Title: Mobile learning in higher education

Author Name: Brynn Codone 

 

1. Introduction

Mobile learning often referred to as M-Learning, is a common tool that is almost widespread in institutions and businesses across the world. To say that the majority of people have some sort of mobile device with them at all times would be an understatement. Whether it is a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, laptop, or even a PDA for the older generations, these devices are a part of our everyday routine. There are a few important reasons that devices are a significant part of our lives. To start with a few trivial examples, there’s looking up how to spell a word or a definition of a word, calculating a tip at a restaurant, or setting a reminder for an event you have later in the week. A few more important examples are sending an e-mail or text message, searching for directions when lost, and taking a picture of where you parked so you can remember when you return. All of these examples are just a glimpse into how mobile devices have impacted our everyday routine, for the better. With mobile learning, there is a significant crowd that has impacted its relevance in our world today. Gikas and Grant (2013) discuss that 67% of surveyed students within higher education believe that mobile devices are essential for their academic success and academic activities. If you walked into a college class pre-COVID, you would examine that almost every student is using their laptop in class, as well as the instructor. This case book will examine the history of mobile learning, an overview of the case on mobile learning in higher education, solutions implemented, outcomes, and implications discussed.

What is Mobile Learning? (History)

In 1968, Alan Kay, an American computer scientist, created a concept called the Dynabook, a thin, portable computer for children for educational purposes. Although it was never created due to the concept being ahead of its time, the Dynabook was the earliest known concept of mobile learning. Mobile learning started to gain its importance during the early 2000s as educators began to explore the use of technology implemented within their curriculum. Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) tell of in January 2005 there were 1,240 items when searching for the term mobile learning and in June 2005, Google provided 22,700 terms. Although mobile devices were existing in 2005, their technology lacked functionality. As the years progressed, new tablet computers and phones were introduced which helped pick up the speed on functionality within smart devices. Gomez (2007) discusses how students favored lessons and lectured to be delivered into courses directly. They enjoyed being able to pause and listen on their own time. A big technical issue for them was that several students still did not have access to this kind of technology.

2. Overview of the Case

This case study examines the problems that come with mobile learning in regards to teaching faculty within higher education how to effectively instruct with technology. The COVID-19 pandemic caused all if not the majority of higher education institutions to go remote with instruction in the Spring 2020 semester. This sudden shift insinuated that all faculty must become familiar with how to teach their students from their laptop screen, quickly. A small Southeastern university had only a handful of instructional designers at their palm and needed someone to take on the responsibility of training about 500 faculty members on the basic knowledge of Zoom and Canvas, their learning management system. While several of the faculty had prior knowledge of Canvas due to it being the hub of their content for students, several did not know how to entirely create a mobile learning course for their students to learn effectively. The average age of the faculty being trained was 54 and the oldest faculty member was 74. The large generation gap in age caused several restraints in training them on the current learning management system and video telephony and online chat platform(s).

It can be challenging for mobile learning in higher education to be effective for students when the instructors are unsure of the best way to create the learning experience for them. During this in-time training due to emergency remote online instruction, there were not that many resources for helping understand mobile learning from an instructor’s standpoint, especially during a pandemic. Pedro, Barbosa, and Santos (2018) discuss how there is an underlying problem to be solved related to the lack of theoretical and pedagogical foundations regarding the implementation of mobile-learning in educational contexts. Sung, Chang, and Liu (2016) also pinpoint how very few studies have addressed how best to use mobile devices, and the effectiveness of doing so while also having mixed results on the best devices for mobile learning. 

 

3. Solutions Implemented

In this specific case study, the chosen instructional designer to train faculty was creating a mobile-learning course for instructors to create their mobile-learning courses. The first question that was asked before any training of faculty was conducted was, “What is the problem and performance gap?” The answer was simple- 500 faculty members needed to be trained on how to execute a mobile learning course within two weeks before the students come back from spring break. The performance gap is that there is a large age gap within the majority of the students and instructors, causing the faculty’s knowledge to be limited when it comes to learning management systems. Using prior knowledge of designing a course for mobile learning, the instructional designer created the solution first before the implementation. Reiser and Dempsey (2017) discuss that focusing on what you want your audience to be doing first is essential to designing the right mobile-learning course. They wanted faculty to be able to effectively create online content for their Canvas webpage, to assign assignments correctly, to know how to upload documents, and how to effectively start a Zoom call while also knowing how to create “breakout” rooms. While all of this seems easy for someone technologically advanced, this was a huge challenge for others.

After knowing what was expected of faculty, it was easier to create training steps via Zoom for faculty to learn and soon memorize. While it is not fair to criticize the faculty for their lack of preparation due to the sudden shift to virtual instruction, several of the members were tenured and the majority have been in education for most of their careers. For the number of faculty members that were not able to quickly catch on to mobile learning, Pedro, Barbosa, and Santos (2018) agree that the lack of preparation of instructors is to blame for the knowledge gap that exists in a plentiful number of instructors.

Similar to the textbooks model of the 4 C’s, Quinn (2011), content, compute, communicate, and capture, the instructional designer made sure to implement communication is required in online classes to foster engagement between classmates, since the students will now be joining from the comfort of their homes instead of classrooms. It was also recommended to foster an environment where note-taking or recording was required to create a context for the given classes.

Another solution was that the concept of BYOD (bring your own device) was immediately eliminated. It was learned that several faculty members had outdated laptops that did not support platforms such as Zoom or Webex, or they only used their institution desktop computers, which required them to be on campus to instruct via their computer. At this time, no one was allowed on campus. This resulted in the institution using the CARES Act money to be spent to give faculty members new devices, only for those who needed it.

4. Outcomes

A quick timeline of this case study starts at the beginning of April 2020 when the need for training faculty arose. The two week period of training was crucial to get done during that time since the students would be done with spring break and the additional week off to train faculty. At the end of the semester, a formal evaluation was done to see how the faculty did with their implementation of mobile learning. The assigned instructional designer spent the remaining semester answering calls for help from faculty, which indicated those calls reduced by 58% in May, the end of the semester.

There were a small number of faculty members that struggled to implement an effective online course, which resulted in having a TA (teachers assistant) assigned to their online course for the remaining of the semester. Reiser and Dempsey (2017) go over a few items to assess in a mobile learning course, which is: Are things easy to read? Can the users interact? Do the users get what they need? Do individuals equipped with your solution have the desired performance? Very similar to their assessment questions, the instructional designer created a chart to assess the faculty’s courses and ability to execute their shared vision of mobile learning. Attached is a draft of the chart (could not obtain the actual chart due to institution rules).

5. Implications

It was easier to train the younger crowd of faculty on mobile learning rather than the older. This was probably a given considering the age gap, but it was also noted that several of the younger faculty still struggled with incorporating meaningful tasks into their Canvas page. After the semester evaluation, findings from different faculty members showed a bounty of busywork tasks that did not match up with the design and development of mobile learning. An important factor in mobile learning is communication with other classmates. That was the one thing that remained at an all-time high for the majority of the online classes that were evaluated. The faculty did a nice job at making sure discussions were required and repeated each day if not weekly.

Understanding the difference between what we have people do and what we have technology do, according to Reiser and Dempsey (2017) is crucial to finding the balance on ways tasks go beyond mobile. Taking a strategic approach with mobile learning is crucial to the first move of the approach. It was important to recognize that this was all a platform so the objectives and solution could be determined early on. The instructional designer used for this job did not have access to our textbook, but I believe they would have greatly benefited from the Quinn (2011) 4 Cs of mobile model: content, compute, communicate, and capture for evaluating the faculty’s classes. This model hits the important boxes for basic requirements in a mobile learning environment. The model makes sure students have access to quality content, makes sure students can interact with a type of software to achieve an outcome, makes sure communication between peers is required, and that students are taking notes or recording the lecture in some way.

References

Gikas, Joanne & Grant, Michael. (2013). Mobile Computing Devices in Higher Education: Student Perspectives on Learning with Cellphones, Smartphones & Social Media. The Internet and Higher Education. 

Gomez, S. (2007) Scroll to “E” for Education. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 1780, 13. 

Laouris, Y., & Eteokleous, N. (2005). We need an educationally relevant definition of mobile learning. Paper presented at mLearn 2005, 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Cape Town, South Africa. 

Pedro, L.F.M.G., Barbosa, C.M.M.d. & Santos, C.M.d. A critical review of mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15, 10 (2018). 

Quinn, C.N. (2011). Designing mlearning: Tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 

Reiser, R. A. (2018). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (Fourth Edition ed.). New York , New York : Pearson.

Sung, Yao-Ting & Chang, Kuo & Liu, Tzu-Chien. (2015). The Effects of Integrating Mobile Devices with Teaching and Learning on Students’ Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Computers & Education. 

[Back to Home]