27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Using Mobile Technology to Empower Student Learning
George Engel
State University at Albany
Clarkstown High School South
Rena Palloff
Fielding Graduate University and Crossroads Consulting Group
Keith Pratt
Walden University and Crossroads Consulting Group
Introduction
Today, cell phones are an integral part of the genre commonly known as mobile technology, which
encompasses cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDA), iPod Touches, iPads, and numerous other
devices. Devices of this nature have connectivity that allows for access of information and both
synchronous and asynchronous communication (Clough, Jones, McAndrew, & Scanlon, 2008; Traxler,
2010). We exclude laptops from the mobile device category because of issues of weight and battery life.
Mobile technology has “nearly infinite possibilities for education, networking, and personal productivity”
(Lunsford, 2010, p. 66). Clough et al. (2008) stated,
With such near-ubiquitous market penetration, mobile devices have attracted the attention of
researchers and educators through their potential both as learning tools that support and enhance
the learning experience and as a disruptive device with the potential to interrupt and distract. (p.
359)
The near ubiquitous access of these mobile technologies may be the cause of a shift in thinking among
educators in higher education, bringing distance or e-learning to prominence because of the technology’s
“ability to create and sustain communities of learners” (Garrison, 2011, p. 1). Mobile devices allow for an
extension of learning beyond the traditional classroom setting, whether physical or digital. The
communication and data capabilities of the devices disrupt traditional classroom boundaries and move the
classroom outside of the norms of space and time (M. El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010; Yeonjeong, 2011).
Mobile Technology in Higher Education
Though many in higher education see mobile technology as a disruptive influence, one that hinders
education rather than enhancing it, mobile technology is quietly gaining a place among distance educators
as an effective tool for bringing diverse communities of students together (Garrison, 2011; M. El-Hussein
& Cronje, 2010). Palloff and Pratt (2007) indicated that social presence is an essential element of
community building. This “social” presence is defined as “the person we become when we are online and
how we express that person in virtual space” (Palloff & Pratt, 2007, p. 28). Mobile devices allow
individuals to post, comment and share information – to expand their social presence— regardless of
geographic location or time (Engel & Green, 2011). With these technologies, individuals are able to
contribute to their online presence at any given moment. In fact, mobile devices can go so far as to grant
a “sense of continuous availability” (Koole, McQuilkin, & Ally, 2010, p. 61) to students in an online
community.
In addition to opening new avenues of communication and strengthening social presence, the nature of
distance in the online classroom is negated by the use of mobile technology, which can “amplify the
Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
1
27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
flexibility of distance and online learning, reducing the significance of geographic location, all the while
increasing that of contextuality”(Koole et al., 2010, p. 60).
Contexts of Mobile Learning
Frohberg (2006) attempted to place mobile applications according to the learning context in which they
are used the free context, formalized context, digital context, and informal context. By doing so, he
presented a model that others could build upon and use as new applications are developed. In a free
context application, context is not relevant for the learning activity. In other words, environmental and
situational elements do not affect the learning activity. Fee context applications include administrative
applications, course management applications, calculators, dictionaries, and similar applications.
Frohberg (2006) defined the formalized context for mobile applications as “learning within a well-defined
curriculum, being offered by some educational establishment and led by some central actor, i.e. a teacher,
tutor, moderator, and the like.” The relevant, contextual environment is the classroom either traditional or
virtual (Frohberg, 2006). This could include the use of an audience response application, like
polleverwhere.com, for gathering data from the students in the online environment. In addition, social
networking tools, like Twitter, could be used in a formalized context for communication and community
building. Applications like Twitter can give the learning community insights into the thinking of the
community at a particular moment in time (Engel & Green, 2011).
The use of mobile technology in the digital learning context is purely screen based and fully designed as
an educational tool. Simulations and microworlds fit this context and are constructivist in design
(Frohberg, 2006; Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2005; Patten, Arnedillo Sánchez, & Tangney,
2006). “Educational microworlds allow learners to construct their own knowledge through
experimentation in constrained models of real world domains” (Patten et al., 2006, p. 298).
Not many of these types of simulations exist at this time due to the limitations of screen size and memory
of the devices (Patten et al., 2006). However, new applications like geocaching and foursquare actually
allow individuals and groups to become part of the simulation.
Elements of the digital context can flow over into the physical context. When simulations in the digital
context break into the physical realm, they begin to impact students in a new way, a way that becomes
physical learning. This is a leading component of mobile learning where “the role of mobile technology is
to enrich the physical environment in innovative ways” (Frohberg, 2006).
Benefits of Mobile Learning
Informal learning, learning outside of the classroom, is foundational to true lifelong learning (Frohberg,
2006). Mobile technology is one bridge that can aid individuals in becoming informal and thus lifelong
learners. Mobile technology “can be used within formal and informal learning contexts and therefore are
a tool which may bridge life-wide and lifelong learning” (Beddall-Hill & Raper, 2010).
Because mobile technology is blended into people’s everyday lives, it is the ultimate support for informal
learning as it can be used at any moment, regardless of location and time (Naismith et al., 2005). The
very mobility of mobile technology allows learners to roam and explore concepts freely without
constraint -- to manage information, wherever they are. Newer applications on smart phones allow
students to search the web based on a picture taken on their phones. Other applications use augmented
reality to share information about a location or object. “Mobile technology has a high potential to support
this management function in mobile settings, leaving a much higher flexibility, spontaneity, and ad-hoc
adaptability than analog settings” (Frohberg, 2006).
Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
2
27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Despite the benefits of using mobile technology in appropriate contexts, higher educational institutions,
like their secondary counterparts, have yet to embrace mobile technology as an essential part of
pedagogical practice (M. El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). A variety of reasons exits for this. Ubiquity is one
driving element for the lack of adoption of mobile technology (Engel & Green, 2011). However, as
previously discussed, the majority of college age individuals do own a cell phone if not a smart phone.
Furthermore, the Pew poll indicates that minorities are even more likely to use the data and
communicative applications of smart phones than non-minorities (Smith, 2010). Another drawback of
mobile technology is interactivity and screen size. Market forces have addressed these issues. With the
advent of tablets like Apple’s iPad and Motorola’s Xoom, screen size and usability of lightweight mobile
technology increased to a more usable size (Yeonjeong, 2011).
Beyond these physical limitations, others claim that safety and academic integrity issues brought about by
mobile technology are too important to ignore; therefore, the technology should not be used as part of
pedagogy (Engel & Green, 2011). We agree that these issues are important and should be addressed.
However, they should not be reasons to keep mobile technology out of instructional practice. Guidelines
should be created by institutions governing the use of mobile technology that supports their pedagogical
use while giving guidance with how to deal with violators of academic integrity and student safety rules.
Mobile technology is not a fad or trend of technology that will eventually go away. “Mobile learning is
the harbinger of the future of learning” (Keegan & Fern Univ, 2002). Mobile technology has the potential
to change learning and teaching as we have known it. The use of this technology can empower students
to become true informal learners that carry that knowledge through a lifetime of practice. Higher
education stands on the edge of a great precipice of change—change brought about by mobile technology.
References
Beddall-Hill, N., & Raper, J. (2010). Mobile devices as “boundary objects” on field trips. Journal of the
Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 28-46.
Clough, G., Jones, A., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with pdas and
smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 359-371. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2007.00268.x
Engel, G., & Green, T. (2011). Cell phones in the classroom: Are we dialing up disaster. Tech Trends,
55(2).
Frohberg, D. (2006). Mobile learning is coming of age: What we have and what we still miss. Paper
presented at the DELFI 2006, Darmstadt, Germany.
http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/pax/uploads/pdf/publication/71/2006_DELFI_Darmstadt_MLearn_Framew
ork.pdf
Garrison, D. R. (2011). Elearning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Keegan, D., & Fern Univ, H. I. f. R. i. D. E. (2002). The future of learning: From elearning to mlearning.
Koole, M., McQuilkin, J. L., & Ally, M. (2010). Mobile learning in distance education: Utility or futility?
[Article]. Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 59-82.
Lunsford, J. (2010). Using handheld technologies for student support: A model. Journal of the Research
Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 55-69.
M. El-Hussein, M. O., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education
landscape. [Article]. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2005). Report 11: Literature review in mobile
technologies and learning NESTA Futerlab Series.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communites: Effective strategies for the virtual
classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
3
27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning
For more resources: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference
Patten, B., Arnedillo Sánchez, I., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative, constructionist and
contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers & Education, 46(3), 294-308. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.011
Smith, A. (2010). Mobile access 2010, from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access2010.aspx
Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation? Journal of the
Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 3-15.
Yeonjeong, P. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four types. [Article]. International Review of Research in
Open & Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102.
Presenter Contact Information
George Engel:
Email: [email protected]
Keith Pratt:
Email: [email protected]
Rena Palloff:
Email: [email protected]
Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
4