Introduction
The 21st century is witnessing an increase in the
use of mobile devices in different areas of
society to meet the needs of individuals on the
move. Interest in mobile learning is growing in
higher education as signified by the number of
conferences (e.g. mLearn, IMCL), projects,
scholarly journals, technical reports, and books (Traxler,
2008; Herrington & Herrington, 2008;
Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005; Ally, 2009).
Mobile learning is considered a new and more
flexible educational strategy where students have
opportunities to review course content or
communicate with their peers and instructors
“anywhere,” “anytime” without the restrictions of
fixed-location computer technology (Caudill,
2007). An enhanced potential of e-learning, as
observed by Kinshuk (2003), is now being realized
with the advent of mobile learning tools. Mellow
(2005) believes that the integration of mobile
technologies in education will offer improved
flexibility to students to suit their lifestyles.
Although there is lack of agreement on a single
definition, mobile learning, as defined by Keegan
(2005), focuses on mobility where students may
access education and training through devices such
as iPods, PDAs, Palmtops and third-generation
mobile phones.
McFarlane, Triggs, and Yee (2008) suggest that
mobile learning can make a positive contribution
toward teaching and learning. Learning is
predicted to move more and more outside of the
online or traditional classroom contexts thus
becoming more situated, personal, collaborative
and lifelong (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula &
Sharples, 2004). Some literature posits that the
new generation of students considers technology to
be part of their lives (Ally, 2007) and a steadily
increasing number of today’s students use their
own personal mobile technologies (McGee & Diaz,
2007). If instructors intend to situate learning
within the students’ world, then ignoring the
opportunities for mobile learning would run
counter to the declared contemporary missions and
practices of many universities (Tynan & Colbran,
2006).
Although it offers unique opportunities for
instructors and students, mobile learning demands
new educational approaches of delivery and
facilitation (Corbeil & Corbeil, 2007), just as
with earlier generations of e-learning
transformation. Similarly, Cobcroft, Towers,
Smith, and Burns (2006) suggest that adherence to
pedagogical "best practice" must be central to any
mobile learning project implementation. However,
the pedagogical purposes for using mobile
technologies have not been widely discussed in
higher education (Herrington & Herrington, 2008).
Such technologies bring challenges to instructors
and institutions alike. Motlik (2008) suggests
that education should now focus resource
development on mobile technologies rather than the
computer-centered Web. Compared to
Internet-connected computers, the popular
distribution of mobile devices is already
familiar, easy-to-use and widespread among
learners. Norris and Soloway (2008) argue that
educators need to adopt mobile 21st-century tools
for 21st-century learners. As matters now stand,
education tends not to expose students to these
tools, thus widening the technology gap between
institutions and the learners they serve. Patten,
Sanchez, and Tangney (2006) have analyzed the
pedagogical underpinnings -- real and theorized --
for hand-held information and communication
technology (ICT) tools. They argue that the unique
affordances of hand-held devices should not simply
be applied to replicating more efficiently the
practices of earlier technologies. Instead, they
should promote the creation of transformative
strategies unique to mobile tool capacities.
The challenge for instructors and course designers
lies in understanding and exploring how to
facilitate mobile learning effectively and at the
same time, to keep up with this changing
phenomenon (Corbeil & Corbeil, 2007; Naismith et
al., 2004). Becta (2004) suggests that
institutions need to consider what training and
technical support is required to support mobile
teaching and learning effectively. Naismith et al.
(2004) agree that training and dissemination of
exemplary practice is needed to enable instructors
to exploit the potential of mobile technologies
for education. This paper aims to show in practice
how three online instructors are exploring the use
of mobile devices into their teaching activities
while contributing to the further understanding of
how mobile learning technologies can support
teaching and learning.
The following sections include a review of
relevant literature followed by a description of
the research questions and methodology. While
presenting the findings, the paper addresses the
collective experience of three online instructors,
challenges faced by these educators, and the
institutional
response aimed at meeting these challenges.
Emergence of mobile practice
The integration of mobile devices into the
curriculum necessitates a change in teaching
approaches and strategies. Corbeil and Corbeil
(2007), for example, conducted an informal survey
with instructors to ascertain among other things
their readiness to move from e-learning to mobile
learning. The majority of participants affirmed
that they were ready, though they were not yet
integrating mobile technologies into their
teaching activities. Meanwhile, Chan, Lee and
McLoughlin (2006) found favorable results
regarding the use of podcasting among a group of
students, but suggest that widespread adoption of
mobile technologies such as podcasting at the
institutional level may generate resistance from
instructors. In some cases, instructors may feel
threatened by new forms of communication fearing
their students' allegedly superior technological
competence (Herrington & Herrington, 2008).
Despite this, Chan et al. (2006) concluded that
with the aid of the appropriate devices and
resources, mobile technologies like podcasting
can be integrated readily into the professional
practice of higher education instructors.
The literature on mobile learning, however,
carries some warning. Recognizing the display
limitations of mobile devices, Huang, Kuo, Lin,
and Cheng (2008) describe innovative models to
support synchronous learner access to content
using these tools. Weller, Bickar, and McGuinness
(2008) report concerns about mobile delivery as a
"push" technology that distributes content but
enables very little communication about that
content. They describe strategies to integrate
mobile technology seamlessly with other tools that
promote communication and production related to
primary-grade curricular field trips. Some
observers view the newer communications
technologies as unduly disruptive to education.
For example, Elstad (2006) suggests that the
dynamics of the technology-infused classroom
reduces teacher control thereby creating a threat
that students will carry out non-educational
in-class activity with the communications devices
made available to them.
Burke, Colter, Little, and Riehl (2005) reported
instructors’ experience with mobile device
integration as overwhelmingly positive. However,
the authors also found that many instructors did
not yet know how to work with tools or integrate
them into their teaching. They concluded that
staff training was the most critical element
affecting the success of their project. This
finding is consistent with LeBaron and McFadden
(2008) who argue for institutional support to
guide instructors through the pedagogical
challenges of technology integration. They suggest
ongoing training, professional development,
incentives, and human and infrastructure support.
This echoes Attewell (2005) who views training as
crucial for instructors since mobile literacy and
familiarity with such devices may vary widely
among individuals.
Researchers might legitimately ask if ubiquitous
laptop computing any longer represents a viable
future for ICT investment. With the burgeoning
distribution of mobile devices connected to
cellular telephone and wireless networks, laptops
may represent a disappearing phenomenon. Swan,
Kratcoski, and van’t Hooft (2007) have outlined
the unique affordances of mobile devices,
especially pointing to the fact that they are
carried by virtually all young people, anywhere,
and at any time around-the-clock. The failure of
educators to acknowledge this reality will
exacerbate the growing "disconnect" between
schools and their constituencies.
This study aims to explore
the integration of mobile devices into teaching
practice through two separate audio interactions
with three online instructors. It seeks to answer
two questions: 1) What do instructors who are
actually trying to embed the use of mobile devices
into their teaching say about these efforts in
terms of their own activities and the impact on
students? 2) How should educational institutions
support these initiatives?
Methodology
Three instructors from a mid-sized public
university in the United States took part in the
study. The institution is comprised of roughly
9000 graduate and undergraduate students and a
full-time faculty of approximately 500.
Instructors of all courses across the institution
have access to a course management system. Many
courses and whole degree programs are offered
fully online; many more are offered in blended
format. Like many universities, this one has
experienced exponential growth in online learning
over the past five years (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Growth of university’s online course
offerings.
Participants
The first instructor (Joseph) has been teaching
both undergraduate and graduate courses for six
years. Data were derived from his experience from
two psychology courses taught in 2008: one online
graduate course and one classroom-based
undergraduate course. Both of these courses
enrolled thirty students. One course required the
student production of podcasts; the second, the
collaborative production of a wiki. The second
instructor (Marta) has extensive secondary school
and university teaching experience. At the
university level, she has been teaching mostly
graduate students for thirteen years. She recounts
her experiences from two sections of the same
graduate course in educational leadership aimed at
mid-career educators spanning two semesters in
2007 and 2008. In both sections of this course,
the instructor attempted to embed the production
of instructional podcasts with other material
contained in a learning management system (LMS).
Nineteen students were enrolled in the first
section of this graduate course; fourteen students
in the second. Both sections were conducted fully
online. The third instructor (Claire), who
recently graduated with a Master’s degree, has
been teaching her first online course for one
semester in which nine students were enrolled.
Although this course was previously offered at the
first-year level, several upper-level students
were also enrolled. Her American History course
included podcast lectures among a variety of other
core course materials delivered in different ways.
The three instructors have become familiar with
various mobile devices. They all own iPods,
iTouches and mobile phones.
Data collection and analysis
Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with
all three instructors using the archiving tool of
an audio conferencing utility within a learning
management system. An initial round of individual
interviews occurred in early October 2008. The
intention was to discuss the topic researched
while answering specific questions from a script
prepared in the context of study objectives. These
questions covered: a) instructors’ background
information, b) familiarity and use of mobile
devices; c) instructional experience, successes
and difficulties encountered; d) and perceptions
of integrating mobile devices into teaching as
well as the perceived views of their students. One
of the researchers synchronously conducted the
online voice interviews, which were conducted as
one-to-one dialogues, while another researcher
transcribed and analyzed the resulting content of
the discussion.
Using the same audio conferencing tool, a second
round of interviews was conducted in mid-June 2009
in order to assess perceptual changes in a
fast-moving field of inquiry, and to discover
particular faculty development needs and
experiences not revealed during the first
interview round. The second round was conducted as
a collective focus group discussion rather than
following the separate, individualized one-on-one
conversations of the initial round. In the latter
focus group discussion, interview questions
focused on: a) changes in perspective resulting
from longer and deeper teaching experience; b)
particular training and faculty development needs;
and c) the degree to which such needs have, or
have not, been met by the support available from
the instructors’ home university.
These three case histories reflect the
longitudinal experiences of the three subject
instructors over time. The purpose of this inquiry
is to ascertain relatively deep perceptions of
field practitioners actually working to improve
their eTeaching by incorporating newer mobile
tools. This approach conforms to the qualitative
research principles articulated by Merriam (1998).
These perceptions may or may not agree with those
produced by a broad-based survey from a large
sample, but they reflect the valuable insights of
course designers and talented e-teachers
confronting daily instructional challenges in a
changing world.
The two rounds of interviews were analyzed
inductively following the suggestion of Merriam
(1998) in which category construction began by
reviewing the narrative that emerged from the
voice interviews and making notes and comments on
the margins of the resulting text. The next step
involved grouping these comments and notes and
identifying categories so that data could be coded
as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985). After
coding the data, themes and patterns relating to
mobile device integration into teaching were
examined accordingly. To ensure the
trustworthiness of the data, triangulation
occurred using a peer-check and member-check as
described by Marshall and Rossman (2006).
Findings
The findings are organized in five sections which
describe the three instructors’ perceptions and
experience with mobile devices integration,
challenges and opportunities encountered, and
current University services in place to support
the move from e-learning to m-learning.
Mobile devices integration in teaching
Joseph
Although Joseph has not yet fully integrated
mobile devices into his teaching, he has taken the
initial step of content material preparation. He
has also had his undergraduate students producing
podcasts. These course assignments were then
uploaded into his students’ iTunes University
accounts. The next step would involve actually
transferring this content into mobile devices but
Joseph has not yet required his students to do
this. He is cautious about doing so, because he
believes there are procedural ambiguities to
confront (e.g. student privacy) before making the
transition from producing content potentially
usable on mobile devices to actually exposing it
publicly via podcasting. Joseph has also conducted
a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
research project, which involved students
producing podcasts instead of writing traditional
term papers. Students produced visual, animation
and other multimodal products to reinforce their
text-based composition. Additionally, Joseph had
graduate students creating other products such as
a wiki that could be accessed from mobile devices.
It is worth noting that in Joseph's undergraduate
course, out of 20 students queried, 16 did not
know what the term “podcasting” meant. This
reinforces one of the other researcher’s separate
finding that most of students in a graduate course
(early-to-mid-career teachers-in-training) have
not yet adopted mobile devices either for personal
or for professional use. Sixteen of eighteen
undergraduate students responded they never used
podcasts while only two replied “yes.” The authors
have no reason to believe that their University is
unique in this regard, and their findings call
into question the universality of findings
reported about the ubiquity of mobile device use
among younger students (Ally, 2007; McGee & Diaz,
2007).
Marta
While Joseph’s students produced podcastable
digitized material, Marta created podcasts and
stored them on her university's iTunes server for
downloading. She knew that some of her
masters-level students downloaded them to their
iPods and listened to them. She encountered
problems, however, with iTunes because students
complained about excessive time to download,
especially with larger video files. She eventually
transferred these files to iMovie format and
placed them on a different university-housed
streaming server. In short, the instructor traded
the mobility of podcasting for the speed and
convenience of streamed video from a local server.
After this, she received only one complaint about
download speed. In order to prepare her sound
files for class preparation, she is using a
different tool called Recorder which she had
earlier saved into her iPhone. It allows her to
record almost any material in digital format. For
example, she records voice feedback on students’
assignments that supplements her written feedback.
Claire
Claire’s lectures are enhanced podcasts but,
similar to Joseph, she does not require students
to use mobile devices. Students can, nevertheless,
download the lectures and listen to them on their
iPods. The audio channel of Claire’s podcasts is
illustrated by images that roll like slides as the
audio is playing. If, however, students do not use
a device that will display images, the audio
channel will play on its own. Claire surveyed the
students and discovered that the overwhelming
majority of them downloaded the podcasts only onto
their computers. Out of nine students, only one
regularly downloaded the podcasts to an iPod.
Claire is aware of how many students use mobile
devices. About two-thirds of her students owned
iPods. She is not sure about the reasons for
students not “going mobile.” She surmises they did
not understand that her lectures could be
downloaded to their iPods.
In the second round interview neither Claire nor
Joseph felt that the integration of mobile devices
in their teaching has necessarily led to a two-way
type of interaction. To Claire, mobile learning
basically constitutes a one-way delivery
mechanism; it is almost like students receiving a
classroom lecture. Joseph wants to by-pass the
simple delivery of content. He believes that
opportunities for engaging students in
interactivity are possible through m-learning
tools, especially
using Web 2.0 tools. He acknowledges that
he needs assistance on how to take advantage of
the innovative potential of mobile learning in
order to promote interactive assignments. In order
to create such interactivity, Claire suggests that
instructors are going to have to shift to richer
media and multimedia presentation for their
instructional delivery. In her case, moving to
m-learning implies having her completely
re-structuring the way she teaches. She believes
she will have to start incorporating a lot of
social media such as Facebook into the course to
achieve a two-way interaction. Currently, the only
way that her students can communicate with one
another is through the LMS. As for Marta, although
she did not teach during the most recent semester,
she was exposed to newer technologies, such as
Second Life, that she feels may help her when she
returns to active teaching. Additionally, she is
anticipating the consequences of the University’s
ultimate migration to a new and different LMS
which may offer links to Facebook and other mobile
tools.
In addition to the lack of interactivity, Joseph
thinks that m-learning as a whole remains an early
trend that has not yet been embraced by a critical
mass of University faculty. For instance, when he
talks about m-learning to his colleagues, most do
not know what that means. Claire believes that
m-learning is going to prove interesting to online
instructors only. To her, a small minority of
instructors with high technological skills will
perform a lot of “grass roots development” to help
move m-learning forward; but for the majority of
instructors, m-learning will stagnate. However,
Claire suggests that m-learning would be more
fully adopted if face-to-face instructors started
to think about ways they could incorporate mobile
devices into their teaching. More optimistically,
Marta predicts that in 20 years m-learning will
replace e-learning, a point that is not shared by
Claire and Joseph. Claire does not think this will
ever happen and mentions that e-learning has not
yet replaced traditional teaching even though it
seems to be contributing to its transformation.
Today's challenges and tomorrow's opportunities
In analyzing the integration of mobile devices
into her teaching, Marta indicated that students
judged podcasting and movies to be meaningful to
them. Students also appreciated the voice feedback
on assignments as added reinforcement for their
work. She firmly believed that such integration
has made a positive difference to her teaching. To
Joseph, although his students could access and
view everything that was created in the class on a
mobile device, he does not know whether they
literally transferred the material to such
devices, and if they did, how this promoted their
learning. To Claire, it is still too early to
determine whether mobile device integration into
her teaching has been successful. Her online
course is in-progress and, to date, only one
student has used mobile devices. Since she will be
teaching the same course next spring, Claire has
begun to review her own podcasts with the
intention of improving them. She also anticipates
implementing new strategies to encourage students
to learn about and use mobile devices.
Later in the interview, Claire suggested that she
has made her class materials more accessible. If
these materials are conveniently retrieved,
students will be more likely to use them
productively. In the same vein, Marta affirms that
mobile devices have the potential to democratize
educational opportunity. She foresees prices
dropping for such miniaturized devices; more
people will own them thereby increasing
educational access, thereby pressuring instructors
and their institutions to distribute content to
these tools. For the foreseeable future, a
perpetually increasing proportion of such content
will be digitally formatted and therefore
downloadable to mobile devices.
Joseph adds that students can use mobile devices
to review course material repeatedly and
conveniently as necessary. As mentioned earlier,
Joseph is concerned about the perceived
“push-only” nature of mobile teaching and
learning. To him, m-learning should be more than
simply getting a lecture downloaded to an iPod.
Additionally, Joseph suggests that a cultural
change is needed across the spectrum of higher
education. For example, he recently observed a
televised program where a young girl was suspended
from her high school class because she carried an
iPod in a school that had banned them. What is
needed, he said, is rethinking about the
appropriateness and uses of iPods in the classroom
so that communication devices routinely found in
students' possession are put to productive
educational use.
Perceived need for institutional support
All three instructors strongly agree that in order
to successfully integrate mobile devices in
teaching and learning, effective faculty
development and training are needed. Joseph feels
that one of the challenges faced by instructors is
learning how the devices integrate with other,
more familiar tools and practices. He suggests
that faculty training takes time and should be
offered in graduated segments based on a
progressive mastery of specific tools. In addition
to faculty assistance with digital media, the
instructors expressed concern with the adequacy of
student support, privacy rights, and the
protection of intellectual property for students
and instructors alike. For example, one of
Claire’s biggest challenges is to understand how
much to support her students and how to anticipate
their technology needs. If they are insufficiently
helped in their use of mobile technologies, their
home institutions need to establish back-up
assistance to assure students will meet learning
goals with or without access to mobile devices. If
sufficient institutional support is lacking,
Claire recommends against “going mobile” because
instructors should not divert attention from their
scholarly responsibilities in order to focus on
technical matters. In her view, if students
progressively rely more heavily on mobile devices
for their learning, universities need to respond
by re-tooling their technical support to
accommodate the accompanying technological
transformation.
Joseph would like to see early m-learning faculty
adopters start leading the way, disseminating
their ideas across the University. In this
respect, Claire considers herself to be an early
adopter. In October 2008, she was delivering her
lectures through iTunes to be downloaded on a MP3
player. Most of her students were also downloading
her lectures from the University’s
LMS to their laptops. In the past two semesters,
including a summer course, she made her lectures
available only on iTunes. She became aware that
more students are listening to the lessons while
they are on the move, such as when exercising or
driving a car. She believes that students are
adopting m-learning and feels that she is
influential in leading the way.
Implications for training and faculty development
In their university, only one staff person is
explicitly dedicated to providing support in
developing digital media for the entire faculty.
However, other skilled staff members devote part
time work to faculty assistance with incorporating
mobile technologies into their eTeaching. When
initially interviewed, Joseph opined that this
small staff contingent also assists a student body
of several thousand. As increasing numbers of
faculty and staff adopt mobile teaching
techniques, this support shortfall will become
more severe. Marta feels that the University is
responsible for assuring such support. She
suggests that the institution should purchase
mobile devices for faculty who do not now possess
them. Marta believes that mobile device
integration across the University's range of
networked teaching and learning requires a
dedicated budget, personnel support, instructional
development and technical training.
University array of services
The University where Marta, Joseph and Claire
teach has gradually implemented an array of
services for e-teaching training and support.
These services are offered in the institutional
context of a University Faculty Center (UFC), and
will be adapted to the growing migration toward
mobile-based technologies. Mindful of the research
on institutional and professional development,
instructors themselves are substantially involved
in the design and execution of professional
development as program developers, role-models and
peer mentors (Rogers, 2003; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Loucks-Horsley & Hergert, 1985). In this way,
active client faculty members supplement the
contribution of the solitary digital media support
person. The
University Faculty Center organizes its training
and teaching development around ten discrete
programs. A small sampling is outlined below:
· The
Online Course Assessment Tool (OCAT).
A web-based vehicle through which faculty members
may access for quality of their online teaching
and course design. This tool may be used either
for self-assessment or for peer coaching. See
http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/facultycenter_OCAT_v2.0_25apr07.pdf.
· The
eLearning-eMentor Program.
Through this web-based service, experienced
volunteer faculty members make themselves
available to less experienced client colleagues,
who desire assistance with electronic course
design and teaching. See
http://www.wcu.edu/7515.asp.
· Online
course development day.
Several times throughout the academic year,
daylong workshops are provided wherein faculty
members may work with staff and with colleagues on
specific challenges related to course design. Some
of these challenges focus on the integration of
mobile learning strategies. See page two of the
following document:
http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/CFC-eTeach-Help_080814.pdf.
· The
“Faculty Sandbox.”
This facility is a homelike physical space
dedicated to providing faculty with ongoing
support on the latest, most innovative
instructional technology the sandbox specializes
in digital media, Web-based software programs and
supports the creation of Web-ready documents. See
http://www.wcu.edu/7509.asp.
A more comprehensive narrative of Faculty Center
support for e-learning and m-learning may be found
at
http://www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/CFC-eTeach-Help_080814.pdf.
How have UFC services impacted the attitudes and
practices of Marta, Joseph and Claire? Marta
stresses that the University offers a successful
professional development model created within the
UFC. It is an online course development structure
that brings together all of the resources of the
Faculty Center to promote innovation. The model
supports groups and individuals, and encourages
faculty to move forward with more advanced
technologies such as Second Life regardless of
sophistication or prior experience. Joseph feels
that small group support allows for presentation
of specific teaching techniques. For example, he
sees a benefit in faculty demonstrations of
instructional strategies. To Claire, the Faculty
Center is a place where faculty members may be
exposed to innovative peer instructional
techniques; instructors are perpetually exploring
new teaching methods. Joseph affirms that faculty
members value the opportunity to showcase their
accomplishments. Marta believes that explicit
training and professional development is needed
for leading faculty to serve as trainers and
role-models for the critical mass of peers who
will follow them toward m-learning adoption.
Discussion
This paper has illustrated the implications of
integrating mobile devices into teaching by
exploring the experience and views of three
university instructors. Findings indicate that
such integration holds promise but that much
instructional potential remains to be tapped;
however, the three instructors appear to be
defining the nature of that potential. They
demonstrated a growing familiarity with mobile
instruction and a keen willingness to keep up with
the changing world of teaching and learning.
Findings also show that a number of challenges
exist, which are consistent with those discussed
in the literature (e.g. Becta, 2004; Burke et al.,
2005; LeBaron & McFadden, 2008). Through their
narratives, it became evident that these leading
faculty members require professional development
and technical training to familiarize themselves
with mobile devices, while, at the same time,
understand ways to integrate them into their
teaching and to
disseminate their growing skill-set to teaching
peers. Figure 2 depicts the major findings
arising from the data analysis.
Figure 2. Criteria necessary for “switching gears”
from e-learning to m-learning.
Instructors’ awareness of opportunities to engage
in peer collaboration, to build a knowledge-base
of applications leading to equal access for all
students, and to construct a repertoire of
innovative approaches focused on m-learning
pedagogy are perceived by study participants as
most important for moving toward this particular
type of instructional focus. Instructor
familiarity of mobile devices was also recommended
by the study participants. Regarded as
particularly beneficial for instructors is
knowledge of the various types of mobile devices
on the market today, ways in which these devices
integrate with existing technology, and
availability of software that supports and
enhances the experience of learning. Lastly, study
participants recognized the need for institutional
support and commitment, particularly in the areas
of professional development in using these
technologies, peer-modeling by early-adopting
faculty already using these devices and
techniques, and training and support in
implementing this approach.
All three instructors have clearly stressed their
concerns that insufficient personnel exist to
provide necessary assistance to realize the
potential of m-learning. Another challenge focuses
on the provision of network and technological
infrastructure sufficient to support faculty and
students alike. This study also raises the
question of whose responsibility it is to provide
mobile devices for instructors to implement
m-learning effectively into their teaching.
Similar concerns have been found in the literature
(e.g. Naismith et al., 2004).
Much m-learning literature posits the importance
of designing electronically networked courses in a
manner that reaches students where they typically
use networked technology in their personal lives.
This issue appears to be somewhat more complex
than it appears on the surface.
Contrary to received
wisdom, the study participants discovered that, if
anything, some of their students are less
experienced and knowledgeable about mobile
communication, particularly podcasting, than are
some of their instructors. Therefore,
designing networked learning targeted explicitly
for mobile access may be missing the intended
population target. However, these "snapshot"
findings cannot predict the future. Prudent
practice suggests that universities should be
planning now for the infusion of teaching designed
for mobile learning, in order to be prepared for
an imminent, radical change in student routines.
This study has addressed practical concerns that
universities should take into account in order to
support faculty in making the transition from
e-learning to m-learning. Due to the small study
sample, however, the potential for generalization
is limited. Future research could survey larger
and more diverse teaching populations to allow
more solid conclusions. An additional limitation
is the use of a unitary
data source. Although the interviews
allowed exploring rich and in-depth information,
using survey or other data collection techniques
would help strengthen
the findings. This study covered only the
instructors’ side. Analysis of students’
perceptions and experience of using mobile devices
to support their learning should drive future
research on m-learning.
These rich narratives have, as suggested by
Naismith et al. (2004), described nascent
innovations which may help other instructors to
explore the potential of mobile devices in
teaching. In addition, the study has presented an
array of services that the participants’
university offers to support e-learning which are
now being adapted to support mobile teaching and
learning. Findings also suggest that pioneering
instructors such as Claire, Marta, and Joseph are
well-positioned to serve as role models to those
with less experience and willing to use mobile
devices in their teaching. A challenge for the
University is to devise strategies to capitalize
on their talent systemically in order to diffuse
the lessons learned from their pioneering effort.
Conclusions
By exploring the experiences and views of three
instructors on mobile device integration into
their teaching, this paper revealed that there
were both opportunities and challenges involved
with such integration. While the instructors
viewed m-learning optimistically, issues need to
be addressed to enable effective
institutional diffusion
of mobile devices into teaching and learning.
These issues include training, professional
development and technical support. The three
instructors interviewed in this study felt ready
to incorporate m-learning into their teaching, yet
perceived that they lack the cognitive schemas for
implementing m-learning techniques and
strategies systematically into their instruction.
Moving from simple content delivery toward
increased interactivity was perceived as a
struggle. Moreover, all of the study participants
warned that beyond technical and pedagogical
support, the University also needs to address the
cultural change inherent in society’s overall
migration from classrooms and computers toward
mobile communications. Migrating from the
low-level instructional function of mere content
delivery towards a more student-centered approach
will necessitate the demand for institutional
resources aimed specifically at fulfilling the
higher-order aspirations expressed by instructors
who wish to successfully navigate the waters of
mobile learning.
