Proyecto PREFIT

Since the 1990s, people around the world have begun adopting mobile technologies as part of their daily lives. According to the Radicati Group Report on Mobile technologies (2014), the number of mobile devices, both phones and tablets, used worldwide is 7.7 billion, while there are 5.6 billion mobile users. These numbers are expected to increase, by 2018, to 12.1 billion mobile devices and 6.2 billion users. The report claimed that by 2018 roughly 84% of the world population will be using mobile technologies. However,

the Organisation de Coopération et de Dévelopement Économiques (ODEC), in 2007, stated that by 2020 mobile technologies are most likely to be affordable and available to everyone worldwide.

Hence, it is clearly noticeable that e-commerce is becoming m-commerce, online banking is becoming m-banking, and e-learning is becoming m-learning; so mobile technologies are no longer restricted to only telephonic services. The growth of mobile technologies services and products, and the increasing availability of handheld and wireless devices, has created new opportunities for businesses and governments, as well as educational systems and prompt consideration of their applications.

This trend towards greater use of mobile technologies is responsible for several challenges faced by higher education institutions, including the changing nature of knowledge, the changing nature of students, and the changing nature of the expectations of the global market. Therefore, to compete globally and cover the shortage of skilled graduates, universities need to cope with the global challenges. Mason (2006) maintains that, all over the world higher education institutions are under pressure to improve the quality of teaching and learning by integrating up-to-date technologies. In the developing world, such a move is much more appealing, as new technologies can solve critical issues such as access to education.

Many studies have been conducted to investigate the challenges, barriers, concerns, and effectiveness of e-learning all around the world. Therefore, there is no doubt that e- learning, with its all different approaches, can promote the learning process in a way that encourages a pedagogic shift from a teacher-centric model to a learner-centric model. Mobile learning, as a sub-set of e-learning, “is highly promising in complementing conventional ways of learning” (Denk et al., 2007, p. 135) via, for example, the creation of blended learning environments which have been proved to be a successful learning strategy (Banados, 2006; Lim, Morris & Kumpitz, 2006; Osguthrope & Graham, 2003; Thompson, 2003). Denk et al (2007) advocate that mobile learning can support autonomous, flexible, context-aware, life-long, and life-wide learning. Similarly, Campanella (2012) argued that the foremost reasons that are invoked in support of mobile learning are: flexibility, collaboration, motivation, accessibility, and portability.

From the European perspective, the key findings of m-Learning Project funded by the European Commission’s Information Society Directorate General, the project partners and, in the UK, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) indicate that mobile learning allows truly anywhere, anytime, personalised learning; adds variety to conventional lessons or courses; removes some of the formality which non-traditional learners may find unattractive; helps deliver and support literacy, numeracy, and language learning; facilitates both individual and collaborative learning; helps to combat resistance to the use of ICT by providing a bridge between mobile phone literacy and PC literacy; helps learners to remain focused; and helps to raise self-confidence and self-esteem (Attewell, 2005a, 2005b).

From a global perspective, UNESCO (2011) proposes a working definition of mobile technologies, considering the challenging worldviews of relevant concepts and terminology, as follows:

“For UNESCO mobile technologies refer to a combination of hardware, operating systems, networking and software including content, learning platforms, and applications. Mobile technology devices range from basic mobile phones to tablet PCs, and include PDAs, MP3 players, memory sticks, e-readers, and smartphones. For the purposes of its current engagement, UNESCO proposes to confine the conversation around mobile technologies to the mobile phone. UNESCO recognizes, however, that the mobile phone itself is evolving rapidly and it intends to take cognizance of how this evolution will develop over the coming decade. UNESCO also acknowledges that the integration of mobile phones into education carries a potential to disrupt traditional paradigms. Mobile phones are different to traditional educational tools such as books, chalk and pencils because they enable instantaneous access to vast and growing reservoirs of information, and because they provide a growing array of permutations to communicate and share knowledge between individuals and groups independent of time and physical location. Mobile phones are almost universally accessible. For these reasons, UNESCO is interested in their potential to support learning, teaching and education transformation.” (p. 4-5)

Kukulska-Hulme (2005), in a JISC funded project, explored the reasons underpinning the use of mobile technology in (post-16) education and identified three main motivations

which are: improving access; exploring the potential for changes in teaching and learning; and alignment with wider institutional or business aims. If we consider the flexible features of m-learning, four approaches of learning can be supported by mobile technologies, including individualized learning, collaborative or shared learning, situated learning, and informal and life-long learning. In reviewing the related literature on mobile technologies and learning, Naismith et al. (2004) concluded that “the challenge for the educators and technology developers of the future will be to find ways to ensure that this new learning is highly situated, personal, collaborative and long term; in other words, truly learner-centred learning. Educators will need to adapt from a role as transmitters of knowledge to guiders of learning resources.” (p. 36).

Since mobile devices became popular, researchers started exploring and investigating how these devices could support teaching and learning. The previous studies on mobile learning vary in their purposes, their addressed population, the kinds of mobile technologies used, and in what discipline. Also, these studies examined mobile learning from different theoretical perspectives (Naismith et al., 2004). However, a meta-analysis approach undertaken by Wu et al. (2012) to systematically review the literature on mobile learning, that encompassed 164 studies from 2003 to 2010, shows that previous studies of mobile learning fall into two broad research directions: evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning (Cheng, Chang, & Wang, 2008; Evans, 2008), and designing mobile learning systems (Hwang, Yang, Tsai, & Yang, 2009; Trifonova & Ronchetti, 2006; Uden, 2007). A good body of research in both directions has been done. Other important findings of this meta-analysis study (Wu et al., 2012) included: the fact that surveys and experimental methods were the most common research methods used in such studies; the outcomes of these studies demonstrated that the impacts of m- learning were significantly positive; that mobile phones and PDAs are the most commonly used devices; and that mobile learning was more prevalent at higher education institutions, rather than secondary or elementary schools.

The focus of such studies (in terms of the population addressed) varies from higher education students (Al-Fahad, 2009; Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Thornton & House, 2005) to elementary schools students (Chen et al., 2003), as well as teachers and instructors (Fraga, 2012, Peachy; 2010), but Hwang and Tsai (2011) found that students in

higher education were most frequently the focus of research into mobile learning. This finding was supported by the meta-analysis study conducted by Wu et al. (2012).

Researchers have addressed the impacts of different mobile technologies in their studies. Wu et al. (2012) indicate that mobile phones and PDAs together account for over 75% of all mobile devices used in educational contexts. This finding was supported by a wide range of studies (Basoglu & Akdemir, 2010; Cheng et al., 2010; Cochrane, 2010; Cui & Wang, 2008; Jones, Edwards, & Reid, 2009; Jong, Specht, & Koper, 2010; Kadyte, 2004; Liaw, Hatala, & Huang, 2010; Wexler et al., 2008). On the other hand, many surveys investigate mobile learning in general, without specifying the mobile technology used (Al- Fahad, 2009; Chanchary & Islam, 2011; Derahkhshan, 2012; Lowenthal, 2010; Peachy, 2010). The previous listed studies addressed different disciplines and educational contexts, but most studies did not encompass any one specific discipline, they only investigated perception, attitude, opinions, readiness, motivation, and the concerns of students, teachers, or faculty regarding mobile learning (Akour, 2009; Al-Fahad, 2009; Donaldson, 2011; Fraga, 2012; Lowenthal, 2010; Messinger, 2011; Nassuora, 2012; Wang, Wu, & Wang, 2009; Wexler et al., 2008). When it comes to researching the use of m- learning for a particular discipline, computing and applied sciences are more popular (Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Wu et al., 2012).

The development in education, and the shift in philosophical and theoretical underpinnings, justify the use of mobile technologies in education (Herrington & Herrington, 2007). From a different angle, the era of mobile technologies has influenced teaching and learning practices. Naismith et al. (2004) identify six different theory-based categories of learning activities, i.e., Behaviourist, Constructivist, Situated, Collaborative, Informal and Lifelong, and Learning and Teaching Support activities. Based on the behaviourist perspective, Wang et al. (2009) implemented a mobile learning system, developed at Shanghai Jiaotong University, in a blended (online & face-to-face) English classroom of 1000 students. As their data revealed, this system changed students from passive learners to active participants, who are behaviourally, intellectually and emotionally involved in their learning tasks. Cochrane (2011) investigated the potential of mobile web 2.0 tools to facilitate social constructivist learning environments across multiple learning contexts, from thirteen m-learning projects undertaken between 2007 and 2009. These projects indicate the influence of mobile learning by proposing sustained

engagement and interaction, via communities of practice that facilitate institutional, cultural and strategic shifts, as well as a lecturer and student ontological shift in relation to learning and teaching.

From a situated perspective, Chan, Lee and McLoughlin (2006) placed a group of more experienced students in charge of producing a series of educational podcasts which were targeted at new students, and consistent with the principles of peer tutoring or teaching, where learning is embedded within the activity. The topics of these podcasts were of an applied nature, that new students could use to optimise their study time, assist them in completing assignments, and solve particular types of problems. An online survey was sent to the new students (listeners of the podcasts) and a focus group interview of the experienced students (producers of the podcasts) to elicit their views and experiences. Results indicated that the project proved to be of a valuable learning experience for both, the listeners and the producers of the podcasts.

Based on collaborative activity that stimulates learning through social interaction, Cheong et al (2012) present a mobile-app-based collaborative learning system named myVote, as well as describe a process to use the system by academics and the students to achieve collaborative learning. This app provides an additional channel of communication, especially in a lecture-like- environment where there is a large audience and it is impossible to engage everyone to actively interact during the short time available. It is a flexible system that can achieve collaborative learning and address different levels of thinking, from lower to higher order, according to the activity used by the academics. They state that “the myVote collaborative learning system can be used in a number of different ways in an educational setting to better engage students, promote social interaction, and to lead to higher-order thinking” (p. 107).

In 2000, Sharples (2000) indicated how soon new technologies would be in place to support mobile lifelong learning, and allow people to interact with learning resources and retrieve knowledge, whenever and wherever they are. Years later, Clough et al. (2009) testified what was expected by Sharples (2000). Using a web survey, Clough et al. (2009) found out that users of PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) and smartphones are using the capabilities of their devices to support a wide range of informal learning activities in innovative ways.

Finally, as an illustration of learning and teaching support activities, the University of Birmingham developed a mobile learning organiser (Holme & Sharples, 2002). During the academic year 2002/2003, Corlett et al. (2005) conducted a ten-month trial of this mobile organiser. A group of 17 students were loaned wireless PDAs, provided with the mobile learning organiser. The results of the follow up surveys and focus group indicated the need for institutional support of mobile learning. Recently, Altameem (2011) presented a framework of a contextual mobile learning system, designed for the learning environment at Saudi Arabian universities. After providing the framework for key figures at Saudi universities, suggestions include the separation of function modules into two sets; mobile learning modules and administrative support service modules. This work indicates the crucial rule of support services in mobile learning environments in Saudi Arabia.

Any discussion of the potential of mobile learning is incomplete without reviewing the work of Marc Prensky, a passionate supporter of mobile learning. In 2005, in his paper entitled “What Can You Learn From a Cell Phone? Almost Anything”, he stated: “There are many different kinds of learning and many processes that we use to learn, but among the most frequent, time-tested, and effective of these are listening, observing, imitating, questioning, reflecting, trying, estimating, predicting, ‘what-if’-ing, and practicing” (p. 261). According to Prensky (2005), there are several features of cell phones that can promote students’ learning. Among these features are the following: tiny pocket computers; brain extenders, quoting a Japanese student “When you lose your mobile, you lose part of your brain”; in voice only cell phones, you don’t need anything more than a voice link and a person on the other end worth listening to in order to learn a whole lot; short Messaging Service (SMS) can be used for pop quizzes, to poll students’ opinions, and to make learners aware of current events for class discussion; and graphic displays on cell phones allow for meaningful amounts of text to be displayed accompanied with pictures, animation, and, of course, sound. Moreover, cell phones users can download versions of the same kinds of tools and teaching programmes available on personal computers, and, given that the phones are communications devices, use the tools for collaboration in new and interesting ways. Furthermore, web sites specifically designed for cell phones are becoming more and more numerous as a response to the cell phones with built in internet browsers. Also, cell phones with cameras are tools for scientific data collection, documentation, and visual journalism, allowing students to gather evidence, collect and classify images, and follow progressions over time, along with, cell phones

with GPS (Global Positioning Systems) that can be used by students to search for things and places. More than that, video clips on cell phones can be used for modelling in educational context.

On the other hand, Clark (2001) argues that when media are used as a means of delivering learning content, they are unable to influence achievement. He states: “the best current evidence is that the media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (p. 2). By contrast, Laurillard (2007) declares that, in the case of mobile learning, motivation has become a focus for what mobile learning offers that is different, and it is clear that learners working with mobile learning enjoy the process. Moreover, she states “The mobility of digital technologies creates intriguing opportunities for new forms of learning because they change the nature of the physical relations between teachers, learners, and the objects of learning” (p. 153).

In 2006, Cobcroft reviewed over 400 numerous mobile learning projects, reports, reviews, conference papers, and books. The main purpose of this review was to provide the basis for an academic book on mobile learning, by identifying key authors and practitioners across this domain. The key outcome of this review was that the “critical success factors for any m-learning implementation are those of the achievement of interactivity, coordination, negotiation and communication, optimal organisation of material, and mobility, motivation and collaboration” (p.76). Furthermore, Cobcroft (2006) concluded that educators and learners need to develop new digital communication skills, new pedagogies, and new practices. In the eight years since then, mobile learning has attracted the attention of a great number of researchers around the globe, which has resulted in a great body of published research worldwide.

The previous list of studies shows the growing pace of the global implementation of mobile learning, but studies of the global phenomenon do not address the moderating impact of contextual differences. Therefore, to remedy this, the following sections address mobile learning in different contexts.