Mobile learning can be many things to different groups of people. Superficially, it appears from the outside to be learning via mobile devices such as smartphones, MP3 players, laptops and tablets. Certainly, these are important in enabling mobile learning.

"Early definitions of [mobile learning], which focused predominantly on the attributes of mobile technology, have given way to more sophisticated conceptualisations suggesting that mobility is the central issue (Winters, 2006). This denotes not just physical mobility but the opportunity to overcome physical constraints by having access to people and digital learning resources, regardless of place and time."
Kukulska-Hulme (2010)

But mobile learning is more than just using a mobile device to access content and communicate with others – it is about the mobility of the learner. According to Mike Sharples, a leading authority in the field, mobile learning can be defined as:

"the processes (both personal and public) of coming to know through exploration and conversation across multiple contexts amongst people and interactive technologies"
Sharples, M. et al, 2007

The key word here is context. Mobile learning allows for a contextualisation of learning that is impossible with desk-bound computing. A more workmanlike definition of mobile learning was given by MoLeNET, a three year programme of capital funding for further education institutions running from 2007 until 2010. Mobile learning, they reasoned, involves the:

"exploitation of ubiquitous handheld hardware, wireless networking and mobile telephony to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning."

Despite over ten years of work in the field of mobile learning the body of research available upon which to draw is relatively small. This is for two reasons. First, the rapid evolution of mobile devices has caused problems for meaningful longitudinal work. Often, by the time institutionally-purchased devices begin to gain traction they can be shunned for being out of date.

Second, cultural issues in key settings have prevented the use of mobile devices in educational institutions and healthcare. Seen as disruptive, distracting or causing privacy issues, management policy in many such settings has been one of blanket bans.

As you shall see through exploring this guide, mobile learning is more than the sum of its parts. It is, to a great extent, a ‘trojan horse’ and a vehicle for exploring the changing nature of learning in a connected age. Because of the large-scale funding, Further education institutions who participated (or learned from the outputs of) the MoLeNET programme are, perhaps, better-positioned than many schools, higher education institutions, and other providers as regards mobile learning.

Just as with any meaningful intervention or technology-enhanced learning initiative, there are no shortcuts. What this guide provides are some useful pointers and steps to consider along with some ‘snapshots’ of how other institutions have previously trod a similar path.

"Mobile devices give us a unique opportunity to have learners embedded in a realistic context at the same time as having access to supporting tools."
Futurelab (2004)

Mobile learning is more than simply learning via mobile devices (see what is mobile learning?). Planned and implemented properly, mobile learning initiatives allow for educational institutions to reflect upon the nature of their provision for learners. Although the technology involved in mobile learning can be attractive to staff and students there are also tangible and strategic benefits that mobile learning can bring.

Institutional goals

Mobile learning aligns well with many goals of educational institutions, including:

1. Curriculum redesign
2. Personalisation of learning
3. Student satisfaction1
4. Digital literacies
5. Reducing costs (doing more with less)
6. Graduate attributes and employability
7. Enhancing assessment and feedback
8. Widening participation
9. Improving student engagement and retention
10. Energy efficiency

Many of those interviewed as part of the research for this guide commented upon how relatively simple uses of mobile technologies can help in reducing frustration and in student retention. Examples include SMS messages sent to inform students of cancelled or rearranged lectures, and keeping in touch with learners at risk of falling behind with (and therefore dropping out from) their studies.

Tangible benefits of mobile learning

There are many tacit benefits of mobile learning but those that can be measured and made tangible include the following.

• Personal, private and familiar (reduce perceived barriers to learning)
• Pervasive and ubiquitous
• Fit into the lives of learners (allow for productive ‘dead’ time – eg when travelling or queuing)
• Portable – allow anywhere, anytime learning
• Immediacy of communication (including speech and data-sharing)
• Allows access to learning by those in dispersed communities and isolated situations
• Contextualisation through location-aware features such as GPS
• Allows data to be recorded and learning processes captured wherever they happen
• Access to mentors, tutors and others learners on-the-move
• Perceived as an acceptable way for learners to receive reminders and chasers – and to manage their time
• Bite-sized e-learning resources can be delivered to learners (especially useful for basic skills or work-based learning)
• Abstract (representational) and concrete (environmentally-situated) knowledge can be integrated.
• Peer-to-peer networks make learning more student-centred
• Promotes active learning
• Enable new learning environments
• Increases accessibility for learners with special educational needs
• Encourages reflection in close proximity to the learning event
• Reduces technical barriers to e-learning

Wider context

"Looking at mobile learning in a wider context, we have to recognize that mobile, personal, and wireless devices are now radically transforming societal notions of discourse and knowledge, and are responsible for new forms of art, employment, language, commerce, deprivation, and crime, as well as learning."
Traxler (2007)

Educational institutions both drive societal change and have to respond to it. According to GSMA (2011) a survey by Blackboard found that: 

“virtually all students own a mobile phone and a third have [a] smartphone.”

Indeed, GSMA cites data from Ofcom showing that:

“99% of people aged between 15 and 24 have a mobile phone, the highest penetration rate for any age group.” 

Whilst before the year 2000 ownership was restricted to the privileged few, it has become increasingly socially problematic and disabling not to own and use a mobile phone. This transformation of “societal notions of discourse and knowledge” (Traxler, 2007) is the context which educational institutions must both understand and operate within to remain relevant.

As is explained throughout this guide, mobile learning can be a ‘trojan horse’ for wider institutional changes. Considering the extent to which learning can be made more social through the use of mobile devices, for example, may force teaching staff to reflect upon the methods of assessment they use on a course.

Similarly, if ‘content’ can be delivered in a personal way to mobile devices, educators may deem discussion, debate and practical ‘hands-on’ activities a better use of face-to-face contact time. As this diagram from Upside Learning shows, mobile learning can be used both for content delivery and as a performance support system.

A final point to consider is the ease with which mobile devices allow for the creation of user-generated content. Coupled with the rise of social networks and location-aware services, mobile learners can engage with the content and skills they are expected to learn in more ways than ever before.

There are a number of myths surrounding mobile learning. Some have a basis in fact but most demonstrate a fear of the known.

Here are 10 myths about mobile learning that can be dismissed with an explanation as to why such statements are false:

1. Mobile devices have screens too small to allow for learning

Whilst mobile phones do not have screens as large as desktop computers, ‘mobile devices’ also include laptops and devices such as e-book readers. These screens are certainly large enough.

Mobile devices with smaller screens are often used in different ways from more fixed technologies and are heavily context-aware. Touchscreens, for example, can allow for text input in non-traditional ways and users can also use video, audio and GPS to input data.

2. There are no consistent standards for mobile learning

At the turn of the century and for a few years afterward, Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) was seen as the de facto standard for e-learning products.

With the development of HTML5, CSS3 and other frameworks, along with the various app stores (iOS, Android, BlackBerry), however, existing content is becoming a lot more mobile-friendly.

3. Mobile devices are unsuitable for learning as they are a distraction

Distraction is nothing new to learning, with the scenery beyond the classroom window being a perennial source of fascination to students.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘distraction’ as “the drawing away (of the mind or thoughts) from one point or course to another; diversion of the mind or attention.” Whilst it is true that mobile devices with notification features turned on can be detrimental to sustained concentration, the fault lies not in the mobile device but in its use.

The appropriate use of technology in a given context is a socially-negotiated process.

Of course, the best way to avoid distraction of any sort is to, as one MoLeNET project report stated:

'give the learners something interesting to do in the first place.'

4. Mobile learning is just ‘learning on the move’

Mobile learning may be about the mobility of the learner, but this is to do with moving across contexts rather than accessing content whilst being on the move. This could be in a context that suits the individual learner, for example on public transport, waiting in a queue, or sitting in a favourite chair at home. Alternatively, it could be in a context more suitable and appropriate for learning.

For example, Arboriculture students at Myerscough College use digital cameras up in the tree-tops to explain where they would cut diseased or damaged limbs. This could be carried out in real-time by using their mobile phones for formative assessment meaning they would not repeatedly have to descend and ascend to check with lecturers.

5. Students with disabilities cannot use mobile devices for learning

It’s a little-known fact that Apple’s iOS phones and tablets have some of the most consistent, rigorous accessibility features ever seen on a mobile device. In fact, if an app does not meet core accessibility guidelines, it is not approved for entry into the iOS store (see accessibility section for further discussion).

Although this is less true of other app stores, the ability for learners to personalise their device, to have it constantly set up for their use, removes a barrier to learning. Far from providing a hindrance, therefore, mobile learning is a great boon to students with disabilities.

6. Mobile learning means content delivered in bite-sized chunks

Bite-sized chunks may seem like the best way to deliver ‘content’. This, however, is a ‘transmission’ approach to mobile learning where an instructor has some knowledge to impart and delivers it, via a mobile device, to a learner. A more holistic approach is to engage the learner in creating user-generated content and engaging through audio, video and other features of mobile devices in the learning experience.

7. Young people already know how to use mobile devices for learning

As the 2008 Google Generation report demonstrated, the use of mobile devices by young people for social activities does not mean they know how to use them for learning. Educators should be aware of, and continue to experiment with, new ways of using mobile (and other) technologies for learning within their discipline.

8. Mobile devices cannot be relied upon for learning as they are likely to be lost, broken or stolen

Mobile devices tend to be both expensive for their size (and therefore desirable to thieves) as well as being easy to lose or damage.

The MoLeNET programme, however, found that of 10,000 handheld devices purchased across various projects, less than two percent were damaged, lost or stolen. Just as it can be a good idea to have spare versions of older technologies such as pens and books, so it is sensible to have spare mobile devices in the case of various eventualities.

9. Content on mobile devices cannot be as secure as on desktop computers.

Whilst mobile devices are more likely to be lost or stolen than desktop computers they often have additional security features. For example, Apple iOS devices and BlackBerries can be set to require a PIN to use whilst Android devices can be unlocked by drawing a shape on the screen. In addition, individual apps have various security features and separate pincodes, with a certain number of incorrect entries trigging data deletion. Finally, software such as Prey allows for the tracking of mobile devices should they be lost or stolen.

10. Mobile learning is an expensive option

This is a common criticism of mobile learning initiatives and is often raised in relation to ‘digital divide’ issues. The latter is the idea that there is a widening gap between those who can afford technology and those who cannot with the former group profiting from greater access to resources and information at the expense of the latter.

Mobile devices cost less today than they ever have done, with basic mobile phones being available behind the counter at petrol stations and ‘smartphones’ given away free on cheap monthly contracts. The cost to the learner can be defrayed by the provision of wireless networks, ‘loanership’ schemes and employing a multi-pronged strategy (see University of Bradford snapshot).

In this section you will find information and guidance on how to get started with the big picture of mobile learning.

Without an overall vision for what mobile learning is able to achieve in your particular context it is doomed to failure.

Along with the ‘snapshot’ case studies this section consider what learners are increasingly coming to expect in terms of their ability to use mobile devices for anytime, anywhere learning. It is not enough to simply engage and cater for learners, however, as staff must also be on board with initiatives. Cultural considerations are important for any change management project and particularly when technology is involved that is more often used for social reasons.

Finally, whilst the novelty factor may enable an organisation to gain some initial traction, it is important that mobile learning initiatives are sustainable.

This guide can, of course, be accessed in any order. Moving from the overall vision, putting learners at the centre, through to cultural considerations and then to sustainability, enables potential barriers (“That will never work here”) to be put to one side in the first instance for some blue-skies thinking. There is more on overcoming barriers and finding enablers in the implementation section. As is mentioned through this guide, mobile learning can serve as a ‘trojan horse’ for wider changes and re-focusing within an institution.

Mobile learning, as we saw in what is mobile learning? is a concept that depends heavily upon context. It is a flexible term used to cover a spectrum of approaches that help learners in a variety of ways. One way to consider this is diagrammatically:

Creative Commons attribution information

Spectrum of mobile learning experiences

©Jisc

All rights reserved

Most large-scale mobile learning initiatives and implementations lean (understandably) towards the left-hand side of this spectrum.

They focus on getting key pieces of information to staff and students in timely and contextually-useful ways. Examples of these include informing learners that a lecture has been postponed or cancelled, or that library books are due back soon.

At the other end of the spectrum are rich teaching and learning experiences. This includes engaging in activities that were previously either impossible or very difficult and time-consuming to undertake. Visualising an ancient building at an archaeological site through augmented reality would be an example of this: without mobile technologies this would not be possible in real-time.

The majority of ‘quick wins’ for mobile learning lie at the left-hand side of this spectrum. They often include either slight tweaks or modifications of existing content or turning on tools that are available through institutionally-purchased e-learning solutions.

Five quick wins for mobile learning are set out below. These are approaches that can be implemented quickly in ways that, to use Agile project management terminology, are high in Business Value and low in Complexity.

5 quick wins to kick-start institution-led mobile learning initiatives

1. Add a mobile stylesheet to your website

Through the use of media queries in an alternative, mobile-friendly stylesheet, an existing website can be made to render more effectively on mobile devices.

A presentation by Meagan Fisher from 2009 entitled designing mobile interfaces does a good job of explaining the options in an entertaining way.

2. Provide a mobile-friendly front end to an existing RSS feed

RSS feeds are generated by most content management systems (CMS), blogs and wikis. They allow for content to be syndicated to places other than the existing website. An example of this would be university press releases.

Although some mobile devices can make sense of these RSS feeds, some need a helping hand. There are several ways to do this.

1. The easiest way is to run the RSS feed through Google’s free FeedBurner service. After some straightforward configuration, this provides a mobile-friendly front end for your RSS feeds
2. Some CMS have add-ons that allow RSS feeds to be displayed in ways that can be read by mobile devices. There are too many CMS to list the options for each but, if this solution is lacking, Tiny Tiny RSS is a free mobile-friendly RSS feed reader that could be used for this purpose
3. Although it is moving away from ‘quick win’ territory, developing a ‘hybrid app’ is an increasingly-popular approach. The idea is that the application, available through (for example) the Apple, Android and BlackBerry app store, is a ‘shell’ for updates provided from your website. 

3. Set up social media accounts to broadcast relevant news and updates

According to Facebook’s official statistics, those users of the social networking site who access it on a mobile device are “twice as active on Facebook than non-mobile users”. Moreover, Facebook accounts for more than 50% of the online time spent by UK users when using their mobile devices.

"The number of Smartphones amongst our students has gone up to around 20% but it would still be hard to convince a lecturer to spend time on such a small portion. Luckily for us our main learning platforms, Blackboard, QuestionMark Perception and PebblePad have all released mobile apps / mobile friendly web versions / APIs… So [soon] pretty much any elearning a lecturer does will be available on both Computer and Mobile without any extra effort on the lecturers part. Whilst it may not represent my ideal bite size nugget format, I do think it’s a major win."
John Fairhall, University of Bradford

Facebook, along with other social networks such as Twitter and Google+ have extremely mobile-friendly websites and apps. For important news and announcements it can be a good idea to go to where people already are. Sending an RSS feed to a range of social networks can lead to very quick wins: learners see them as they often spend much of their time in these environments, and the cost to the institution is effectively zero.

4. Turn on the mobile version of your learning platform, VLE or e-portfolio solution

Many, if not most, providers of virtual learning environments and e-portfolios have developed a mobile version of their offerings. According to the 2010 UCISA Survey of technology-enhanced learning for higher education in the UK, apart from those solutions developed in-house, the most popular learning platforms are Moodle, Blackboard and Microsoft SharePoint. These all have mobile-friendly apps or versions of their online solutions that are tailored to mobile devices.

5. Invest in secure SMS text messaging services

Janet txt, along with competing services, allow for secure institutional SMS text messaging to learners. This can be done on a granular basis, as opt-in (recommended) or opt-out, and provides flexible options for integrating with existing provision.

As SMS is guaranteed to work on any type of mobile phone – ‘smartphone’ or otherwise – it can be a good place to start with a mobile learning initiative.

The current higher education landscape is more complex than ever before. With the 2012 reforms introducing new fee structures and increased marketisation, students are very much in the driving seat. As a result, higher education institutions – as well as further education colleges that teach HE in FE – find themselves in a position where they need to respond to student demands in unprecedented new ways.

"New generations of young people who have grown up with digital technology have high expectations of anytime, anywhere learning, but many learners do not have a clear understanding of how courses could or should use technology to support learning. They are still very much reliant on lecturers for guidance."
Jisc learner experiences of e-learning, guide 2

Students are likely to make their voice and demands heard in a range of ways. The uncritical use of technology in the curriculum, for example, is not something that students are prepared to tolerate.

As the 2010 NUS/HSBC Student Experience Report found,

“using IT for studies more frequently does not necessarily lead to an increase in student satisfaction.”

Indeed, research by the NUS found that:

“the percentage of students who feel that ICT usage has enhanced their experience of studying has actually decreased, from 46% in 2009 to 42% in 2010.”

Much of students’ dissatisfaction with technology in education has, perhaps, to do with the disconnect between their institutional and non-institutional experiences of IT. Most institutional use of IT is driven by impersonal VLE and e-portfolio systems; as the 2010 UCISA survey of technology-enhanced learning demonstrates, academic departments are developing their own learning platforms in tandem to them. The most popular response for why this is happening? “A case has been made for the departmental VLE based on pedagogical reasons.”

Mobile learning allows for ubiquitous, personalised and social learning experiences. Deployed in consultation with learners it allows for a more nuanced approach to students’ technology-mediated interactions. Given their familiarity with the device they use for other purposes, students are also less likely to find such interactions frustrating. This all, however, depends upon a planned, coherent and holistic approach to deployment.

"I think the learners themselves still aren’t clued up to the potential of mobile learning so in surveys where we asked them they only really responded with access to the VLE."
John Fairhall, University of Bradford

As the Google Generation project discovered, young people may be adept users of technology for social interaction, but not necessarily for learning. As a result, the learner experiences of e-learning report made several recommendations:

• Provide clear explanations of technologies learners are expected to use (support available and educational benefits)
• Ensure essential course information and learning resources are available via the VLE (expected by learners as a minimum)
• Offer ‘tasters’ of potentially innovative learning activities that learners can try online
• Explore what colleagues are doing to ensure a level of consistency for learners in their experience of technology
• Treat new technologies as an opportunity to share skills (some learners may be highly proficient while others are unsure)
• Recognise that how the use of technology is explained to learners is of critical importance

This advice is particularly applicable to mobile learning where peer learning through the technology that students already have available can make a significant difference to their educational experience.

"From our research…what students say they would value most is a ‘one stop shop’ where they can get instant access to reliable and up to date information about the teaching and administration that matters to them. This might include lecture times and rooms, assignment deadlines, course notes, lecture slides and recordings, and overdue library books."
Mike Sharples, The Open University

Even when rolling out parts of the overall mobile learning experience that are more administration-focused it is important to nevertheless place pedagogy at the heart of change management initiatives. There are certain things that students expect despite their initial unfamiliarity with how mobile devices can help in their learning:

1. To be able to use their own devices with corporately-owned IT infrastructure.
2. For technology not to be used as a crutch for poor learning and teaching experiences.
3. Unhampered digital communication with their peers, tutors and administrators.

Study habits are changing as an inevitable consequence of the ability for students to instantly access both information, their peers and knowledge-brokers such as academic staff.

Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google+ can blur the lines between the previously-demarcated worlds of the academic and the social. The cultural considerations section provides some guidance as to how to deal with these changes in a positive and reasonable manner.

Considering and responding to the culture of an organisation is key in any change management initiative. As countless Jisc reports testify, the culture of an organisation can be an enabler or a barrier for projects aiming to improve or modify the working/learning environments for staff and students at an educational institution.

One of the biggest advantages as well as one of the biggest drawbacks for a mobile learning initiative is it can often serve as a stimulus for wider, sometimes unanticipated, changes within an institution. Once staff, for example, reflect upon their assessment practices as a result of a mobile learning initiatives, it may lead to wider curriculum design implications.

The initial stimulus for staff and students getting involved in mobile learning is likely to vary from context to context and, indeed, upon individual preferences and interests. As Julie Laxton, part of the University of Leeds’ ALPS team points out (see video) it is a case of understanding the benefits of mobile learning and ‘selling a story’ of positive impact upon practice. In this way both technology and pedagogy work together.

"It’s really understanding how it can impact practice and selling that story of how it can impact positively on practice."
Julie Laxton, University of Leeds

Mobile learning is content-agnostic and, as such, can often help break down existing barriers for wider institutional gains. Julie Usher, a learning technologist at the University of Northampton found that being ambitious and seeking input from across teams in the university can be “a challenge” but lead to “some great unexpected outcomes”. The mobile learning project at Northampton was “a catalyst, breaking down silos and raising questions about the availability of information”. It also, importantly, she points out, led to questions about how such information could “be improved in order to enhance the student experience.”

"There were two main drivers for mobile developments at the University. One was pedagogic and came from the learning technology team, who recognised the potential of mobile technology to provide opportunities for more flexible, situated and personalised learning. The other driver came from our Marketing team, who saw mobile development as a way to raise the profile of the institution, and make information more readily available to prospective students, parents and visitors."
Julie Usher, University of Northampton

Another benefit of mobile learning is that it allows institutions and staff to re-evaluate their roles in a changing landscape, ensuring that what they provide remains relevant and learner-focused. To ensure that such reflection takes place it’s important for those leading mobile learning projects to engage with various stakeholders across the institution and, as Jackie Carter of Mimas points out, to work in partnership. “I think it’s taking from the learning to the technology, not the other way around”, drawing on her experience of Mimas’ award-winning mobile learning projects.

As long ago as 2004 Futurelab saw mobile learning as heralding a new dawn for learning experiences. Quoting Soloway et al. (2001) the mobile technologies and learning report states that

“to make any difference in the classroom at all, computers must be mobile and within ‘arm’s reach’.”

In addition, mobile technologies should not “be viewed as simply providing more portable versions of the learning activities that are currently supported on more static machines” as the mobility of the device and the learner “adds a new dimension to the activities that can be supported.” Mobile learning initiatives provide an opportunity for staff to reflect upon their practices and (re-)ask the question How can technology best enable this particular learning outcome?

Some mobile learning initiatives are student-centred but with an indirect link to learning and teaching. An example of this would be library reminder services via SMS text messages for borrowing deadlines. As explained in the quick wins section these types of mobile learning initiatives are likely to be quicker and cheaper to implement than others and (to paraphrase Prof. John Traxler) can serve as “the low-hanging fruit” that doesn’t “frighten the horses”.

Once senior members of staff are used to checking their email and accessing information on a mobile device, once academic staff are convinced of the benefits of assessment in practice situations, and when learning technologists and IT staff have been reassured as to impacts on their workload, further development can take place. Cultural change can often be a slow and, at times, frustrating process.

"The culture change is huge and I don’t think we should underestimate that."
Chris Dearnley, University of Bradford

Although the temptation for those in charge of mobile learning is to start with the early adopters of technology, this is not always the best idea. Kyle Bowen of Purdue University, USA, for example, who led the team who developed the innovative ‘Hotseat’ and ‘Mixable’ technologies actively avoids early adopters. Not only do early adopters tend to carry less influence than other members of staff, he claims, but aiming for those “with a healthy level of scepticism” can mean that you can genuinely tell if an intervention or initiative is working.

There are many questions to consider when implementing a mobile learning initiative. Some of these will be specifically context-dependent whereas others, such as those given below, can be stated more widely:

1. Does the mobile learning initiative alter the meaning of ‘contact time’ for staff or students in a significant way?
2. Is this an example of substitution is this transformational for students?
3. Has the mobile learning initiative achieved high level buy-in?
4. Who benefits from this mobile learning initiative? Who (or what) is marginalised?
5. What are the positive, demonstrable, benefits of going with mobile learning in your institution?

"Most institutions, especially larger institutions, tend to turn like cruise ships… [W]e have to [remain] agile, which means we have to kind of stay out of that standard mainstream culture of the institution and we have to hit right at the pain points by going directly there and offer solutions. That way, by the time the ship turns all the way around… we’ve already figured out what some of the issues are."
Kyle Brown, Purdue University, USA

One of the biggest effects mobile learning is likely to have is to blend and blur the traditional boundaries between informal and formal learning. This is due to the personal nature of the technology and the cultural expectations as to how such technologies are used. However, as Vavoula and Sharples (2008) point out, such blurring of boundaries is not necessarily a bad thing.

Seeing informal and formal learning as completely separate leads to the advocates in each camp only to see the weaknesses in the other. Instead, it makes more sense to explore the elements of formality and informality present in all learning situations. Citing Colley, et al. (2003) they advocate four groups of attributes to consider:

• Learning process
• Location and setting
• Learning purposes
• Learning content

Conceptualising mobile learning as comprising of the interrelationship of these four elements is more productive, they claim, than applying a binary distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ learning.

A final thing to consider relating to culture is the various backgrounds from which both staff and students ‘come to the table’ and interact with one another. Cultural expectations, norms and barriers vary from country to country and between subgroups. It is imperative, therefore, that focus groups and consultations capture feedback from a cross-section of the institution’s community.

As our guide to sustaining and embedding innovations good practice notes:

'Sustainability in innovation projects can be defined as embedding change as well as maintaining and enhancing project outcomes.'

This is achieved by:

• Changing people and culture
• Working with existing institutional structures to influence organisational change
• Embedding or aligning with strategies, processes, systems, initiatives and services
• Creating usable tools and resources (as part of project outputs) to meet stakeholder needs
• Developing commercial and open approaches to sustaining and embedding innovation

Implementing a mobile learning initiative is, at its most basic level, just another change management procedure. It is important, for example, to project manage the initiative effectively, take account of cultural considerations, and obtain senior level buy-in.

In order to make the change sustainable, however, there must be some kind of momentum to the project, something that keeps it going beyond the initial flurry of excitement and embeds the innovation across the institution.

"It’s worth thinking hard about the implications of what you’re going to do in the longer term, rather than the short term – because this is technology that’s very much here to stay."
Tim Fernando, University of Oxford

Mobile learning is a many-headed hydra. Whilst this can be useful when trying to align funding for mobile learning initiatives with funding opportunities and institutional priorities, it can lead to issues because of the sheer number of stakeholders and interested parties there are likely to want to be involved.

‘Sustainability’ means different things to different groups: to finance and marketing teams the focus is upon cost/benefit issues; to IT personnel it is about keeping systems up-to-date; and to academic staff and students it is about the technical systems remaining relevant to desired pedagogical (and social) outcomes.

"As the individual and organisational use and awareness of the benefits of mobile learning increases there needs to be a parallel change to learning design and pedagogy to make the most of these opportunities. This often starts with an assumption that the same content and activities developed for the VLE and larger screen devices will work just as well on smaller mobile devices. Aside from any technical incompatibilities there’s clearly a big difference in terms of teaching and learning activity between what works on 7-inch+ screens and what’s realistic on smaller mobile phones."
Ron Mitchell

The ways that we approach designing systems, workflows and learning opportunities need to evolve as the metaphors and symbols we use in everyday life change. Take, for example, the symbol used next to a long string of numbers to indicate a telephone number. Often, it is a rotary telephone with the receiver placed on top – something that many university students may never have seen or used in practice.

In a similar way, conceptually-speaking, we use frameworks from one area and apply it to another: VLEs and Learning Platforms become glorified filing cabinets, for example. As Vavoula and Sharples (2008) draw attention to, “these ‘borrowed’ frameworks and tools might no longer be adequate” as mobile learning is not just “learning that is facilitated by mobile technologies” but involves “processes of coming to know through conversations and explorations across multiple contexts” (Vavoula and Sharples, 2008, p1). The Frameworks for mobile learning section may be able to help your institution with this.

Using metaphors and similies when introducing mobile learning initiatives can be a powerful way to leverage adoption. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that these conceptual frameworks are updated along with additional features and possibilities.

It is a fairly straightforward task to design mobile learning initiatives that focus upon administrative functions and pop quizzes. It is a different matter to design mobile learning initiatives that focus on deep learning and rich interaction. Doing the latter requires a commitment on the part of several stakeholders, not least academic staff. As John Fairhall, Mobile Technologist at the University of Bradford (see Snapshot) notes, it can be very difficult to convince a lecturer to spend time on mobile learning content “when the majority of their students don’t have a mobile to use it.”

Leveraging the provision already available through external providers is something identified in the quick wins section and removes a potential barrier: internally-developed systems and software need a business justification, but this can be difficult to obtain without evidence of need. If staff start using something that is provided as a matter of course with, for example, the institutional VLE or e-portfolio system, it is a low-risk and low-cost way to investigate potential uses.

The challenge, as Futurelab (2004, p5) point out, is:

to discover how to use mobile technologies to transform learning into a seamless part of daily life to the point where it is not recognised as learning at all.

The same is true at the administrative end of the spectrum; using a mobile device to access information quickly and efficiently should become second-nature to staff and students alike. Achieving this involves a great deal of awareness-raising and hand-holding as to what is possible and desirable when using mobile devices.

Taking a collaborative approach to implementing change pays dividends, as Dave Pickersgill from Sheffield College discovered (see quotation to right). Once staff and students are aware of the potential benefits of mobile learning and senior management buy-in has been achieved, using the advice in the sustaining and embedding innovations good practice and CAMEL methodology guides is likely to lead to a more sustainable mobile learning initiative.

"The CAMEL (collaborative approaches to the management of e-learning) methodology was adopted for CPD as MoLeNET brought new dimensions for a large number of colleagues within the college. A collaborative non-judgemental approach was required in order to allow colleagues to learn from each other as the use of m-devices increased across a diverse number of curriculum areas."
Dave Pickersgill, Sheffield College

The main purpose of this section is to introduce a pedagogy perspective for mobile learning. Along with looking at various frameworks and their merits moving from theory to application, this section considers the value of mobile learning upon learning and teaching as well as the changes that come with it, specifically exploring the subtle tension between the affordances of mobile learning and the constraints of established practice.

This section also looks at the importance of context, specifically how institutions and learners can take advantage of various changing contexts for learning and how important this is to the success of its implementation and acceptance across an institution.

In order to move from academic theorising about mobile learning to operational and successful use frameworks are necessary. There are a variety of such frameworks and, before introducing several which educational institutions may find useful, it is worth recapping a Futurelab overview from 2004 outlining six broad theory-based categories of activity. Knowing what it is that’s driving the change you want to see enables successful evaluation of mobile learning initiatives:

• Behaviourist – activities that promote learning as a change in learners’ observable actions
• Constructivist – activities in which learners actively construct new ideas or concepts based on both their previous and current knowledge
• Situated – activities that promote learning within an authentic context and culture
• Collaborative – activities that promote learning through social interaction
• Informal and lifelong – activities that support learning outside a dedicated learning environment 
  and formal curriculum
• Learning and teaching support – activities that assist in the coordination of learners and resources for learning activities

Whilst some initiatives may see mobile learning as a way to foster collaborative interactions, others may foreground more behaviourist approaches. It is possible, of course, to blend several categories of activity (although this may make the initiative more difficult to evaluate).

Laurillard (2002) – A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies

For categories of activity that can be described as constructivist, situated, collaborative and/or informal, Laurillard’s conversational framework may be appropriate:

Creative Commons attribution information

Laurillard’s conversational framework

©Jisc

All rights reserved

The main roles of mobile technology in supporting the ‘conversational learning’ promoted by Laurillard are therefore:

• Providing an environment to enable conversation
• Enabling learners to build models in order to solve problems

Whereas previous applications of Laurillard’s framework may have been static and, perhaps, VLE-based, mobile learning enables this type of learning to be both technology-mediated and contextual. For more on Laurillard’s conversational framework, please see her book Rethinking University Teaching.

Park (2011) – pedagogical framework for mobile learning

For those institutions looking for an alternative focus, Park’s (2011) pedagogical framework for mobile learning is a way of understanding how ‘transactional distance’ and the ‘social’ nature of an activity can be mapped against one another. The former is defined as the ‘cognitive space’ between individuals whereas the latter is to what extent an activity involves interaction with others in order to be completed successfully:

Creative Commons attribution information

Park’s pedagogical framework for mobile learning

©Jisc

All rights reserved

Park’s pedagogical framework allows academics and institutions to plan for the type of learning and teaching experiences that may work well in their particular context. Park gives each element a code – with H standing for high transactional distance, L for low transactional distance, S for high social interaction and I for low social interaction. 

An HS approach, for example, allows for high transactional distance and high social interaction with peers. This can be appropriate at any level of education, but may be more appropriate with learners who already have expertise in a given area. An LI approach, on the other hand, would be closer to a  traditional experience for learners, with highly-structured and with (mostly) individual interaction with a single instructor.

Koole – A model for framing mobile learning (2009)

A more holistic framework for mobile learning comes with Koole’s FRAME model. This consists of a three-circle Venn diagram comprising the learner aspect (L), the social aspect (S) and the device aspect (D).

Taking two or more of these together at the point at which the circles overlap in the Venn diagram:

Creative Commons attribution information

Koole’s FRAME model

©Jisc

All rights reserved

Koole provides criteria for each of the sections:

• Device aspect
• Learner aspect
• Social aspect
• Device usability
• Interaction technology
• Social technology
• Mobile learning

Mobile learning is therefore a combination of the interactions between learners, their devices, and other people. Koole also provides a helpful checklist for institutions looking to adopt mobile learning, including the following questions.

In a mobile learning system, have you considered:

1. how use of mobile devices might change the process of interaction between learners, communities, and systems?
2. how learners may most effectively use mobile access to other learners, systems, and devices to recognize and evaluate information and processes to achieve their goals?
3. how learners can become more independent in navigating through and filtering information?
4. how the roles of teachers and learners will change and how to prepare them for that change?

These questions enable the mobility of the learner rather than the device to be at the forefront of the mobile learning initiative.

"Mobile learning provides enhanced collaboration among learners, access to information, and a deeper contextualization of learning. Hypothetically, effective mobile learning can empower learners by enabling them to better assess and select relevant information, redefine their goals, and reconsider their understanding of concepts within a shifting and growing frame of reference (the information context)."
Koole (2009)

Once learners have devices and the institutional support structures are in place (see the implementation section) the question remains: What’s different about mobile learning?

"[M]obile learning in a wider TEL [Technology-Enhanced Learning] context is the whole problem. It no longer has anything to do with that or institutional contexts. TEL is top-down/centre-out/we-take-the-lead; we are in a situation that’s outside-in/bottom-up/they-take-the-lead."
Professor John Traxler, University of Wolverhampton

As this quotation from Professor John Traxler makes clear, mobile learning presents something of a problem for educational instutitons. Whilst the potential of mobile devices for learning is huge, questions remain as to their value for teaching. This subtle tension between the affordances of mobile learning and the constraints of established practice means that, as mentioned throughout this infoKit, mobile learning can serve as a ‘Trojan horse’ for wider institutional changes.

One of the biggest changes that mobile learning affords is to blur the previously distinct line (and set of practices) between distance learning and face-to-face (F2F) learning. Park’s (2011) framework for mobile learning goes some way to helping map out the different types of ways learners can interact with instructors and one another. However, a more holistic approach such as Laurillard’s Conversational Framework or Koole’s FRAME model may be more appropriate. See the frameworks for mobile learning section for more details.

In terms of the specific details of the type of learning activities that can be undertaken with mobile learning, this will vary from educator to educator and discipline to discipline. “Mobile learning technologies clearly support the transmission and delivery of rich multimedia content” states Prof. John Traxler (2009), but they “also support discussion and discourse, real-time, synchronous and asynchronous, using voice, text and multimedia.” Just as different disciplines lend themselves to different styles of teaching, so different mobile learning approaches will be necessary.

Before giving examples of the types of mobile learning activities that can be undertaken by learners it is worth pointing out the ways in which such activities should be reconceptualised to take account of what is possible. The SAMR model by Ruben Puentedura is not so much a framework as a taxonomy of types of learning activity:

Creative Commons attribution information

SAMR model

©Jisc

All rights reserved

Conceptualising technology-enhanced learning activities with the help of the SAMR model helps avoid shallow uses of mobile devices for learning. For example, accessing a pre-existing VLE or learning platform through a smartphone may count as mobile learning but, on Puentedura’s model, constitutes ‘substitution’, the lowest form of technology-enhanced learning.

As examples from Jisc publications demonstrate, mobile learning can take on a variety of forms and work in a number of contexts. Case study five in effective practice in a digital age (pages 28-9), for example, demonstrates the ways in which learning is supported in authentic environments at Southampton Solent University through the use of iPod Touches. Likewise, case study six in effective assessment in a digital age (pages 40-41) shows how feedback can be enhanced by being given and received via mobile devices. Case studies two, seven, eight and nine in emerging practice in a digital age feature examples of mobile learning, with case study seven showcasing the work of ALPS (see snapshot) where students on placement can have access to resources, support and assessment tools.

Further examples can be found from ESCalate, the MoLeNET programmes and the Excellence Gateway.

Whilst context has always been an important factor in TEL (technology-enhanced learning) it is of central importance with mobile learning. As Wingkvist and Ericsson (2010) note:

if the context is not understood well enough, the mobile learning system will not survive beyond the scope of the initiative and the project’s end date.

Contexts, however, are not static but fluid and dynamic with important repercussions for both formal and informal learning experiences. In this section we shall look at how contexts have, and are continuing to change, ways in which those contexts can be conceptualised, and (most importantly) how institutions and learners can take advantage of various contexts for learning.

Changing contexts

As revealed by Jisc research, the social context in which learning takes place has also changed, and in ways that were not foreseen in the early part of the 21st century. Learners are increasingly dependent on technology to help them fit learning into their complex, demanding lives. Ownership of personal technologies – from computers to mobile devices – is now pervasive, and use of the internet, including web 2.0 technologies, is commonplace.
Jisc (2009)

The growth of personal mobile technological devices has been staggering. 91% of the UK adult population own or use a mobile phone (Ofcom, 2011) with the overall number of mobile devices exceeding the total population. Indeed, Ofcom has characterised the UK as a nation addicted to smartphones. Whilst such devices were available previously, the move from analogue to digital and the subsequent dramatic drop in price has led to an explosion in adoption. It is now extremely unusual for someone not to carry a mobile device of some kind.

This context of having a device available for personal use at any time changes things significantly for learning and teaching. Indeed, “mobile, personal, and wireless devices are now radically transforming societal notions of discourse and knowledge”. They are “responsible for new forms of art, employment, language, commerce, deprivation, and crime, as well as learning” (Traxler, 2007, p.10).

The evolution of such devices, from simple voice and SMS text messaging functionality to smartphone functionality with high-speed internet access has meant that “the main barriers to developing… new modes of mobile learning are not technical but social” (Sharples, 2010, p4).

"The user interfaces and the speed at which the interactions are performed have to be really well-tuned… Quite often [learners] will be in a social situation… or just need to be getting somewhere quickly."
Tim Fernando, University of Oxford

Whereas, previously, knowledge was physically present in places such as libraries with institutions having very formal lines of communication, the growth in use of mobile devices and social networking has changed this dramatically. With a lowered barrier to social interaction and knowledge through technology, students are able to self-organise as well as access relevant information more quickly and efficiently than ever before.

Understanding context

Context can be defined as “the formal or informal setting in which a situation occurs; it can include many aspects or dimensions, such as environment, social activity, goals or tasks of groups and individuals; time (year/month/day)."
Brown (2010)

Context is a word that is used informally in a variety of ways. Within mobile learning it is used extensively and is, perhaps, most helpfully explained by reference to a diagram, derived from the work of Lonsdale (2004) and Sharples (2010).

Professor Mike Sharples compares context to an ever-playing movie, “a continually unfolding interaction between people, settings, technologies and other artefacts” (Sharples, 2010). The following ‘context hierarchy’ may be useful in understanding how the different constituent elements interact:

Creative Commons attribution information

Context as derived from the work of Lonsdale (2004) and Sharples (2010)

©Jisc

All rights reserved

The outer circle constitutes the wider context, which Lonsdale, et al. (2004) call the “interaction over time between people, settings, technologies and artefacts”. This is followed by the middle circle (the ‘context state’) comprising “elements from the learning and setting at one particular point in time, space or goal sequence.” Finally, the inner circle (‘context substate’) is made up of “elements from the learner and setting that are relevant to the current focus of learning and desired level of context awareness.”

Whereas some elements of ‘context’ are reasonably static, there are more rapidly-changing elements – those which Lonsdale, et al. term ‘context substate’. These can change from learning experience to learning experience and therefore fluctuate even over the period of a module or semester. Wrapped around that comes the ‘context state’ which may be an academic department or faculty, and finally the ‘context’ may be the wider university or college. Learners and staff operate across these contexts.

As Glahn, et al. (2010) point out, mobile learning allows both a high degree of personalisation as well as enabling a much more social method of learning. It therefore, rather uniquely, allows for learning within and across contexts.

Taking advantage of contexts for learning

As Tim Fernando explains (see video to the right), with mobile learning the various out-of-classroom contexts mean that the speed at which communications take place or knowledge is accessed is all-important. Whereas traditional TEL interactions involve a significant period of time usually in one pre-booked space, mobile learning interactions are often the inverse of this. Reasonably low-tech and established technologies such as podcasts and pervasive instant message conversations mean that learning can take place “just in time, just enough and just for me” (Rosenberg, 2001).

One way in which modern mobile phones with internet access (‘smartphones’) can be used as part of institutional contexts is demonstrated by Thom Cochrane of Unitec, New Zealand:

Creative Commons attribution information

Concept map

©Thom Cochrane

All rights reserved

This diagram, reminiscent of Laurillard’s Conversational Framework (see frameworks for mobile learning) shows how the smartphone, and therefore by implication, the learner, can be placed at the centre of a wider social system that allows interaction with academic staff, mentors and peers. Cochrane (2010) found that

“when modelled by their lecturers… students in the projects developed a strong sense of community and integrated the technologies into multiple learning environments.”

In addition, he found that they were “also critiquing and collaborating with their peers.”Mobile learning allowed the learning conversation to be focused on learners rather than teachers as the technologies were more personal and personalised. It is the potential for mobile learning to “bridge pedagogically designed learning contexts, facilitate learner generated contexts, and content… while providing personalisation and ubiquitous social connectedness” that makes it different and “sets it apart” from more traditional learning environments.

This is backed up by the findings of Kenny, et al. who comment that effective mobile learning is “defined by the convergence of the device usability, learner, and social aspects to extend their impact beyond their natural boundaries.” This “affords enhanced collaboration… ready access to information, and a deeper contextualisation of learning” (Kenny, et al., 2009).

It is because of this ability to bridge contexts of learning that Dr Mike Short (Vice President of public affairs at Telefonica O2 Europe) believes that ‘contextual learning’ may be a better term than mobile learning as “we need different tools for different lessons and different learners”. Using the term ‘contextual learning’ he believes demonstrates that the focus is on a “more personalised context that is not tied to one technology, one network, one device, or one e-library.”

For now, however, ‘mobile learning’ is a convenient term to describe enhanced educational experiences in a variety of contexts that use mobile devices.

"If we treat the mobile web as its own environment rich with possibilities, rather than a crippled extension of the desktop experience with restrictive limitations, we begin to understand how to embrace and even exploit those possibilities."
Cameron Moll, 2005

This section of our guide features examples of good practice in the use of apps for teaching and learning. It includes videos from organisations across higher education, further education and the skills sector and showcases how mobile apps have benefitted the learning experience.

“Assessment is central to learning and teaching. What is assessed defines what is taught and how it is learnt. The process of assessment, in turn, shapes institutional practice and affects a learner’s view of the value of engaging in learning.” 
Jisc

Assessment is an important check on learning - have learners understood and can they apply what they have learnt? The traditional view of assessment is rows of students sat in a sports hall completing paper based questions within a given space of time.

But most traditional methods require not just time from the learner to complete, but also from the assessor to mark the work. Many have experienced an ever growing pile of paper assignments to work through, following the relevant marking criteria and providing every student with formative feedback in order for them to improve next time round (all hand written in red ink). It also takes time, in terms of all the additional 'paperwork' required to record the subsequent details following the setting of an assignment eg tracking sheets.

Technology has provided the ability to transform the delivery of assessment from electronic submission through to video and audio feedback and online marking. Advantages include:

• Instant feedback
• Easy individual and group feedback
• Statement banks – minimise effort
• Monitor group process as well as outcomes – eg wikis
• Assessment software – timed release
• Online gradebooks – easy tracking
• Assignments can be confidential or easily shared – peer review
• Easy distribution to markers
• Less time marking
• Increased opportunities for practice and feedback- eg rich media
• Anytime, anywhere

Mobile technology has extended these possibilities with tools to provide quizzes, polls, annotation on screen, submission facilities and methods for students to evidence their learning. and for staff to provide media rich feedback.

The following are examples of how mobile technology aids the assessment process:

Research forms an integral part of any student experience during their academic studies. The activities involved in research can be broken down as follows:

• Acquiring and organising information 
• Brainstorming and mind mapping
• Citations and referencing

Technology has helped support this by facilitating the digitisation of collections, reference material, journals and databases and providing a platform for resource discovery. Mobile technologies have allowed for the process to be available anytime, anywhere providing methods for students to access information, collate and share it.

"Reflection is a process that allows us to look back on a situation, consider it and then learn and adjust actions as a result. It is a complex activity that requires the individual to develop a set of skills required for problem solving." 
Moon, 1999

Reflection as a learning tool:

• Is the process that we consciously undertake to gain further understanding and add meaning to our daily lives
• It is associated with learning that has occurred through experience and is an activity that helps you make sense of and learn from situations
• It is a means of assisting us to think, explore our thoughts and feelings and to work through an experience in an attempt to gain new understandings, fresh insights and self awareness
• It is the active consideration of, and learning from our thoughts and actions, together with the further use of these thoughts and actions as a means of developing reflective thinking

"The most important aspect of engaging in reflection for your ongoing personal and professional learning is that you are able to demonstrate your progression towards achievement of the NMC learning outcomes and standards of proficiency. The process of reflective writing leads to more than just a gain in your knowledge; it should also challenge the concepts and theories by which you make sense of knowledge. When you reflect on a situation, you do not simply see more, you see differently. This different way of viewing a situation is reflected in statements about a commitment to action. Action is the final stage of reflection."
Taylor, 2001 https://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/

Gibbs' Reflective Cycle (1988) is viewed as straightforward and provides a cyclical framework to help guide reflective practice.

Students and reflection

Students may be asked to reflect during their academic studies for a number of reasons. They may be presented with scenarios that require a reflective approach, feedback on assessment activity in order to learn and improve and more often in practical situations, for example, following some kind of placement, performance, or active task. 

Mobile technologies provide the opportunity to record this reflection in a more instantaneous way perhaps by utilising the inbuilt media creation tools such as the video camera or voice recorder. They also provides quick access to social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as allowing for the obvious method of reflection by blog or vlog. The following are a few examples of apps that provide a facility for reflection:

• Evernote - a web-based tool that functions like a word processor but with the ability to insert audio notes, images, attachments and reminders
• Wordpress - an open source blogging platform that provides a range of easily customisable templates, the ability to integrate social media, embed multimedia and more
• Google Docs - allow users to create documents, spreadsheets and presentations in real time on any device, anytime. 

Communication is central to education, and takes many forms. These include both synchronous and asynchronous systems (a phone call is synchronous while a letter is asynchronous) one-to-one, and one-to-many models (for example SMS and Twitter). 

Over time, there have been developments in task-driven communications including scheduling and collaborative work and how content is generated, such as scrapbook and digest systems. This has broadened the ways we communicate with others and what we do with content.

Communication from teacher to learner includes disseminating information about deadlines, scheduling or room changes, requests for work or feedback; these could be aimed at individual learners or the entire cohort. Learners can request information or clarification, give feedback of their own or contribute to collaborative work. 

Teachers can accommodate different learning styles: communication can be aural or text-based and students can work together or individually. Powerful multimodal communication tools mean that physical location and impairment have less of an impact upon learning.

Some examples of communications tools include:

• SMS (edutxt)
• Voice over IP (VOIP) and videotelephony (Skype, ooVoo, Lync, FaceTime)
• Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram)
• Blogging (WordPress, Tumblr, Blogger, VoiceThread)
• Scheduling (Doodle, Meet-O-Matic)
• Textwalls (Learning Wall, textwall)
• Scrapbooks (Evernote, Pinterest, Scoop.it, Padlet, Pearltrees)
• Polling (Poll Everywhere)

The advent of cloud services in computing has seen an increase in services which support shared resource access. Some, like Dropbox, permit multiple synchronised copies on computers and in the cloud while others, like Google Docs, allow more than one person to edit a file simultaneously.

There are many benefits for education. Teachers can now post materials that all learners on a course can access. Learners, in turn, can post work in progress to receive formative assessment. This means simplified collaboration between learners and researchers; in particular, multiple editing of a single document ensures that collaborators never work at cross purposes, repeating work or losing modifications.

Because data is not exclusively stored locally, when a cloud-based system is used there are concerns about data protection. In particular, data created within the EU may not be sent outside of the EU unless a minimum level of protection is provided. This is laid out in the safe harbour privacy principles, which organisations may voluntarily adhere to if they wish to manage data from the EU.

Further examples of tools facilitating the sharing of resources include:

• Google Drive
• OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive)
• Box 
• SugarSync.

The use of digital media for presentation has advanced a long way from the simple PowerPoint presentation. Learning materials need not only be presented face-to-face but can now be located online for access outside lectures.  Materials can be presented online in real time, eg in live webinars or recorded and/or stored for asynchronous access. 

Presentation no longer has to be a one-way activity as various tools provide the ability for collaborative work or real time feedback from teachers. The material of course can be supplemented with interactive tools permitting polling or live answering of questions.

Some examples of presentation tools include Nearpod, Apple TV and WePresent.

The creation of sophisticated audio and video content was once the reserve of professionals with expensive equipment and facilities. This has changed dramatically in the past few years: people now carry in their pockets the ability to record, edit and deliver high definition video and broadcast quality audio.

This is not to say that everyone is now producing professional quality media, but simply that cost and physical size are no longer hurdles that must be overcome.

No amount of  tools can turn someone into a creative genius. What tools can do, however, is to simplify and democratise the creative process. This can shorten the journey from concept to product for learning resources. It also means that the teaching practitioner needn’t have their ideas filtered through a third party before being ready to present to the learner.

There are many apps that facilitate the creation of different types of content. Here are some examples:

• Audio recording: Voice Record Pro
• Video editing: VideoPad, WeVideo
• Audio editing: WavePad
• Image editing: Photoristic HD, Handyphoto, Luminance
• E-book creation: E-book Creator, Pages

Some practitioners encourage students to create content as part of their learning. Others have taken this one step further by creating apps that can be used to create content. Here are a few examples of each approach:

A number of practitioners have recently linked information through a mobile device with objects in the real world. This can be done either through the labelling of the objects with QR codes or by means of augmented reality (AR) apps.

The use of QR codes is simple, with a variety of free QR code generators and scanners available for all mobile devices. The main drawbacks associated with this approach is the reliance upon the codes - users must locate a code in order to get the content. Conversely, content will only be linked to a physical object if a code can be attached to it.

AR can be seen as the next step in content linking - it doesn’t necessarily require a symbol to be attached to an object. This is because some systems use a special symbol while others recognise the shape of a specified object or image as the trigger for the content.

The other difference between QR codes and AR is that, with QR, the code (which may be text of any sort including a URL) is the content or a link which will take the user to the content, eg on a web page. 

In the case of AR, however, the content is overlaid on the image that the user sees on the screen of the mobile device. In a sense, a QR code will take the user’s attention to the linked content while AR will bring the linked content to whatever the user is observing.

One of the main strengths of using QR and AR in education is that they can take learning out of the classroom. Information can be accessed at the point where it is needed or where it is most relevant. By linking content to location we can assign a relevance to it; the location, in turn, can enhance learning by providing additional sensory inputs to be associated with the content.

In addition, the learner actively engages with the information, choosing whether or not to access it when it is encountered.

The 3D nature of some AR can greatly assist learners in visualising complex 3D structures such as molecules. Maps can be viewed from different directions in three dimensions, giving learners a much richer understanding of the contents.

Some examples of QR and AR apps:

• QR code reader/generator: QR Stuff, QR Code Generator
• AR apps: Layar, Aurasma

The vast majority of mobile platforms come with built in accessibility features that provide choices for users to make them easier to interact with.

There are many ways to personalise mobile devices, changing the appearance of the screen makes it easier for people to view information. The size of text can be increased, colour of text and background can be changed, and the content on the screen can be magnified.

Visual cues

Most people are used to being notified of messages and mail with an auditory prompt, however visual cues provide other ways of receiving notifications which can be useful for someone who has hearing loss, it is also a useful feature for people who do not want to be constantly disturbed by interruptions from a bleeping or pinging phone.

Another helpful feature for people who can't hear is the capacity to change their settings so that any video viewed on their mobile device will automatically show captions (assuming they have been included by the author of the video).

Reading tools

Built in reading tools can be helpful for people who struggle with text.  For example people with dyslexia, those who have literacy issues or English as a second/alternative language may benefit from having individual blocks of text or whole pages read back to them.

These text to speech/screen readers options have been of significant help to people with vision loss, and have been hailed as one of the most significant built in accessibility features that have emerged as part of the explosion of the mobile market.

Voice commands can help people navigate and activate different features on their devices. Speech recognition can be an excellent writing support tool where people can dictate text messages, documents or emails instead of typing.

Productivity

Calendars, clocks, alarms etc. can be useful productivity tools offering prompts and reminders to help assist with organisational skills.

Some operating systems help students focus on particular pages at a time to avoid distractions from learning. Students with mobility difficulties have the capacity to adapt the way they interface with tablet devices by altering the gestures they use.

Whilst the range of options vary depending on the operating system, they all offer a suite of features that can make a real difference for disabled and non-disabled people and provide a range of ways to adapt the interface to suit our individual differences.

There are many apps that offer different ways to make content more accessible, multi-sensory and often more fun for learners.  Some of the case studies below demonstrate how apps have helped provide information in alternative formats and in sequenced stages to meet learner’s needs.

In this section you will find information and guidance on how to implement mobile learning. Various issues must be considered both before and during the implementation of mobile learning within your area in order to make sure it is apt, to a standard and able to be evaluated throughout roll-out and continued use. This section looks at the general principles behind a mobile learning ‘ecosystem’.

In doing so it provides guidance on practical considerations in relation to technical considerations which covers the types of interface and app to be used, where they will be used and who by. Accessibility looks at both how materials can be accessed by mobile learners as well as being specifically tailored to benefit learners with disabilities. Steering on the cost/benefit is given to navigate the problems that can be encountered when comparing these two criteria. Identifying and overcoming barriers to institutional adoption looks at potential pitfalls and ways that they can be avoided as well as guidance on increasing uptake.

There are also ten steps to mobile learning adoption which pulls together many of the major themes and lessons from the other pages that would lead to a successful introduction of  a mobile learning initiative.

This guide can be read in any order and the issues around overcoming barriers is further explored in the strategy section. As is mentioned throughout this guide, mobile learning can serve as a ‘trojan horse’ for wider changes and re-focusing within an institution.

Mobile learning is a fast-moving field with device lifecycles becoming ever shorter. This section looks at some of the general principles behind the technical roll-out of a platform or ‘ecosystem’ for mobile learning.

Important decisions

There are two main decisions when deciding on the approach for institution-centric mobile learning experiences. These decisions should flow not from technical possibility but from some of the considerations mentioned in the strategy and pedagogy sections of this guide. The first decision is whether the mobile devices used will be provided by the institution or by the students. As we will discover in the cost/benefit section it is increasingly the case that going down the road of institutionally-provided devices is undesirable in all but the most specialised of cases.

The second technical decision to be made is on the type of interface that is presented to the audience for the mobile learning initiative. This, of course, needs to take into account whether the audience is closely identified (eg a particular group of students) or diverse (eg the whole staff and student population). These considerations do not map one-to-one onto the following options but should nevertheless guide implementation.

There are broadly three options for mobile learning ‘apps’:

• Native
• Web
• Hybrid

The native app is delivered via the app store pertaining to the particular device. This means, for example, that to cover the bases of the main types of smartphones that are currently on campuses, native apps would have to be developed for iOS, Android and BlackBerry devices. The cost in terms of financial outlay and time commitment to do this is prohibitive for all but the largest of institutions. CampusM from Ombiel is an example of a popular native app available across various smartphone devices.

The web app can be accessed via any device that can connect to the internet. There are many ways to do this, including providing an alternative mobile-friendly CSS file for existing content, or building a new portal. If the latter is chosen it is important that it is standards-compliant, using the guidance of the World Wide Web Consortium to ensure cross-platform, and future, compatibility.

The advantages of native apps include tighter integration with the various specific features mobile devices as well as offline caching of content. The advantages of web apps, on the other hand, include instant updating of content and lower costs. Hybrid apps, therefore, promise to be the best of both worlds. The native app is a ‘shell’ which is available through the various app stores and is updated when functional improvements are necessary. However, the content – the information, links, resources and communication opportunities – are web-based and can be updated without updating the whole app. 

The basics

Before building apps and rolling out services to staff and students it is important to have in place those things that will enable a mobile learning ecosystem to flourish. There are three such basics which any institutions should consider as ‘standard’:

1. Wifi coverage
2. Open data streams
3. A problem-solving system

The received wisdom up until recently has been to ‘flood’ campuses with wifi access. In other words, an institution could never have too many access points to provide network and internet access to staff, students and, on occasion, the general public. That position is changing, however. Not only have financial constraints meant a re-evaluation of this approach but evolutionary improvements in wifi technologies, along with a more nuanced understanding of when and where students use wifi-enabled devices, mean that such a blanket policy looks outdated.

"Our network team have taken a measured approach with the wireless roll out, providing hot spots in all the main areas where staff and students gather or work rather than blanket coverage everywhere. This enables us to provide a cost effective wifi service and minimise the number of access points that are installed in areas where there is no wireless requirement."
John Fairhall, University of Bradford

Opening data streams, or more precisely exposing systems through web services, is also important as it allows any apps that are developed to easily ‘hook into’ information available to the institution. Examples of these include RSS feeds, the source XML for which can be used on a variety of platforms including web pages, apps and information screens around campus.

Finally, as Tim Fernando points out in the video, people do not like going out of their way to report problems. A lightweight but context-relevant problem-reporting system may not capture every detail about a particular problem but it would, at least, identify the problem and (often) the affected user.

Having partial information about a problem that could be frustrating many users of a service is better than having no information on it at all.

Some guiding principles

Whilst strategic and pedagogical decisions should always guide technical deployment of hardware and software for mobile learning there are, nevertheless, some guiding principles that may help guide those looking after the technical considerations. Upside Learning has suggest five key mobile learning implementation tips:

1. KISS (Keep It Short and Simple)
2. Aim for low information density
3. Use multimedia sparingly
4. Make use of built-in features for collaboration
5. Provide tools as well as content

Their checklists focus on usability as well as the technical and functional aspects of the mobile learning experience – something that, as explained in the section on the importance of context, it is vital to bear in mind. The Open University do a good job of providing support to users of their mobile learning offerings through their mobile portal, learner support blog and apps page (see box to the right). Such a ‘joined up’ approach requires buy-in from across the institution, as set out in the strategy section.

One of the least touted features of mobile learning is the amount of accessibility it affords learners. Whilst some, quite rightly, point out the potential for mobile learning to widen the ‘digital divide’ the amount of personalisation devices enable can be liberating for some learners. The fact that learners are using devices they have chosen and are familiar with means they are in a context with which they are comfortable. Although there is no such things as the ‘perfectly’ accessible device, learners are likely to have developed workarounds if they know the device’s shortcomings.

As John Fairhall from the University of Bradford comments, some smartphones such as the Apple iPhone have “amazing accessibility features” built into them, of which should be made a “bigger deal.” However, he points out, 

“it’s important that you don’t disadvantage students… unless you’re going to ensure everyone’s got an appropriate mobile device you need to make sure there’s an equivalent PC experience.” 

Although the iPhone has a high level of accessibility at the operating system level, it should be noted that this is not necessarily true of other platforms such as Android and Windows 7. In addition, specific apps may not be accessible to some learners as the text-to-speech functionality may have been neglected by the app developer.

There are two important strands to accessibility. The first strand is accessibility as access to learning and resources, with the second is accessibility as being usable by those who have some form of disability. Whilst institutional purchasing of mobile devices has previously been favoured in order to avoid problems around the ‘digital divide’, such policies may not only be financially unsustainable (see cost/benefit) but can also marginalise disabled learners.

Planned appropriately (see strategy), mobile learning experiences can be inclusive and designed to be ‘accessible’ in both the ways outlined above. The issues with the first type of accessibility tend to be cultural and financial, whereas with the second type they are likely to be technical (for example the font cannot be enlarged) or pedagogical (to do with the overall learning design). For advice on the latter, Jisc has a wide range of advice and guidance on designing for more inclusive mobile learning. The model of accessible m-learning asks four important questions:

1. Does it support me? (accessible content)
2. Can I work it? (accessible interface)
3. Do I value it? (cultural capital, using ‘cool tools’)
4. Does it engage me? (accessible task)

GoMobile! and Upwardly Mobile resources (2009) provide guidance on a range of inclusion opportunities and accessibility issues specifically related to mobile learning. It also has more specific advice on technologies such as e-books and helping those with disabilities choose a mobile device. In addition, the considerations mentioned in accessibility and mobile and wireless technologies within the innovative practice with e-learning project (2005) remain relevant.

Weighing up the cost/benefit ratio of learning outcomes can be a problematic and tricky business. Whilst quantitative elements can be measured such as the frequency that a resource is accessed by learners, the number of people connecting to wireless access points, or the cost of making available a mobile app, these do not tell the whole story.

The qualitative elements of mobile learning, the ways in which learners can interact with resources, tutors and peers, cannot be recorded easily and holistically through the use of numbers. It is important that institutions, whilst paying attention to issues surrounding sustainability issues, value the ‘softer’ benefits that mobile learning affords.

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behaviour being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.
Wikipedia

Although any intervention is liable to the Hawthorne effect, one way to measure the success of a mobile learning initiative is to track assessment scores, following this up with a series of focus groups or interviews with learners. However, even this can be problematic. As Vavoula and Sharples comment, “although a learning experience can be a well defined event with a start and a finish, learning is an ongoing, lifelong process of personal transformation.” As such, they argue, it “requires longitudinal, historical assessment” (Vavoula and Sharples, 2008, p4).

Focusing on measures of ‘intrinsic motivation’ through attitudinal surveys can be a reliable predictor of the conditions in place for effective learning.

Academics, prompted to focus on students attitudes and satisfaction (particularly in reference to the National Student Survey) are likely to evolve new, more student-centred assessment procedures. Doing so acknowledges  that it is “not possible to determine in advance where the learning may occur, nor how it progresses or what outcomes it produces” (Ibid, p3).

"I think in the future we’ll concentrate on providing content to the students because… most [students] already have some form of iPhone or BlackBerry anyway."
Gareth Frith, University of Leeds

Whilst it can be difficult to agree upon how mobile learning should be evaluated (see Evaluation) there is an increasing consensus on one thing: that learners should bring their own devices. This view, often abbreviated to BYOD (bring your own device) is backed up with the following rationale:

• Smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices are expensive
• Mobile devices become outdated and (are perceived as) ‘obsolete’ more quickly than other equipment used for learning
• Students are increasingly likely to have a mobile device that contain functionality that can be used for learning

Dave Pickersgill of Sheffield College comments that “’if each student has a mobile phone, each worth £100, this equates to £100,000 worth of hardware available for use on a daily basis in the College.” He believes that “no school or college can afford to ignore the uses and benefits such a large amount of kit” can bring. Professor Mike Sharples, who has been described as the godfather of mobile learning, agrees, claiming that “there would appear to be no obvious case for institutions to provide students with mobile devices when most already own laptops and smartphones.” 

He points out that institutionally-provided devices would be obsolete within two to three years. Thinking outside of the box, therefore, Sharples suggests that “a strategy could be to progressively replace desktop machines with rooms for student laptops”. The money saved could be used, by negotiating with a supplier, to provide discounted equipment on campus, “with the supplier providing free technical support to students.”

Just as colleges and universities do not provide students with paper, pens and stationery items but expect them to be used, the time is coming when mobile devices will be another expected part of a student’s toolkit. There are many ways for institutions to facilitate this but it does involve a shift in mindset.

In any change management process there will be technical, procedural and cultural barriers. Often the technical and procedural barriers can be quantified and overcome through persistence whereas the cultural barriers can be multi-faceted and more problematic.

Identifying barriers

In terms of mobile learning, there can be additional specific barriers to institutional adoption. Whilst using mobile devices may be popular and institutions may, to a great extent, be ‘pushing at an open door’ there are nevertheless barriers to adoption. Interviewees for this infoKit were keen to share their examples:

The biggest barrier at the minute is still the percentage of students with appropriate devices – but we’re getting there.
John Fairhall, University of Bradford

Even though you still think of smart phones as becoming more common, there are still some barriers there for students… [T]hey don’t like having to pay for stuff to be downloaded to their phones, because they’re on tight budgets.
Keith Cole, Jisc

It really seems to be that students don’t consider mobile web apps to be true mobile apps, because you don’t get them from the store. And so unless there’s something actually in the store to download, they don’t really think about it as a mobile app, and you kind of have to introduce them to it, kind of go out of your way to introduce it to them.
Kyle Bowen, Purdue University, USA

The ALPS project at the University of Leeds, referred to in the snapshots section, had barriers to overcome in addition to those provided by institutions.

Gathering feedback from other professions or the service users… was very challenging for some of our professions.
Julie Laxton, University of Leeds

The Wikipedia page for MLearning considers a number of technical and social reasons for barriers to mobile learning, including:

• Multiple standards, multiple screen sizes, multiple operating systems
• Conceptual differences between e- and m-learning
• No demographic boundary
• Potential disruption of students’ personal and academic lives
• Tracking of results and proper use of this information

Barriers to mobile learning, as with any change management initiative are heavily context-dependent and will alter in terms of intensity as hardware and software change.

Finding enablers

As with the barriers to institutional change and mobile learning initiatives in particular, finding the enablers that allow progress to be made differ depending upon context. There are, however, some ways of approaching mobile learning initiatives as well as ideas that can be gleaned from projects that have trod a similar path.

Claudia Igbrude of the Dublin Institute of Technology, for example, reminds us that SMS text messaging “remains to some extent the lowest common denominator, especially as smartphone use… is not yet at 100%.” “Every mobile phone,” she points out, “can send and receive texts” and “can be used in scaffolding learning experiences, providing just-in-time learning using keywords.”

Tony Bartley of Lowestoft College points out that institutions can use cloud services, “linking to services like Flickr, iPadio, Posterous, Google Docs and the like.” Students, he continues, “may already be using [these] anyway, and if not [they] are very easy and free to set up and can provide equally quick wins.” Using free and low-cost cloud-based services can often mean that useful tools can “easily be demonstrated to students as easy gain, low cost options.”

The following comprises some key barriers with associated enablers identified in the literature and by those interviewed in the course of putting together this guide.

Mobile learning, like any change initiative, involves different stakeholders playing a greater or lesser part. Whilst those who are responsible for the change (the change sponsor and change manager) should be well-acquainted with the entirety of this mobile learning guide, other stakeholders may need an overview of the process. Working in partnership is critical.

The generic ten-step process outlined in the image above has been adapted from Gary Woodill’s very detailed mLearning Road Map and is a useful overview as to how to successfully implement a mobile learning initiative:

1. Write mobile learning vision statement
2. Gather stakeholder requirements
3. Agree on scope
4. Obtain senior manager buy-in
5. Identify required content
6. Decide in-house or external development
7. Identify champions
8. Create and test beta content
9. Gain feedback and iterate offering
10. Roll out to wider group

After the initial mobile learning roll-out, consider:

• Constant updating of policies as challenges/opportunities arise
• Changing course as the mobile landscape changes
• Updating job roles and responsibilities as requirements and scope alter
• Providing ongoing training for all stakeholders

Ensuring that a mobile learning initiative is successful involves being able to answer the following questions:

• What is the learning problem you are trying to solve?
• What technology will you require?
• What skills will teachers/facilitators have to learn?
• What would be the cost of implementation?
• How can you facilitate acceptance?
• How will you measure success?

Questions taken from Mobl21 article implementing a mobile learning solution? Think ahead!

Evaluating a change involving technology can be challenging for a variety of reasons, from the number of variables involved to the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ (explained in cost/benefit section). For mobile learning the complexities surrounding evaluating the success of an initiative are often heightened because of the added difficulty of evaluating across various contexts.

'A major task for educational evaluation is to identify and analyse learning within and across contexts. For mobile learning, the interest is not only in how learning occurs in a variety of settings, but also how people create new contexts for learning through their interactions and how they progress learning across contexts.'
Vavoula and Sharples (2008)

Vavoula and Sharples argue that “in order to establish, document and evaluate learning within and across contexts” it is necessary to analyse:

• physical setting and layout of the learning space (the ‘where’)
• social setting (who, with whom, from whom)
• learning objectives and outcomes (why and what)
• learning methods and activities (how)
• learning progress and history (when)
• learning tools (how)

In order to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of a change management initiative it is important to have a baseline from which to work as well as clear success criteria. Whilst projects may often yield unexpected benefits (and come up against unexpected barriers) it is important to share the key elements against which the project shall be judged.

Jisc has a range of resources and publications to help institutions evaluate mobile learning initiatives:

• Different routes to evidencing value – blog post from the curriculum design and delivery team referencing a report summarising evaluation methods and techniques
• e-learning programme and project evaluation – Glenaffric-produced and Jisc-funded resource featuring a checklist, handbook and a six step model for evaluation.
• Exploring tangible benefits of e-learning – publication discussing various ways ‘benefits’ relating to e-Learning can be conceptualised and measured.
• Guidance on learner-centred evaluation – looking at evaluation from a pedagogical point of view, this resource provides guidance on developing learner-centred evaluation questions, gathering and analysing data from learners and on ‘purposive sampling’.
• Measuring benefits – a short but useful overview on how to measure benefits of a programme or project.

Traxler (2007, pages 8-9) points out that “there are no a priori attributes of a ‘good’ evaluation of learning” but that there are, however, some “tentative candidate attributes” of what would make a ‘good’ evaluation of mobile learning initiative. These are that mobile learning should be:

• Rigorous (trustworthy and transferable conclusions)
• Efficient (cost, effort, time)
• Ethical
• Legal
• Proportionate (“not more ponderous, onerous, or time-consuming that the learning”)
• Appropriate (technology, learners, ethos)
• Consistent
• Authentic
• Aligned (to chosen medium/technology)

Using these as headings for the evaluation of a mobile learning initiative allows organisations to focus on those aspects of mobile learning that make a real and sustainable impact on an institution.

A number of snapshots and case studies highlight institutions and projects that have been involved in mobile learning initiatives. The snapshots explore the background, experiences and lessons learned from implementing and embedding mobile learning.

The University of Leeds focused on a number of mobile learning initiatives, with perhaps the best known being their deployment of Apple iPhones to medical students. The University of Bradford share their experiences of mobiles apps and websites. Jisc have been involved with a number of projects, including the SCARLET project which involves augmented reality, and Mobile Mimas which provides researchers a mobile-friendly way of accessing a wealth of information and articles.

An international perspective is demonstrated by Spain’s School of Industrial Organisation, who have been experimenting with mobile learning since 2009, specifically looking to provide richer learning process for the students and teachers through more personalised content and greater interactivity from mobile devices.

A range of case studies to draw on different experiences relating to mobile learning includes collections from ESCalate, the Excellence Gateway and MoLeNET.

Explore further

Snapshots

• EOI (Spain’s School of Industrial Organisation)
• University of Bradford
• University of Leeds Medical School
• Mimas

Case studies

• Excellence Gateway
• MoLeNET

Bista, M. (2001) The Five Myths of Mobile Learning. University of Colorado.

Brown, E. (2010) ‘Introduction to location-based mobile learning’ (in Brown, E. (ed.), (2010)Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action, University of Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute)

Cochrane, T. (2010) ‘An mlearning Journey: Mobile Web 2.0 Critical Success Factors (in Montebello, M., et al. (2010) mLearn 2010: Conference Proceedings)

De Lorenzo, R. (2009) Addressing Some Critiques of Mobile Learning. The Mobile Learner. Available at:http://themobilelearner.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/addressing-some-critiques-of-mobile-learning/

Futurelab (2004) Mobile Technologies and Learning report

Gadd, R. (2010) Top Myths & Misconceptions of Mobile Learning. Learning Solutions Magazine. Available at https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/471/top-myths--misconceptions-of-mobile-learning

Glahn, C., Börner, D. & Specht, M. (2010) ‘Mobile informal learning’ (in Brown, E. (ed.),Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action, University of Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute)

GSMA (2011) Mobile Education in the United Kingdom

Hockly, N. (2001) 5 Myths about mobile learning. e-moderation station. Available at http://www.emoderationskills.com/?p=565

Jisc (2009) effective practice in a digital age 

Jisc (2010) effective assessment in a digital age

Jisc (2011) emerging practice in a digital age

Kadle, A. (2009) Five Myths of Mobile Learning. Upside Learning. Available at: http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/24/five-myths-of-mobile-learning/

Kenny, R.F., et al., (2009) ‘Using Mobile Learning to Enhance the Quality of Nursing Practice Education’ (in Ally, M. (ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, Edmonton: AU Press)

Koole, M.L. (2009) ‘A Model for Framing Mobile Learning’, in Ally, M. (ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, Edmonton, 2009, p.38)

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010) Mobile learning as a catalyst for change (Open Learning, Vol.25, No.3, November 2010, 181-185)

Lonsdale, P., Baber, C., Sharples, M. & Arvantis, T.N. (2004) ‘A context-awareness architecture for facilitating mobile learning’ (in Attewell, J. & Savill-Smith, C. (2004) Learning with mobile devices: research and development, London: Learning and Skills Development Agency)

MoLeNET (2010) Mobile Learning Myths. Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20101015234706/http://www.molenet.org.uk/mobilearinprac/myths

Ofcom (2011) ‘Facts and Figures’ (http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts, accessed 16 August 2011)

Pacific Blue (2012) Mobile Learning: Myths and Misconceptions. 

Park, Y. (2011) ‘A Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning: Categorizing Educational Applications of Mobile Technologies into Four Types’ (The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), February 2011)

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age (New York: MacGraw-Hill)

Sharples, M., et al. (2007) ‘Mobile Learning: Small devices, Big issues’ (in Sharples, M., et al. (eds.) Technology-Enhanced Learning, 2009, Part IV)

Sharples, M. (2010) ‘Foreword’ (in Brown, E. (ed.), Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action (University of Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute)

Traxler, J. (2007) ‘Current State of Mobile Learning’ (in Ally, M. (2010) Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, Edmonton: AU Press)

Traxler, J. (2009) ‘Current State of Mobile Learning’ (in Ally, M. (ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, Edmonton: AU Press)

Vavoula, G.N. and Sharples, M. (2009) ‘Challenges in Evaluating Mobile Learning’ (in Traxler, J., Riordan, B., Dennett, C. (eds) Proceedings of the mLearn 2008 Conference (School of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wolverhampton, pp. 296-303)

Wingkvist, A. and Ericsson, M. (2010) ‘A Framework to Guide and Structure the Development Process of Mobile Learning Initiatives’ (in Montebello, M., et al. (2010) mLearn 2010: Conference Proceedings, University of Malta)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following for their input into this mobile learning guide. Where quotations are not attributed to an article, the words are taken from interviews with the following participants:

• Anwar, Shiraz (Jisc)
• Bartley, Tony (Lowestoft College)
• Bowen, Kyle (Purdue University, USA)  
• Carter, Jackie (Jisc) 
• Cole, Keith (Jisc) 
• Colley, Becka (University of Bradford)
• Fairhall, John (University of Bradford)
• FitzGerald, Elizabeth (The Open University) 
• Frith, Gareth (University of Leeds) 
• Igbrude, Claudia (Dublin Institute of Technology) 
• Mitchell, Ron (Consultant and ex-MoLeNET mentor)
• Pellow, Andy (University of Leeds) 
• Pickersgill, Dave (Sheffield College) 
• Ramirez, Matt (Jisc) 
• Sharples, Mike (The Open University) 
• Short, Mike (O2 UK/Telefonica Europe) 
• Soon, Lilian (xlearn, ex-MoLeNET mentor) 
• Stead, Geoff (Tribal Labs)
• Tangney, Brendan (Trinity College, Dublin)
• Thomas, Rhodri (The Open University) 
• Traxler, John (University of Wolverhampton) 
• Usher, Julie (University of Northampton)
• Winters, Niall (London Knowledge Lab)

This mobile learning guide was also informed in a significant way from the insights gleaned from interviewees for the Jisc Mobile and Wireless Technologies Review.