Running head: WEBLIOGRAPHY #4

1

Webliography #4 Joseph C. Greene Liberty University

WEBLIOGRAPHY #4 Summary Authors El-Hussain and Cronje (2010) surveyed the available literature in an attempt to present a valid definition of mobile learning. The authors did an online search of international

2

journals on the topic of mobile learning. They then selected sources based on how they deal with the growth of mobile learning in higher education. Finally, themes and sub-themes were counted and common themes were clustered for further study to aid in developing the definition. The authors came to the belief that any definition of mobile learning had to be based on a combination of the following: (1) mobility of the technology, (2) mobility of the learner, and (3) mobility of the learning. The mobility of the technology was described as it being able to go anywhere and have multiple functionalities. The mobility of the learner was described as them being remote from the instructor and in charge of where, when and how they access the material. The mobility of the learning was described as having value in that the learner experiences the learning in their own context. The final, decided definition was, “Any type of learning that takes place in learning environments and spaces that take account of the mobility of technology, mobility of learners, and mobility of learning.” Critique The authors took an interesting approach in trying to nail down a definition for a specific aspect of the educational technology field. The authors fall into the camp of supporting mobile devices, specifically in the way that they are changing everyday life, being allowed to change how we do and define education. The thought is beyond mere enhancement and adjustment and seems to go all the way to creating new pedagogy. This author feels that goes a bit farther than the current research warrants. Until such a time as the evidence shows greater learning is

WEBLIOGRAPHY #4 accomplished through new means that replace current pedagogy, those aspects that work should not be discarded. No particular rationale was given for why the search of materials that were used to

3

generate the definition was used. Why were only certain topics pursued? Why were only certain journals searched? Was there nothing of value or relevance from other academic journals that may focus elsewhere but could have broached the subject of mobile learning as well? The authors did do a very good job on the areas that they did research. The three areas, and their reasoning for breaking things down into them, were well reasoned and logically explained. The way things were broken down allowed for each aspect that led to the definition to be explained and explored thoroughly. One does have to question if the three areas are enough. Are they adequate, are they exhaustive, and are they legitimate or arbitrarily based upon preconceived notions that the authors brought to the study. The definition seems like nothing more than restating the three areas of the definition together and is somehow both too broad to serve as more than a jumping off point and too narrow to allow for a more robust definition of mobile learning that better serves as a true definition. References El-Hussain, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful