Running Head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A SCHOLARLY ARTICLE 1

Critical Analysis of a Scholarly Article:

“Defining, Discussing, and Evaluating Mobile Learning”

Team 5: Julia Heatherwick, George Martinez, Colin Mcnee, James Cook

California State University, Monterey Bay

IST 520

Dr. Tourtellotte

April 13, 2020

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 2

Introduction

Evaluating the current state and forecasting the future state of mobile learning technology

can pose challenges for academic study due to the rapid pace of technological advances. It has

been 13 years since John Traxler’s Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The

moving finger writes and having writ . . . . (2007) survey of mobile learning in terms of

pedagogy and technological considerations. Learning technology has made significant advances

since the publication of the review, however, it is still relevant today. Traxler explores the

possibilities of mobile learning by examining existing work, identifying emerging categories of

mobile learning, surfacing challenges of rigorous evaluation, and posing questions to consider

and study as the field matures.

Research Procedures (Methods)

Traxler’s article does not fall into the qualitative or quantitative categories. In this case,

Traxler conducted a literature review, which does not include any participants that serve as

research subjects. In Traxler’s article, he surveys previous research and examines what is

currently happening in the field of mobile learning. The literature review is thorough in the way

that it includes the literature that leads up to 2007. He also cites reputable sources such as the

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning in addition to including information from multiple

professional organizations (MLEARN, WMTE, ALT-C, etc.) where one could find the most

current information during that time period. As the field progresses, more up-to-date literature

reviews will be necessary in order to reflect the current state of the field.

Research Results

The author states that he has not explored the actual technologies or pedagogies in any

detail, rather, his stated goal was to explore the subject and to devise valid research questions
CRITICAL ANALYSIS 3

that would inform later study. As such, there was no clearly stated hypothesis.

The questions that emerged were:

• How do we define mobile learning?

• How do we evaluate mobile learning?

• What are the ethics of evaluating mobile learning?

• How can mobile learning be deployed in large institutions?

He arrives at these questions through an examination of the attributes a valid study in the field

ought to possess.

Discussion of Results

Given that this is a largely descriptive article, the data and his analysis are more akin to a

literature review than to a discussion of experimental results. Because there is no data to analyze

nothing can be compared to the findings of the study to determine support. He mentions there are

problems with the epistemology and ethics of evaluating mobile learning. The researcher follows

up by stating that the credibility of mobile learning as a sustainable and reliable form of

educational provision rests on the rigor and effectiveness of its evaluation.

The researcher provided reasonable explanations of his findings. The Evaluating Mobile

Education portion of the study provided explanations as to why mobile learning is an effective

strategy. He also mentioned how consistency across groups, time, and various devices that are

used is a challenge in regards to mobile learning. This was found to mostly be caused by the

exceptional pace at which technologies were changing.

Given that the entire purpose of the article is to identify valid research questions, one

could say that the author only drew implications for practice. As he mentioned, at the time of

this study, mobile learning was still a relatively immature field. Access to mobile technology

devices was not as common in 2007, so widespread implementation of mobile learning was not
CRITICAL ANALYSIS 4

considered something that was feasible at that time. Given these factors, the conclusions the

author drew and their implications for practice were entirely reasonable.

Summary

Traxler’s study about mobile learning helped to provide a benchmark of when questions

were posed to how they have been addressed today. The rapid advancement of technology has

completely changed the way mobile learning is looked at as an instructional tool. As Bai (2019)

states the increased adoption of mobile technology in daily life has greatly influenced education.

Due to the rapid advancements and increased adoption within the field, it would be interesting to

revisit this topic to see what has changed in the 13 years since its publication. The value of this

study lies in the follow-up. A re-examination by the author would be beneficial and help to

validate some of the study’s original claims. Traxler (2007) himself even admitted that it was too

early to describe or analyze the specifics of mobile learning because the field, as a whole, is new

and accounts are relatively sparse. Although the limitations of this study, created by rapid

advancements in technology and research that became quickly outdated, are evident the

questions posed still remain pertinent. The attributes proposed by Traxler for a good evaluation

of mobile learning definitely could, and should, be revisited and updated.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 5

References

Bai, H. Pedagogical Practices of Mobile Learning in K-12 and Higher Education Settings.

TechTrends 63, 611–620 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00419-w

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The moving finger

writes and having writ . . . . The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346