The integration/utilization of mobile technology into the educational setting will be one of my primary focuses in the coming months. It seems clear that the use of mobile technology, phones specifically, as a means of facilitating educational experiences will only increase in the future. There are a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that teens are using mobile phones at an astonishingly high rate. 85% of 16 year-olds owned a cell phone in 2008. This percentage is significantly greater than the 63% of the US population that has broadband access. My guess is that this number would move towards 80% if you included dial-up connections. There is a generational component here as well, i.e., students are unquestionably attuned to the mobile lifestyle.

These thoughts were the impetus for my decision to read as much as I can regarding the integration of mobile technologies and education. I just finished Mobile Learning Projects – a Critical Analysis of the State of the Art by D. Frohberg, C Göth, & G. Schwabe (2009), which I found a worthwhile endeavor. The authors indicate very early the framework from which they approach this topic.

Notwithstanding the increased attention from conferences and publications, there is still no common understanding for Mobile Learning. More precisely, there is not even a consensus about the term itself. There are more or less interchangeable terms such as wireless, ubiquitous, seamless, nomadic or pervasive learning/ education, as well as mobile computer-supported collaborative learning, and mobile e-learning (p. 308).

Sort of shocking, really. I don’t know enough to comment on the validity of this statement, but my sense is that this is fairly accurate. We (the educational community) are still trying to figure out what mobile learning looks like. Frohberg et al. adopt the framework of Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. in their work entitled A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age (PowerPoint presentation can be found here) and make some suggestions that are worth considering. This framework is based on six factors.

  • Context
  • Tools
  • Control
  • Communication
  • Subject
  • Objective

Each factor is then interpreted via a Likert scale ranging from 1-5. Context ranges from “individual” to “socialized”. My understanding of the authors’ explanation is that context refers to both individuals with whom one interacts, and the actual physical environment within which learning occurs. Tools can be either used for “content delivery” at one extreme, or “content construction” at the other. Control, as in the classroom, can be placed with the teacher, with the student or somewhere in between. Frohberg et al. suggest that striking a balance between the two is ideal. (Control, as it is described here can be related to Vygotsky’s “scaffolding”, the need for which necessarily evolves as a learner gains a greater understanding.) Learning can be directed/optimized for the novice or the expert (the subject factor), and that subject can be asked to “know” or “evaluate” (see Blooms taxonomy for an analogous continuum). Lastly, the “communication” can be considered isolated at one extreme, or collaborative at the other. The authors stress that these factors are interdependent; their interactions are “dynamic”.

The primary purpose of the study is to analyze extant research within the context of this framework. Frohber et al. began with a collection of 1469 papers, eventually basing their findings on 102. Their major findings (p. 323) are summarized in the following syllogism.

  • Mobile Learning is best used to support learning in context
  • Novice learners are often not ready to learn in this way
  • Therefore, Mobile Learning should address advanced learners first

I find the authors contentions/conclusions appealing. There is an innate openness/freedom embedded within what I envision Mobile Learning to be. The real potential for Mobile Learning lies beyond the transfer of knowledge. The authors make this point explicitly.

However, it is not necessarily adequate to select novices in physical or socializing contexts. The fundamental reason to have learners learn in a relevant context is to let them apply and process their knowledge and to acquire new knowledge by themselves when exploring, cooperating, and thus reflecting on the environment and their activities. Novice learners are usually not expected to be able to perform these higher forms of learning. Rather, they would need to build up a knowledge basis first and perform their activities under tight control (p. 322).

Mobile technology is ideally suited to construct a more vivid, complex, and nuanced understanding of already existing knowledge through examination/deliberation/collaboration in context. Efforts such as this require the appropriate level of initial understanding. Moreover, one would expect that the successful navigation of such tasks would be aided by a mastery goal orientation and the (related) ability to self-regulate one’s efforts. All of this points towards prototype implementations with individuals looking to expand on preexisting knowledge.