Key Factors in the Facilitation of MLearning Environments

The concept of m-learning continues to evolve as educators, executives and academics

explore the integration, acceptance and theoretical and pedagogical implications of the
technology. Yadegaridehkordi et.al (2011) outline a number of academic definitions that
define it as a clear subset of e-learning, with a focus on the specific function of the devices
(p1). Other literature, however has emphasised the external, connected and highly
contextualised nature of the mobile learning environment (Pegrum, Oakley and Faulkner,
2013). Koszalka and Kuswani (2010) for instance claim that the focus of learning changes
from learners as consumers of content, to learners as idea generators, producers of artifacts
and sharers of new knowledge (p142). With such potential to change learning as we know it,
it is vital to consider the key issues affecting the implementation of m-learning in 21st century
learning institutions.
As a subset of e-learning (Brown, 2005, p303), it is valid to assume that m-learning would
most often utilise elements of e-learning frameworks for its integration into the education
environment. Male and Pattinson (2011) outline a number of dimensions in their discussion
of the construction of e-learning applications for mobile technologies. These dimensions can
essentially be broken down into two key elements; sociocultural facets and pedagogical
knowledge considerations, as well as specific interface and technical aspects of the
application. Inan and Lowther (2010) constructed a conceptualisation for the integration of
laptop programs which in effect could be utilised in a mobile learning environment. Their
hypothesised path model (p938) examines teachers use of laptops and refers to their
readiness and attitudes, professional development and technical and managerial support for
the implementation of the technology.
With some reference to these studies there are essentially three key constructs in the
facilitation of an m-learning environment:
1) Infrastructure including technical and managerial coordination and implementation
of needed support systems and technologies.
2) Sociocultural and internalised facets of both teacher and learner which according to
Male and Pattinson involve teacher and learner attitudes, perspectives, and responses
to the technology.
3) Pedagogical approaches that target the use of contextual spaces and learning styles
specific to mobile technology.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the infrastructure and technical and managerial aspects are
fundamental in the initial design of an m-learning environment, exploration of these aspects
is far too wide in scope for the purposes of this discussion. Instead teacher and student
responses to the technology along with pedagogical considerations provide the basis for
examination of effective facilitation of the m-learning environment.

In terms of teacher adoption, Uzunboylu and Ozdamli (2011) claim that Successful
integration of mobile learning in education demands that teachers perception of such
technologies should be determined (p544). As facilitators of learning and agents of change,
teachers attitudes towards, and acceptance of new learning systems is paramount in their
successful facilitation. Research in teachers perceptions of m-learning have been varied in
response. Serin (2012) found that prospective teachers perceptions were comparatively low,
with a lack of information stated as a key possibility. On the other hand, Uzunboylu and
Ozdamli, in their development of the Mobile Learning Perception Scale found that,
teachers exhibited above medium levels of perception towards m-learning (p544).
Further to this, Messinger (2011) found that whilst teachers acknowledged the potential for
increased motivation using mobile technologies, students were much more enthusiastic about
the potential benefits to their education. Both the students and teachers agreed however that
further professional development would greatly benefit teachers use of the technology. The
research was significant in comparing student and teacher perceptions of current and future
uses of mobile devices, with students themselves commenting on their perceptions of
teachers knowledge and integration of the devices. This provided an insight into the lack of
confidence that students had in their teachers facilitation of 21st Century learning
experiences.
With a lack of specifically focussed research in teachers responses to the integration of mlearning, much of the commentary is generalised in nature. There is however a small body of
research centred on the learners acceptance of the technology. Liu, Han and Lee (2010)
summarise an extensive range of research on the adoption of m-learning (pp214-216).
Amongst a number of findings there are some key elements that could be applied more
specifically to teachers attitudes such as; perceived self-efficacy, perceived quality and
benefits, perceived usability, ease of use and social factors. In effect such elements centre on
teacher confidence in their own ability, along with an informed approach to the benefits of mlearning in the classroom.
Geer, Barnes and White (2008) claim that teacher confidence is a major factor in
determining teacher and student engagement with ICT (p152) In addition they suggest that
teachers need to have a vision on how technology will be utilised in the classroom to enhance
learning. Essentially, such a vision and boost in confidence is not easy to resolve without
adequate support systems and professional development. An Australian study by Pegrum
et.al. (2013) found that teachers exhibited a number of responses to m-learning, from
enthusiastic to disinterest to opposed (p75). Whilst none of the schools in the study forced
teachers to embrace the technology, the researchers suggested four recommendations for
assisting teachers with the development of their own learning:
1) Bracketed time for PD,
2) A focus on pedagogy ahead of technology in PD
3) Targeted and contextualised PD
4) Building a professional community of practise/ professional development network as a
platform for PD

Establishing such a support system, along with realistic expectations for teachers could be a
vital element in changing their attitudes and raising their confidence to embrace the new
technologies.
Further to establishing teachers adoption of m-learning, much importance needs to be placed
on the learners perceptions, attitudes and influences in adapting to the technology. Tan et.al
(2011) discuss the convergence of individual factors such as perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use along with social influences to determine key influences on learners
acceptance of m-learning. Their adaptation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
examines these elements in regards to gender, age and past experiences. Not surprisingly
younger subjects reported higher results in perceived ease of use, but in conflict with past
studies, age and gender did not factor in any of the other elements. Whilst the study
determined that perceived ease of use indicated a high intention to use the technology, the
lack of discrepancy in perceived usefulness (for m-learning) encourages educators to reflect
on the importance of facilitating a metacognitive approach to implementing m-learning.
Students ingrained sociocultural attachments may play a significant part in their adoption of
m-learning. Certainly many students are already so infinitely connected to the social
networking aspects of mobile technologies that lack of its use may in fact be a considerable
distraction. Rosen et. al (2011) examined the concept of externally driven task switching,
suggesting that there are no neurological differences between external and internal switches
and that students remain just as distracted thinking about checking a text message as they
would in actually answering the message. They further suggest the initiation of a technology
break in which students are allowed to reconnect with their devices for a period of two
minutes for every 15 minutes of class time. Although this has been attempted with some
reports of success, there has been a lack of commentary on the potential for adaptation of the
findings for specific use in actual learning scenarios. Utilising such attachments may
encourage teachers to establish more collaborative learning scenarios both within and outside
of the classroom.
An often overlooked theme in m-learning literature is the concept of motivation and
engagement for the learner. Some researchers have commented on the power of learner
engagement to initiate changes in the brain (Van Dam, 2013, p32). It is not unreasonable to
assume that initially student engagement with mobile devices would have a significant impact
on students application to their work. To be successful in the long term however, teachers
must develop sustained strategies to continually enhance students interest in both the tasks
and subject as a whole. Huizenga, et.al. (2009) found that students using mobile game based
learning were more engaged and gained significantly more knowledge about medieval
Amsterdam than those who received regular project based instruction (p332). The results,
however, demonstrated no significant difference in terms of overall motivation for the subject
of History as a whole. Further to this Swan et.al (2005) found that after initial excitement
with their PDA devices, students enthusiasm diminished over a matter of weeks.
These results suggest that motivation and engagement along with sociocultural factors must
be converged with continued productive pedagogical practices to provide an effective mlearning environment. Jones et. al (2006) suggested six reasons for how the use of mobile
devices might assist student motivation: control over goals, ownership, learning in context,

continuity, fun and communication. In the context of pedagogy these elements fall into two
key dimensions that essentially intersect with each other: the dichotomy of individualisation
versus collaboration, and the continuity of formal and informal learning experiences.
Park (2011) in his review of Transactional Distance Theory refers to a new dimension of
individual versus collective (or social) activities (p88) in his consideration of both social
aspects of learning and forms of social technologies. In some research studies there
appears to be a tension or dichotomy between the two constructs, despite both achieving
highly positive outcomes. In a study by Swan, et.al (2005), students were using both the
individual and collaborative features of the devices in metacognitively valuable ways. The
problem, however, resided in the limited availability of continued personal devices for every
student. Pegrum, et.al. explored the difficulties with sharing devices amongst secondary
students from private schools who valued the personalised nature of them. Future resolutions
included discussion of parent funded one to one and BYOD models. For both the educator
and educational institutions this has implications for planning and implementation of the most
effective strategies in an m-learning environment.
Parks adaptation of Gay, Rieger, and Benningtons mobility hierarchy and technical
affordances, (p82) place both individualisation of learning and collaboration on opposite ends
of the spectrum. Park does later emphasize, however that dualism of individual versus
collective (or social) is also something to be connected and balanced (p89). With positive
outcomes reported in past studies of each of these components, a mediation of the two
should encourage teachers to consider theoretical approaches to support their implementation
of the devices. In essence a dualistic approach would need to utilise a blending of
instructionism, constructivist, collaborative and sociocultural theories of learning (Keskin and
Metcalf, 2011). Empowering students to organise their own learning, develop their own ideas
and share and create information in a social and collaborative online environment should be a
key priority for educators.
The concept of learning spaces in the m-learning environment tends to raise questions about
the continuity of informal and formal learning experiences. Popescu (2011) claims that It
has been widely recognized that mobile learning is not just about the use of portable devices
but also about learning across contexts (83). These contexts utilise formal, non-formal and
informal engagement with the technology for lifelong learning (p82). Laurillard (2007)
questions whether contexts between formal and informal learning can remain continuous in
the use of learning spaces inside and outside of the classroom (p170). Certainly teachers
need to be prepared to make sure that such continuity exists, whilst still empowering students
to contextualise and control their own learning through use of mobile devices.
At present case studies have yielded conflicting approaches by teachers at creating
consistency between informal and formal learning opportunities. Oakley et.al. found that in
one case study the teachers were resistant to using ipads in the classroom because of the
perception that since they were used at home other tasks could be completed in class (p41).
Contrary to this however, in another case study the students were encouraged to find informal
learning spaces in the classroom and as a result students tended to engage in more
personalised and independent learning experiences (p57). Whilst the benefits of creating

seamless learning experiences are clear, some researchers such as Squire (2009) encourage
discussion about the erosion of the concepts of being online and offline for the younger
generation. In effect these studies should assist teachers to make an informed approach to the
analysis of the issues of a ubiquitous learning environment.
As m-learning continues to evolve and impact the classroom environment, the perceptions
and pedagogical approaches of both teachers and learners will determine the extent to which
it becomes an accepted medium of learning. The connection between the spaces in which
these learning experiences take place, along with motivation and engagement factors, will
inevitably impact on the way that students accept approach and engage in using the devices.
Through further research and discussion of the issues surrounding its integration, educators
will gain an increased understanding of how it can be utilised to encourage deeper and more
connected learning experiences.
References
Brown, T. H. (2005). Towards a Model for m-Learning in Africa. International Journal on
ELearning, 4 (3), 299-315. Retrieved via ProQuest
Fethi A. Inan, A.F., & Lowther, D.L (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors
impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55 (3). 937-944. http://0dx.doi.org.library.newcastle.edu.au/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004.
Geer, R., Barnes, A., White, B., & Ross, T. (2008). Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning
environment: a case study. ACT on IcT: Proceedings of the Australian Council for Computers in
Education Conference. (pp151-159). Canberra, Australia: Australian Council for Computers in
Education. Retrived from http://arrow.unisa.edu.au:8081/1959.8/64247
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in
secondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (4),332344. August 2009doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00316.x
Jones, A., Issroff, K. and Scanlon, E. (2006). Affective factors in learning with mobile devices. In M.
Sharples (ed.), Big Issues in Mobile Learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of
Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative (pp 15-20). Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research
Institute
Keskin, N.O., & Metcalf, D. (2011). The current perspectives, theories and practices of mobile
learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (2). 202-208. Retrieved via
ProQuest
Koszalka, T. & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning
potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), 139157. Retrieved via ProQuest
Liu, Y., Han.S., Akademi, B., & Li, H. (2010). Understanding the factors driving m-learning
adoption: a literature review. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27 (4). 210-226. DOI
10.1108/10650741011073761
Male, G., & Pattinson, C.(2011). Enhancing the quality of e-learning through mobile
technology: A socio-cultural and technology perspective towards quality e-learning applications.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28 (5), 331-344. Doi: 10.1108/10650741111181607

Messinger, J. (2011). M-Learning: an exploration of the attitudes and perceptions of high school
students versus teachers regarding the current and future use of mobile devices for learning (Doctoral
Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and These database. (UMI No: 3487951)
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). 78-102. Retrieved via ProQuest
Pegrum,M., Oakley,G., and Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools going mobile: A study of the adoption of
mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(1), 66-81. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/64/25
Popescu, A. (2011). Assessment of mobile learning contribution and practices in a lifelong learning
society. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4 (8). 8192. Retrieved via ProQuest
Rosen, L.D., Lim, A.F., Carrier, L.M., & Cheever, N.A. (2011). An Empirical Examination of the
Educational Impact of Text Message-Induced Task Switching in the Classroom: Educational
Implications and Strategies to Enhance Learning. Psicologa Educativa, 17 (2). 163-177.
Doi:10.5093/ed2011v17n2a4
Serin, O. (2012). Mobile learning perceptions of the prospective teachers. The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 11 (3). 222-233. Retrieved via ProQuest
Squire, K. (2009). Mobile media learning: multiplicities of place. On the horizon, 17 (1), 70-80. DOI:
10.1108/10748120910936162
Swan, K., Van t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., and Unger, D. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile
computing devices in K-8 classrooms. In L. Schrum (ed), Considerations on Technology and
Teachers: The Best of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education pp(67-82). Eugene,
Oregon: ISTE
Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Sim, J.J., Phusavat, K. (2012). Determinants of mobile learning adoption: an
empirical analysis. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 52 (3). 82 ProQuest
Uzunboylu, H., & Ozdamli, F. (2011). Teacher perception for m-learning: scale development and
teachers perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27. 544556. Doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00415.x
Van Dam, N. (2013). Inside The Learning Brain. T+D, 67(4), 30-35. Retrived from http://0web.ebscohost.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=269749d3-30b2-4d4587d5-21da618b4f69%40sessionmgr15&vid=6&hid=23
Yadegaridehkordi, E., Iahad, N.A., & Mirabolghasemi, M. (2011) Users' perceptions towards Mlearning adoption: An initial study. Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS).
International Conference. (pp.1,6, 23-24). Doi: 10.1109/ICRIIS.2011.6125690