Using Mobile Learning to Advance Innovation in Small Private Universities:

A Multi-Site Case Study

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Drexel University

by

Christian Boniforti

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

of

Doctor of Education

June 2020
 28021865

28021865

2020
 i

Copyright Ó 2020

Christian Boniforti. All Rights Reserved

 ii

Abstract

Using Mobile Learning to Advance Innovation in Small Private Universities:

A Multi-Site Case Study

Christian Boniforti, Ed.D. Candidate

Drexel University, June 17, 2020

Chairperson: Dr. William Lynch

Innovative changes to teaching environments have been challenging to implement and

sustain in higher education. Some institutions have turned to mobile learning programs to

implement innovative practices. However, few studies focus on leadership’s role and the

organizational characteristics found in such programs. The purpose of this qualitative, multi-site

case study is to explore the use of mobile learning practices at three small, private universities in

the United States of America, to understand how the influence of leadership on faculty supports

the goal of advancing innovative practices. This study aims to address the central question of how

administrators and faculty use mobile learning practices to advance innovation across the

university. This study seeks to explore sub-questions related to the relationships that exist

between administrators and faculty, organizational changes that foster or inhibit innovation, and

the types of educational leadership styles found in each of the participating universities.

The researcher utilized frameworks like Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM), and

Rogers’ diffusion of innovations. The research design for this study was a qualitative, multi-site

case study aimed at gaining insight into the experiences and collaborative efforts of university

leaders and faculty. This multi-site case study was bounded through the site selection process,

which includes three small-sized universities operating a matured 1:1 mobile learning program.

The populations in this study consisted of two leaders and between six to seven faculty members

from each university. Interviews and focus group sessions at each site comprised the majority of
 iii

data collection and contributed to the analysis that produced themes among the participating sites.

The researcher explored the processes and characteristics of leadership approaches and

established processes that supported the integration and expansion of the 1:1 mobile learning

programs at each participating site. The findings and results of this study, captured through the

voices and experiences of the 25 participants, provided a lens and viewpoints that provided

evidence that leaders, and their leadership is influential in how innovation can transform the

teaching and learning environment. Furthermore, this study provided evidence that the

development of an established and supported mobile learning ecosystem, institutions were able to

influence innovative practices across their campuses.

 iv

Dedication Page

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and son, who encouraged me and provided

ongoing support and patience, enduring years of coursework, which saw me through to the

completion of my dissertation.
 v

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. William Lynch for being such a great resource and mentor

throughout this dissertation process. Your dedication to this study and encouragement allowed me

to take an uncertain idea and develop it into a well-orchestrated and meaningful study. I feel

fortunate to have had you as a professor, but more importantly, as an advisor. Thank you for

guiding both my work and this study from its early stages, for keeping me on task, and ensuring

that I move forward towards the finish line.

I would also like to thank my dedicated committee members, Dr. Valeria Klein and Dr.

Jennifer Lesh. Both of you have been instrumental and influential to this study. Your input,

thoughts, and direction over the last eight months have helped me enhance this study, and for that

I am forever appreciative.

To my colleagues at Lynn University who have provided encouragement, advice, and

patience throughout this process, I want to say thank you. You all have been reassuring and

understanding in support of my study throughout its three years. I am privileged to have an

incredible boss, mentor, and friend, President Dr. Kevin M. Ross, who encouraged me to start this

journey. I am deeply grateful for everything that you have done to make this dream a reality, and

for listening to every story along the way.

Lastly, thanks to my parents and family, who have supported me in more ways than you

know. Thank you to my mother and father for always being there and making education an

important part to my upbringing. I hope that I can only pass that on to my son. To my wife,

Shelly, and son, Nathaniel, you mean the world to me. Without your steadfast care, patience, and

understanding, none of this would have been possible. Thank you for allowing me to tackle this

challenge and put my best towards achieving this dream.

 vi

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction to the Research……………………………… 1

Introduction to the Problem…………………………………………………. 1

Statement of the Problem to be Researched.……………………………….. 2

Purpose and Significance of the Problem…………………………………… 2

Research Questions…………………………………………………………. 3

Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………… 4

Researcher Organization of the Literature Review………………………… 6

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………. 9

Assumptions and Limitations………………………………………………. 11

Summary……………………………………………………………………. 13

Chapter Two: The Literature Review……………………………………… 14

Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 14

Literature Review…………………………………………………………… 15

Summary...…………………………………………………………………. . 45

Chapter Three: Research Methodology…………………………………… 47

Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 47

Research Design and Rationale……………………………………………… 48

Site and Population…………………………………………………………… 49

Research Methods…………………………………………………………….. 54

Data Collection and Procedures………………………………………………. 60

Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………… 66

Summary………………………………………………………………………. 68
 vii

Chapter Four: Findings, Results, and Interpretations…………………… 69

Introduction to the Findings …………………………………………………. 69

Participant Overview ……………………………………………………..…. 70

Findings……………………………………………………….……………… 74

Results and Interpretations…………………………………………………… 131

Summary……………………………………………………………….……... 144

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations……………...………… 145

Introduction ……………….……………………………………………..... 145

Conclusions…………………………………...……………….…………… 146

Recommendations……….…………………………………………………. 153

Summary……………………………………………………………….…… 157

LIST OF REFERENCES……………………………………………….... 160

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………... 171

A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol……………………………………. 171

B: Invitation Email …….…………………………………………………... 173

C: Consent for Participant in Interview……………………………………. 174

D: Focus Group Protocol …….………………………………………….… 175

E: Questionnaire Tool……………...………………………...……….......... 176

F: Consent for Participants in Focus Group………………………………… 177

 1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Research

Introduction to the Problem

Educational technologies can best be described as less about technological devices and

tools, and more about how educators apply these devices—that is, through meaning and practices

(Selwyn, 2017). There have been claims that educational technologies can drive transformational

changes in education (Chandra, & Lloyd, 2008; Drossel, Eickelmann, & Gerick, 2017; Polly,

Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010). Reports from the New Media Consortium (NMC) and from the

Office of Educational Technology forecast continued dependency on and integration of

technology into our institutions that will impact and change educational practices (Adams, et al.,

2017; US Department of Education, 2017). The NMC Horizons report (2017) highlighted the top

10 educational changes that will be impacted by educational technologies within the next five

years, and further explained that educational technologies alone “cannot cultivate education

transformation; better pedagogies…digital tools and platforms” (p. 5) coming together can be

leveraged to advance educational change. The Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education

report claims that “technology can be a powerful tool for transforming learning…and adapt

learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners” (US Department of Education, 2017, p. 3).

It is through these visions, strategies, and practices that educational technologies are projected to

be successful in meeting the needs of tomorrow’s learner.

Over the last decade, there has been a rise in mobile phones and tablet device ownership

that has outpaced desktop and laptop ownership (Cochrane, 2014). Mobile devices such as

smartphones, tablets, e-readers, and wearables are growing in popularity and have become more

prevalent in higher education as students, faculty, and staff continue to use these devices for

numerous purposes (Grant, 2019; Psirpoulos, et al., 2016). Data from the Educause Center of
 2

Analysis and Research (ECAR) drawn from a study on more than 53,475 college students found

that 98% of college students in 2019 owned a mobile device (Gierdowski, 2019). As Alrasheedi,

Capretz, and Raza (2015) have described, mobile learning is a concept that leverages mobility and

allows for a learner to control what, when, and where they want to learn. Mobile learning

embraces mobile devices and technologies to deliver teaching and learning to students anywhere

and at any time. However, few institutions have been able to leverage mobile learning in their

efforts to advance innovative change within their organizations (Al-Emran, Elsherif, & Shaalan,

2016).

Statement of the Problem to Be Researched

Innovative changes in small, private universities are slow to realize, and little emphasis

has been placed on exploring the role of leaders in order to understand how their collaboration

with faculty influences the advancement of innovative practices.

Purpose and Significance of the Problem

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this multi-site, qualitative case study was to explore the use of mobile

learning practices at small private universities to understand how the influence of leadership on

faculty supports the goal of advancing innovative practices.

Significance of the Problem

Despite challenges, mobile learning programs are ripe to become an important path that

helps drive innovative change to transform traditional teaching and learning environments in

small, private universities. In a meta-analysis study, Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, and

Brummelhuis (2013) concluded that mobile learning programs in campus-wide implementation

require clear organizational leadership and an emphasis on organizational collaboration. Others

 3

found the need for a focus on faculty development and identified that technological support must

be provided by the institution (Drouin, Vartanian, & Birk, 2013; Psirpoulos, et al. 2016). Further

research on how faculty are implementing and using mobile learning is needed to help expand the

knowledge base within the teaching and learning practices (Handal, McNish, & Petocz, 2013).

Developing a mobile learning program that advances innovative change is likely to assist small,

private institutions in their efforts to provide value and bring forward transformative change

within their organizations.

Previous research has provided examples of how the adoption of mobile learning

programs has led to institutions improving student outcomes, enhancing student (faculty)

engagement (Drouin, et al., 2013), and innovating teaching pedagogy and learning environments

within higher education. Mobile learning programs have been piloted and implemented by several

universities throughout the world (Brooks, & Pomerantz, 2017; Wardley & Mang, 2015).

Research has indicated that mobile learning programs that are aligned to the overall

organization’s objectives, incorporate theoretical-based adoption models, commit to faculty

development, and encourage collaboration and learning are well positioned to launch and sustain

innovative practices (Alrasheedi, Capretz, & Raza, 2015; Chen, Seilhamer, Bennet, & Bauer,

2015; Lai, 2017). Furthermore, a study would be helpful for application in higher education,

particularly one that explores the perspectives that leadership and faculty use in adopting their

innovative, mobile learning practices.

Research Questions

The intent of this multi-site, qualitative case study was to address the central question: To

what extent have administrators and faculty leaders used mobile learning practices to influence

the advancement of innovation across the university?

 4

The following sub-questions guided the study;

1. How have leaders managed technological innovations in the teaching and learning environments?

2. What organizational characteristics have contributed to implementing mobile learning practices?

3. Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement and support innovative, connected

teaching and learning environments?

Conceptual Framework

Researcher Stance

As a constructivist, the researcher views the world as it exists from the subjective and

through the makeup of individual experiences and interpretations (Charmaz 2000; Grix,

2002). Through the researcher’s experiences of leading and shaping mobile learning practices at

the researcher’s institution of employment, the researcher drew on these experiences by being

able to provide context—with realities—and delve deeper into the understanding of the

phenomenon of the study. The research methods used were inductive and flexible, allowing for

discovery and interpretation to coincide (Stake, 2005).

Ontological views allowed for the researcher’s own experiences of living through the

innovative change and adoption of mobile learning practices to understand the phenomena by

looking at a variety of contexts (Stake, 2005). Epistemological views leveraged prior relationships

and knowledge that were influenced by interactions with the participants of the participating

universities (Guba, & Lincoln, 1994). Relationships between the researcher and the participants

were embraced to help drive further knowledge (Reeves, & Hedberg, 2003). The researcher’s

axiological views helped drive the study so that participants’ voices, truth, and data were

accurately acknowledged and embraced (Stake, 2005). Lastly, the researcher’s values helped
 5

connect with participants so that realities were deeply understood and shared through the

research explicitly.

Experiential Base

For over 20 years, the researcher has worked in higher education within the information

technology department of a small, private university. During that time, he experienced different

roles within the information technology division, working as a helpdesk staff member, being

promoted to network design and security, and eventually being named chief information officer—

position held for 14 years. As of 2019, the researcher serves the same institution as the chief

strategy and technology officer responsible for the university’s strategy and technology. As an

educational leader for over 15 years, he has had the opportunity to work with leadership, faculty,

staff, and students on a variety of technology implementations. In 2013, the researcher served as

the lead in bringing the institution to a 1:1 mobile learning program, working side-by-side with

the university’s president, vice president of academic affairs, deans, and faculty. Through these

gained experiences, he had the opportunity to meet other university presidents, leaders, and

faculty interested in developing and implementing mobile learning programs. These experiences

have captured his curiosity in wanting to explore and learn—through research—how different

universities, their leaders, and faculty have approached advancing technological innovation

through the use of mobile learning.

Researcher Organization of the Literature Review

The conceptual framework informs and guided this study and literature review by

providing three streams that drew from practice, research, theory, and information: (1) the

background of mobile learning, (2) leadership and organizational capacity, and (3) technology
 6

adoption strategies. The links and relationships among the streams are represented visually in

Figure 1.

Background of mobile
learning
•Defining mobile learning
•Use of mobile learning in HE
•Pedogogical considerations

Educational Adoption strategies

leadership and •Davis's 1985 Technology
organizational change Acceptance Model
•Rogers' 1995 Diffusion of
•Creative leadership Innovations
•Transformational and •SAMR Model
distributed leadership
•Faculty development and
•Organizational change perceptions

Figure 1. The conceptual framework for this study

Background of mobile learning. This stream provides in-depth research that has helped

develop a definition for mobile learning. The construct of the definition has been reviewed
 7

through its connections and interdependencies to other educational technologies and demonstrates

wherein the educational technology paradigm of mobile learning resides. The first stream also

presents the history as well as current context as to where research has focused on higher

education’s adoption of mobile learning. Lastly, this stream shares pedagogical implications and

considerations that mobile learning programs have within organizations.

Mobile learning programs in higher education are plentiful and take numerous forms, like

pilots that involve a single faculty member utilizing innovative technology for a specific class, or

program adoption by an entire department or college within a university. Several higher education

institutions, such as Abilene Christian University in 2010 and followed by Seton Hill in 2010,

issued tablets to all incoming freshmen. Other universities have decided to solely provide their

faculty members with tablets with the hope of faculty finding an academic purpose for the

devices. One of the first mobile learning programs to receive a fair amount of publicity was Duke

University’s iPod project, which was launched in 2003. This program provided every incoming

freshman—over 1,500 students—with an iPod (Belanger, 2005). The project identified several

academic uses of mobile devices including the dissemination of course materials, the ability to

record lectures, conduct field studies, and use as a study support tool. This initiative paved the

way for future mobile learning programs across the country and world.

Adoption strategies. Lai (2017) explained that institutions that are seeking to innovate or

transform their teaching and learning environments are turning to mobile learning platforms and

frameworks. Theoretical models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Diffusion of

Innovations Theory, and Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Model (SAMR)

can be leveraged to assist institutions in their journey towards the adoption of mobile learning

programs. Studies have been able to leverage previously stated theoretical models and apply them
 8

to larger sample sizes, different places, and at different times to help validate the theories, their

uses, and their applications (Yeap, Ramayah, & Soto-Acosta, 2016).

As Traxler (2013) stated, “[m]obile technologies are the global context and education

should reflect that context. Learning processes will need to reflect that shift, and so will teaching”

(p. 247). Faculty perceptions and faculty development on the use and application of mobile

learning are crucial to any programmatical change within institutions (Psiropoulos, et al., 2016;

Voogt et al., 2013).

Educational leadership and organizational change. As pressures from the digital

economy influence higher education, “change is necessary for post-secondary educational

institutions to remain viable” (Lane, Lemoine, Tinney, & Richardson, 2014, p. 25). As institutions

look to be innovative, they must consider the impact that these types of initiatives have on

university administrators and faculty as well as to the overall organizational capacity. Drouin et

al. (2013) have suggested that, even though we see widespread distributions of mobile devices

occurring, at present, institutions have few resources and experiences to gain from modeled

implementation of mobile learning programs. As universities turn to mobile learning programs,

leadership and faculty must consider the overall opportunities and challenges that such programs

will bring to the entire institution. Handal et al. (2013) acknowledged that literature in the past has

discussed the pedagogical effectiveness of mobile learning, but few studies have solely focused

on the direct connection between leadership styles and its impact on organizational change.

Assessing an organization’s impact and benefits of implementing a mobile learning program will

help guide the complexities of change and adoption across the institution. Leadership styles such

as transformative, distributed, and creative can be effective approaches to assist an organization

drive innovative and creative change (Khalili, 2017). Voogt et al., (2013) explained that an
 9

institution-wide view with a distributed leadership model supported by technology

implementation fostered engagement among the organization, and allows change to permeate.

The synthesis provided by Voogt et al. emphasized that leadership should not be assigned to a

single source, and further explained that leadership can be represented by university

administrators, faculty, and anyone among the distributed leadership organization (Voogt et al.,

2013).

Definition of Terms

1:1 mobile device programs

Programs in education or corporate environments where students or workers are provided

mobile devices, typically standardizing on the same type of device, manufacturer, and version.

Bring your own device (BYOD)

The term BYOD was initially used in 2009 in reference to people bringing their own

mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones, and tablets to engage in learning or work activities

(Sundgren, 2017).

Creative leadership

Deliberately engaging one’s imagination to define and support a group towards a novel

achievement. A goal that is new and may bring many opportunities to the organization. (Puccio,

Mance, & Murdock, 2011).

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)

The process by which an innovation or an idea that is novel and useful is communicated

across to members of an organization or social system (Rogers, 2001).

Distributed leadership
 10

A leadership style often employed to implement change in schools by acknowledging the

complexities among subjects, objects, rules, and instruments; and that utilizes community or

shared-based division of labor to expand leadership capacity within the organization (Jones,

Harvey, Lefoe, & Ryland, 2014).

Educational technology

The use of technology solutions, artifacts, and devices, where educators through activities

and practices apply the devices for an educational purpose, forming a social structure and culture

within the organization (Selwyn, 2017).

Information and communications technologies (ICT)

The convergence of several technologies and the use of general transmissions mediums

transferred over diverse communication types and formats. Modern information and

communication technologies that have allowed for a more connected global world in which

individuals, and groups can communicate with others across the world if they were living next to

each other (Tony, Ashiru, Kehinde, & Oluwatoyin, 2018).

Mobile learning

Using portable computing devices (such as iPads, laptops, tablet PCs, PDAs, smartphones,

and wearables) to engage students and teachers with learning that is personalized, available

anytime, and anywhere (Alrasheedi, Capretz, & Raza, 2015; Al-Emran, Elsherif, & Shaalan,

2016).

SAMR

A useful model created by Dr. Puentedura that assists adopters seeking to achieve

transformational pedagogical changes in the classroom. The model describes four gradual stages

of technological adoption strategies. The first stage “substation” is used to simply replicate
 11

previous practices by incorporating technology to substitute a manual or paper-based approach. At

the other end of the spectrum “redefinition” describes using technology to completely transform

the way which an activity or a lesson was delivered (Psiropoulos, et al., 2016).

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

A theory created by Fred Davis in 1989 that describes how users come to adopt or accept

technology, it is grounded by two influential factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-

use (Yeap, Ramayah, & Soto-Acosta, 2016).

Transformational leadership

A leadership style that leverages the ability of a leader to motivate their followers to

surpass their goals for the greater good of their institution or organization (Berkovich & Eyal,

2016).

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

This study focused on small, private universities that had already committed to and

adopted mobile learning practices. The researcher sought to understand the role and relationships

among leadership and faculty. The researcher holds a leadership role at a small, private university

that implemented a mobile learning program in 2013. This experience enabled the researcher to

have an intimate perspective, seeking to explore the experiences of the participants and

organization (Stake, 2005).

Due to the researcher’s previous experiences and established beliefs, this study contained

the following assumptions: (1) mobile learning practices are critical to transforming higher

education, (2) selected institutions have been able to achieve innovative practices, (3)

participating interviewees will contribute to questions based on actual experiences rather than the
 12

perceived beliefs of the interviewer, and (4) leadership and faculty are integral mechanisms for

adopting mobile learning.

Limitations

A challenge with a case study design is predicated upon ensuring that the researcher

identifies a case and sets boundaries for the case(s) to be studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Therefore, the researcher limited the number of universities participating in this study to three.

Three principle reasons contributed to the development of this limitation. Foremost, the

researcher wanted to ensure participating organizations had similar maturity levels in their

adoption of mobile learning programs. Second, the researcher was limited by resources, and

finances. Lastly, as Creswell and Poth (2018) explained, multi-case studies with several sites tend

to reduce the overall analysis: “the more cases and individual studies, the less the depth in any

single case can be” (p. 102).

The researcher does have existing professional relationships with some of the potential

participants. All participants were requested to participate through an email invitation, removing

any added pressure and allowing the participants to self-select into the qualitative study. Hence,

protecting the right of participants to withdraw from the study and maximizing the concern for the

welfare of all participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The researcher collected data through

interviews and focus groups—methods that have limitations on the type of information and how it

can be interpreted. Participants were limited to leaders and faculty within the participating

institutions. Therefore, the participants, leaders and faculty were limited in scope, and were asked

to represent their universities and their own opinions. However, due to the limitations of the

sample, it makes this study difficult to be generalizable to the broader higher education sector.

While there are limitations, the researcher believes that analysis and findings from this research
 13

are applicable and offer value to all higher education institutions seeking technologically

innovative changes to their organizations.

Summary

A lack of clear vision, leadership, and collaboration on the use of educational technology

have been the most significant problems we face in shaping and changing the educational system

for the future (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). In particular, the primary focus should be not

mobile devices or software, “but on the practices and activities that surround them, the meanings

that people attach to them and the social relations and structures that link these technologies”

(Selwyn, 2017, p. 2). As explained in previous literature, mobile learning has become ubiquitous

across higher education, and as an educational practice, it is disposed to assist organizations’

advancement of innovate practices. Yeap et al. (2016) explained that if further research were to be

conducted on private universities that have implemented institution-wide mobile learning

programs, a better understanding of how theoretical frameworks and leadership qualities have

been applied would help enhance the body of knowledge.

 14

Chapter Two: The Literature Review

Introduction

The ownership and popularity of mobile devices continue to increase at a dramatic rate

among college students (Brooks & Pomerantz, 2017). Nevertheless, students demonstrate little

use of such devices for academic purposes in higher education. Higher education institutions

adopting mobile devices across the entire campus is yet to achieve widespread acceptance (Yeap,

Ramayah, Soto-Acosta, 2016). Faculty have also discouraged or placed barriers to the adoption of

mobile devices. According to a multi-year study, 55% of faculty continue to ban or discourage

mobile devices in the classroom (Chen, Seilhamer & Bennett, 2015). Mobile devices may be

perceived as a distraction in more traditional educational environments. Thus, some faculty are

reluctant to incorporate or embrace the adoption of mobile learning within their teaching and

learning environments. These challenges and barriers impact small, private universities from

embracing innovative changes as significant pedagogical changes are often required across their

institutions (Yeap et al., 2016). Additionally, little research emphasis has been placed on

exploring the role of leaders to understand how their collaboration with faculty influences the

advancement of technological innovation.

If incorporated in an intentional manner, mobile devices can provide higher education

with innovative changes to its teaching and learning environments. Mobile learning programs in a

campus-wide implementation require: (1) clear leadership and organizational vision, (2)

pedagogical commitment, (3) and an emphasis on enhancing student engagement (Naismith,

Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004). Galla (2010) identified three similar themes that are

needed to incorporate mobile learning practices: (1) sound leadership ideologies, (2) practices that

support technology implementation and integration, and (3) support of a culture that fosters agile
 15

adoption of technology solutions. These requirements and themes, according to Naismith et al.

(2004) and Galla (2010), should be incorporated into the adoption of any emerging technology,

including mobile learning. Developing a mobile learning program that drives innovative change

will assist higher education in demonstrating value and relevance to its current and future

students.

The purpose of this qualitative, multi-site case study was to explore the use of mobile

learning practices at small, private universities to understand how the influence of leadership on

faculty supports the goal of advancing innovative practices. Through this literature review and the

multi-site case study, the researcher seeks to address the central question: To what extent have

administrators and faculty leaders used mobile learning practices to influence the advancement of

innovation across the university?

The following sub-questions will guide the study:

• How have leaders managed technological innovations in the teaching and learning

environments?

• What organizational characteristics have contributed to implementing mobile learning

practices?

• Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement and support innovative,

connected teaching and learning environments?

Literature Review

The literature review focuses on higher education institutions and encompasses three

research streams: (1) the background of mobile learning, (2) the adoption strategies of mobile

learning, and (3) the educational leadership role. The literature review commences with a

synopsis and synthesis of the evolution and perspectives surrounding the definition of mobile
 16

learning. The first stream continues with a summary of current practices in mobile learning

programs, followed by an examination of different implementations of mobile learning programs

in higher education that includes an analysis of approaches that several universities have

implemented. The literature review considers several tactics exercised by organizations. These

approaches include providing devices for every student, known as “1:1” programs, as well as

programs that promote students to bring their own devices, referred as BYOD. The second stream

of the literature review examines faculty adoption of mobile learning through the lens of

technology adoption models and frameworks. The review explores how these methods may be

leveraged to drive innovative pedagogical changes within institutions of higher education. Lastly,

the third stream of the literature review highlights educational leadership’s role and the different

styles that have helped influence innovative change within the university organization. Figure 2

represents a visual overview of the streams, the sub-sections, and the primary researchers that are

in this literature review.

 17

Traxler (2009)
Defining mobile
learning Alrasheedi, Fernando,
Capretz, and Raza
(ICT, Distance (2014)
learning, e-learning)
Grant (2019)
Handal, MacNish, and
Use of mobile Petocz (2013)
learning in higher
education Wang and Mang
Background of (2015)
mobile learning Pergrum, Oakley, and
BYOD or 1:1 Faulkner (2013)
programs Gillles (2016)
Sundgren (2017)

Pedagogical Kearney, Burdern,

approaches and and Rai (2014)
impact Lindsay (2016)

Voogt, G. Knezek,
Knezek, Cox and ten
Faculty Brummelhuis (2013)
perceptions
Drouin, Vartanian,
and Birk (2013)
Davis (1989)
Adoption Rogers (1995)
Mobile learning frameworks Psiropoulous, Barr,
Erksson, Fletcher,
adoption strategies (Diffusion of Hargis, and
innovation, TAM, Cavanaugh (2016)
SAMR)
Kim, Lee, and Rha
(2017)

Handal, MacNish, and

Faculty Petocz (2013)
development
programs Yeap, Ramayah, and
Soto-Acosta (2016)
Jyoti and Bhau
(2016) Voogt, G.
Transformative Knezek, Knezek, Cox
and distributed and ten Brummelhuis
leadership (2013)
Alrasheedi, Capretz,
and Raza (2015b)

Puccio, Mance, and

Educational Murdock (2011)
Creative (Khalili, 2017)
leadership role leadership
Sohmen (2014)

Alrasheedi, Capretz,
Organizational and Raza (2015b)
change Baker and Baldwin,
2014)

Figure 2. Literature review conceptual framework

 18

Stream 1: Background of Mobile Learning Programs in Higher Education

Higher education, as an industry, has experienced a rise in the adoption of mobile learning

programs (Wardley & Mang, 2015). Not only have mobile learning programs grown in numbers,

but also in the different approaches that have been taken to implement these programs within

institutions. Many mobile programs have been introduced in the form of pilots or small tests.

These pilots may include one faculty member utilizing the devices for a specific class; an entire

university school, such as a school of nursing; or using a particular technology, such as a podcast

(Merhi, 2015).

While institutions like Abilene Christian University, followed by Seton Hill, and most

recently The Ohio State University, have issued tablets to all incoming freshmen, other

universities have decided to solely provide their faculty members with tablets with the hope of

faculty finding an academic purpose. One of the pioneers of mobile learning programs to receive

a fair amount of publicity was Duke University’s iPod project, which launched in 2003. This

program provided every incoming freshman—over 1,500 students—with an iPod (Belanger,

2005). The project identified several academic uses of mobile devices that included: (1) the

dissemination of course materials, (2) the ability to record lectures, (3) conducting field studies,

and (4) use as a study support tool. This initiative paved the way for future mobile learning

programs across the country and world.

Defining mobile learning. To grasp the meaning, context, and perspectives of mobile

learning, comprehension of its inception and its influences must be explored. Tony, Ashiru,

Kehinde, and Oluwatoyin (2018) explained that technologies and practices such as mobile

learning have been possible due to the revolutionary and innovative impact attributed to

information and communication technologies (ICT). Drossel, Eickelmann, and Gerick (2017)
 19

acknowledged that the use of ICT as a platform to drive change has been studied in regular topics

within the context of educational practices in excess of 40 years. The development of ICT tools

and the require infrastructure are changing the global economy, as well as impacting overall

teaching and learning environments (Tony et al., 2018).

The emergence of ICT has allowed for educational technologies to influence the type of

pedagogical deliveries—specifically, distance learning and e-learning. Grant (2019) proposed that

prior definitions have termed mobile learning as containing a relationship or subset of distance

learning and e-learning. Alrasheedi, Capretz, and Raza (2015a) added that mobile learning blends

the prevalent e-learning practices with the conception of mobility. Research conducted by Mirski

and Abfaltar (2014) has also provided support and evidence for defining mobile learning as a

subset of distance learning, while Al-Emran, Elsherif, and Shaalan (2016) defined mobile learning

as the next generation of e-learning, stating that it has changed how students interact with each

other and faculty.

Mobile learning is a modern pedagogy that has emerged within the platforms of

information and communication technologies and has become accessible for educators to utilize

and leverage (Grant, 2019). Briefly, studies that define distance learning, e-learning, and mobile

learning have either used the terms interchangeably or as subsets of each other (Grant, 2019).

Tony et al. (2018) contend that ICT has been referenced as an umbrella term for all-encompassing

devices, practices, and applications that may include: mobile learning, e-learning, and distance

learning. Grant (2019), on the other hand, proposed that mobile learning should be considered as

intersecting relationships of e-learning and distance learning. Figure 3 demonstrates an adapted

visual representation of the intersecting relationship of ICT, distance learning, e-learning, and

mobile learning.
 20

ICT

Distance
learning

e-learning

Mobile
learning

Figure 3. Intersecting relationship between ICT, distance learning, e-learning, and mobile
learning. Adapted from Grant (2019)

The convergence between ICT and mobile learning activities are also denoted by

Sundgren (2017), who acknowledged the convergence between e-learning, distance learning, and

ICT, explaining that mobile learning intertwines formal and informal learning by explaining how

the learner can use mobile devices to take back control over their own learning experiences.

Moreover, the term mobile learning, as compared to e-learning, is considered a relatively new

concept within the context of technology adoption and teaching and learning environments

(Sangra, Vlachaopoulus, & Cabrera, 2012).

Alrasheedi et al. (2015a) noted that the use of mobile devices makes the concept of

mobility more progressive than e-learning as it places the control and flexibility back to the
 21

individual user, whereas e-learning focuses on information controlled by the faculty. Mobile

learning is different from e-learning in that it cannot be defined as e-learning that is solely

delivered through mobile devices (Alrasheedi et al., 2015a). Yeap et al. (2016) describe mobile

learning as a complement to e-learning, and distinguish it as another channel of access for

educators and students. Therefore, mobile learning can be described as the practice that leverages

mobile devices and technologies to deliver teaching and learning to students anywhere and at any

time, presenting new opportunities and approaches to pedagogy.

In prior research, mobile learning has been identified, described, and defined through

different perspectives (Al-Emran et al., 2016; Alrasheedi et al., 2015a; Traxler, 2009). According

to Traxler (2009), these perspectives include defining mobile learning by listing the types of tools

that make up or facilitate mobile learning, such as smartphones, small handheld devices, and

tablets. Definitions that merely describe mobile learning as a device-specific definition minimize

the scope of mobile learning as simply a fusion of the two words “mobile” and “learning.”

Perspectives provided by Al-Emran et al. (2016) highlighted the flexibility and ease of mobile

learning, including how mobile learning can foster student-to-student knowledge sharing as well

as faculty-to-student knowledge transfer. More widely accepted definitions incorporate common

aspects that are unique to mobile learning. These identifiers include such components as the

ability for learners to engage with learning that is personalized, and available anytime and

anywhere (Alrasheedi et al., 2015a; Al-Emran et al., 2016).

Learners who engage with mobile learning environments can select from an abundance of

just-in-time, multimedia, educational applications and communication systems that personalize

the overall educational experiences. Gillies (2016) acknowledged this empowerment of the

learner as one of the primary identifiers of mobile learning as it can help institutions focus on a
 22

student-centric pedagogy. The enablement of the individual student and the emphasis on student-

centric pedagogy are defining attributes that help distinguish mobile learning from e-learning,

distance learning, and ICT.

Use of mobile devices in higher education. Mobile learning is among one of the fastest

growing fields of research within ICT in education (Pegrum, Oakley & Faulkner, 2013). The

Educause Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) findings echo the interest and growth of

mobile devices, as the study showed a 98% mobile device ownership rate and 99% laptop

ownership rate among 53,475 undergraduate students (Gierdowski, 2019). The data from the

ECAR 2017 student report identified that, for the first time, ownership of mobile devices has

surpassed laptop ownership among college students (Brooks & Pomerantz, 2017). The growth in

mobile device ownership is supported in the research of Alrasheedi et al. (2015a). However, this

research also claims that the use of mobile devices for educational purposes has been much

slower to be widely adopted by universities (Alrasheedi et al., 2015a). This growth of mobile

device ownership demonstrates both an opportunity and gap that university educators can

leverage within their teaching and learning environments.

As Alrasheedi et al. (2015a) have explained, mobile learning allows the learner to take

control over their own educational experience by being able to control what they want to learn, as

well as when and where they may want to engage with learning activities. This type of

empowerment, according to Handal, MacNish, and Petocz (2013), facilitates the process of

developing knowledge through flexible communication that can happen amongst many people as

well as through personal interactive technologies. Handal et al. (2013) explained that, through the

use mobile devices, learners can experience traditional computing activities and embrace

communications that are embedded in learners’ daily lives, thus making learning highly
 23

immersive and connected. This immersion and connectivity allow for university students to

engage with mobile devices and their learning environment anywhere and at any time (Alrasheedi

et al., 2015a; Al-Emran et al., 2016; Gillies, 2016).

Examples of mobile learning activities include the ability to engage with mobile ready

learning management systems (LMS), educational apps, and other mobile-ready resources. In this

environment, students download course materials, announcements, participate in discussion

threads, and stay up to date with classroom activities by using their mobile devices. Additionally,

students can access and utilize library-digitized information such as research databases, eBooks,

and journals. Students can create ad-hoc collaborate groups utilizing popular applications like

Skype, Zoom, and Blackboard Collaborate that allow them to engage in groups or teams, share

information, and communicate via audio or video technologies. Students can also use SMS

texting to get real-time responses and notifications from systems, faculty, or classmates (Handal

et al., 2013). The applications of mobile learning can contribute to personalized learning, and

provide access to educational content from anywhere, at any time, and can connect learners.

These applications enhance teaching and learning environments that can be constructed and

implemented through the adoption of mobile learning programs.

In higher education, there have been several studies that have focused on the use of Apple

iPads as a means of adopting mobile learning (Pergrum et al., 2013; Psiropoulos et al., 2016;

Wardley & Mang, 2015). According to Wardley and Mang (2015), one of the most extended

studies that involved iPads was conducted at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

(IUPUI). This university took an interdisciplinary approach by incorporating iPads in the teaching

and learning environments through experimentation. The hypothesis of Wardley and Mang’s

(2015) research stated that the use of iPads would become the way that students and faculty
 24

interact, exchange ideas, content, and communicate in future classrooms. The study’s findings

included the following key benefits: improved student note-taking, organizational skills, and

increased collaboration among students. The study also found opposing views from students on

off-topic use, defined as the use of the mobile device for other non-academic activities. Some

students were able to manage the off-topic use of the iPad to timeframes solely outside of

classroom periods. Other students found themselves engaging in off-topic use during perceived

inactive learning periods within classroom time (Wardley & Mang, 2015). Wardley and Mang

(2015) also highlighted the views generalized from another institution, Ryerson University. At

Ryerson, positive outcomes were found among the collaboration of students, improved

organizational skills, and research skills (Wardley & Mang, 2015). Research studies also found

that students' use of the iPad directly related to the student's perceptions indicating a positive

influence on education, as well as a sense of enhanced learning (Handal et al., 2013; Wardley &

Mang, 2015).

Implementing BYOD or 1:1 programs. Alrasheedi et al. (2015a) recognized that higher

education has experienced barriers toward the adoption of mobile learning programs. Their meta-

analysis of 30 studies suggested that common barriers to adoption are likely due to the lack of

research that identifies the factors associated with the adoption of mobile learning programs

(Alrasheedi et al., 2015a). This research conducted by Alrasheedi et al. (2015a) yielded that the

most important factor impacting adoption of mobile learning was the type of commitment and

involvement from university administrators—specifically, identifying that administrator’s

involvement in “providing clear access, goals, and guides to using the [mobile] platform”

(Alrasheedi et al., 2015a, p. 271). In a small-scale case study, Gillies (2016) focused on

identifying critical factors comparing the use of students-owned devices or bring your own device
 25

(BYOD) versus the university providing students with a mobile device, often called a 1:1

program. The term BYOD was first used in 2009, and refers to individuals bringing their own

mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices to school or work

(Sundgren, 2017). Gillies (2016) noted the peer-review research available on active BYOD

programs is scarce and often focuses on student perceptions of the devices as an educational tool.

Few research studies focus on pedagogy and factors required to implement successful BYOD

programs (Santos, Bocheco, & Habak, 2018).

However, many of the available studies consistently identify several benefits associated

with BYOD programs. The following includes some of the more commonly associated benefits:

(1) a reduction in cost to universities through the use of student-owned devices (Gillies, 2016;

Sundgren, 2017), (2) a better fit towards students’ expectations and general utilization of mobile

devices (Gillies, 2016), (3) flexibility and freedom to use personally-owned devices, and (4) a

choice that can lead to improved student engagement and commitment (Gillies, 2016; Naismith et

al., 2004; Santos et al., 2018).

The main disadvantage of BYOD programs, according to Gillies (2016), was that

mandating the use of a mobile device for classroom activities places students at a detriment. The

disadvantage often associated with BYOD programs is with the inequality of access it creates for

institutions, educators, and students. As Handal et al. (2013) explained, this financial inequality

applied to less well-off students by negating access to a mobile device-dependent activity would

serve as a drawback to students’ participation in required learning experiences. In a meta-analysis,

Sundgren (2017) reviewed 90 journal articles and identified BYOD program disadvantages,

categorizing them as an unexpected lack of ability among students; a mix of social, public, and

private use; lack of faculty knowledge across different platforms; and device distraction.
 26

Similarly, Gilles (2016) found a complexity of supporting multiple mobile device platforms

(Apple, Microsoft, and Android) created confusion in the distribution of assignments, learning

activities, and in storing student work. Additionally, Handal et al. (2013) argued that the

distraction factor often presented by faculty or administrators tied to mobile devices is found in

both BYOD and 1:1 programs. Briefly, educators need to consider and weigh the advantages and

disadvantages found in BYOD programs before moving into the implementation phases of mobile

learning programs.

Programs that integrate mobile devices through 1:1 programs are associated with focused

and enhanced faculty professional development programs that result in faculty being better

prepared to support students (Cavanugh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt, 2011). Handal et al. (2013)

validated 1:1 programs’ commitment to professional development. These findings also reflect a

positive impact on faculty and students’ attitudes towards the usage of mobile learning. The

advantage of a standard platform across the university is further supported by Wardley and

Mang’s (2016) research, which found that students identified that professors were more easily

able to integrate different learning activities. In this study, faculty also explained that they were

able to quickly address issues that arose in the classroom as they were familiar with the devices

that students were utilizing. Additionally, Wardley and Mang (2016) concluded that 1:1 programs

have an advantage in simplifying administrative staff support challenges, as control of device and

configuration is standardized. As for the challenge or disadvantage of disparity or inequality of

access associated with BYOD programs, in 1:1 programs, every student is provided the same

level of access and tool (Gillies, 2016; Pegrum et al., 2013).

However, university-provided mobile device programs face similar challenges identified

in BYOD programs. Similar to the findings of off-topic use by Wardley and Mang (2015), device
 27

distraction is identified as one of the most researched and debated challenges associated with

mobile learning programs (Handal et al., 2013). Santos et al. (2018) focused on the development

of mobile technology usage policies for the classroom in order to determine appropriate levels of

mobile device usage during classroom periods, finding that faculty who developed classroom

policies with students’ input had superior compliance factors than other faculty who individually

developed stricter usage policies. Lastly, one of the disadvantages tied to 1:1 programs is the cost

associated with providing a device for every student and developing the support infrastructure

around the program (Handal et al., 2013). The costs associated with launching and sustaining a

1:1 program are the principal driving factors that deter universities from implementing these

initiatives.

Mobile learning’s pedagogical approaches and impacts. Mobile learning may be

utilized because of its adaptability and scalability. These program approaches often leave

pedagogy as a secondary application or factor. According to Ozdamli (2011), mobile learning is

best implemented and advanced through educational considerations rather than technical,

logistical, or economic reasons. Studies have supported several pedagogical frameworks and

approaches to integrate mobile learning into teaching and learning environments. One of the

commonly highlighted pedagogical approaches leverages capabilities through collaborative

learning. Collaboration features consist of the applicability of data sharing, leveraging rich

interconnected networks such as social network tools, and the ability to share information and

resources across time and space (Kearney, Burden, & Rai, 2015). The connectivity found within

mobile devices allows educators to use collaborative approaches to connect students with content

and other students (Ozdamli, 2011). It also encourages highly interactive environments that “can

readily communicate multi-modally with peers, teachers, and experts” (Kearney, Schuck, Burden,
 28

& Abusson, 2012, p. 10). In addition to collaborative learning environments, studies have shared

pedagogical approaches that utilize new assessment techniques that include computer-based

assessment, self-assessment, and peer-assessment (Ozdamli, 2011). A mobile learning program is

primed to leverage technology to apply a diverse approach to student assessment. According to

Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, and Brummelhuis (2013), assessment needs to incorporate the

development and measurement of digital literacy skills.

Lastly, Kearney et al. (2015) have expanded the pedagogical framework beyond the

benefits associated with collaborative applications and methods with mobile learning, finding that

pedagogical frameworks need to include personalization and authenticity as new pedagogical

approaches within a mobile learning environment. Mobile devices allow for students to develop a

personalized and unique learning experience by being able to document, organize, and share upon

their customized mobile learning environments. Mobile learning can be further leveraged to

provide activities that invoke task authenticity or activities that involve real-life situations and are

relevant to students (Kearney et al., 2012). Kearney et al. (2015) surveyed 100 teachers measuring

over 130 tasks related to mobile learning and categorizing them among the three frameworks of

collaboration, personalization, and authenticity; their findings reflected that the use and

perception of teachers’ authenticity-related tasks were high and was a significant factor in faculty

perceptions and use of mobile learning application. Lindsay (2016) similarly studied 10 schools

and over 100 teachers evaluating the perception and use of mobile pedagogies across the three

frameworks of collaboration, personalization, and authenticity. Lindsay’s (2016) findings

corroborate with Kearney et al. (2015) as authenticity rated high while collaboration-related tasks

rated very low. Both studies concurred that there is much to be realized from the application of

mobile learning pedagogical approaches (Kearney et al., 2015; Lindsay, 2016). Kearney et al.
 29

(2015) expanded on this concept by explaining that the lack of standardization in devices, as well

as the absence of leadership and technical support were among the main drivers of lower

adoption.

Summary. As highlighted by reports and research, mobile devices are gaining popularity

in ownership, and mobile learning practices are slowly gaining momentum as an educational

platform in higher education (Alrasheedi et al., 2015a; Chen et al., 2015; Brooks & Pomerantz,

2017; Gierdowski, 2019). Establishing an accepted and understood definition of mobile learning

included reviewing research that has identified mobile learning as a subset of ICT, distance

learning, and e-learning (Mikrski & Abfaltar, 2014). Research has suggested that mobile learning

is the next progression of e-learning (Al-Emran et al., 2016), and others have identified mobile

learning as intersecting e-learning, distance learning, and ICT (Grant, 2019).

Exploration of the literature relative to mobile learning programs in higher education

exposes the benefits, challenges, and different approaches taken by institutions. The literature also

highlights and provides both sides of the debate surrounding BYOD versus 1:1 programs. Some

researchers believe that BYOD programs are best suited for higher education as they provide

quick, less expensive, and more diverse choices to students and leaders (Gillies, 2016; Sundgren

2017). Other researchers focus on standardizing through 1:1 programs and identify critical

advantages such as focused faculty development programs, student support issues, and equality of

access to modern tools (Pegrum et al., 2013; Wardley & Mang, 2016). The literature reveals that

independent of the approach—BYOD or 1:1—mobile learning programs must focus on adoption

and pedagogical strategies that will impact the teaching and learning environment (Ozdamli,

2011).
 30

Stream 2: Mobile Learning Adoption Strategies in Higher Education

Leaders and faculty continue to be challenged by students who arrive at universities

equipped with more technology, prepared to use technology, and optimism towards the benefits

that technology has on learning. Furthermore, students are attending universities with more

mobile devices than ever before, with more than 98% bringing some mobile device (Gierdowski,

2019). As Traxler (2013) states, “[m]obile technologies are the global context and education

should reflect that context. Learning processes will need to reflect that shift, and so will teaching”

(p.247). As institutions turn to mobile learning, it will be imperative to support faculty as they

make a shift towards mobile pedagogical methods and applications in the teaching environment.

The research of faculty adoption in mobile learning methodologies can be organized around three

primary constructs that include: (1) faculty perceptions, (2) utilization of existing adoption

frameworks, and (3) commitment to faculty development programs.

Faculty perceptions of mobile learning. The research on faculty perceptions of mobile

devices is divided on whether the use of mobile learning approaches can provide a positive impact

on learning or harm the learning process. Baldridge, Moran, and Herrington (2012) argued that

discovering or answering the question as to whether mobile learning has an impact on learning is

crucial in faculty adoption of these tools and techniques. The debate on the impact of mobile

learning is not new and is not unique to mobile learning. According to Voogt et al. (2013), the

dispute on the application of ICT has been debated since the start of the computing era. In

research provided by Voogt et al. (2013), the authors did not continue the dispute by attempting to

provide new data to support either side of the debate. Alternatively, the researchers provided a

pathway and conditions under which ICT could have positive effects on teaching environments.
 31

The findings presented four “Call to Actions” that include: (1) developing a clear view of the 21st

century learning skills around ICT, (2) enhancing assessment to embrace new technologies, (3)

restructuring schools and pedagogies by adopting technology-based teachings that address

individual needs, and (4) understanding student technology experiences in the informal

educational environments that may impact formal educational environments (Voogt et al., 2013).

The results from the Voogt research apply to the adoption of mobile learning as all four items in

the “Call to Actions” are foundational to the implementation and sustainability of any technology-

based programs.

Studies have provided evidence that mobile learning has a positive impact and can be a

useful tool in the classroom (Drouin, Handal et al., 2013; Vartanian, & Birk, 2013; Voogt et al.,

2013). For example, Baldridge et al. (2012) conducted a quasi-experimental study designed to

compare students of an undergraduate class who were provided with mobile devices, and a

graduate class of students that were not equipped with mobile devices. The findings from the

study found that the faculty teaching the course and students in the undergraduate course had

stronger reactions and positive perceptions towards their learning than that of graduate course

(Baldridge et al., 2012). Drouin et al. (2013) explain that a majority of studies conducted on

mobile learning’s positive impact have focused on student and faculty perceptions. A study by Al-

Emran et al. (2016) helps support this claim as their findings provided evidence of student

perceptions. In this research, 67% of students expressed that mobile technology is an essential

component within the student’s academic achievement and activities (Al-Emran et al., 2016). In a

quantitative study conducted by Drouin et al. (2013), 139 faculty members using mobile devices

were surveyed and interviewed, finding faculty perception to be positive towards the promise of

transforming teaching and learning environments. The authors of this study acknowledge that
 32

positive perception could be tied to the mature and well-supported community of practice faculty

development program that had been in place for many years (Drouin et al., 2013).

However, other studies have concluded that mobile learning has not demonstrated a

positive impact on the learning process as well as improving student achievement (Drouin et al.,

2013; McBeth, Turley-Ames, Youngs, Ahola-Young, & Brumfield, 2015; Wardley, & Mang,

2015). For instance, Wardley and Mang (2015) review the results from several trials that were

conducted by Stanford University and Notre Dame University involving management classes. In

these trials, students abandoned the use of mobile devices that were issued as loaners for their

coursework. The researchers highlight two themes consistently appearing across several studies:

the lack of faculty support and knowledge of mobile learning, and no educational relevance or

connection beyond note-taking. Wardley and Mang (2015) also state that one of the impacts to

student abandonment of the devices may have been associated with the loaner program, and

therefore led to students’ lack of commitment to the devices. A pilot program conducted by

McBeth et al. (2015) acknowledged that while the use of a mobile device can enhance certain

classroom-related activities such as collaboration and participation, it was not a useful tool in

being able to improve student testing and outcomes. Researchers acknowledge that this may be

impacted by the longevity of the study, as the pilot was only conducted for one semester.

Other studies have yielded neutral or insignificant results towards the perception and

impact of mobile learning on the educational process. In design-based research conducted by

Kinash, Brand, and Mathew (2012), 135 undergraduate students enrolled in a class offered over

two different semesters. The students were supplied or loaned tablets that also included access to

a mobile version of the learning management system and digital textbook. The study

demonstrated an indifference in the students’ perception for how a mobile device and mobile
 33

learning practices had improved their learning (Kinash et al., 2012). However, this same study

found that students were more motivated to learn by being exposed to the mobile learning

environment and the utilization of a mobile device (Kinash et al., 2012). Nevertheless, students

continue to bring mobile devices to universities at a growing rate, and therefore, educators are

going to be faced with the challenge of implementing mobile learning experiences. It is in the

interest of institutions to embrace these opportunities and develop mobile learning practices. For

faculty to be successful and compelled to integrate mobile learning, they must be able to leverage

existing frameworks and models.

Mobile learning adoption frameworks. Mobile learning is a relatively new phenomenon

within the educational technology paradigm, however the adoption of new technologies and

innovations within higher education has been researched for several decades (Alrasheedi, et al.,

2015a). Representative models and frameworks, such as Diffusion of Innovation Theory,

Acceptance Model (TAM), and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefining (SAMR),

have been used in previous decades to support and expound the adoption of technology

approaches in higher education.

Diffusion of innovations. The theory of diffusion of innovations, created by Rogers in

1962, was designed to assist in understanding the adoption cycle and channels that are used to

embrace new emerging technologies and innovations. In a detailed study where Sahin (2006)

expanded on research regarding educational technology integration into classroom activities

utilized diffusion of innovation theory to rate the adoption levels of such adoptions. Sahin (2006)

identified the criticality of the four main elements in the diffusion of innovation theory; (1)

innovation, (2) communication channels, (3) time, and (4) social systems. Merhi (2015) expands

on Rogers’ theory by explaining that the process of technology diffusion and adoption decisions
 34

have different rates that are impacted by the cultural system of the organization. Rogers (2003)

expands by highlighting that innovations are not all equivalent and take on different

characteristics. These characteristics reflect the perception of individuals and help explain the

different rate of adoption. Rogers (2003) defined five characteristics that influences innovation:

(1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability, (5) and observability.

Kim, Lee, and Rha (2017), in a study to explore the factors affecting university students’

resistance and intention to use mobile learning, leveraged diffusion of innovations theory to

research the types of characteristics that impeded or supported adoption. Kim et al. (2017)

acknowledged that diffusion of innovations’ characteristics have been studied and proven in many

previous studies. Diffusion of innovations also explains that technology adoption happens through

five stages: (1) understanding, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and (5) then

confirmation. In this model, Rogers shares the curve of innovators—a curve that explains the rate

of adoption across different stages and types of individuals within an organization. Merhi (2015)

stated that diffusion of innovation theory implies that innovation will be adopted gradually at first,

then will increase in diffusion speed as more members of an organization adopt the innovation.

These members of an organization can be categorized as follows: (1) innovators, (2) early

adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards (Rogers, 2003). These principles of

the theory of diffusion of innovations can help define the cycle of emerging technologies such as

mobile learning programs that may follow similar stages diffusions of innovation. Additionally,

diffusion of innovations model may assist leaders seeking to implement mobile learning by better

understanding the individual and social factors that may influence an organization (Merhi, 2015).

Technology acceptance model. Another broadly used model in the adoption of

technologies has been the technology acceptance model (TAM). Many research studies have
 35

applied TAM to better understand the factors and perceptions of adopting mobile learning in

higher education (Al-Emran et al., 2015; Gan & Balakrishnan, 2014; Hsia, 2015; Wardley &

Mang, 2015; Yeap et al., 2016). This model balances the user’s perceived usefulness of new

technology with the user’s perceived ease of use of that same technology (Davis, 1989).

Perceived usefulness is described as the degree to which technology will enhance an end-user’s

performance or activities. In contrast, perceived use is described as the degree of effort that an

end-user must place in using a specific technology. TAM has been utilized in assessing the

adoption level and rate of many technologies over time (Wardley & Mang, 2015). In a qualitative

study conducted by Gan and Balakrishnan (2014), the researchers sought to understand the

determinants of mobile learning on interactivity among faculty and students. The researchers

leverage TAM and prior studies to identify a framework with seven drivers that impact intention

of use of mobile learning in the classroom. This study helps validate and identify ease of use and

usefulness as two of the seven important factors of this new framework. Similarly, Wardley and

Mang (2015) conducted a qualitative study to construct a theoretical model to understand the

internal and external factors that affect the adoption of mobile learning for educational purposes.

The researchers claim that for any successful adoption of mobile devices in a classroom, special

considerations must be applied to each of the determinants: ease of use and perceived usefulness.

In a quantitative study conducted by Al-Emran et al. (2016), the researchers support the claim that

attitudes towards ease of use and perceived usefulness of mobile learning can provide context

towards understanding the intention of usage and overall acceptance of mobile learning practices

between faculty and students. Briefly, as higher education institutions contemplate the adoption of

mobile learning programs, they must consider and balance the perceived usefulness with the ease

of use of the technology among faculty and students.

 36

Substitution, augmentation, modification, redefining model. As faculty adopt mobile

learning in the classroom, faculty and leaders can turn to another model to facilitate the level of

adoption. The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefining (SAMR) model has been

used to assist faculty and trainers to guide the progression of transformational pedagogy and

technology adoption. This model contains four stages beginning with demonstrating how

technology can be used to replicate or enhance previously used teaching methods to faculty. On

the other end of the model, faculty can evaluate how technology may completely transform the

way activities are delivered. Studies have shown that faculty development and content that is

linked to pedagogical frameworks are beneficial for instructors adopting new methods and

technologies (Psiropoulos et al., 2016). In a mixed-method study, Hargis, Cavanaugh, Kamali,

and Soto (2013) used principles from the SAMR model to understand why, what, where, and how

mobile technologies were used in a national iPad learning program. The researchers analyzed data

collected from a survey, interviews, and classroom observation to build four pillars that represent

the programs philosophy of active, and student-centered learning (Hargis et al., 2013). The

SAMR model was used as the conceptual framework to provide insights as to the stages that an

institution might be experiencing on their journey towards adopting the iPad program (Hargis et

al., 2013). Psiropoulos et al. (2016) reflect on the importance of leveraging an educational

technology learning model such as SAMR in their case study of a college during the first six

months of the comprehensive mobile learning program. The researchers’ findings demonstrate the

importance of such frameworks as they assisted the university and faculty in linking effective

technological use with transformational pedagogy. The use of the SAMR model presents

pathways and opportunities for universities seeking to transform pedagogy through mobile
 37

learning with examples and approaches towards developing robust, relevant, and effective faculty

development programs.

Faculty development programs. Voogt et al. (2013) state that one of the main

components of faculty adoption is committing and delivering effective faculty development

programs and training opportunities. These programs must have macro- and micro-level

approaches. At the macro-level, typically tied to support from the educational leadership team, the

expectation of direct and distinct goals that are tied to university mission and vision are crucial.

While at the micro-level, faculty development programs must support faculty beliefs that the

adoption of the new technology must enhance curriculum and enhance student achievement

(Psiropoulos et al., 2016). The study conducted by Psiropoulos et al. (2016) identifies several

fundamental approaches in effective professional development programs. These critical attributes

consist of using faculty to become mentors, peer-teachers, or as Handal et al. (2013) support, in

the joining or creating of learning communities wherein faculty are encouraged to share best

practices. Psiropoulos et al. (2016) also recognize that effective professional development

programs follow adult learning best practices that traditionally build on connected context, and

eventually lead to transformative experiences. Lastly, Psiropoulos et al. (2016) identify that

flexibility among professional development programs is another key ingredient. In this qualitative

research conducted by Psiropoulos et al. (2016), the study described flexibility, as offerings with a

full and diverse “menu” of options in content as well as in the learning styles that these faculty

development programs are delivered.

A trend often found in faculty professional development programs utilize a “menu”

approach offering faculty options that deemed appropriate and timely to faculty needs and

applications (Yeap et al., 2016). Faculty development programs must also evaluate the level of
 38

technical proficiency and be adjusted accordingly. Studies support the powerful role of faculty

development, connecting improvement in students’ learning outcomes as well as their perceived

satisfaction with the teaching environment (Handal et al., 2013). Studies have connected the lack

of faculty preparedness with one of the main reasons as to why mobile learning programs are not

adopted or fail (Handal et al., 2013; Yeap et al., 2016). In a quantitative study conducted by Yeap

et al. (2016) that focuses on factors that drive adoption in mobile learning, 900 undergraduate

students identified the third most influential factor as faculty readiness. The researchers explained

how the technology proficiency level of the faculty influenced the students’ perception and

adoption of mobile learning tools and activities. As Psiropoulos et al. (2016) stressed, focusing on

pedagogical implications is not a novel model in faculty development programs; however, the

emphasis on teaching when incorporating mobile learning heightens its significance.

Summary. The literature demonstrates that faculty’s perception on the impact of mobile

learning on education is mixed. Researchers also claim that this has been consistent with other

educational technologies, and mobile learning is no different (Voogt et al., 2013). Positive

research resulting in favorable educational outcomes are connected with students and faculty’s

positive perceptions towards mobile learning practices (Drouin et al., 2013). Research that has

negative or indifferent results has been attributed to the abandonment of devices, and therefore

connected towards the lack of student achievement and outcomes (Kinash et al., 2012). However,

in this same study, researchers acknowledged that they witnessed student motivation towards

learning and participation as they used mobile devices (Kinash et al., 2012).

The literature embraces the use of technology frameworks to guide leaders and faculty in

the development of successful mobile learning programs. Frameworks like diffusion of

innovations, TAM, and SAMR are critical guides to developing strategies for the adoption of
 39

mobile learning practices. The research also validates the importance of relevant, timely, and

personalized faculty support and development programs (Handal et al., 2013; Yeap et al., 2016).

Traditionally, and as corroborated in the research, BYOD programs tend to not focus on faculty

support or faculty development programs. This lack of focus may lead to fractured adoptions or

abandonment of mobile programs that are implemented across the university. It is imperative for

leaders to consider these frameworks, strategies, and applications as institutions turn to mobile

learning program adoption.

Stream 3: Educational Leadership Role and Organizational Change

Emerging technologies such as mobile devices and transformative pedagogy have diffused

into higher education social systems (Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013). These systems seeking to

transform their teaching and learning environments through the use of mobile learning must

establish supportive vision and leadership (Lai, 2017). As institutions turn to innovative mobile

learning programs, universities must consider the impact that these types of initiatives have on

educational leadership as well as to the overall organization. Higher education leaders must guide

their universities through the complexity of the changing and global 21st century (Ng’ambi &

Bozalek, 2013). In order for organizations to adopt innovative practices such as mobile learning,

educational leaders must embody situationally-based leadership roles and strategies (Khalili,

2017). Leaders must be able to exemplify transformational, distributed, and creative leadership

styles in order to be able to drive innovative practices across their institutions.

A holistic or ecological perspective is helpful in incorporating mobile learning uses in

higher education. Assessing an organization’s impact and benefits of implementing a mobile

learning program will help bridge the complexities of change and adoption across the institution.

Leaders must recognize that implementing a mobile learning program will impact their
 40

organizations, and they must be ready to manage that change. It will be critical for leaders to

leverage leadership styles that support the implementation of mobile learning, the change

associated with the new technology, and to provide support to the organizational culture in order

to embrace the new transformation (Galla, 2010).

Transformational leadership. The theory of transformational leadership focuses on

motivation and perceptions of followers (Khalili, 2017). Transformational leadership was first

conceptualized by Burns (1978) and then further extended by the studies of Bass (1999). This

type of leadership supports an organization’s member by motivating them to accomplish

performance beyond expectations by transforming their attitude, values, and beliefs (Bass, 1999).

In a theoretical paper, Sohmen (2015) defined transformational leadership as embodied by a

charismatic leader who can influence members to make changes or meet the organization’s goals.

Such leaders approach the organization with a culture based on integrity and transparency

(Shomen, 2015). In a quantitative factor analysis study, Jyoti and Bhau (2016) identified

transformational leadership as a key factor that can assist higher education institutions in creating

significant organizational change. The researchers further explained that leaders who possess

transformational leadership qualities will oftentimes be able to act as change agents, driving

loyalty and being able to introduce a new image of desired future state. However, Puccio, Mance,

and Murdock (2011) explain that while the leader is instrumental to the organization, the

transformational leadership process is not a one-way relationship. Rather, it is a connection

between the leader and all members of the organization and requires the motivation of everyone

within the organization (Puccio, et al., 2011). This partnership between educational leaders and

followers further underscores the similar connection between transformational leadership and

change (Puccio, et al., 2011). The importance of the partnership between educational leaders and
 41

members of the organization are validated by Ng’ambi and Bozalek’s (2013) findings that explain

educational leaders need to shift from formal, authoritative (one-way relationship), and

transactional leadership, to one that is based on transformational leadership characteristics and is

more distributed across the university. In a qualitative case study led by Baker and Baldwin

(2014) the researchers reiterate the criticality of transformational leadership qualities in

institutions seeking organizational change through the adoption of mobile learning. The

researchers in this case study acknowledge that leaders must be adaptable, effective, and engage

the entire organization in order to sustain organizational change and achieve transformative

innovative practices (Baker & Baldwin, 2014).

Distributed leadership. Institutions focusing on emergent technologies and

transformative, pedagogical changes such as mobile learning should to be aware of distributed

leadership framework. Jones, Harvey, Lefoe, and Ryland (2014) acknowledge that distributed

leadership is “the complex interplay between subjects, objects, and instruments, rules, community

and division of labor to build leadership capacity” (p. 605). Much like transformational

leadership, which relies on the entire system to drive motivation, distributed leadership depends

on a process of change and development that involves all levels of the organization to collaborate

and engage into activities (Jones, et al., 2014). Distributed leadership focuses less on the pivotal

leader often recognized by title, and is more focused on the activities and actions that can be led

by any member of the organization. Voogt et al. (2013) explains that an organizational-wide view

with a distributed leadership model supported by technology implementation fosters engagement

among the organization, and allows change to permeate. He further emphasizes and validates

Jones et al. (2014) by stating that leadership should not be assigned to a single source. This

emphasis on distributed leadership can be applied to the implementation and sustainability of

 42

mobile learning programs. As Voogt et al. (2013) further explained, leadership can be represented

by university administrators, faculty, and anyone among the distributed leadership organization.

Institutions that have mobile learning programs or are pursuing them will need different

individuals within their organizations to exercise leadership. As several studies have

recommended distributed leadership is a key leadership style required of an organization seeking

to implement innovative change and especially for ones that leverage mobile learning

technologies (Handal et al., (2013); Jones et al., 2014; Yeap et al., 2015; Voogt et al., 2013).

Creative leadership. Expectations for a successful leader in today’s global, ever-

changing, and fast-paced world requires an individual to have the ability to respond to, be

proactive, and capable of implementing innovative change (Sohmen, 2014). It is these qualities

and the ability to focus on creativity and innovation that allows organizations to stay competitive

(Khalili, 2017). Puccio et al. (2011) define creative leadership as “the ability to deliberately

engage one’s imagination to define and guide a group towards a novel goal—a creative direction

that is new for the group” (p. 40). Creative leadership, much like transformative leadership and

distributed leadership all focus on driving change within the organization. In a phenomenological

study, Sohmen (2015) described the need for creative leadership to be situationally-based and

requires a leader to possess and practice five-dimensional, overlapping leadership styles. These

styles include (1) transformational, (2) transactional, (3) organic, (4) contemporary, and (5)

ethical leadership styles. The predictability of organizational change requires leaders to be

proactive, evaluative with their own styles, and have an ability to develop novel and effective

practices (Sohmen, 2015). Educational leaders pursuing to drive innovative practices across their

institutions must be able to exercise creative approaches and techniques in order to implement and

support mobile learning programs (Drouin et al., 2013).

 43

Organizational change and structure. In an empirical study, Alrasheedi, Capretz, and

Raza (2015b) expand on the importance of leadership by assessing success factors among leaders

and their impact to the organizational structure within higher education. The researchers identified

several critical factors to consider within the organization, including organizational structure,

organizational culture, commitment towards mobile learning, and change management practices

(Alrasheedi et al., 2015b). All of these factors are crucial for leaders to consider as they

implement and operate an institutional mobile learning program. In particular, organizational

change and change management are identified as critical factors that leaders and leadership styles

have the ability to influence.

Organizational change is defined by the combination of technical and human actions that

have interconnected purposes and dependencies within the organization (Galla, 2010). In the

study conducted by Alrasheedi et al. (2015b), the researchers defined change management as a

“systematic method that presents a conceptual framework that includes process, politics, people,

and strategy” (p. 6). The findings from this study stress that leadership styles must be able to

support the implementation of mobile learning by fostering and evolving the organizational

culture through the implementation of organizational change (Alrasheedi et al., 2015b).

Organizational culture is crucial to supporting technological change especially at the pace in

which it continues to evolve. Organizational change among higher education can be represented

best by the evolutionary model of change (Baker & Baldwin, 2014). This model or framework

considers the external and internal influences placed on institutions and how organizations can

adapt versus truly pivot. Higher education is better positioned to make incremental and

evolutionary changes that lead to innovation in the teaching and learning environments.
 44

Summary. Educational leadership plays an important role in the adoption and

sustainability of mobile learning programs in higher education (Galla, 2010). The adoption of new

mobile learning programs requires organizational leaders to have fortitude and apply different

leadership styles to drive change across the organization (Baker & Baldwin, 2014). Literature

validates the importance of leadership styles in transformative practices that leverage emerging

technologies, such as mobile learning (Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013). Studies demonstrate that not

one single style of leadership is effective as different situations will require leaders to be flexible,

agile, and adapt to the circumstance impacting organizations from the implementation of

transformative practices (Alrasheedi et al., 2015b; Baker & Baldwing, 2014; Ng’ambi & Bozalek,

2013). Leaders will need to practice transformative leadership by motivating others and

developing members to fulfill their potential (Puccio et al., 2011). Distributed leadership must be

exercised by leaders through the support of change agents, opinion leaders, and others within the

organization to drive transformative change within their institutions (Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013).

Leaders must be able to leverage creative leadership styles in order for organizations to imagine

novel opportunities through the use of mobile learning platforms (Puccio et al., 2011). Briefly,

leaders must find ways to leverage participatory approaches that motivate the organization to

move towards innovative changes and practices as institutions seek to implement mobile learning

programs.

The literature has established connections between leadership roles and the effectiveness

of organizational change within institutions. In a study by Galla (2010), the researcher established

the importance of leadership styles and how these approaches support organizational change.

Findings reflect that organizations that are able to manage change are better suited to embrace and

incorporate technology solutions across the institution (Galla, 2010). Other studies such as
 45

Alrasheedi et al. (2015b) claim that a university’s factors on the adoption of mobile learning

programs include distributed and agile leadership as well as sound change management practices.

These perspectives, highlighting the connection between sustainable leadership styles with

organizational change, will assist university leaders in better preparing their institutions for the

implementation of new technologies, such as mobile learning.

Summary

Higher education is in need for innovative teaching and learning environments that help

drive student achievement, engagement, and maintain pace with the innovative global markets.

Mobile learning programs have an opportunity, if implemented correctly, to address these

challenges and support higher educations’ desire to concentrate on the learner. As Gillies (2016)

explains, one of the main advantages of mobile learning programs is its focus of student-centric

pedagogy that adoption provides to institutions. Mobile learning programs have been piloted and

implemented, as research has suggested, by several universities throughout the world. The interest

in mobile learning technologies is supported by Pegrum et al. (2013) as their study found mobile

learning as one of the fastest-growing topics within ICT in the education sector. This growth in

research interest, coupled with the ownership rates of mobile devices at 98% provided within the

ECAR study (Gierdowski, 2019), expresses a need for educational leaders and faculty members to

consider developing mobile learning strategies and practices.

As highlighted in the literature, educational leaders have several approaches that they must

contemplate as they undertake a mobile learning program. The most widely researched

approaches include the adoption of BYOD and 1:1 programs. Educational leaders must be able to

evaluate the advantages and disadvantages associated with these two different approaches and be
 46

able to make pedagogically-based decisions on paths and adoption strategies to embrace

(Ozdamli, 2011).

In addition to considering the types of programs, educational leaders must utilize

pedagogical frameworks as their foundation toward the adoption of mobile learning programs. As

Kearney et al. (2015) indicated, benefits of associated frameworks with mobile learning pedagogy

include heighten collaboration, personalization opportunities, and authenticity for learners.

Briefly, literature indicates that mobile programs that align their programs to overall

organizational objectives, incorporate sound theoretical adoption frameworks, and commit to

faculty development, become well-positioned to launch and sustain successful mobile learning

programs.

Mobile learning programs can improve student achievement, enhance student and faculty

engagement, and drive innovation to the teaching and learning environments within higher

education. Furthermore, a study would be valuable in understanding the influences that leadership

has on faculty to advance innovative mobile learning practices. The study must focus on the parts

associated with educational leaders and their influence in leading the organization through

permeated change required in the adoption of mobile learning programs (Voogt et al., 2013).

Moreover, these critical circumstances must support effective faculty development programs that

drive faculty adoption, enhance student and faculty engagement, and provide creative, distributed,

and transformational leadership in the support of innovative technological advancements.

 47

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Introduction

Universities have often turned to mobile learning programs and practices to assist in their

desire to find ways to transform teaching and educational experiences. According to Selwyn

(2016), many institutions are pressured by “the imperatives of external change” (p. 27) associated

with the need to adopt cutting-edge technologies as an integral part of maintaining education’s

relevance to fast-changing economic and societal demands. The purpose of this multi-site,

qualitative case study is to explore the use of mobile learning practices at small, private

universities to understand how the influence of leadership on faculty supports the goal of

advancing innovative practices.

As a constructivist, the researcher selected a multi-site case study design to help

understand and explore the answers to the research questions within a contemporary phenomenon

and real-world context (Yin, 2014). The researcher sought to address the central question: To

what extent have administrators and faculty leaders used mobile learning practices to influence

the advancement of innovation across the university?

The following sub-questions guided the study:

4. How have leaders managed technological innovations in teaching and learning

environments?

5. What organizational characteristics contributed to implementing mobile learning

practices?

6. Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement and support innovative,

connected teaching and learning environments?

 48

This chapter provides research design methods and supportive rationale, descriptions, and

justification about the selected sites and populations, and addresses the timeline for the study. As

part of the research design, this chapter also espouses the methods implemented for the collection

of data and analysis. The research design covered within this chapter identifies and describes

several ethical considerations, strategies taken to minimize risks to participants, and addresses the

researcher’s credibility.

Research Design and Rationale

The research design for this study is a qualitative, multi-site case study. According to

Creswell and Gutterman (2019), qualitative research allows for the exploration of a problem

while being able to develop a deep understanding of a central phenomenon. This study utilized

qualitative research to gain insight into the experiences and relationships among educational

leaders and faculty at three small, private universities. Specifically, the aim was to help

understand how educational leaders and faculty have collaborated to advance innovative changes

at their respective institutions. Moreover, this study used a case study design, focusing on the

integrated system that contributed to the overall design and characteristics of the mobile learning

programs at each site (Stake, 2010). Case studies are best suited in situations where the researcher

is interested in understanding a real-world case that involves contextual conditions necessary to

the case (Yin, 2014). According to Howe and Eisenhart (1990), the methodology must address

both the purpose and the context of the research. In this study, a qualitative approach allowed for

an exhaustive understanding of relationships and leadership qualities among the participants

across all three sites.

As a constructivist, the researcher embraced interconnected interactions with the

participants and was able to develop social contexts from interpretations and prior experiences
 49

(Reeves & Hedberg, 2003). Furthermore, Tubey, Rotich, and Bengat (2015) have explained that

qualitative-based ontological views treat people as research participants and use their own

experiences help to further understand their realities.

The rationale for this study’s research design was based on several practical components

that framed the boundaries for this case study. First, since there are few small, private universities

with 1:1 mobile learning programs in existence, implementing a quantitative study would have

presented numerous challenges. However, collecting comprehensive, qualitative data from the

small targeted populations across the three sites allowed for a much more thorough and intimate

understanding of the relationships and leadership characteristics among the populations. Thus, a

qualitative study was better suited to assist the researcher in addressing the identified research

questions. Second, a multi-site case study design was chosen as the researcher was seeking to

garner a deeper understanding of the research questions within each site as well as the differences

and similarities between the sites selected. This type of cross-evaluative analysis among sites

supported evidence that was recognized to be both a reliable and robust source of measurement

(Gustafsson, 2017).

Site and Population

Site Description

The criteria that was used to establish boundaries for site selection included three

components: (1) classification type of the universities, (2) operation of a mobile learning program,

and (3) being a member of the Apple Distinguished School program. The researcher sought

understand the phenomenon by including sites with the Carnegie Classification of M3, or

Master’s Colleges and Universities in the smaller programs’ classification (Indiana University

Center for Postsecondary Research, 2019). Sites were selected for their experiences and the
 50

expertise gained from operating a 1:1 mobile learning program. Further, the researcher selected

sites that had implemented a 1:1 mobile program for their entire student population and had the

1:1 mobile learning program in place for a minimum of at least four years. The researcher utilized

the Apple Distinguished School program recognition as a selection source to invite universities

from an innovative, recognized group of institutions. This process sought to assure that the

institutions represented sites that had been recognized in their demonstration of and ability to

implement a vision for how technology-savvy environments support the achievement of learning

goals while establishing continuous innovation practices (Apple Distinguished Schools, 2019).

Introducing this criterion and establishing specific boundaries for the site selection process

followed a purposeful sampling standard. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) acknowledged that

purposeful “qualitative” sampling is a standard that is often used to select sites for a multi-site

case study. Specifically, the researcher used the homogeneous sampling process to identify sites

that had similar characteristics, believing that this would assist in addressing the research

questions of the study (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019).

Three small, private universities located in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast

regions of the United States that met the established criteria were selected to participate in the

study. All three universities had recognized 1:1 mobile learning programs that used Apple iPads

and shared similar visions in their pursuit of innovate changes within their respective

organizations. To maintain the anonymity of the universities and their participants, the researcher

developed labels or pseudonyms to represent each institution, participants, and names of 1:1

mobile learning program initiatives or relevant university centers where appropriate.

 51

The Midwest university, labeled “Midwest iPad University” or “MIU,” established its 1:1

mobile learning program during the Fall 2015 semester. Below is a description of MIU’s program

as outlined on the Apple Education website:

Students at MIU leverage iPad to maximize and personalize their learning. MIU-Initiative,

the university’s 1:1 iPad program, supports an active learning ecosystem, with the focus

on students contributing to the learning process. Every classroom is equipped with Apple

TV, and students can easily share content with the class via AirPlay. Students in nursing

programs use iPad to record clinical demonstrations by working in pairs to make videos of

each other going through different clinical simulations. (Apple Distinguished Schools,

2019)

The Mid-Atlantic university, labeled “Mid-Atlantic iPad University” or “MAIU,”

established its mobile learning program during the Fall 2013 semester. Below is a description of

MAIU’s program as outlined on the Apple Education website:

Cutting-edge tools and technology allow students to learn in a collaborative and creative

environment…using Apple devices to showcase their creations that include websites, app

prototypes, and game graphics (Apple Distinguished Schools, 2019).

The Southeast university, labeled “Southeast iPad University” or “SIU,” established its

mobile learning program during the Fall 2011 semester. Below is a description of SIU’s program

as outlined on the Apple Education website:

Apple technology is part of the fabric of the [SIU] learning experience. In the Coding and

App Development minor developed with Apple, student teams use Swift and Xcode to

develop apps that help solve real-world problems (Apple Distinguished Schools, 2019).
 52

The similarities in classifications and the universities’ approaches to developing and

sustaining innovative, 1:1 mobile learning programs were critical components to the selection site

process. Moreover, Figure 1 displays critical characteristics and statistics for each university.

Midwest iPad University Mid-Atlantic iPad Southeast iPad

(MIU) University (MAIU) University (SIU)

Year 1:1 program 2015 2013 2011

established
Type of institution Four-year, Four-year, Four-year,
private, not-for-profit private, not-for-profit private, not-for-profit
Degrees offered Bachelor’s degrees Bachelor’s degrees Bachelor’s degrees
Master’s degrees Master’s degrees Master’s degrees
Doctor’s degree Doctor’s degree Doctor’s degree
Campus setting Suburb City: Small City: Small

Campus housing Yes Yes Yes

Undergraduates 3,183 undergraduates 2,139 undergraduates 2,881undergraduates

Student-to-faculty 14:1 11:1 15:1

ratio
Figure 4. Overview of participating universities

Site Access

The researcher made initial contact with key personnel from all participating institutions

and shared necessary information about the research design and process. At MIU, this contact

staff member heads the learning technology division; at MAIU, the primary contact staff member
 53

serves as the provost for the institution; and at SIU, the contact staff member is responsible for the

university’s faculty development program. The researcher identified these individuals as

gatekeepers for the each of the sites and these individuals assisted the researcher during the site

visits. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) identify gatekeepers as critical point people to identify as it

helps the researcher navigate through the site and may provide more access to invested

individuals. Additionally, the researcher provided information about the proposed research study,

its purpose statement, and research questions to the gatekeepers for each of the respective

institutions. The study was submitted to Drexel University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)

process, and received approval to move forward with research study. All three sites were also

contacted prior to the visit, and the researcher received written notice of the sites’ interest and

permission to participate in this study. The researcher did adhere to all university visitor policies

and IRB processes.

Population and Sample Description

The target population for this multi-site case study included educational leaders that had a

leadership role in the implementation and sustainability of the 1:1 mobile learning programs. Due

to the complexities and different types of organizational structures within private universities, a

snowball sampling process was utilized. According to Creswell and Gutterman (2019), snowball

sampling is often used in situations where the researcher may be unfamiliar with an organization

or other complexities within the organization. The researcher held an initial conversation with

each of the gatekeepers to help identify critical educational leaders. The researcher limited both

the sample size and interviews to two leaders from each of the universities. The researcher was

able to secure and conduct interviews with each of the presidents of the universities as well as

with the leaders responsible for the mobile learning programs.

 54

Additionally, because the study aimed to understand the relationship that exists between

educational leaders and faculty, the researcher focused on faculty who were representative of the

overall significant programs and majors within their universities. The researcher conducted small

focus group sessions with faculty who were considered “typical” faculty of the university and

who personified the cultural norms of the institution (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). This

representation included different academic disciplines as well as diversity in faculty position

ranks and tenure. Furthermore, the gatekeeper was consulted in determining the interpretation and

standards for “typical” faculty that embodied the institution. The researcher personally invited up

to 12 faculty members from each university via an email invitation explaining that participation

was voluntary and that not all invitees would be asked to participate. This procedure ensured that

the researcher had the ability to maintain a diverse faculty representation and limit the size of the

focus group to six or seven participants.

Research Methods

Qualitative studies use specific strategies to understand data that represents intimate

experiences and specific situations (Stake, 2010). The case study design allowed the researcher to

utilize various forms of data collection methods that supported using triangulation as a tool to

confirm findings and ensure reliable data (Yin, 2014). The researcher selected three different

types of data collection methods. These include semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and

direct observations; all of these data collection methods are often associated with case study

methodology (Stake, 2010).

Semi-structured Interviews

One-on-one interviews were conducted with educational leaders involved in mobile

learning programs and lasted 43 to 54 minutes. A total of six semi-structured interviews were
 55

conducted, however one leader— the SIU president from the first site visited—had a scheduling

conflict. The interview was rescheduled and took place via video conferencing using Drexel’s

Zoom video conference solution. According to Stake (2010) interviews are conventional methods

used in case studies as they seek to obtain information and interpretation held by the participant

being interviewed. The questions were gathered and developed from the converging themes from

the literature review, and focused on getting a deeper understanding of the main and sub-research

questions and the central phenomenon of this study. Interviews utilized open-ended questions that

promoted conversation and allowed the participants to relax and expand candidly upon their

insights and expertise. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) have explained that one-on-one interviews

are ideal for participants who can share ideas comfortably and are willing and not hesitant to

speak. The same questions were utilized across all interviews and sites, driving consistency and

aiding with the data coding and development of themes.

Instrument description. The researcher constructed a protocol that guided the interview

process and maintained consistencies across interviews and sites. Ten open-ended questions

guided the interview (see Appendix A), which were conversational and focused on the “how” and

“why” within the case study approach (Yin, 2014).

Participation selection. The participants for the interview stage of the study were

identified with the assistance of the gatekeepers. The researcher focused on interviewing a leader

within the executive leadership team at each of the selected sites. Three presidents, one from each

site, participated in the interview stage. These participants were seasoned presidents, each having

a tenure exceeding ten years, and were instrumental in the mobile learning program. Further, the

researcher interviewed the leading member responsible for implementing and leading the
 56

institution’s 1:1 mobile learning program. In all three sites, these leaders had been in their role

prior to the inception of the 1:1 mobile learning program.

Identification and invitation. The researcher sent email invitations to each participating

educational leader and conducted a personal phone call to establish confirmation of the date, time,

and location for the interview (see Appendix B).

Data collection. All interviews, with the exception of the interview with SIUPres, were

conducted at the participants’ office or conference room. The interview with SIUPres was

rescheduled and conducted via Drexel’s Zoom video conference solution. The interviews were

audio recorded using the researcher’s iPad Pro and Zoom H4N recording device as a backup. This

recording took place after approval was confirmed and the participant provided consent (see

Appendix C). The researcher also maintained digital notes that were separated by two columns:

one for descriptions and another for reflections. This technique allowed the researcher to take live

notes to help describe the setting, non-verbal cues, and expressions (Creswell & Gutterman,

2019). Additionally, the reflection section utilized by the researcher was used to journal his own

experiences and feelings. The researcher used NVivo transcription services to transcribe the

interviews which were later exported into a Word document. The transcription process was

executed within 24 hours and ensured the time of day/date, name of participant, title, years at the

institution, and other demographic information were accurately recorded and included in the

Word document. The Word documents were then loaded into NVivo software, which allowed the

researcher to commence the data coding process. The data was saved in a locked and private

location, and all digital files and data were maintained on Drexel’s Office 365 OneDrive

encrypted site, which uses multi-factor authentication and protected with a password.
 57

Digital data was never transmitted via plain text or unencrypted email. Moreover, all audio

recordings and data collected during the interviews will be destroyed upon the conclusion of the

study.

Focus groups. The gatekeepers assisted in scheduling and providing an adequate room to

host one focus group at each site. The focus group sessions included six or seven participating

faculty. The researcher met the target of conducting focus groups of no more than eight members

and having at least six members participate. The focus groups participants were representative of

the university’s disciplines and provided for diverse tenure and ranks. Creswell and Gutterman

(2019) have suggested that focus groups are helpful when the researcher is limited by time and is

able to find a similar group in composition. The focus groups were held in large conference rooms

and lasted between 43 to 54 minutes. Additionally, the researcher distributed paper-based,

questionnaire with open- and closed-ended questions. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) explain that

the advantage of using a questionnaire is that it allows for the researcher to collect additional data

in an anonymous manner.

Instrument description. The protocol for the focus group followed similar protocols

adopted within the interview procedure. Nine condensed questions were employed to drive at

understanding the main research questions and themes from the literature review (see Appendix

D). Prior to the start of the focus group, the researcher circulated a questionnaire that included six

closed- and open-ended questions in an effort to collect additional data that served to corroborate

the data that was anonymous and not influenced by group discussions that sometime occurs in

focus group settings (see Appendix E).

Participant selection. Since the interview stage resulted in the assembly of various

educational leaders with diverse roles and titles, the researcher chose to convene focus groups
 58

with members of the faculty, in order to broaden the perspectives being collected. To ensure

homogeneity among the faculty participating in the focus group, the researcher collaborated with

the respective gatekeepers at each site in identifying committed, culturally-aware faculty and who

represented diverse academic disciplines.

Identification and invitation. Gatekeepers helped select up to 12 faculty members, from

each site, to participate in the focus group. The researcher distributed an email invitation to each

faculty member asking for participation (see Appendix B). The researcher acknowledged that not

all 12 members would be able or willing to participate; thus, by extending the number of

invitations, the researcher was hoping to meet the target of six to eight participants for each focus

group. The researcher, through the help of the gatekeeper, was able to meet this target and had six

to seven faculty members participate in the focus groups. Once the researcher received

confirmation of willingness to participate, phone calls were made to develop a meeting time and

share the location of the focus group. The researcher emailed a consent form ahead of the focus

group and then collected each participant forms prior to starting the focus groups (See Appendix

F).

Data collection. The focus group sessions were recorded with two audio recording

devices: an iPad Pro and a high-power audio recorder and Zoom H4N Pro. Participants were

verbally notified of the recordings, what they were being used for, and how the recordings were

being saved on a password-protected computer and destroyed at the conclusion of the study. The

participants were asked to review and sign a consent form explaining the purposes for the study

and its participation protocols (see Appendix F). The researcher used NVivo transcription services

to transcribe the focus groups which were later exported into a Word document. The transcription

process was executed within 24 hours and ensured the time of day/date were recorded and
 59

included in the Word document. The Word documents were then loaded into NVivo software,

which allowed the researcher to commence the data coding process. The researcher used

pseudonyms to identify the participants, and these labels were placed next to each of transcription

texts. The labeling ensured that association was attributed with each of the participants and helped

identify faculty members’ input. The data was saved in a locked and private location, and all

digital files and data were maintained on Drexel’s Office 365 OneDrive encrypted site, which

uses multi-factor authentication and protected with a password.

Direct observation. The researcher visited each site, and while on each campus, was able

to collect data while observing in a nonparticipant observer role. The use of observation allowed

the researcher to see how the organization had integrated the use of mobile learning practices and

how the devices are being utilized. Through observation, the researcher had the opportunity to

observe interactions among the institution’s community. Each site visit involved an entire day on

campus, conducting interviews, focus groups, and touring the campus to get a deeper

understanding of the site. Campus tours were conducted with gatekeepers and included visiting

empty classrooms, dining halls, libraries, and other popular and highly trafficked areas at each

site. The researcher developed notes from the tours to help highlight each visit and establish a

deeper appreciation of each case location, and had an opportunity to spend time with the

gatekeeper and a few participants during informal meals. This informal time spent with these

individuals allowed the researcher to become more integrated and have a more profound

experience and understanding of the case locations. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) mention that

observation is a powerful tool for qualitative studies as it allows researchers to gather information

and data about the research site or individuals.

 60

Instrument description. The protocol for observation included the development of a

template that was used by the researcher. This template included descriptive field notes such as

the date, time, site, location at the institution, the number of participants being observed, and any

other context that served as relevant data. Creswell and Gutterman (2019) identify descriptive

field notes as a process that allows the researcher to record personal thoughts, insights, broad

ideas, or themes that emerge during the observation.

Participant selection. The researcher worked with the gatekeepers at each site to select a

few areas across each campus where observation from a nonparticipant perspective could take

place. The researcher identifies areas where students, faculty, and educational leaders all

convened, such as libraries, dining commons, and other large communal areas.

Identification and invitation. The gatekeepers were contacted via email to receive

permission on the locations that were used for observation. The researcher also ensured that the

gatekeepers understood that the researcher was conducting informal observations and notetaking

during the entire full-day visit of each site.

Data collection. Observations were communicated and scheduled with each site’s

gatekeepers. The researcher collected data using the templates created for analyzing notes. This

type of analysis assisted in refining questions to become more personalized during subsequent

interviews and focus groups. During the site visits the researcher was able to collect data during

the tours and in informal walks across campus. The data collected from the observations helped

the researcher to gain a deeper appreciation for the community, and culture of the sites.

Data Collection and Procedures

Data Collection Process

 61

The data collection stages commenced upon the researcher communicating with the

gatekeepers of each participating university. The gatekeepers assisted in identifying the

educational leaders and faculty members. Upon selection of participants, the researcher scheduled

individual interviews with the educational leaders and established a time and location for the

faculty focus groups. All interviews were conducted at the sites, with the exception of one

interview that had to be rescheduled and was executed via Drexel’s Zoom video conferencing

solutions. Emailed invitations were also extended to selected faculty members to participate in a

focus group, which occurred on campus during the researcher’s site visit.

The developed timeline allowed for ample time for the researcher and participants to

schedule interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the presented timeline provided the

researcher sufficient time to execute the data collection and analysis stages without leaving gaps

in time between the two stages. This timeline assisted in keeping the researcher engaged and on

task throughout these two integrated stages, and allowed for reflection and synthesis to occur. The

overall timeline is listed in Figure 5 as follows:

 62

Data Collection Data Analysis

Conduct interviews/focus groups

site (MIU) Transcribe interviews/focus
groups/observations
February 2020
March 2020
Conduct interviews/focus groups
site (MAIU)
February 2020 Analyze interviews/focus
groups/observations
Conduct interviews/focus groups March-April 2020
site (SIU) March 2020

Site observations (MIU, MAIU, Compare data findings

SIU) April-May 2020
February-March 2020

Figure 5. Data collection and data analysis timeline

Data Analysis and Procedures for Each Method

Qualitative case studies can use several techniques for analysis, and these can include

pattern matching, exploratory, linking data, code landscaping, member-checking and cross-case

synthesis (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2014; Saldaña, 2016; Yin, 2014). The researcher used

these and other techniques in each of the stages of the data collection process, which include

semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and direct observations. Data analysis of observations

of all sites assisted in shaping of key concepts and added a more profound and intimate

understanding through interpretation and experiences gained by the researcher. All interviews and
 63

focus groups were transcribed within 24 hours of completion using NVivo transcription software

and services. The researcher edited the transcripts for accuracy and understanding, then replaced

participants’ names with pseudonyms in order to maintain their confidentiality. Following the

transcription, the researcher used member-checking techniques to further support trustworthiness

and credibility of data collected (Creswell, 2014).

Data analysis procedures followed, and included a protocol to allow the simultaneous

process of analyzing data as it was being collected (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). The researcher

used initial coding, code landscaping, pattern matching, and exploratory coding methods to

formulate an analytical path (Saldaña, 2016; Yin, 2014). Furthermore, as this study used a multi-

case approach, each case served as its own case report (Yin, 2014). The data collected from the

three case reports was structured by manipulating the data and associating the information. This

allowed the researcher to be able to analyze and contemplate each individual case as its own

entity. Data were then queried for comparison across the case reports allowing the researcher to

consider key thoughts to emerge among the case reports. This cross-case synthesized approach

facilitated the researcher to analyze patterns and trends from the three case reports. Cross-case

analysis of the data collected allowed the researcher to converge the data in an attempt to better

understand the overall case (Baxter & Jack, 2008). An iterative analysis and synthesis of the data

directed the researcher through the development of interpretations, exploration of dialogue, and

further insights (Stake, 2010). Furthermore, the researcher was able to triangulate, compare,

contrast, validate, or contradict findings from each of the data methods and case reports. Through

the development of thematic codes and themes, the researcher leveraged the data to construct and

embrace theories regarding leadership’s role and influence on innovative practices through the

use of mobile learning.

 64

Stages of data collection and analysis.

Approval. Prior to research commencing, the researcher requested intent of participation

from each of the three sites. Three sites, SIU, MIU, and MAIU, sent the researcher formal letters

with their approval to participate. These letters and all requirements for Drexel University’s IRB

process were submitted for review to the Human Research Protection Program. The researcher

received approval from Drexel’s IRB process and sent the documentation of this approval to all

participating institutions. Commencement of scheduling and research followed immediately after

this stage.

Invitations. The researcher worked with the gatekeeper from each of the sites to identify

participants and email invitations to participate. The gatekeeper and researcher worked on

scheduling once participants accepted the invitation. The researcher then coordinated with the

gatekeeper and participants on establishing a time for the interviews and focus groups and located

a proper office or conference room. Consent forms were sent to each participant and collected in

person prior to the start of any data collection.

First stage. Interviews and focus groups occurred only after consent forms were reviewed

and accepted. The researcher used two recording devices, and each recording was immediately

loaded to NVivo transcription services for verbatim transcription. The researcher edited the

transcripts for accuracy and understanding, then replaced participants’ names with pseudonyms in

order to maintain their confidentiality. These documents created from NVivo were later used for

data analysis. Member-checking was used to promote credibility for the study (Creswell, 2014).

The researcher provided through encrypted email the transcription documents to each participant.

The participants were given only their own sections of the transcription and were asked to give

feedback regarding accuracy of the document. All participants were given one week to respond.
 65

In all, the researcher heard from 16-25 participants, and only two participants offered feedback

with minor revisions.

Second stage. The second stage consisted in reviewing the creation of independent case

reports for each location. These case reports were developed by loading the transcripts, two

interviews, and one focus group from each site into NVivo software, resulting in the creation of

two data files representing focus groups and interviews. The initial coding process commenced by

developing codes per text that were separated into concise, paragraph-length units from the

transcripts collected in the interviews and focus groups files (Saldaña, 2016). Exploratory coding

techniques, including vivo and descriptive coding, were used during the first stage of data

analysis (Saldaña, 2016). The researcher further developed initial theming to help organize

similar codes, concepts, and essential information, then completed the initial coding cycle by

coding all interview and focus group data from each case location. The results of the initial coding

cycle included the development of 189 unique codes and seven underlying themes across the

three sites.

Third stage. The third stage served as an intermediate step between initial coding and a

second cycle of coding. The researcher leveraged features within NVivo and used code

landscaping techniques to further understand the data collected. Code landscaping allowed for the

research to organize codes through the integration of “textual and visual methods to see both the

tree and forest” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 223). The researcher leveraged the hierarchy tool within

NVivo software to run several queries—one for each case report and a consolidated query that

included all codes for all sites. The researcher, then extracted the codebook from NVivo into a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using the following fields: (1) name of the node (code), (2)

description of code, (3) number of transcription files in which code was present, and (4) number
 66

of times the code was referenced across all three sites. The researcher added additional columns

in order to track changes to code names and themes. Additionally, the researcher used output from

the hierarchy tool to establish preliminary themes; originally, seven were being used. This

approach provided thematic identification guidance to the researcher indicating how to further

define initial codes, themes, and sub-themes. The researcher was able to further organize codes by

examining the text and visual representation of those more commonly used, and began

constructing themes and sub-themes.

Fourth stage. The final stage involved analysis of the case report, through second code

cycle. Saldaña (2016) explains that during the second cycle of coding, categories are developed

based on “thematic or conceptual similarities” (p. 235). Subsequently, the researcher modified

names of codes; continued to fine-tune themes; and categorized or organized the codes under the

proper themes by using pattern matching, consolidation of codes, and accounting for frequency of

codes used to determine importance. Finally, through cross-case analysis, the researcher settled on

four main themes and identified 12 subthemes that had emerged from the coding, theming, and

analysis conducted across the three case sites.

 67

Figure 6. Stages of data collection and analysis

Ethical Considerations

In researching the relationships and governance qualities among educational leaders and

faculty across all three sites, this study involved interviewing and hosting focus groups at

campuses located in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast. To protect the integrity of the

study and its participants, the researcher communicated the voluntary nature of the study with all

participants. All participants were asked to adhere to and sign a research consent form (see

Appendices C and F) acknowledging the nature of the research, consenting to audio recordings,

and providing information on how the study would be shared and published. In advance of the

interviews or focus groups, the researcher shared the purpose of the study, the methods and

processes used to collect the data, and how the data would be analyzed and published with all
 68

participants. All participants were informed that they had the right to end participation at any time

during the study, and this would not affect their working environment if they choose not to

participate.

Furthermore, given the possible sensitivity of responses towards understanding the

relationships between the two types of populations, the sites were given pseudonyms and the

participants remained anonymous to encourage the most honest and candid responses. The

interviews and focus groups were conducted at each of the participants’ sites and at the

participants’ desired times. However, one leader—a president from the first site visited—had a

scheduling conflict. The interview was rescheduled and took place via video conferencing using

Drexel’s Zoom video conference solution. All participants were exposed to minimal risk as their

participation remained anonymous, and participants gained no benefits because of this study. Due

to the qualitative approach of the study, ethical considerations were held to the upmost standards.

As a qualitative study seeking to understand in-depth description of the phenomenon, the

researcher established trust with all participants in order to collect real life experiences (Creswell

& Guetterman, 2019). Furthermore, the researcher applied member-checking steps with all

participants to verify that transcription was representing each participant accurately. The

researcher complied with all federal regulations, particularly as they relate to protecting the

participants’ privacy and the security of data collected. The interviews and focus groups were

recorded using two digital devices with recordings and transcription of the data maintained on

Drexel’s Office 365 OneDrive encrypted site, which uses multi-factor authentication and

protected with a password. Pseudonyms were given to each participant and site to protect the

identity of the individuals and institutions. Furthermore, the researcher received approval from
 69

Drexel University’s IRB, and followed proper protocols for research approval at MIU, MAIU,

and SIU sites.

Summary

This chapter sets the pathway for the research method and design used in this multi-site

case study. Enhancing upon the underpinning that has been established in Chapter 1, the

introduction to the problem and purpose statement are revisited. Much of the revisited substance

was supported by the research set forth in Chapter 2, the Literature Review. The research design

and rationale, research questions, and site and population are explained further to clarify the

protocols the researcher partook in this study. The research includes details on the method used,

selection, and rationale of the participants, and the description of the instrument tool used. The

researcher describes in depth the use of qualitative techniques like interviews, focus groups, and

site observations. Ethical considerations were also meditated as human subjects are involved in

the research study, and the IRB process has been defined and explained with intentionality. The

researcher’s rationale behind this study was to approach it in a way that allows for the

participants’ professional role and experience to help the researcher explore the uses of mobile

learning practices at small, private universities to understand how the influence of leadership on

faculty support the goal of advancing innovative practices.

 70

Chapter Four: Findings, Results, and Interpretations

Introduction to the Findings

This multi-site, qualitative case study sought to better understand the role of leadership

and how it influenced the advancement of innovative practices. Specifically, its purpose was to

explore the use of mobile learning practices at small, private universities to understand how the

influence of leadership on faculty supports the goal of advancing innovative practices. The

researcher aimed to provide an understanding of three matured mobile learning programs and how

their respective institutions successfully implemented and sustained these initiatives. The findings

from this research may assist and guide leaders seeking to drive innovative practices across their

institutions. This multi-site research study was guided by one principal research question: To

what extent have administrators and faculty leaders used mobile learning practices to influence

the advancement of innovation across the university? The following sub-questions supported the

central question:

1. How have leaders managed technological innovations in the teaching and learning

environments?

2. What organizational characteristics have contributed to implementing mobile learning

practices?

3. Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement and support innovative,

connected teaching and learning environments?

Insights into the role of leadership and its impact on the mobile learning program were

gained from interviews conducted with each institution’s president and the lead staff member

responsible for the mobile learning program, with each case location offering additional insights

from the focus group conducted among faculty members. Data collected from interviews, focus
 71

groups, and observations at each site provided the foundation for a rich description of the mobile

learning program's initiation, sustainability, and impact on innovating within the teaching and

learning environments of each case location. Through cross-analysis of the interviews with the

three presidents, three staff members leading the mobile learning programs, 19 faculty members

participating in the focus groups, and insights gathered from the observations across the three

university sites, the researcher was able to identify four major themes.

This chapter provides participants’ insights and contributions presented in the findings

section, organized by themes and sub-themes. The themes and sub-themes were established from

several cycles of coding and through the data analysis process, which included a breakdown of

each independent case location followed by a cross-analysis of all sites. The results and

interpretations sections further analyze emerging themes influenced by previous research and

theories, and identify results that can be used by leaders to develop strategies and ecosystems to

adopt mobile learning programs and innovative practices.

Participant Overview

The participants of this study represented three small, private universities and included

three presidents, three leaders identified as the member leading the mobile learning programs, and

19 faculty members. The number of participants exceeded the intended target of interviewees,

which were established at six leaders, two from each site, and 18 faculty members, six from each

case location. Since all targets were met during the interview and focus group activities, the

researcher did not need to expand the recruitment of additional participants. The researcher

corresponded with three gatekeepers representing each site during January 2020 and March 2020.

During these months, the researcher invited all participants, established a time for the interviews

to take place, and held all interviews and focus groups as expected and in-person. However, one
 72

leader—a president from the first site visited—had a scheduling conflict. The interview was

rescheduled and took place via video conferencing using Drexel’s Zoom video conference

solution. The six leaders that participated in the interviews were seasoned presidents, each having

a tenure exceeding ten years. The leaders responsible for maintaining the mobile learning

programs represented varying roles and responsibilities across their institutions, and each had a

long tenure with their respective institutions. For the purpose of this study, and to maintain

confidentiality, the researcher used pseudonyms to protect the identities of all participants and the

participating sites. Figure 7 below shares a detailed overview of leaders who participated in this

study.

Site 1 Pseudonym Gender Years in current Years at Year 1:1 mobile

role institution program established

Southeast iPad University 2011

(SIU)
President SIUPres Male 18 years 18 years

VP of Tech and SIUVP Male 2 years 10 years

Online &
Innovation

Site 2 Pseudonym Gender Years in current Years at Year 1:1 mobile

role institution program established

Mid-Atlantic iPad University 2013

(MAIU)
President MAIUPres Male 7 years 11 years

Chief MAIUCIO Male 5 years 6 years

Information
Officer

Site 3 Pseudonym Gender Years in current Years at Year 1:1 mobile

role institution program established
 73

Midwest iPad University 2015

(MIU)
President MIUPres Male 13 years 13 years

Director of MIUDir Male 5 years 9 years

Learning
Technology

Figure 7. Leaders demographic information

The researcher coordinated with each gatekeeper from every case location to secure

participation for the focus group sessions, with the gatekeeper providing an adequate

representation of faculty members who were considered “typical” faculty of the university and

who personified the institution’s cultural norms (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). Invitations were

extended to eight to 12 faculty members from each site; however, only six to seven faculty

members attended the focus group sessions. The number of faculty participants was still within

the target set by the researcher to conduct in-depth focus group sessions. Figure 8 below shares a

detailed overview of the faculty members who participated in the focus group sessions.

Site 1: SIU Gender Teaching discipline Years at Years Technology Mobile learning
institution teaching level has impacted
with iPad teaching and
learning.
Pseudonym
SIUFHP Female College of Health 5 years 3 years Early adopter Strongly agree
Profession

SIUFBIO Female Biology 7 years 5 years Early adopter Strongly agree

SIUFAH Female Allied Health 9 years 4 years Early adopter Agree

 74

SIUFMA Male Math 14 years 10 years Trailblazer Strongly agree

SIUFMU Male Music 3 years 3 years Early adopter Strongly agree

SIUFCOM Male Communications 20 years 8 years Trailblazer Disagree

SIUFEDU Female Education 8 years 5 years Early adopter Strongly agree

Site 2: MAIU Gender Teaching discipline Years at Years Technology Mobile learning
institution teaching level has impacted
with iPad teaching and
learning.
Pseudonym
MAIUFHUM Female Humanities 2 years 2 years Let others Strongly agree
take lead

MAIUFSOC Female Sociology 27 years 5 years Let others Strongly agree

take lead

MAIUFMA Male Math 5 years 5 years Early adopter Agree

MAIUFACC Male Accounting 21 years 6 years Let others Strongly agree

take lead

MAIUFLAN Female Language and 7 years 3 years Let others Strongly agree
Linguistics take lead

MAIUFEDU Female Education 10 years 5 years Not Agree

comfortable

Site 3: MIU Gender Teaching discipline Years at Years Technology Mobile learning
institution teaching level has impacted
with iPad teaching and
learning.
Pseudonym
MIUPHI Male Philosophy 15 years 4 years Early adopter Strongly agree

MIUBIO Female Biology 9 years 5 years Early adopter Agree

MIUPT Male Physical Therapy 30 years 6 years Early adopter Strongly agree

MIUPFI Female Business – Personal 5 years 5 years Early adopter Strongly agree
Finance
MIUEDU Male Education 10 years 8 years Trailblazer Agreed

MIUHP Male College of Health 15 years 7 years Trailblazer Strongly agree

Profession

Figure 8. Faculty member demographic information

 75

Findings

The findings were established through the development and analysis of the three

institutions, or case locations, leveraging the analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus

groups. Three small, private universities chosen among a group of institutions of higher education

that (1) had been awarded the Apple Distinguished School recognition and (2) met the

researcher’s established criteria were selected and agreed to participate in the study. All three

institutions had been operating a 1:1 mobile learning program across their universities for at least

four years. Further, each case location presented the researcher with an approach and

understanding of innovative teaching and learning practices that revealed commonality among all

three sites.

The researcher traveled to each case location for a period of ten days, coordinating with

the gatekeepers of each site to establish the dates and schedule, and making the first visit on

February 24, the second visit on February 27, and the final visit on March 3. Each case location

visit involved an entire day on campus, conducting interviews, focus groups, and touring the

campus to get a deeper understanding of the site. Campus tours were conducted with gatekeepers

and included visiting empty classrooms, dining halls, libraries, and other popular and highly

trafficked areas at each site. The researcher developed notes from the tours to help highlight each

visit and establish a deeper appreciation of each case location, and had an opportunity to spend

time with the gatekeeper and a few participants during informal meals. This free time spent with

these individuals allowed the researcher to become more integrated and have a more profound

experience and understanding of the case locations.

The researcher hosted three focus groups, each of which was conducted on-site in large

conference rooms, included either six or seven faculty members, and lasted 43 to 54 minutes. Five
 76

of the six interviews took place at the leaders’ institutions, primarily in participants’ offices or in

conference rooms. One of the interviewees had a scheduling conflict and was not able to

participate in-person, and was consequently rescheduled for the interview using Drexel’s Zoom

video conferencing solution. The interviews were scheduled for one hour and varied from 37

minutes to 59 minutes in length. All interviews and focus groups were captured using two

recording devices: an iPad Pro and a Zoom H4N Pro recording device. All interviews were

transcribed within 24 hours of completion using NVivo transcription software and services. The

researcher edited the transcripts for accuracy and understanding, then replacing participants’

names with pseudonyms in order to maintain their confidentiality.

Two main protocols were used across all sites, and both protocols focused on exploring a

better understanding of the leading research question and the sub-questions that guided this study.

The first protocol was established to collect data from the six interviews. All six interviews

followed the same protocol, ensuring all six participants were asked similar questions (Appendix

A). The second protocol concentrated on the three focus groups employing different questions

aimed at deriving various perspectives on innovation, leadership, and the mobile learning

programs (Appendix D).

Sites were reviewed through the creation of independent case reports for each location.

These case reports were developed by loading the transcripts, two interviews, and one focus

group from each site into NVivo software, resulting in the creation of two data files representing

focus groups and interviews. The initial coding process commenced by developing codes per text

that were separated into concise, paragraph-length units from the transcripts collected in the

interviews and focus groups files (Saldaña, 2016). The researcher further developed initial

theming to help organize similar codes, concepts, and essential information, then completed the
 77

initial coding cycle by coding all interview and focus group data from each case location. The

results of the initial coding cycle was the development of 189 unique codes and seven underlying

themes across the three sites. The seven themes identified from initial coding process included:

(1) investing in faculty, (2) connectivity, (3) IT infrastructure, (4) sustainability of the program,

(5) leadership, (6) need for change, and (7) beginning of the initiative. These initial themes helped

the researcher identify common themes across the three sites and organize standard codes.

Following the initial coding cycle and before commencing the second, the researcher used

code landscaping to assist in organizing codes through the integration of “textual and visual

methods to see both the tree and forest” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 223). The researcher leveraged the

hierarchy tool within NVivo software to run several queries—one for each case report and a

consolidated query that included all codes for all sites. This approach provided thematic

identification guidance to the researcher indicating how to further define initial codes, themes,

and sub-themes. The researcher was able to further organize codes by examining the text and

visual representation of those more commonly used, and began constructing themes and sub-

themes. Figure 9 is an output from the query developed from all transcripts across all three sites.
 78

Figure 9. NVivo hierarchy tool first coding cycle derived from three sites’ transcripts

The second coding cycle used pattern coding techniques to help the researcher define and

identify categorizations for coded data (Saldaña, 2016). The researcher extracted the codebook

from NVivo into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using the following fields: (1) name of the node

(code), (2) description of code, (3) number of transcription files in which code was present, and

(4) number of times the code was referenced across all three sites. The researcher added

additional columns in order to track changes to code names and themes. Additionally, the

researcher used output from the hierarchy tool to establish preliminary themes; originally, seven

were being used. Subsequently, the researcher modified names of codes; continued to fine-tune

themes; and categorized or organized the codes under the proper themes by using pattern

matching, consolidation of codes, and accounting for frequency of codes used to determine

importance. Figure 10 below shows the output from the NVivo hierarch tool after the second

cycle of coding was concluded.

 79

Figure 10. NVivo hierarchy tool second coding cycle derived from three sites’ transcripts

Finally, the researcher settled on four main themes and identified subthemes that had

emerged from the coding, theming, and analysis conducted across the three case sites.

Triangulating this coding and analytical approach with notes and observations led to the following

themes and subthemes found under Figure 11: (1) implementing mobile learning programs, (2)

leadership influence on change, (3) institutional commitment to mobile learning, and (4)

achieving innovative teaching and mobile learning practices.

 80

Institutional Achieving Innovative

Implementing Mobile Leadership Influence Committment to Teaching and Mobile
Learning Programs on Change
Mobile Learning Learning Practices
•Support for adopting •Fostering change •Factors that help •Support models for
a mobile initiative through maintain mobile mobile learning
•Phased transformational shift learning programs •Embracing digital
implementation of in mindset •Challenges in content and new
mobile learning •Leadership styles and supporitng mobile delivery methods
programs characteristics that learning programs •Importance of faculty
•Details and promote innovation •Using mobile development
characteristics of •Focusing teaching learning to enhance
mobile learning and learning on the teaching and learning
programs student experience

Figure 11. Themes and subthemes resulting from data coding

Implementing 1:1 Mobile Learning Programs

Leaders and faculty acknowledged that their current mobile learning programs had been

influenced and developed into what they are today, mostly through how the institution

approached the implementation and launch of their 1:1 mobile learning programs. All leaders

interviewed discussed the importance of implementing the mobile learning program and described

ways in which they developed support for the implementation of programs, used phased

implementation strategies, and provided insights into their programs. SIUPres (president from

Southeast iPad University) stated:

Our motivation, seven, eight years ago, was to make sure that we were not relying on

whiteboards or chalkboards as the primary method of delivery, and we turned to

technology to explore different teaching methods. This led to the implementation of the
 81

mobile learning program, and how we implemented our program has shaped it and defined

it. It is remarkable how our institution has rallied behind such an initiative.

Two of the three focus groups provided detailed insights and described the beginning of the

programs and how that has currently defined the mobile learning programs. SIUFMA (faculty

member from Southeast iPad University) described the following:

The commitment from our president on this initiative has been lasered focused…even at

the beginning of the implementation he was there at every meeting, he even attended a

few training sessions. He talks about the [SIU-Center for Faculty], and the mobile learning

program at every speech, you can tell that he has prioritized the program at every meeting

that I attend. The program has become sustainable because of his efforts and how it was

implemented here at SIU.

All three sites shared their experiences with the importance of their approach to implementing

mobile learning programs. While the implementation can take many different methods, all of the

programs participating in this study have reinforced the importance of extensive institutional

support, taken on a phased implementation approach, and have a set of common characteristics.

Support for adopting a mobile initiative. Providing support for the adoption of a mobile

initiative is crucial and requires leadership and campus-wide collaboration (Brummelhuis, 2013).

Support for the adoption of the mobile learning program across all three sites took different

approaches; however, they all had engaged leaders who were committed to the programs’ launch.

Faculty members that participated in the focus group shared some insight as to how leaders

provided direction and vision for the initiatives. For instance, at MIUFPT (Midwest iPad

University), a faculty member that has been with the institution for 30 years and teaches physical

therapy describes the president’s role thusly: “This was not always the way as at the beginning of
 82

the program it was heavily pushed by leadership. Our president pushed this project by making it a

focal point of our future as [an] institution.” Other faculty members from the same institution

supported this importance of leadership support. MIUFBIO, a faculty member teaching biology,

stated, “I think it was smart of our president and leadership to come out and share the direction

and expectations…but they also did it in a way that involved faculty through the committee.”

Another colleague from the same institution, MIUFPHI, a faculty member teaching philosophy,

explained how the president supported the committee’s implementation and announcement:

And then he said this is it we are going to become an iPad school, and I need this group to

figure it out. I am not going to tell you how we do it, but I will support any decision that

you make that will one, help us with our strategic plan to enhance our active learning

initiatives, and two, help our students.

Faculty from the SIU (Southeast iPad University) site corroborated the sentiment from other sites

that the focus of leaders providing support for the implementation of the mobile learning

programs was a key factor. SIUFMA, a faculty member teaching math for 14 years at the

university, discussed the following:

But, look, this initiative was started by administration. They had a first meeting, I mean, I

don't remember the first one of the first meetings we had, like 2009 or 2010. I was also the

first faculty to participate in that meeting and in other introduction meetings we had with

administration and Apple. I did not know what this was all about. It was exciting, and I

was glad to be part of the implementation team. Our president and others in the

management team did a great job in presenting their vision for the program and put it back

on us to make it work.
 83

Likewise, faculty from the MAIU (Mid-Atlantic iPad University) site confirmed that leaders’

support was an integral component in implementing the program. MAIUFACC, a faculty teaching

accounting for 21 years, shared the following:

Our president revolutionized or completely transformed this place. He came in swinging

and changed everything. So, it could not have come into existence under anybody else. No

matter how hard the I.T. director would have wanted to do something even if it made

sense. This commitment and persistence by our president are what made this initiative a

reality. It is what allowed for the implementation to happen and what we needed.

MAIUFHUM, a newer faculty member who has been with the university for two years teaching

humanities, describes the president’s support for the program by sharing, “He is a huge student-

first president and everyone on campus understands that, and that this initiative was in the support

of his student-first focus.”

Leaders acknowledged that their role in launching the program was to provide support to

the institution. The president from the SIU site recalled to the start of the initiative, mentioning

that “providing an iPad is good because it just gives all of us, faculty, and student more

options…[and] thus improve teaching and learning.” Further, this leader expressed the importance

of providing support for the initiative by talking to the community about the initiative. In a similar

reflection, MAIUPres stated, “I remember during the initial implementation stages talking to

faculty and the community a lot about the benefits of the mobile program and how it could help

our community take learning to the next level.” All three presidents and the majority (5 of 6) of

the leaders acknowledged that providing support through consistent leadership and inclusion of

faculty were critical factors in getting the mobile learning program launched.
 84

Phased implementation of mobile learning programs. The implementation of

technology can take many approaches; however, in this study, all three participating sites

followed a phased approach towards the adoption of mobile learning. The participating

universities all launched their programs incorporating a small pilot (both in participants, and

timeframe), followed by issuing iPads to all faculty, and then to first-year students only. Over

time and through the phased approach method, the entire student body at each site would be

equipped with a device. MIU launched its initiative through a pilot during the summer of 2014

and phased in the initiative in 2015. The leader responsible for the initiative, MIUDir, describes

this phased implementation thusly:

I have been a part of it since the very beginning when we started exploring the one to one

back in the summer of 2014. We did not actually go one to one until the fall of ‘15. So, I

have been there since the very beginning. Since the committee was put together to identify

how we were going to do it. We then decided only to give first-year students devices and

roll it in every year after.

A similar approach can be found at SIU, where the university decided to implement the SIU-

Initiative in 2011 after completing a brief pilot during the spring of 2011. The vice president of

technology, online, and innovation describes this approach:

I was fortunate to be part of the committee and the pilot program that launched in January

of 2011. I remember a lot of excitement around the pilot program as the iPad was brand

new. Few people on the committee understood what we were about to do, but the

president had pulled me aside and had given me some insight. The committee and

university went ahead and started one of the first 1:1 programs in the nation with iPads.
 85

Lastly, MAIU also followed a similar path by launching a 2:1 (two-to-one) program

(laptop and iPad for every student) in 2013. The chief information officer shared that this

initiative happened because of a successful small pilot that had occurred the previous fall

semester, and happened as the new president arrived. MAIUCIO further describes a similar path,

but also acknowledges that the phased approach may have been guided or restricted by expenses

associated with equipping the entire student body. MAIUCIO explains the cost impacts and

phased approach as follows:

There was no way to finance two thousand students, needing laptops, so it means that you

need ten million dollars’ worth Mac books and iPads. So, they did it class by class. And

so, the freshman came in with brand new equipment, an iPad, and a MacBook Pro. It

worked fairly well and has allowed us to make changes from year to year.

Faculty members that participated in the focus group sessions acknowledged the

importance of phasing the implementation of mobile learning programs. Faculty member

SIUFMA spoke from personal experience as one of the faculty members involved in the initial

pilot:

[W]hen we started first, it was with the iPad 1 first version…and not every faculty even

had an iPad to start out with. I think just a few of us had iPads given to us from

administration. And then, we quickly begin to issue iPads to new students. I really think

that this approach was needed, and it allowed the university to provide good support that

made things better.

A few faculty member, from two of the sites acknowledged that the phased implementation

methods do not result in strictly positive outcomes. For instance, faculty member MIUFHP,

teaching in the health professions college, explains that “unfortunately, some students in our
 86

senior class still do not have them [iPads] and my classes are different because of that.”

Moreover, MIUFPHI, who teaches philosophy, adds, “That is exactly the same problem I have

with some seniors who are in the five- or six-year plan, and I feel like I cannot do the same things

that I do in some of my freshman classes.” Another faculty member from MAIU explains a

different problem or challenge at her institution as only freshman received iPads. MAIUFSOC

shares that “the sophomores and juniors, and seniors were pretty pissed. So, when I got here, I

was still dealing with that as juniors and seniors still did not have devices during the second year

of the program, and you have to deal with two different demographics.”

These challenges that were shared by faculty were reasonably consistent although they

were not mentioned at all sites. The experiences expressed by faculty from MAIU and MIU—

while raising some concerns regarding student unevenness and the difficulties they posed on

faculty—seemed not to outweigh the benefits that a phased implementation approach provides.

All three institutions followed a similar path in phasing in the mobile learning programs,

acknowledged clear benefits, and better expected adoption levels by gradually issuing iPads to

new students per year.

Details and characteristics of mobile learning programs. As explained by the literature

review, mobile learning programs that adopt a 1:1 model will inherently have some common

characteristics. Wardley and Mang (2015) explain that, typically, some of these characteristics

include improved institutional control of devices and standard devices across the institution for

faculty and students use. In all three sites, participants provided their interpretation of details and

characteristics that make up their mobile learning program. The participants of this study

identified both of the characteristics highlighted by Wardley and Mang. The chief information

officer, MAIUCIO, described the importance of the university owning the devices:
 87

So, the institution owns the equipment. It puts more pressure on the IT department to

support the maintenance and ownership of the devices. Nevertheless, it does provide more

control to the university of the devices. This means we can push new software,

communicate with students, and restrict things when asked by faculty.

MIUDir describes the program at MIU as an iPad 1:1 program fully supported by the university,

explaining that “providing the equipment to faculty and student is important and takes all of the

headaches of maintaining technology away from the faculty and student's responsibility.” MIUDir

continues by explaining the growth and details of the mobile program as it stands today:

The initiative encompasses all of our traditional full-time students. Right now, we have

roughly forty-five hundred iPads on our campus. All our full-time faculty have devices,

but almost 200 adjuncts, 200 plus staff, and mostly the staff that are sort of in student-

facing areas like our admissions staff and our counselors, stuff like that. So yeah, we are

sort of at the end of year five of all that.

The leader responsible for the mobile learning program at SIU also shares similar characteristics

regarding the program at his institution. SIUVP explains the belief that the university must

provide the devices and maintain ownership while the student is enrolled at the university. SIUVP

explains that this allows “students to receive consistent support and expectations for their devices

to work while enrolled at the university, and when they graduate, they get to keep their iPad.”

SIUVP continues to share more details regarding the 1:1 mobile learning program:

The program provides all traditional full-time students with an iPad that is theirs to keep;

currently, we are using the iPad Air 10.5 model, which is nice as we also provide an Apple

Pencil, which has really enhanced the use of the device for students and faculty. All
 88

faculty also receive an iPad Air the same model with an Apple Pencil as well. So, this is

great as both students and faculty all have the same device and platform to work out of.

One other characteristic regarding the mobile learning programs that was unearthed at two

of the sites was the importance each placed on the naming of its program. Both the SIU and MIU

sites were deliberate when naming their initiative. In order to provide anonymity and maintain

confidentially, the real names of the initiatives were represented in this study through a

pseudonym. MIU had named their mobile learning program MIU-Initiative and SIU named the

program, SIU-Initiative. On the other hand, when asked about the name for its program at MAIU,

MAIUCIO simply provided “we call it the iPad program or initiative. We did not want to name it

and make it a marketing thing.” MAIUPres provided similar information and shared that “we did

not feel like something that is so integral needed a name; the library is the library, everybody

knows what that is. We refer to it as the iPad program, and therefore everyone knows what it is.”

While MIUDir shared the importance of naming the initiative by explaining the following:

So basically, our mobile learning program is called MIU-Initiative. It is an iPad 1:1. And

we are coming up on the end of our fifth academic year with iPads in the classroom. And

the initiative encompasses all of our traditional full-time students. And the name is

important to us, because everyone knows what it is and that it is part of our strategic plan

and efforts towards adopting active learning.

The leader for the SIU program expressed and shared similar information regarding the

importance of naming the program:

I also remember that back then it was not called anything; we just referred to it as the iPad

program. I remember coming in and making sure that we developed a name for the

program, a name that would go beyond the iPad program. That was really important to
 89

me; I wanted the program to be more than just about the device. Naming it something

broader was important to me to make sure that it reflected what we wanted from this

program. Our Provost did not care, and our president followed my lead. So, after some

debate, we came together as a committee and named the program the SIU-Initiative in

2013, or what we call now [SIU-Initiative].

The views and experiences of participants in this study exposed the critical factors that

helped their institutions move towards implementing the mobile learning programs. These items

included ensuring leadership was prepared to support the programs’ implementation, especially

from the president’s role. Participants also shared their positive views on phased implementation

approaches and some of the challenges associated with this method. Lastly, participants expressed

the main characteristics and details behind their mobile learning programs.

Leadership Influence on Change

As noted in the literature and highlighted through the voices of the participants, the

importance of leadership has been identified across all sites and shared by the majority (76%) of

the participants. The adoption and sustainability of mobile learning programs are inheritably tied

to driving change within an institution and, in particular, to the teaching and learning

environments. However, organizations cannot achieve change or transformation without

leadership; it requires commitment from leaders to embrace mobile learning, influence the change

across the institution, and, in particular, to its teaching and learning environments. The director of

academic technology from the MAIU site describes how leadership has been able to influence

change across the university:

[V]ery strong administration and leadership has helped shaped MIU-Initiative, and

everything sorts of filtered out from that. It is not just an initiative; it is part of our
 90

strategic plan, vision, direction. That was sort of built from the ground up, and it changed

everything in our university, especially to how we approach teaching. It became a key

pillar of our institution that you had buy-in across the entire senior leadership.

Participants across all sites highlighted their experiences in leadership’s criticality and how it was

necessary to carry out change and its influence over consistent transformation to the teaching and

learning environments. Moreover, several similarities across all sites emerged regarding crucial

elements that supported leaders and their influence on change. All sites explained or shared a

need for a shift in mindset, one that was influenced by leaders, and all possessed influential

leaders with abilities to leverage different leadership styles and had an ability to focus the

institution on a student-first experience to align priorities and change.

Fostering change through transformational shift in mindset. The three sites that

participated in this study share a collective experience with how they achieved a continuous

approach to change. The participants from all three sites identified an inevitable transformation or

shift in mindset that impacted how the organization changed teaching and learning practices.

Faculty members focused on a shift in how faculty approached teaching and learning differently.

SIUFEDU, who has been teaching education for eight years, states:

I think the biggest challenge for us [faculty] was the mind shift, moving from one that was

faculty center to one focused on students. That has been really big for us. My classroom is

not about me anymore. It is not me sitting out there lecturing. It is about engaging

everybody in the classroom and making sure that all are heard, and their perspectives are

understood. This mind shift and transformation have been supported by the administration

and leaders from our university. Most of our faculty understand this, but some continue to

have challenges.
 91

Faculty members from the MIU site shared their reflections on the shift in mindset that occurred

at the beginning of the initiative, explaining that—for their institution—the mind shift occurred as

the president and leaders began engaging with them regarding the launch of the mobile learning

program. For instance, MIUFPHI shares:

I am on the committee that works with Academic Council, and we got little push back

from the faculty for the MIU-Initiative. Maybe a little bit on the front end, but it was not a

lot of push back. It was such a subtle thing that it just kept coming and kept on it. And

then suddenly even dinosaurs for most were jumping on board. This changed really

quickly, and faculty began to jump on board, it was definitely a quick shift in mindset

from the majority of the faculty.

Another colleague added that, even though most faculty accepted and moved forward to accept

the direction that the university was moving, some of that was due to the influence of peer

pressure. MIUFEDU explains:

I mean, we had this room in the president’s conference area. They had this room. It is a

big rectangle. I think everybody came but maybe one person. And then eventually we all

said we said we would move forward with the initiative. I think peer pressure will bring

people along for the ride. And I think it has.

MIUFBIO adds to the discussion by agreeing that peer pressure was an influence but not

believing it had a significant impact. MIUFBIO felt that the majority of the faculty were ready to

embrace the change proposed, explaining:

[T]here are always going to be a few [faculty] hold out. Yes, I guess first that I do not

even think that there is a big deal about that. I mean, you know, it really was not a big

deal, we were ready and excited.

 92

Leaders from all three sites acknowledged that their institutions had experienced a transformation

shift in mindset. The majority of these leaders highlighted that this transformation was focused on

two different shifts: (1) faculty’s use of mobile learning, and (2) the change that needed to happen

in teaching and learning practices. For example, the director of academic technology for MIU

stated that “the biggest positive has just been sort of the change that it [mobile learning program]

has created amongst faculty.” MIUPres, the president from the same institution, further supported

this point by providing the following example:

And it has helped faculty realize something that I think all faculty, most faculty did not

know 20 years ago when 30 years ago when I was teaching that we are excellent content

people. We are, and we are good at times curriculum people, but we are not learning

designers. So, sitting down with somebody where you tell them what you know and they

are able to put it into some visual approach that you are like, hey, wow, that is has been a

revelation to faculty. And the mobile learning program has forced this shift for our faculty;

they are beginning to understand this change and that they must change in order to become

a good teacher.

Leaders from the SIU site also acknowledge that their institution has experienced a

transformational mind shift due to the faculty’s use of mobile learning. The president from SIU

explains witnessing this shift become more intentional and raise the profile of their faculty

overtime, describing the following:

There has been a significant expectation of a shift to happen. And I think that some

universities are doing a better job with these shifts in supporting the change. So, there was

a shift that continues to evolve here at [SIU] along the way from a pure sort of like, and
 93

we'll see what happens to one that is more intentional…The shift is also trying to again

raise the profile of our faculty, as they are better prepared.

SIUVP, who is responsible for the mobile learning program, supports this intentional shift and

how it has raised the profile and leadership among faculty, explaining, “[f]aculty that make that

shift are our true leaders that have really shaped and embrace the [mobile learning program] here

at [SIU].”

Moreover, the president from MIU—an institution that has benefited from record

enrollment for the entirety of its president’s 13-year tenure—is a leader recognized and respected

within the institution for setting out and accomplishing goals and initiatives. MIUPres explained

the vision for the organization, stating, “the purpose of it was how do we transition from sort of

passive learning pedagogy to active learning pedagogy with the idea that a mobile device is

central to that.” The desire to move an institution to a different teaching and learning approach or

practice is the shift upon which MIU leaders have focused. MIUDir adds the following:

I would say most of the innovative changes have just been in the classroom, complete

changes in sort of how faculty, faculty, pedagogy, and a fundamental shift in how they’re

sort of facilitating the classroom…It’s like it's a complete fundamental shift. I think that's

been the biggest transformation in the classroom. You know, I think there’s been a culture

shift now, and I think our faculty come prepared to do that.

The president from SIU, long-standing in the role, describes how the administration has

concentrated on the teaching and learning environments by providing support, mentioning, “I

hope that I have created an environment where this shift and overhaul can happen and be

supported by the administration. We need to provide support if we expect the learning

 94

environment to change.” The vice president for technology, online learning, and innovation added

the following:

Through the support we provide to faculty, and this initiative, [SIU] has experienced and

shifted our faculty thinking and approach to teaching; it has given us a common ground

and focus, one that focused on enriching teaching and learning through innovative

practices and technologies. This mindset shift has opened up [SIU] to move towards

adopting and being more open to innovative changes.

The president from MAIU admitted feeling like the institution has been able to accomplish a shift

within the teaching and learning environments; however, also acknowledging that “I think we still

are a work in progress on that. I don’t know if we’ll ever fully be there.” While MAIUCIO agrees,

adding a caveat:

[F]or sure, it has created a mind shift within our institution. Mobile, technology infusion

and resources have all been prioritized. The mind shift within our faculty has occurred

over time, but it is not across all faculty, and I would not call it complete.

Leaders and faculty of each site shared similar experiences and recognized that their

institutions had gone through significant changes and shifts in mindset. All leaders recognized

that, in particular, these shifts in the mindsets of faculty are critical to transforming the teaching

and learning environments. From each site, most faculty members acknowledged that a shift in

teaching and learning was needed to embrace mobile learning practices, with most agreeing that

this shift and understanding had already occurred.

Leadership styles and characteristics that promote innovation. The sites that

participated in this study and the participants themselves discussed their views on leadership and

how leaders were tied towards the promotion of innovation. Participants provided a lens into how
 95

leaders of their respective institutions have led, also sharing experiences that allowed the

researcher to further understand similar leadership styles and characteristics that promote

innovative practices.

Leadership styles. Participants across the sites openly discussed how influential leaders

were to the implementation and sustainability of the mobile programs. Leadership styles were

brought up in various ways by all participants across all sites. The majority (80%) of participants

described leaders who possess transformative leadership styles. Simply, many participants

described leaders with the ability to influence members to make changes to meet institutional

goals (Sohmen, 2015). Several faculty members from MIU and MAIU shared their perspectives

and views that described their presidents in ways that conveyed and supported transformative

changes. MIUFEDU described the professional development effort that has been developed and

supported by the president:

I think professional development has been the most transformative change. And you look

at what the NSF says; you need to create change at a school. It’s 120-200 hours needed to

achieve change. We have achieved that over the years, and our president has helped create

this and provided funding.

Another participant from the MIU site described their president as having an ability to convey a

focused vision, and the president’s fortitude towards the mobile learning program. MIUDir shared

the following:

That sort of…philosophy [the president] brings and confidence when he says that we are

going to do an iPad, one to one program, and he is going to fund whatever we need to fund

to make it function appropriately, this kind of vision and support is crucial.

 96

Likewise, faculty from MAIU describe their president with an ability to espouse confidence and

deliver a focused vision that helps lead the organization towards transformative change.

MAIUFHUM, a new faculty member teaching humanity, has quickly understood these traits and

shared the following:

So, I think it’s…the embracing of all the technology and all the things that are happening

from the top…with the underlying continual through the message and vision. Our

management team will say they’re doing it [faculty]. Students are doing it. It is this

constant messaging from our president on what our future needs to look like.

A more seasoned faculty member from MAIU acknowledged that the president of their institution

has helped transform the teaching and learning environment and provides additional details as to

how MAIU has been able to transform, sharing the following:

I would preface that our president has had some history in implementing laptop programs

in other institutions. I came in at the same time or shortly after his arrival. This gave us

faculty confidence that he knew how to make this change, he had learned what to do, and

now he was going to do it at MAIU, it was comforting for me.

The MIUPres explained the nature of the transformation that has occurred at MIU, explaining the

following:

We’ve changed the culture dramatically here, and we did it by sharing a future vision and

really applying some values that never existed in higher ed before, and we never

compromised on them. I provided a vision for our institution, one that must embrace speed

and a need for digital transformation.

While not all participants in this study described their leaders as transformative, all

acknowledged that leaders did provide supportive leadership qualities. Interestingly, this type of
 97

leadership occurred in all organizations or was described to occur within the individual leading

the mobile learning program. SIUFEDU explains that the importance of SIUVP is sharing:

I think that [SIUVP] and his team have been important to my success, and other faculty.

His role is to provide guidance, support, and show new ways of using the technology that

benefit students. He is able to provide leadership by supporting faculty and help us shift in

the way we teach and impact how students learn. We would not be where we are without

his support and leadership.

The vice president of technology, online learning, and innovation at SIU describes his role and

validates what SIUEDU shared:

It is my role, and this is my job predominantly to support the [mobile learning] program. I

am the leader for the university that provides faculty, and other leaders with direction,

guidance and I do it with an open approach that is highly collaborative.

MIU shared how the organization provided supportive leadership by being able to listen and then

be responsive, sharing a story regarding challenges that faculty were having with learning spaces

and how an old policy was limiting faculty’s ability to change their teaching styles and leverage

mobile learning. MIUFBIO describes how important and meaningful this was:

Even minimal changes make a big difference. Even something like in policy also helps.

We had a few issues when we first started with the learning spaces and making sure that

administration is supportive in recognizing that some changes are needed, and willing to

change policies is key.

Several faculty agreed with MIUFBIO, highlighting that the person that took ownership of this

policy change was MIUDir. They shared how vital MIUDir is to their success. MIUDir described

his primary role thusly:

 98

My team and I do a lot, but the most important thing that we can do is to provide

leadership for the [mobile learning] program, and we do this by establishing that kind of

faculty relationship, communicating with the deans, and making sure that we keep

communication with the bigger strategies and needs for academic kind of stuff.

Similarly, MAIUCIO describes how central the role of providing leadership for the mobile

program is at MAIU, mentioning it is achieved by connecting with faculty, listening to their

needs, and then being responsive. The self-described role of MAIUCIO is as follows:

[M]y role is, for one thing, you know, keep it flowing. Make sure we can continue to do it

and keep it supported and sustained…the faculty are kind of OK with me because I give

them, I am giver, that is how I support them. I don’t try to chip away at their authority.

Leadership characteristics. In addition to leadership styles and approaches in promoting

innovation, participants identified leaders as having particular characteristics that helped promote

innovation. Participants from all three sites noted different characteristics; however, several of

these overlapped across all three case locations. Some of these intersecting characteristics

included a leader’s ability to foster an innovative culture, a leader’s ability to focus on strategy,

and an incremental approach toward innovation for some of the sites.

SIU, an institution recognized for innovation and one that prides itself on being innovative

as part of its fabric, provided insights on its leadership and its characteristics that have supported

this type of culture. During the focus group session, SIUFMA shared the belief that SIU is primed

for innovation and proceeded to acknowledge that “[t]here is a lot of innovation going on and it is

part of the university culture now, we expect it…there’s a lot of innovation going on.” SIUVP

emphasized this by sharing several examples in how the university has embraced an innovative

culture, and acknowledged that the university’s president has driven this:
 99

We have faculty that are willing to try anything, 3D printing, VR, recording their classes,

and they will ultimately make the time for these things. Our president has supported and

developed a culture where this innovation can safely happen. It has put our institution at

the forefront and has made our institution the premier innovative place in our region.

This held equally true at MAIU, a traditional liberal arts institution established several hundred

years ago. Participants from MAIU acknowledged that the president of the university has brought

about change, and has done it by building and leveraging an innovative culture. MAIUCIO states

the following:

Our president changed everything when he first came here. He did it gradually, but at the

time, seemed to be significant. He began to build a new mission and vision for this

university. It basically says that we are here to deliver quality education to students, that

we must always place students first, and leverage technology.

The president from MAIU also placed an emphasis on the culture on developing a different vision

that includes innovation and technology. MAIUPres shared the following during the interview

session:

I’ve done this kind of change at three campuses. I learn more every time I do it…I have

experienced at each of the campuses…and at each campus, I have come across different

cultures. I have been able to set a new direction for MAIU, and innovation is at the heard

of that. We now have a different culture that is ripe to leverage innovation.

Likewise, MIU, an institution that has been around for 120 years, has also integrated and

embraced an innovative culture. MIUDir, the director for academic technology, describes how

faculty have changed and embraced innovation:

 100

[T]hat’s the culture that this [mobile learning program] has created in terms of faculty

sharing and collaborating across disciplines has fundamentally changed the way just the

culture that our campus has and teaching and learning.

MIUDir continues by sharing that the shift in culture and approach to teaching and learning has

evolved from a culture that is supportive of trying new things, mentioned that this support and

cultivation of innovative practices could be attributed to the president’s leadership. MIUPres

shared many examples of where MIU might be in the future, including a clear plan and vision for

the institution that has been widely shared and accepted across the university—a vision dependent

on the institution continuing to embrace an innovative culture. MIUPres explained this

phenomenon during the interview, describing it as, “the future of higher ed. We need to innovate,

and you can’t do it unless the institution has a culture of innovation.”

In addition to innovative cultures and strategic focus, two sites highlighted the importance

of leaders needing to understand and support an incremental approach towards innovation. Both

SIU and MIU discussed the importance of incremental change and how critical it was towards

moving the institution towards innovative practices. For instance, MIUDir shared the university’s

approach to adopting innovative practices:

[W]e always tell faculty as we’re talking about the iPad…nobody is expecting you to be

an iPad…wizard on day one. But what is the one thing that you can try that will make a

difference? Let’s try it. I think we’ve been really successful in that and the culture of

innovation, trying new things. And I think that’s sort of just speaks to the culture we built.

It is this incremental approach towards innovative and driving change that MIU has been able to

establish across its faculty and community. Further, the president from SIU expressed a similar

desire to lead and drive innovative change:

 101

I’m sort of an incrementalist on things like this [mobile learning program]…we try new

things that are small, and if they work great, and if not, we learn and continue on a

different path…Change is best when it is modularized, or done in small chunks.

SIUPres continued by sharing how that philosophy of innovation is dependent on incremental

adoption, stating, “I am basically talking about incrementalism, we believe in that, and it is how

to lead and impact change, here at [SIU].”

Focusing teaching and learning on the student learning experience. The student

learning experience is at the forefront of small, private universities that depend on face-to-face

interaction and engagement to demonstrate value. The sites in this study described their efforts in

improving the overall student learning experience, detailing how they focused their mobile

learning programs to enhance or better align teaching and learning by emphasizing an

improvement to the student learning experience. The faculty from SIU was vocal about this,

demonstrating that they understood where the institution was headed and how they played a

significant part in this focus. SIUFMA, who teaches math, describes adopting and shifting this

focus differently, stating, “Yes, I was able to flip my class. I no longer just lecture, I have

captured my lectures, and they are available to the students to review in advance of a class and

after any class.” SIUFMA explained that these types of efforts have been done to improve

teaching and learning. A SIU professor teaching in the college of health professions adds to this

discussion providing personal experience on focusing efforts on student learning, stating the

following:

[Mobile learning] has for us made it clearer that through the iPad and easy access that we

have to our students, it is making the learning more student-focused through the iPad, and

it has been more intense than I have when I am in the classroom.

 102

SIUFEDU, a faculty member in the education department, expands on this thought, sharing

personal experience by explaining that, while understanding the need to change focus towards

student learning, the move has raised some challenges:

Well, since the technology is there and we know that students also have it, it kind of puts

more or bigger demands to engage with the students. They have access to me in the

evening, on the weekends or on the holiday, whenever. It’s not a 9 to 5, anymore…And

even, we offer virtual office hours, and I have seated office hours as well. We have virtual

office hours.

In the interview, the president from SIU covered this focus on student learning when explaining

that “the main motivation is to make sure that actually, we are meeting students in some ways and

where they are, in the mobile world.” SIUPres continued to expand on this idea, acknowledging

there have been some more pressures placed on the faculty:

The faculty has to realize that they need to change the time that they have with their

student; they can’t simply lecture anymore…we understand that teaching and learning is

no longer about the faculty…but a shift that is focused on student and student learning.

The faculty from MAIU were also aware of the institution’s focus on student learning,

acknowledging this would happen by leveraging the mobile learning program and altering their

teaching and learning practices. For instance, MAIUFMA, a faculty member teaching math,

shared during the focus group a strategy in altering teaching and learning practices to

accommodate the way students prefer to engage with content, detailing the following approach:

“[T]take my calculus class. I try and break the class up into three 20-minute segments so that even

if I lose them for a segment, they have a chance to get back and pick up the piece.” A colleague

from the same institution who teaches accounting added the following:
 103

That is exactly what I have tried to do with my students because I found if you do

accounting, for instance, for an hour and 10 minutes, they’re gone…But, yeah, I try to

move my free time in the classroom by chunking up the lesson and my expectations.

Other faculty from the same institution describe other aspects and approaches that they take in

modifying the teaching and learning practices. MAIUFSOC described having changed the way

assessment is done by moving away from memorized and recited materials to making students

apply the materials and content. MAIUFSCO mentioned, “I even let them used their books and

notes.” A member of the education faculty from MAIU described that all of the approaches

shared by the faculty are proof that they are willing to change their teaching and learning

practices to accommodate or make sure that the student learning experience is elevated.

MAIUFEDU stated that “more than 80 percent of our faculty, most of our faculty, really care

about their teaching and whether or not the students are learning.”

The president from MIU shared during his interview the belief that all decisions and

priorities need to be made with a “student-first mentality,” one of the pillars within the new

strategic plan alongside with active learning. Both of these pillars of the strategic plan demand

new ways of teaching, and according to the president, “the content needs to be delivered in

different modalities, and students expect it to be readily available in different formats.” This type

of demand places stress on MIU’s faculty to evolve and understand that the university is moving

towards a focus on student learning, “and the new approach to learning must impact and change

our teaching and learning practices. It is all tied together.”

Institutional commitment to mobile learning

The literature and previous studies have underlined several factors that organizations or

institutions must address in order to be able to sustain technology initiatives such as a one-ton-one
 104

mobile learning program. An empirical study conducted by Alrasheedi et al. (2015b) identifies

institutional commitment and the ability for organizations to embrace change as crucial success

factors for institutions seeking innovative practices. The data collected from this study produced

an overlapping number of factors that, according to participants, were critical in maintaining the

mobile learning program and helped institutions identify particular challenges, which led the sites

to develop productive uses for mobile learning practices. While different at each site, these

mobile learning practices led to sustained innovative practices within the participant sites.

Factors that help maintain mobile learning programs. Each of the participants

identified several factors that contributed to the sustainability of the mobile learning programs at

their sites. While participants identified a varied list of factors, several could be categorized into:

(1) leadership’s role in sustaining mobile learning and innovative practices, (2) ability for the

organization to try new things and stay current, and (3) a commitment to a consistent ecosystem

that was focused on the community experience.

Leadership’s role in sustaining mobile learning and innovative practices. Leadership

plays a critical role in the implementation and sustainability of mobile learning programs.

Participants described the role of leadership in different ways, but all agreed that the role of

leadership was essential to sustaining mobile learning and adopting campus-wide innovative

practices. One of the critical roles identified by participants was that of leaders needing to

establish clear priorities in which the institution would set its focus. All three participating

presidents acknowledged the need to provide such a direction, focus, and establish priorities for

their organizations. For instance, MAIUPres explained the following:

This [the mobile learning program] is a priority in what I see as a vision of education.

There are other priorities that I have for this institution. But this is one of them. So, I think
 105

that’s the that's the ultimate president’s role is it's the priority. And the president is going

to make it a priority. And that means it’s going to get resourced and go from there.

MIUPre added to the resourced theme mentioned by MAIUPres, stating that “[the mobile learning

program] really is fueled by from an administrative standpoint, you know, sort of complete

resource support.” SIUPres expanded upon this sentiment, acknowledging the leadership the need

“to identify priorities to the university. We do this through our strategic initiatives, and SIU-

Initiative is one of those, and my role is to support it through funding.” SIUVP, who leads the

SIU-Initiative for SIU, supports the president’s comments and adds the following:

[T]he program has given [SIU] a focus that is prioritized by incorporating mobile

technologies into the curriculum. I think that is a novel and unique focus that has

prioritized resources for our institution…MLI has made us focus on the excellence of

teaching and has provided resources for our faculty to receive faculty development.

It is clear from the interviews and focus groups that presidents from the participating sites

have prioritized the mobile learning program. Faculty and leaders from two of the sites also added

that presidents were instrumental in empowering faculty and looking to them as leaders of the

mobile learning programs. SIUPres summarized it thusly:

We try to be very, and I say try on purpose…[to] listen to our faculty, to be responsive to

our faculty. At this point, it really would be curious to hear from faculty who think that we

should be going in a different direction.

The leader of SIU-Initiative explains how the president and other executives have stepped away

from giving instructions on how mobile learning should be embraced, and empowering faculty to

fill the gap. SIUVP explains:

 106

Leadership has now relaxed off a bit I would say, meaning that there has been less of you

need to do this or you have to do this in a certain way and instead has been there to

provide support, to allow faculty to be creative and to let faculty decide on the best way to

incorporate technology.

During the focus group with faculty at SIU, several faculty members acknowledged that

leadership was very responsive, listened to faculty, and provided faculty with the opportunity to

give input to the mobile learning program. This responsiveness was illuminated as faculty spoke

about retrofitting learning spaces. SIUFM discussed this point, sharing that “they [leadership]

speak with us and ask what it is we want, or need, and then they go out and bring back different

options.” SIUFM also expanded on this and acknowledged that “we really appreciate being part

of the process.” Faculty from MIU also provided insights as to how management has listened and

empowered faculty. MIUHP talked about the ability to shape future designs of buildings, sharing

that “I was shocked with MIUDir [who] came to me and said as you know there is a new building

up with classrooms for your program and we want you to lead the charge.” MIUPT, who teaches

in the physical therapy program, mentioned that the classrooms that are used for that program are

scheduled to be remodeled, adding “[w]ell, they’re letting me change ours. I am going to get to

give input on how the classroom should be designed.” MIUPres shared that empowering faculty

and getting them engaged in decision-making was done intentionally, explaining that this was a

way of getting buy-in for the mobile learning program and future initiatives. MIUPres shared this

approach, stating the following:

[W]e really empowered all faculty, about at the time or before we started the program

maybe 14 to 16 faculty that were already doing amazing stuff and basically gave them free
 107

rein to design the development of MIU-Initiative program. And that’s worked great. All

stepped forward, and we really saw three or four them take on leadership roles.

The SIUPres and MIUPres mentioned that as they provided support, encouraged faculty input,

and empowered them to take on more responsibilities, in turn also creating leaders among the

faculty. SIUPres mentioned how SIUFMA stepped into a leadership role and explained, “we

quickly realized that SIUFMA would be a good point person for MLI. And [SIUFMA] could

again, sort of be an evangelist and more like, a leader for academics.” Likewise, MIUPres

mentioned that his institution worked hard to make sure that “faculty have been the drivers of it

[MIU-Initiative],” acknowledging that it was vital to engage and empower faculty, who “are still

with us and have helped make MIU-Initiative successful across the university. And they’re really

the faculty leaders…on this campus are clearly good teachers who are also innovative.” While

this empowerment of faculty at MAIU was not discussed in depth by faculty or leaders,

MAIUPres acknowledged and understood how important it is to evolve the mobile learning

program, sharing during the interview that the lack of faculty leadership was a concern, stating

that “[o]ther things that have to you know, where we haven’t succeeded yet, is finding the right

person to run the faculty and to help out in the teaching and learning center. That’s still a

weakness.”

Organization’s willingness to try new things and stay current. A second factor discussed

among the participating sites centered on each organization’s openness to new initiatives, and the

desire to stay current with the technology, industry, and society. All three organizations shared

numerous stories and examples of how faculty have leveraged mobile learning technologies and

practices to try new things within their teaching and learning environments. For example,

SIUFMA leveraged the iPad and Apple TV to engage students, and has incorporated a method of
 108

using technology to have students answer problems on the board but from their seats. SIUFMA

explains:

I used to let students ask other students for help in solving the problem. It forces them to

communicate and work together. They have to go to the whiteboard and work together.

Now I’m using the iPad they are able to go through a similar process, and through the

Apple TV, they can share their screen with the entire class and solve the problem together.

A faculty member teaching music added that leveraging new technologies pushes faculty to think

about teaching online, describing that the iPad and applications associated with the mobile

learning program provide the confidence to try something different, allowing faculty to “quickly

be able to make an online class; without me using the technology, this would have been

impossible.” A faculty member in the allied health program described the intention of trying to

replace textbooks with eBooks, mentioning that having support from the center of innovation and

digital learning and previous success in integrating mobile learning technologies has given the

faculty member the confidence to try developing eBooks. The vice president for technology,

online learning, and innovation from SIU acknowledged that faculty are willing to try new things,

and that SIUVP’s department was established to foster this opportunity among faculty, explaining

“their willingness to try, to accept the new reality. It takes time and effort from the faculty.”

Faculty from MIU further provided examples in the faculty’s enthusiasm and openness in

embracing new ways of making an impact on the teaching and learning environments. A

professor who teaches personal finance shared the willingness to explore mobile technologies like

personal finance apps, the ability to connect with students, and at the same time, fulfill learning

outcomes for classes. MIUFPFI explains how this led to an alternative offering to a final exam:
 109

And so, what I did, I ran a pilot this time last spring, and I changed up my final exam in

my personal finance classes. I asked them to pick one personal finance app, form the 100s

of apps out there, and use it to track their finances for the semester. I then asked them to

write a reflective paper and then present to the class on their experience, incorporating

personal finance learning outcomes, principals, and methods that we covered in class.

They used their iPads for the app, and developed a presentation, they really liked it and

did really well with it. Well, the presentation could have been better, but it was a pilot.

MIUDir, during the interview, further elaborated, stating that at MIU, “we have faculty that are

willing to I try this new app that I’ve never tried before because I want to see how it’s going to

work and how it may improve my class.” MIUDir added that this energy is contagious, and

faculty are almost excited about trying new apps or finding new ways to connect with students,

explaining that this is part of the culture at MIU and what has been key to becoming more

innovative as an institution.

Faculty members at MAIU shared several examples of how they have incorporated and

tried new approaches within their classrooms, many of which were directed towards making an

impact on improving engagement and collaboration among students. MAIUEDU stated the

following:

Almost always these days, when there’s a group project and the students are sharing

whatever documents I make, them share it with me, too. And I check in periodically with

them, and the iPad and apps allow me to do this effortlessly.

A faculty member teaching languages and linguistics provided another example of how to try new

ways to engage with students by incorporating audio files and converting them into a format that

is playable on the iPad, elaborating thusly:

 110

[T]his allows me to make sure that the technology works for all of them, and they use the

iPad to record and share the audio files among students, then they all make comments and

get to learn from each other.

MAIUPres both acknowledged and stressed the shift within the faculty, explaining that it was tied

to the launch of the mobile learning program, sharing that “I have experienced and seen a

significant mind shift [in faculty] towards the openness of technology use in general since we

started the two-to-one program.”

A few participants mentioned or recognized faculty’s openness could be attributed to the

institution’s desire to stay current with technology and societal changes. At SIU, a faculty

member that teaches math commented on how emerging technologies have influenced the

commitment to enhancing the teaching and learning environments, explaining that “we are

exposed to the newest technologies which allow us to be innovative and impact the teaching and

learning experiences of our students, but it is important to stay committed to this.” SIUVP added

to this connection between the faculty’s willingness to try new approaches and the desire to stay

current, sharing the following during the interview:

We have faculty that are willing to try anything, 3D printing, VR, recording their classes,

and they will ultimately make the time for these things. Faculty will make the make the

effort to incorporate Zoom, for instance, or some other application into their classroom.

They are eager to embrace new things, and it has been part of our institutional drive to

stay current by trying to meet students at the platforms and technology that they are

accustom in using.

Importance of standard learning ecosystem and experience to support teaching. The

faculty that participated in the focus group sessions across all three institutions discussed the
 111

importance of having the same devices and software that would support their teaching and

learning environments. Faculty aired challenges associated with bringing in technology before the

mobile learning program, and many of these complaints included incompatibility across different

devices, software platforms, and the unreliability of particular technology. For instance, MIUFPFI

mentions the following:

I use to hate bringing in new software to my class, and I had to spend several weeks of my

semester, answering and troubleshooting compatibility or installation issues. The IT

department hated me, and I caused them so much work.

As MIU moved to a 1:1 iPad program, faculty shared many of the benefits associated with being

in a learning ecosystem that was integrated, meaning the software and hardware originated with

the same manufacturer. During the focus group session, MIUFACC explained that it “was very

helpful that the full-time students are supplied with laptops and iPads. All students having equal

access to the same platform has helped tremendously.” MIUFPHI further elaborates on this point:

[E]verybody has the same device, everybody has the same apps. That’s critical for me in

terms of assignments or assessments that I do and an expectation of how students are

demonstrating learning.

MIUFPT, another faculty member from the same institution, teaches physical therapy, adding to

the discussion that the MIU-Initiative has provided every student with an iPad and applications

that make a difference in the classroom, stating that the initiative was a “vehicle for faculty to

start looking much closer at their teaching and to start focusing on the strategic plan and goal of

active learning ecosystem.”

Similarly, SIU faculty engaged in discussions that highlighted the importance of the

ecosystem, hardware, software, and how faculty and students utilized the solutions together. A
 112

faculty member who teaches math described how having a standard learning ecosystem has

allowed collaboration with students, explaining the following:

[Students] just connect, and they share what they have on their iPads. This makes the class

much more dynamic. It also keeps students engage, and they are forced to follow along as

I may call on them at any time to share their screen on the Apple TV. The screen share

feature is a powerful tool in my classroom. So, in fact, the iPad and all of the tools have

really impacted the teaching and learning experience in my own classroom.

Several other SIU faculty members discussed how the learning ecosystem, which evolved from

the mobile learning program, has changed their teaching and learning practices.

MAIU Faculty members shared similar experiences and attributed these positive

experiences to the mobile learning program. During the focus group, numerous MAIU faculty

discussed how the 2:1 program has built confidence and simplified the classroom experience for

faculty. They reported fewer technical issues in the classroom, which leaves more time for

instruction and engagement with students. MAIU faculty acknowledged that knowing students

have the same software and hardware solutions makes faculty willing to try new approaches and

incorporate different teaching practices. For example, MAIUFSOC explains:

That’s when the new modalities and other assignments are much more, and they can be

much more creative and a much more creative experiences for faculty and students. Yes, it

just works. So, having devices such as the laptops and iPad Pro help me in making sure

that things just work in my classroom.

Challenges in supporting a mobile learning program. The adoption of new technology

solutions by organizations has many challenges, and mobile learning programs are not immune to

these commonalities. One of the factors identified by the participants was the importance of
 113

understanding the challenges associated with supporting a mobile learning program. During the

interviews and focus groups, participants shared several challenges they believe impeded or

slowed campus-wide acceptance. One of the main challenges shared by several participants

focused on the costly nature of the mobile learning program. Some participants spoke about the

cost associated with running and maintaining the program, while others addressed the cost

associated with supplying the support of personnel as well information technology infrastructure.

MAIUCIO was surprised by how much time and energy staff had to spend in project

management, developing training videos, and other functions outside of their day-to-day

responsibilities. MAIUCIO elaborated, explaining how some staff have to compensated. “I pay

my project manager a fee for the extra work because she can’t and I can’t conscientiously make

her work 70 hours a week every week.” MAIUCIO also addressed the investment that the

university has financed regarding the university information technology network, mentioning

during the interview that the university “had to make a $2 million investment to replace the

network,” far exceeding the typical $100,000-200,000 annual funding for the network and related

equipment.

Meanwhile, the director of academic technology at MIU spoke about how the university

prioritized funding for faculty development, having established a two-week paid extension to all

faculty in order to provide additional time to participate in faculty development outside of

traditional semesters. For MIU, this investment is around $500,000 annually and goes towards

compensating faculty in order for them to attend faculty development that is principally geared

towards the adoption of mobile learning practices. MIUDir acknowledged that the university,

much like MAIU, made a substantial initial investment in the network infrastructure to prepare

the technology services for the mobile learning program. SIU was also not immune to the
 114

significant investment that is necessary to support the mobile learning program, with the president

noting the significant “six or seven-figure annual investment that goes into the iPads, software,

faculty development, and apps.” For SIU, this type of commitment was a sound investment.

Secondly, leaders from all three institutions cited that one of the main challenges they had

to address and overcome was faculty reluctance to embrace technology, which several leaders

described as more of a fear of change rather than a fear of adopting new technology. For instance,

MIUDir stated that “I would say we have…the lagging 10 percent whom…no matter what you

would do, whatever initiative we start, that there be some flack about it and resistance.” SIUPres

expanded on this concept, sharing that “ there’s no question that …we have Luddites on campus

who sort of hate the technology and hate the idea of it.” SIUPres explained that for these faculty

members, it is about “fear of change. It’s real, and we still see it occasionally.” The vice president

of technology, online learning, and innovation acknowledged this challenge and reiterated the

president’s point, stating that “we still get some push back once in a while regarding why are you

making me do this or use this application. But it has become few, and honestly, with time, it has

almost gone away altogether.”

Furthermore, faculty participants admitted there are challenges associated with

maintaining a mobile learning program. However, they discussed different challenges than those

detailed by leaders. For instance, SIUFCOM mentioned difficulties with the technology, further

elaborating that leaders have insisted on trying to make the device work for things that the iPad

was not designed for. SIUFCOM shared some of those frustrations during the focus group:

I find most students bringing laptops to my class, not their iPad. So, because laptops are

best for content creation. So, I think that the iPad is not really effective or has improved

my classes or the teaching and learning environment. But iPhones are better just because
 115

the iPhones are in their pockets all of the times and the students are never without them.

So, I think that the best solution for my class is the laptop and an iPhone that seems to

work the best for me, not the iPad.

SIUFCOM claimed to be an innovator who likes technology but finds it challenging to adopt the

iPad for components of coursework that do not align with the device’s functionality. Several

faculty members also stressed the challenge of being dependent on the iPad; some students do not

bring the device, some are not charged, or sometimes, it simply does not work. MAIUFSOC

stated “I built an activity around the iPad and apps, and some of my students did not bring their

iPad, and the app did not work for all students, it was really frustrating for me and the students.”

Other participants described that, because of some of these challenges, faculty have had to

develop anti-technology policies for their classrooms. For instance, MAIUFLAN shared an

account of a fellow faculty member, stating the following:

[W]hat happens is that students will have some faculty who just have a blanket policy,

absolute positively no technology in my class, is what they will say. These faculty want to

make sure that the students focus on them, and I get that, I guess. The problem is that we

have students with disabilities who are allowed to use the technology

because…disabilities and accommodations. Now, what happens if I’m a student with a

disability who’s been told I’m allowed to type my notes? That is a legal accommodation,

and I go into a class where the instructor says no technology. They have to accommodate

me. Now I stand out as a student who has a disability because I’m not given an exception

to the class that no one else has. So, there’s some issues there that we have we have to

work out, I think.

MAIUFACC agreed with MAIUFLAN’s comments added the following:

 116

I think for many faculty, they’re just faculty that are naturally change-resistant. And some

even change-averse…I’ve got a system in my class that works well. Students have been

learning, you know, why [do] we need to change? And that’s just the nature of a lot of

faculty. They didn’t go into the field necessarily to become change agents or to become

technologists or users of technology solutions.

Using mobile learning to enhance teaching and learning. The last factor attributed to

the participating sites’ success in adopting a mobile learning program was their ability to leverage

mobile learning to improve teaching and learning. All three sites reported positive experiences

and shared examples of how they were able to influence mobile learning practices to improve

teaching and learning. For several sites, this desire to use mobile technologies was driven by the

institution’s desire to impact student engagement. During the focus group session, numerous SIU

faculty expressed the same goal of wanting to increase student engagement. Almost all faculty

that participated in the SIU focus group shared examples that exemplified their use of mobile

technologies and how doing so influenced their teaching and learning approaches. SIUFMUS

discussed how important human interaction is and how it connects faculty with students, stating

the following:

[T]he human to human interaction is enhanced through this device because I am able to

communicate with my students who are all over the world…my students have expressed

to me that because of how available I am with this technology, it really helps…with the

connection, interaction, and to the university, this is something that the technology does

[to] enhance our teaching and learning experiences.

Likewise, SIUFMA and SIUFBIO shared how they leveraged applications and the

ecosystem that has emerged from the mobile learning program to engage with their students.
 117

Faculty members discussed numerable strategies including the use of applications to connect and

engage with students. Specifically, SIUFCOM shared how the use of Zoom in a hybrid course to

help all of the students in the class when one student has a question since all students can follow

along and stay connected:

I can interact with the student…however the rest of the class can follow along…having

the iPad gave me confidence to change my teaching approaches, gives all of us faculty,

and students, more options to interact, and thus improve the teaching and learning

environment.

Moreover, faculty members from MIU and MAIU shared similar experiences of

embracing the integration of mobile learning approaches into their teaching. Faculty members

from both of these sites shared examples that focused on enhancing student collaboration. A

faculty member from MAIU who teaches accounting explained that the iPad and applications

completely changed the approach to group work:

When you graduate, you’re working in a team environment. So, I tend to limit the amount

of lecture content delivery and so forth. I focus more on group work and individual

exercises. So, I try and break it into kind of into…different groups. But what I found

interesting is over my years of teaching is the group project has become more and more

popular as opposed to, you know, 20 years ago level much, much less…popular. I think

that technology and in particular our iPad program has facilitated this change in group

work.

Additionally, MAIUCIO reported an increase in collaborative approaches in the

classroom, explaining that faculty have sought out technology solutions that would assist in
 118

enhancing engagement. MAIUCIO described an investment in solutions that promoted

collaboration, sharing during the following during the interview:

I had to install in all classrooms an Apple TV. There’re no passwords; we don’t lock it.

You hit the button. Turn on the projector. And since every student has an iPad, they can

use Airplay to share content on the screen. You know, have made a study group or an

ability for the classroom to be one highly collaborative environment.

At MIU, participants stressed the importance of using the mobile learning ecosystem,

applications, and hardware to promote collaboration. For example, MIUFHP replaced traditional

whiteboard usage and achieved more engagement and collaborative work among students, sharing

the following:

I used to use Word and the Whiteboards in the classroom and replaced it with an app that

allows for collaboration and allows all of the students to participate and become more

active; they can’t hide anymore. I can quickly see who is not answering the poll question

or not engaged. I have been doing this…for some time with similar positive results. It has

impacted our students in a positive way and has modified my teaching and learning

approaches. This would be difficult to do if I did not have confidence that all students

were equally equipped.

At MIU, the institution defined this approach by embracing active learning education.

In terms of seeking to incorporate active learning education, all participants at MIU—faculty and

leaders—spoke about how leadership had presented a desire to leverage the mobile initiative,

MIU-Initiative, to help faculty transform their teaching and learning to an active learning

environment. The president of MIU defined and described the intersection of MIU-Initiative and
 119

how this initiative was helping in fulfilling one of the pillars of the strategic plan to adopt and

lead the institution in a transformation towards active learning. MIUPres explained:

The signature of our education has become our ability to move towards an active learning

ecosystem, and at its foundation is the MIU-Initiative. So, for example, there’s not a

speech or a talk or a small group gathering or anything on-campus, off-campus where I

don’t use the term ‘our active learning ecosystem’ and how cutting edge it is now and how

it has redefined our campus.

MIUPres further elaborated that active learning and the ecosystem that makes up this teaching

and learning approach includes modifying classrooms by considering spatial designs that

complement mobile technologies, collaborative teaching methods, and flexible movable furniture.

MIUPres stressed the following:

[T]he front of the room is gone, it is replaced by concentrating on learning and letting

learning shape the way space is used. Active learning is totally immersive, integrated,

multi-purpose learning spaces across campus, mixed with pedagogy that leverages the

technology behind MIU-Initiative.

MIUDir, the lead for the MIU-Initiative, also spoke excitedly about the transformation that has

occurred at MIU, and how MIU-Initiative has helped that become a reality, sharing the following

during the interview:

Really, the purpose of [the mobile learning program] was how do we transition from sort

of passive learning pedagogy to active learning pedagogy with the idea that a mobile

device is central to that…[N]ow we are using the iPad to facilitate, you know, real active

learning where they’re whatever doing polling in the classroom…they’re having students

do projects on [the iPad]. It’s like it’s a complete fundamental shift.

 120

MIUDir also stressed that at MIU, the president and leadership had done a remarkable job

communicating the need to transform the institution into an active learning ecosystem. MIUDir

stressed the following during the interview:

I think the other important thing that we did is [that] it was all tied to our strategic

planning. So, during the time that we decided to do it, we were finishing up our strategic

plan. So, the 1:1 program, MIU-Initiative, was launched in 2015. Our new strategic plan

launched in 2015. It was all tied together. And one of the pillars of our strategic plan is

active learning. And one of the manifestations was to start 1:1 with iPads.

All six MIU faculty participants in the focus group reported the importance of active learning and

how it was an approach that they were aware of, discussing examples and strategies of how it

transformed their teaching. This transformation and adoption of active learning were best

captured by MIUFPT, a faculty member that has been with the institution for 30 years, who

shared the following during the focus group:

And the idea [of MIU-Initiative] was to begin transforming education through the use of

technology. And the more interesting part of that, I think, is that technology then served as

a vehicle for faculty to start looking much closer at their teaching and to start focusing on

the strategic plan and goal of [an] active learning ecosystem.

Achieving Innovative Teaching and Mobile Learning Practices

The fourth theme that emerged from the data collection and analysis phase was centered

upon the participant sites’ desires to transform teaching and learning through the support of

innovative teaching and mobile learning practices. The study demonstrated that, while the

participating sites took different approaches to achieving this goal, they all had analogous

components, which are further elaborated by three sub-themes: (1) the need to develop a support
 121

model for the mobile learning program, (2) embracing digital content and new delivery methods,

and (3) prioritizing faculty development.

Support models for mobile learning programs. A support model for mobile learning

programs must include providing adequate care for faculty and their growth in integrating

technology into the classroom and curriculum. Across all three sites, participants’ interview and

focus group responses indicated that institutions concentrated on developing staffed resources to

assist faculty, as well as the need for the institution to streamline the process associated with

giving faculty access to technology including mobile applications. Faculty and leaders supporting

the mobile learning programs at each of the institutions highlighted a commitment to enhancing

the information technology infrastructure and developing complementary learning spaces that

matched new teaching methods.

Based on this study’s findings, ensuring faculty had professional staff assistance was

critical, specifically regarding faculty technical support provided in the classroom and curriculum

technology integration. Two of the sites—SIU and MIU—created departments or centers focused

on this kind of need and support for faculty. SIU established the SIU-Center, which included 11

full-time staff spanning the fields of instructional design, learning management, multimedia, and

technical support. At MIU, the director of academic technologies oversaw a department of five

including three learning designers, a learning management specialist, and a mobile learning

support specialist. At both of these universities, technical support for the students and staff was a

responsibility outside of these departments and assigned to central IT. At MAIU, while there was

no central office established to support faculty, central IT did have staff dedicated to and

responsible for instructional design and supporting the mobile learning program. SIUFMU, a
 122

faculty member teaching music, shared a positive experience from working with SIU-Center for

Faculty:

If I have an idea like you mentioned, I’ll come in rather than here in like a yes or no. It’s

like, let’s do it. This is exciting. Let’s figure out how we can make it happen. That’s

always the energy they have behind it.

Faculty across all participating sites expressed the need and importance of having easily

accessible technology solutions, specifically mobile applications. MIUFPHI highlighted this

criticality, sharing the following:

MIUDir provides us with some standard educational apps, and we can download them

from the SIU cloud (mobile device management solution). If we have something that we

want, we just tell him, and he will get it for us. It’s awesome. So, like in two hours, we can

have what we need. I’ll let him know the cohort of students that need that app, and he will

do something that makes those students have access to the app. It happens very quickly.

Other faculty members from MIU enthusiastically jumped into the conversation, with one stating,

“we use Physical Body app, which is really expensive and he pushes it out to every one of our

students, and he did it the same day that I asked for it.” In the same focus group, several faculty

were complimentary of MIUDir and the department, describing their services “like magic.” In the

interview, MIUDir explained that being able to push applications and making them available to

students and faculty is a key service that has helped adoption, sharing the following:

Let me give an example that might highlight how we provide mobile apps to faculty. So

yesterday I had a faculty reach out and request for me to purchase an app and push it to all

of our students, and I just made it available this morning to over 70 students.
 123

Furthermore, faculty from SIU and MAIU spoke about the speed at which the program

was adopted across campus. The expectation for swift adoption required faculty access to a

constant supply of hardware and mobile application solutions. One faculty member from SIU

teaching math explained that speed in which the program was adopted and pushed across campus

required the testing of numerous applications to discover which worked for the needs of the

course, explaining that “SIU-Center for Faculty staff member was great in giving me access to a

suite of apps, and then even helped me in determining which one would be best to use.” Similarly,

faculty from MAIU expressed the need for nimbleness and how the chief information officer, who

leads the technology team that provides support for faculty, has made it focus to be responsive to

faculty, sharing, “faculty would come to me needing stuff, small software requests or particular

technology solutions that required special hardware, and I would not question and basically say

YES to everything.” MIUCIO elaborated, explaining this was the direction given by the president,

and this approach has served the team well in working more closely with academics and faculty.

Secondly, besides staffing considerations, the participating sites shared insights regarding

the need for learning spaces to be complementary to innovative teaching and mobile learning

practices that faculty were embracing. During the focus group at MIU, several faculty shared

concerns and challenges with learning spaces, specifically with classrooms. MIUFPT, MIUPHI,

and MIUFBIO all engaged in dialogue that highlighted this issue, reporting the challenges of

cycling between classrooms equipped with technology and new furniture, and those that were not.

MIUFBIO highlights this as follows:

[T]he new classrooms have been updated with more modern and mobile-friendly

equipment, allow students to huddle where the kids could work on something and then

push stuff up to the cloud, and then I could pull their things down to a bigger screen and
 124

that kind of thing. Having those active classrooms was key because just this (MIUFBIO

points to the iPad) doesn’t allow for a lot of the activities. You really need the learning

spaces to be equipped properly. I have hard time having to go back to one of those

classrooms that do not have the flexible furniture and appropriate technology.

During the MAIU focus group, faculty discussed the importance of learning spaces. SIUFAH

mentioned how “our learning spaces are being designed with multi-purposes built into them, it

allows us to teach, but also students can use it to study or gather.” Likewise, MAIU faculty

recognized how learning spaces were critical to their success. MAIUFMA shared, “I often see

students studying in sorts of spaces, and I think that management has done a good job in creating

these types of flex learning spaces. We need more of that in our classrooms.”

Embracing digital content and new delivery methods. The interviews and focus group

sessions were filled with rich descriptive examples of how each of the sites had leveraged mobile

learning technologies to improve innovative teaching and learning. At the heart of this

transformation was the incorporation of digital content and new delivery mechanisms. For several

of the participants, this meant the adoption and use of mobile applications, digital content, and

eBooks. Faculty from SIU turned to Apple apps to provide assistive technology solutions for

students, indicating that the department of communications was promoting the development of

eBooks. In SIU’s nursing program, the Notability app was used to provide students with lectures

in advance of class meetings, so “students can…follow along and take notes…even shar[ing] my

own Notability app with them so that we can all share notes.”

At MIU, several faculty stressed the importance of having funding for students to procure

certain applications. MIUFHP described the importance of all students having access to the

Notability app, sharing that “having Notability has changed the way that I structured my class. I
 125

now provide much of the lecture on it, I sometimes place a video and students use it to ask

questions ahead of class, I then cover most the students’ questions in class.” MIUFPT regards

mobile applications as a “game-changer for me and my classroom [that] have allowed me to

digitize a lot of my paper, changed my teaching style and approach, and also created more

engagement time in my classroom.”

MAIU faculty discussed the importance of digital resources, organization, and how

moving to mobile helped them standardize this digital transformation. MAIUFLAN shared how

faculty development encouraged faculty to digitize their research papers. They have moved

everything to Canvas, the university’s learning management system:

[This allows] students to access everywhere, the mobile app edition of Canvas works okay

on the iPad, they can do enough to stay up to speed, you add Google classroom apps to

this environment, and we have a highly digital and mobile learning platform for our

students.

MAIUEDU added to the dialogue, explaining the Notability app’s uses encourage and facilitate

student’s cooperation, explaining “I let [students] mark up and work together and teaching each

other how to provide good responses and feedback.”

Embracing digital content, applications, and resources like eBooks have presented all

three sites with excitement and a positive impact on their teaching and learning environments.

However, not all of the components of the mobile learning program adoptions were without

issues. During the interviews and focus group sessions, both faculty and leaders shared challenges

they faced or continue to face with the adoption of the mobile learning program and their

subsequent transformational journey towards digital and mobile applications. Faculty from SIU

and MIU shared some of those challenges focused on limitations associated with the iPad. While
 126

faculty brought up these challenges and mentioned that it was frustrating to have to deal with

them, they developed and accepted particular workarounds. For instance, SIUFHP shared a noted

movement among students who were bringing smartphones to class and trying to use them place

of the iPad, mentioning that students prefer to take digital quizzes on phones instead of on the

iPad. SIUFCOM had a more negative perspective associated with the limitations of iPads,

mentioning that “iPads are not good for everything. I see my students bringing in laptops instead

of their iPad.” SIUFCOM, who teaches app development, stated students cannot design code on

iPads as the devices do not support the necessary software. “I think the iPad is probably good for

a lot of things, but it’s miserable as a content creation device.” SIUFMA added to the dialogue,

explaining that, in some cases, effective instruction requires the whole device environment,

stating that “you really need iPhones, laptops, and iPads and they all serve a special purpose. I

don’t think that we can just expect the iPad to do it all for us.”

Furthermore, faculty from all sites reported that transitioning to digital and applications

has resulted in some unforeseen issues, or at the very least, exposed underlying issues. Faculty

members discussed an uptick in plagiarism as well as challenges associated with digital exams

and cheating. SIU faculty expounded on the issue of plagiarism, attributing it to the transition to

digital. SIUFMU stated, “we have seen an increase in plagiarism, and I think it is because

students don’t understand it, and the information is just more regularly available.” Several SIU

participants nodded their heads in agreement, and SIUFHP added, “even in our profession in

health services, we have seen it [plagiarism] happen, which is awful. It was never a problem

before, we have even seen students cheat on exams.” SIUFAH shared that they tried to use exam

software on the iPads, but it was not reliable, stating:

 127

[W]e do high stakes testing. It locks down the device. It’s not very user-friendly with the

iPads. So, students had to start using laptops to take exams. And some of the students

stopped buying laptops, and this became an issue. So, we as the school had to have at least

five laptops that had to provide to students in order to do the digital exams.

MIU faculty also reported negative experiences with students having to take digital exams on the

iPad. Both MIUFPHI and MIUFBIO spoke about the challenges associated with the iPads and

described how they had to move away from digital exams. MIUFBIO explained issues such as the

following:

I have continual negative feedback from the students of when the lockdown browser

doesn’t work or…we’re not getting enough reception or whatever the issue is. It is

frustrating for me and the students. We stopped using digital exams.

MIUFPHI added experiencing “disaster after disaster with exams on the iPad.”

The push for digital adoption, the use of applications, and the focus on eBooks

development continues steadily at these institutions, even with challenges that faculty and leaders

have experienced. During the focus group sessions, numerous faculty shared detailed accounts of

how they embraced digital content and applied new delivery methods through the use of mobile

learning platforms. MIUFPT shared the experience of using a mobile app with classes:

[H]aving apps like ones that I use in physical therapy, one of the things that we teach is

how to analyze a gallop or how someone walks and there’s a lovely app called Huddle.

Will take a video and you can actually pick joints to concentrate on, and you can select

gender as well. It does a lot really. And so, what used to be the case is we had students, all

go to the gym and they walk back forth and back and forth. And we’re looking at the ankle

now and then let me look at the knee now. So, now all the students do is take this slow-
 128

motion video from the side view and from the front view. And they sit together—

huddle—go over it, and they do joint angles. And really, it was a huge game changer.

A faculty member from SIU shared several techniques, applications, and devices used in biology

courses:

[I]n teaching labs, we use the iPad mostly for connecting to the Wi-Fi microscopes, which

allow us to see what the students are seeing in the microscope at the same time, and it

becomes considerably easier to work that way…And we use lot of apps that will simulate

some of the stuff that we need in labs. I mean, one of my classes we use mind map apps

and I ask them to use this software to express their understanding of the experience within

the labs.

Many of these accounts were shared by faculty, which provided a lens into how faculty are using

digital content and mobile applications to further the efforts of the mobile learning programs.

These focus group sessions provided a view of how faculty are leveraging mobile learning and, at

the same time, transforming the teaching and learning environments.

Importance of faculty development. The third sub-theme identified from the data coding

and analysis addresses the importance of having sound faculty development strategies. Leaders

and faculty spoke of the importance of supporting faculty development efforts, and many

participants concurred that, without faculty development, many would not be able to engage in

innovative teaching or adopt mobile learning programs. SIU faculty shared many of the

opportunities that there are offered to faculty throughout the year. SIUFMA spoke about taking

advantage of summer sessions as a means of reloading and spending quality time enhancing

courses’ technology capacity, then updating those courses with faculty development takeaways.

SIUFHP was extremely impressed with the approaches that are taken to support faculty
 129

development, sharing that “we can even create [our] own. I mean. We don’t have to wait until

they’re providing an opportunity. We can e-mail any one of them on a project I’m thinking about.

You know, can we get together?” SIUFHP reiterated what other faculty contended: that this was

one of the key elements that leadership has done to support the mobile learning program.

Much like SIU, MIUPres supported faculty development by funding two additional weeks

of paid faculty development opportunities. Faculty praised the funding and support, and noted

how this has been important toward their success. Faculty also shared that, during the first couple

of years of the initiatives, faculty development was geared entirely towards using the iPad and

associated applications, and that today, it has evolved into to a focus on introducing new

pedagogical approaches such as active learning. MIUFPI, who teaches personal finance and is one

of the newer faculty members, described it thusly:

I was brand new when the program started and I was so intimidated. Not only had I never

used an iPad but I had never used it for teaching. The faculty development was so integral,

it really eased my anxiety. I also learned much more about teaching approaches and ways

that I could better engage with my students.

MAIU faculty discussed faculty development in a different manner, stating that there is no

learning center or central faculty development department similar to SIU and MIU. However, the

information technology department has resources available to faculty, and the training—more of a

one-on-one approach—is just in time. MAIUFMA explains:

I did not learn how to use mobile apps and Canvas on my own. I had help from the IT

folks, the instructional designer helped me with getting the right software, the right

hardware and making it work for me. We need these kinds of people to help us faculty.
 130

They are the ones with the expertise and the dollars to support us and the students. This is

great for a faculty like me and I kind of think it is fun.

MAIUFACC adds, “I agree. The instructional designers send out invitations at times for help with

Canvas or other mobile apps like Notability…and I find it to be very helpful.”

Summary of Findings

Sites in this study, through its participants, provided descriptive experiences that afforded

a lens into what institutions undertake in order to operate mobile learning programs. Both leaders

and faculty indicated several elements that go into starting and implementing a mobile learning

program. Participants specified that implementations are best embraced when done in phases. The

first step that all sites engaged in was a pilot program, followed by providing mobile devices to

faculty, and then issuing iPads to first-year students. Participants also identified attributes

associated with mobile learning programs at their institutions. Again, through the participants’

input, it seemed that there were common aspects that faculty members and leaders recognized.

These typical characteristics were based on the institutions’ desire to standardize the teaching and

learning environments so that the institution could provide its faculty and students with a

consistent learning experience.

Responses indicate that implementing a mobile learning program requires leaders to be

able to manage and drive change. Participants in this study recognized that in order to implement

a mobile learning program and continuing to operate such a program required leaders to be able to

influence change across the teaching and learning environments. Leaders and faculty identified

that their organizations experienced a transformation among their community, one that shifted the

campus mindset. Leaders spoke about this mind shift happening within the faculty as it pertained

to faculty adopting different pedagogical approaches that embraced mobile learning and one that
 131

shifted towards a student-centered approach. Participating faculty agreed, but added that this shift

also involved leaders experiencing a mind shift as well, one more focused on intentionally

supporting academics. This shift was demonstrated by leaders’ descriptions of their focus on the

student experience, and the prioritization that they had given to fund and support changes to the

teaching and learning environments.

Data collected from the interviews and focus group sessions illustrated an institutional

commitment to mobile learning and innovative teaching practices at all three sites. Participants

recognized several factors that contributed to the sustainability of the mobile programs. These

factors were discussed among the participants and included further support from leaders to keep

the mobile program current with technology and provide adequate resources as needed.

Participants illuminated challenges associated with sustaining a mobile program, with some

examples including balancing the enthusiasm of leaders with the necessary investment and

overcoming faculty opposition to technology change.

From the dialogue that emerged from the interview and focus group sessions, it was

indicative that all three sites desired to evolve and expand innovative teaching practices and

mobile learning programs beyond their current state. Participants highlighted common attributes

such as the need to develop a mature support model for the faculty, a dedicated effort to embrace

digital content, and new delivery methods that leveraged a mobile ecosystem. According to the

same participants, institutions made an investment and effort in expanding sophisticated faculty

development programs through faculty-dedicated learning centers. MIUPres described the

following:

MIU-Initiative is fueled by…an administrative standpoint, by our complete commitment

to resource it and the faculty. We have empowered faculty to lead and define the path
 132

chosen…I have helped MIU adopt a culture of speed and nimbleness, which are essential

values to innovate, and MIU-Initiative is giving us a platform to leverage.

Results and Interpretations

This multi-site case study explored the use of mobile learning practices in the three

participating sites to better understand the influence that leadership had on supporting faculty and

on the institutions’ goals of advancing innovative practices. The four themes and 12 sub-themes

that emerged from the voices and experiences of the participants were discussed in the finding

sections of this chapter. The four themes that surfaced from the cross-analysis conducted within

the three sites were identified in the previous section: (1) implementing mobile learning

programs, (2) leadership influence on change, (3) institutional commitment to mobile learning,

and (4) achieving innovative teaching and mobile learning practices. This section is comprised of

analysis and a discussion of the findings that were influenced by the research questions, previous

literature, conceptual framework, and theoretical frameworks. These four findings provide

evidence that further explores the use of mobile learning practices and an understanding of

leadership’s influence on motivating institutions to innovate. Results were constructed by

examining the themes and subthemes in relation with the voices and experiences captured from

the leaders and faculty participating in this study.

Result one: Implementing a mobile learning program has different paths, however,

adoption requires leadership support and common approaches.

Institutions turning to mobile learning and technological solutions for their organizations

must understand that implementation of technology requires sound adoption strategies to be able

to impact the teaching and learning environment (Ozdamli, 2011). Traxler (2013) recognized that

mobile technologies could have a profound impact on learning, but they require a shift from an
 133

organization towards modernizing teaching. The three sites that participated in this study

recognized the importance of shifting away from the current teaching approach to one that

leverages mobile technologies and places students at the center of the learning process. All six

leaders that participated in this study acknowledged that the adoption of their mobile learning

program required strategic alliance and communication that linked the university mission or

vision with the direction of the mobile learning program. Research provided by Hargis et al.

(2013) resulted in findings that demonstrated the importance of developing strategies that

provided the institutions with a focus on student-centered learning. This acknowledgment was

best emphasized by MAIUCIO, who shared that, “ahead of the launch of the iPad program, our

president changed our mission statement. It included the need to deliver quality education to

students and that we must always place students first.” At MIU and SIU, leaders also expressed

the need to align the mobile learning program with the universities’ strategic plans or visions. In

fact, at MIU, MIU-Initiative is a pillar within the university’s strategic plan.

Technological frameworks and models have existed and have been in practice for several

decades. As presented by Alrasheedi et al. (2015a), leaders can leverage these models and

frameworks as they seek to implement and adopt mobile learning in higher education. Yeap et al.

(2016) described how leaders and faculty have leveraged existing technology models, such as

Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM) and SAMR to assist institutions in adopting mobile

learning programs. The participating sites’ leaders leveraged TAM principles, such as balancing

the user’s perceived usefulness of new technology with the user’s perceived ease of use of the

same technology (Davis, 1989). This recognized balance of usefulness and ease is something that

leaders leveraged in how they introduced new resources within the mobile learning ecosystem and
 134

introduced faculty development opportunities that presented the use of applications and devices

like the Apple Pencil and Apple TV.

As participating sites developed their adoption strategies, leaders helped share a guide for

how they planned to assist faculty in the progress of transformational pedagogy and mobile

technology adoption. In the role of the mobile learning leaders at all the three sites, these

individuals provided incremental and supportive approaches in how the faculty would adopt

mobile learning. MIUDir, who is responsible for the mobile learning program at MIU, discussed

the role of assisting faculty find ways to transform their classrooms, further describing the

following:

[W]e do this by meeting the faculty where they are in proficiency. So, for a more technical

faculty, we help them with more significant changes, such as flipping the classroom. For

other faculty, we work on small steps like using Apple TV to present their Keynote

presentation. I would consider all of these a transformation in the classroom.

Leaders need to recognize that it takes time and effort to drive transformative change. Using

models such as SAMR can help leaders and organizations recognize where they are within the

stages of adoption.
 135

Phased
implementation
• Pilot
Adoption • Incremental
strategies and approach
frameworks
• Technology
acceptance model
Leadership • SAMR model
support
• Vision and strategy
• Student-center

Figure 11. Roadmap for implementing mobile learning program

The implementation of technology can take many different approaches, but according to

Kim et al. (2017), who has studied how technology programs and initiatives are adopted,

initiatives that follow particular stages and phases are more likely to be executed and become

more sustainable over time. In all three case locations, the researcher found that all three sites had

incorporated or launched their mobile learning programs in a phased approach. The stages of the

phases for these sites included a small pilot, faculty adoption, followed by an incremental

adoption strategy for students. Understanding models such as TAM and SAMR that help leaders

understand how faculty and students come to accept the use of mobile learning and gauge the

adoption stages are all crucial frameworks for leaders to utilize.

Result two: Leaders that adopt mobile learning programs leverage innovation to transform

teaching and learning.

 136

Leaders that focused the university strategy on mobile learning embraced innovative

practices that helped lead their institutions into transformative teaching and learning practices. In

all three cases, the presidents successfully led their institutions in the adoption of a mobile

learning program. It is incumbent upon leaders to understand the factors that may impede or

support technological change and adoption. According to Kim et al. (2017), some factors can be

leveraged from the theory of diffusion of innovation that can help leaders better understand

particular characteristics associated with implementing new or innovative technology. Rogers’s

(2003) theory of diffusion of innovation helps leaders understand the different rates that are

aligned to the adoption of technology.

According to Merhi (2015), who explored the five perceived characteristics of innovation,

in Rogers diffusion of innovation theory, and concluded that leaders who embraced the five

characteristics achieved a rapid rate of adoption and sustainability of new technology. In all three

case locations, the presidents of the institutions communicated and leveraged the perceived

characteristics of innovation and enjoyed a rapid rate of adoption. Leaders were able to explain

the relative advantage that mobile learning may offer their institutions and created compatibility

between existing values through strategic planning, mission statements, and past experiences to

attract faculty and staff to the programs. Further, leaders could apply the perceived characteristics

of complexity and trialability through the initial pilot programs. These pilots afforded leaders the

opportunity to convey that a mobile learning program was attainable by providing a limited

experiential test with support and a focus towards simplification of the faculty learning curve.

Finally, through the pilot programs’ results, leaders were able to communicate the programs’

observations and outcomes, thus allowing faculty who participated in the pilots to become leaders

for the communication and support of the programs.

 137

Participating leaders also demonstrated an understanding of Rogers’s diffusion of

innovation theory, five adopter levels, and how the members of their organizations may support

or impede the progress of innovative change (Mehri, 2015). All three participating presidents

demonstrated a comprehension of the different levels of categories that could be placed on their

faculty. MAIUPres explained that the awareness of the “top 20% as they are important, and you

can use them in your sandbox, they are your test group. Once it works with this 20%, you can

bring them in to help…60% of your faculty.” Equally, MIUPres and SIUPres attributed their

successes to an understanding that, within the faculty member base, there were a set of early

adopters, a middle group, and laggards.

Mobile
Teaching
and
Learning
Impacting Innovative
Online
Services
Learning

Leaders
and
Innovation

Figure 12. Describing how leaders can impact innovation across the institution

Leaders’ understanding of innovative and adoption theories helped their efforts in

sustaining and evolving the maturation of the mobile learning programs at all three sites.
 138

Additionally, leaders were able to leverage these efforts and transformations by impacting other

areas of the university. All three universities launched initiatives aimed at expanding their online

programming offerings. This focus on online learning occurred briefly following the launch of the

mobile learning programs. A faculty member, SIUFMA, made this connection between mobile

learning and online learning during the focus group, explaining the following:

[T]his push of mobile learning also pushed the online learning initiative; we had the

infrastructure in place to support the development of online learning. The SIU-Initiative

gave us the training and tools that we needed to expand into the online learning efforts.

Likewise, faculty from MAIU spoke about how the mobile learning program and the

transformation of digitizing content “sort of tricked people in, it sucks people into it and

streamlined our efforts to go online.” All three institutions have expanded their online offerings,

although MIU has been much more aggressive and has exponentially increased its online

offerings and enrollment. SIU has also amplified its online programs and enrollment, but not to

the degree MIU has been able to accomplish. While MAIU has seen some positives in its online

programs, it has not been able to be as successful in enrollments similar to MIU and SIU. Some of

this may be tied to MAIU’s long-standing approach to traditional liberal arts offerings, and its

inability to develop an ecosystem that supported innovative practices that have stretched across

the institution. This revelation brought to attention the lack of an innovative ecosystem expressed

later in result four. The mobile ecosystem and pedagogy, not just technology, make a difference

in transforming teaching and learning, as MAIU has experienced less diffusion across the

university with its mobile learning program.

SIU and MIU have experienced diffusion of its mobile learning program throughout its

academic enterprise, including influencing and driving adoption to other student and faculty
 139

services. For instance, at SIU, the university established a statewide recognized SIU-Center for

Faculty that serves the faculty with a consultative approach to integrating any new and emerging

technology into the curriculum or teaching and learning environments. The state has recognized

this same center with significant funding supporting statewide K-12 teachers to integrate mobile

devices into their classrooms. The SIU-Center for Faculty “duplicates the success of our

groundbreaking SIU-Initiative,” said SIUVP.

Likewise, at MIU, the university has leveraged the innovation and structure created from

the MIU-Initiative to support innovative student services. The university has been able to adopt

mobile learning technologies and created mobile student support agents. These are mobile staff

members, and they can be seen walking around campus with iPads prepared to answer questions

and address administrative bottlenecks that students may experience. Additionally, the institution

has created the concept of life coaches. These staff members are assigned specific students and

are tasked with making sure they feel connected and can assist the student with any type of

academic or administrative question. Life coaches are equipped with mobile technologies and use

predictive and analytical data to make sure students stay on track and identify possible issues

before they arise. MIUPres explained:

I think the innovative part for us now is we’re collecting an enormous amount of structure

and unstructured data to do one thing, and that’s to provide the absolute best integrated

safety net for students, not just to see who is a struggle or who’s normal, but rather to act

as an anticipatory engagement tool and for advising and career counseling. And our dream

is to take that and extend that out well beyond graduation and basically that we’ll be able

to provide that service for our students through their entire lives. And we’re not there yet.

But that’s really where we’re focused heavily on that right now.
 140

Result three: Leaders matter, but so does the community when it comes to embracing

mobile learning and innovative practices.

Presidents are continually trying to advance transformative change through mobile

learning and innovative practices, and they must recognize that it requires supporting the

organizational culture and leadership (Lai, 2017; Galla, 2010). It is the role of the presidents and

their leadership teams to understand the impact that an initiative similar to a mobile learning

program will have on the institution’s overall system; thus, leaders must be prepared to develop

alignment with values and mission of the organization (Ng'ambi & Bozalek, 2013).

Transformative leadership has been studied and linked as a required leadership style that can

facilitate change to an organization’s goals through the adoption of culture-based approaches that

embrace integrity and transparency (Sohmen, 2015). Furthermore, and according to Jyoti and

Bhau (2016), transformational leadership is a critical factor in creating significant organizational

change. It will frequently place the leader in a role of a change agent. Two of the presidents who

participated in this multi-site case study discussed the alignment between the mobile learning

program and the overall strategic plan and university vision. MIU, in particular, had inserted

MIU-Initiative (the mobile learning program) into the university’s 2015 strategic plan.

Developing precise alignment between the university’s strategy and vision provided the

community with a clear understanding of the direction and future of the mobile learning program

and how it fits into the organization.

MAIU was the only participating university that did not align the mobile learning

program with a strategic plan or vision; however, it provided a clear message as to why the

mobile learning program was launched. MAIUPres shared that the mobile learning program was

implemented to provide equality in technology and even access to all students. Faculty and other
 141

leaders understood this by supporting the launch of the initiative but fell short in providing a

future vision and goals for the mobile learning program. A faculty member from MAIU expressed

the following:

I think the mistake we made initially was MAIUPres came up with this beautiful idea to

level playing field…to develop a ubiquitous campus, he gave us all equipment to the

faculty….[S]o what are we supposed to do with this? There was no plan for how we’re

going to assess how it is being used, what our expectations were for how it’s going to be

used.

Jones et al. (2014) cited that organizations aiming to implement emerging technologies

through transformative organizational change must realize that leadership is a complex formula

that is made up of the community, organizational rules and policies, culture, and an ability to

build leadership capacity across the institution. While the presidents of the case locations had a

significant leadership role in aligning the mobile initiatives’ reasoning with the universities’

visions, missions, and strategies, they had a smaller role in making sure that the programs became

part of the organizations’ fabric. Faculty members at all three sites were able to articulate why

their institutions embarked on the change associated with the mobile programs, often explaining

how the initiative was a fabric of the organization. As Jones et al. (2014) and Voogt et al. (2013)

state, organizations aiming to embrace ongoing change must support distributed leadership styles

that push leadership from a single source to multiple individuals. Faculty from all participating

sites recognized that leaders have seemed to back away and empowered others in the organization

to lead and become responsible for the direction and adoption of the mobile learning program.
 142

Leaders

Organizational
structure

Faculty and
community

Figure 13. Community framework for leaders

As addressed by Alrasheedi et al. (2015b) in their empirical study on the factors associated

with adopting a mobile learning program in higher education, leaders must understand what role

organizational culture and structure play in the institution’s ability to diffuse innovative change

across the institution. In two of the participating sites—SIU and MIU—both leaders understood

that their mobile learning programs should be aligned with academics. Therefore, they should

own and operate the initiatives. At MIU, the leader operationalizing MIU-Initiative reports to the

provost, and the initiative’s ownership sits under academics and its faculty. At SIU, similarly, the

SIU-Initiative is aligned under the provost. While the leader responsible for supporting SIU-

Initiative reports directly to the president, there is precise alignment with the organization’s

academic enterprise. Both SIU and MIU have had significant transformations of their mobile

learning program from the initial launch, and have also been able to influence the organization to

adopt other innovative practices. At MAIU, the mobile learning program is operated by the chief
 143

information officer (CIO) and the central information technology department. The MAIUCIO

works with academics and faculty, but it is mostly in the nature of transactional support and

guidance on using technology solutions. It appears that MAIUCIO’s organizational structure does

not allow for a strong alignment with the academic enterprise and MAIU has experienced less

transformation of its teaching and learning environment and little influence on other innovative

practices as a result.

Result four: The mobile ecosystem and pedagogy drive innovation

This multi-site case study revealed that the participating sites have been able to transform

their teaching and learning environment through different approaches and by utilizing distinctive

leadership styles. Mobile learning afforded these sites the ability to use modern technology tools

that, according to Handal et al. (2013), empower the process of diffusing knowledge through

flexible communication and personal interactive technologies. Leaders of these sites recognized

the importance of mobile technologies as they often leaned on and expressed the benefits of

adopting mobile strategies by highlighting the familiarity of personal use of mobile technologies

and how learning could become highly immersive and connected (Handal et al., 2013).

While leaders at all three participating sites focused on the reasons why mobile

technologies would be the right solution for reimaging the teaching and learning environments, it

was mostly faculty and some leaders that acknowledged the need to concentrate on pedagogy.

Numerous faculty across all three sites cited examples of how they were leveraging mobile

technologies and shared their excitement on how they were able to use this technology to engage

with students and do things differently in the teaching and learning environment. For example,

MIUFBIO shared the following:

 144

It was the iPad alongside the move to active learning. It was actually the change in the

structure of the classrooms that looked to have the iPad used in the way that many of us

are using the device and ecosystem around it.

Faculty members that participated in this study were sympathetic to the notion that that

technology alone cannot transform the teaching and learning environment. Many also recognized

that mobile technologies—iPads, laptops, and smartphones—are just tools that can be leveraged

to engage and communicate with students.

The institutions in this multi-site case study recognized that mobile technologies required

to become part of the overall mobile ecosystem and strategies of the organization. This shift and

strategy included developing an environment where the institution established support and

direction for how mobile apps, learning spaces, hardware solutions, and faculty development

would all be built into an ecosystem. All three sites reported different approaches in addressing

their mobile ecosystems. SIU and MIU both organized and operate their mobile ecosystems from

a centralized, dedicated learning centers. SIU has provided the resources of 17 professionals at the

SIU-Center for Faculty, and at MIU has invested in 11 professional staff in the department of

academic technologies. At MAIU, the mobile ecosystem is operated by the central information

technology department and is resourced by three individuals: the chief information officer, an

instructional designer, and a project manager.

Leaders at all three participating sites acknowledged that in order to transform the learning

experiences of students, they had to integrate the mobile ecosystem with pedagogy. MIUPres

described the integration of mobile and pedagogy, sharing that “our transformation…has really

been driven by the pedagogy and by the MIU-Initiative ecosystem that we have created.” SIUPres

expressed a similar integration, sharing, “we have been able to incorporate mobile technologies
 145

into the curriculum. I think that is a novel, and unique focus that has prioritized resources for our

institution and transformed the way we teach.” Lastly, the MAIUPres also highlighted this

integration, stating the following:

Our campuses are becoming much more mobile. Our students are becoming much more

mobile. And so, my thing is it’s both an educational component and a connection

component and fairness component. We have to use mobile in a way that we can support

what faculty are wanting to do in the classroom, to me, it’s about incremental change.

Summary

This chapter provided a detailed analysis of the participant sites and the perspectives of

the 25 presidents, leaders, and faculty on how mobile learning practices are adopted and

leveraged to transform the teaching and learning environments. The analysis conducted in this

multi-site case study, through the six interviews and three focus groups, identified four central

themes and 12 sub-themes. The findings that emerged were highlighted by the following four

themes: (1) implementing mobile learning programs, (2) leadership influence on change, (3)

institutional commitment to mobile learning, and (4) achieving innovative teaching and mobile

learning practices. The results were then interpreted and examined with the study’s research

questions, conceptual and theoretical models, and previous literature explored in Chapter 2. These

findings and results serve as a foundation for the study conclusion and recommendation presented

in Chapter 5.
 146

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this multi-site, qualitative case study was to explore the use of mobile

learning practices at small, private universities to understand how the influence of leadership on

faculty supports the goal of advancing innovative practices. The researcher aimed to explain a

leader’s role in how they collaborate with faculty in ways that may influence the advancement of

innovative practices through the adoption of mobile learning. The findings of this research may

also aid administrators and faculty seeking to innovate teaching and learning practices with

mobile learning. This framework could assist leaders in the adoption of mobile learning programs.

This multi-site, qualitative case study aimed to discover how mobile learning could be used to

transform and advance innovation in small, private universities (Al-Emran et al., 2016).

Three small, private universities and 25 members of those institutions participated in this

study, including three presidents, three leaders responsible for the mobile learning programs, and

19 faculty members. The researcher visited each site and participated in five of six interviews and

three focus groups. One interview with a president had to be rescheduled and was conducted via

Drexel University’s Zoom conferencing solution. The six interviews, three focus groups,

observations, and review of data collection and analysis yielded four main themes and 12 sub-

themes for this study. Through several rounds of coding and analysis, the following four findings

were developed: (1) implementing mobile learning programs, (2) leadership influence on change,

(3) institutional commitment to mobile learning, and (4) achieving innovative teaching and

mobile learning practices. The findings were then interpreted and reviewed by revisiting the

research questions, conceptual framework, theories, and previous literature discussed in Chapter

2. Furthermore, the results of this study were constructed from findings and through lived-
 147

experienced among leaders and faculty. The four results and interpretations of this study

exemplify adoption characteristics of institutional leaders: (1) implementing a mobile learning

program has different paths, however adoption requires leadership support and common

approaches; (2) leaders that adopt mobile learning programs leverage innovation to transform

teaching and learning; (3) leaders matter, but so does the community when it comes to embracing

mobile learning and innovative practices; and (4) the mobile ecosystem and pedagogy drive

innovation. The findings, results, and interpretations presented in Chapter 4 serve as the

framework for the conclusions and recommendations in this chapter.

Conclusions

This multi-site, research study was guided by a central research question: To what extent

have administrators and faculty leaders used mobile learning practices to influence the

advancement of innovation across the university? The following sub-questions supported the

central question:

1. How have leaders managed technological innovations in teaching and learning

environments?

2. What organizational characteristics have contributed to implementing mobile learning

practices?

3. Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement and support innovative,

connected teaching and learning environments?

Central research question: To what extent have administrators and faculty leaders used
mobile learning practices to influence the advancement of innovation across the university?

The participants of this study described experiences that demonstrated that administrators

and faculty leaders could influence the advancement of innovation across a university through the

adoption of mobile learning practices. Administrators, presidents, the staff member responsible
 148

for the mobile learning program, and faculty perspectives provided evidence that the participating

sites had adopted and advanced their mobile learning programs. Across all of the sites, it was

apparent that administrators and faculty—through mobile programs—had influenced the

transformation of the teaching and learning environments. All three sites experienced progress

towards digitizing the curriculum, and found new approaches to engage, interact, and provide

timely feedback to their students. Several examples of how faculty were able to diffuse mobile

learning technologies and transform the teaching practices were shared through the voices and

experiences that were captured among all 25 participants.

Administrators and faculty who participated in these focus group sessions explained and

demonstrated how mobile learning had an overall influence in advancing innovation. The

diffusion of innovation was evident in the classroom or teaching and learning environments

across all participating sites. As discussed in Rogers’ diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory,

adoption has different rates and levels of diffusion across organizations (Rogers, 2003). This

variation of adoption levels was evident across all three sites, although the three case studies

followed a similar path towards adoption and integration of mobile learning practices. This path

experienced in all three case studies closely aligned with the four main elements described in the

diffusion of innovation theory, including: (1) innovation or the idea or new practice; (2)

communication channels, how the organization informally and formally communicates change;

(3) time, basis for adoption rates; and (4) social system, or the organization and its members.

Participants of this study collectively described approaches of adoption of mobile learning that led

to changes and innovations experienced in the institutions’ teaching and learning environments.

Illustrated in Figure 14 the approach followed by the three sites present a model that can be
 149

followed by future leaders and organization seeking to innovate through the applicability of

mobile learning.

Figure 14. Model for advancing innovation through a mobile learning ecosystem

Particularly in MIU and SIU, this model to advance innovation led to transformative

practices that went beyond the mobile teaching and learning environments. As described in Result

two of Chapter Four, both MIU and SIU were able to develop a very structured, well

communicated, and resourced mobile learning ecosystem. The makeup of the mobile ecosystem

at MIU and SIU differentiated from MAIU in that leadership for the programs had become fully

distributed across staff and faculty, thus empowering ownership of the program to exist by many
 150

and create more effective buy-in. The ecosystems at MIU and SIU helped pave the way for future

innovations across their institutions.

Research sub-question one: How have leaders managed technological innovations in the
teaching and learning environments?

Leaders from all three case studies shared approaches in the way mobile learning

technologies were leveraged to innovate the teaching and learning environments. Leaders

described the importance of aligning mission, strategy, and vision of how they would support

technological innovation through mobile learning. The leaders from these institutions explained

that this alignment was critical in providing the initiatives in order to develop campus-wide

awareness and long-lasting impacts. The case studies demonstrated that, while this happened in

all three sites, the approaches among leaders were implemented differently. For instance, MIU

highlighted that MIU-Initiative was tied to the university’s strategic plan and connected with the

institution’s embrace of active learning practices. At SIU, the Mobile Learning Initiative was tied

to the university’s strategic plan and its desire to move forward with innovation and digital

learning approaches. While at MAIU, the president highlighted that the strategy for their 2:1

mobile learning program initiative was tied to the university’s mission of providing equal and

accessible technologies for all students. While different, these approaches all worked towards

aligning the mission, strategy, and vision of the universities with how their mobile learning

initiative would be managed in order to achieve innovative teaching and learning practices.

As discussed in Result two in Chapter Four, each of the institutions achieved different

rates of adoption. These can be attributed to how leaders managed the initial implementation of

mobile learning programs. The use of pilots supported the characteristics of innovation that

facilitate the adoption of technologies at all three sites. Further, each of the case studies leveraged
 151

their community to further accelerate the rate of adoption across the faculty and student body’s

use of mobile technologies. Another method utilized in all of the case studies regarded the shift

that occurred with leadership’s role upon completion of the initial implementation. Leaders and

faculty members described that, initially, presidents were very involved, and in some cases,

mandated or were very scripted in how mobile technologies would be used or implemented. As

institutions transitioned from implementation and into full adoption, leaders and faculty

recognized that presidents stepped away from the initiative and empowered others to lead and

shape the programs adoptions. All sites in this multi-site case study embraced this style of

distributed leadership. This also helped the institutions manage the advancement of innovation in

teaching and learning environments.

Research sub-question two: What organizational characteristics have contributed to

implementing mobile learning practices?

As recognized by Lia (2017), mobile learning’s implementation has a significant impact

on educational leadership and the organization. Several organizational characteristics contributed

to and shaped the implementation and adoption of the mobile learning practices found in each of

the participating sites. Theme three—institutional commitment to mobile learning: sub-theme

one: factors that help maintain mobile learning programs—describes the experiences captured by

the participants, and identifies organizational characteristics of the institutions contributing to

implementing mobile learning practices. Some of the organizational characteristics included

situationally-based and distributed leadership styles, a willingness by the organization to try new

approaches, and a commitment by the organization towards student-centered learning. Leaders

and faculty described the leadership styles as essential to the success and implementation of the

mobile learning program. Participants described that leaders used several styles throughout the

programs’ evolutions, at times sharing very focused and heavy-handed direction, and at different
 152

times, stepping away and distributing responsibility to others to lead the program and

organization. These approaches appeared to be responsive and well-received and thus supported

the implementation of mobile learning programs.

Additionally, participants cited a general premise that espoused throughout their

organizations, like one regarding the openness and willingness by the community within the

institution to try new approaches. Numerous participants in all of the case study sessions

described this desire to try new things as a driving force that facilitated the growth and adoption

of the mobile learning program. Interviewees and faculty members that participated in the focus

groups described their experiences and acknowledged that another contribution to the

implementation and adoption of mobile learning was due to the organization’s commitment and

shift towards a student-center approach for learning. Result one—implementing a mobile learning

program—has different paths; however, adoption requires leadership support and common

approaches, and describes the importance that leaders placed on the shift towards student-centered

learning. This shift and focus allowed for leaders and faculty to come together towards a common

and agreeable approach to how mobile learning would be leveraged.

Finally, it was evident through this study that the organizational structure that was in place

in each of the institutions had a significant influence on the approach and ultimate adoption levels

reached within the organizations. Studies conducted by Baker and Balwdin (2014) and Alrasheedi

et al. (2015b) corroborated that organizational structure mattered, specifically regarding from

where the operations and management of the mobile learning program were led. At both MIU and

SIU, the initiative was led by the academic divisions, while at MAIU, it was operated by the

office of information technology. MIU and SIU experienced a more profound, long-lasting impact

on the mobile learning programs on the teaching and learning environments. It also appeared that
 153

this type of organizational structure promoted additional innovations to occur from the mobile

learning program. At MAIU, while some adoption was recognized throughout the institution,

there seemed to be a lack of cohesive and continuous transformation to the teaching and learning

environment.

Research sub-question three: Does leadership influence the approaches taken to implement
and support innovative, connected teaching and learning environments?

The data collected through the interviews and focus group sessions confirmed that

leadership does influence the approaches that are taken to support innovative and connected

teaching and learning environments. In all three case studies, evidence was provided that

leadership—one that was distributed among individuals that included the president, the leader

responsible for the program, and faculty leaders—has an overall impact on what approaches the

universities followed in order to promote and expand the mobile learning programs. This

influence of leadership was achieved through institutions’ leadership abilities in aligning strategy

and support in order to implement innovative, connected teaching and learning environments

successfully.

Furthermore, leadership allowed the institutions to embrace transformative change to occur

and ultimately developed connected and integrated mobile learning ecosystems. The ecosystem

developed at each of the sites, while different in the way it was developed and supported,

ultimately had the following eight features: (1) aligning the initiative to the institution’s strategy

and vision, (2) leadership, (3) an approach that leveraged piloting, (4) engaging the campus-wide

community, (5) an ability to implement quickly, (6) a support model, (7) adequate resources that

promote innovation, and (8) ability to apply and influence new initiatives through use of mobile

technologies. The mobile learning ecosystem is visually represented in Figure 14. All three case

studies had aspects of the mobile learning ecosystem developed. At MIU and SIU, the mobile
 154

learning ecosystem and its eight major components were well-defined, funded, and integrated. It

was evident that organizational structure, as discussed earlier in this section, influenced the ability

of MIU and SIU to advance their mobile learning ecosystems further, as these institutions

developed centers and committed staff members to develop and support the ecosystems. MAIU

developed a mobile learning ecosystem that was not as well-funded, resourced, or integrated.

MAIU was not as successful in achieving a rapid rate of adoption of the mobile learning program

as MIU and SIU, nor were there any signs that mobile learning was used to influence other

innovative practices. Implementing and supporting innovative, connected teaching and learning

environments are achievable when influenced by leadership, specifically leadership that is

focused on constructing and supporting a mobile learning ecosystem.

Recommendations

The purpose of this multi-site, qualitative case study was to explore the use of mobile

learning practices at small, private universities to understand how the influence of leadership on

faculty supports the goal of advancing innovative practices. Participants enriched insights on the

use of mobile learning practices at three small, private universities and helped in understanding

the influence that leadership has on transforming teaching and learning practices. The

recommendations provided in this section are developed from the findings, results, and

conclusions of this research study, and are aligned with the research questions and literature

review.

Recommendations for Leaders

The following recommendations are provided for leaders of universities, such as

presidents, provosts, deans, individuals responsible for mobile learning programs, and any faculty

member serving in a leadership capacity. These recommendations may assist with providing
 155

further understanding of approaches, methods, and models that may be used to implement mobile

learning programs and achieve rapid adoption and integration rates. These recommendations

could also serve board members, policymakers, and educational technology companies, assisting

them in making decisions regarding how to better support mobile learning technologies, practices,

and adoption.

Leadership styles. Innovation, change, and technology implementation all require

leadership. The implementation of mobile learning and innovative practices tied to mobile

programs require leaders to manage and lead their organizations through transformation. Leaders

need to understand that different leadership styles will need to be utilized throughout the adoption

of mobile learning programs. Leaders must be ready to apply flexibility and understand that, in

order to lead, they will need to leverage transformative, distributed, creative, and other forms of

leadership styles in order to help their institutions adopt innovative practices. As a result, leaders

must be aware of situationally-based leadership approaches and understand how to apply these

styles dependent on challenges or opportunities that arise.

Engaging and empowering the faculty make a difference. Leaders and organizations

seeking to adopt mobile learning programs should understand that it takes all stakeholders at a

given institution to adopt these practices. Leaders should examine approaches and promote

engagement with their community early and often. Communication, clear alignment of purpose,

and providing a vision are all critical engagement strategies that organizations must embrace.

Leaders should also comprehend that one person cannot lead mobile learning programs that can

transform an institution. Therefore, leaders must be prepared to empower others within their

organization. Specifically, leaders should develop strategies with the academic division on ways

to engage and empower faculty to develop better buy-in and cooperation from the faculty.
 156

Develop an ecosystem approach. Mobile learning programs are complex initiatives that

can drive transformative change and impact an entire institution. While desirable by leaders, this

kind of transformation requires planning, intentionality, and the ability to integrate several

technologies, systems, processes, and people. Mobile learning programs that achieve innovative

and transformative influences over the teaching and learning environments are best served when

approached from a holistic and ecosystem process, meaning there is a need to look beyond the

technology, device, or software and find ways to integrate the entire teaching and learning system

fully so that the mobile learning platform impacts appropriately. These systems include

addressing pedagogy, learning spaces, faculty development, policies, incentives, and any attribute

that integrates or is impacted by the mobile learning program and practices.

Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations were made and should be considered to guide future

research as it relates to the adoption of mobile learning programs and leadership’s influence on

innovative practices in higher education.

Expanding the sample size: Additional research using a larger and more diverse

sample size will enhance future studies. Increasing research to include more Apple

Distinguished School institutions with varying populations and makeup from those included in

this study may enhance the overall research and literature. Expanding institutions’ complexity and

structures would allow for a deeper understanding of influences and provide a broader

perspective. Analysis across the studied institutions could be made to help identify new

approaches and models that could be leveraged by a broader spectrum of organizations. The

sample size could be expanded to include institutions embracing mobile learning practices
 157

through the adoption of bring your own devices (BYOD) initiatives versus the 1:1 and 2:1 mobile

learning programs detailed in this study.

BYOD versus 1:1 programs. As highlighted in Chapter Two of this study, the literature

and researchers are in dispute about which program or approach is better positioned to positively

impact the teaching and learning environments. The literature recognized the advantages and

disadvantages of each approach. However, if a study focused on understanding institutions’

BYOD programs, the study could provide additional research on the influence of leadership on

innovation. Findings from this type of study could be compared to studies conducted on 1:1

mobile learning programs. A better understanding could be explored as to characteristics common

across both approaches and differential approaches that make each program unique. Such studies

could help leaders decide which approach—BYOD or 1:1—would be an appropriate program for

their organization.

Innovation across the organization. This study recognized that two of its participating

sites had implemented additional innovations that were attributed to the mobile learning

programs. These sites experienced benefits associated with adopting mobile learning programs

that led to innovations and transformations outside of the teaching and learning environments.

Further study of this association could provide a deeper understanding of the factors or

experiences associated with this correlation, and could further help leaders and organizations

align the possible benefits of adopting mobile learning.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on remote or online learning. As the COVID-19

pandemic continues to evolve, its overall impact will not be understood for some time to come. A

study that further investigates how institutions with mobile learning programs shifted towards

remote or online learning would provide further evidence of these types of institutions’ abilities to
 158

embrace change and innovation. The 2020 academic year will become one of the most impacted

due to the closure of universities and the shift from the majority of institutions transitioning to

online learning. The pandemic impacted the participating sites in this study; however, they all

experienced a rapid transition to online classes. Future semesters are still unknown for most

organizations as to what modality institutions will use to deliver instruction. Studying these three

sites and others may provide insight into the ability of mobile learning institutions to transform or

adapt to unpredictable changes. Thus, a study could provide leaders with a more profound and

additional understanding of the impacts that mobile learning may have on transforming teaching

and learning.

Summary

Chapter Five of this study provided conclusions and recommendations to guide future

research and methods for the adoption of mobile learning programs. This section offers insights to

leaders and organizations seeking to implement mobile learning technologies with approaches

that should be considered. Chapter Four of this study provided findings and results that might also

better inform organizations looking to adopt mobile learning or organizations seeking to improve

their adoption of mobile learning practices. The recommendations and conclusions stemming

from this multi-site case study explore the use of mobile learning practices at three small, private

universities to better understand how the influence of leadership supports the goal of advancing

innovative practices. Therefore, findings cannot be presumed to relate to all types of universities

and organizations. The selection of these case sites was based on selection criteria established by

the researcher and included organizations identified as institutions that had been recognized for

their achievement in the mobile learning platform by Apple through the Apple Distinguished

School program.
 159

The findings discussed in Chapter Four, through the lived experiences of participants

captured in the interviews and focus group sessions, substantiated the influence of leadership

upon the goal of advancing innovative practices. Chapter Four provided results that highlighted

adoption characteristics of institutional leaders in the following areas of focus: (1) implementing a

mobile learning program has different paths; however, adoption requires leadership support and

common approaches; (2) leaders that adopt mobile learning programs leverage innovation to

transform teaching and learning; (3) leaders matter, but so does the community when it comes to

embracing mobile learning and innovative practices; and (4) the mobile ecosystem and pedagogy

drive innovation. These four results provided an understanding of approaches that leaders

developed and leveraged mobile learning programs to influence innovative practices.

As a practitioner in the field of educational technology, the experience gained from this

research study has informed insights on how essential leadership is in the adoption of mobile

learning practices. Leadership that supports transformative approaches and recognizes the effort

and dedication required to develop innovative practices requires strong leadership that embraces

the community and others to lead as well. Those organizations seeking to implement a mobile

learning program must also understand that it requires an institution to develop a mobile learning

ecosystem that extends beyond technology platforms. The mobile learning ecosystem must

include such things as, classroom design, leadership styles, faculty development, and community

buy-in. All three cases sites within this study personified a commitment towards the mobile

learning program and recognized the importance of leadership. At all three sites, it was evident

that leadership influenced the mobile initiative, and leaders worked together to construct a mobile

learning ecosystem that aided in innovative practices in the teaching and learning environment.

For the institutions that embraced all eight elements of the mobile learning ecosystem identified
 160

in Figure 14, those institutions were able to advance innovation across the university, by

leveraging the mobile learning ecosystem.

 161

References

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and

Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher education edition.

Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H.M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of

mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93-102.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033

Alrasheedi, M., Capretz, L.F., & Raza, A. (2015a). A systematic review of the critical factors for

success of mobile learning in higher education (University student's perspective). Journal

of Educational Computer Research, 52(2), 257-276. doi:10.1177/0735633115571928

Apple Distinguished Schools. (2019, August 2). Retrieved from

https://www.apple.com/education/apple-distinguished-schools/

Baldridge, S., N., Moran, A., & Herrington, W. (2012). iTeaching: Using mobile devices to

deliver social science curriculum. National Social Science Proceedings; National

Technology and Social Science Conference, 46(2): 1-19. Retrieved from

https://www.nssa.us/journals/pdf/NSS_Proceedings_2011_Las_Vegas_2.pdf#page=21

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 9-32. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Retrieved

from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
 162

Belanger, Y. (2005). Duke University iPod first year experience final evaluation report. Retrieved

from Duke University, Center for Instructional Technology website:

https://learninginnovation.duke.edu/pdf/reports/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf

Belanger, Y. (2005). Duke University iPod first year experience final evaluation report. Retrieved

from Duke University, Center for Instructional Technology

website: https://learninginnovation.duke.edu/pdf/reports/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf

Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2017). The mediating role of principals’ transformational leadership

behaviors in promoting teachers’ emotional wellness at work: A study in Israeli primary

schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 316–335.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215617947

Brooks, D. C., & Pomerantz, J. (2017). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information

technology, 2017. Louisville, CO: Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved

from http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership (1st Edition). New York, New York: Harper and Row.

Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes,

and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 45(3): 359-378.

Chandra, V., & Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1087-1098. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8535.2007.00790.x

Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin &

Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 509-535. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE
 163

Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennet, L., & Bauer, S. (2015). Students' mobile learning practices in

higher education: A multi-year study. Educause Review, Retrieved from

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-

highereducation-a-multiyear-study

Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile web 2.0.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1): 65-82. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=8f7

20b80-11ca-4906-a1fb-

7b8a4b282253%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e

hh&AN=93876870

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of

Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340. doi:10.2307/249008

Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers' use of ICT in school - the

relevance of school characteristics, teachers' attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education

and Information Technologies, 22(2): 551-573. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y

Drouin, M., Vartanian, L. R., & Birk, S. (2013). A community of practice model for introducing

mobile tablets to university faculty. Innovation High Education, 39: 231-245.

doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9270-3
 164

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013) Removing obstacles to the pedagogical change

required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &

Education, 64: 175-182. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

Galla, A. J. (2010). Educational technology: Leadership and implementation (Order No.

3482693). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (910854128).

Retrieved from http://ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/docview/910854128?accountid=10559

Gan, C.L., & Balakrishnan V. (2014). Determinants of mobile wireless technology for promoting

interactivity in lecture sessions: an empirical analysis. Journal Computing in Higher

Education, 26(2): 159-181. Retrieved from https://doi-

org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s12528-014-9082-1

Gierdowski, D. (2019). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2019.

Louisville, CO: Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Gillies, C. G. M. (2016). To BYOD or not to BYOD: Factors affecting academic acceptance of

student mobile devices in the classroom. Research in Learning Technology, 24: 1-16. doi:

10.3402/rlt.v24.30357

Grant, M. M. (2019). Difficulties in defining mobile learning: Analysis, design, characteristics,

and implications. Educational Communications and Technology, 67, 361-388. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09641-4

Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics, 22(3),

175-186. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00173

 165

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.

Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 1, 105-117. London,

England: Sage Publication

Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study.

Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-33017

Handal, B., MacNish, J., & Petocz, P. (2013). Adopting mobile learning in tertiary environments:

Instructional, curricular and organizational matters. Education Science, 3(1): 359-374.

Doi:10.3390/educsci3040359.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A

prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4): 2–9.

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (n.d.) The Carnegie Classification of

Institutions of Higher Education, 2018 edition, Bloomington, IN: Author. Retrieved

(August 2, 2019) from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/

Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014). Synthesizing theory and practice:

Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 42(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510506

Jyoti, J., & Bhau, S. (2016). Transformational leadership and job performance: A study of higher

education. Journal of Services Research, 15(2): 77-110. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/docview/1877377134?accountid=10559

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a

pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology. 20: 1-17. Retrieved from doi:

10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406.
 166

Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers' adoption of signature mobile

pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80: 48-57. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.009.

Khaili, A. (2016). Creative and innovative leadership: Measurement development and validation.

Management Research Review, 40(10): 1117-1138. Retrieved from doi:10.1108/MRR-09-

2016-0213.

Kim, H., Lee, J., Rha, J. (2017) Understanding the role of users’ resistance on mobile learning

usage among university students. Computers and Education. 133: 108-118. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015

Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through

research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4): 639-655. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.832

Lai, P. C. (2017). The literature review of technology adoption model and theories for the novelty

technology. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management: JISTEM,

14(1), 21-38. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002

Lane, K. E., Lemoine, P., Tinney, T., & Richardson, M. D. (2014). Modify and adapt: Global

higher education in a changing economy. International Journal of Innovation in the

Digital Economy, 5(2), 24-36. Retrieved from DOI: 10.4018/ijide.2014040103

Lindsay, L. (2016). Transformation of teacher practice using mobile technology with 1:1 classes:

M-learning pedagogical approaches. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5):

883-892. doi:10.1111/bjet.12265
 167

McBeth, M. K., Turley-Ames, K, Youngs, Y., Ahola-Young, L., & Brumfield, A. (2015). The

iPad pilot project: A faculty driven effort to use mobile technology in the reinvention of

the liberal arts. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 4(1): 1-21. Doi:

10.14434/jtlt.v4n1.13216

Merhi, M. (2015). Factors influencing higher education students to adopt podcast: An empirical

study. Computers & Education, 83: 32-43. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.014

Mirski, P.J., & Abfalter, D., & Frew, A.J. (2004). Knowledge enhancement on site-guests’

attitudes towards m-learning. In proceeding of the information and communication

technologies in tourism 2004. 11th ENTER international conference in Cairo, (ICC’04),

Cairo, Egypt (pp. 592-600)

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile

technologies and learning, (Research Report No. 11). Retrieved from Futurelab series

website: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL15/FUTL15.pdf

Ng’ambi, D., & Bozalek, V. (2013). Leveraging informal leadership in higher education

institutions: A case of diffusion of emerging technologies in a southern context. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6): 940-950. Retrieved from

doi:10.1111/bjet.12108.

Ozdamli, F. (2011). Pedagogical framework of m-learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 31: 927-931. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.171

Pegrum, M., Oakley, G., & Faulkner, R. (2013). School 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

 168

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1

&sid=c7f792dc-d21e-462e-970c-7d2f49eb7c4a%40sessionmgr4010

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C.E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher

education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4): 863-870. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024.

Psiropoulos, D., Barr, S., Erksson, C., Fletcher, S., Hargis, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2016).

Professional development for iPad integration in general education: Staying ahead of the

curve. Education and Information Technologies, 21(1): 209-228. Retrieved from

https://doi-org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s10639-014-9316-x

Reeves, T.C., & Hedberg, J.G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Educational Technology Publications

Rogers, E. (2001). Evolution: Diffusion of innovations. In N. Baltes & P. Smelser (Eds.),

International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 4982-4986). Oxford:

Pergamon.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation, 4th Edition. New York, New York: The Free Press.

Sahin, Ismail. (2006). Detailed review of Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory and educational

technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 5(2): 14-23. Retrieved from http://tojet.net/articles/v5i2/523.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-

learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. The International Review of Research

 169

in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2): 145-159.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161

Santos, I. M., Bocheco, O. & Habak, C. (2018). A survey of student and instructor perceptions of

personal mobile technology usage and policies for the classroom. Educational Information

Technology, 23(1): 617-632 Retrieved from https://doi-

org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s10639-017-9625-y

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. New York: Bloomsbury

Academics.

Sohmen, V. S. (2015). Reflections on creative leadership. International Journal of Global

Business, 8(1): 1-14. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/docview/1680769091?accountid=10559

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Stake, R., E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: The

Guildford Press.

Sundgren, M. (2017). Blurring time and place in higher education with bring your own device

applications: A literature review. Education in Information Technology, 22(1): 3081-

3119. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s10639-017-

9576-3

Tony, O. A., Ashiru, O. B., Kehinde, J., & Oluwatoyin, A. (2018). Imperatives of information and

communication technology on potencies and skill gaps of educators and undergraduates of

higher education institutions in Nigeria. International Journal of Information, Business

and Management, 10(1): 49-61. Retrieved from

 170

http://ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/docview/1966057046?accountid=10559

Traxler, J. (2009). The evolution of mobile learning. In R. Guy (Ed.), The evolution of mobile

teaching and learning (pp. 1-14). Santa Rosa, CA: Information Science Press

Traxler, J. (2013). Mobile learning: Shaping the frontiers of learning technologies in global

context. In R. Huang, Kinshuk & J. Spector (Eds). Reshaping learning (pp. 237-251).

Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Tubey, R. J., Rotich, M. P., & Bengat, J. K. (2015). Research paradigms: Theory and practice.

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. 5(5): 224-228.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017) Reimagining the role of

technology in higher education: A supplement to the national education technology

report. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov

Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D. & Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which

conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29: 4-14. Doi I:10.1111/j.1365

2729.2011.00453.x

Wardley, L. J., & Mang, C. F. (2016). Student observations: Introducing iPads into university

classrooms. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6): 1715-1732. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s10639-015-9414-4

Yeap, J. A., L., Ramayah, T., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016). Factors propelling the adoption of m-

learning among students in higher education. Electronic Markets, 26(4): 323-338.

Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1007/s12525-015-0214-x

 171

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.
 172

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Participant General Information

• Participant’s title:

• Participant’s professional years of experience:

• Participant’s years of experiences at current institution:

Participant’s Role

1. How would you describe your role within the 1:1 mobile learning program?

a. How is that similar or different from your day-to-day role?

2. What key items provide leadership and guidance for the 1:1 mobile learning program?

1:1 Mobile Learning Program Information

3. How do you describe the 1:1 mobile learning program at your institution?

a. Are there positives?

b. Are there negatives? If so, describe them.

4. What is the most innovative change that you can attribute to the 1:1 mobile learning

program?

a. Have there been surprises or unexpected consequences, good or bad?

b. Has the university engaged on innovative practices outside of the teaching and

learning environment?

i. If yes, please describe?

ii. If no, why not?

5. Do you think the 1:1 mobile learning program has driven change and innovation in your

institution?

a. If yes, can you give share some examples?

 173

b. If no, why not and what is stopping it?

6. What key factors do the faculty bring towards making the 1:1 mobile learning program a

success?

Leadership and Institutions Organizational Structure and Collaboration

7. How would you describe your institution’s organizational structure?

a. How has that helped or hindered the adoption of the 1:1 mobile learning program?

8. How would you describe your leadership style?

a. Is this different than your leadership style towards the 1:1 mobile learning

program?

9. How do you approach significant organizational change within your organization?

10. What organizational factors can you contribute to the success of the 1:1 mobile learning

program?

a. Were there any negative factors that hindered adoption or further implementation

of innovative change?

11. How would you describe the relationship and collaboration between leaders and faculty?

a. Has this helped or hindered the success of the 1:1 mobile learning program or the

advancement of innovative practices?

 174

Appendix B: Invitation Email

Date

Dear Participant,

I am writing to invite you to participate in a study that I am conducting on educational

leaders’ and faculty’s use of mobile learning to advance innovation. The purpose of this multi-
site, qualitative case study is to explore the use of mobile learning practices at small, private
universities to understand how the influence of leadership on faculty supports the goal of
advancing innovative practices.

If you agree to take part in the study, you will participate in a one-on-one interview lasting
approximately 60 minutes or a focus group lasting no more than 60 minutes. For data collection, I
ask that I be permitted to audiotape the interview and take handwritten notes through the process.
The recordings and interview transcripts will only be reviewed by the researcher, and only for the
purposes of identifying key themes, findings, and results. All participants will remain anonymous
and will only be identified by pseudonyms. All data will be password-protected, encrypted, and
destroyed upon the conclusion of the study. Participation is completely voluntary and you may
refrain from participating in the interview without any penalty.

If you are available and willing to participate, I can be reached at (561) 237-7163, or by email at
cgb53@drexel.com. If you have questions, I am available to provide more information. Thank
you for your time. I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Christian Boniforti
Doctoral Student
Drexel University School of Education
cgb53@drexel.edu
(561) 237-7163
 175

Appendix C: Consent for Participation in Interview

I, hereby volunteer to participate in a research study conducted by Christian Boniforti, Student

Researcher at Drexel University. I understand that the project is designed to gather information
about my thoughts and experience as an educational leader at my university. I will be one of six
people interviewed for this research.

1. My participation in this project is voluntary. I may withdraw and discontinue participation

at any time without penalty.

2. I understand that most participants will find the discussion interesting and thought-
provoking. If, however, I feel uncomfortable in any way during the interview session, I
have the right to decline to answer any question.

3. Participation involves being interviewed by a student researcher from the Drexel

University School of Education. The interview will last approximately 60 minutes. Notes
will be taken during the interview. An audio recording of the interview and subsequent
dialogue will be transcribed.

4. I understand that the researcher will not identify me by name in any report using
information obtained from this interview, and that my confidentiality as a participant in
this study will remain secure, with only my pseudonym being used.

5. I understand that this research study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at Drexel University.

6. I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all of my questions
answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

7. I have been given a copy of this consent form.

______________________________ ____________________________
Participant Signature Date
 176

Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol

1. Explain your experience in how the 1:1 mobile learning program (iPad program) has impacted
the teaching and learning environments at your institution.
a. How has it impacted your own classroom?

b. Give an example of how you may do things differently now.

c. What has stayed the same?

2. In your opinion, how has the iPad program advanced innovative changes to the teaching and

learning environment at your university?

3. Please share examples of how your university has provided leadership support for faculty to

implement the iPad program.

a. What can be done to improve leadership?

4. What is the most important organizational resource that the university has provided to support

this initiative? Why?

a. Are there any resources that are missing or not being provided that would make a

significant difference?

5. In your opinion, what is the most significant obstacle faculty face in embracing mobile

learning in their classrooms?

6. What are some of the challenges that you see students experiencing with the iPad program?

7. What is the most rewarding occurrence that you or your students have been able to experience

because of the iPad program?

8. Describe the relationship and support between leaders and faculty as it relates to the iPad

program.

a. Why or why not is this important?

9. What can leaders do to improve the iPad program?

 177

Appendix E: Questionnaire Tool

1. What college or school do you represent?

2. How long have you been with the university?

3. How long have you been using the iPad in your classroom?

4. How would you describe yourself?

______ I am a trailblazer; I adopt technology ahead of the university.

______ I am an early adopter; I often sign up for pilots.
______ I am good with new technology, but I let others take the lead.
______ I am not comfortable with new technology; I like to have a lot of training.
______ I am not comfortable with new technology; I am sluggish with technology and wait to
adopt it until I am forced.
______ I loathe new technology; we are being asked to do too much and have too many tools
already.

5. What is the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement:

The mobile program (iPad program) has impacted the teaching and learning environments at my
institution.
______ Strongly agree
______ Agree
______ Undecided
______ Disagree
______ Strongly disagree

Please explain your response in more detail.

6. What is the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement:

University leadership has provided adequate resources and support for the success of the mobile
program (iPad program) at my institution.

______ Strongly agree

______ Agree
______ Undecided
______ Disagree
______ Strongly disagree

Please explain your response in more detail.

 178

Appendix F: Consent for Participation in Focus Group

I, hereby volunteer to participate in a research study conducted by Christian Boniforti, Student

Researcher at Drexel University. I understand that the project is designed to gather information
about my thoughts and experience as a faculty member at my university. I will be one of six-
eight faculty participating in a focus group for this research.

1. My participation in this project is voluntary. I may withdraw and discontinue participation

at any time without penalty.

2. I understand that I will be asked to complete a small questionnaire during the focus group
session. My participation in this questionnaire is voluntary and may decide to not
participate in the questionnaire. If I choose to participate I understand that the
questionnaire will remain anonymous.

3. I understand that most participants will find the discussion interesting and thought-
provoking. If, however, I feel uncomfortable in any way during the focus group session, I
have the right to decline to answer any question.

4. Participation involves participating in a focus group led by a student researcher from the
Drexel University School of Education. The focus group will last approximately 60
minutes. Notes will be taken during the focus group. An audio recording of the focus
group and subsequent dialogue will be transcribed.

5. I understand that the researcher will not identify me by name in any report using
information obtained from this focus group, and that my confidentiality as a participant in
this study will remain secure, with only my pseudonym being used.

6. I understand that this research study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at Drexel University.

7. I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all of my questions
answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

8. I have been given a copy of this consent form.

______________________________ ____________________________
Participant Signature Date