mLearning: An Annotated Bibliography

Alexandra R. Dolan
University of Florida

Cobcroft, R. S., Towers, S. J., Smith, J. E., & Bruns, A. (2006). Mobile learning in  review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions. In Online Learning and Teaching (Vol. 2006, pp. 21-30). Presented at the Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia: QUT ePrints. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5399/

            This article presents a synthesis of mobile learning research and literature in a review of over 400 published works on the subject of mobile learning.  Provides an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges in the field of mLearning, and determines need for comprehensive conceptual mLearning framework.
            Rather than advancing views of mLearning in specific and isolated contexts, the article seeks to identify global trajectories to guide the development of an mLearning framework.  Students are digital natives, a tribe of multi-tasking, technologically-mediated communicators, collaborators, and content-creators.  It is not just that technology has advanced, but that the dynamics of the learners have changed as well.  Rather than ignoring such changes, educators will need to develop meaningful contexts to apply technological advances to meet digital natives’ learning needs. Learners can no longer be taught.  Instead, they must be given a relevant context for interaction wherein learning is socially constructed.  Today’s students do not want the terms of learning dictated to them.  They want to choose what, where, why, and how they learn in a way that is individualized and personalized, yet highly interactive. 
            Today’s students are connected, and do not shut down without a fight.  Educational institutions who demand that learners tune in, turn off and drop out of their networks while learning will soon find that learners have tuned them out.  The teacher-centered standardized institutional educational model is dying.  When will educators stop mourning this death, and find new approaches that embrace the digital life that their students lead?

Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 586-599. doi:10.1108/02640470710829569

            This article discusses the viability of predicting user acceptance of M-learning using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The study used the TAM model, and integrated two external variables of Perceived Mobility Value (PMV) and Perceived Enjoyment (PE) into the TAM to assess user acceptance of mLearning. 
            Taiwanese Undergraduate and Graduate students were evaluated using a confidential online survey where subjects responded to statements using a five-point Likert scale response.  The results showed that TAM model, and PMV and PE variables were useful in predicting user acceptance of mLearning.  PMV and PE were positively correlated with user acceptance of mLearning.
            Our society is increasingly mobile and connected, and it follows that the more highly mobile and connected an individual is, the more the individual would value the utility that technologies whose capabilities were mobile and connected would provide. Technology that only functions well in one environment or capacity is not the wave of the future, just as individuals who are only able to function in one environment or capacity are not as useful or valuable.  This study also points out how the field of education has failed to adapt to change, much less respond to it.      The technological capabilities of mobile devices for mLearning exist, as does a market for their use.  Why hold back, when the demand for mLearning is clear and present? Perhaps it is fear that holds educators and education back from mLearning.  Not the fear of failure, but the fear that mLearning will be too successful, and that the enjoyment and mobility it provides will change education as they know it.  Fear that education will be forced to acknowledge and incorporate change, instead of resisting it, or ignoring it.   Perhaps such fears are justified?

Kim, S. H., Holmes, K., & Mims, C. (2004). Mobile wireless technology use and    implementation: Opening a dialogue on the new technologies in education. TechTrends, 49(3), 54-63. doi:10.1007/BF02763647

            This article examines mobile wireless technology and its potential applications in the K-12 classroom.  Concludes that mobile wireless technologies provide students and teachers with the means to learn anywhere, anytime.  Without the portability and accessibility that these devices provide, such learning is not possible.
            Mobile wireless technology provides ubiquitous wireless access at anytime from anywhere.  As the capabilities of such devices grow, the affordability and availability of these devices is also increasing.  The more portability, capability, accessibility, and educational applications that these devices has, the higher the likelihood that such devices could be used to enhance teaching and learning.  Universal Service laws in the United States require that schools and libraries be provided with affordable high-tech telecommunications access, creating an environment favorable to the adoption of mobile technologies in the traditional K-12 classroom.  Students need to practice using technology in order to develop skills needed after graduation. 
            Perhaps instead of providing educators, administrators, and educational institutions with reasons why they should be incorporating mLearning into their classrooms, it should instead be required that educators, administrators and educational institutions provide compelling reasons justifying why mLearning is not adopted at their institution.  The clear and compelling benefits that mLearning offers are such that those who do not utilize mLearning and mobile wireless devices need to defend their decision not to use them.  Why not provide students with anytime, anywhere learning.  Such devices can be purchased for less than the price of a graphing calculator, and have applications that extend far beyond those of the calculator’s usefulness. So, perhaps the wrong question is being asked.  Not: why, but why not?

Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers &    Education, 49(3), 581-596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011

            This article proposes an application framework for m-learning.  The framework addresses the strengths and weaknesses of wireless-handheld technology, and the integration of learning technology into pedagogical practice by evaluating mobile connectivity and e-learning dimensions as parallel processes.
    Fusing the capabilities of mobile technologies for learning with pedagogical practices to support and enhance the learning potential of the platform are critical to successful development of mLearning applications.  Wireless handheld devices reduce barriers to accessibility, which enhances learner’s ability to view courseware and complete coursework, expands opportunities for participation and collaboration, and maximizes productivity, thus allowing the learner to achieve greater work-life balance while working to obtain greater future benefits via enhanced educational opportunities.
    Article contends that pedagogy has advanced with technology to become more individualized, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous and lifelong.  Has it really? Perhaps in higher education, but the current focus on accountability and standardized testing precludes any meaningful, personalized, situated and collaborative learning in K-12.  Is it the capabilities of wireless/handheld technologies that hold back the emergence of mLearning, or is it pedagogical practice has not been innovative enough? Is the current educational system too rigid to permit the development of mLearning to its full potential, mLearning might allow greater flexibility in access to learning anytime-anywhere, but is the educational system ready for that?

Muyinda, P. B. (2007). MLearning: pedagogical, technical and organisational hypes and realities. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(2), 97-104. doi:  10.1108/10650740710742709

   This article defines mLearning as eLearning that utilizes wireless communication devices to deliver content and learning support, summarizes current available scholarly literature and relevant studies, and calls for further research and development in mLearning theory and technology. 
    Addition of the word 'communication' to definition implicates Web 2.0 nature of learner centered environment. Learning is a process of giving and receiving feedback, rather than a passive one-way transmission information.  Although mLearning is a relatively new and uncharted field, criticisms and predictions of mLearnings inevitable failure as a learning modality are largely uncalled for, as such criticisms rely on stagnant assumptions of education, culture, technology, and communications while ignoring role of innovation and progress. Current research and studies implicitly highlight need for further research in mLearning theory and technology.  Moreover, development instructional design, and an investigation of organizational and institutional aspects of mLearning are needed to bring this field to the forefront of education.
            The emergence of mLearning and its potential for expanding content, collaboration, accessibility and pedagogy highlight the need for such a learning modality. When will education come along for the ride?  The increasingly high-tech world demands flexibility and collaboration. mLearning will grow as the capabilities of mobile technologies grows, creating a world where access to information is personal and portable.  World, tech, culture, teaching, learning models and methods change, nothing is stagnant, except for education.

Sharples, M., Corlett, D., & Westmancott, O. (2002). The Design and Implementation of a Mobile Learning Resource. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(3), 220-234. doi:10.1007/s007790200021

    This article aims to incorporate communications technology into a useful social context for education by providing framework for design of systems for technology-mediated Contextual Life-Long Learning.   
    A central theme of this article is the human-centered basis for designing technology-mediated systems, which specifies that technology is simply a means to enable people to manage their lives more effectively.  The effectiveness of the technology cannot be measured by assessment in terms of standards, benchmarks, and performance.  Instead the goal is to enhance the value and reach of individualized learning to benefit the individual.  The individual informs this process, instead of the reverse. Technology should allow users more freedom, not more mandates. This article reiterates the highly contextualized, personalized nature of learning. The medium that delivers the content is not as important as what the content enables in a given context.  
    Devices and systems for mobile learning should augment individual opportunities to learn, do, create, recall, incorporate, experiment, and communicate effortlessly and intuitively.  In the race-to-the-top it is easy to lose sight of the individual context, and easier still to forget what effect that context has on learning and the individual.  Mobile learning focuses on individual rather than institutional goals, and facilitates, rather than complicate one's life.   Technological capabilities are growing to the point where virtually anything is possible, but what will we do with that capability? Will we use it to innovate or subjugate?

Song, Y. (2007). Educational Uses of Handheld Devices: What are the Consequences?     TechTrends, 51(5), 38-45. doi:10.1007/s11528-007-0068-y

            This article considers the possible consequences and side effects that result from using mobile wireless devices in education.  Literature review of over 110 published works considers first-level effects from planned controlled use of mobile wireless technology, as well as second-level effects from unplanned unmanaged use.  Educational uses of mobile wireless technologies are classified according to six categories with sub-domains. 
            Argues that wireless handheld devices are used in the classroom to reinforce teacher-centered pedagogies rather than develop innovative learner-centered practices.   In addition, limitations of wireless handheld devices means that tasks could be performed better using a desktop or laptop computer.  Classroom uses of wireless handheld devices to improve communication and collaboration in face-to-face instruction generally leads to less communication and interaction.  Limitations of the devices when coupled with the limited educational applications they are used for, leads to limited learner, giving the learner less control, not more. 
            Technology is just a tool, and can be put to awful, impractical, and poorly considered uses.  Admittedly, the poor uses of technology far outnumber the best uses of technology in teaching and learning. This should lead one to criticize the pedagogical practices, not the technology.  This article looks at mLearning’s current status with a critical eye, which is needed to help develop the field to its fullest potential.

Squire, K. (2009). Mobile media learning: multiplicities of place. On the Horizon, 17(1),     70-80. doi:10.1108/10748120910936162

            This article posits the idea that the mobile medium’s ubiquitous connectivity allows learners the experience of multiplicities of place: The ability to be present in multiple locations apart from one’s physical location.   The transformative nature of the mobile medium’s ubiquitous access allows individual’s to experience the sense of place independent of their physical location.  One can follow and participate in  events across the world in real-time from virtually any location.
            Multiplicity of places is the fundamental logic that the mobile medium and mLearning operate under.  mLearning is the personalization of learning.  Learning is adapted to fit the learner, in contrast to the current educational model which seeks to adapt the learner to the learning.  The educational implications of such a shift are profound.  In particular, such a shift poses the threat of disruption to current educational systems, which are rigid where mLearning is flexible.  It is the antithesis of the way that the contemporary educational system behaves.  Despite the pervasiveness of the mobile medium and ubiquitous mobile access, education largely ignores the mobile medium. 
            The mobile medium eradicates boundaries, while our school system seeks to strengthen and reinforce them.  Outside the classroom students use mobile mediums to communicate ideas and information with one another.  Inside the school walls, the opposite message is clear: Cell phones, Smart phones, iPods, gaming consoles, and other mobile media players have no place in learning.  Turn it off, and do not let it see the light of day, or it will be confiscated.  These devices are disruptive, and interfere with the all-important standardized curriculum with its focus on preparing for standardized testing.  This rigid attitude is exactly what turns students off.  Within such a framework, there is no flexibility, no room to be creative, no space to take an opposing viewpoint, or go beyond shallow understandings and rote memorization.  Is it any wonder students are not listening? After all, one does not need an iPhone to imagine being somewhere else.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The     moving     finger writes and having writ . . . . The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/irrodl/     article/view/346/882

            This article examines the structure and function of mLearning.  Concludes that the filed is still very young, and much research and analysis detailing pedagogies and technologies for mLearning remains to be ascertained.  However, the field holds enormous promise and opportunity that is worthy of exploration. 
            Most scholarly definitions of mLearning delineate the field in techno-centric terms.  A need to conceptualize definitions that characterize mLearning as fundamentally different from other forms of education in terms of learner’s experience and expectations exists.  As ubiquitous mobility is achieved, Access to information becomes more important than memorization or possession of knowledge.   As information becomes more accessible, new forms of expression will be generated.  mLearning refers to not only the device’s mobility, but the learner’s mobility as well.  Evaluating mLearning is a challenge, particularly because mLearning fundamental characteristics make it incompatible with assessment and evaluation based on formal, structured, stagnant models of traditional education. 
            How do we define mLearning? If we define it’s mediums, methods and pedagogies in stark contrast to those of traditional educational institutions, will those institutions reject mLearning? Should mLearning instead become a new medium for delivering tired old teaching methods?

Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2009). Meeting the Challenges in Evaluating Mobile Learning: A 3-level Evaluation Framework. International Journal of Mobile and Blending Learning, 1(2), 54-75. Retrieved from http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk /msh/Papers/IJMBL_1_2.pdf

    This article provides a summary of challenges in evaluating mobile learning, and proposes a tri-level framework for the evaluation of mLearning.  Provides assessment of framework’s effectiveness in the evaluation of mLearning, and suggests future applications and extensions of the model for evaluating mLearning.
    Presents mLearning as a social phenomenon mediated by technological advances.  Difficulties in evaluating mLearning are a consequence of mLearning as a complex adaptive system, which is self-organizing.  The micro level analysis focuses on individual activities, usability, and utility of an mLearning system.  The Meso analysis focuses on the learning experience as a whole.  The Macro level examines the aggregate impact of an mLearning system on pedagogy and the overall educational system.  The model emphasizes the individual context and experience over macro-goals and agendas for prescribed learning gains. 
    What is so revolutionary about this model is the challenge that it provides to traditional educational institutions and their methods of evaluation according to standardized testing, benchmarks and learning.  The beauty of mLearning is that it flies in the face of such assumptions, and challenges their utility on a fundamental level.  mLearning’s learner-centered approach, and emphasis on relevance to real-world contexts is what sets it apart from traditional education.  It is not just the technology that is revolutionary.