Download - Mobile Learning in Adult Education
Running Head: MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION
Mobile Learning in Adult Education
Research Proposal
Thomas J. Okon
Southern Illinois University
Workforce Education and Development
November 22, 2011
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………… 4
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………….…. 4
Research Questions…….……………………………………………………………….…. 4
Significance of Study…..……………………………………………………………….…. 4
Limitations of Study.…..……………………………………………………………….…. 5
Definition of Terms..…..………………………………………………………………….. 5
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Overview…………...…..………………………………………………………………….. 6
Designing Effective M- Learning…...…………………………………………………….. 6
M- Learning Pedagogy……………...…………………………………………………….. 8
M- Learning Devices...……………...……………………………………………………. 10
Summary…………..……………...………………………………………………….…… 11
3. METHODOLOGY
Research Design…..……………...……………………………………………………......12
Subjects of Study…. ……………...…………………………………………………….... 12
Data Collection Procedure………...……………………………………………………… 12
REFERENCES………................................................................................................................. 1
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The tough economic times are sending more adults back to school. A survey by Kaplan
University (2008) reported that a faltering economy tends to drive people back into the
classroom to sharpen their skills, and that among U.S. adults, 91 percent felt that finishing a
degree, seeking a higher degree or attending continuing education makes someone more
attractive to potential employers. Kaplan University also reported that 44 percent decided to
attend an online versus traditional university, because online education allows them to continue
working fulltime and managing family obligations while they pursue a degree. The recent trend
of students choosing online instruction using e-learning, also shows up in a research report by
Ambient Insight (2011) that says there will be more than 25 million postsecondary students
taking at least one online course, and that the number of college students taking traditional face-
to-face classes will plummet from 14.4 million in 2010 to 4.1 million in 2015 (Adkins, 2011).
In a relatively short amount of time, online teaching using e-learning concepts has gained a
very permanent and highly visible place in the worldwide higher education community. A
practice that at one time held only a minor role has become an indispensable element of many
institutions’ curricula, success, and overall reputation (Brandon, 2008). Despite such an increase
in the popularity of these programs, there have been concerns about the quality of e-learning
based online education (Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005). Students in online courses often report higher
levels of dissatisfaction than students enrolled in equivalent face-to-face courses (Sapp & Simon,
2005). High dropout rates have also been of concern to many organizations and higher education
institutions. A higher percentage of students participating in an online course tend to drop out
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 2
compared to students in a face-to-face classroom (Park & Choi, 2009).
New models and methods will have to emerge in order to overcome these problems in
maintaining high quality online instruction for adults, and for all age groups. Athabasca
University has taken steps to improve e-learning by using mobile phones to deliver interactive
course materials. The AU Mobile English as a Second Language (ESL) Project provided English
grammar lessons and interactive exercises to anyone with a mobile device and access to the
Internet (Hutchison, Tin, & Cao, 2008). Cambridge Training and Development Ltd, an active
participant in more than 20 m-learning trials across Europe has found success with a blended
approach using mobile devices, media, and other group activities (Stead, 2005).
A mobile device overcomes the limitations of access to course information and other
applications by allowing learners to disseminate information and complete other course work
even when they are away from their hard-wired Internet connections (Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile
learning or m-learning can be any form of learning that happens when mediated through a
mobile device (Herrington, Herrington, Mantei, Olney, & Ferry, 2009). It is also defined as the
use of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to
facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning (Douch, Savill-Smith,
Parker, & Attewell, 2010).
The key features of using mobile technology for learning are its personalization
capability and extended reach. This has attracted more and more learners, especially adult
learners, for whom the work-life balance is critical (Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile technology
provides learners with choice over and ownership of their learning. Combined with good
planning, mobile technologies can encourage creativity and innovation by both learners and
teachers (Douch et al., 2010). Griffin (2010) argued that the idea of having learning separated by
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 3
an extended period of time from when a person actually attempts to use the learning has to be
challenged. He believes that few learners today want the information weeks and even months in
advance. They actually would like to have specific topics and refresher learning available ‘on-
demand’ minutes or even seconds before they will need to use it.
Unfortunately higher education does not seem to be embracing m-learning as a way of
improving their student’s online experience. Peters (2007) reported that there appears to be
limited adoption even though many education providers recognize the benefits of m-learning.
She attributed this lack of adoption to the age and ability of teachers, the cost of providing m-
learning devices and infrastructure, and the slow rate of change in many large educational
institutions. More recently though, Park (2011) affirmed that many researchers and practitioners
have effectively incorporated mobile technology into their teaching and learning environments.
Traxler (2009) noted that there have been a host of pilots and initiatives across countries,
but despite the many forms of and increasing services offered by mobile learning, it is still
immature in terms of its technological limitations and pedagogical considerations. Park (2011)
also argued that instructional designers and teachers need more guidance about how to utilize
emerging mobile technologies and integrate them into their teaching more effectively.
(Khaddage, Lanham, & Zhou, 2009) emphasize the importance of taking a systems view of all
the elements that need to be in place in a mobile learning environment, such as: the
communication infrastructure, the mobile devices, learners and teachers. Each of these elements
is essential to ensure the effective adoption of mobile technologies in higher education.
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 4
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study will be to determine what pedagogies, software applications,
and mobile devices are needed in order for online education instructors to reliably create and
deliver successful m-learning instruction to Adult Education students.
Statement of the Problem
There is great potential for the use of m-learning in online education however, the
essential components for successful implementation by instructors have not been clearly defined.
Instructors need guidance and information on what kinds of mobile devices work best, what
pedagogies have been successful, and the capabilities of current software applications.
Research Questions
1. What capabilities must software applications have in order to allow the widest array of
possible design methodologies?
2. What pedagogical strategies and principles facilitate the use of m-learning devices in
online education?
3. What features must a mobile device possess in order to allow the widest array of possible
content delivery methods?
Significance of Study
This study will add knowledge to the existing research on m-learning by examining the
best practices needed when designing and implementing learning content for mobile devices. The
findings can then be used by online education instructors, as well as other interested parties, to
provide effective, interactive and reliable mobile learning.
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 5
Limitations of Study
Two methodological limitations of this study could be sample size and lack of available
data. These will be affected by the response rate from survey participants, and the willingness of
participants to sit for interviews. Access could be a limitation to the researcher, depending also
on the willingness of participants to sit for interviews or return surveys. Time could be another
limitation to the researcher, when considering the length of the school term and its effect on the
time available to conduct interviews as well as collect information from surveys.
Definition of Terms
E-learning is training delivered on a computer, (including DVD, CD-ROM, Internet,
Intranet and virtual classrooms) that is designed to support individual learning or organizational
performance goals. This includes e-courses developed primarily to provide information as well
as those designed to build specific job-related skills (Clark & Mayer, 2007).
M-learning is the use of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless and
mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and
learning (Douch et al., 2010).
Mobile technologies/ Mobile devices are: mobile phones, Smartphone’s, PDAs, MP3/
MP4 players (e.g. iPods), handheld games devices (Sony PSP, Nintendo DS), digital cameras,
Ultra Mobile PCs (UMPCs), mini notebooks or netbooks, handheld GPS or voting devices and
specialist handheld technologies (Douch et al., 2010).
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 6
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Overview
With the global volume of mobile cellular subscriptions projected to grow to 5.3 billion
(Kainz, 2011) and an estimated 1.2 billion people carrying Web-enabled mobile phones (Gartner,
2011), the use of technology for learning is quickly becoming ubiquitous. That is, people no
longer see it as separate from “regular” learning, and it is viewed as part of the tools that trainers,
instructional designers, instructors, and others who design or deliver instruction use to impact
skills and performance (Shank, 2007).
Throughout this review there will be a discussion of the tools and techniques used by
developers of m-learning. Furthermore there will be an exploration of effective design, pedagogy
and mobile devices, the essential components of a mobile learning strategy.
Designing Effective M- Learning
What does it take to make good m-learning? Since it is such a different learning
environment, designers are encountering some of the same learning lessons that occurred with e-
learning. Motiwalla (2007) argued that you cannot just take PowerPoint to the Web and call it e-
learning. Good instructional design is needed, along with flow, and a need to build learning
objects. All of the pedagogical considerations that make e-learning on a big screen PC or laptop
effective still exist with the consideration of a mobile application. Traditional design guidelines
and methods used for computer and web-based applications may not be applicable to a mobile
learning (Khaddage et al., 2009). Authoring learning for mobile devices is different in a number
of significant ways because of these important factors: (a) operating systems and hardware
specifications for mobile devices vary one device to the next, (b) connection speed to data
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 7
networks is often variable, depending on time of day, user location, etc., (c) mobile devices are
highly personalized (as opposed to desktop computers), which makes it hard to establish
guidelines for a design (d) there are different ways to interact with a mobile device (i.e., using
fingers, or thumbs, rather than a mouse) (Berking, 2011).
OnPoint Digital (2011) suggested that the biggest challenge for those working on their
initial m-learning efforts is the lack of an appropriate point of reference for planning, developing
and managing a mobile learning initiative. This is largely due to the fact that the building blocks
for creating an instructor led training class or an engaging e-learning course are actually quite
different than those that comprise an m-learning deliverable. Some problems faced by m-
learning developers are: how interface design works, how to lay out their content, what
multimedia content they want, ease of use, navigation, and accessibility (Khaddage et al., 2009).
Many authoring tools can deliver content to mobile devices. However, tools are emerging that
are specifically designed for mobile learning; for instance, providing authoring capability for
audio learning content (e.g., spoken word, podcasts) along with associated interactive
assessments and surveys. Other tools are optimized to provide e- learning content through the
phone's web browsing capability (Brown, & Haag, 2011).
Designers must embrace the strengths that a mobile device can bring to learning, for
example in combining multimedia learning content with scenarios for learners to capture and
contribute media files (user generated content), dynamically upload content on the move, and
communicate with peers and/or tutors. The possibilities for incorporating multimedia resources
into sociable learning scenarios on mobile devices is achievable and could be a very powerful
feature in the future (Bradley, Haynes, Cook, Boyle, & Smith, 2009). Design is the biggest
differentiator between mobile learning success and failure. It is the link between learning and
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 8
performance support, the tie between formal and informal learning. The most successful mobile
designers are able to think differently (Brown & Haag, 2011).
M-Learning Pedagogy
Another serious issue faced by mobile learning is the lack of a solid theoretical
framework that can guide effective instructional design (Park, 2011). It can be argued that the
current use of mobile devices in higher education (essentially content delivery) is pedagogically
conservative and regressive. Their adoption is following a typical pattern where educators revert
to old pedagogies as they come to terms with the capabilities of new technologies (Herrington et
al., 2009). Conventional courseware is based on behavioral and cognitive models of learning
developed in the 60s and 70s and may not apply well to the psychology of today’s young
learners. Young users of conventional e-learning find it boring. They miss the kind of
engagement that digital games provide and hence tend to rate the overall quality of e-learning
low (Kadle, 2009).
Cognitive behaviorist models were the first generation of learning strategies used for
distance education of which m-learning is a by-product. Social-constructivist pedagogies were
the second generation, and perhaps not coincidently, arose in conjunction with the development
of two-way communication technologies. At that time, rather than transmitting information,
technology became widely used to create opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous
interactions between and among students and teachers (Anderson, & Dron, 2011). Most learning
pedagogies from constructive learning and conversation theories can be adapted for an online
learning environment. The key is to understand the strengths and weakness of a particular
technology, while deploying good pedagogical practices to achieve specific learning goals
(Motiwalla, 2007).
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 9
The third generation of pedagogy used in distance-education emerged recently, and
shows potential for future m-learning. It is known as connectivism. Siemens (2005), a theorist
responsible for advancing the concept of connectivisim argued that decisions are based on
constantly changing foundations. New information is continually being acquired and the ability
to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is essential (Siemens,
2005). Connectivism was developed in the information age of a networked era and assumes
ubiquitous access to networked technologies. Learning is seen as the process of building
networks of information, contacts, and resources that are applied to real problems.
Connectivism also assumes that information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to
memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find and apply knowledge
when and where it is needed (Anderson & Dron, 2011).
Is there a need for a new learning theory when there are already well-established theories
used successfully to design instruction? Ally (2008) affirmed that connectivism is needed, since
the existing learning theories were developed before distributed and networked learning was
used widely by educators. Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live,
how we communicate, and how we learn. New theories of learning should be reflective of new
emerging social environments. Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges
this shift in a society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. It provides
insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era (Siemens,
2005).
Recent innovations in program applications and social software using Web 2.0
technologies (e.g., blogs, wikis, Twitter, YouTube) or social networking sites (such as Facebook
and MySpace) have made mobile devices more dynamic and pervasive, which has increased the
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 10
opportunity for social collaboration (Park, 2011). The expansion and growth in popularity of
these Web 2.0 services and tools, as well as the accompanying increase in prevalence of user-
generated content, have implications for learning in higher education, and are already influencing
pedagogical choices and approaches (Lee & Mcloughlin, 2011).
M-Learning Devices
Beyond discussions of pedagogy, what about the devices themselves? There are some
disadvantages and advantages of using mobile devices for learning. The small display screen
still present on most devices can be a problem. They also have reduced storage capacity, and
rely on a battery for power. For older learners, diminishing eyesight makes viewing small
screens a challenge. In addition, the lack of a common platform among the various
manufacturers and equipment available complicates the development of content (Hutchison, Tin,
& Cao, 2008). However, looking at how rapidly new mobile products are improving, with
advanced functions and numerous applications available these days, the technical limitations of
mobile devices may be a temporary concern (Park, 2011).
There are now more capable mobile devices, which afford a wider array of possible
content delivery methods. Just like desktop learning methods, the variety of content types now
possible for mobile are broad and diverse, especially with more capable smart-phone and tablet
devices. These include videos, pod-casts, mobile versions of traditional courseware/modules,
and animated slide presentations (OnPoint Digital, 2011). As new devices continue to enter the
market, new features and new capabilities are appearing at an accelerated pace. Most recently
Apple’s iPad has been heralded as a device that can take personal computing to the next level
and a game changer for education (Kumar, 2010). In fact Abilene Christian University has found
that the iPad has fundamentally changed a teacher’s ability to mobilize the student’s learning
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 11
environment, freeing them to have access and interaction with students not possible with typical
laptop based computers (Shepherd & Reeves, 2011). Abilene Christian University also
concluded that the iPad and its educational applications are critical in the development of mobile
learning (Shepherd & Reeves, 2011). Further study will need to be completed before crowning
the iPad as the ultimate mobile learning device, until then, Brown and Haag (2011) remind that
“It’s not about devices – it’s about capabilities and it’s not about the technology – it’s about the
experience” (p. 19).
Summary
In conducting this literature review the author examined many articles about online
learning, e-learning and m-learning. The amount of information available is vast, but inconsistent
in subject matter. It also is frequently out of date seemingly because of the rapid advancement of
mobile technologies and the changing practice of m-learning. The referenced ideas that made it
into this paper represent an attempt to discuss the main subject areas of the identified research
questions. Mobile learning is still in infancy. As the practice and technology mature, clearer
more concise ideas about designing effective m-learning will emerge. More research will be
conducted in future versions of this study in order to answer the proposed research questions and
to expand and amplify the subject matter.
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 12
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Research Design
This study will use a qualitative research method with a survey design. McMillan and
Schumacher (2010) stated “in survey research, the investigator selects a sample of respondents
from a target population and administers a questionnaire or conducts interviews to collect
information on variables of interest” (p. 235). A survey design will work well with this study,
since it will attempt to collect information about m-learning and the best practices needed when
designing and implementing learning content for mobile devices.
Subjects of Study
Individuals currently employed at organizations already implementing or piloting m-
learning programs will be a source of primary data. Individuals working at companies who
distribute applications or implement solutions for sale will also be a primary source. These
individuals were selected as subjects since they are deemed to have the most extensive and
current knowledge about m-learning practices. Current studies and surveys about the subject
matter of the research questions will also be used for secondary data.
Data Collection Procedure
Surveys will be administered and interviews will be conducted to collect the data from
the identified individuals. This study will also perform secondary data analysis on any relevant
studies or surveys available.
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 13
References
Adkins, S. S. (2011). The US market for self-paced eLearning products and services: 2010-2015
forecast and analysis. Retrieved from:
http://www.ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx#section1
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed), The
theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Berking, P. (2011). Choosing authoring tools (Volume 6). Retrieved from Advanced Distributed
Learning website: http://www.adlnet.gov
Bradley, C., Haynes, R., Cook, J., Boyle, T., & Smith, C. (2009). Design and development of
multimedia learning objects for mobile phones. In M. Ally, (Ed.), Mobile learning:
Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 157-182). Edmonton, AB: AU
Press, Athabasca University
Brandon, B. (Ed.). (2008). The eLearning Guild's 144 Tips on Synchronous e-Learning Strategy
+ Research. Retrieved from:
guhttp://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.1025
Brown, J, & Haag, J., (2011). ADL mobile learning handbook. Retrieved from Advanced
Distributed Learning website: http://www.adlnet.gov
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 14
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA,
Pfeiffer
Douch, R., Savill-Smith, C., Parker, G, & Attewell, J. (2010) Work-based and vocational
mobile learning: Making IT work. London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from:
https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=100186
Gartner (2010). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technologies for 2011. Retrieved from:
http:// www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1454221
Griffin, G. (2010, October 20). Mobile learning is beyond its tipping point. Learning Solutions
Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/540/mobile-
learning-is-beyond-its-tipping-point
Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). Using mobile
technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. Retrieved from:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/75
Hutchison, M., Tin, T., & Cao, Y. (2008). Meeting the needs of today’s new generation of online
learners with mobile learning technology. In T. Anderson (Ed), The theory and practice
of online learning (pp. 201-220). Retrieved at
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Kadle, A. (2009). Do you need games in your e-learning mix? Retrieved from:
http://www.upsidelearning.com/white-papers.asp
Kadle, A. (2010). The advent of mobile learning technology. Retrieved from:
http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/07/the-advent-of-mobile-
learning-technology/
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 15
Kainz, C. (2011). Mobile agility and the anytime, anywhere impact on IT. Retrieved from:
http://bb.blackboard.com/g/?id4yntdhix
Kaplan University (2008). Kaplan University online students report the economy and gas prices
played major roles in their decision to study online. Retrieved from:
online.kaplanuniversity.edu/.../final%20survey%20release%208-08.doc
Khaddage, F., Chonka, A., & Zhou, W. (2009). E-Learning over mobile phone technology:
Best practices and guidelines. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies,
3(3), 55-58. doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i3.950
Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning:
Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 335–344.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005
Kumar, S. (2010). Why the iPad is a learning tool. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved
from: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/545/why-the-ipad-is-a-learning-tool
Lee, J. W., & Mcloughlin, C. (2011). Pedagogy 2.0: critical challenges and responses to Web 2.0
and social software in tertiary teaching. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web
2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 43-69). Doi:
10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch003
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Motiwalla, L.F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education,
49, 581–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011
OnPoint Digital (2011). CellCast Solution Overview. Retrieved from:
http://www.mlearning.com/cellcast/news.html
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 16
Park, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 79-102
Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or
persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217
Peters, K. (2007). M-learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 2. Retrieved from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/350
Sapp, D. A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses:
Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition,
22, 471–489. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.08.005
Shepherd, I. J., & Reeves, B. (2011). IPad or ifad – The reality of a paperless classroom.
Retrieved from Abilene Christian University website:
http://www.acu.edu/technology/mobilelearning/index.html
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal
of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, January 2005,
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/ article01.htm.
Shank, P. (2007). Design strategies for online and blended learning. In B. Brandon (Ed), The
eLearning Guild’s Handbook of e-Learning Strategy (pp .27-41). Retrieved from:
http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.817
Stead, G. (2005). Moving mobile into the mainstream. Retrieved from: www.m-
learning.org/archive/docs/MLearn2005_Stead.pdf
MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 17
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning, 1(1), 1-12. Retrieved from:
http://wlv.academia.edu/JohnTraxler/Papers/83099/Learning_in_a_Mobile_Age