mobile learning in adult education

Running Head: MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION

Mobile Learning in Adult Education

Research Proposal

Thomas J. Okon

Southern Illinois University

Workforce Education and Development

November 22, 2011

MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………… 4

Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………….…. 4

Research Questions…….……………………………………………………………….…. 4

Significance of Study…..……………………………………………………………….…. 4

Limitations of Study.…..……………………………………………………………….…. 5

Definition of Terms..…..………………………………………………………………….. 5

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview…………...…..………………………………………………………………….. 6

Designing Effective M- Learning…...…………………………………………………….. 6

M- Learning Pedagogy……………...…………………………………………………….. 8

M- Learning Devices...……………...……………………………………………………. 10

Summary…………..……………...………………………………………………….…… 11

3. METHODOLOGY

Research Design…..……………...……………………………………………………......12

Subjects of Study…. ……………...…………………………………………………….... 12

Data Collection Procedure………...……………………………………………………… 12

REFERENCES………................................................................................................................. 1

MOBILE LEARNING IN ADULT EDUCATION 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The tough economic times are sending more adults back to school. A survey by Kaplan

University (2008) reported that a faltering economy tends to drive people back into the

classroom to sharpen their skills, and that among U.S. adults, 91 percent felt that finishing a

degree, seeking a higher degree or attending continuing education makes someone more

attractive to potential employers. Kaplan University also reported that 44 percent decided to

attend an online versus traditional university, because online education allows them to continue

working fulltime and managing family obligations while they pursue a degree. The recent trend

of students choosing online instruction using e-learning, also shows up in a research report by

Ambient Insight (2011) that says there will be more than 25 million postsecondary students

taking at least one online course, and that the number of college students taking traditional face-

to-face classes will plummet from 14.4 million in 2010 to 4.1 million in 2015 (Adkins, 2011).

In a relatively short amount of time, online teaching using e-learning concepts has gained a

very permanent and highly visible place in the worldwide higher education community. A

practice that at one time held only a minor role has become an indispensable element of many

institutions’ curricula, success, and overall reputation (Brandon, 2008). Despite such an increase

in the popularity of these programs, there have been concerns about the quality of e-learning

based online education (Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005). Students in online courses often report higher

levels of dissatisfaction than students enrolled in equivalent face-to-face courses (Sapp & Simon,

2005). High dropout rates have also been of concern to many organizations and higher education

institutions. A higher percentage of students participating in an online course tend to drop out


compared to students in a face-to-face classroom (Park & Choi, 2009).

New models and methods will have to emerge in order to overcome these problems in

maintaining high quality online instruction for adults, and for all age groups. Athabasca

University has taken steps to improve e-learning by using mobile phones to deliver interactive

course materials. The AU Mobile English as a Second Language (ESL) Project provided English

grammar lessons and interactive exercises to anyone with a mobile device and access to the

Internet (Hutchison, Tin, & Cao, 2008). Cambridge Training and Development Ltd, an active

participant in more than 20 m-learning trials across Europe has found success with a blended

approach using mobile devices, media, and other group activities (Stead, 2005).

A mobile device overcomes the limitations of access to course information and other

applications by allowing learners to disseminate information and complete other course work

even when they are away from their hard-wired Internet connections (Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile

learning or m-learning can be any form of learning that happens when mediated through a

mobile device (Herrington, Herrington, Mantei, Olney, & Ferry, 2009). It is also defined as the

use of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to

facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning (Douch, Savill-Smith,

Parker, & Attewell, 2010).

The key features of using mobile technology for learning are its personalization

capability and extended reach. This has attracted more and more learners, especially adult

learners, for whom the work-life balance is critical (Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile technology

provides learners with choice over and ownership of their learning. Combined with good

planning, mobile technologies can encourage creativity and innovation by both learners and

teachers (Douch et al., 2010). Griffin (2010) argued that the idea of having learning separated by


an extended period of time from when a person actually attempts to use the learning has to be

challenged. He believes that few learners today want the information weeks and even months in

advance. They actually would like to have specific topics and refresher learning available ‘on-

demand’ minutes or even seconds before they will need to use it.

Unfortunately higher education does not seem to be embracing m-learning as a way of

improving their student’s online experience. Peters (2007) reported that there appears to be

limited adoption even though many education providers recognize the benefits of m-learning.

She attributed this lack of adoption to the age and ability of teachers, the cost of providing m-

learning devices and infrastructure, and the slow rate of change in many large educational

institutions. More recently though, Park (2011) affirmed that many researchers and practitioners

have effectively incorporated mobile technology into their teaching and learning environments.

Traxler (2009) noted that there have been a host of pilots and initiatives across countries,

but despite the many forms of and increasing services offered by mobile learning, it is still

immature in terms of its technological limitations and pedagogical considerations. Park (2011)

also argued that instructional designers and teachers need more guidance about how to utilize

emerging mobile technologies and integrate them into their teaching more effectively.

(Khaddage, Lanham, & Zhou, 2009) emphasize the importance of taking a systems view of all

the elements that need to be in place in a mobile learning environment, such as: the

communication infrastructure, the mobile devices, learners and teachers. Each of these elements

is essential to ensure the effective adoption of mobile technologies in higher education.


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study will be to determine what pedagogies, software applications,

and mobile devices are needed in order for online education instructors to reliably create and

deliver successful m-learning instruction to Adult Education students.

Statement of the Problem

There is great potential for the use of m-learning in online education however, the

essential components for successful implementation by instructors have not been clearly defined.

Instructors need guidance and information on what kinds of mobile devices work best, what

pedagogies have been successful, and the capabilities of current software applications.

Research Questions

1. What capabilities must software applications have in order to allow the widest array of

possible design methodologies?

2. What pedagogical strategies and principles facilitate the use of m-learning devices in

online education?

3. What features must a mobile device possess in order to allow the widest array of possible

content delivery methods?

Significance of Study

This study will add knowledge to the existing research on m-learning by examining the

best practices needed when designing and implementing learning content for mobile devices. The

findings can then be used by online education instructors, as well as other interested parties, to

provide effective, interactive and reliable mobile learning.


Limitations of Study

Two methodological limitations of this study could be sample size and lack of available

data. These will be affected by the response rate from survey participants, and the willingness of

participants to sit for interviews. Access could be a limitation to the researcher, depending also

on the willingness of participants to sit for interviews or return surveys. Time could be another

limitation to the researcher, when considering the length of the school term and its effect on the

time available to conduct interviews as well as collect information from surveys.

Definition of Terms

E-learning is training delivered on a computer, (including DVD, CD-ROM, Internet,

Intranet and virtual classrooms) that is designed to support individual learning or organizational

performance goals. This includes e-courses developed primarily to provide information as well

as those designed to build specific job-related skills (Clark & Mayer, 2007).

M-learning is the use of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless and

mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and

learning (Douch et al., 2010).

Mobile technologies/ Mobile devices are: mobile phones, Smartphone’s, PDAs, MP3/

MP4 players (e.g. iPods), handheld games devices (Sony PSP, Nintendo DS), digital cameras,

Ultra Mobile PCs (UMPCs), mini notebooks or netbooks, handheld GPS or voting devices and

specialist handheld technologies (Douch et al., 2010).


CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Overview

With the global volume of mobile cellular subscriptions projected to grow to 5.3 billion

(Kainz, 2011) and an estimated 1.2 billion people carrying Web-enabled mobile phones (Gartner,

2011), the use of technology for learning is quickly becoming ubiquitous. That is, people no

longer see it as separate from “regular” learning, and it is viewed as part of the tools that trainers,

instructional designers, instructors, and others who design or deliver instruction use to impact

skills and performance (Shank, 2007).

Throughout this review there will be a discussion of the tools and techniques used by

developers of m-learning. Furthermore there will be an exploration of effective design, pedagogy

and mobile devices, the essential components of a mobile learning strategy.

Designing Effective M- Learning

What does it take to make good m-learning? Since it is such a different learning

environment, designers are encountering some of the same learning lessons that occurred with e-

learning. Motiwalla (2007) argued that you cannot just take PowerPoint to the Web and call it e-

learning. Good instructional design is needed, along with flow, and a need to build learning

objects. All of the pedagogical considerations that make e-learning on a big screen PC or laptop

effective still exist with the consideration of a mobile application. Traditional design guidelines

and methods used for computer and web-based applications may not be applicable to a mobile

learning (Khaddage et al., 2009). Authoring learning for mobile devices is different in a number

of significant ways because of these important factors: (a) operating systems and hardware

specifications for mobile devices vary one device to the next, (b) connection speed to data


networks is often variable, depending on time of day, user location, etc., (c) mobile devices are

highly personalized (as opposed to desktop computers), which makes it hard to establish

guidelines for a design (d) there are different ways to interact with a mobile device (i.e., using

fingers, or thumbs, rather than a mouse) (Berking, 2011).

OnPoint Digital (2011) suggested that the biggest challenge for those working on their

initial m-learning efforts is the lack of an appropriate point of reference for planning, developing

and managing a mobile learning initiative. This is largely due to the fact that the building blocks

for creating an instructor led training class or an engaging e-learning course are actually quite

different than those that comprise an m-learning deliverable. Some problems faced by m-

learning developers are: how interface design works, how to lay out their content, what

multimedia content they want, ease of use, navigation, and accessibility (Khaddage et al., 2009).

Many authoring tools can deliver content to mobile devices. However, tools are emerging that

are specifically designed for mobile learning; for instance, providing authoring capability for

audio learning content (e.g., spoken word, podcasts) along with associated interactive

assessments and surveys. Other tools are optimized to provide e- learning content through the

phone's web browsing capability (Brown, & Haag, 2011).

Designers must embrace the strengths that a mobile device can bring to learning, for

example in combining multimedia learning content with scenarios for learners to capture and

contribute media files (user generated content), dynamically upload content on the move, and

communicate with peers and/or tutors. The possibilities for incorporating multimedia resources

into sociable learning scenarios on mobile devices is achievable and could be a very powerful

feature in the future (Bradley, Haynes, Cook, Boyle, & Smith, 2009). Design is the biggest

differentiator between mobile learning success and failure. It is the link between learning and


performance support, the tie between formal and informal learning. The most successful mobile

designers are able to think differently (Brown & Haag, 2011).

M-Learning Pedagogy

Another serious issue faced by mobile learning is the lack of a solid theoretical

framework that can guide effective instructional design (Park, 2011). It can be argued that the

current use of mobile devices in higher education (essentially content delivery) is pedagogically

conservative and regressive. Their adoption is following a typical pattern where educators revert

to old pedagogies as they come to terms with the capabilities of new technologies (Herrington et

al., 2009). Conventional courseware is based on behavioral and cognitive models of learning

developed in the 60s and 70s and may not apply well to the psychology of today’s young

learners. Young users of conventional e-learning find it boring. They miss the kind of

engagement that digital games provide and hence tend to rate the overall quality of e-learning

low (Kadle, 2009).

Cognitive behaviorist models were the first generation of learning strategies used for

distance education of which m-learning is a by-product. Social-constructivist pedagogies were

the second generation, and perhaps not coincidently, arose in conjunction with the development

of two-way communication technologies. At that time, rather than transmitting information,

technology became widely used to create opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous

interactions between and among students and teachers (Anderson, & Dron, 2011). Most learning

pedagogies from constructive learning and conversation theories can be adapted for an online

learning environment. The key is to understand the strengths and weakness of a particular

technology, while deploying good pedagogical practices to achieve specific learning goals

(Motiwalla, 2007).


The third generation of pedagogy used in distance-education emerged recently, and

shows potential for future m-learning. It is known as connectivism. Siemens (2005), a theorist

responsible for advancing the concept of connectivisim argued that decisions are based on

constantly changing foundations. New information is continually being acquired and the ability

to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is essential (Siemens,

2005). Connectivism was developed in the information age of a networked era and assumes

ubiquitous access to networked technologies. Learning is seen as the process of building

networks of information, contacts, and resources that are applied to real problems.

Connectivism also assumes that information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to

memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find and apply knowledge

when and where it is needed (Anderson & Dron, 2011).

Is there a need for a new learning theory when there are already well-established theories

used successfully to design instruction? Ally (2008) affirmed that connectivism is needed, since

the existing learning theories were developed before distributed and networked learning was

used widely by educators. Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live,

how we communicate, and how we learn. New theories of learning should be reflective of new

emerging social environments. Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges

this shift in a society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. It provides

insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era (Siemens,

2005).

Recent innovations in program applications and social software using Web 2.0

technologies (e.g., blogs, wikis, Twitter, YouTube) or social networking sites (such as Facebook

and MySpace) have made mobile devices more dynamic and pervasive, which has increased the


opportunity for social collaboration (Park, 2011). The expansion and growth in popularity of

these Web 2.0 services and tools, as well as the accompanying increase in prevalence of user-

generated content, have implications for learning in higher education, and are already influencing

pedagogical choices and approaches (Lee & Mcloughlin, 2011).

M-Learning Devices

Beyond discussions of pedagogy, what about the devices themselves? There are some

disadvantages and advantages of using mobile devices for learning. The small display screen

still present on most devices can be a problem. They also have reduced storage capacity, and

rely on a battery for power. For older learners, diminishing eyesight makes viewing small

screens a challenge. In addition, the lack of a common platform among the various

manufacturers and equipment available complicates the development of content (Hutchison, Tin,

& Cao, 2008). However, looking at how rapidly new mobile products are improving, with

advanced functions and numerous applications available these days, the technical limitations of

mobile devices may be a temporary concern (Park, 2011).

There are now more capable mobile devices, which afford a wider array of possible

content delivery methods. Just like desktop learning methods, the variety of content types now

possible for mobile are broad and diverse, especially with more capable smart-phone and tablet

devices. These include videos, pod-casts, mobile versions of traditional courseware/modules,

and animated slide presentations (OnPoint Digital, 2011). As new devices continue to enter the

market, new features and new capabilities are appearing at an accelerated pace. Most recently

Apple’s iPad has been heralded as a device that can take personal computing to the next level

and a game changer for education (Kumar, 2010). In fact Abilene Christian University has found

that the iPad has fundamentally changed a teacher’s ability to mobilize the student’s learning


environment, freeing them to have access and interaction with students not possible with typical

laptop based computers (Shepherd & Reeves, 2011). Abilene Christian University also

concluded that the iPad and its educational applications are critical in the development of mobile

learning (Shepherd & Reeves, 2011). Further study will need to be completed before crowning

the iPad as the ultimate mobile learning device, until then, Brown and Haag (2011) remind that

“It’s not about devices – it’s about capabilities and it’s not about the technology – it’s about the

experience” (p. 19).

Summary

In conducting this literature review the author examined many articles about online

learning, e-learning and m-learning. The amount of information available is vast, but inconsistent

in subject matter. It also is frequently out of date seemingly because of the rapid advancement of

mobile technologies and the changing practice of m-learning. The referenced ideas that made it

into this paper represent an attempt to discuss the main subject areas of the identified research

questions. Mobile learning is still in infancy. As the practice and technology mature, clearer

more concise ideas about designing effective m-learning will emerge. More research will be

conducted in future versions of this study in order to answer the proposed research questions and

to expand and amplify the subject matter.


CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Research Design

This study will use a qualitative research method with a survey design. McMillan and

Schumacher (2010) stated “in survey research, the investigator selects a sample of respondents

from a target population and administers a questionnaire or conducts interviews to collect

information on variables of interest” (p. 235). A survey design will work well with this study,

since it will attempt to collect information about m-learning and the best practices needed when

designing and implementing learning content for mobile devices.

Subjects of Study

Individuals currently employed at organizations already implementing or piloting m-

learning programs will be a source of primary data. Individuals working at companies who

distribute applications or implement solutions for sale will also be a primary source. These

individuals were selected as subjects since they are deemed to have the most extensive and

current knowledge about m-learning practices. Current studies and surveys about the subject

matter of the research questions will also be used for secondary data.

Data Collection Procedure

Surveys will be administered and interviews will be conducted to collect the data from

the identified individuals. This study will also perform secondary data analysis on any relevant

studies or surveys available.


References

Adkins, S. S. (2011). The US market for self-paced eLearning products and services: 2010-2015

forecast and analysis. Retrieved from:

http://www.ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx#section1

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed), The

theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Retrieved from

http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from:

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890

Berking, P. (2011). Choosing authoring tools (Volume 6). Retrieved from Advanced Distributed

Learning website: http://www.adlnet.gov

Bradley, C., Haynes, R., Cook, J., Boyle, T., & Smith, C. (2009). Design and development of

multimedia learning objects for mobile phones. In M. Ally, (Ed.), Mobile learning:

Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 157-182). Edmonton, AB: AU

Press, Athabasca University

Brandon, B. (Ed.). (2008). The eLearning Guild's 144 Tips on Synchronous e-Learning Strategy

+ Research. Retrieved from:

guhttp://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.1025

Brown, J, & Haag, J., (2011). ADL mobile learning handbook. Retrieved from Advanced

Distributed Learning website: http://www.adlnet.gov


Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven

guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA,

Pfeiffer

Douch, R., Savill-Smith, C., Parker, G, & Attewell, J. (2010) Work-based and vocational

mobile learning: Making IT work. London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from:

https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=100186

Gartner (2010). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technologies for 2011. Retrieved from:

http:// www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1454221

Griffin, G. (2010, October 20). Mobile learning is beyond its tipping point. Learning Solutions

Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/540/mobile-

learning-is-beyond-its-tipping-point

Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). Using mobile

technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. Retrieved from:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/75

Hutchison, M., Tin, T., & Cao, Y. (2008). Meeting the needs of today’s new generation of online

learners with mobile learning technology. In T. Anderson (Ed), The theory and practice

of online learning (pp. 201-220). Retrieved at

http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146

Kadle, A. (2009). Do you need games in your e-learning mix? Retrieved from:

http://www.upsidelearning.com/white-papers.asp

Kadle, A. (2010). The advent of mobile learning technology. Retrieved from:

http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/07/the-advent-of-mobile-

learning-technology/


Kainz, C. (2011). Mobile agility and the anytime, anywhere impact on IT. Retrieved from:

http://bb.blackboard.com/g/?id4yntdhix

Kaplan University (2008). Kaplan University online students report the economy and gas prices

played major roles in their decision to study online. Retrieved from:

online.kaplanuniversity.edu/.../final%20survey%20release%208-08.doc

Khaddage, F., Chonka, A., & Zhou, W. (2009). E-Learning over mobile phone technology:

Best practices and guidelines. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies,

3(3), 55-58. doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i3.950

Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning:

Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 335–344.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005

Kumar, S. (2010). Why the iPad is a learning tool. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved

from: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/545/why-the-ipad-is-a-learning-tool

Lee, J. W., & Mcloughlin, C. (2011). Pedagogy 2.0: critical challenges and responses to Web 2.0

and social software in tertiary teaching. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web

2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 43-69). Doi:

10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch003

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry.

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Motiwalla, L.F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education,

49, 581–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011

OnPoint Digital (2011). CellCast Solution Overview. Retrieved from:

http://www.mlearning.com/cellcast/news.html


Park, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational

applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 79-102

Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or

persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217

Peters, K. (2007). M-learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 2. Retrieved from:

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/350

Sapp, D. A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses:

Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition,

22, 471–489. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.08.005

Shepherd, I. J., & Reeves, B. (2011). IPad or ifad – The reality of a paperless classroom.

Retrieved from Abilene Christian University website:

http://www.acu.edu/technology/mobilelearning/index.html

Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal

of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, January 2005,

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/ article01.htm.

Shank, P. (2007). Design strategies for online and blended learning. In B. Brandon (Ed), The

eLearning Guild’s Handbook of e-Learning Strategy (pp .27-41). Retrieved from:

http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.817

Stead, G. (2005). Moving mobile into the mainstream. Retrieved from: www.m-

learning.org/archive/docs/MLearn2005_Stead.pdf


Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended

Learning, 1(1), 1-12. Retrieved from:

http://wlv.academia.edu/JohnTraxler/Papers/83099/Learning_in_a_Mobile_Age

mobile learning in adult education

Documents