One of the first studies to recognise the potential of the tablet-computer as a tool to foster student engagement (identified on page 39, User Engagement and Empathy) was undertaken by Manuguerra and Petocz (2011, p.62). Student engagement lies very much in the affective domain, and the approach taken by the study is a report looking at the qualitative aspects of iPad use after an “intense and continuous” 15-month trial of the device at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Manuguerra reports that in the
classroom, the devices had been used to “engage inspire and motivate students” through their ability to present high-level presentations and facilitate communication and note- taking, but it was in the field of distance learning that the advantages of the devices were most appreciated by the students. The university had the facility to record live lectures, including all of the presentations and live annotations made by the lecturer, students wishing to watch these recordings had been previously required to attend the campus to do so, and only a few of the largest lecture theatres were capable of screening the recorded lectures. The iPad changed the way students accessed recorded lectures, because it was capable of screening this content remotely, allowing distance learning students to engage with the lectures and benefit from the whole lecture experience in much the same way as they would on campus. This had a measurable effect on student engagement with the course as a whole, leading to a drop in attrition from 15/36 in the year before the iPads were introduced to just 4/37 after the m‑learning option was put into place. The authors recognised that mobile devices cater to the expectations of modern learners who have grown up with this technology and are familiar with concepts such as social networking and mobile technology.
The student-perspective on m‑learning has been investigated in an in-depth qualitative study by Gikas and Grant (2013) and presents a slightly more balanced view. The study, conducted at three North American universities, used semi-structured focus-group interviews that were transcribed and appended with information about non-verbal behaviours exhibited by the nine participants during the group interviews. Inductive data analysis was employed, and iterative encoding allowed the authors to identify
overarching themes and categories. The emerging data revealed positive and negative aspects relating to how the students engaged with their devices. The aspects that
students found appealing were largely in agreement with the findings of Martin and Ertberger (2013). These aspects included the always-on connectivity and accessibility of the devices, allowing access to information quickly. The content accessed included
discussion boards, course readings and video. Importantly the participants noted that this was not a one-way process, and they used the devices to upload content and make posts on the course site. Students also valued the ability of the devices to screen content uploaded by their lecturers prior to lessons. This is an example of where m‑learning can be used effectively in a classroom setting. Another benefit identified by the participants was the communication possibilities afforded by the devices. Students found that they communicated with each other more through video-conferencing applications such as Skype (Microsoft Inc.), Short Message Service (SMS texts) and social networks such as Twitter. This advantage of m‑learning was also identified by Manuguerra and Petocz (2011), and Martin and Ertzberger (2013). Twitter was used to share thoughts and
exchange ideas with fellow students in preference to the university discussion boards as it was thought to be more immediate and embedded into everyday life. Advantages
relating to situated learning were also reported such as the ability to upload photographs and videos to a web-log (blog) while out on the street, rather than having to remember to email them to a tutor at a later time. Holley and Dobson (2008) also identified the use of SMS as a tool to foster student engagement when on a field trip. Students using this feature of their mobile devices to facilitate discussion about art while in the Tate Modern Art Gallery.
This type of seamless learning experience is fostered by mobile devices and has been identified by authors such as Huang, Huang and Wu (2014) and Huang et al. (2011) as an aid to cognition. Without the support of the device, students would be required to hold a mental representation of the context in working memory and this representational
holding can cause a cognitive overload when combined with other types of mental
information processing. Shadiev et al. (2015) relate this to the previously-mentioned
Distributed Cognition Theory, a socio-technical system whereby representational holdings
can be converted into artefacts (such as photographs created with a mobile device). This reduces cognitive load as the user is essentially off-loading some of this burden to the device. Land and Zimmerman (2015) go further in stating that multimedia learning
offered by iPads and their ability to take photographs supports deeper engagement in learners in the field and promotes engagement with their surroundings rather than the “heads down” engagement with the device.
However, the Gikas and Grant (2013) study also identified some barriers presented to student engagement by m‑learning. Not all of the issues related to the devices, anti- technology instructors (lecturers) were identified who were either unwilling or unable to incorporate m‑learning technology into their course materials. This is a common theme in m‑learning that was also echoed by Deegan and Rothwell (2010), who indicated an
interdisciplinary disconnect between pedagogues who are uncomfortable with
technology, and technologists who are uncomfortable with pedagogy. Gikas and Grant suggested that in their study, the reason might have been due to a generational difference between tutors and learners.
Pachler, Bachmair and Cook (2010) state that cultural attitudes may affect people’s impressions of mobile technology and cite a 2008 study that found that most teachers see mobile phones as distractions and feel that they have no place in school. This attitude is reflected by a statement made by a student in the Gikas and Grant study (2013, p.23) who said:
“my… instructors don’t even want to see them (mobile phones) in class, I have a film-class and I actually got chewed out a couple of weeks ago because I was looking something up about the film we were watching before it started and my instructor was like “I don’t want to see your phone. Put it away”.
This is despite the fact that the university in question’s policy as a whole was pushing for course-management apps for mobile devices.
The second barrier to engagement identified by Gikas and Grant related to what the authors describe as “device challenges”, however on closer analysis of the paper, many of the issues did not relate to the device at all. Students complained that an online poll was difficult to understand, that a video conferencing tool (Oovoo) did not work satisfactorily and that some mobile apps that did not work as expected. All of these issues are
software-related, not device-related. The one device-related complaint related to screen size, specifically the small keypad on the iPhone which made text input difficult. The final theme identified as a barrier to cognition was the distracting nature of the devices, this related to the “allure of social networking applications that were not being used for class”.
In the light of the topic literature it appears that mobile devices present some unique ways access to learning materials, yet simultaneously some unique barriers to learning. This dichotomy suggests that there may be a need for further research into several areas that relate to the research question for this study. These are evaluated in the following section.