Upload
dominh
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running Head: AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
An Analysis of Mobile-Learning in Higher Education Through the iPad
Laura C. Bonfiglio
Radford University
1
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
Traditional methods of learning have a new neighbor eager to transition into the realm of
education at rapid speed. Mobile-learning is moving into the field of education, bringing with it
its’ large family of mobile-devices each with their own unique characteristics and prepped to
change the learning environment. Franklin defines mobile-learning as “learning that happens
anywhere, anytime,” and involves mobile-devices such as “cell phones, smart phones, netbooks,
laptops, tablets, iPods, iPads, e-readers, palms, Treo, and other devices” (Franklin, 2011, p. 261).
Because there are many contexts for mobile-learning and a wide variety of mobile-
devices, this review will focus on mobile-learning in higher education, honing in on a specific
mobile-device, the iPad. Specifically, it will explore how the iPad and similar devices address
learning, current advantages and disadvantages of their use in higher education, and how many
involved publics are adapting. However, it is first important to understand mobile-learning as a
concept before diving into how specific devices approach and foster such learning.
To define mobile-learning more specifically to the education field, it can be defined as
“access to course content by means of mobile-devices and the related learning activity” (Molnár,
2013, p. 56). Connecting concepts found within the book, The Tipping Point, written by
Malcolm Gladwell in 2002, mobile-learning devices are an epidemic and are currently reaching
their tipping point (Franklin, 2011). These devices have competitive qualities, advancing and
climbing above traditional learning tactics by providing opportunities to learning anytime and
anywhere (Boyinbode, Bagula, & Ngambi, 2011). In this respect, mobile-learning can be
referred to as “nomadic learning,” as it provides people with “a learning environment that moves
with them, accommodating to the individual preferences and needs of learners” (Boyinbode et
al., 2011, p. 14). Accommodating to individual needs and expanding the learning environment
are attractive qualities that have not gone overlooked by student generations.
2
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
In fact, the student generation of this time uses mobile-devices more than any student
generation to come before them, and the numbers are continually growing (Paxhia, 2011).
Specific to students in higher education, a 2010 report by EDUCAUSE reported that this student
group’s use of mobile technology has jumped from 1.2% in 2005 to over 62% in 2010 (Rossing,
Miller, Cecil, & Stamper, 2012). Franklin notes that the integration of mobile-devices into our
educational system is influenced by many factors (2011). Perhaps most observable is their
mobility, a characteristic that varies across devices. For example, a smartphone is more mobile
than an iPad, as smaller weight and size make it more easily portable.
Mobility is a desirable characteristic for learning devices, as students can take their
devices to and from the physical classroom setting (Franklin, 2011). According to the 2012
Higher Education Report conducted by the New Media Consortium (NMC), tablets such as the
iPad offer advantages to higher education learning over other mobile-learning devices due to
their ability to “tap into all the advantages that mobile apps bring to smaller devices, but in a
larger format” (as cited by Hahn & Bussell, 2012, p. 43). Additional desirable qualities of
mobile-devices include lower costs of e-books in comparison to print and the convenience factor
that so many individuals already own smart devices (Hahn & Bussell, 2012).
What do these statistics and mobile-device offerings mean for higher education? Franklin
says, “as educators, we are in the midst of an epidemic, the tipping point has been reached and
mobile is here!” Consequently, these mobile-devices should serve to benefit the field of
education. A core concept behind mobile-learning effectiveness is active learning, which
“involves students in talking and listening, reading, writing, and reflection” (p. 264, 2011). The
importance placed on the needs of the learner is a concept shared across research regarding
mobile-learning as “learner centered” rather than the traditional teacher centered approach
3
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
(Boyinbode et al., 2011). To be effective, mobile-learning must offer benefits to learners, some
of which include: individualized experiences, freedom to make mistakes, continuous access,
communication and collaboration (Franklin, 2011).
The mobile-device that can be attributed to the establishment of tablets in mobile-
learning was the first tablet to hit markets in 2010, the iPad (Miller, 2012). Molnár defines the
iPad as a “popular touchscreen tablet computer,” which “runs the MAC operating system making
it suitable for different general and special uses” (2013, p. 56). The iPad has established its
suitability for education, offering learning applications, e-textbooks, dropbox and electronic
submission programs (Manuguerra & Petocz, 2011), note-taking programs, document-preparing
programs, video programs and more (Molnár, 2013). Further uses include its ability to create,
store, and display lecture presentations for both internal students and distance learners, as well as
offering tools for grading and annotating (Manuguerra & Petocz, 2011). Since its initial release
in 2010 by Apple, Inc. (Manuguerra & Petocz, 2011; Martinez-Estrada & Conaway, 2012), the
iPad has been enhanced over three generations to offer improved user experience, resolution and
speed with each model (Molnár, 2013). Although it has already developed many offerings, “the
adaptation of iPads in education is still in its infancy except for a few developed countries”
(Molnár, 2013, p. 57).
Apple, Inc. has jumped on the opportunity to promote the iPad as a useful and innovative
tool for education. According to Miller, the company ran a commercial in 2011, titled “Learn,”
which showcased the iPad as a tool that fosters learning (2012). The commercial showed an iPad
user attempt to write another language, look up definitions, explore science, play both board
games and musical instruments, all on the multi-functional device (Miller, 2012). The narration
during the commercial claimed, “There has never been a better time to learn” (as cited by Miller,
4
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
2012, p. 54). The company’s site delivers a consistent message with an “Apple iPad Education”
page stating, “The device that changed everything is now changing the classroom” (as cited by
Miller, 2012, p. 54).
In addition to content that can be obtained within the device itself, the iPad’s potential in
the realm of education extends much further. Instructors in higher education are exploring its use
as a tool to integrate within their classes (Miller, 2012). Based on the statistics regarding high
mobile usage by students in higher education, educators choosing to explore and integrate
mobile-learning into their teaching methods are wise to do so. According to Rossing et al.,
“effectively matching student learning styles to instruction is a proven factor in contributing to
academic achievement,” and studies show “positive correlations between the use of educational
technology and student engagement, notably in collaborative learning and student-faculty
interaction” (2012, p. 3).
To support this claim, a 2010 study at Indiana University - Purdue University
Indianapolis (IUPUI) explored iPad use in higher education in regard to student engagement and
learning (Rossing et al., 2012). Faculty members integrated iPads into their classes, and student
perceptions of the experience were gathered (Rossing et al., 2012). The dominating perceptions
held by students were as follows: the iPad helped student participation (which enhanced
perceived learning), the iPad helped students “apply course content to solve problems,” and the
iPad helped students “connect ideas in new ways” (Rossing et al., 2012, p. 14).
A similar study conducted of first-year undergraduate students at the University of
Illinois loaned iPads to students throughout a semester (Hahn & Bussell, 2012). The students
reported the iPads as useful for “in-class Internet-based functionalities,” such as access to, and
creation of, course topics and notes (Hahn & Bussell, 2012, p. 46). They reported the benefit of
5
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
course related applications used as both references and supplementary learning tools to course
materials (Hahn & Bussell, 2012). Their findings suggest that universities looking to utilize
iPads for learning may benefit by loading them with course related apps (Hahn & Bussell, 2012).
However, a downfall of the iPad as perceived by the students showed it is behind the desktop in
terms of the benefits it offers for completing essays and other writing tasks (Hahn & Bussell,
2012).
Writing requirements is only one of the advantages alternative devises such as laptops
may have over the iPad when students consider its adoption. According to a study from the Book
Industry Study Group (BISG) titled, Student Attitudes Toward Content in Higher Education, less
than 12 percent of students own iPads, and the primary reason can be attributed to the
relationship between cost and perceived benefits (Paxhia, 2011). According to Paxhia, students
are apprehensive to rely on the iPad as the sole device for their educational needs, and the cost to
use it as a supplemental learning tool in addition to a laptop or other device outweighs the
benefits it may offer (2011). Although mobile-devices may be in competition with less mobile
alternatives, studies project that mobile tablets will surpass desktop usage by 2015 (Rossing et
al., 2012).
As noted, perceived high costs of tablets are a real concern for many students; however,
some are more affected by this factor than others. According to Rossing et al., the digital divide,
the gap between lower-income and higher-income groups, effects access to and experience with
mobile-devices such as the iPad (2012). This may pose as a problem and may induce feelings of
isolation among students unfamiliar with the technology (Rossing et al., 2012). Although this
generation of students reports high technology and mobile-device usage, their expertise in terms
of mobile-devices for educational use may be significantly lower than their knowledge and
6
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
comfort using the devices for personal uses such as chatting with friends, accessing social media
or streaming music (Rossing et al., 2012). Consequently, the technological divide that may exist
among students is something that must be addressed in the classroom (Rossing et al., 2012).
In addition to student concerns, educators also question the iPad’s presence in education.
Although educators are considering mobile-learning and how to use it in their classrooms, some
perceive it to be a daunting task. Educators may want to give mobile-devices such as the iPad a
trial run; however, some fear experimenting with its use may threaten their traditional roles of
teaching meanwhile consuming too much instructional time (Paxhia, 2011). These educator
concerns and further factors must also be considered as mobile-learning makes its way into the
educational setting.
Like any innovation, mobile-devices, such as the iPad, have advantages and
disadvantages. In the context of higher education and student learning, additional advantages and
disadvantages exist. The opportunity to increase student engagement, faculty-student
relationships, student learning and collaboration seems far too attractive to take a pass at the
potential rewards iPads have to offer. However, digital and technological divides pose the risk of
inhibiting some of these advantages from effectively making their way into the classroom.
Additionally, the perceived newness of the device may threaten certain educators who are
comfortable in their traditional teaching roles, and it may cause discomfort and isolation among
students who may lack experience with such technology. These costs certainly have the potential
to diminish the role of the iPad as an effective tool for learning.
However, students and educators, as well as producers and third-party affiliates, can all
play a role in maximizing rewards and reducing costs and uncertainties. Students can support
teachers with the integration process, as well as support their peers whom are likely to have
7
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
varying levels of familiarity with the technology (Rossing et al., 2012). Educators can address
drawbacks by planning how to best integrate iPads and mobile-learning into their specific
environments. By considering students’ knowledge of and comfort with the technology,
educators can designate the proper time for all parties involved to become acclimated to the
learning device (Rossing et al., 2012).
Those on the production end can work to ensure that future models continue to be mobile
and user friendly. By developing interactive software and high image quality, and offering the
product at a realistic price point to markets, content and product producers have the potential to
address some of the drawbacks as well. For example, many book publishers are making these
efforts by adapting their content to be more visually appealing (Miller, 2012). By incorporating
“multimedia and collaborative elements,” these third parties are working to meet the needs of the
iPad consumers in the education field (Miller, 2012, p. 55).
Not surprisingly, Apple, Inc. is working to address issues as well. With new and
improved iPad models, as well as the creation of the iPad mini, Apple is addressing needs of
engagement and mobility (Apple, Inc., 2013). Furthermore, to ensure the iPad is user friendly,
the company offers “Apple Education Professional Services,” which address the products
usability and offers a helping hand to educators from pre-planning efforts to post implementation
of the device in the classroom (Apple, Inc., 2012). The service offers on-site workshops through
which Apple specialists visit universities to ensure that the products are leveraged in a way that
will benefit both educators and students (Apple Inc., 2012). This program addresses previously
mentioned concerns of discomfort and unfamiliarity held by educators. Particularly, the
workshops aim to “help teachers become confident and comfortable integrating Apple products
into their teaching strategies” (Apple Inc., 2012, p. 2).
8
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
Apple, Inc. also offers training and education courses designed for students in a variety of
methods and platforms from books and e-Books to video training and classes (Apple Inc., 2012).
The organization also addresses issues of product cost with “Apple Education Pricing,” which
offers special discounts to faculty and students. Similarly, their “Volume Purchase Program”
offers college institutions an opportunity to save up to 50 percent on select software and products
(Apple, Inc., 2013).
Apple may offer assistance through different programs; however, the company may face
scrutiny from their student market. Although Apple advertises the iPad as a unique educational
tool for students and faculty, the company does not currently offer educational pricing for that
specific device (Apple, Inc., 2013). Similarly, many of the company’s training resources are
associated with a fee, which puts an additional cost barrier between students and adoption of the
device.
One thing is for sure, and that is the speed at which mobile-devices are entering the field
of higher education with tablets such as the iPad playing a huge role in student learning. Since
the invention of the iPad in 2010, the world has seen a shift in the demands and opportunities for
similar technology to be further integrated with student learning. Those who produce the
products, associated third-party developers, educators, students, and researchers exploring the
effects of this innovation are working to keep up the pace. Based on future projections of
extreme growth in mobile-learning and iPad use in higher education, and the many factors
involved in this merger, all parties must pace themselves for a long-winded marathon. Mobile-
learning and its family of devices have officially moved in and are here to stay.
9
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
References
Apple, Inc. (2012). Apple professional development catalog. 1-21. Retrieved from
http://images.apple.com/education/docs/L516394B-en_US_APD_Catalog.pdf
Apple, Inc. (2013). Apple in education. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/
Boyinbode, O., Bagula, A., & Ngambi, D. (2011). An opencast mobile learning framework for
enhancing learning in higher education. International Journal of U- & E-Service,
Science & Technology, 4(3), 11-18.
Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(4), 261-275.
Hahn, J., & Bussell, H. (2012). Curricular use of the iPad 2 by a first-year undergraduate
learning community. Library Technology Reports, 48(8), 42-47.
Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new
technology into tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 61-
65. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p61
Martinez-Estrada, P., & Conaway, R. N. (2012). EBooks: The next step in educational
innovation. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 125-135.
doi:10.1177/1080569911432628
Miller, W. (2012). iTeaching and learning. Library Technology Reports, 48(8), 54-59.
Molnár, G. (2013). New learning spaces? M-learning's, in particular the iPad's potentials in
education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 7(1), 56-60.
doi:10.3991/ijim.v7i1.2398
Paxhia, S. (2011). The challenges of higher education digital publishing. Publishing Research
Quarterly, 27(4), 321-326. doi:10.1007/s12109-011-9245-0
10
AN ANALYSIS OF MOBILE-LEARNING
Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of
higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of The
Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
11