Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Ge’s
scholarship and teaching involve designing and developing advanced-learning
technologies, inquiry-based learning environments, game-based learning environ-
ments, and virtual-learning communities to scaffold learners’ ill-structured
problem-solving and self-regulated learning.
Jackie Gerstein has been teaching face to face and online for several decades.
Her background includes a strong focus on experiential and adventure learning,
which she brings into her online teaching. You can learn more about her at
http://jackiegerstein.weebly.com.
Michael M. Grant is an Associate Professor in Instructional Design and Technology at
the University of Memphis. Dr. Grant has been working with elementary and
secondary teachers across the south for over 10 years. His research considers how
to best help teachers integrate technology and how students represent their learning
with computer technologies, particularly within project-based learning.
xxiv • About the Authors

Scott Hamm coordinates the mobile-learning research at Abilene Christian University.

Currently working on his second doctorate, a PhD in computing technology, he is
focusing his course work on mobile integration in learning environments. Scott
presents and publishes in the area of m-learning and spirituality and technology.
He teaches for the Sloan Consortium on mobile integration in online courses.
Dingchung Huang is an Instructional Designer at the Department of Forensic and
Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center Campus.
He graduated with a MEd degree from the Instructional Psychology and Technology
Program at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Huang’s work involves developing
online training programs related to DNA data interpretation and statistical evaluation
for the forensic community.
Sabrina Huber is a student of computer science management and English (as a degree
student in a teacher-training program) at the University of Technology of Graz and
the University of Graz.
Raja Maznah Raja Hussain is a Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of
Malaya and Director of the Academic Development Centre; he is interested in the
design and development of personalized learning environments.
Gwo-Jen Hwang is currently Chair Professor of National Taiwan University of Science
and Technology. His research interests include mobile and ubiquitous learning and
digital game-based learning. Owing to the distinguished achievements in mobile and
ubiquitous learning studies, in 2007, Dr. Hwang was elected as the Chair of the
Special Interest Group of Mobile and Ubiquitous Learning of the National Science
Council in Taiwan.
Sheila Jagannathan is Program Manager of the e-Institute for Development, and Senior
Education Specialist at the World Bank Institute in Washington, DC. Her experience
is in the blend of technology and learning. She has worked for over 25 years in private-
and public-sector organizations, designing and managing distance-learning program
and knowledge products in the US, East Asia, China, Middle East, and North Africa,
and more recently in Africa and South Asia. She is passionate about e-learning and
its opportunities for development; her current interests include pedagogy and
technologies, including serious games, social technologies, open-source content and
tools, collaborative platforms, and future e-learning trends. She has a Masters degree,
Certificates of Advanced Graduate study in Educational Media and Technology from
Boston University, and has completed all the requirements except for the dissertation
toward a PhD on applying artificial-intelligence techniques to design intelligent
tutoring systems.
Breana Jones is a research assistant in the Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
at Abilene Christian University, where she does statistical analysis, writes, and
presents research on behalf of the university.
Vani Kalloo has an MPhil in Computer Science and is currently pursuing a PhD in
computer science at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad
and Tobago. She is currently doing research work in m-learning for mathematics
with secondary-school students, game-based learning, and personalization. She is
currently a teaching assistant at the University of the West Indies.
 About the Authors • xxv

Matthew Kam is the senior specialist for Information and Communication Technologies
at the American Institutes for Research’s International Development Program (IDP).
He leads IDP’s research and implementation initiatives in the design, applications,
and evaluations of appropriate computing technologies that aim to improve lives
in the so-called developing world.
Mehmet Kesim is Professor at Anadolu University. His fields of interest include
new communications technologies and distance-education technologies. He
accomplished significant work conducting technical projects and applications in the
field of distance education for Anadolu University’s Open Education Faculty.
Ferial Khaddage is a Lecturer in I.T. Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environ-
ment at the School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Burwood Campus,
Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests are in m-learning technologies and
applications, and she has published widely in the area. She is an active member of
AACE and an executive committee member and founder of Global Learn Asia Pacific.
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme is Professor of Learning Technology and Communication and
Associate Director of the Open University’s Institute of Educational Technology.
She is President of the International Association for Mobile Learning.
Jennifer LaMaster is the Director of Faculty Development at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory
School. She is a former classroom teacher (she has a BS in Theatre/Speech Education,
from Bradley University), school media specialist (she has a Masters degree in
Library Science, from Indiana University), and is certified via ISTE for Proficiency
for Teaching with the National Educational Technology Standards—Teacher. Areas
of interest and research include: re-visioning assessment, multichannel learners,
technology trends in the classroom, and social media in education. Follow her
@40ishoracle.
Christoph Lattemann is Professor of Business Administration and Information
Management. His research interest is in social-media and mobile-technologies
integration in the corporate context and in education. He has published seven books
and more than 130 articles. He is a member of various review boards and professional
associations.
Ah-reum Lee is a research associate at Hanyang University, who is interested in studying
information design and practical issues in human–computer interaction.
Chee-Kit Looi is Professor of Education at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. Dr. Looi’s teaching and scholarship include
the field of m-learning and computer-supported collaborative learning.
Mpine Makoe is a senior researcher at the Institute for Open Distance Learning at the
University of South Africa (UNISA). Her scholarship involves professional
development in distance education and m-learning.
Nancy Marksbury is Deputy CIO for the Post campus of Long Island University. Ms.
Marksbury is currently a graduate student at the Palmer School of Information
Science at Long Island University. In addition to overseeing information technology
for the campus, her PhD research focuses on technology and communication.
xxvi • About the Authors

M. Daniel Martìn is Associate Professor in the School of Language Studies at the

Australian National University. Dr. Martìn was responsible for the establishment of
the university’s Spanish program and has taught Spanish at all levels. His areas of
research are social linguistics and the history of language teaching in Australia, and
he also a creative writer in Spanish.
Patrick Meyrueis has been Professor at the University of Strasbourg since 1986. He is
the founder and director of the Photonics Systems Laboratory, which is now one of
the most advanced labs in the field of planar digital optics. His professional interests
include, but are not limited to, 3D imaging, virtual reality, holography, and optics.
Marcelo Milrad is Professor of Media Technology at Linnaeus University, Sweden. His
current research interest focuses on the design and development of mobile and
wireless applications to support collaborative learning. He is one of the initiators of
the IEEE international conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technologies
in Education. He has published over 150 papers in international journals, and
refereed conferences, books, and technical reports.
Plamen Miltenoff is Professor in the Department of Information Media at St. Cloud
State University (SCSU), in Minnesota, USA. He has terminal degrees from the
United States and several other European universities. Dr. Miltenoff had taught and
worked at several European educational institutions and has taught educational
technology at SCSU for more than 10 years.
Permanand Mohan is a Senior Lecturer in Computer Science in the Department of
Computing and Information Technology at the University of the West Indies, St.
Augustine Campus, in Trinidad and Tobago. He has a PhD in computer science.
Dr. Mohan was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar to the School of Information Sciences
at the University of Pittsburgh. He is currently working on several research projects
investigating the use of mobile technology to provide ongoing education to dia-
betic patients and to support the learning of mathematics at the secondary level. He
presently supervises several postgraduate students in the areas of mobile health,
m-learning, e-learning, and games for learning. Dr. Mohan is also the Chief Examiner
of the Caribbean’s CXC CAPE examinations in computer science.
Adelina Moura is a lecturer in educational technology at Portucalense University. Dr.
Moura has a vast teaching and scholarship experience. She teaches languages
(Portuguese and French) in the K–12 classrooms. She also teaches educational
technology in Masters programs. Furthermore, she offers online courses in Web 2.0
and Web 2.0 mobile tools for language teachers.
Diana J. Muir is the CEO and Director of both the Hawking Institute, an NGO of the
UN, and the World Virtual School, in Davenport, IA, USA. Dr. Muir’s emphasis in
education is technology and social change, using instructional technology in the
classroom, online, and through m-learning. Dr. Muir has been active in online
learning since 1995 and is considered a pioneer in the field of distance learning. In
2010, she was named the Global Educator of the Year by CCLP Worldwide.
Leanne Ngo is a lecturer in e-learning in the Faculty of Business and Law at Deakin
University.
 About the Authors • xxvii

Ming Nie is a research associate in learning technology at Beyond Distance Research

Alliance, University of Leicester, UK. Dr. Nie’s research investigates how to integrate
technology into teaching and learning.
Stavros A. Nikou holds a physics degree from Aristotle University, Thessaloniki,
Greece, and an MSc in computer science from the University of Houston–Clear Lake,
USA. He is a PhD student in the field of m-learning at the University of Macedonia,
Greece.
Cathleen A. Norris is a Regents Professor in the College of Information, where she is
designing strategies for K–12 teachers to become comfortable and effective using
mobile technologies and designing curricula that leverage the affordances of mobile
technologies.
Andrew M. O’Loughlin is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Marketing and Management
at Deakin University and is the Unit Chair for Business Communications.
Hiroaki Ogata is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Engineering in the University
of Tokushima, Japan. He received the BE, ME, and PhD degrees from the University
of Tokushima in 1992, 1994, and 1998, respectively. His current research interests
are in computer-supported, ubiquitous, and m-learning and learning analytics.
Ozlem Ozan is a research assistant at Eskisehir Osmangazi University Department
of Computer Education and Instructional Technology. Her dissertation is about
m-learning. Her fields of interest also include distance education, new commu-
nications technologies, and open educational resources.
Norbert Pachler is Professor of Education. He is the founder and convenor of the London
Mobile Learning Group (www.londonmobilelearning.net). His research interests
are in the fields of technology-enhanced learning, with a particular emphasis on
m-learning and e-learning, teacher education and development, and foreign-language
education.
Scott Perkins is Professor of Psychology at Abilene Christian University (ACU). Over
the last four years, Dr. Perkins’ research has focused on issues and outcomes related
to ACU’s connected m-learning initiative, including student engagement, learning
outcomes, and utilization patterns related to the integration of m-learning devices
in higher education. Perkins has played a leadership role in conducting and
encouraging faculty research on mobility across the ACU campus for the last
decade.
Sara Price is a Senior Lecturer in Technology-Enhanced Learning. Her work encompasses
the educational application of pervasive, mobile, and tangible technologies, and the
relationship between technology and educational practice. She was recently PI on
the JISC-funded project GeoSciTeach.
Clark N. Quinn is Executive Director of Quinnovation and Senior Director of Interaction
and Mobile for the Internet Time Alliance. Dr. Quinn consults, writes, and
speaks on the strategic implementation of advanced learning and performance
technology.
xxviii • About the Authors

Rich Rice is Associate Professor of English at Texas Tech University, where he specializes
in technical communication and rhetoric. He directs the TTU English Multiliteracy Lab,
which explores intersections between new media composing and teaching, research,
service, and grant writing. He teaches online, hybrid, and F2F courses in new media
and rhetoric, grant writing, multimodal composing, and technical communication.
Jodi B. Roberts is the IRB Officer for the Human Research Protection Program at MSU.
Dr. Roberts has 8 years of experience in distance learning and 13 years of experience
in the field of disability studies.
Hokyoung Ryu is a human–computer-interaction and mobile-learning researcher with
an interest in new information design; he is an Associate Professor in the Department
of Industrial Engineering at Hanyang University, Korea.
Kenneth N. Salim is a co-founder of Persistence Plus. An expert on supporting students
to and through college, he has served as a senior public-school district administrator
and superintendent of schools in Massachusetts and has led initiatives to increase
graduation rates.
George Saltsman is the Executive Director of the Taskforce on Innovation in Learning
and Educational Technology at Abilene Christian University and leader of ACU’s
connected m-learning program. George is an Apple Distinguished Educator and the
winner of multiple awards, including Campus Technology Innovator of the Year
and the New Media Consortium’s Center of Excellence award. He is co-author of
An Administrators Guide to Online Education and multiple other works focused on
the integration of technology in education.
Aaron J. Sams is a science teacher at Woodland Park High School, Woodland Park, CO,
USA. Mr. Sams is an award-winning science teacher who co-chaired the committee
to revise the Colorado state science standards in 2009. He is a pioneer in the flipped-
classroom concept and conducts flipped-classroom training and workshops around
the world.
Ryan M. Seilhamer is an instructional designer for the Center for Distributed Learning
at UCF. Ryan’s teaching and learning interests involve emerging technologies such
as m-learning for higher education.
Mike Sharples is Professor of Educational Technology in the Institute of Educational
Technology at the Open University, UK. His research involves human-centered
design of new technologies for learning. He inaugurated the mLearn conference series
and was Founding President of the International Association for Mobile Learning.
He is the author of over 250 papers in the areas of educational technology, science
education, human-centered design of personal technologies, artificial intelligence,
and cognitive science.
Robyn Smyth is an Associate Professor and Director of Learning and Teaching Support.
Her research interests include synchronous communications technologies and
innovating pedagogies in higher education.
Elliot M. Soloway is an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor in the College of Engineering, where
he is developing end-to-end—handheld clients to cloud backends—mobile-learning
platforms that support synchronous and asynchronous collaborative learning, 24/7.
 About the Authors • xxix

Ioana A. Stănescu works as a project manager at Advanced Technology Systems,

Romania. Her research focuses on decision-support systems, knowledge manage-
ment, interoperability and semantics, mobile technologies, and game-based and
creative learning.
Antoniu Ştefan is a software developer at Advanced Technology Systems, Romania.
Mr. Ştefan designs Web- and Windows-based applications for electronic services
such as m-learning, m-government, and m-business.
Sharon Stoerger is an instructional design consultant and adjunct instructor at the
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA. Dr. Stoerger’s teaching and scholarship
are focused on social media, including virtual worlds, m-learning, and pedagogical
practices in e-learning environments.
Amy B. Sugar is an instructional designer for the Center for Distributed Learning at the
University of Central Florida, USA. Her teaching and learning research interests
include social media, m-learning, and accessibility to online materials for individuals
with disabilities.
Dustin C. Summey is an instructional designer and teaches for the instructional-
technology graduate program at the University of Central Arkansas, USA. Mr.
Summey’s teaching and scholarship involve professional development, online
teaching, and m-learning in both K–12 and higher education.
Razia Sultana is working as a research assistant in Offenburg University of Applied
Sciences and is a doctoral student in the University of Strasbourg, France. Her thesis
area involves device-independent communication and delivery of virtual-reality
scenes in different devices, including mobile devices.
John M. Traxler is Professor of Mobile Learning, probably the world’s first and a full
UK professor, and Director of the Learning Lab at the University of Wolverhampton.
He is a Founding Director of the International Association for Mobile Learning and
Associate Editor of the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning and of
Interactive Learning Environments. He is on the Research Board of the Association
for Learning Technology and the Editorial Board of Research in Learning Technology
and IT in International Development. He was Conference Chair of mLearn2008, the
world’s biggest and oldest mobile-learning research conference. John has co-written
a guide to m-learning in developing countries and is co-editor of the definitive book,
Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers, with Professor Agnes
Kukulska-Hulme.
Harry Grover Tuttle teaches Spanish at Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, NY.
Dr. Tuttle focuses his research on improving student learning through formative
assessment, m-learning, speaking, and culture.
Jenny S. Wakefield works as an instructional designer at the University of Texas at Dallas.
She is a doctoral student and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Learning
Technologies at the University of North Texas. Her work includes supporting higher-
education learning through social media and with virtual worlds.
Ruth Wallace is Director of the Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University’s research
institute for social and public policy, education, and the humanities. Associate
xxx • About the Authors

Professor Wallace’s particular interest is in research that improves outcomes for

stakeholders in regional and remote Australia.
Scott J. Warren is an Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at the University of
North Texas. His research examines the use of emerging online technologies such
as immersive digital-learning environments and educational games and simulations
in K-20 settings.
Rachel Wexelbaum is Collection Management Librarian at St. Cloud State University,
in Minnesota, USA. Ms. Wexelbaum currently teaches a research-strategies course;
her scholarship involves representation of underserved populations in collection
development, the challenges of e-reader adoption in academic libraries, and advances
in technology to deliver and promote library resources and services.
Julie A. Willems (http://wikieducator.org/user:julie_willems) is an e-learning designer/
educational developer in the School of Rural Health, Monash University, Australia.
Dr. Willems’ research foci include educational technology (particularly mobile
technologies), social media for formal and informal learning, learning during
emergencies and disasters, and educational diversity, equity, and access. Julie is
on the National Executive of the Open and Distance Learning Association of
Australia.
Lung-Hsiang Wong is a research scientist in the Learning Sciences Laboratory, National
Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Dr. Wong’s
main research interests are in the areas of mobile and seamless learning, and
technology-enhanced language learning.
Huimin Zhang is a training specialist in the Inflight Services Training and Development
Department of Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. Huimin Zhang graduated with an MEd
degree from the Instructional Psychology and Technology Program at the University
of Oklahoma. Ms. Zhang is involved in training cabin crew through face-to-face
and computer-based instruction.
 PREFACE

Over the past decade and a half, the use of mobile devices has changed the landscape of
communication in business and society generally. When technology makes sweeping
changes such as this, it is little wonder that educators explore and experiment with how
those technologies might help solve educational problems or increase student
performance.
A lot of time and intellectual effort has been expended trying to define what mobile
learning (m-learning) is and how it differs from other types of educational delivery,
and in describing the salient elements of m-learning regarding teaching and learning.
M-learning uses the same mobile devices that are used throughout our daily lives for
friendly communication in the variety of venues a person finds him/herself. These are
ubiquitous, personal, mobile devices that are relatively inexpensive and easy to carry
and provide immediate access to people and information that helps an individual solve
his/her problems whenever and wherever that individual is located. To the extent
education can integrate an individual’s learning with the other aspects of his/her life,
m-learning may be successful for improving education or training.
There are several components of m-learning used for educational purposes that are
important, especially when combined. Wireless, easy-to-carry, mobile devices lead to
the learner’s mobility, untethering that individual from a particular place. This also allows
learners to converse and explore information across the many locations and contexts in
which they find themselves throughout the day. As the learner faces the need for
information or problem-solving, the need is for personal, just-in-time performance
support, information, or learning to meet these individual challenges. To a large extent,
m-learning can be thought of as communication in context. Many of the chapters in this
Handbook speak to such mobile educational practices as using mobile devices within in-
person classrooms, using the applications built specifically for use in these more
traditional classes, and the tools built into mobile devices (e.g., video and still camera,
audio recorder, GPS) that promote interesting, hands-on projects. Other chapters in
this Handbook, such as the ones set in developing countries, point out the value of mobile
phones as the only practical technology available for delivery of distance education.

xxxi
xxxii • Preface

However, for many teachers and scholars, when thinking of m-learning, the first thing
that comes to their minds is not the delivery of courses, as is done in a traditional school,
university, or training classroom. Rather, m-learning’s main strength is more about
learning that occurs outside of these formal learning environments. Performance support,
informal learning, and learning that is driven solely by the curiosity of the learner are
some of the first thoughts that enter their minds when the concept of m-learning is
mentioned. For them, the central position in m-learning is the learner, rather than the
teacher. M-learning is all about what learners do with mobile devices, rather than how
educators want learners to use mobile devices.
In-person education is based on interpersonal communication between the teacher
and students in the classroom. For educators who believe m-learning needs to focus
on learning, m-learning doesn’t fit so well with in-person education and training. The
technology that is used in traditional classrooms supplements the teacher. So, m-learning
can be used for in-person education, but is it built for it? In many ways, these educators
are excited about m-learning as the rejection of technology-enhanced education and
see m-learning as a possible way of transforming the educational enterprise. Although
m-learning shares elements of distance education and e-learning, such as the separation
of teacher and learner and the substitution of the teacher in the classroom with technology
for the delivery of instruction, all these forms of education generally focus on teaching
rather than learning. In other words, to some educators, m-learning doesn’t fit so well
into any education. It is because of these ideological differences, how educators differ
in their beliefs about education and the purposes of education, that defining educational
technology, including m-learning, continues to be troublesome.
This Handbook is organized into five parts. Following is a brief outline of the contents.

PART I
Part I lays the theoretical groundwork for the remainder of the book. It begins with
historical perspectives and an overview of mobile-learning literature, then presents new
learning theories specific to m-learning, and ends with predictions about the future of this
budding field. In Chapter 1, Crompton presents a historical overview of the field of
electronic learning and the recent development of the field of m-learning. Diehl (Chapter
2) provides historical context and presents m-learning as a subfield of distance education,
and then focuses on early technologies and social movements within the field of m-learning.
Cochrane (Chapter 3) provides an overview and critique of m-learning research, suggesting
gaps in the literature and a more strategic approach to research in the future.
Because m-learning is a relatively young field, researchers are keen on articulating
learning theories that can guide the work of practitioners and researchers alike. Several
of our authors offer theories for m-learning. Pachler, Bachmair, and Cook (Chapter 4)
examine m-learning through a sociocultural lens and consider the mobile complex—
the specific structures, agency, and cultural practices—as it relates to the field of
education. In Chapter 5, Crompton makes a case that m-learning, being uniquely
different from conventional tethered electronic learning and traditional learning, requires
a new theory based on the themes of context, connectivity, time, and personalization.
Moura and Carvalho (Chapter 6) present their framework for the integration of mobile
technologies in education, which is based on constructivist approaches, activity theory,
and the ARCS model. Warren and Wakefield (Chapter 7) base their theory of learning
 Preface • xxxiii

and teaching as communicative action on the importance of human communication as

the center of teaching and learning experiences.
The next group of authors take a forward-looking view of m-learning, boldly
predicting where this rapidly evolving field may be headed. Quinn (Chapter 8) explores
how new devices, trends, and emerging capabilities will augment performance support
and formal learning, support contextual learning, make thinking visible, and make
learning more engaging. Milrad et al. (Chapter 9) consider how mobile and ubiquitous
technology enhances learning, offering the opportunity for seamless learning, which may
help educational institutions overcome challenges in implementing innovative practices,
instituting m-learning in classroom settings, and attaining sustainability. Norris and
Soloway (Chapter 10) present their optimistic and empowering view that mobile
technology (and bring-your-own-device initiatives) will transform the pedagogy and
curriculum of K–12 schools, empowering students who will learn by doing. In Chapter
11, Khaddage and Lattemann discuss the future of mobile apps for teaching and learning
in higher education and identify the organizational and social barriers to their adoption.
To wrap up Part I, Traxler (Chapter 12) analyzes a decade’s worth of mobile-learning
programs and projects that address issues of access, inclusion, and equity, in both the
developed and the developing world, to determine the factors that support such complex
efforts.

PART II
Part II of the book focuses on the learner and learning. Authors in this part explore how
to improve the mobile-learning experience through effective learner support. Kukulska-
Hulme (Chapter 13) sets the stage by sharing her findings from a review of 10 years of
mobile-learning conference proceedings, in which she identifies the groups of learners
most often targeted in mobile-learning literature and groups who have thus far been
largely overlooked. Next, Hwang (Chapter 14) discusses how mobile devices can be used
to provide learning support, and describes mobile-learning projects that utilized specific
Mindtools such as concept maps and expert systems, which simulate expert reasoning
using artificial intelligence. In Chapter 15, Ozan and Kesim continue with the idea of
learner support by explicating four types of scaffolding for m-learning: instructional,
social, technical, and managerial. Stemming from their experiences with the campus-
wide mobile-learning implementation at Abilene Christian University, Hamm, Saltsman,
Jones, Baldridge, and Perkins (Chapter 16) build a case for a more student-centric mobile-
learning model, based on the themes of increased learner engagement, learner
independence, and communication.
One of the purported strengths of m-learning is the provision of personalized learning
experiences; however, this potential is not often fully exploited. Presenting a truly unique
approach to learner support in Chapter 17, Carmean, Frankfort, and Salim share how
real-time, personalized support focused on goal setting, time management, and dealing
with academic setbacks has enhanced the resiliency, persistence, and success of college
students. A second strength of m-learning is that it supports collaborative and con-
nectivist learning environments. In Chapter 18, Lee and Ryu discuss how highly
collaborative mobile-learning experiences trigger social flow, creating an optimal learning
environment in which learners are willing to take greater risks and can achieve more
than when working independently.
xxxiv • Preface

A major advantage of mobile devices is their portability, which allows for use anytime
and anywhere. People can learn while situated in real-world contexts and activities, and
thus m-learning supports authentic learning opportunities. Chapters 19 through 21
exemplify authentic, situated m-learning. Cinque (Chapter 19) describes two projects
in which learners used mobile devices seamlessly for a variety of purposes during on-
the-job training in a medical school and a cooking school. Interestingly, the uptake of
m-learning differed between these diverse settings. In Chapter 20, Bressler describes how
the affordances of m-learning are changing the face of museum education. Museums
are more actively engaging learners with their content, using such technologies as geo-
referenced data and augmented reality—all of which is leading to a more participatory
culture. Finally, Nie, Bird, and Edirisingha continue the examination of the use of
mobile devices to support work-based learning. In Chapter 21, they focus on the impact
e-book readers and PDAs had on learners’ mobility, learner support, learning time and
cost, and learning design.

PART III
The focus shifts in Part III to an examination of teaching with mobile devices and
instructional design for m-learning. Cochrane (Chapter 22) leads off this part by making
a strong case that m-learning can serve as a catalyst for pedagogical change. He considers
how m-learning transformed pedagogy in four different higher-education contexts and
outlines a framework for supporting the pedagogical change enabled by m-learning. The
next four chapters explore teacher experiences when integrating m-learning and offer
suggested approaches for effective teaching and learning with mobiles. In Chapter 23,
Sams explains how mobile technologies can be exploited to support a flipped classroom,
thereby making the best use of class time, and to provide more individualized instruction
to learners. Gerstein (Chapter 24) shares an assortment of team-building and
community-building activities that can be conducted using students’ mobile devices.
Grant and Barbour (Chapter 25) relate lessons learned from two pilot projects: the first,
m-learning integrated into K–12 teacher professional development, and the second,
utilized m-learning in an online advanced-placement course. Finally, O’Loughlin, Barton,
and Ngo recount the experiences of five lecturers who were provided iPads to support
their classroom teaching.
The remaining five chapters in this part consider aspects of instructional design for
m-learning. Price, Davies, and Farr (Chapter 27) explore how participatory design affects
teachers’ understanding of geospatial science concepts, beliefs about the use of
smartphone technologies, and ultimately the adoption of mobile-learning activities with
their K–12 students. Huber and Ebner (Chapter 28) analyze the iPad Human Interface
Guidelines to determine the relationship between good interface design and ease of use
of learning applications. Based on their observations of learners using a variety of iPad
apps, they provide excellent general guidelines for the use of tablets in the K–12
classroom. In Chapter 29, Ge, Huang, Zhang, and Bowers propose a conceptual
framework, which includes pedagogical, design, and technological dimensions, to guide
instructional design practices for m-learning. Nikou and Economides (Chapter 30)
synthesize the research on mobile assessment, explaining current practices, affordances,
and constraints of this emerging field. Rounding out this part, de Waard (Chapter 31)
illustrates her model for the design of a mobile Massive Open Online Course (mMOOC).
 Preface • xxxv

PART IV
Many of the chapters in this book discuss the challenges faced when implementing an
m-learning initiative. Without the proper administration, management, and policies in
place, sustaining m-learning is difficult, if not impossible. Several authors in Part IV
share lessons learned from undertaking mobile-learning initiatives at their institutions.
Through the lens of change management, Baroudi and Marksbury (Chapter 32) analyze
the technological and sociocultural challenges faced when their institution distributed
12,000 iPads to students, faculty, and staff, then offer suggestions for other large-scale
deployments. Seilhamer, Chen, and Sugar (Chapter 33) introduce the Mobile Imple-
mentation Framework, which offers a systematic approach to a campus-wide mobile-
technology implementation. They present lessons learned from the release of the
Blackboard Mobile Learn product at a very large higher-education institution. LaMaster
and Ferries-Rowe (Chapter 34) thoroughly describe the development, implementation,
and evaluation of a bring-your-own-technology program utilizing cloud-based
computing at an 800-student private preparatory high school. Pedagogy and student
learning were the driving forces in decision-making for issues such as access, bandwidth,
student safety, technical support, financial aid, and staff development.
Today’s administrators, managers, designers, teachers, and learners must concern
themselves with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the use of m-learning. Several
authors help to demystify these complex topics. Dyson, Andrews, Smyth, and Wallace
(Chapter 35) examine a range of ethical issues in m-learning, offer a framework for an
ethical approach to m-learning, and propose that educators, administrators, and students
adopt an ethic of responsibility. Aufderheide (Chapter 36) shares her expertise and
guidance on U.S. copyright policy and the right of fair use, as well as community-based
codes of best practice in fair use, as they apply to m-learning. Roberts (Chapter 37)
outlines accessibility laws, presents accessibility and universal design principles, and
makes recommendations for accessible m-learning.
Considering the changes brought about by m-learning in areas such as ethics,
accessibility, and copyright policy, and the organizational structures necessary to support
mobile-learning initiatives, one stakeholder is uniquely poised to support mobile-
learning initiatives. In Chapter 38, Wexelbaum and Miltenoff build a case that academic
libraries should be considered an integral part of any mobile-learning initiative. Librarians
have a highly relevant skill set and can provide invaluable resources and support to mobile
learners.

PART V
M-learning offers broad opportunities for application in diverse settings with all sorts
of learners. Part V comprises 15 chapters that explore m-learning projects and cases from
around the world, situated in many different contexts. A common thread that runs
through these cases is optimism about the promise of m-learning. Authors describe both
the benefits and the challenges faced when implementing projects and learning activities
using mobile devices, and offer insightful advice for your consideration.
Improving student and teacher performance in K–12 schools is a critical goal for
countries around the world. The integration of technology is often seen as a promising
path to help learners attain 21st-century learning goals, and many of this book’s authors
xxxvi • Preface

see potential in mobile-learning initiatives. Summey (Chapter 39) explores mobile-

learning strategies that enhance various aspects of K–12 teacher professional development
in the United States. Kalloo and Mohan (Chapter 40) discuss the use of a customized
mobile math game to improve the motivation and performance of high-school algebra
students in the Caribbean.
With more resources and latitude for experimentation, and a ready cadre of researchers
and academic writers, initiatives at higher-education institutions are often presented in
the mobile-learning literature. Stoerger (Chapter 41) discusses the potential of ubiquitous
learning opportunities to transform education, sharing several mobile-learning projects
at her U.S. institution of higher education. Yet there are many intriguing m-learning
projects happening across a spectrum of contexts. In Chapter 42, Brandt and Rice
explain how medical care and training are evolving in the United States through the
praxis of mobile medicine. Mobile tools are also changing military education, as
demonstrated by Stănescu and Ştefan (Chapter 43) in their development of a mobile
knowledge management system, a virtual network that provides real-time access to
knowledge and learning for the Romanian military. Willems (Chapter 44) outlines how
mobile-learning initiatives in Australia are saving lives during emergencies, disasters,
and catastrophes, when typical communications channels are either down or can’t pro-
vide timely and accurate information.
Owing to the unique affordances of mobile devices, one area that appears ripe for
mobile-learning implementation is in foreign-language learning. Tuttle (Chapter 45)
explains why this is the case, and presents a broad array of mobile-assisted language
learning activities to improve student speaking, speaking about culture, and assessing
speaking of a foreign language. Beckmann and Martìn (Chapter 46) extend this discussion
by analyzing their extensive experiences using m-learning to facilitate Spanish-language
learning for university students in Australia. In Chapter 47, Christ, Meyrueis, and Sultana
describe the architecture of a mobile collaborative language learning game developed in
Germany that allows adult learners to practice the target language using a mobile device.
Educators and instructional designers in developed countries often struggle to
effectively implement m-learning, perhaps because learners have so many options for
access. If a mobile-learning experience is not better than the alternatives—more effective,
efficient, convenient, or fun—users may not be motivated to persist. But what happens
when mobile devices offer what is often the only access to electronic learning resources?
Muir (Chapter 48) provides an enlightening description of the unique learner needs and
some unexpected challenges in providing mobile-learning opportunities in former
communist and developing countries. Yet she maintains an extremely positive message
throughout by providing suggestions for overcoming these barriers. Jagannathan
(Chapter 49) describes several innovative mobile-learning projects that are transforming
the lives of poor people in developing countries, including the provision of: just-in-time
notifications of the availability of drinking water, information on farming techniques,
medical consultations, and communication channels for participatory government. As
an interesting contrast, Abas and Raja Hussain (Chapter 50) describe the extraordinary
investment the developing country Malaysia has made in information communication
and technology to establish a knowledge-based economy. They then examine tablet-
device usage among higher-education faculty in Malaysia. Makoe (Chapter 51) continues
the examination of mobile-device use by educators, studying the attitudes and usage
level of teachers in South African rural communities. Botha and Butgereit (Chapter 52)
 Preface • xxxvii

tell the story of the sustained development and incredible growth of a free mobile math-
tutoring service for learners in South Africa. And finally, Kam (Chapter 53) shares the
fascinating results of a multi-year project to develop mobile-learning games for low-
income children in India.
Taken together, the 53 chapters in the Handbook of Mobile Learning provide a
comprehensive, scholarly review of m-learning. Along with the many benefits of
m-learning that are discussed throughout the book, such as accessibility, flexibility, and
convenience, there are inhibitors, too, just as there are to any delivery system used for
educational purposes. These barriers include technical, social, managerial, and
pedagogical challenges to using m-learning. We hope that this Handbook helps its
readers—educational administrators, teachers, support staff, students, and scholars—
as they learn more about m-learning.
Lin Y. Muilenburg
Zane L. Berge
Maryland, October 2012
This page intentionally left blank
 Part I
Foundations and Future
This page intentionally left blank
 1
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF M-LEARNING
Toward Learner-Centered Education
Helen Crompton

A consideration of all the various historical and cultural events that have led to mobile
learning (m-learning) would trace back through history far beyond the invention of
Gutenberg’s printing press and the influence of the Industrial Revolution. Although it
needs to be acknowledged that these events have enabled the mobile age to reach where
it is today, this chapter looks more specifically into recent history, starting when the
mobile technological epoch began to take shape. In order to explain the history, mobile
and learning have been separated, before I explicitly detail the interconnections for what
has now become this young field of m-learning. The chapter will begin by explicating
the philosophical, pedagogical, and conceptual underpinnings regarding learning,
particularly toward learner-centered pedagogies. This will be followed by a discussion
of the technology, covering the evolution of the hardware/software, its adoption into
society, and how these technological advancements have led to today’s new affordances
for learning.

DEFINING MOBILE LEARNING

At this time, there is no definitive definition of m-learning. If terms such as distance
education are any indication, there probably will not be a lasting definition of m-learning
for a long time to come. In January 2005, Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) reported
receiving 1,240 items when searching Google for the terms + “mobile learning”
+ “definition”; remarkably, when they conducted the same search in June 2005, Google
provided 22,700 items. So, it appears that 2005 was the year in which m-learning became
a recognized term.
In m-learning’s relatively short existence, scholars and practitioners have attempted
to define it. An early definition of m-learning was simply the use of a palm as a learning
device (Quinn, 2000; Soloway et al., 2001). Since then, deep debates have been ongoing
as to which attributes should be included in a definition of m-learning (e.g., Laouris &
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007; Traxler, 2009), and, from a study
of the literature, it appears that pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social

3
4 • Helen Crompton

interactions are the four central constructs. For example, O’Malley et al. (2003)
defined m-learning as, “Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a
fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advan-
tage of learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies.” In O’Malley et al.’s
definition, the initial focus is contextual, although closely followed by pedagogies and
technologies.
Traxler’s (2005) early definition, “any educational provision where the sole or
dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices,” was a good example of a
definition centered on the technology. Many early definitions were criticized for taking
a technocentric approach (Traxler, 2010). One issue that is agreed upon by academics
and practitioners is that further research is necessary to better understand the field of
m-learning (Goh & Kinshuk, 2006), which will undoubtedly lead to many further
changes to the definition of m-learning.
Sharples et al. (2007) defined m-learning as, “The process of coming to know through
conversations across multiple contexts amongst people and personal interactive tech-
nologies” (Sharples et al., 2007, p. 4). Although this definition included the four central
constructs of m-learning (namely, pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social
interactions), the definition is somewhat confusing and ambiguous. For example, the
word conversations is used early in the definition, which highlights the impor-
tance of this word to the definition, and, yet, the definition of conversation is
“Oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas” (“Conversation,”
Merriam–Webster Dictionary, 2011). Does this, then, mean that m-learning is centered
round verbal communication? Sharples et al.’s definition was written for an article that
highlighted conversational theory, and, although they may have intended for conversa-
tion to be interactions in general, a word has been chosen that connotes simply oral
interactions.
Therefore, for the purpose of the chapter, and this book at large, the author of this
chapter and the editors of this book (Crompton, Muilenburg, and Berge) have modified
Sharples et al.’s (2007) definition. This new definition includes the four central constructs
of m-learning, but the wording has been chosen to reduce ambiguity, and additional
punctuation has also been included for clarity. Therefore, Crompton, Muilenburg, and
Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social
and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
To be clear, the word “context” in this definition encompasses m-learning that is
formal, self-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware
and context neutral. In other words, the learning may be directed by others or by
oneself, and it can be an unplanned, spontaneous learning experience; learning can
happen in an academic setting, or any other non-academic setting; and the physical
environment may or may not be involved in the learning experience.
Therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a
formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his
or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can
use the device to look up something that has just prompted an interest. The environment
may be part of the learning experience (e.g., scanning codes to obtain further information
about an exhibit in a museum), or the environment may have a neutral role in the
learning experience (e.g., reading articles from the Web while traveling on the bus).
 A Historical Overview of M-Learning • 5

PEDAGOGICAL SHIFTS IN LEARNING

Throughout history, learning has been of paramount importance in all cultures. In simple
terms, learning is essential to personal and professional survival, and a culture’s
pedagogical choice is often driven by social behavior, expectations, and values. For
example, Western pedagogies during the 1930s did not encourage autonomy and self-
direction. A student was to learn facts without question. Even into the 1950s, pedagogies
typically emulated the tabula rasa approach, teaching the students as though they were
empty vessels waiting for the teachers to impart knowledge.
Learners today are viewed very differently: students are encouraged to be active in
their own learning, to be self-thinking and active consumers of knowledge. Historical
components that form a background to this cultural and societal pedagogical shift
include: reactions to behaviorism, linguistic pragmatism, minority rights movements,
increased internationalism, and wider access to education (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). Shifts
in educational philosophy have been led by calls for change toward active learnership.
Piaget (1929) pioneered the transition from the tabula rasa view of young learners, to
instead positing learners with complex cognitive structures, seeking environmental
stimulation to promote intellectual development.
Building from Piaget’s (1929) position toward cognitive theories of learning, Bruner
(1966) added that learners use current and past knowledge during the active learning
process. Soon afterward, the learner-centered pedagogical epoch commenced.

Discovery Learning in the 1970s

Learning the heuristics of discovery through active participation was Bruner’s (1966)
recipe for increasing intellectual potency. He believed students are more likely to
remember concepts they deduce on their own. This philosophy led to the discovery-
learning movement, with the focus on how students acquire, retain, and recall knowledge,
a transition from the behaviorist stimulus–response approach. Unfortunately, technology
in schools was generally lagging behind instructional pedagogies; the few schools that
had computers in the 1970s utilized behavioristic computer-assisted learning programs
(Lee, 2000). The World Wide Web (WWW) would have been a great learning support
to discovery learning, although only a small number of people had Internet access until
the 1990s.

Constructivist Learning in the 1980s

Constructivism is an epistemic belief about how students learn. Following Piaget’s
(1929), Bruner’s (1966), and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists
proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment.
During the 1980s, the development and distribution of multimedia personal computers
offered such an interactive method of learning. “The computer was no longer a conduit
for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that
information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12).

Constructionist Learning in the 1980s

Constructionism differed from constructivism, as Papert (1980) posited an additional
component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved
in constructing social objects. Using Taylor’s (1980) tutor, tool, and tutee computer
6 • Helen Crompton

analogy, Papert’s constructionism advocates the tutee position. For example, the
computer-as-tutee approach would involve students using Logo to teach the computer
to draw a picture (Papert, 1980). Another technology example would be using another,
slightly more advanced, microworld to teach Karel the Robot to perform various tasks.

Problem-Based Learning in the 1990s

Although problem-based learning was developed in medical education in the 1950s, the
methodology was not widely used in K–12 schools until the 1990s (Wilson, 1996).
Problem-based learning involves students working on tasks and activities authentic to
the environment in which those particular skills would be used. Students then learn by
constructing their own knowledge from thinking critically and creatively to solve
problems. This pedagogical practice caused a technological dilemma, in that desktop
computers could not easily be transported around from place to place. Therefore, it is
reasonable to claim that mobility became a desired attribute for technologies used with
problem-based learning.
Learner-centered education, as the name implies, focuses on the role of the learner
rather than the teacher; problem-based learning is a clear example of such a shift in the
role of student and teacher. The teacher is the guide in the process, and no longer the
main repository of knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In the problem-based learning of
the 1990s, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and
resources to solve problems. This launched the start of the sociocultural revolution,
focusing on learning in out-of-school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through
social interaction.

Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s

The next logical step in the learner-centered evolution was toward socio-constructivist
learning. Social constructivists believe that social and individual processes are
interdependent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palincsar, 1998; Vygotsky,
1978). The tenet of socio-constructivism is that intellectual advancement occurs through
interactions with a group.
The sociocultural revolution was not limited to education specifically. SixDegrees.com
was the first public social-networking site, launched in 1997 (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
This initial site developed into the plethora of social-networking sites available today,
including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Social networking sites provide “latent ties”
(Haythornthwaite, 2005), which are those with established offline connections, and
there is also the opportunity to meet online with people one may never meet face to
face.

Learner-Centered Developments
Thus far, a description has been given of the main learner-centered pedagogical
developments from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s. There were other pedagogies/
theories of learning during this time, such as discovery learning (Anthony, 1973), inquiry
learning (Papert, 1980), and experiential learning (Kolb & Fry, 1975), which are similar
to those described in this part. From studying the learning pedagogies and theories, it
is clear that pedagogical practice since the 1970s has continually revised the model and
theories behind learner-centered pedagogies. Table 1.1 provides a visual overview of this
revision process.
 A Historical Overview of M-Learning • 7

Table 1.1 Overview of the Revision Process in Learner-Centered Pedagogies/Theories

Learner pedagogies/theories Decade Main tenets of the pedagogies/theories

Discovery learning 1970s Knowledge is discovered through active participation in the
learning process
Constructivist learning 1980s Knowledge develops through interactions with the environment
Constructionist learning 1980s Knowledge is gained through actively creating social objects
Problem-based learning 1990s Knowledge is developed through working on tasks and skills
authentic to the environment in which those particular skills
would be used
Socio-constructivist learning 1990s Knowledge is co-constructed interdependently between the social
and the individual

The common evolving attributes listed in Table 1.1 are active involvement of the
learner in the knowledge-making process and learner interaction with the environment
and society. This is where we arrive at the learning pedagogies of the 2000s, with m-
learning and context-aware ubiquitous learning providing new affordances for learners.
M-learning and context-aware ubiquitous learning will be described later in this chapter.
Looking back at the brief descriptions of the technologies connected with the learning
pedagogies of that time, it appears that technologies have had to play catch-up with
pedagogical trends. However, there are those who believe that it is the technology leading
pedagogical practice. Sharples (2005) proposed:

Every era of technology has, to some extent, formed education in its own image. That
is not to argue for the technological determinism of education, but rather that there
is a mutually productive convergence between main technological influences on a
culture and the contemporary educational theories and practices.
(Sharples, 2005, p. 147)

The technological influence has also been reflected in educators and governments
recently advocating for educational reforms to utilize technologies during teaching and
learning (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009;
Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008). Teachers and students became
increasingly aware of the potential to use the devices for differentiated, private, and self-
directed learning.
Since the increase in technologies, such as the social adoption of the WWW and cell
phones during the 1990s, the argument could be made that society’s adoption and
perceptions of technological hardware/software influence how people learn. The next
section of this chapter gives a brief chronological overview of the technological
underpinnings of technology relating to the development of m-learning.

ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY
1970s
The 1970s were a significant decade for the development of many hardware/software
technologies such as the floppy disk, the microcomputer, the VHS videocassette recorder,
8 • Helen Crompton

and the first mobile phone. This was also the decade in which Kay (1972) created the
concept model of the Dynabook, the first handheld multimedia computer intended as
a learning device. As Kay conceptualized the Dynabook, he described some of the
attributes the revolutionary device would hold:

Imagine having your own self-contained knowledge manipulator in a portable package

the size and shape of an ordinary notebook. Suppose it had enough power to outrace
your senses of sight and hearing, enough capacity to store for later retrieval thousands
of page-equivalents of reference materials, poems, letters, recipes, records, drawings,
animations, musical scores, waveforms, dynamic simulations, and anything else you
would like to remember and change.
(Kay & Goldberg, 1977/2001, p. 167)

The Dynabook was never actually created, but the ripples of his ideas have continued
through to the 21st century. Sharples (2002) believed that the actual device did not move
beyond the conceptual phase because technologies were not advancing fast enough. It
also conflicted with the drive for the incorporation of desktop computers in classroom
teaching.
Although the Dynabook never reached fruition, Kay and Goldberg’s research
developed prototype desktop computers, described as “interim Dynabooks” (Kay &
Goldberg, 1977/2001, p. 168), and a programming language called SmallTalk. SmallTalk
was an object-oriented software language, responsible for the later invention of the
graphical user interface (GUI) for use on computers, portable media players, gaming
devices, and handheld devices. This was a significant event in the history of electronic
technologies, as the GUI allowed users to command the device through clicking on icons,
rather than having to type in command strings, making it simpler for the novice user.
The first mobile phone, developed in 1973, was the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X,
although it was not until 1983 that the commercial version was on sale. Nevertheless,
the Dynabook and the first mobile phones paved the way for the m-learning devices
that are readily available today.

1980s
During this decade, numerous companies heralded the arrival of handheld computers.
Table 1.2 lists a selection of the handheld devices introduced during the 1980s.
Other companies, such as Panasonic, Sharp, Texas Instruments, and Seiko Instru-
ments, also produced commercial handheld computers in the 1980s. The handheld
computers of the 1980s are still far from resembling the Dynabook conceived by Kay
and Goldberg (1977/2001), and they were typically marketed and used in business
settings, but a clear progression can be seen over the decade.
Technologies in general were becoming more personalized, moving from the shared
desktop PCs to laptops and handheld personal computers, and from the fixed telephone
to personal cell phones. During the early 1980s, the first commercial laptop computer
was introduced to the market, and, during the late 1980s and 1990s, many schools and
colleges began to allow students to bring laptops into schools and lecture halls. Cell
phones also continued to evolve during the 1980s, becoming customizable, flexible, and
increasingly smaller, with the phone connected to the person rather than the household
(Goggin, 2006).
 A Historical Overview of M-Learning • 9

Table 1.2 Selection of the Commercial Handheld Computers Introduced During the 1980s

1980 TRS-80 Pocket Computer Radio Shack –24 × 1 text LCD display
–1.5K RAM
1982 PHC-8000 Handheld Computer Sanyo –One-line LCD display
–4kB RAM
–Allows connection to video monitor
1982 Pasopia Mini Toshiba –One-line LCD display
–4 kB RAM
1984 PB-700 Handheld Computer Casio –20 × 4 text LCD display
–4 kB RAM
1989 Portfolio, Portable Computer Atari –40 × 8 text LCD display
–128K, card slot for RAM
–MS-DOS-compatible computer
–Includes a speaker
1989 Poqet PC Computer Poqet –80 × 25 text LCD screen
–512 kB RAM
–Additional card slots for ROM or RAM

From this trend toward personal technologies, educational establishments looked for
a way to connect with the learner-centered approach evolving since the 1970s. Classroom
response systems (CRSs) were just one such technology developed in the late 1980s as
a way to reach the individual students in the classroom, although CRSs did not achieve
widespread use until the late 1990s.

1990s
During this decade, the learner-centered pedagogical movement was well established in
schools, and, in a parallel development, technologies had become more advanced,
personalized, and novice-friendly. Soloway, Guzdial, and Hay (1994) considered the
direction in which technologies should progress, stating “Simply put, the HCI [Human
Computer Interaction] community must make another transition: we must move from
‘user-centered’ design to ‘learner-centered’ design” (p. 38). Soloway et al. proposed that
this should occur by considering three key questions: “Why support learners and
learning? How might the interface support learners and learning? What are the issues
involved in providing such support?” (p. 38). These were essential questions during a
decade of significant technological adoption in the educational setting.
The 1990s were the decade in which the first digital camera, Web browser, and
graphing calculator were developed. Many schools were using computer-assisted
instruction programs on the multimedia computers. Palm Pilot personal digital assistants
(PDAs) were the first multipurpose, handheld devices that could be utilized in the
educational setting. The device ran basic programs, including calculator, tests, calendar,
contacts, memos, photos, and notepad. In 1998, Sharples began an attempt at recreating
the Dynabook. The Handheld Learning Resource (HandLeR) project studied the design
of mobile devices in an attempt at creating an instrument to aid “lifelong learning,” based
on the tenets of experiential and collaborative learning (Sharples, Corlett, & Westmancott,
2001). Sharples et al. were also interested in learning contexts bridging formal and
informal learning. The HandLeR was designed for use at any age or in any context,
although the mentor character/animal interface was more suited for children than adults.
10 • Helen Crompton

Portable digital devices have developed rapidly since they came onto the market in
the latter part of the 1970s. From Kay’s Dynabook concept in 1972, technologies have
been progressing toward making Kay’s dream a reality. Mobile devices have decreased
in size and cost and increased in power, speed, memory, and functionality. The devices
provide unique affordances for learner-centered pedagogies, which have further
developed into the 21st century. The focus of this section has been directed toward
the actual technological devices. One must also take into account the development of
wireless wide-band technologies and application services—for example 3D phones, IEEE
802.11 (Wi-Fi) networks, 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) networks, active/passive radio-frequency
identification, and global positioning system receivers—enabling an impressive system
of networks for use on such devices (Caudill, 2007; Ding, 2010). Without such wireless
technologies, m-learning would not exist. The next section of this chapter explicates
the interconnectedness between the technologies and the learner pedagogies in the
21st century.

CONNECTING THE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE LEARNING

In this chapter, m-learning has often been dichotomized into learning and technology
so that we can better understand the changes that have taken place historically. However,
the essence of m-learning is not in the learning or in the technology, but in the marriage
between the two entities. This section explains the history of learning and technology
as they became recognized as interconnected theories/pedagogies, namely e-learning and
m-learning, while briefly touching upon a subdivision of m-learning titled context-aware
ubiquitous learning (u-learning).
The first two sections of this chapter provide an overview of how e-learning and
m-learning emerged from both a drive in educational philosophy and practice toward
learner-centered pedagogies, and through technologies that put the learner at the heart
of learning. These new methods of learning provide opportunities such as flexibility,
accessibility, and convenience (Benedek, 2007), and a pedagogy that is personalized,
learner centered, contextualized, and cooperative (Ding, 2010).

E-Learning
Electronic learning appears to be the first recognized term to specifically connect learning
with the technologies. Learning typically mimicked traditional teaching approaches, and
early definitions describe e-learning as teaching and learning supported by electronic
media and tools (e.g., Pinkwart, Hoppe, Milrad, & Perez, 2003). Researchers such as
Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which had been converted
to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. As e-learning developed,
along with the ever-expanding new technologies available for use, questions arose as to
which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning; for example, did it matter if
the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with
an electronic device? To clearly explain the technologies involved and to set e-learning
apart from that of traditional learning, Tavangarian, Leypold, Nolting, and Voigt (2004)
proposed that e-learning was:

All forms of electronic supported learning and teaching, which are procedural in
character and aim to effect the construction of knowledge with reference to individual
 A Historical Overview of M-Learning • 11

experience, practice and knowledge of the learning. Information and communication

systems, whether networked or not, serve as specific media to implement the learning
process.
(Tavangarian et al., 2004, p. 274)

The WWW made up a significant portion of the technological content fitting the
category of e-learning during the 1990s and 2000s. Since society’s adoption of the WWW
in the 1990s, it has undergone radical changes. Websites have gone from static to
dynamic and interactive, progressing from the read-only Web to the read–write Web
(Richardson, 2005), which offered the users of the WWW more interaction and choice.
In the past 20 years, a great many artifacts such as books, documents, and audiovisual
materials were uploaded to the Web, as libraries and museums digitized collections,
creating a bank of digital artifacts available to the public (Benedek, 2007). Those
developing the content of the WWW utilized social theories of learning, offering social-
networking sites and learning-management systems (LMSs) that were established and
implemented in schools and universities across the Western world. LMS developed to
mediate Web-based learning artifacts and communication between students and teachers.
Considering Table 1.1, which listed the tenets of learner-centered education,
e-learning provides opportunities for learners to take advantage of many of the desirable
learner-centered attributes. For example, students can be actively involved in the
knowledge-making process, through writing a collaborative essay in Google Docs or
defining a concept in a wiki. These examples show learners interacting with society,
although the interactions are virtual, using computers based in a fixed location, with
the learners shut off from the rest of the physical world. What e-learning lacked early
on were physical interactions with the environment and society, without spatial and
temporal limitations.

M-Learning
During 2005, m-learning became a recognized term. M-learning as defined in this
chapter encapsulates the attributes identified in Table 1.1 for learner-centered pedagogies.
M-learning makes not only a step, but a leap further into the realm of learner-centered
pedagogies. Still, this did not happen all at once.
Early on, m-learning was typically used to channel e-learning methods and techniques,
quickly exposing the limitations of cell phones and PDAs compared with desktop
computers at the time (Traxler, 2011). Early mobile technologies lacked functionality,
screen size, processor speed, and battery life. Many of the unique opportunities offered
by the mobile devices were not utilized.
As the 2000s progressed, the interest in PDAs decreased, as smartphones offered the
same application and Web functionalities, but with the added mobile-phone capability.
Cell phones, which were once a symbol of financial prowess, became a companion for
the masses. Although technology was often an expensive option in higher education,
colleges found that the number of students owning devices cut or abolished additional
school cost entirely. Tablet computers continued the trend toward greater mobility. To
put it simply, the first devices to be called tablets were laptops with a rotating screen
and touch-screen capabilities, such as the Microsoft Tablet PC, commercially available
in 2001. Ultra-mobile PCs, such as the Wibrain B1, were quietly introduced on the market
in 2006 as smaller, more mobile versions of a laptop/tablet, but were quickly supplanted
12 • Helen Crompton

by today’s tablets, such as the iPad (2010) and Motorola Xoom (2011), which are overall
more mobile that their initial counterparts.
As m-learning continued to develop, the multiple affordances the devices offered to
further extend learner-centered pedagogies became evident. Traxler (2011) described
five ways in which m-learning offers new learning opportunities: (1) contingent learning,
allowing learners to respond and react to the environment and changing experiences;
(2) situated learning, in which learning takes place in the surroundings applicable to the
learning; (3) authentic learning, with the tasks directly related to the immediate learning
goals; (4) context-aware learning, in which learning is informed by the history and the
environment; and (5) personalized learning, customized for each unique learner in terms
of abilities, interests, and preferences.
Technologies advanced to provide other forms of mobile technology, such as advanced
tablets and laptops with many additional capabilities. Mobile phones now have the same
capabilities as microcomputers, at a small fraction of the size. As m-learning is rapidly
developing, offshoots of m-learning are being created. One such subdivision is context-
aware ubiquitous learning, which describes learning that offers seamless services, adap-
tive services, and context-aware services (Yang, Zhang, & Chen, 2007), in which
computing, communication, and sensor devices are integrated into the daily life of
a learner. M-learning and the offshoot u-learning literally embody learner-centered
education, in that learning will soon be omnipresent to the learner.

CONCLUSION
Although m-learning is a relatively young field, this chapter provides a diachronic
overview of how the philosophical, pedagogical, and conceptual underpinnings of a
learner-centered approach, as well as the technological accomplishments, have
engendered m-learning as the field it is today. Although this chapter has covered historical
events leading to the field of m-learning, one must remember that this is merely one
chapter of a book. For all the details that have been given, there are probably many that
have been missed. A message to take away from this chapter is that, in 1972, Kay had a
vision of a mobile-learning technology, compact enough to easily transport, with the
capacity to store multiple reference materials and enough power to outrace the senses.
Although the Dynabook was beyond the capabilities of technologies at that time,
technologies have now caught up with this vision, and Kay’s ideas for an alternative
learning paradigm are appearing throughout the world.

REFERENCES
Anthony, W. S. (1973). Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 325–8.
Benedek, A. (2007). Mobile learning and lifelong knowledge acquisition. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile studies:
Paradigms and perspectives. Communications in the 21st century (pp. 35–44). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caudill, J. G. (2007). The growth of m-learning and the growth of mobile computing: Parallel developments.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–13.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010, June). Reaching higher: The common core state standards validation
committee. A report from the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of
Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from: www.corestandards.org/_assets/_CommonCoreReport_6.10.pdf
 A Historical Overview of M-Learning • 13

Ding, G. (2010). New theoretical approach to integrated education and technology. Frontiers of Education in China,
5(1), 26–36.
Goggin, G. (2006). Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life. New York: Routledge.
Goh, T., & Kinshuk, D. (2006). Getting ready for mobile learning-adaptation perspective. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 175–198.
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational
Researchers, 38(4), 246–259.
Gremmo, M. J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching and learning:
The history of an idea. System, 23(2), 151–164.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication, &
Society, 8(2), 125–147.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology
Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 217–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kay, A. C. (1972, August). A personal computer for children of all ages. Proceedings of the ACM National Conference,
Boston. DOI: 10.1145/800193.1971922
Kay, A. C., & Goldberg, A. (2001). Personal dynamic media. In R. Packer & J. Jordan (Eds.), Multimedia: From
Wagner to virtual reality (pp. 167–178). London: W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1977)
Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From elearning to mlearning. Retrieved from: www.worldcat.org/title/
future-of-learning-from-elearning-to-mlearning/oclc/77086825?referer=di&ht=edition
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of
group process (pp. 33–57). New York: Wiley.
Laouris, Y., & Eteokleous, N. (2005). We need an educationally relevant definition of mobile learning. Paper
presented at mLearn 2005, 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Cape Town, South Africa.
Lee, K. W. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. The Internet Teachers
of English as a Second Language Journal, 6. Retrieved from the Internet TESL Journal website: http://202.194.48.
102/englishonline/jxyj/iteslj/Lee-CALLbarriers.html
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (11th ed.) (2011). Conversation. Retrieved from: www.merriam-webster.com/
_dictionary/_conversation
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and
learning. FutureLab Report, 11.
O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J., Taylor, J., Sharples, M., & Lefrere, P. (2003). Guidelines for learning/
teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment. MOBIlearn Deliverable, 4. Retrieved from: http://mobilearn.mobi/
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, H. U., Milrad, M., & Perez, J. (2003). Educational scenarios for the cooperative use of personal
digital assistants. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 383–391.
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in-your-pocket learning. LiNE Zine. Retrieved from: www.linezine.
com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
Richardson, W. (2005). The educator’s guide to the read/write web. Educational Leadership, 4, 24–17.
Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal
of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 12(5/6), 504–520.
Sharples, M. (2005). Learning as conversation: Transforming education in the mobile age. In Proceedings of
Conference on Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age (pp. 147–152). Budapest, Hungary.
Sharples, M., Corlett, D., & Westmancott, O. (2001). A systems architecture for handheld learning resources. Paper
presented at the CAL2001 Conference, Warwick, UK.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews, &
C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century.
Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Curtis, M., Jansen, R., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., Fishman, B., & Blumenfeld, P. (2001). Making
palm-sized computers the PC of choice for K–12. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(7), 32–57.
Sullivan-Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 345–375.
14 • Helen Crompton

Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M. E., Nolting, K., & Voigt, D. (2004). Is e-Learning the solution for individual
learning? Electronic Journal of E-learning, 2(2), 273–280.
Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Traxler, J. (2005, June). Defining mobile learning. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference Mobile
Learning 2005, Qawra, Malta.
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1),
1–12.
Traxler, J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education and
Mobile Learning, 31(2), 129–138.
Traxler, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Traxler & J. Wishart (Eds.), Making mobile learning work: Case studies of
practice (pp. 4–12). Bristol, UK: ESCalate Education Subject Centre: advanced learning and teaching in
education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, UK: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Library of Congress.
Yang, S. J. H., Zhang, J., Chen, I. Y. L. (2007). Ubiquitous provision of context-aware web services. International
Journal of Web Service Research, 4(4), 83–103.
 2
M-LEARNING AS A SUBFIELD OF OPEN AND
DISTANCE EDUCATION
William C. Diehl

Although it is clear that the use of mobile devices for educational purposes is increasing,
and that m-learning has the potential to revolutionize the way that people learn, the use
of technology to connect learners with content and with teachers at a distance is not
new. Indeed, since the beginning of correspondence education, and throughout the
evolution of open and distance education, new technologies have made it possible
for teachers and organizations to systematically deliver educational materials, and for
students and teachers to communicate with one another at a distance. Like mobile
devices, technologies such as the printing press, radio, television, satellites, and the com-
puter—and systems such as the postal service and the Internet—have also increased the
opportunities for both planned and spontaneous individual informal learning.
The purpose of this chapter is to present m-learning in a historical context, in relation
to the field of distance education, and to provide an overview of the rich history of the
field that can be drawn upon as educators look to the future of m-learning. This chapter
will address the following topics: (1) united aims in a fractured field, and (2) social and
technological foundations of distance education.

UNITED AIMS IN A FRACTURED FIELD

As Crompton (2013, p. 4) stated in a previous chapter in this handbook, the definition
of m-learning is likely to evolve, just as the definition of distance education has
throughout the decades. Distance education has been referred to in a variety of ways,
including home study, independent study, correspondence study, external learning, self-
directed learning, telelearning, cyber-learning, e-learning, and distributed learning (and
many others). As distance-education pioneer Charles Wedemeyer (1981) noted decades
ago, “the people who work within these separate but basically similar programs perceive
themselves as in some way different from their colleagues in the other programs, as
though the recent labels represent genuinely different aims, methods and programs in
education” (p. 55).

15
16 • William C. Diehl

There are myriad methods of development, design, and delivery in the thousands of
distance-education systems operating today, and they range from the use of more
traditional methods of correspondence, to television, to Internet-based methods. Course
design also varies from system to system and ranges widely, incorporating course teams
in some instances and, in others, relying on the instructor for the individual course design
and development. The field of distance education, in many ways, is fractured. Saba (2005)
sees different cultures (premodern faculty, modern administration, and postmodern
distance educators) attempting to evolve and survive in the technology-driven academic
environment. The fractures are also caused by conceptual confusion, as new terms
arise and as new technologies are applied to the field (e.g., terms such as e-learning,
m-learning, distributed learning, blended learning, Education 2.0, Web 2.0, flexible
learning) (W. Diehl, 2007; Moore & Kearsley, 2005; Saba, 2005; Thompson, 2007).
Crompton, Muilenburg, and Berge’s (Crompton, 2013, p. 4) definition of m-learning
that has been established for this handbook includes formal and informal learning and
is student centered and self-directed. Forty years ago, Wedemeyer developed a systems
approach in the changing field as a way of providing access to education for
nontraditional adult students (Wedemeyer, 1981). Contrasted to the popular behaviorism
that was prevalent during his career, he applied technology to reach for humanistic educa-
tional results in a student-centered, interactive learning process. Wedemeyer believed
that developing skills that allow students to become independent learners was necessary
so that effective lifelong learning could take place.
Wedemeyer (1971) developed a definition of independent study, defined as:

various forms of teaching–learning arrangements in which teachers and learners carry

out their essential tasks and responsibilities apart from one another, communicating
in a variety of ways, for the purposes of freeing internal learners from inappropriate
class pacings or patterns, or providing external learners opportunity to continue
learning in their own environments, and developing in all learners the capacity to
carry on self-directed learning, the ultimate maturity required of the educated
person. Independent Study programs offer learners varying degrees of freedom in the
self-determination of goals and activities, and in starting, stopping and pacing
individualized learning programs which are carried on to the greatest extent possible
at the convenience of the learners.
(p. 148)

Wedemeyer’s definition of independent study emphasized student-centered learning

and the distance between teachers and learners, which is a defining characteristic of
distance education. Moore and Kearsley (2012) incorporate this concept of distance into
one of the most widely accepted definitions of distance education, describing it as
“planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching, requiring
special course design and instruction techniques, communication through various
technologies, and special organizational and administrative arrangements” (p. 2).
Moore and Kearsley (2012) echo Wedemeyer regarding the confusion that is created
“when people define education by the technology used” (p. 3). Early pioneers and
colleagues of Wedemeyer—Börje Holmberg, Otto Peters, and Michael G. Moore—
worked individually to develop theories that could provide a framework for what takes
place in the systems and processes related to distance education. Moore went on to
 M-Learning as Distance Education Subfield • 17

develop theory related to independent learning and teaching (Moore, 1972, 1973a,
1973b) and, later, the theory of transactional distance (Moore, 1997, 2007, 2013). Moore
also introduced the idea of different types of interaction in distance education
(learner–learner, learner–teacher, learner–content). Holmberg’s theory, which is based
on learner–teacher interaction, stresses that the personal relationship and feelings of
empathy will improve learning in a distance-education setting (Bernath & Vidal, 2007;
W. C. Diehl, 2011b; Holmberg, 1960, 1961, 2003, 2007). Otto Peters’ theory developed
from his recognition that distance-education systems resembled and contained the
characteristics of industrialized systems that existed in a postindustrial society (Bernath
& Vidal, 2007; Peters, 2007; Peters & Keegan, 1994).
With the development of the now ubiquitous World Wide Web, there are “a large—
and seemingly ever-growing—set of communication and information management
tools which can be harnessed for education provision” (Anderson, 2008, pp. 52–53).
Theory building in distance education, which began with Wedemeyer, continues. Scholars
continue to build models upon the work of Holmberg, Moore, and Peters, the goal
being a deeper “understanding of this complex educational context” that will “lead us
to hypotheses, predictions, and most importantly, improvements in our professional
practice” (Anderson, 2008, p. 68).

SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

DISTANCE EDUCATION
In a previous chapter, Crompton (2013) covered advances in mobile technologies since
the 1970s and has noted that, although technology has driven the field, there is a reflexive
societal aspect that must also be considered. Social movements and the growing
philosophy of access to education for all have also played a major role. The following
section provides an overview of early social movements and technologies that have played
a part in the evolution of distance education.

Early Social Movements and the Opening of Educational Access

Generally, the roots of education in England were deeply grounded in “the dissemination
of religious truth” (Hudson, 1851, p. 1), and government funding and participation were
minimal until universal elementary education came about in the late 1800s (Halls,
1995). In circulating schools in the mid 1750s and for the next quarter of a century in
western England, it was estimated that 100,000 adults learned to read, along with some
50,000 children who also attended the lessons. Although the numbers of people learning
to read was growing, the vast majority of the population could not read or write, and
also, in the 1780s in England, less than 3 percent of the 8 million citizens had the right
to vote (TNA, 2009).
The Reform Act of 1832 in England granted “such privilege to large populous and
wealthy towns to increase the number of knights of the shire to extend the elective
franchise to many of his majesty’s subjects who have not heretofore enjoyed the same
and to diminish the expense of elections” (TNA, 1832). Later, in 1867, the Second Reform
Act gave skilled workers the right to vote, and, beginning in the 1870s, adults from the
working classes could attend extension classes, which were associated with Oxford and
Cambridge (Goldman, 1999).
18 • William C. Diehl

Educational opportunities that were established also had political motivations. As more
and more working-class people became interested in learning, various political groups
(which merged and evolved to become the Labour party) became especially active in
establishing classes that taught about democracy and socialism—in order to “integrate
the working classes, train them for power and lead them to political victory” (Goldman,
1999, p. 95). Later, in 1884, manual workers gained the vote, further increasing
the numbers of eligible voters. During this 54-year period (between 1831 and 1885), the
number of men who were eligible to vote rose from 366,000 to approximately 8 million.
The right to vote, however, still excluded women and the lower classes.
Improvement societies such as the Wigan Instructive and Philanthropic Society
continued to be established around England. Mechanics’ Institutes remained popular
until after 1870, when the government became involved in education, and public libraries
began to proliferate (Verity, 1995).

Early Technologies and the Opening of Educational Access

The Penny Black Stamp and Postal Service
The widespread use of correspondence education was fueled by technological innovations
such as the steam-powered printing press, the Penny Black stamp and postal services,
as well as improvements to transportation systems that opened up the flow of information
on a scale heretofore not seen. With improvements to the transportation system, it
became possible to carry letters and information to people in rural areas that had
previously been extremely isolated. In the American colonies, the British owned the postal
service until 1785, and the citizenry in the American colonies continued to improve their
roads and postal delivery system as the colonies expanded. Between 1790 and 1860, the
U.S. population grew from about 3.9 million to 31.4 million, and the number of post
offices grew from 75 to 28,498. In 1828, there were 7,530 post offices and 29,956 postal
employees, and, by 1831, postal employees accounted for 76 percent of the civilian federal
workforce. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency, postmasters outnumbered soldiers
8,764 to 6,332 and were the most widespread representatives of the federal government.
The Act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 704) eliminated the letter’s postage rate relationship
based on distance, and the result was that customers could now send letters to and from
wherever they wanted within the growing country (USPS, 2007).

Lyceums and the Extension Movement

In the early 1830s in the United States, a national lyceum educational movement that
included lectures and debates were attended by large numbers of people. In Millbury,
Massachusetts, the first lyceum was organized, and “By the end of 1834 there were 3,000
town lyceums spread throughout the country from Boston to Detroit and Maine to
Florida” (Noffsinger, 1926, p. 102). In Boston, in 1873, following the Civil War, Anna
Eliot Ticknor, inspired by the British, started the Society to Encourage Studies at Home,
and, by 1882, about 1,000 students, mostly women, were exchanging letters and studying
history, science, art, literature, French, and German. In all, 24 subjects were offered. Also
in 1873, Illinois Wesleyan began to offer nonresident courses to its students (MacKenzie
et al., 1968).
The British extension movement began in 1873 at Cambridge University, followed
by programs at London University in 1876 and then Oxford in 1878. In 1887, Professor
Herbert B. Adams from Johns Hopkins University spoke to an American audience about
 M-Learning as Distance Education Subfield • 19

the British extension movement, and, only four years later, there were over 200 extension
programs organized. The First Annual Meeting of the National Conferences on University
Extension was held in Philadelphia on December 29 (Hall-Quest, 1926), with the goal
of cooperation between organizations stressed in the proceedings. In attendance were
representatives from about 19 U.S. states, including Bishop John H. Vincent, founder
of the Chautauqua Institute.
Vincent’s Chautauqua Institute extended opportunities to adults in the late 1800s
through a “system of correspondence with professors of departments” (Vincent & Miller,
1886, p. 87) that expanded their face-to-face lectures. Chautauqua’s mission reflected
a growing belief in democratic ideals in education, one that exalted “education—the
mental, social, moral, and religious culture of all who have mental, social, moral, and
religious faculties; of all, everywhere, without exception” (Vincent & Miller, 1886,
p. 4). The Chautauqua idea continued to spread, and it is widely cited today in books
and articles as a major influence on distance and adult education (Kang, 2009; Milam,
1934; Moore, 2003; Moore, Pittman, Anderson, & Kramarae, 2003).
Individuals such as William Rainey Harper were recruited by John Vincent. Harper,
who gained experience at Chautauqua, using correspondence education to teach Hebrew
to his students as early as 1881, was also named principal of the Chautauqua College of
Liberal Arts. Harper went on to establish a university extension program at the University
of Chicago in 1892, and correspondence education was an important part of this division.
Under Harper’s leadership as president, the University of Chicago became a leader in
extending opportunities to adults through correspondence study. Other schools, such
as Penn State, Baylor, and University of Wisconsin, soon followed with their own
programs.
In the next few decades, the University of Wisconsin in Madison became one of the
leading universities in the country, and, in 1903, Charles Van Hise took over as president
and vowed that the university should reach and benefit every citizen in the state. Van
Hise went on to preside over the first annual National University Extension Association
(NUEA) conference in 1915. A decade later, the National Home Study Council was
established, and efforts were made to reform the standards in proprietary correspondence
schools. Correspondence education, during the early part of the 20th century, however,
was dominated by poor standards in proprietary schools and suffered generally from a
poor reputation, but, beginning in the 1950s, Charles Wedemeyer and Gayle Childs
worked at their respective universities and as leaders at the NUEA to establish best
practices, based on research. By 1959, the U.S. Department of Education approved the
National Home Study Council’s (NHSC) Accrediting Commission as an accrediting
agency for correspondence schools, and, a few years later, NUEA adopted standards based
on NHSC criteria (Feasley & Bunker, 2007).
On the global scene, the International Council for Correspondence Education (ICCE)
became an official organization in 1948. The organization, which became the Inter-
national Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) in 1982, has always
maintained an “unremitting allegiance to the belief in the value of providing access to
all learners, no matter how dispersed or disadvantaged by economic, personal, or political
situation” (Feasley & Bunker, 2007, p. 24). The organization has focused on international
collaboration, ICT-enabled education, quality and accreditation, globalization, culture
and open and distance learning, and distance education for development (Feasley &
Bunker, 2007).
20 • William C. Diehl

International collaboration led to increased research, improved practice, and

development of theory. Charles Wedemeyer, who was president of ICCE from 1969 to
1972, played a key role in encouraging the development of theory; he also became a
major influence upon three of distance education’s earliest theorists, Börje Holmberg,
Otto Peters, and Michael G. Moore (Black, 2004, 2007, 2013; W. C. Diehl, 2013).
Another Wedemeyer achievement was developing systems that could serve learners
throughout their lifetime, whenever they needed it, and his experimental Articulated
Instructional Media (AIM) program at the University of Wisconsin became a model for
the Open University of the United Kingdom (W. C. Diehl, 2009, 2011a, 2013; Moore &
Kearsley, 2005, 2012).

The Emergence of Radio

Experimentation with what would eventually be known as radio technology was
widespread at U.S. colleges and universities as early as 1909, but what was referred to
then as wireless telegraphy was introduced to the community at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison in March 1915 as part of an exhibit by the electrical engineering
department. The technology grew out of the invention of the telegraph and the tele-
phone. As early as 1883, a Buenos Aires’ telephone company sent messages to multiple
customers at one time, and, in the early 1890s, the Budapest Telephone Service
transmitted news and entertainment to subscribers (Davidson, 2006).
Early research by Scottish researcher James Clark Maxwell and German researcher
Heinrich Hertz led to the development of a device by Italian Guglielmo Marconi that
could transmit Morse code via waves. In 1899, Marconi interested the U.S. Navy in
the technology and incorporated the Marconi Wireless Company of America. By 1900,
former Edison employee Reginal Fessenden had made sufficient advances in the tech-
nology and actually transmitted his voice via a “continuous wave,” from Western
University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Davidson, 2006, p. 5). Six years later, with the
assistance of Swedish-born Ernst F. W. Alexanderson, Fessenden developed a system
that enabled him to broadcast his voice from Brant Rock, Massachusetts, over a distance
of 10 miles.
Eight years later, a former Fessenden staff member named Edward Bennett, a professor
at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, set up the same type of system on campus
and, in compliance with the federal Radio Act of 1912, applied and received an
experimental license for the use of wireless transmission with the call letters 9XM. On
January 13, 1922, WHA radio in Madison received its license for “limited commercial”
broadcasting. Only 28 stations existed at the beginning of 1922, but, by the end of the
year, there were almost 600 in all 48 states. That same year, WHA demonstrated a
broadcast of market reports to farmers in Wisconsin, and, a month later, The Milwaukee
Journal expressed an interest in developing a relationship with the station (Davidson,
2006).
William H. Lighty, who was then the program manager of the station in Madison,
saw the potential of this technology and introduced weather, market reports, concerts,
talks, university news, activities, and information that would be broadcast on a regular
schedule. WHA received letters from listeners around the country in response to
broadcasts (Davidson, 2006).
In March 1922, a professor from the University of Wisconsin, Alfred Haake, was
unable to attend a conference in person and instead broadcast his talk to his audience,
 M-Learning as Distance Education Subfield • 21

who were 80 miles away. The next morning, the Wisconsin State Journal ran a front-
page story on the event. This kind of publicity helped the station to increase its audience,
and, in the early stages of the use of the station, Lighty was sure to forward letters from
listeners to university president Birge. Birge approved a $500 budget increase for the
upcoming school year. Lighty pushed to develop “an on-air correspondence course in
building and maintaining radio sets,” and “by early October more than one hundred
people had signed up” (Davidson, 2006, p. 69). Another technological development
increased the exposure and appeal of radio—the demonstration in Madison of a car
radio, by B. B. Jones and Max Littleton. Jones and Littleton used the car battery to power
a radio receiver and loudspeaker, and residents in downtown Madison were able to hear
broadcasts, not only from WHA, but also from as far away as Detroit, Pittsburgh, and
Newark.
By the 1940s, commercial stations could be found all over the United States. The events
in Europe and the use of radio for control of the public mindset in Germany and Italy
were well known—and debate centered on who should control the airwaves in the United
States. Battles centered around public vs. commercial control, and, during this time
period, there were only about two dozen educational radio stations out of the over 400
total stations nationwide (Davidson, 2006).

Educational Television
Television is another technology that emerged and initially was seen as having great
potential for educational benefits. Similar to radio, the debate over commercial and public
stations raged. Following World War II, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) froze its broadcast licensing process in order to reorganize its licensing system,
and the Joint Committee for Educational Television and Ford Foundation, led by FCC
Commissioner Frieda Hennock, eventually and successfully lobbied the FCC to set aside
242 channels for education (Zechowski, 2010).
Universities such as the University of Iowa experimented with educational
broadcasting as early as 1934. Once World War II began, television was primarily used
for education of air-raid wardens and of the general public on air raids and first aid. In
the post-war period, the Chicago Public Schools and WBDB experimented with
educational broadcasts, and CBS and the New York City Schools conducted two shows
a month for two years. NBC studios provided science shows to junior-high students,
and research they conducted showed promise that educational television could be
effective (Levenson & Stasheff, 1952). In the mid 1940s, there were only six television
stations and 10,000 televisions operating in the United States, but, by 1950, approximately
6 million families owned televisions. Still, few if any commercial television stations were
profitable, and few educational shows were produced (mainly because of infrastructure
and television costs). A few schools in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore experimented
with educational broadcasting, but, throughout the country, there was minimal use in
schools (Levenson & Stasheff, 1952).

CONCLUSION
Ever since the first system was developed that enabled a student to learn at a distance,
technologies have been used to mediate the educational experience. As each new
technology emerges, distance educators and technologists experiment and research the
22 • William C. Diehl

potential of the new tool, and thus another subfield of distance education is born.
Although each of these new technologies has been hailed as holding the promise of
educational breakthroughs, pedagogical approaches (e.g., teacher centered, behaviorist)
remained relatively consistent and limited for many decades. Additionally, research on
the effectiveness of these approaches was almost nonexistent, and educators who used
these new innovations have often remained isolated within their own technological and
educational silos.
Similarly, personal mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets are at the center
of m-learning, the exciting new subfield of distance education, and they are the latest
technologies to be used in an effort to bridge the geographical and psychological gaps
that are part of the distance-learning experience. As an area of study, m-learning perhaps
provides and represents the most geographically fluid and flexible extension of access
to learning materials and communication opportunities that the world has known. This
handbook lays the groundwork for the work that lies ahead and that will determine
whether or not m-learning professionals will innovate and succeed in using the latest
technologies (for learning) to their fullest potential.
This chapter is a reminder to m-learning professionals that they are a part of the larger
field of distance education, and that they can build upon the lessons learned through
the efforts of those who have laid the groundwork before them. A better understanding
of the evolution of the major field of distance education provides us with insights and
a foundation to build upon in practice and theory, as we venture into the future of
m-learning.

REFERENCES
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online
learning (1st ed.). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.
Bernath, U., & Vidal, M. (2007). The theories and the theorists: Why theory is important for research. Distances
et savoirs, 5(3), 427–458.
Black, L. (2004). A living story of the origins and development of scholarship in the field of distance education.
DEd dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Black, L. (2007). A history of scholarship. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.,
pp. 3–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, L. (2013). A history of scholarship. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education.
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education (pp. 3–14).
In Z. Berge, & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning. New York: Routledge.
Davidson, R. (2006). 9XM talking: WHA radio and the Wisconsin idea. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, Terrace Books.
Diehl, W. C. (2007). The new social networking technologies: Educators get a Second Life. Paper presented at the
the Cambridge International Conference on Open and Distance Learning, Cambridge, UK.
Diehl, W. C. (2009). A glance back at Charles Wedemeyer: Excerpts from an interview with Michael G. Moore
[Video]. PhD.
Diehl, W. C. (2011a). Learning at the back door: Charles A. Wedemeyer and the evolution of open and distance
learning. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Diehl, W. C. (2011b). Speaking personally—with Börje Holmberg. The American Journal of Distance Education,
25(1), 64–71.
Diehl, W. C. (2013). Charles A. Wedemeyer: Pioneer of distance education. In M. G. Moore, Handbook of distance
education (3rd ed., pp. 38–48). New York: Routlege.
Feasley, C., & Bunker, E. (2007). A history of national and regional organizations and the ICDE. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 15–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldman, L. (1999). Education as politics: University adult education in England since 1870. Oxford Review of
Education, 25(1 & 2), 89–101.
Hall-Quest, A. L. (1926). The university afield. New York: The Macmillan Company.
 M-Learning as Distance Education Subfield • 23

Halls, W. (1995). United Kingdom. In T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), International encyclopedia of national systems of
education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK, Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.
Holmberg, B. (1960). On the methods of teaching by correspondence. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.
Holmberg, B. (1961). On the methods of teaching by correspondence. The Home Study Review, 2(Spring).
Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson
(Eds.), Handbook of distance education (1st ed., pp. 79–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holmberg, B. (2007). A theory of teaching–learning conversations. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance
education (2nd ed., pp. 69–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hudson, J. W. (1851). The history of adult education. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longman’s Row.
Kang, H. (2009). A comparative study of the distance education history in China and the United States: A socio-
historical perspective. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Levenson, W. B., & Stasheff, E. (1952). Teaching through radio and television (Rev. ed.). New York: Rinehart.
MacKenzie, O., Christensen, E. L., Rigby, P. H., American Council on Education, & National Commission on
Accrediting (1968). Correspondence instruction in the United States: A study of what it is, how it functions, and
what its potential may be. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Milam, C. (1934). American Association for Adult Education. In D. Rowden (Ed.), Handbook of adult education
in the United States 1934 (pp. 98–100). New York: AAAE.
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.
Moore, M. G. (1973a). Some speculations on a definition of independent study. Paper presented at the Kellogg Seminar
on Independent Learning in the Health Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Moore, M. G. (1973b). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, (44),
661–679.
Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education
(pp. 22–38). London: Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (2003). From Chautauqua to the virtual university: A century of distance education in the United
States. Information Series. Columbus, OH: Center on Education and Training for Employment.
Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education
(2nd ed., pp. 89–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moore, M. G. (2013). Transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/
Wadsworth.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Moore, M. G., Pittman, V. V., Anderson, T., & Kramarae, C. (2003). From Chautauqua to the virtual university:
A century of distance education in the United States. Columbus, OH: Center on Education and Training for
Employment, College of Education, Ohio State University.
Noffsinger, J. S. (1926). Correspondence schools. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Peters, O. (2007). The most industrialized form of education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance
education (2nd ed., pp. 57–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peters, O., & Keegan, D. (1994). Otto Peters on distance education: The industrialization of teaching and learning.
London, New York: Routledge.
Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education, 26(2),
255–272.
Thompson, M. M. (2007). From distance educaton to e learning. London: SAGE.
TNA. (1832). Great Reform Act, 1832. London: The National Archives (TNA). Retrieved from: www.national
archives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/transcripts/great_reform.htm
TNA. (2009). The struggle for democracy. Retrieved from: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/
struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm
USPS. (2007). The United States Postal Service: An American history. Washington, DC: Government Relations,
United States Postal Service.
Verity, D. (1995). History of the Bradford Mechanics’ Institute Library. Library Review, 44(3), 8–11.
Vincent, J. H., & Miller, L. (1886). The Chautauqua movement. Boston, MA: Chautauqua Press.
Wedemeyer, C. (1971). Independent study. In L. C. Deighton (Ed.), The encyclopedia of education (Vol. 4,
pp. 548–557). New York: Free Press.
Wedemeyer, C. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Zechowski, S. (2010). Educational television. Retrieved from: www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=
educationalt
 3
A SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF M-LEARNING
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Thomas Cochrane

In their summary of the scope of m-learning research, Traxler and Kukulska-Hulme’s

(2006) main critique of these early m-learning research projects was for a general lack
of rigor in evaluation and epistemological underpinnings.

M-learning is at a leading edge of learning technologies and is at present characterized

by pilots and trials that allow mobile technologies to be tested out in a variety of learning
contexts. The sustained deployment of m-learning will depend on these pilots and trials,
especially their evaluation methodology and reporting. The majority of pilots and trials
in our samples had no apparent epistemological or educational foundations
(Traxler & Kukulska-Hulme, 2006, p. 143, 148).

OVERVIEW OF M-LEARNING RESEARCH

This section briefly overviews a short history and critique of m-learning research,
indicating the research gaps within the context of current m-learning activity. The scope
of the chapter is limited by its necessary briefness, and focuses upon several broad themes.

Phases of M-Learning Research

The 21st century has seen the consolidation and maturing of m-learning research
(Traxler, 2008). Internationally, many early (pre-2005) m-learning studies were typically
short-term pilot studies. M-learning research now spans the globe: for example, Africa
(Vosloo, Walton, & Deumert, 2009), Asia (Ogata et al., 2010), North America (Metcalf,
2006), Europe (Seta et al., 2010; Unterfrauner & Marschalek, 2010), Scandinavia (Laine
& Suhonen, 2008), Australia (J. Herrington, Herrington, Mantei, Olney, & Ferry, 2009;
Litchfield, Dyson, Lawrence, & Zmijewska, 2007), and New Zealand (Chan, 2007;
Cochrane, 2011).
According to Cook (2009a) and Sharples (2010), the development of m-learning
research has been characterized by three general phases:

24
 M-Learning Research and Practice • 25

1. a focus upon devices (for example: handheld computers in schools (Perry, 2003));
2. a focus on learning outside the classroom (for example: MOBILearn (O’Malley
et al., 2005));
3. a focus on the mobility of the learner (for example: MyArtSpace (Sharples, Lonsdale,
Meek, Rudman, & Vavoula, 2007), CONTSENS (Cook, 2010)).

Since 2005, there has been a flurry of m-learning research and case studies, particularly
from the United Kingdom (UK). M-learning and Web 2.0 technologies have been
identified as emerging tools to enhance teaching and learning (Anderson, 2007; Becta,
2007; Johnson, Levine, & Smith, 2007, 2008, 2009; McFarlane, Roche, & Triggs, 2007;
McLoughlin & Lee, 2008; Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Sanchez, & Vavoula, 2009; Traxler,
2007; Trinder, Guiller, Marggaryan, Littlejohn, & Nicol, 2008), but are not usually
explicitly linked together. The following all demonstrate an increase in mainstream
interest in m-learning: the increase in m-learning-focused conferences (for example:
MLearn, Handheld Learning, Multimedia and Information and Communication Tech-
nologies in Education, the International Association for Development of the Infor-
mation Society m-learning conference, Wireless Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies
in Education); research projects and briefing papers from organizations such as the Joint
Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the British Educational Communications
and Technology Agency (Becta); articles in educational journals such as Educause and
the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; the establishment of several m-learning-
focused journals (for example: International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization,
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, International Journal of Handheld
Computing Research); and books (Ally, 2009; Metcalf, 2006; Pachler, Bachmair, & Cook,
2010; Ryu & Parsons, 2009; Woodill, 2010).

M-Learning Research Approaches

Approaches to m-learning vary from a focus upon content delivery (McKinney, Dyck,
& Luber, 2009), short message service (SMS) (Mellow, 2005), polling (Dyson, Litchfield,
Lawrence, Raban, & Leijdekkers, 2009), and location awareness (EDUCAUSE Learning
Initiative, 2009; Pachler et al., 2010), to facilitating student-generated-content sharing
(Sharples, et al., 2007) and augmented reality (Priestnall, Brown, Sharples, & Polmear,
2009; Sharples, 2009). In their review of 102 innovative m-learning projects published
between 2002 and 2007, Frohberg, Goth, and Schwabe (2009) found that only 5 percent
of these projects focused upon social learning, and less than 4 percent required higher-
level thinking, with 89 percent targeting novice learners and 10 percent facilitating
user-generated content. Many m-learning studies focus upon content delivery for small-
screen devices (Stead & Colley, 2008) and the PDA capabilities of mobile devices (Corlett,
Sharples, Bull, & Chan, 2005), rather than leveraging the potential of mobile devices for
collaborative learning, as recommended by Hoppe, Joiner, Milrad and Sharples (2003):

Content delivery to mobile devices may well have a useful place in m-learning,
however, there is an imperative to move from a view of e- and m-learning as solely
delivery mechanisms for content . . . Handheld devices are emerging as one of the
most promising technologies for supporting learning and particularly collaborative
learning scenarios.
(Hoppe et al., 2003, p. 1)
26 • Thomas Cochrane

Informal m-learning case studies in museum-tour environments have been popular-

ized by the work of Sharples, Lonsdale, et al. (2007). Other popular m-learning-project
contexts include the use of podcasts (McKinney et al., 2009) or mobile devices for
language learning (Thornton & Houser, 2005) and geolocation (Priestnall et al., 2009).
Many recent m-learning research projects, while focusing on the informal learning
environment, often presuppose “self-motivated learners” (Cook, Pachler, & Bradley,
2008, p. 4) such as pre-service teachers. Few studies have yet to explicitly bridge both
the formal and informal learning contexts within “mainstream” tertiary education. One
exception was the Advanced Mobile and Ubiquitous Learning Environments for Teachers
and Students project (CeLeKT, 2009), which explored collaboration in a variety of
contexts, bridging indoor and outdoor learning experiences using mobile and location-
aware devices in both secondary and tertiary scenarios.

Large-Scale M-Learning Projects

Several larger m-learning projects have tended to focus on specific groups of learners,
rather than developing pedagogical strategies for the integration of m-learning within
tertiary education in general. For example, the “m-learning project” extended over four
years, focusing on retention of at-risk learners by using cell-phone technologies (Attewell,
2005). The Remote Authoring of Mobile Blogs for Learning Environments m-learning
project (Trafford, 2005) investigated the use of mobile devices for blogging and accessing
a virtual learning environment (VLE). However, the mobile devices (Palm OS PDAs)
were not wireless capable, relying upon desktop computers for synchronization to update
the students’ blogs. In comparison, Corlett et al. (2005) identified wireless connectivity
as a key factor in the success of their implementation of an m-learning organizer.
Other examples of large-scale m-learning projects include: MOBILearn (Europe;
www.mobilearn.org/), MobilED (South Africa; http://mobiled.uiah.fi/), and the m-
learning network MoLeNET (UK). MoLeNET is possibly the largest m-learning research
project undertaken so far. MoLeNET was UK based, focused on further-education (FE)
institutions, and funded by the Learning and Skills Council. In its initial phase
(2007–2008), the MoLeNET project included 32 FE institutions undertaking a variety
of m-learning implementations. In its third year, MoLeNET provided £12 million of
funded investment in m-learning in the UK to 115 colleges and 29 schools, involving
around 20,000 learners and 4,000 staff. MoLeNET funding has been directed towards
wireless infrastructure and the purchase of mobile devices, and it is yet to be seen
whether this approach can be sustainable or transferable to student-owned devices
(Traxler, 2009, 2010) and newer mobile devices, as those purchased quickly become out
of date. Many of the MoLeNET projects investigated the affordances of a variety of mobile
devices loaned to students for accessing course-related content. The focus of these
projects tended to be on the delivery of content for access on a range of mobile devices.
As such, the MoLeNET project can be characterized as a step backwards to the first
“phase” of m-learning, a focus upon devices. However, the MoLeNET project had a
robust focus on developing a model of professional development and support for
educators, and a rigorous evaluation process.
The funding available from LSC was ring fenced for spending on capital equipment,
and evidence from previous initiatives over many years indicated that it is very difficult
to achieve ongoing change with one-off capital funding, as there is a tendency for
initiatives to die when external funding runs out. Therefore, it was necessary to develop
 M-Learning Research and Practice • 27

sustainability strategies to maximize the likelihood of any introduction of m-learning

continuing beyond the initial funded phase (Attewell, 2008, p 28).

M-Learning Research Funding

The level of government funding of m-learning projects in the UK has spawned a very
active m-learning research community, and, as a consequence, the UK is regarded
as “leading” the world in m-learning research (Sharples, 2009). The availability of
m-learning research funding has sometimes led to the exploration of bizarre, overly
complicated projects that push the boundaries of the current mobile technology but do
not produce widespread adoption or pedagogical transformation. However, some of these
projects have produced sustainable models, for example the development of OOKL
(an anagram of LOOK) as a framework for interactive museum visits, facilitating links
to reflective classroom presentations (Sharples, Vavoula, Meek, Lonsdale, & Rudman,
2007). The focus of much of this government funding has been on “at-risk” learners,
accounting for the high percentage of m-learning projects in this context. In comparison,
m-learning research projects in countries with smaller population sizes such as Australia
and New Zealand are typically funded on a “shoe-string” budget. As a result, these
m-learning projects are generally smaller in scale than the large-scale UK projects such
as MoLeNET, and have tended to be more focused upon exploring cost-effective m-
learning implementation strategies (Bell, Cockburn, Wingkvist, & Green, 2007; Chan,
2007; Clark, Sutton-Brady, Scott, & Taylor, 2007; J. Herrington et al., 2009; Mackay,
2007; Mellow, 2005; Nalder, Kendall, & Menzies, 2007).

M-Learning Project Contexts

A list of a range of up-to-date m-learning projects from around the world can be found
on the International Association for Mobile Learning website (2012; www.iamlearn.org/
projects). The listed projects encompass a wide variety of m-learning implementations.
Many projects involve the development and use of proprietary software (and sometimes
hardware) that is often platform specific (for example, Windows Mobile) or Java-based,
and also often only has a limited “shelf-life,” as the designed-for devices go out of date
quickly. The software is also usually task specific and hard to customize. These projects
balance investment in high levels of technology support and development against
low levels of user training required (simple and task-specific interfaces). These projects
require high technical expertise (specialist mobile-application programming knowledge)
and are, therefore, often complicated and difficult to transfer to widespread adoption.
European m-learning research has focused upon the context affordances of mobile
devices. In their summary of European m-learning research, Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples,
Milrad, Arnedillo-Sanchez, and Vavoula (2009) concluded:

While delivery of educational content to mobile devices may have specific uses in
training and professional development, there are other approaches to mobile learning
that can make better use of the distinctive properties of mobile technology, including
context-based guidance, learning through conversation, and mobile media creation.
(p. 19)

For example, Cook’s (2010) m-learning research projects focused upon augmenting the
learners experience in the field, and, in reflection, he asks, “How do we get beyond good
28 • Thomas Cochrane

and useful exemplars?” (Cook, 2009b, p. 35). He proposes that to get wide-scale practi-
tioner and institutional uptake requires an institutional cultural change. Several criticisms
can be leveled at these “exemplars”: the projects do not demonstrate a focus upon
student-generated content or contexts, as they are predefined; there is no long-term
change in student learning paradigms, as these are short, day-long projects with no
longitudinal scaffolding for students to personally appropriate the use of the mobile tools
beyond the project; the students involved are self-motivated learners and in small
numbers, minimizing transferability; and there is a high technical requirement for these
projects, involving the development of project-specific and intricate augmented-reality
multimedia.
Cochrane (2010) and Cochrane and Bateman (2010, 2011) propose an alternative
approach to m-learning design to minimize the technical expertise required for
m-learning implementation and maximize transferability, while explicitly using a social-
constructivist pedagogical foundation, focusing upon the potential of Mobile Web 2.0.
Mobile Web 2.0 enables learner-generated content and learner-generated contexts, as
suggested by Cook, Bradley, Lance, Smith, and Haynes (2007) and Luckin et al. (2008),
guided by the pedagogical integration of these into their courses, as emphasized by
Herrington and Herrington (2007) and Laurillard (2007). Examples of m-learning pro-
jects with a focus on freely available Mobile Web 2.0 tools and a social-constructivist
pedagogy include the work of Chan (2007), the JISC-funded Mobilising Remote Student
Engagement (MORSE) project (Andrew, Hall, & Taylor, 2009), and the m-learning
projects at the University of Wollongong (A. Herrington, 2008; J. Herrington et al., 2009;
J. Herrington, Mantei, Herrington, Olney, & Ferry, 2008). Chan investigated the potential
of moblogging to support work-based learning for apprentice bakery chefs. The MORSE
project (November 2008 to October 2010) investigated the use of Mobile Web 2.0 tools
to support students away from the institution during field trips and work placement
(ranging from one day to two weeks’ duration, up to 15 times per year). The University
of Wollongong projects were a series of short-term (six-weeks long) m-learning projects
based around the affordances of institutionally loaned Palm Treo smartphones and iPods
in tertiary education.

M-Learning Research Methodologies

Chen, Millard, and Wills (2008) evaluated the 40 research papers submitted to
MLearn2007, categorizing the 17 m-learning scenarios described according to a four-
category framework (learning objective, learning environment, learning activity,
and learning tools), to establish how student-directed these projects were. Only two
papers demonstrated alignment with being student-directed in all four categories (see,
for example, Cochrane, 2007). The authors, therefore, concluded that, “In essence
m-learning researchers are reinventing the VLE on the mobile device, rather than looking
at how we could use them to support more subtle aspects of informal learning, and thus
the increasingly important PLE area” (Chen et al., 2008, p. 88).
This selection of the m-learning research literature therefore indicates that the majority
of current research has focused upon delivery of content to mobile devices (teacher
generated and controlled), rather than student-generated content and contexts.
Another review of MLearn2007 and 2008 papers (Wingkvist & Ericsson, 2009)
classified and critiqued the research methodologies reported in these papers. All 76 full
papers were classified according to eight research methodologies (case study, field study,
 M-Learning Research and Practice • 29

action research, experiment studies, survey research, basic research, applied research,
and normative research) and four research purposes (describing, developing, under-
standing, and evaluating). The reviewers found that the representative m-learning
research consisted predominantly of small-scale descriptive case studies, with little
evaluation and reflection witnessed. An action-research methodology was used by only
5 percent of these papers. This indicates that there is a significant gap in the literature
of m-learning research dealing with longitudinal action-research projects. With some
notable exceptions (for example, MoLeNET), m-learning research has been predomi-
nantly characterized by short-term case studies focused upon the implementation of
rapidly changing technologies with early adopters but with little evaluation, reflection,
or emphasis on mainstream tertiary-education integration.

Identifying the Gaps in M-Learning Research

The author’s review of the m-learning literature indicates that, to date, there are several
common shortcomings in the majority of m-learning research:

• a lack of explicit underlying pedagogical theory (Traxler & Kukulska-Hulme, 2005);

• a lack of transferable design frameworks (Armstrong et al., 2008; Sharples, Crook,
et al., 2009);
• a general lack of evaluation of the projects (Kukulsa-Hulme & Traxler, 2005;
Vavoula & Sharples, 2009);
• a lack of longitudinal studies (Traxler & Kukulska-Hulme, 2005);
• a lack of the importance of pedagogical integration (Laurillard, 2007);
• a lack of explicit student and lecturer support and scaffolding (Attwell, 2007;
J. Herrington & Oliver, 2000);
• a lack of awareness of the ontological shifts (Chi & Hausmann, 2003) required for
both the learners’ conception of learning and the lecturers’ conception of teaching.
Often, “net generation” skills are assumed (Barbaux, 2006), and most of the case
studies consist of lecturers who are early technology adopters (Armstrong et al.,
2008).

However, the identified shortcomings can be addressed by the explicit planning and
investigation of these issues within m-learning research-project design. Although the
first four identified shortcomings of m-learning research have been signaled by several
researchers, there has been little emphasis upon the last three shortcomings identified
here. The author believes that this is the result of the focus of the three phases (see the
following section) of m-learning research upon short-term projects that explore
m-learning mainly within informal learning contexts, with little focus upon sustainable
integration of m-learning into formal education contexts.
In summary, the literature indicates that there is a gap in m-learning research around
the integration of Mobile Web 2.0 within longitudinal projects focused upon learner-
generated content and learner-generated contexts.

FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE OF M-LEARNING RESEARCH

There is a wealth of research into the use of mobile devices in education that can be
utilized for future research: for example, the JISC-produced guide to implementing