HAL Id: hal-00190143https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190143

Submitted on 23 Nov 2007

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and LearningLaura Naismith, Mike Sharples, Giasemi Vavoula, Peter Lonsdale

To cite this version:Laura Naismith, Mike Sharples, Giasemi Vavoula, Peter Lonsdale. Literature Review in Mobile Tech-nologies and Learning. 2004. �hal-00190143�

Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning

REPORT 11:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Laura Naismith, Peter Lonsdale, Giasemi Vavoula, Mike SharplesUniversity of Birmingham

Acknowledgements

Claire O'Malley, University of NottinghamEducational Technology Research Group, University of Birmingham

ABOUT FUTURELAB

Futurelab is passionate about transforming the way people learn.Tapping into the huge potential offered by digital and othertechnologies, we are developing innovative learning resources andpractices that support new approaches to education for the 21stcentury.

Working in partnership with industry, policy and practice, Futurelab:

• incubates new ideas, taking them from the lab to the classroom • offers hard evidence and practical advice to support the design

and use of innovative learning tools • communicates the latest thinking and practice in educational ICT• provides the space for experimentation and the exchange of ideas

between the creative, technology and education sectors.

A not-for-profit organisation, Futurelab is committed to sharing thelessons learnt from our research and development in order toinform positive change to educational policy and practice.

FOREWORD

Mobile technologies are a familiar part ofthe lives of most teachers and students in the UK today. We take it for grantedthat we can talk to other people at anytime, from wherever we may be; we arebeginning to see it as normal that we canaccess information, take photographs,record our thoughts with one device, andthat we can share these with our friends,colleagues or the wider world. Newerdevelopments in mobile phone technologyare also beginning to offer the potentialfor rich multimedia experiences and forlocation-specific resources.

The challenge for educators anddesigners, however, is one ofunderstanding and exploring how best we might use these resources to supportlearning. That we need to do this is clear – how much sense does it make to continue to exclude from schools,powerful technologies that are seen as a normal part of everyday life? At thepresent time, however, the models forusing and developing mobile applicationsfor learning are somewhat lacking.

This review provides a rich vision of the current and potential futuredevelopments in this area. It moves away from the dominant view of mobilelearning as an isolated activity to exploremobile learning as a rich, collaborativeand conversational experience, whetherin classrooms, homes or the streets of a city. It asks how we might draw onexisting theories of learning to help usevaluate the most relevant applications of mobile technologies in education. Itdescribes outstanding projects currentlyunder development in the UK and aroundthe world and it explores what the futuremight hold for learning with mobiletechnologies.

We look forward to hearing your views on this review and welcome comments at research@futurelab.org.uk

Keri FacerDirector of Learning ResearchFuturelab

1

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SECTION 1INTRODUCTION 6

SECTION 2AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES 9

SECTION 3TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES 20

SECTION 4IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS 33

SECTION 5THE FUTURE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

APPENDIX 1CHARACTERISTICS OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES 42

APPENDIX 2MAJOR MOBILE LEARNINGRESEARCH PROJECTS 42

Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning

REPORT 11:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Laura Naismith, Peter Lonsdale, Giasemi Vavoula, Mike SharplesUniversity of Birmingham

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The whole world is going mobile. Phones,computers and media devices now fit inour pockets and can connect us to avariety of information sources and enablecommunication nearly everywhere we go. There is considerable interest inexploiting the almost universal appeal and abundance of these technologies fortheir educational use.

The following issues are the most salient:

WHAT ARE THE NEW MOBILETECHNOLOGIES, AND WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT TO LEARNING?

With respect to technologies, ‘mobile’generally means portable and personal,like a mobile phone. Many examples oflearning with mobile technologies fit into this description. Personal digitalassistants and mobile phones are the most commonly used technologies formobile learning, but they exist within the larger space of possible mobiletechnologies that can be broadlycategorised on the two dimensions ofpersonal vs shared and portable vs static.

NEW LEARNING AND TEACHINGPRACTICES AND MOBILETECHNOLOGIES

Most previous reviews of mobiletechnologies and learning have beenconcerned with the use of thesetechnologies to address specificcurriculum areas. In this review, we take an activity-centred perspective,considering new practices against

existing theories. Our review of theliterature reveals six broad theory-basedcategories of activity, and identifies anumber of examples of the use of mobiletechnology in each of them:

1 Behaviourist – activities that promotelearning as a change in learners’observable actionsIn the behaviourist paradigm, learning is thought to be best facilitated throughthe reinforcement of an associationbetween a particular stimulus and aresponse. Applying this to educationaltechnology, computer-aided learning isthe presentation of a problem (stimulus)followed by the contribution on the partof the learner of the solution (response).Feedback from the system then providesthe reinforcement. In a mobile learningcontext, classroom response systemslike ‘Classtalk’ (Dufresne et al 1996) and‘Qwizdom’ (Qwizdom: Assessment forLearning in the Classroom 2003) fall inthis category, as well as examples ofcontent delivery by text messages tomobile phones (BBC Bitesize 2003,2004; Thornton and Houser 2004).

2 Constructivist – activities in whichlearners actively construct new ideas orconcepts based on both their previousand current knowledgeIn the constructivist approach, learningis an active process in which learnersconstruct new ideas or concepts basedon both their current and pastknowledge. Learners are encouraged to be active constructors of knowledge,with mobile devices now embeddingthem in a realistic context at the sametime as offering access to supportingtools. The most compelling examples of the implementation of constructivistprinciples with mobile technologies

2

the whole worldis going mobile

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

come from a brand of learningexperience termed ‘participatorysimulations’, where the learnersthemselves act out key parts in animmersive recreation of a dynamicsystem. Examples include the VirusGame (Collella 2000), Savannah (Facer et al in preparation), and theEnvironmental Detectives (Klopfer and Squire in preparation).

3 Situated – activities that promotelearning within an authentic context and cultureSituated learning posits that learningcan be enhanced by ensuring that ittakes place in an authentic context.Mobile devices are especially well suitedto context-aware applications simplybecause they are available in differentcontexts, and so can draw on thosecontexts to enhance the learning activity.The museum and gallery sector hasbeen on the forefront of context-awaremobile computing by providingadditional information about exhibitsand displays based on the visitor’slocation within them. Examples ofmobile systems that situate learning inauthentic contexts include the AmbientWood (Rogers et al 2002), MOBIlearn(Lonsdale et al 2003, 2004), and themultimedia tours offered at the TateModern (Proctor and Burton 2003).

4 Collaborative – activities that promotelearning through social interactionCollaborative learning has sprung outfrom research on computer-supportedcollaborative work and learning(CSCW/L) and is based on the role ofsocial interactions in the process oflearning. Many new approaches tothinking about learning developed in the 1990s, most of which are rooted

in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural psychology(Vygotsky 1978), including activity theory(see for example Engeström 1987).Though not traditionally linked withcollaborative learning, another theorythat is particularly relevant to ourconsideration of collaboration usingmobile devices is conversation theory(Pask 1976), which describes learning in terms of conversations betweendifferent systems of knowledge. Mobiledevices can support mobile computer-supported collaborative learning(MCSCL) by providing another means ofcoordination without attempting toreplace any human-human interactions,as compared to say, online discussionboards which substitute for face-to-facediscussions (Zurita et al 2003; Cortez etal 2004; Zurita and Nussbaum 2004).

5 Informal and lifelong – activities that support learning outside adedicated learning environment and formal curriculumResearch on informal and lifelonglearning recognises that learninghappens all of the time and isinfluenced both by our environment andthe particular situations we are facedwith. Informal learning may beintentional, for example, throughintensive, significant and deliberatelearning ‘projects’ (Tough 1971), or it may be accidental, by acquiringinformation through conversations, TVand newspapers, observing the world or even experiencing an accident orembarrassing situation. Such a broadview of learning takes it outside theclassroom and, by default, embedslearning in everyday life, thusemphasising the value of mobiletechnologies in supporting it. Anexample in this category is the system

3

mobile devicesare especiallywell suited tocontext-awareapplications

REPORT 11LITERATURE REVIEW IN MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES AND LEARNING

LAURA NAISMITH, PETER LONSDALE, GIASEMI VAVOULA, MIKE SHARPLES, UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

described by Wood et al (2003) wherebreast cancer patients are enabled toaccess trustworthy information abouttheir condition, to communicate withother patients, and to keep track of the issues that concern them.

6 Learning and teaching support –activities that assist in the coordinationof learners and resources for learningactivitiesEducation as a process relies on a great deal of coordination of learnersand resources. Mobile devices can beused by teachers for attendancereporting, reviewing student marks,general access of central school data,and managing their schedules moreeffectively. In higher education, mobiledevices can provide course material to students, including due dates forassignments and information abouttimetable and room changes. Examplesof using mobile technologies in thiscontext include a mobile learningorganiser which has been developed andtested at the University of Birmingham(Holme and Sharples 2002; Sharples etal 2003; Corlett et al 2004), and the useof mobile phone technologies to supportcomputing students (Riordan andTraxler 2003; Traxler and Riordan 2003).

A blended approach to enabling learningwith mobile technologies is necessary assuccessful and engaging activities draw on a number of different theories andpractices.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS, TEACHERS ANDCURRICULUM DEVELOPERS?

Learning and teaching with mobiletechnologies is beginning to make abreakthrough from small-scale pilots to institution-wide implementations. Inorder for these implementations to besuccessful, educators and technologydevelopers must consider the following key issues:

• Context: gathering and utilisingcontextual information may clash withthe learner’s wish for anonymity andprivacy.

• Mobility: the ability to link to activities inthe outside world also provides studentswith the capability to ‘escape’ theclassroom and engage in activities thatdo not correspond with either theteacher’s agenda or the curriculum.

• Learning over time: effective tools areneeded for the recording, organisationand retrieval of (mobile) learningexperiences.

• Informality: students may abandontheir use of certain technologies if theyperceive their social networks to beunder attack.

• Ownership: students want to own andcontrol their personal technology, butthis presents a challenge when theybring it in to the classroom.

Research-informed guidelines can help toaddress these issues along with morepractical concerns such as cost, usability,technical and institutional support. A set of such guidelines (O’Malley et al 2003) ispresented in Section 4.1 and outlined here:

4

a blendedapproach to

enabling learningwith mobile

technologies isnecessary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Investigate a cost model forinfrastructure, technology and services.

2 Study the requirements of all thoseinvolved in the use of the technology(learners, teachers, content creators) to ensure it is usable and acceptable.

3 Assess that the technology is suited to the learning task and examineadvantages and disadvantages of eachtechnology before making a decision onwhich one to use.

4 Assign the necessary roles for initiatingand thereafter supporting mobilelearning.

5 Develop procedures and strategies forthe management of equipment when itis provided by the institution.

6 Provide training and (ongoing) technicalsupport to the teachers to enable themto use mobile technologies to enhancecurrent and to enable new instructionalactivities.

7 Consider the use of mobile technologiesfor student administration tasks.

8 Consider the use of mobile technologiesto support collaborative and grouplearning.

9 Discover and adopt suitable applicationsthat match the needs of your specificclassroom and map directly to yourcurriculum needs.

10 Ensure security and privacy for the end users.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF MOBILETECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION?

Mobile technologies are becoming moreembedded, ubiquitous and networked, with enhanced capabilities for rich socialinteractions, context awareness andinternet connectivity. Such technologiescan have a great impact on learning.Learning will move more and more outsideof the classroom and into the learner’senvironments, both real and virtual, thusbecoming more situated, personal,collaborative and lifelong. The challengewill be to discover how to use mobiletechnologies to transform learning into a seamless part of daily life to the pointwhere it is not recognised as learning at all.

5

learning andteaching withmobiletechnologies is beginning to make abreakthrough

1 INTRODUCTION

Today we are witnessing the emergence ofa connected, mobile society, with a varietyof information sources and means ofcommunication available at home, work,school and in the community at large.Some even describe this as the beginningof the next social revolution (for example,Rheingold 2003). A high proportion of UKresidents have mobile phones (75%general population, 90% young adults;Crabtree et al 2003) that can handle bothvoice calls and the display of textualinformation. Many newer phones also havethe ability to connect wirelessly to theinternet. Hand-held computers, otherwiseknown as personal digital assistants(PDAs), are also becoming morewidespread (BBC 2004), being distributedby employers who are eager to keep theirworkforce productive whilst on the move.Laptops, though already a well-establishedtechnology, have gained new appeal whencombined with the connectivity of newermobile phones – a laptop can now use amobile phone as a means to dial-up theinternet and in doing so offer a trulymobile web experience. Furthermore,kiosks and information screens areappearing all around the country, and both researchers and industry are keen to exploit the potential of these‘ambient’ approaches to providing richinformation spaces.

There is considerable interest fromeducators and technical developers inexploiting the unique capabilities andcharacteristics of mobile technologies toenable new and engaging forms oflearning. This review explores the use ofthese mobile technologies for learning,considered against a backdrop of existinglearning theories that have been applied to

the use of computers in education. The specific aims of this review are:

• to identify the different types of mobiletechnologies that are applicable tolearning

• to explore new and emerging practicesrelating to the use of mobiletechnologies for learning

• to identify the learning theories that arerelevant to these new practices

• to present a set of exemplary casestudies demonstrating uses of mobiletechnologies for learning

• to present key issues and guidelines toinform current educational practice andpolicy

• to encourage educators and technicaldevelopers to rethink their roles for thefuture of learning with mobiletechnologies.

1.1 MOTIVATION FOR THIS REVIEW

The prevalence of mobile technologies is in itself a motivator to exploit them forlearning. Mobile technologies are alreadywidespread among children (NOP 2001). It makes sense, then, for an educationalsystem with limited information andcommunication technology (ICT) resourcesto make the most of what children bring tothe classroom. Sharples (2003) suggeststhat rather than seeing them as disruptivedevices, educators should seek to exploitthe potential of the technologies childrenbring with them and find ways to put theminto good use for the benefit of learningpractice. Mobile technologies provide anopportunity for a fundamental change ineducation away from occasional use of acomputer in a lab towards more embedded

6

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

use in the classroom and beyond(Hennessy 1999). Soloway et al (2001) havefurther argued that to make any differencein the classroom at all, computers must bemobile and within ‘arm’s reach’.

The nature of learning is closely linked to the concept of mobility. Vavoula andSharples (2002) suggest that there arethree ways in which learning can beconsidered mobile:

“learning is mobile in terms of space, ie ithappens at the workplace, at home, and atplaces of leisure; it is mobile betweendifferent areas of life, ie it may relate towork demands, self-improvement, orleisure; and it is mobile with respect totime, ie it happens at different timesduring the day, on working days or onweekends” (p152).

The close relation of learning to thecontext and the situation in which thelearning need arises has been widelydiscussed in the literature (Brown et al1989; Lave and Wenger 1991) and thebenefits of just-in-time, situated learninghave been explored (Goodyear 2000). Nyiri(2002) notes that knowledge is informationin context and since mobile devices enablethe delivery of context-specific informationthey are well placed to enable learning andthe construction of knowledge.

Mobile technologies offer learningexperiences which can effectively engageand educate contemporary learners andwhich are often markedly different fromthose afforded by conventional desktopcomputers. These devices are useddynamically, in many different settings,giving access to a broad range of uses andsituated learning activities. The personalnature of these technologies means thatthey are well suited to engaging learners

in individualised learning experiences, andto giving them increased ownership (andhence responsibility) over their own work.

Most previous reviews of mobiletechnologies for learning categoriseexamples of use according to curriculumarea. We believe that the benefits of mobiletechnologies for learning encompass morethan just what an individual can do with adevice, and that there is thus a need for a wider review of new and emergingpractices and how these relate to theoriesand paradigms previously established forthe use of computers in education.

1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF MOBILETECHNOLOGIES

There are many different kinds oftechnology that can be classed as ‘mobile’.Mobile, to most, means ‘portable’ and‘movable’. It also seems to implicate a‘personal’ as opposed to ‘shared’ context of use, and the terms ‘mobile’ and‘personal’ are often used interchangeably –but a device might be one withoutnecessarily being the other.

We can classify the range of mobiletechnologies using the two orthogonal

7

Fig 1: Classification of mobile technologies

Personal

Shared

Portable Static

Mobile phones

Gamesconsoles

PDAs

Tablet PCs

Laptops

1 2

3 4

Classroomresponse systems

VideoconferencingKiosksElectronicwhiteboards

dimensions of personal vs shared andportable vs static, as outlined in Fig 1. Quadrant 1 shows devices that can beclassified as both portable and personal.These kinds of devices are what peoplemost commonly think of in relation tomobile technologies: mobile phones,PDAs, tablet PCs and laptops. It alsoincludes hand-held video game consoles,with Rosas et al (2003) and Lee et al (2004)reporting on early evaluations of theireducational use. Since these devicesnormally support a single user, they aregenerally perceived as being very personal.The networked nature of such devicesaffords communication and informationsharing, meaning that while the devicesthemselves are personal, the informationwithin them can be shared easily. Thesedevices are portable because they aretaken from place to place and hence they can be available in many differentlocations. These are personal portabletechnologies.

Some other technologies, less portablethan mobile phones and PDAs, can stilloffer personal interactions with learningexperiences. Classroom response systems,shown in quadrant 2, consist of individualstudent devices that are used to respondanonymously to multiple choice questionsadministered by a teacher on a centralserver. This technology is static in thesense that it can only be used in onelocation, but remains personal because ofits small size and allocation to (typically)one single user. These are personal statictechnologies.

Being physically moved from one place toanother is not the only way in which mobiletechnologies can be ‘portable’. In quadrant3, there are examples of technologies thatcan provide learning experiences to users

on the move, but the devices themselvesare not physically movable. Street kiosks,interactive museum displays and otherkinds of installations offer pervasiveaccess to information and learningexperiences, but it is the learner who isportable, not the delivery technology. Suchdevices are typically seen as being lesspersonal, and are likely to be sharedbetween multiple users. Their larger sizemeans they are also better suited tomultiple-user interactions. These areshared portable technologies.

For more shareable interactions, thedevices themselves must become largerand hence less portable. Examples includeinteractive classroom whiteboards andvideo-conferencing facilities, as shown in quadrant 4. These technologies havebeen included to show the complete space of possibilities engendered by ourclassification, but they would generally not be classed as mobile technologies.

We believe that ‘mobile technologies’comprise all devices from quadrants 1-3,and those from quadrant 4 that are not atthe extreme end of the ‘static’ dimension.

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW

In this review we will primarily beconsidering personal portabletechnologies. We shall focus on hand-held devices including PDAs andmobile phones. Many of the implicationsfor learning are shared by other portable devices such as tablet PCs and laptops.

Even within the narrow range of devicesconsidered there is a variety of capabilitiesand features. Appendix 1 presents an

8

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

overview of features and specifications.Further discussion of mobile devicecharacteristics can be found in Sharplesand Beale (2003) and Becta (2004).

This review advocates an activity-focusedperspective on the use of mobiletechnologies for education, and presentsthese activities along with relevantlearning paradigms and theories in Section2. In Section 3, we illustrate the categoriesof practice through case studies drawnfrom the literature. In Section 4, weconsider the implications for policy andeducational practice, and presentresearch-informed guidelines as to howthese can be addressed. Finally, withreference to both emerging trends inmobile technology and learning research,we speculate on the future of mobiletechnologies and learning and theimplications this will have for today’seducators and technology developers.

2 AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERING LEARNING WITHMOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

Much of the research into the use ofmobile technologies for learning is drivenby the technical capabilities of newdevices. This is not unexpected, given therapidly changing face of mobile computing.These new capabilities inspire newpractices which can lead to valuableoutcomes, but, to date, application oftheory to the use of these technologies foreducational purposes is lacking. In thissection we consider the kinds of activitiesthat can be enabled through the use ofmobile devices under the categorisation of relevant theories from the study oflearning and, in particular, learning withtechnology.

Mobile technologies are computers, butthat does not mean that they should beviewed as simply providing more portableversions of the learning activities that are currently supported on more staticmachines. Being mobile adds a newdimension to the activities that can besupported, both because of the personaland portable nature of the devicesthemselves, and because of the kinds ofinteractions they can support with otherlearners and the environment.

Klopfer et al (2002) identify five propertiesof mobile devices (PDAs in this case) thatproduce unique educational affordances:

• Portability – the small size and weightof mobile devices means they can betaken to different sites or moved aroundwithin a site.

• Social interactivity – data exchange andcollaboration with other learners canhappen face-to-face. Nyiri (2002), with

9

being mobileadds a newdimension to theactivities thatcan be supported

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

reference to Dewey’s emphasis on the need to facilitate face-to-faceinteractions, posits a new philosophy of mobile learning that points to mobiletechnologies as facilitators for theinnate anthropological need tocommunicate.

• Context sensitivity – mobile devices can both gather and respond to real orsimulated data unique to the currentlocation, environment and time.

• Connectivity – a shared network can becreated by connecting mobile devices to data collection devices, other devicesor to a common network.

• Individuality – scaffolding for difficultactivities can be customised forindividual learners.

To fully appreciate the potential of mobiletechnologies for learning, we must lookbeyond the use of individual devices andconsider their use embedded in classroompractice, or as part of a learningexperience outside the classroom.

2.1 CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES

We have structured the classification ofactivities around the main theories andareas of learning relevant to learning withmobile technologies.

The six main themes we have identified are:

1 Behaviourist – activities that promotelearning as a change in observableactions.

2 Constructivist – activities in whichlearners actively construct new ideas orconcepts based on both their previousand current knowledge.

3 Situated – activities that promotelearning within an authentic context and culture.

4 Collaborative – activities that promotelearning through social interaction.

5 Informal and lifelong – activities thatsupport learning outside a dedicatedlearning environment and formalcurriculum.

6 Learning and teaching support –activities that assist in the coordinationof learners and resources for learningactivities.

Note that these categories are by nomeans mutually exclusive, but areintended to provide a loose theoreticalbackground for reviewing the case studiespresented in Section 3.

2.2 BEHAVIOURIST LEARNING

The use of mobile devices to presentlearning materials, obtain responses from learners, and provide appropriatefeedback, fits within the behaviouristlearning paradigm. This paradigm drawson Skinner’s work on operant conditioningand behaviourism (Skinner 1968; itselfbased on Pavlov’s work on classicalconditioning). Within this paradigm,learning is thought to be best facilitatedthrough the reinforcement of an associationbetween a particular stimulus and aresponse. Applying this to educationaltechnology, computer-aided learning is the presentation of a problem (stimulus)followed by the contribution from the partof the learner of the solution (response).Feedback from the system then providesthe reinforcement. This type of learningadopts a transmission model – learningtakes place through the transmission

10

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

of information from the tutor (thecomputer) to the learner.

Despite a move away from the behaviouristperspective within the field of learningtheory, many e-learning systems still relyheavily on this approach. Computersprovide the ideal opportunity to presentcontent, gather responses, and provideappropriate feedback. It would seem thatthis approach has lost none of itsmomentum in transferring to the use ofmobile devices instead of desktop PCs;there is currently a great deal of interest inthe use of mobile devices as a means todeliver such content, as the case studies in the next section will demonstrate.

With regard to mobile delivery, we find thatwe are faced with challenges similar tothose faced by early designers ofcomputer-assisted learning (CAL) systems,when the technology was more limited.Compared to today’s desktop computers,mobile devices have limited displays,restricted input methods, and low rates ofconnectivity.

Despite these problems, ‘drill andfeedback’ activities still offer a number of advantages:

• content and feedback can be tailored to suit particular curriculum areas

• valuable data can be gathered about the progress of individual students.

The use of mobile devices also means thateven the most basic of such activities canbe embedded within a meaningful learningcontext, as exemplified by classroomresponse systems.

2.2.1 Classroom response systems –hybrid drill and feedback

The use of mobile devices to gatherfeedback from learners during a sessionbeing delivered by a teacher employs ahybrid model that emphasises theintegration of mobile devices into existingteaching practice, not the replacement of it.

Classroom response systems facilitatewhole-class drill and feedback activities by allowing teachers to:

• Present content-specific questions.These questions can range from simplereview to probing questions at the heartof the subject matter. Suggestedsolutions are invited by way of multiplechoice options on the students’ devices.

• Gather student responses rapidly andanonymously.

• Quickly assemble a public, aggregatedisplay to show the variation in thegroup’s ideas while maintainingindividual anonymity (Roschelle et al 2004).

The underlying principle is simple, butthere appear to be a number of gains overtraditional methods of classroom interaction.Roschelle (2003) reports the followingbenefits for classroom response systems:

• Formative assessment/peer feedback and the benefit of anonymity: students can see that others share their ownmisconceptions, but this information is anonymous, which means there is no potential loss from answeringincorrectly. This also aids the teacher in assessing the current level ofunderstanding in the class as a whole.

11

even the most basic ofactivities can beembedded withina meaningfullearning context

• The use of devices for responses givesrise to a change in the nature of theteaching, as the responses themselvescan serve as a catalyst for richerdiscussion of the pertinent topics.

• The role of the technology is small butvaluable: it provides anonymity, speed of response collection, and sharedvisualisations that enhance mutualpattern recognition.

These advantages give an indication of theways in which mobile devices in particularcan enhance the behaviourist learningprocess. This remains, however, a fairlybasic application of mobile devices inlearning. As explored in the subsequentsections, mobile devices can provide moredirect ways for learners to interact withmaterials in an authentic learning context.

2.3 CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Constructivist theories of learning weredeveloped during the 1960s and 70s,inspired by the rise in cognitive theories oflearning. Bruner, a principal contributor,theorised that learning was an activeprocess in which learners construct newideas or concepts based on both theircurrent and past knowledge (Bruner 1966).The use of a cognitive structure to selectand transform information, constructhypotheses and make decisions washeavily based on Piaget’s descriptions ofthe patterns of physical or mental actionthat underlie specific acts of intelligenceand correspond to stages of childdevelopment (Piaget 1929).

The personal home computer of the 1980soffered tremendous advances in terms ofdisplay capabilities (text, graphics, video

and sound were now possible) andinteraction methods. The computer was nolonger just a conduit for the presentationof information; it was a tool for the activemanipulation of that information. The useror learner gained a locus of control in thelearning activity that was missing frombehaviourist approaches, and so dawnedthe era of ‘Powerful Ideas’ (Papert 1980).

For Papert, and others of the time, thecomputer became the tutee, rather thanthe tutor, and the learner engaged in thelearning process through instructing thecomputer how to perform tasks and solve problems. This was accomplishedthrough a specially designed computerprogramming language called Logo. Papert termed this alternative approach toconstructivist learning constructionism, aslearners were actively constructing theirown knowledge and learning by buildinginteractive models.

Within a constructivist learning framework,instructors should encourage students to discover principles for themselves. In order to transform learners frompassive recipients of information to activeconstructors of knowledge we must give them an environment in which toparticipate in the learning process, and the appropriate tools to work with thatknowledge. Mobile devices give us aunique opportunity to have learnersembedded in a realistic context at the same time as having access tosupporting tools.

The most compelling examples of theimplementation of constructivist principleswith mobile technologies come from abrand of learning experience termedparticipatory simulations.

12

mobile devicescan provide more

direct ways forlearners to

interact withmaterials in an authentic

learning context

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

2.3.1 Participatory simulations

In participatory simulations, the learnersthemselves act out key parts in animmersive recreation of a dynamic system.Each learner carries a networked devicewhich allows them to become part of thedynamic system they are learning about.The aim of this approach is to move thesimulation away from the computer screenand more into the tangible world thatstudents can interact with. By makingthem part of the simulation itself, they areengaged in the learning process, and getto immediately see the effect their actionscan have on the system as a whole. Theydo not just watch the simulation, they arethe simulation. Colella et al (1998)describe a participatory simulation wherelearners play the role of hosts in thespread of a virus; small wearablecomputers keep a track of who they meetand the transmission of the disease.Additional descriptions of participatorysimulations enabled through the use ofmobile technologies can be found in Faceret al (in preparation) and Klopfer andSquire (in preparation). Further details ofthese studies will be reported in Section 3.

These studies report positive responsesfrom the learners involved, but the mainissue of concern is whether learning thattakes place within simulations like thistransfer across to other situations andsettings. Despite the initial enthusiasmand the groundbreaking nature of Papert’swork, there have been questions about thetransferability of the skills that studentsdevelop in a microworld such as Papert’sLogo. These same questions remainunanswered for the microworlds withinparticipatory simulations.

2.4 SITUATED LEARNING

The situated learning paradigm, asdeveloped by Lave et al (1991), holds thatlearning is not merely the acquisition ofknowledge by individuals, but instead aprocess of social participation. Thesituation where the learning takes placehas a great impact on this process. Brownet al (1989) also emphasise the idea ofcognitive apprenticeship, where teachers(the experts) work alongside students (theapprentices) to create situations where thestudents can begin to work on problemseven before they fully understand them.

Situated learning requires knowledge to be presented in authentic contexts(settings and applications that wouldnormally involve that knowledge) andlearners to participate within a communityof practice. By developing appropriatecontext-based teaching strategies withmobile technologies, we can fulfil both of these requirements.

Three strands that are especially relevantto the use of mobile devices can beconsidered in relation to the situatedlearning paradigm. They are problem-based learning, case-based learning, and context-aware learning.

2.4.1 Problem-based learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) (Koschmann et al 1996) aims to developstudents’ critical thinking skills by givingthem an ill-defined problem that isreflective of what they would encounter asa practicing professional. The problem isused as a basis for “learning by analogyand abstraction via reflection” (O’Malley et al 2003) .

13

in participatorysimulations, the learnersthemselves actout key parts inan immersiverecreation of adynamic system

The distinct characteristics of PBL(Stepian and Gallagher 1993) include the following:

• Problems do not test skills; they assistin the development of skills, and areused to drive the curriculum.

• Problems are ill-structured, withminimal presenting information.Gathering information, perceiving theproblem and developing the solutionbecomes an iterative process.

• Students (usually in groups of five to six) solve the problems; teachers andcoaches act as facilitators and giveguidelines as to how the problem maybe approached.

• Assessment is authentic andperformance based.

Throughout the process of exploring aproblem, students are encouraged toidentify the areas of knowledge they willrequire to understand the problem. Thegroup then collects these learning issues,along with data, hypotheses and plans forfuture inquiry in a structured manner,which can be facilitated by sharedinformation resources (eg physical orelectronic whiteboard), and uses thecollected information to develop a plan forthe next iteration of problem formulation,solution, reflection and abstraction.

Applications of PBL include medicaleducation (Albanese and Mitchell 1993),business administration (Merchant 1995;Stinson and Milter 1995) and nursing(Higgins 1994).

2.4.2 Case-based learning

Case-based learning (CBL) (Kolodner andGuzdial 2000) is similar to PBL, but relieson more well-defined problems, that mayor may not be representative of whatstudents might encounter in the realworld. CBL is more flexible than PBL inthat it can be used in small or largeclasses and can be used as either anassessment exercise or as a catalyst forclass discussions and lectures.

2.4.3 Context-aware learning

Context-aware computing represents arelatively new area of research. Contextawareness means gathering informationfrom the environment to provide ameasure of what is currently going onaround the user and the device. Activitiesand content that are particularly relevantto that environment can then be madeavailable. Mobile devices are especiallywell suited to context-aware applicationssimply because they are available indifferent contexts, and so can draw onthose contexts to enhance the learningactivity. Context-aware mobile devices cansupport learners by allowing a learner tomaintain their attention on the world andby offering appropriate assistance whenrequired. This kind of appropriate supportcan be seen as a form of scaffolding (Wood et al 1976).

The museum and gallery sector has beenon the forefront of context-aware mobilecomputing by providing additionalinformation about exhibits and displaysbased on the visitor’s location within them.

14

context-awarecomputing

represents arelatively new

area of research

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

2.5 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Both the capabilities of mobile devices andtheir wide context of use contribute to theirpropensity to foster collaboration. Mobiledevices can easily communicate with otherdevices of the same or similar type,enabling learners to share data, files andmessages. They can also be connected toa shared data network, further enhancingpossibilities for communication. Thesedevices are also typically used in a groupsetting, and so interactions andcollaboration will tend to take place notjust through the devices but also at andaround them as well.

Research into collaborative learning withmobile devices is greatly informed byprevious research on computer-supportedcollaborative learning (CSCL). In reality,much current research into mobilelearning can be classed as mobile-CSCLor MCSCL, and there is a specific focus onthe use of mobile technologies to promote,facilitate and enhance interactions andcollaborations between students. CSCL draws on many different learningtheories. Situated learning theoriesemphasise the role of social interactions in the process of learning. Many newapproaches to thinking about learningdeveloped in the 1990s, most of which are rooted in Vygotsky’s socio-culturalpsychology (Vygotsky 1978), includingactivity theory (see for example Engeström1987).

Though not traditionally linked withcollaborative learning, another theory thatis particularly relevant to our considerationof collaboration using mobile devices is conversation theory (Pask 1976), which describes learning in terms ofconversations between different systems

of knowledge. Pask was careful not tomake any distinction between people andinteractive systems such as computers,with the great advantage that the theorycan be applied equally to human teachersand learners, or to technology-basedteaching or learning support systems.

In order to constitute a ‘conversation’, the learner must be able to formulate adescription of himself and his actions,explore and extend that description andcarry forward the understanding to afuture activity. In order to learn, a personor system must be able to converse withitself about what it knows.

Learning can be even more effective when learners can converse with eachother, by interrogating and sharing theirdescriptions of the world. We can say thatthe two people share an understanding if Person A can make sense of B’sexplanations of what B knows, and personB can make sense of A’s explanation ofwhat A knows. Thus, it is through mutualconversation that we come to a sharedunderstanding of the world. Learning is acontinual conversation; with the externalworld and its artefacts, with oneself, andalso with other learners and teachers. The most successful learning comes whenthe learner is in control of the activity, ableto test ideas by performing experiments,ask questions, collaborate with otherpeople, seek out new knowledge, and plan new actions.

Laurillard (1993) relates Pask’s theory tothe realm of academic knowledge. Thoughprimarily concerned with the application ofeducational technology to university-levelteaching, the ‘conversational framework’she puts forward can be applied to the fullrange of subject areas and topic types.

15

The learning process includes thefollowing aspects: apprehending structure,integrating parts, acting on descriptions,using feedback and reflecting on goal-action-feedback. As illustrated in Fig 2,technology may play multiple roles withinthe conversation space.

Technology may take the place of theteacher, as in drill and feedback. Thedifficulty here is that the computer canhold a limited dialogue at the level ofactions - “look here”, “what’s this?”, “dothat” - but is not able to reflect on its own

activities or its own knowledge. And becauseit cannot hold a conversation at the level of descriptions, it has no way of exploringstudents’ misconceptions or helping them to reach a shared understanding.Technology can also demonstrate ideas oroffer advice at the level of descriptions, aswith the world wide web or online helpsystems, but their practical advice, at thelevel of actions, is limited.

Alternatively, the technology may providethe environment in which conversationallearning takes place. It can extend the

16

the technologymay provide

the environmentin which

conversationallearning takes

place Fig 2: Role of technology in supporting conversational learning

Technology provides an environment to enable conversation

Technology provides facility forpractical model building

Technologydemonstrates or

elicits models and elaborates

problem solutions

Technology acts to build

models and assist in solving problems

Learnerdemonstrates

understanding ofmodels and

problem solutions

Learner acts to build models

and solve problems

Why questions and responses

Offers theories and ideas

Re-describes theories

Offers conceptions and explanations

Re-describes conceptions

How questions and responses

Sets goals

Adjusts model

Acts

Modifies actions

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

range of activities and the reach of adiscussion into other worlds throughgames, and to other parts of this world bymobile phone or e-mail. The technologyprovides a shared conversational learningspace, which can be used not only forsingle learners but for groups of learners.

2.5.1 Small group collaboration

Mobile devices can support MCSCL byproviding another means of coordinationwithout attempting to replace any human-human interactions, as compared to sayonline discussion boards which substitutefor face-to-face discussions.

Hand-helds support MCSCL activities bydirectly addressing usability problems withconventional CSCL activities. The hand-held stores all of the material andinformation necessary to organise theactivity, and the user interface addressescoordination by forcing the participants toperform one task at a time in a specificsequence. Communication is supported bymaking messages about activity status,data, error or results available to allparticipants, and synchronisation issupported as each hand-held has to waitfor the action of the other hand-heldsbefore moving to the next stage of theactivity. By requiring all participants toagree on an answer before proceeding, theapplication facilitates interactivity andprovides a negotiation space. Finally, thehand-helds support mobility by allowingthe participants to take the technologyanywhere, and by allowing for naturalsocial interactions. By effectively couplingan informatic layer with the social networklayer, learning gains can be significant(Zurita and Nussbaum 2004).

2.6 INFORMAL AND LIFELONG LEARNING

Learning happens all of the time and is influenced both by our environment and the particular situations we are faced with. Informal learning may beintentional, for example through intensive,significant and deliberate learning‘projects’ (Tough 1971), or it may beaccidental by acquiring informationthrough conversations, TV andnewspapers, observing the world, or even by experiencing an accident orembarrassing situation. Eraut (2000)classifies these ‘non-formal’ learningactivities along a continuum of thelearner’s intent, with the former activitiesrepresenting deliberate learning and thelatter activities representing implicitlearning. Activities in the middle of thecontinuum are described as reactivelearning, which occurs in response tochanging circumstances such as careerpromotion or parenthood.

Indeed, studies of informal learning (Tough 1971; Livingstone 2001) show that most of adults’ learning happensoutside formal education. While informallearning is a reality in people’s lives, theymay not recognise it as learning.

Tough (1971) notes:

“…when the person’s central concern is atask or decision, he will not be veryinterested in learning a complete body ofsubject matter. Instead, he will want justthe knowledge and skill that will be usefulto him in dealing with the particularresponsibility of the moment” (p51).

17

by effectivelycoupling aninformatic layerwith the socialnetwork layer,learning gainscan besignificant

Thus, people learn in order to be able toperform a new task, or even to be able to carry out a routine task in a better,more efficient or elegant way. Technologythat is used to support learning should be blended with everyday life in the sameway that learning is blended with everydaylife: seamlessly and unobtrusively. Mobiletechnologies, with their reduced size andease of use, provide the potential tosupport such activities.

With regard to accidental learning,learning episodes are impossible topredict. The personal and portable natureof mobile technologies makes them very strong candidates for recording,reflecting on and sharing this type ofinformal learning.

2.7 LEARING AND TEACHING SUPPORT

The use of mobile technologies ineducation is not restricted to exploitingthem for learning activities. Education as a process relies on a great deal ofcoordination of learners and resources.Mobile technologies can help in supportingteaching and learning without explicitlybeing part of the learning activitythemselves.

There is scope for supporting bothstudents and teachers, and also forsupporting administration more generally.Perry (2003) reports on the successful use of PDAs for administration andsupporting classroom management.

18

the use of mobiletechnologies in

education is not restricted toexploiting them

for learningactivities Theme Key Theorists Activities

Behaviourist learning

Constructivistlearning

Situated learning

Collaborative learning

Informal and lifelong learning

Learning and teaching support

Skinner, Pavlov

Piaget, Bruner, Papert

Lave, Brown

Vygotsky

Eraut

n/a

• drill and feedback• classroom response systems

• participatory simulations

• problem and case-based learning• context awareness

• mobile computer-supported collaborative learning (MCSCL)

• supporting intentional and accidental learning episodes

• personal organisation• support for administrative duties

(eg attendance)

Table 1: An activity-based categorisation of mobile technologies and learning

SECTION 2

AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH TO CONSIDERINGLEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

Mobile devices can be used by teachers forattendance reporting, reviewing studentmarks, general access of central schooldata, or managing their schedules moreeffectively. In higher education, mobilescan provide course material to studentsincluding due dates for assignments andinformation about timetable changes orroom changes.

The informal nature of the devices can leadto positive rewards; Strom and Strom(2002) report that PDAs helped withteacher-parent communication, enabling ameans for teachers to inform parents ofabsenteeism and thus manage thisproblem more effectively.

2.8 SUMMARY

Table 1 summarises the main activitythemes discussed in this section.

While mobile devices are not necessarilyrequired to support these activities, theiruse affords a highly personal experienceembedded within an authentic context ofuse. The range of activities for whichmobile devices are being used suggeststhat these technologies are fundamentallychanging the nature of learning provision.

It is beyond the scope of this review toattempt a synthesis of the theoriespresented here and elsewhere that arerelevant to learning with mobiletechnologies. There is, as yet, no over-arching ‘theory of mobile learning’, butwhat we can work towards is an integratedpedagogy for the use of mobile devicesthat draws on a number of areas. What isneeded is a blended, integrated approach –as explored in the next section, the power

of mobile devices in the classroom andbeyond comes from being able to combinedifferent elements in ways that areappropriate to the learning activities to be supported.

19

the informalnature of thedevices can lead to positiverewards

3 TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

This section presents both current andrecent examples of teaching and learningwith mobile technologies, categorisedunder the themes introduced in Section 2.The particular examples were chosenbecause they possess one or more of thefollowing key characteristics:

• broad impact, mainly inferred from the number of learners supported

• strong theoretical basis

• support of an interesting or novel activity

• inclusion of both qualitative andquantitative evaluation results.

3.1 BEHAVIOURIST LEARNING

The following case studies demonstratethe unique capabilities for anytime,anywhere learning that mobile devices canoffer, even for the most straightforward‘drill and feedback’ activities.

3.1.1 Skills Arena

Skills Arena (Lee et al 2004) is amathematics video game, implementedusing the Nintendo Game Boy Advancesystem, that supplements traditionalcurricula and teaching methods. Drills inaddition and subtraction are presented asa game with advanced scoring and record-keeping, character creation and variabledifficulty level. Students can select the name and physical traits of theircharacter, which they use to compete in

‘matches’ against computer-generatedopponents, ranked by difficulty. Difficulty isincreased by increasing the speed at whichthe problems display on the screen.

Compared to traditional worksheets, Skills Arena was designed to offer fasterfeedback, the ability for each student toselect the appropriate difficulty level and to provide increased motivation.

An initial pilot study of Skills Arena wastested with two classes of second gradestudents (39 students in total) over 19days. Students completed an average of1,296 problems each during this period,three times what would be expected withtraditional worksheets. Skills Arena alsohad a significant impact on the classroomculture. Both teachers found the activitywas easy to administer and control, andone teacher even used Skills Arena as areward for good behaviour. Students’ activeengagement with Skills Arena extendedbeyond the time allotted in the classroom,as they were inspired to create storiesabout both their experience and theircharacters.

Based on the results of the pilot study,additional classroom studies are plannedto quantify whether using Skills Arenaimproves student’s performance inaddition and subtraction, and to comparethe impact with traditional drill activitiessuch as worksheets.

3.1.2 BBC Bitesize

BBC Bitesize (2003; 2004) is an initiative to provide revision materials via mobilephones, using a downloadable Java gameand SMS text messages. Given the limitedamount of information that can be

20

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

displayed on-screen and sent via text, therevision materials really are ‘bite-sized’.This initiative has been running since 2003,and has proved to be very popular,especially with the growing number ofphones with Java capabilities. The mainimpact of the BBC Bitesize programmecomes from the size of its audience - over650,000 GCSE students (as well as anumber of curious adult learners). Some implementation problemshighlighted include:

• Problem of localised content: somequestions were not relevant to what a particular student had studied.

• Lack of detailed feedback for learners:the small screen size and memorycapacity of the mobile phones meantthat no detailed feedback about questionresponses could be given. This washighlighted as a key issue that learnerswanted to see addressed.

• Compatibility across devices: despiteJava being promoted as a cross-platform environment, it was difficult to get the Java game running on allphones.

• Costs: the SMS service was originallyfree, but excessive demand forced theBBC to charge for messages, leading to a significant decline in popularity.

3.1.3 Mobile phones for language learning

Two mobile language learning systems formobile phones were implemented andtested in 2003 (Thornton and Houser 2004).

SMS was used as part of an Englishlanguage course, where students weresent frequent vocabulary messages, whichalso act as reminders to revise. Thelessons proved effective and were wellreceived by the students. The system takesadvantage of ‘push’ technologies andpromotes regular study. Researchers didnote, however, that students werepostponing study until they would have the time to concentrate on the task.

Video delivered on mobile platforms (both mobile phone and PDA) was used to demonstrate the literal meaning and the special use of English idioms.Students found the video quality low, but the experience of using the videos engaging.

A related commercial application is PocketEijiro 1, started in December 2002 as anEnglish-Japanese, Japanese-Englishdictionary. The site now receives more than 100,000 hits per day and subscribersnumber in the hundred thousands.

3.1.4 Classroom response systems

Classroom response systems can beimplemented as either specialist systems,comprising both the hardware andsoftware such as Educue 2, or as software-only systems that can be installedon mobile devices, such as Discourse 3.

Dufresne et al (1996) report on the use of a classroom response system called‘Classtalk’ with first year physics studentsat the University of Massachusetts, USA.

21

1 http://ojr.org/japan/wireless/1080854640.php 2 http://www.educue.com 3 http://www.ets.org/discourse/about.html

Classtalk helped to clarify the students’conceptual understanding of the materialby allowing them to articulate andelaborate their ideas, reflect on both theirown ideas and the ideas of others, andevaluate the usefulness of having anumber of different perspectives. The keybenefit of a technology-supported systemwas that it afforded all the students theopportunity to present a viewpoint,whether or not they were comfortablepresenting their ideas to the entire class.In addition to engaging students in activelearning during the lectures, Classtalk alsoenhanced the overall communicationwithin the classroom.

A more recent example of a classroomresponse system implementation is theNorthern Ireland e-Learning ‘Assessmentfor Learning’ project, which evaluated theQwizdom Classroom Response System(2003) with 114 students and four teachersat three schools.

3.2 CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

As introduced in the previous section,participatory simulations are games where learners play an active role in thesimulation of a dynamic system orprocess. The key challenge is to make surethe technology is unobtrusive, so that itfacilitates rather than hinders interactionsbetween the learners.

3.2.1 The virus game

Collella (2000) describes a study wherelearners took part in a participatorysimulation about the spread of a virus.Students were asked to simulate andobserve the spread of a virus in a

population by moving around the classroommeeting each other face to face. Eachstudent wore a custom-built ‘thinking tag’that showed whether or not they wereinfected by means of coloured lights.These tags were worn like badges, andwould communicate with other tagswhenever they were in range; in this way,meetings between learners were trackedby the tags, and the virus, which started injust one person, could spread to otherpeople as they met and their tagscommunicated. The students were able totake part in a simulation without worryingabout underlying rules of that simulation –their tags did all the thinking about rulesfor them, and the students couldconcentrate on the important questions:“Where did the disease start?” “How doesit get spread?” “Who can catch it?”

Key findings include:

• students readily engaged with thesimulation, and found it to be arewarding and stimulating experience

• students successfully collaborated toanswer the relevant questions about the simulation

• the technology facilitated, rather thanhindered, normal interactions betweenthe students – the devices augmentedrather than replaced normal channelsof communication, and hence providedunobtrusive technology support

• students were able to test outexperimental hypotheses within thesimulation after observing specificbehaviours.

This simulation has been re-created for thePalmOS PDA, and is freely available fromhttp://education.mit.edu/pda/games.htm.

22

a technology-supported

system affordedall the studentsthe opportunity

to present aviewpoint

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

3.2.2 Savannah

Savannah (Facer et al in preparation) wasa collaboration between NESTA Futurelab,BBC NHU, the Mixed Reality Lab(Nottingham University) and Mobile Bristol(Hewlett-Packard and University ofBristol). This pilot study explored the useof mobile devices to enable a rich,interactive learning experience wherestudents got to play the role of, and hencelearn about, lions.

The Savannah study builds on Colella’swork by taking the simulation out of theclassroom and situating it in anappropriate environment for the topic.Students in Savannah got to play the roleof lions roaming in the wild in an area100m x 50m. Each student carried a PDAthat gave them a window into the game-world, displaying content and actions thatwere appropriate to their current locationand what was going on in the rest of thegame. Each PDA could be tracked usingGPS, and allowed the students to ‘see’,‘hear’, and ‘smell’ the virtual savannahthey were exploring. The PDA screendisplayed visual content and indications ofscents, and the children wore headphonesfor an auditory experience. The PDAs alsodisplayed informative and instructionalmessages such as “You’re hungry”, “You’retoo hot”, “Return to the den”. They alsohad a den area, to which they could retreatfor more reflective learning after being out in the field.

As in Colella’s virus game, the childrenwere more than willing to suspend theirdisbelief, and reported that they felt theyhad really experienced what it was like tobe a lion on the savannah. During thegame, they often talked as if they weredirectly experiencing the simulation

(ie “I’m hungry”, “I’m too hot”). They hadthe opportunity to explore multiple aspectsof lion behaviour, and reported that thegame had increased their understanding.

Several findings are important to note:

• This study highlights the changing roleof teachers and facilitators in the mobilelearning experience. While in the den,children were encouraged to reflect onthe success of their activities, but thiswas mainly teacher-led. When thisreflection was led by the childrenthemselves, they were highly engagedand motivated. When the teacher tookcontrol, the students became morepassive and resistant to engagement. Tobe successful as a learning experience,the game needs to allow the students to control their own learning.

• Students occupied multiple roles -including the role of the lion itself, the role of the child acting as a lion, and the role of a child reflecting on his or her actions and the rules of the game in order to play better - and needed support in transitioningbetween these roles.

• Despite suspending their disbelief,children had high expectations of thesystem; they were disappointed thatthey didn’t have access to more lion-likepowers, and expected a more rich andinteractive experience than currenttechnology can provide.

3.2.3 Environmental Detectives

The MIT Games-to-Teach project seeks to further explore the development of‘augmented reality educational gaming’

23

(Klopfer and Squire in preparation).Augmented reality educational gamingbuilds on recent developments in hand-held gaming, where context-sensitive dataand social interactions are used tosupplement real world interactions.

The goal of the Environmental Detectivesgame was to teach secondary school andfirst year undergraduate students theskills of environmental inquiry, using asimulated environmental problem.Through collaborations with environmentalengineers, a scenario was built around aspill of a toxin called Tri-Chloro-Ethelene,which is a ground water contaminant withmoderate long-term health effects. Thegame included functionality to support thecollection of both primary data (raw dataon contamination levels acquired bysampling) and secondary data (interviewswith ‘virtual’ experts).

The game was location-based, with the‘virtual’ activities only being available incertain ‘physical’ locations, as detected bya GPS module attached to the Pocket PC.The interface was primarily map-based,and students worked in pairs to navigatethrough the physical space to get to thevirtual information. The goal of the gamewas to discover the source of thecontamination and prepare a suitableremediation plan. The students wererequired to make trade-offs betweensoliciting interviews and drilling a well tosample ground water, mimicking the realchallenges encountered in environmentalinvestigations.

Five trials were conducted, with game playlasting for between 90 minutes and twohours. Most groups were able to eitherlocate the general area of the toxin orsome basic remediation strategies, but

few groups had fully coherent solutions.The secondary school students hadparticular difficulties with the subtlety ofthe investigation, indicating the need foradditional scaffolding. Students respondedvery favourably to both the investigativeexperience and the experience ofinteracting with the technology. The researchers have designed a toolkitfor implementing customised scenarios,available through the Games-to-Teachwebsite at http://www.educationarcade.org/gtt/Hand-held/Intro.htm.

As Environmental Detectives is easy tolearn, but difficult to fully master, it cansupport an iterative approach to teachinginvestigative skills, with students havingthe ability to try new strategies on newmaps with different contaminants.

3.3 SITUATED LEARNING

The portability of mobile technology allowsthe learning environment to be extendedbeyond the classroom into authentic andappropriate contexts of use. This is cited inJuniu (2002) as the most important benefitof the PDA for educators and students.

3.3.1 Ambient Wood

The Ambient Wood (Rogers et al 2002) waspart of the six-year, EPSRC-supportedEquator project focusing on the integrationof physical and digital interaction. Theproject built upon the benefits ofincorporating physicality and tangibilityinto learning. Digital information wascoupled with novel arrangements ofelectronically-embedded physical objects,providing alternative forms of interactionsthat were more intuitive; but also allowing

24

the portability of mobile

technologyallows the

learningenvironment to

be extendedbeyond theclassroom

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

the juxtaposition of familiar actions withunfamiliar effects, thus encouragingchildren to reflect and think beyond thepresent of their actions to higher levels ofabstraction.

The experience was designed for 10-12year-olds. A series of activities weredesigned around the topic of habitats,focusing on the plants and animals in thedifferent habitats of woodland and therelationships between them. An openclearing and a wooded area were chosenas they have different distributions oforganisms and interdependencies among them.

The learning experience had three stages:

Stage 1: Exploring and discovering.Pairs of children equipped with a PDAexplored the two habitats. In addition towhat was observable around them, theycould find out additional information aboutgrowing processes, feeding behaviours andorganism dependencies. The PDA providedinformation either in response to probereadings on moisture and light at aspecific location, or triggered by thechildren’s physical presence in a certainlocation in the habitat, using a combinationof pinging and GPS location tracking. Inthe second case, the children first heard arelevant sound transmitted throughwireless speakers hidden in the habitat,followed by a voice-over and the display ofrelevant images and information on thePDA. A special-purpose periscope waslocated in the wood, where children couldgo for additional information on ‘hidden’processes, such as the behaviour of tinyinsects.

Stage 2: Reflecting, consolidating, and hypothesising. After exploration,

the children gathered in a den with aclassroom-like setup, where they coulduse an interactive display to share theirreadings from the exploration andcollaboratively reflect on their findings andexperiences. An area was also availablewhere the children could reconstruct thehabitat they had just encountered, usingpaper ‘tokens’ to represent differententities and a computer to provideappropriate feedback to their testing oftheir hypotheses on different combinationsof the organisms.

Stage 3: Hypothesising and experimenting.The children were sent back into the woodto observe experiments where either neworganisms, or changing moisture and lightlevels, were introduced into the habitat.The children tried to predict the outcomes,and they could use the periscope to getfeedback and answers to their hypothesesin the form of animations.

The Ambient Wood was trialled with 16 11 year-olds, who worked in pairs. Theyspent 30 minutes in Stage 1, 15-20minutes in Stage 2, and 30 minutes inStage 3. During Stage 1 the children madesuccessful use of the probe and PDA,which proved an engaging, collaborativeactivity. It was easy for the children tounderstand the connection between thedigital readings and the activity. Thecoupling of the exploration with theperiscope provided an intuitive and explicitway of integrating different kinds ofknowledge, where the periscope wasproviding information about hidden aspectsof the environment. The triggering ofinformation display on the PDA based onthe children’s bodily presence was lesssuccessful, as often they were tooengrossed with their activities to noticesounds, voice-over and PDA display.

25

Stage 2 enabled children to consolidateknowledge from their activity in the wood.The reconstruction activity based oninformation delivered on the PDA duringexploration was not as successful, possiblybecause the coupling between the physicalactivity and the digital feedback was notclose enough. Stage 3 was engaging andfun, and verified that children were able to make accurate hypotheses.There arecurrently no reports on how the AmbientWood experience compared with moretraditional field trips.

3.3.2 Natural science learning in Taiwan

A butterfly-watching system wasimplemented and tested at an elementaryschool in Taiwan (Chen et al 2004). Theobjective was for the students to learnabout natural sciences, and morespecifically about the different kinds ofbutterflies in the region.

The project was based on the premises ofindependent learning, with the assumptionbeing that providing appropriate mobiletools would help students to becomecapable, self-reliant, self-motivated andindependent. The system wasimplemented using a wireless ad-hocnetworking environment, comprising of a(teacher’s) notebook with a WiFi wirelessLAN card that acted as the local server,and student PDAs with 802.11 LAN cardsand small-sized CCD cameras.

A database of different butterfly species inTaiwan was used with a content-basedimage retrieval system, and an onlinenature journal system. The students visiteda butterfly farm, where the networkingenvironment was set up and they could

use their PDA cameras to takephotographs of the butterflies theyobserved. Using the photos, they couldthen query the database, which wouldsend back possible matches. The studentscould then decide which match was best,and the database would verify based onimage content similarity. The studentsthen made the final decision, which theyrecorded on their journal together withtheir notes of the whole experience, andposted to the teacher. The teacher in turnsent feedback to the students on their PDAs.

In the evaluations, a control group used atext-based butterfly guidebook and theexperimental group used the systemdescribed above. Multiple choice tests onthe key features of the butterfly specieswere administered before and after thetrial. Six field trips were conducted in total,with students encountering three newspecies and three old species at each trip.In four out of the six field trips, theexperimental group was able to morecorrectly identify the key features than thecontrol group.

3.3.3 Multimedia tours at the Tate Modern

The Tate Modern museum in London(Proctor and Burton 2003) launched aninteractive audio-visual tour in July 2002. A wireless network implementationallowed visitors using iPAQ 3850 PocketPCs to view video and still images, listen to expert commentary and reflect on theirexperience by answering questions ormixing a collection of sound clips to createtheir own soundtrack for an artwork. Thewireless network was location-sensitive,which meant that they did not have tosearch out the information.

26

the mosteffective design

approaches thatincorporated audio-visual

coherence andinteractivemessages

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

The pilot tour was taken by 852 visitors.Through evaluations and focus groups,visitors reported their enthusiasm for thetour and the services it provided. Theaverage visitor spent about 55 minutes onthe tour and over 70% reported that theyhad spent longer than they would havewithout the multimedia tour. Interestingly,45% of the visitors found the systemdifficult to use, with older visitors reportingmore technological difficulties thanyounger visitors.

Regarding the content itself, the mosteffective design approaches were thosethat incorporated audio, particularly audio-visual coherence and interactivemessages. Visitors did not respond well to long messages, particularly those that were primarily text-based. A secondphase of trials ran until May 2004, withcomprehensive results expected later in the year.

3.3.4 MOBIlearn

MOBIlearn, a major European researchproject, is focusing on the context-awaredelivery of content and services to learnerswith mobile devices (Lonsdale et al2003;2004). Context awareness is being explored not just as a way todeliver appropriate content but to enableappropriate actions and activities,including interactions with other learnersin the same or similar contexts.The central aim of this project is toproduce a reusable architecture for mobilelearning. Researchers at the University ofBirmingham are currently developing areference context awareness module(CAM) that will facilitate context-dependentinformation delivery for learners on a widevariety of mobile devices (Lonsdale et al

2003). It is intended to support a range of different learners in differentenvironments, and addresses the followingspecific issues:

• human interfaces adaptive to the mobiledevice in use and the nature (egbandwidth, cost) of the ambientintelligence that is available in a givenlocations

• context-awareness tools for exploitingcontext and capturing learningexperience

• integration of mobile media delivery andlearning content management systems

• collaborative learning applications formobile environments.

Trials of an art gallery implementation are scheduled for December 2004.

3.4 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The most compelling examples ofconversational learning occur when mobiletechnology is used to provide a sharedconversation space. Effective learningoccurs when people can converse witheach other, by interrogating and sharingtheir descriptions of the world.

3.4.1 Chile embraces mobilecomputer supported collaborativelearning (MCSCL)

Researchers from the Universidad Católicade Chile are using hand-held computers toencourage face-to-face collaborativelearning for both primary and secondaryeducation (Zurita et al 2003; Cortez et al2004; Zurita and Nussbaum 2004).

27

the mostcompellingexamples ofconversationallearning occurwhen mobiletechnology isused to provide a sharedconversationspace

A general architecture for MCSCL thatuses a mobile ad hoc network (MANET)has also been developed, that works over awireless 802.11b network. The devices areset up to communicate only between eachother (peer-to-peer or P2P) and have noaccess to either the internet or localnetworks. The system can thus be usedindependent of any other hardwareinfrastructure.

The MCSCL activities are distributedthrough the teacher’s hand-held device(Pocket PCs in this case). The teacher firstdownloads the activity from the projectwebsite and then transmits the activity tothe students using the MANET. After theteacher launches the activity, the studentsare automatically assigned to collaborativegroups (typically three to five students pergroup). Upon completion of the activity, theteacher’s Pocket PC collects the studentswork, which can then be downloaded tothe school’s PC for analysis.

During the MCSCL activities, students arenot allowed to progress to the nextquestion until they answer the currentquestion correctly. If the students submitdifferent answers, the system promptsthem to come to agreement before theanswer can be submitted for marking.Students have various resources availableto them during the activity, includingtextbooks, their own notes and theguidance of their teacher. It should benoted that rather than seeking to replacethe teacher, the MCSCL system attemptsto support teachers by providing additionaltools to support them in performing their duties.

A wide range of curriculum-basedactivities can be supported. Trials of theMCSCL architecture have been conductedwith both primary and secondary school

students. At the secondary school level,MCSCL was tested with 90 students forfive weeks to teach physics (Cortez et al2004). At the primary level, 48 childrenperformed a trial of MCSCL for an activityon ordering numbers (Zurita et al 2003). Ineach case, statistically significant resultsshowed that the MCSCL system assistedlearning. Qualitative responses fromstudents also indicated their enthusiasmto participate in such activities. Thesecondary school physics experiment alsohad a broad social impact, as it wascovered extensively by the Chilean media.The experiment was expanded to cover1,000 students during 2003.

3.5 INFORMAL AND LIFELONGLEARNING

The personal nature of mobile devicesmakes them well suited for learningapplications outside of formal education.

3.5.1 m-learning: reaching out to disengaged youth

m-learning is a three-year pan-Europeanresearch and development programme,initiated in 2001, that uses mobiletechnology to teach basic literacy andnumeracy skills (Attewell and Savill-Smith2003; Colley and Stead 2003; Mitchell andDoherty 2003; Traxler 2003). It is targetedat young adults aged 16 to 24, who aredeemed to be ‘at-risk’ because they areeither outside of formal education, in low-skilled employment or unemployed, in theeffort to give them better future prospects.

Initial research revealed widespread use of mobile phones across the partnercountries (UK, Italy and Sweden), with even

28

the personalnature of mobile

devices makesthem well suited

for learningapplications

outside of formaleducation

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

80% of young, homeless people in the UKhaving access to a mobile phone. Mobilephones are used to send and receive textmessages, communicate with friends andplay simple computer games. The fact thatmobile phones are very personal in nature,have a constant presence on the user andare highly important to teenage identityand friendships indicates that thistechnology holds high potential forindividual and collaborative learning.

The infrastructure supporting this projectincludes a Learning Management Systemand a custom designed microportalinterface, m-Portal, contributed by projectpartner Ultralab. This facilitates access tom-learning materials and services from avariety of mobile devices plus web and TVaccess. Technologies such as SMS,VoiceXML and picture messaging areimplemented in a device-independent wayvia mobile phones, smart phones, hand-held computers and networked PCs.

To ensure learning activities were relevant,custom content was created to reflect thenew adult literacy standards for Englandand Wales. Some examples of contentinclude an urban soap opera about twocharacters moving into a flat for the firsttime to help with language and provideadvice about how to set up a home; and areferee quiz, coinciding with the WorldCup, to help with literacy.

VoiceXML is used extensively with mobilephones to deliver interactive stories orquizzes, while a simple database systemreceives registrations and sendsinstructions and reminders via SMS.Compaq iPAQ Pocket PCs are used todeliver both browser-based materials andPocket PC-specific applications, includingsoap opera storylines, animations, quizzesand other interactive information.

Rather than measuring specific learninggains, m-learning evaluations seek tomeasure changes in attitudes towardslearning. In the Phase 1 trial, 34individuals took part in one-week trials infour locations. Initial response from theparticipants was highly enthusiastic andbelieved to have helped the participants todevelop a heightened interest in improvingtheir education. Planning for Phase 2 trials is currently underway, which willconcentrate on engaging a larger numberof learners by with mobile phones. Twelveschemes are planned, encompassing atotal of 200 learners.

3.5.2 Mobile devices for breast cancer care

The International Centre for DigitalContent at Liverpool John MooresUniversity, UK, designed a PDA applicationfor personalised education of breastcancer patients (Wood et al 2003). Theproject started in 2002 and involved thedelivery of text, images and audio-visualmaterial to the patients’ PDAs via theinternet and the hospital’s intranet for theduration of their course of treatment. Theinformation delivered is selected based onthe individual patient’s needs.

The user can query specific subjectknowledge bases through a contentspecialist, to gain the information theyneed. This feature provides an answer tothe problem of gathering information thatis valid, reliable, specific and personal. The user can also make personal noteslinked to a diary application. This providesthem with key points for discussion athospital meetings, allowing the patient to annotate content and receive timelyreminders from the diary.

29

Patient communication is enabled via SMS,allowing a patient community to sharevaluable insights and experiences.

No evaluation is currently available.

3.6 LEARNING AND TEACHINGSUPPORT

The following examples demonstrate howmobile devices can be used to supportlearning-related activities for students,teachers and administrators.

3.6.1 Helping university studentsorganise their own learning

Researchers at the University ofBirmingham, UK, developed and trialled amobile learning organiser, based on awirelessly-enabled Pocket PC, withMasters level students in 2002-2003, todetermine the key tools necessary for such a learning device (Holme andSharples 2002; Sharples et al 2003; Corlett et al 2004).

The Student Learning Organiser is anintegrated suite of software toolsdeveloped at the University of Birmingham.The ‘Time Manager’ tool included theability to create, delete and view timetableevents and deadlines, while the ‘CourseManager’ tool allowed students towirelessly download course materialpackages, created by a complementarydesktop tool, in Microsoft Reader format.

A one-year trial was conducted with 17MSc students in the Department ofElectronic, Electrical and ComputerEngineering. Each student was given aCompaq iPAQ 3760 Pocket PC 2002 hand-

held with 64MB of memory. As deviceswith integrated wireless capabilities werenot available at the time, it was necessaryto provide each student with an expansionsleeve and an 802.11b wireless networkcard. In addition to the Student LearningOrganiser tools, the students had accessto cut-down versions of Microsoft Word,Excel, Outlook, Internet Explorer andMedia Player, e-mail, instant messagingand two concept mapping tools. The students were encouraged touse the hand-helds for their personalactivities and to install additional softwareas they wished.

Results were collected via questionnaires,focus groups, video recordings and logbooks. No single tool stood out as a ‘killerapp’ that significantly changed students’learning or personal organisation.Communication tools and timetablingfeatures were consistently rated by thestudents to be the most useful, while thecourse content and concept mapping toolsshowed a trend of decreasing usefulnessover time. Little additional software wasinstalled, with the main reasons being thatstudents saw the value of the hand-heldsbeing in the time management of e-mail/messaging applications provided,and that students were reluctant to investtime and money in personalising a devicethey had to return at the end of the year.

Significant usability issues wereencountered. The students found thehand-held, expansion sleeve and wirelesscard too large and heavy for comfortableuse, the 64MB memory size was notsufficient for their data storagerequirements, and that not recharging thehand-held regularly could cause the entirememory of the device to be cleared(including any stored data). Apart from

30

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

issues with the device itself, the mainreported limitation was the loss of wirelessconnectivity outside the department.

Institutional support issues were alsoconsiderable. In addition to not havingstandardised provision of content andcourse dates by all lecturers, timetableinformation was not provided consistently.The hand-held became another mode ofcommunicating information betweenstudents and departments, making it moredifficult to find relevant information quickly.The students also felt that further trainingsessions and integration with otherdepartmental systems would be beneficial.

While this study was not designed togather quantitative results into specificlearning gains, it did show that thestudents thought the technology to beuseful, even though it did not revolutioniseor improve their learning significantly.

3.6.2 Support for teachers and administrators

A DfES-sponsored hand-held computingpilot was conducted in 2002-2003 with 150teachers at 30 schools (Perry 2003). Thefoci of the project were managing teachers’workloads and supporting teaching andlearning. A number of features of mobiletechnologies met with universal approval.These included pragmatic features such asthe small size and longer battery life thanlaptops. The storage capacity of PDAs wasgenerally rated as highly favourable, alongwith ease of synchronising data with otherdevices. The relatively low price of PDAswas also cited.

As headteachers and senior managersmost closely match the mobile

professional profile for which hand-heldswere designed, they were thus in the bestposition to experience immediate benefits.This group of users found the hand-heldsamazingly efficient at ensuring contactlists, diaries and meeting arrangementswere up-to-date, and were able to employthe facilities for rapid accrual andreporting of data to address truancycontrol problems. Classroom teacherswere also able to benefit from the hand-helds’ data administration capabilities tohelp record attendance and marks, andalso help organise their lesson plans.

Though most users were able to benefitfrom the hand-helds, some were reluctantto adopt the new ways of working affordedby them. In addition to dissatisfaction withthe small screens, volatile storage (sometypes of PDA lose their stored data whentheir batteries run out of charge), and aconcern about the ruggedness of thedesign, training issues were frequentlycited as an inhibiter to progress.

3.6.3 SMS supports computingstudents at risk

Blended learning technologies were usedto support HND computing students at theUniversity of Wolverhampton during the2002-2003 academic year (Riordan andTraxler 2003; Traxler and Riordan 2003).

The objectives of this project were todevelop, deliver and evaluate blendinglearning opportunities that exploited SMS,WAP and VLE technologies. Initial researchindicated that students used SMS textmessaging promptly and effectively, andthat they would prefer to receivenoticeboard information such as roomchanges, appointments, feedback and

31

head teachersand seniormanagers foundthe hand-heldsamazinglyefficient

exam tips via SMS rather than via e-mail or noticeboards. The target group was HND computing students,whose attendance and performance were considered to be at-risk due to poor literacy skills exhibited in theircoursework.

SMS-based interventions took place overthe second semester of the 2002-2003academic year. Initial test messagesgauged the effectiveness and the level oftimeliness of student responses to SMStext messages. A second set of messageswas sent as feedback following themarking and moderating of assessments.A final set of messages provided revisiontips prior to the exam. The key features ofthe SMS interventions were timeliness andappropriateness, such that ‘at-risk’ learnerscould be directed as appropriate to eitherWAP-based support, VLE-based support orin-house support before their academiccareers were significantly impacted.

Following the trial, final exam results forthe group of students receiving SMSinterventions were slightly higher than anon-SMS group taking the same module atthe same time, though these results cannotbe considered statistically significant.

During the trial, the students providedconsiderable positive informal feedback tothe course leader, and a questionnaireadministered to the students revealed thatthe majority of students thought theexperiment was worthwhile. In general,the SMS interventions themselves werefound to be successful if they were short,personalised and focused, but there waslittle take-up of the VLE technology and theWAP-based technology was vetoed asbeing too expensive. Access to large-scaleor systematic views was limited due to

poor attendance at a proposed focus groupand poor response to SMS queries invitingstudents to comment on aspects of the trial.

Free-text responses from the studentquestionnaires provided a positive basis forimproving the service. A large-scale pilot isplanned for October 2004.

3.7 SUMMARY

Mobile technology can effectively support awide range of activities for learners of allages. While implementation examples canbe broadly categorised within the maintheories and areas of learning relevant tomobile technology, the most successfuladopt a blended approach to their use.

Mobile technologies provide for eachstudent to have a personal interaction with the technology in an authentic andappropriate context of use. This does notmean, however, that the use of mobiledevices is a panacea. Significanttechnological and administrativechallenges are encountered along with amore ill-defined challenge: how can theuse of mobile technologies help today’seducators to embrace a truly learner-centred approach to learning?

32

how can the use of mobiletechnologieshelp today'seducators to

embrace a trulylearner-centred

approach tolearning?

SECTION 3

TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES – CASE STUDIES

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS,TEACHERS AND DEVELOPERS

Teaching and learning with mobiletechnologies is beginning to make abreakthrough from small-scale pilots tolarge departmental and institutionalimplementations. This section presentsboth key issues for educators andtechnical developers, and research-informed guidelines as to how these can be addressed.

4.1 KEY ISSUES

Compared to desktop technology, learningand teaching with mobile technologypresents significant new challengesincluding:

• Context – the ability to acquireinformation about the user and his orher environment presents a uniqueability to personalise the learningopportunity. There are, however,significant ethical issues (describedfurther in Lonsdale et al 2003). Forexample, context information needs tobe gathered with the consent of users,and must be stored securely to preventmisuse by third parties. This is alsorelated to the issue of coupling betweenthe informatic layer provided by thedevices and the existing communicationlayers of the classroom (or otherenvironment).

• Mobility – the ‘anytime, anywhere’capabilities of mobile devices encouragelearning experiences outside of ateacher-managed classroomenvironment. Inside the classroom,mobile devices provide students with thecapabilities to link to activities in the

outside world that do not correspondwith either the teacher’s agenda or the curriculum (Sharples 2003). Bothscenarios present significant challengesto conventional teaching practices.

• Learning over time – lifelong learnerswill need effective tools to record,organise and reflect on their mobilelearning experiences (Vavoula 2004).

• Informality – the benefits of theinformality of mobile devices may belost if their use becomes widespreadthroughout formal education. Studentsmay abandon their use of certaintechnologies if they perceive their socialnetworks to be under attack.

• Ownership - both personal and grouplearning are most effectively supportedwhen each student has access to adevice. The ownership of the devices isthus a key consideration. According toPerry (2003), both tangible andintangible benefits can accrue throughthe use of mobile devices. Intangiblebenefits include a sense of belongingwith the device and personalcommitment and comfort. Ownership isstated as a prerequisite for engagement,where students have the potential to go“beyond the necessary and play with itto explore its potential”. Personalownership does, however, present achallenge to the institutional control of the technology (Savill-Smith and Kent 2003).

4.2 GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVEIMPLEMENTATION

The following guidelines for implementingmobile learning were developed through

33

mobiletechnologypresentssignificant newchallenges

SECTION 4

IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND DEVELOPERS

the MOBIlearn project (O’Malley et al 2003)and have been extended in this report.Each guideline has been based on theoryand practice of learning with conventionaltools, evidence from desktop e-learning orfindings from the available studies ofmobile learning. While intended primarilyfor direct users of mobile learningtechnologies, these guidelines may also beuseful in informing policy initiatives.

1 Investigate a cost model forinfrastructure, technology and services.Various costs must be considered whenimplementing mobile learning. Inaddition to the significant initial capitalexpenditure required to purchasedevices and networking equipment,there is the ongoing cost of technicalsupport and also various ‘hidden’ costs.The ‘Costs of Networked Learning’project (Bacsich et al 1999; Bacsich et al2001), though targeted at wirednetworking, is helpful in assessing theextent of these hidden costs andprovides a useful tool to supportactivity-based costing.

Different options for infrastructure andservices imply different cost models. Ingeneral, institutions should try and makeuse of their existing facilities andservices in order to keep costs down. Itshould be noted that it is generally lesscostly to equip each student with a hand-held computer than with a desktop orlaptop computer. Indeed, mobiletechnology can be used to address the‘digital divide’, as mobile devices are thecheapest way of providing pupils with acomputing device that can be takenhome and through which they canconnect to the internet (Perry 2003).

There may also be some hiddenbenefits, when compared to other ICT

initiatives (Traxler 2004). The personaland collaborative nature of mobiledevices can encourage participation andbuild social capital, which can be usedto motivate disengaged or at-riskstudents. As the education marketplacebecomes increasingly competitive,institutions can offer mobile learningopportunities as a competitive edge overother institutions. Mobile learning can fit training niches, such as in medicaltraining, where significant costs areincurred for students who drop out orfail. Finally, there may also be anopportunity to leverage technologiesthat students already own such asmobile phones for SMS messaging.

2 Study the requirements of all thoseinvolved in the use of the technology(learners, teachers, content creators) toensure that it is usable and acceptable.Usability should account for both the set of users that will be creating the mobilecontent and those who will be using the mobile applications to learn from orteach with.

3 Assess that the technology is suited to the learning task and examineadvantages and disadvantages of eachtechnology before making a decision on which one to use.The effective implementation of mobilelearning requires a clear pedagogicalapproach, identification of specificlearning needs/goals and teachers to bedirectly involved in decisions on planningand curriculum use (Perry 2003).

4 Assign the necessary roles for initiatingand thereafter supporting mobile learning.The following roles (which may be filledby the same person) are helpful:

34

SECTION 4

IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND DEVELOPERS

• a technical promoter to demonstrate the capabilities of the system

• a promoter in power to make sure thetechnical promoter’s views are heard by those in charge

• once mobile technologies are in place,institutions can also benefit fromtechnical experts to deal with equipmentfailures and ongoing systemimprovements.

5 Develop procedures and strategies for the management of equipment when it is provided by the institution.These procedures include the need todevelop strategies for assigningequipment to students, restrictingstudents’ off-task use (if desired),synchronising hand-held to desktop,tracking, reviewing and collectingstudents’ work, devising andimplementing parental agreements for managing loss and theft, hardwaremanagement and routine backupprocedures.

6 Provide training and (ongoing) technical support to the teachers toenable them to use mobile technologiesto enhance current and to enable new instructional activities.Almost all respondents in the DfES-sponsored hand-held computing pilot(Perry 2003) were dissatisfied with theamount of training they received.Specialist training and dissemination of good practice is necessary in orderfor staff to exploit the whole range ofcapabilities that mobile computing canoffer. Both staff and students must havesufficient time to familiarise themselveswith new devices.

7 Consider the use of mobile technologiesfor student administration tasks.Mobile devices can be used to maintainaccurate lists of classes which can beused in conjunction with rich informationsets about students to help to draw outindividual students’ needs. Applicationsthat could be supported include truancycontrol, classroom monitoring andmarking with immediate feedback.

8 Consider the use of mobile technologiesto support collaborative and grouplearning.

9 Discover and adopt suitable applicationsthat match the needs of your specificclassroom and map directly to yourcurriculum needs.

10 Ensure security and privacy for the end users.Privacy protection includes both thestudent’s personal data and thestudent’s current location.

35

5 THE FUTURE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILETECHNOLOGIES

The current trends in mobile computingare towards devices that are even moreembedded, ubiquitous and networked thanthose available today. The capabilities ofmobile phones, PDAs, games consoles andcameras will likely merge within the nextfive to ten years to provide a networked,multimedia device that is always with you.Integrated context-aware capabilities willtransform everyday activities by providingthe ability to capture details about thetime, location, people around you and eventhe weather. The entire internet willbecome both personal and portable.

Such technologies can have a great impacton learning. Learning will move more andmore outside of the classroom and into thelearner’s environments, both real andvirtual. Learning will involve making richconnections within these environments toboth resources and to other people. Inaddition to consulting internet-basedresources on the move, learners will beable to manage the administration of theirlearning through consultations with theirpersonal diaries and institution-basedvirtual learning environments. The abilityto instantly publish their observations andreflections as digital media will empowerthem to be investigators. Context-awareapplications will enable learners to easilycapture and record events in their life to both assist later recall and share their experiences for collaborativereflection. Opportunities for distributedcollaboration and mobile team working will be greatly enhanced.

The challenge for the educators andtechnology developers of the future will be to find ways to ensure that this newlearning is highly situated, personal,collaborative and long term; in otherwords, truly learner-centred learning.Educators will need to adapt from a role astransmitters of knowledge to guiders oflearning resources. Technology developerswill need to respond to concerns ofsecurity and privacy while designingdevices and services that learners bothwant and will pay for.

Whether they are welcome right now ornot, mobile devices are finding their wayinto classrooms in children’s pockets, andwe must ensure that educational practicecan include these technologies inproductive ways. In the future, the successof learning and teaching with mobiletechnologies will be measured by howseamlessly it weaves itself into our dailylives, with the greatest successparadoxically occurring at the point wherewe don’t recognise it as learning at all.

36

mobile devicesare finding their

way intoclassrooms in

children’spockets

SECTION 5

THE FUTURE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albanese, M and Mitchell, S (1993).Problem-based learning: a review of the literature on its outcomes andimplementation issues. AcademicMedicine, 68: 52-81

Attewell, J and Savill-Smith, C (2003). M-learning and social inclusion - focusingon learners and learning. Proceedings of MLEARN 2003: Learning with MobileDevices. London, UK: Learning and SkillsDevelopment Agency, 3-12

Bacsich, P, Ash, C, Boniwell, K andKaplan, L (1999). The Costs of NetworkedLearning. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield HallamUniversity. Available online at:www.shu.ac.uk/cnl/report1.html

Bacsich, P, Ash, C and Heginbotham, S(2001). The Costs of Networked Learning -Phase Two. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield HallamUniversity. Available online at:www.shu.ac.uk/cnl/report2.html

BBC (2004). Mobile Phone Shipments Soar.Accessed: 18 August 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3938221.stm

BBC Bitesize (2003). Bitesize User Testing,BBC Schools internal report (sourced from Andrew Lees at BBC Schools)

BBC Bitesize (2004). PersonalCommunication

Becta (2004). What the Research SaysAbout Portable ICT Devices in Teachingand Learning (2nd ed). Coventry, UK: Becta ICT Research. Available online at:www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/wtrs_porticts.pdf

Brown, JS, Collins, A and Duguid, S(1989). Situated cognition and the cultureof learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1): 32-42

Bruner, J (1966). Toward a Theory ofInstruction. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press

Chen, Y-S, Kao, T-C, Yu, G-J and Sheu, J-P(2004). A mobile butterfly-watching learningsystem for supporting independentlearning. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Workshop on Wireless andMobile Technologies in Education. JungLi,Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 11-18

Colella, V (2000). Participatorysimulations: building collaborativeunderstanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4): 471-500

Colella, V, Borovoy, R and Resnick, M(1998). Participatory simulations: usingcomputational objects to learn aboutdynamic systems. Proceedings of CHI1998

Colley, J and Stead, G (2003). Take a bite:producing accessible learning materialsfor mobile devices. Proceedings ofMLEARN 2003: Learning with MobileDevices. London, UK: Learning and SkillsDevelopment Agency, 43-46

Corlett, D, Sharples, M, Chan, T and Bull, S(2004). A mobile learning organiser foruniversity students. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Workshop on Wireless andMobile Technologies in Education. JungLi,Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 35-42

Cortez, C, Nussbaum, M, Santelices, R,Rodríguez, P, Zurita, G, Correa, M andCautivo, R (2004). Teaching science withmobile computer supported collaborativelearning (MCSCL). Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Workshop on Wireless andMobile Technologies in Education. JungLi,Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 67-74

Crabtree, J, Nathan, M and Roberts, S(2003). MobileUK: Mobile Phones andEveryday Life. London: The Work Foundation

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dufresne, RJ, Gerace, WJ, Leonard, WJ,Mestre, JP and Wenk, L (1996). Classtalk:a classroom communication system foractive learning. Journal of Computing inHigher Education, 7: 3-47

Engeström, Y (1987). Learning byExpanding: an Activity TheoreticalApproach to Developmental Research.Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit

Eraut, M (2000). Non-formal learning,implicit learning and tacit knowledge inprofessional work. The Necessity ofInformal Learning. F Coffield. Bristol: ThePolicy Press

Facer, K, Stanton, D, Joiner, R, Reid, J,Hull, R and Kirk, D (in preparation).Savannah: a mobile gaming experience tosupport the development of children’sunderstanding of animal behaviour.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Goodyear, PM (2000). Environments for lifelong learning: ergonomics,architecture and educational design.Integrated and Holistic Perspectives onLearning, Instruction and Technology:Understanding Complexity. JM Spector and TM Anderson. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers. 1-18

Hennessy, S (1999). The potential ofportable technologies for supportinggraphing investigations (hybrid article full version available online atwww.education.leeds.ac.uk/research/mathseducation/gcalc_hennessy.pdf).British Journal of Educational Technology,30(1): 57-60

Higgins, L (1994). Integrating backgroundnursing experience and study at thepostgraduate level: an application ofproblem-based learning. Higher EducationResearch and Development, 13: 23-33

Holme, O and Sharples, M (2002).Implementing a student learning organiseron the pocket PC platform. Proceedings ofMLEARN 2002: European Workshop onMobile and Contextual Learning.Birmingham, UK, 41-44

Juniu, S (2002). Implementing hand-heldcomputing technology in physicaleducation. Journal of Physical Education,Recreation and Dance, 73(3): 43-48

Klopfer, E and Squire, K (in preparation).Environmental Detectives: the developmentof an augmented reality platform forenvironmental simulations. EducationResearch Technology & Development

Klopfer, E, Squire, K and Jenkins, H(2002). Environmental Detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. Proceedings of IEEE InternationalWorkshop on Wireless and MobileTechnologies in Education. Vaxjo, Sweden:IEEE Computer Society, 95-98

Kolodner, JL and Guzdial, M (2000).Theory and practice of case-basedlearning aids. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. SM Land.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates: 214-242

Koschmann, T, Kelson, AC, Feltovich, P-J and Barrows, HS (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: aprincipled approach to the use ofcomputers in collaborative learning. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an EmergingParadigm. T Koschmann. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 83-124

Laurillard, D (1993). Rethinking UniversityTeaching. UK: Routledge

Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991). SituatedLearning: Legitimate PeripheralParticipation. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lee, J, Luchini, K, Michael, B, Norris, Cand Soloway, E (2004). More than just fun and games: assessing the value ofeducational video games in the classroom.Proceedings of CHI 2004 Connect:Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems, Vienna, Austria

Livingstone, DW (2001). Adults’ InformalLearning: Definitions, Findings, Gaps andFuture Research. Toronto: NALL (NewApproaches to Lifelong Learning).Available online at:www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/21adultsifnormallearning.htm

Lonsdale, P, Baber, C, Sharples, M andArvanitis, TN (2003). A context-awarenessarchitecture for facilitating mobile learning.Proceedings of MLEARN 2003: Learningwith Mobile Devices. London, UK: Learningand Skills Development Agency, 79-85

Lonsdale, P, Baber, C, Sharples, M,Byrne, W, Arvanitis, T, Brundell, P andBeale, H (2004). Context awareness forMOBIlearn: creating an engaging learningexperience in an art museum. Proceedingsof MLEARN 2004. Bracciano, Rome: LSDA

Merchant, JE (1995). Problem-basedlearning in the business curriculum: analternative to traditional approaches.Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Administration: the Case of Problem-Based Learning. H Kaspar.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer: 261-267

Mitchell, A and Doherty, M (2003). M-learning Support for DisadvantagedYoung Adults - a Mid-Stage Review.London, UK: Ultralab. Available online at:www.m-learning.org/reports.html

NOP (2001). Half of 7-16s Have a MobilePhone. NOP Research Group Ltd.www.nopres.co.uk/news/news_survey_half_of7-16s.shtml

Nyiri, K (2002). Towards a philosophy of m-learning. Proceedings of IEEE InternationalWorkshop on Wireless and MobileTechnologies in Education (WMTE 2002),Vaxjo, Sweden

O’Malley, C, Vavoula, G, Glew, JP, Taylor,J, Sharples, M and Lefrere, P (2003).Guidelines for Learning/Teaching/Tutoringin a Mobile Environment. Available online at:www.mobilearn.org/results/results.htm

Papert, S (1980). Mindstorms: Children,Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Brighton:Harvester Press

Pask, AGS (1976). Conversation Theory:Applications in Education and Epistemology.Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier

Perry, D (2003). Hand-held Computers(PDAs) in Schools. Coventry, UK: Becta (for DfES). Available online at:www.becta.org.uk/research/research.cfm?section=1&id=541

Piaget, J (1929). The Child’s Conception of the World. New York: Harcourt, BraceJovanovich

Proctor, N and Burton, J (2003). TateModern multimedia tour pilots 2002-2003.Proceedings of MLEARN 2003: Learningwith Mobile Devices. London, UK: LSDA,127-130

Qwizdom: Assessment for Learning in theClassroom (2003). Canterbury ChristChurch University College. Available onlineat: http://client.cant.ac.uk/research/case-studies/qwizdom/assess

Rheingold, H (2003). Smart Mobs: The NextSocial Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Riordan, B and Traxler, J (2003).Supporting computing students at riskusing blended technologies. Proceedingsof 4th Annual Conference. Galway, Ireland:LTSN Centre for Information andComputer Science, 174-175

39

Rogers, Y, Price, S, Harris, E, Phelps, T, Underwood, M, Wilde, D, Smith, H,Muller, H, Randell, C, Stanton, D, Neale,H, Thompson, M, Weal, M andMichaelides, D (2002). Learning throughdigitally-augmented physical experiences:reflections on the Ambient Wood project.Equator Technical Report. Available onlineat: http://machen.mrl.nott.ac.uk/PublicationStore/2002-rogers-2.pdf

Rosas, R, Nussbaum, M, Cumsille, P,Marianov, V, Correa, M, Flores, P, Grau,V, Lagos, F, López, X, López, V,Rodriguez, P and Salinas, M (2003).Beyond Nintendo: design and assessmentof educational video games for first andsecond grade students. Computers &Education, 40(1): 71-94

Roschelle, J (2003). Unlocking the learningvalue of wireless mobile devices. Journalof Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3): 260-272

Roschelle, J, Peneul, WR andAbrahamson, L (2004). ClassroomResponse and Communication Systems:Research Review and Theory. San Diego,CA: Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, April.Available online at:http://ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf

Savill-Smith, C and Kent, P (2003). The use of palmtop computers forlearning. Learning and Skills DevelopmentAgency. Available online at: www.m-learning.org/docs/the_use_of_palmtop_computers_for_learning_sept03.pdf

Sharples, M (2003). Disruptive devices:mobile technology for conversationallearning. International Journal ofContinuing Engineering Education andLifelong Learning, 12(5/6): 504-520

Sharples, M and Beale, R (2003). Atechnical review of mobile computationaldevices. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 19(3): 392-395

Sharples, M, Chan, T, Rudman, P andBull, S (2003). Evaluation of a mobilelearning organiser and concept mappingtools. Proceedings of MLEARN 2003:Learning with Mobile Devices. London, UK:Learning and Skills Development Agency,139-144

Skinner, BF (1968). The Technology ofTeaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (reprinted by the BF SkinnerFoundation in 2003)

Soloway, E, Norris, C, Blumenfeld, P,Fishman, BJ and Marx, R (2001). Hand-held devices are ready at hand.Communications of the ACM, 44(6): 15-20

Stepian, WJ and Gallagher, SA (1993).Problem-based learning: as authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7)

Stinson, J and Milter, R (1995). Theenabling impact of information technology:the case of the Ohio University MBA.Proceedings of CSCL’95, LawrenceErlbaum Associates

Strom, PS and Strom, RD (2002). Personaldigital assistants and pagers: a model forparent collaboration in school discipline.Journal of Family Studies, 8(2): 226-238

Thornton, P and Houser, C (2004). Usingmobile phones in education. Proceedingsof the 2nd International Workshop onWireless and Mobile Technologies inEducation. JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE ComputerSociety, 3-10

40

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ting, J, Sharples, M and Williams, B(2003). Getting Started Guide to WirelessNetworks. Birmingham, UK: The Universityof Birmingham. Available online at:http://web.cetadl.bham.ac.uk/live/welcome.asp?id=86

Tough, A (1971). The Adult’s LearningProjects: a Fresh Approach to Theory andPractice in Adult Learning. Toronto:Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Traxler, J (2003). Mlearning - evaluatingthe effectiveness and the cost.Proceedings of MLEARN 2003: Learningwith Mobile Devices. London, UK: Learningand Skills Development Agency, 183-188

Traxler, J (2004). Mobile Learning -Content and Delivery (presentation).Telford, UK: Learning Lab

Traxler, J and Riordan, B (2003).Evaluating the effectiveness of retentionstrategies using SMS, WAP and WWWstudent support. Proceedings of 4thAnnual Conference. Galway, Ireland: LTSN Centre for Information andComputer Science, 54-55

Vavoula, G (2004). KLeOS: A Knowledgeand Learning Organisation System inSupport of Lifelong Learning. PhD Thesis,The University of Birmingham

Vavoula, GN and Sharples, M (2002).KLeOS: A personal, mobile, knowledge andlearning organisation system. In Milrad, M,Hoppe, U and Kinshuk (eds) Proceedingsof the IEEE International Workshop onMobile and Wireless Technologies inEducation (WMTE2002), Aug 29-30, Vaxjo,Sweeden, 152-156

Vygotsky, LS (1978). Mind in Society: theDevelopment of Higher PsychologicalProcesses. Edited Cambridge Mass,London: Harvard University Press

Wood, D, Bruner, J and Ross, G (1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving.Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 17: 89-100

Wood, J, Keen, A, Basu, N andRobertshaw, S (2003). The development ofmobile applications for patient education.Proceedings of Designing for UserExperiences (DUX), San Francisco, USA

Zurita, G and Nussbaum, M (2004).Computer supported collaborative learningusing wirelessly interconnected hand-heldcomputers. Computers & Education, 42(3):289-314

Zurita, G, Nussbaum, M and Sharples, M(2003). Encouraging face-to-facecollaborative learning through the use ofhand-held computers in the classroom.Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2003, Udine,Italy: Springer-Verlag, 193-208

41

APPENDIX 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF MOBILETECHNOLOGIES TYPES OF DEVICES

Personal digital assistants (PDAs) These devices are small and lightweightand are variously referred to as hand-helds, palmtops, PDAs, Palm Pilots, Palms and iPAQs.

PDAs are hand-held computers that havetouch-sensitive LCD screens, withpen/stylus input, and moderate processingpower (can run cut-down versions of Word, Excel etc or their non-Microsoftequivalents). Manufacturer-providedmemory is usually limited, though this can be expanded with additional memory.The most popular formats of memorysupported are Secure Digital (SD) andCompact Flash (CF), though somemanufactures such as Sony use aproprietary memory format.

The two main varieties of PDAs aredistinguished by their operating system(OS). Pocket PC PDAs run a cut-downversion of Windows specially designed for mobile devices. PalmOS PDAs (eg Palm Pilots, Palm Zire) run thePalmOS operating system. Software is not interoperable between the twooperating systems.

PDAs normally include a docking andsynchronisation cradle for batterycharging, administration of applicationsoftware and data transfer and backups.

Mobile phonesThis class of device includes basichandsets, and also so-called ‘smartphones’ which offer limited PDA-like

capabilities, but usually without a pen/stylus interface. Smart phones usuallyinclude a means of connecting to a desktopPC to perform the same functions as aPDA docking and synchronisation cradle.

Hand-held games consolesThese lightweight, portable devices includein-built screens, games controls andspeakers. The dominant manufacturersinclude Nintendo (Game Boy Advance) andNokia (N-Gage).

ConnectivityThe mobile devices described here typicallyhave some means of connecting wirelesslyto the internet or other network. Mostdevices can also communicate directly withother devices of the same or similar type.This means that files, messages andprograms can be directly transferredbetween devices without the need for anymediating device or technology. A briefoverview of popular connection methods is presented in Table A1.

APPENDIX 2: MAJOR MOBILE LEARNING RESEARCH PROJECTS

Mobilearn24 partners from Europe, Israel,Switzerland, USA and Australiawww.mobilearn.org

‘MOBIlearn is a worldwide European-ledresearch and development projectexploring context-sensitive approaches toinformal, problem-based and workplacelearning by using key advances in mobiletechnologies.’

42

APPENDIX 1 & 2

43

Technology

Wireless LAN (WiFi)

Cellular

Bluetooth

Infrared

Transmissionprotocols

802.11a802.11b802.11g

GSM/GPRS

CDMA/1xRTT

Transmissionspeed

Fast: 802.11b –11Mbps, 802.11a– 54 Mbps,802.11g – 54Mbps

Slow: 13.4 -14.4Kbps per channel(multiplechannels may be available)

Fast: 1 Mbps

Fast: up to 16Mbps

Range

Mid Range –802.11b – 300 feet,802.11a – 100 feet,802.11g – 300 feet.Range can beextended byproviding multipleaccess points.

Long Range –continent wide.

Short Range – 30feet. Range can beextended bypiggybackingmultiple devices.

Short Range – 3feet, line of sight.

Security

Dependent on networkconfiguration.

Secure

Dependent onnetworkconfiguration.

Secure

Additional requirements

Expansion cards readilyavailable, though mosthand-helds now offerbuilt-in capabilities.Wireless LAN networksmust be set up, installed andconfigured by theinstitution2.

Subscription to a dataaccess provider necessary.May be combined withcellular voice service.Monthly charges incurredper device.

Expansion cards readilyavailable, though manydevices now offer built-inBluetooth capabilities.Bluetooth networks mustbe setup, installed andconfigured by the user.

Capabilities built-in tomost hand-helds.

Notes

The most flexible solutionfor allowing multipledevices to accessnetworked resources(internet, e-mail,filestores). Can also beused to network desktopPCs, printers and othertraditionally ‘wired’ devices.

Rural areas may notprovide suitable coverage.Not possible to set up yourown cellular network.

Suitable for device-deviceconnections, thoughpossible to connect to theinternet through anotherdevice.

Suitable for device-devicecommunication. Does not support internetconnection.

1 The Getting Started Guide to Wireless Networks (Ting et al 2003) provides practical advice on setting up and configuring wireless LANs for IT managers in universities, colleges and schools.

Table A1 : Comparison of networking technologies

m-learningEurope – UK, Sweden, Italywww.m-learning.org

‘m-learning is a pan-European researchand development programme. It is aimedat young adults, aged 16 to 24, who aremost at risk of social exclusion in Europe.

m-learning’s aim is to develop prototypeproducts and services which will deliverinformation and learning experiences via

technologies that are inexpensive, portableand accessible to the majority of EUcitizens.’ (primarily mobile phones)

The University of BirminghamBirmingham, UKwww.mobile.bham.ac.uk

The University of Birmingham wasdesignated Microsoft’s EuropeanReference Centre for Research into Mobile Learning in 2003.

Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiago, Chilewww.mobilelearning.cl/eng/index.html

‘The objective of the project is to improvethe quality of education, by incorporatingmobile technology in the classroom, tosupport the instructional process, theassessment of educational contentsincluded in the school curriculum and theteacher’s role regarding the classroommanagement.

Mobile technology allows to increasecoverage, that is, the access that teachersand students have to it in terms of theamount of hours they can spend using it,as well as the amount of students that mayuse this device individually during the day.’

National Central UniversityTaiwanwww.cl.ncu.edu.tw/en_web/research.htm

Global Public & Private PartnershipPlatform (G4P) for Mobile LearningTechnologies is a collaboration betweenthe Ministry of Education, the NationalCentral University and local device andsoftware makers. Currently, over 100schools with 35,000 primary and juniorhigh school students are involved in the project.

Center for Highly InteractiveComputing in Education (Hi-Ce),University of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan, USAwww.hand-held.hice-dev.org (includingdownloads and discussion forums)

‘The Center for Highly InteractiveComputing in Education (Hi-Ce) developslearner-centered software tools andcurriculum founded on the pedagogy of inquiry, or project-based science.

Researchers work as partners withteachers and administrators to integratetechnology into K-12 classrooms.’

University of South DakotaSouth Dakota, USAwww.usd.edu/pda

First HE institution in the USA to requireincoming students to use hand-heldcomputers (Palm).

Pocket EijiroJapanhttp://ojr.org/japan/wireless/1080854640.php

‘The Pocket Eijiro site started in December2002 with an English-Japanese, Japanese-English dictionary. Now the site gets morethan 100,000 hits per day (data onindividual visits were not available), and its subscribers number in the hundredthousands. The service costs $1.53 permonth, plus tax and packet charges.’

Designed for mobile phones and consistsof a dictionary and quizzes designed totake no more than five minutes.

Dudley Local Education Authority (LEA)United Kingdom

Ambitious project to equip 20,000 schoolchildren with Palm hand-helds andwireless internet connections.

44

APPENDIX 2

Reviews available from Futurelab:

Report 1: Languages, Technology and Learning Report 2: Thinking Skills, Technology and Learning Report 3: Citizenship, Technology and Learning Report 4: Creativity, Technology and Learning Report 5: Science 1: Primary Science and ICT Report 6: Science 2: Science Education and the Role of ICT:

Promise, Problems and Future Directions Report 7: Informal Learning with Technology Outside School Report 8: Games and Learning Report 9: Learning with Digital Technologies in Museums,

Science Centres and Galleries Report 10: Assessment and Digital Technologies Report 11: Learning with Mobile Technologies Report 12: Learning with Tangible Technologies Report 13: 14-19 and Digital Technologies: A review of

research and projects

DISCLAIMER

These reviews have been published to present useful andtimely information and to stimulate thinking and debate. Itshould be recognised that the opinions expressed in thisdocument are personal to the author and should not be taken to reflect the views of Futurelab. Futurelab does notguarantee the accuracy of the information or opinioncontained within the review.

Futurelab1 Canons RoadHarboursideBristol BS1 5UHUnited Kingdom

tel +44 (0)117 915 8200fax +44 (0)117 915 8201info@futurelab.org.uk

www.futurelab.org.uk

Registered charity 1113051

FUTURELAB SERIES

REPORT 11

ISBN: 0-9548594-1-3Futurelab © 2004