Reports of the Department of Mathematical Information Technology

Series E. Educational Technology

No. E 2/2013

Mobile Learning – a Review of Current Research

Jenni Rikala

University of Jyväskylä
Department of Mathematical Information Technology
P.O. Box 35 (Agora)
FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä
FINLAND
fax +358 14 260 2771
http://www.mit.jyu.fi
 Copyright © 2013
Jenni Rikala
and University of Jyväskylä

ISBN 978-951-39-5292-1
ISSN 1795-5726
 Mobile Learning – a Review of Current
Research
Jenni Rikala†

Abstract
Mobile learning, learning with mobile devices in various contexts, is an ascending
trend across different sectors of education worldwide. One major challenge, however,
is that the mobile learning solutions have not deeply-rooted to educational contexts
and practices as the mobile learning commonly is characterized by short-term and
small-scale trials. In this report I give a cross-section about what is topical at the
moment in the field of mobile learning. This report will also provide a comprehensive
view of pedagogical models and proposes a new mobile learning framework.

1 Introduction
Mobile technologies have changed our societies in many respects [1]. They have
affected the way people interact with each other, how people communicate, work
and travel [2]. Mobile devices, systems and technologies are now universally
owned, accepted and used. As consequence also the meaning and significance of
learning are changing. [1] Educators, employers, parents and the public have
begun to emphasize the need for lifelong learning and 21st century skills.
Technologies can respond to these changes in learning. Technologies have made
many new educational forms possible but despite this the methods of teaching and
learning still are in many respects quite traditional, teacher-centred and classroom-
bounded. There remains definite gap between the knowledge and skills that
learners learn in school and the knowledge and skills that they will need later in
life. It has been shown that innovative teaching can support student’s development
of the skills that they will need in future life and work [3]. Taking this into account
even more innovative learning scenarios and practices should be designed and
implemented.
Researchers and educators all over the world have recognized the potential of
mobile technologies as learning tool and mobile technology has promoted a new

†Department of Mathematical Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35

(Agora), FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland, jenni.p.rikala@jyu.fi

1
learning style mobile learning or briefly m-learning. Innovative learning practices
(e.g., student centred pedagogy, extending learning beyond the classroom) can be
realized through different mobile learning solutions. At best, mobile devices can be
used to support learners’ needs and to develop a variety of appropriate learning
solutions and learning practices.
Research in the field of mobile learning has been done widely all over the world.
This research is studying “how the mobility of learners augmented by personal and
public technology can contribute to the process of gaining new knowledge, skills and
experience” [4]. In other words, mobile learning is learning in which learners are
using mobile devices such as PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), laptop computers,
mobile phones, smart phones (e.g., iPhone), digital players, media players, cameras,
games consoles (e.g., Nintendo DS, Sony PSP), voting systems as well as
customized hardware to enhance learning by gaining knowledge, skills and
experiences. Learners can learn anytime and anywhere so learning can be very
personalised, situated and authentic [5].
Mobile phones and PDAs are the most commonly used technologies for mobile
learning but as above listed there is also wide variety of other possible mobile
technologies as well. Mobile, commonly understood as portable and movable, can
also implicate a personal, so mobile technologies can be classified by using the two
orthogonal dimensions of personal vs. shared and portable vs. static. [6]
Naismith et al. [6] emphasized that mobile technologies comprise all devices from
quadrants 1—3 and also those from quadrant 4 that are not at the extreme end of
the static dimension (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Classification of mobile technologies [6]

2
 The new wireless and powerful handheld devices have new exiting capabilities
and possibilities such as multimedia, social networking, and geo-location [7]. But
also less powerful handheld devices with slower communication have been used
for mobile learning for several years now. For example, three applications such as
classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering,
have been re-implemented many times, and studied by many different research
teams. [8]
The mobile learning context can be extremely dynamic. Because of this also the
applications of mobile learning can vary greatly according to the context and
situations (from K-12 to higher education and corporate learning settings, from
formal and informal learning to classroom learning, distance learning, and field
study). Some of the mobile applications and software have been purpose-built for
educational use but some of them are off-the shelf solutions originally intended for
other uses like business use. The extremely dynamic mobile learning context and
different reasons to utilise mobile technologies in education make it tricky to make
any generalisations about the requirements and ways of using them. The ways that
mobile technologies have been used to support teaching and learning are, for
example: individual study, group work, data collection, recording reflections/diaries, skills
practice, feedback/questions to teacher, peer-to-peer communication/support, reviewing
knowledge, warm up/cool down exercises. [9, 10, 11, 12]
There are several challenges with m-learning, such as connectivity, small screen
sizes, limited processing power, and reduced input capabilities. Also the great
variety of mobile devices and possibility to personalize and use them in different
settings creates challenges to mobile learning. One more considerable challenge is
the diversity of educational goals and needs of the users. Also the lack of cohesive
theoretical mobile learning framework and mobile learning standards brings some
challenges. Undoubtedly, there are number of technological and pedagogical
issues that need to be take account. [13, 14, 15, 16]
Mobile learning is still developing rapidly, but it is evidently undeveloped
compared to technologies and their pedagogies. The use of mobile devices is
increasing across every sector of education, and across both the developed and
developing worlds. Mobile learning also has growing visibility and significance.
There is the growing size and frequency of dedicated conferences, seminars, and
workshops. There have also been a rising number of references to mobile learning
at generalist academic conferences. There are now much larger and more sustained
and blended trials and experiments than before but so far the development and the
delivery have focused on short-term small-scale pilots and trials in the developed
countries of Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim. [1, 5]

3
 The purpose of this report is to review articles to summarise the current research
concerning the mobile learning. For this review I have examined articles that I have
found in electronic databases using keyword searches including mobile learning
and m-learning. I searched articles from the Jyväskylä University library’s Nelli
portal which provides access to databases, e-journals and other electronic resources
and also from the Google search engine and Google Scholar. I sought to explore
and analyse the most recent studies (2007—2012).

2 Theories behind the mobile learning

Mobile devices by themselves do not guarantee effective teaching or learning.
Methods of teaching and the teacher’s views of learning are essential part of the
educational use of technology. In the background of every educational effort there
is always a theory or idea of how the learner’s mind works and how the learner
should be taught [17].
Pedagogical theories and strategies are normally strongly linked to learning
theories so the way to use mobile devices to support learning widely depends on
the learning theory. To crystallize the importance of the learning theories in mobile
learning, I quote Herrington and Herrington [18] who argued that: “Adopting more
recent theories of learning has the potential to exploit the affordances of the technologies in
more valuable ways”.
Mobile learning research integrates research from different theoretical
perspectives. Many researchers have explored the relationship between existing
learning theories and mobile learning. Naismith et al. [6], for instance, compared
mobile learning against learning theories such as behaviourist, constructivist, situated,
collaborate, informal and lifelong learning.
Also Keskín and Metcalf [19] discussed about the mobile learning and learning
theories in their literature review. They found that current mobile learning theories
are behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, situated learning, problem based learning,
context awareness learning, socio-cultural theory, collaborative learning, conversational
learning, lifelong learning, informal learning, activity theory, connectivism, navigationism,
and location-based learning.
In my review I also found theories such as active experiential learning, inquiry-
based learning, transactional distance theory, and sense making associated with mobile
learning. Some of these theories described above are subsections of broader
theories but I’m not going to separate them into more detailed groups here. The
most important observation is that there is not cohesive theoretical mobile learning
theory as mobile learning is supported by various theories.

4
 These different learning theories offer different perspectives and views to
mobile learning. Naismith et al. [6] presented learning theories in mobile learning
contexts and posed the ways how mobile learning can be implemented into
learning activities. Also Keskín and Metcalf [19] and Herrington and Herrington
[18] presented some examples in their literature review (e.g., behaviourist –
classroom response systems, situated learning – multimedia museum tours,
constructivist – the virus game).
Traxler [1] have stressed that on the whole the mobile learning theory is very
problematic matter because mobile learning is an inherently ‘noisy’ phenomenon
where context is everything and confounding variables abound. The lack of
cohesive theory and framework could, however, bring some challenges to mobile
learning but at the same time it can bring some opportunities too. Everyone can
choose the theory that best suits for his/her goals and this at best can enable
technology uses that are valuable and instructive.

3 The evolution of mobile learning

Mobile learning actually has surprisingly long history [20]. Mobile learning
advanced in the 1970s and spread widely in 2000s [2]. The appearance of mobile
technology in education has extended the scope of teaching but only the latest
mobile technologies have truly enabled learning on the move [20].
Despite the relatively long history, mobile learning is evidently undeveloped
compared to technologies and their pedagogies and is still developing rapidly [1,
5]. Also the concept of m-learning is still developing [2]. Because of different
theoretical perspectives there are several different views to mobile learning. This
has led to the result that there is no common definition for mobile learning. There
are various terms such as wireless, ubiquitous, seamless, nomadic or pervasive
learning/education and mobile e-learning that all somehow indicates mobile learning.
[21]
Mobile learning (or briefly m-learning) is not merely combination of mobile and
learning. It has always referred more or less to mobile electronic learning (or
briefly e-learning) [1]. Mobile learning also has a close relationship with distance
learning (or briefly d-learning) [2]. Figure 2 illustrates the place of m-learning as
part of e-learning and d-learning.

5
 Figure 2: The place of m-Learning as part of e-Learning and d-Learning [22]

Even though mobile learning have the close relationship with e-learning and d-
learning, mobile learning distinct from e-learning and d-learning. Traxler [23]
defined the core characteristics that define mobile learning. Many of these
characteristics separate mobile learning from e-learning (Fig. 3). The characteristics
that Traxler [23] defined are spontaneous, private, portable, situated, informal, bite-sized,
light-weight, context aware and also connected, personalized, and interactive.

6
 Figure 3: m-learning vs. e-learning (adapted from Traxler [23])

Table 1: The characteristics of e-learning an m-learning

e-Learning m-Learning
Computer Mobile
Bandwidth GPRS,Gs, Bluetooth
Multimedia Objects
Interactive Spontaneous
Hyperlinked Connected
Collaborative Networked
Media-rich Lightweight
Distance learning Situated learning
More formal Informal
Simulated situation Realistic situation
Hyperlearning Constructivism,
situationism,
collaborative

Also Laouris and Eteokleuous [24] compared the characteristics of e-learning

and m-learning (Table 1). Because of the unique characteristics of mobile learning
there are also definitions that see m-learning entirely apart from e-learning.
Laouris and Eteokleuous [24] proposed the definition of mobile learning after an

7
inclusive review and comparison between e-learning and m-learning. They come
to the conclusion that the definition of mobile learning must take into account
many parameters and also the ways in which they interact and influence each
other. Their formulation for the definition of m-learning function is:
MLearn = f {t, s,LE,c,IT,MM,m}
(where t is time, s is space, LE is environment, c is content, IT is technology, MM is
mental abilities, and m is method).
Geddes [25] saw mobile learning as the acquisition of any knowledge and skill
through the use of handheld technology, anywhere and anytime. This is also
probably the most commonly seen meaning and definition of m-learning.
O´Malley et al. [26] have defined m-learning from more pedagogical perspective
as follows: "Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed,
predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the
learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies."
Most mobile learning definitions see the mobility (either learners’, devices or
contents) and personality to be integral part of mobile learning (e.g., [6, 23, 25, 26,
27]) The most important observation, however, is that mobile learning is not just
about learning by using portable devices, but also learning across different
contexts [28].
Many early perspectives of m-learning focused mainly on technology but at the
present there are many different m-learning perspectives and each focuses on the
different features, for example, such as mobility, individualism, and ubiquitous
[19]. Belshaw [29] found four different perspectives in his interviewees and
literature review: 1) techno centric, 2) e-learning related, 3) augmentation of formal
process, and 4) learner-centred. In addition, there are perspectives such as the
learner/user centre perspective, the usability perspective, and the context-aware
perspective (e.g., [30, 31, 32, 33]). Usually three different perspectives - technical,
usability and pedagogical - are incorporated into the design and evaluation of
mobile learning applications and materials [34].
There have been some attempts to categorize m-learning. For example, Traxler
[5] found six categories of m-learning in his literature review. These six categories
are 1) technology-driven mobile learning, 2) miniature but portable e-learning, 3)
connected classroom learning, 4) informal, personalised, situated mobile learning 5)
mobile training/performance support, and 6) remote/rural/development mobile
learning.

8
 On the basis of mobile learning perspectives reviewed, there could be created a
list of main views of m-learning. These views are:
 accessible & usable (e.g., portable, light-weight, bite-sized, effective, easy to
use),
 contextual & situated (e.g., time, context and location-awareness),
 flexible & adaptable (e.g., possibility to spontaneous learning anytime and
anywhere),
 formal vs. informal (e.g., educational contexts vs. real life contexts),
 interactive (e.g., enhances different ways to communicate and interact with
other people, information, or systems),
 personalized (e.g., awareness of learner’s attitudes, perceptions, personal
needs and goals),
 technology vs. pedagogy (e.g., technology driven view vs. learner-centred
view),
 authenticity (e.g., authentic “real-life” tasks and processes),
 collaboration (e.g., learning activities with peers),
 ubiquitous.

3.1 Mobile learning frameworks

Many researchers have attempted to encapsulate the unique characteristics of
mobile learning in the form of a simplified framework. Two of these frameworks
are presented in the following sections and a new framework is proposed.
The framew ork for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME)
Koole [27] described mobile learning as a process resulting from the convergence
of mobile technologies, human learning capacities, and social interaction. Koole [27]
introduced the Frame Model (Fig. 4). This model describes a mode of learning in
which learners may move within different physical and virtual locations thereby
participate and interact with other people, information, or systems - anywhere,
anytime. The three aspects, the device, learner and social aspect, are intersecting.

9
 Figure 4: The Frame Model (Koole [27])

Mobile learning experiences occur within a context of information. Learners are

consuming and creating information collectively and individually and the
interaction with information is mediated through technology. [27]
Frame model refers theories such as activity theory and it also place emphasis
on constructivism. The frame model also takes into consideration the technical
characteristics of mobile devices. [27]
M-learning Framew ork
Also Kearney et al. [7] introduced a mobile learning framework. Their framework
is based on a socio-cultural theory. The framework introduced by Kearney et al. [7]
includes three core characteristics personalisation, authenticity and collaboration
(Fig. 5).

10
 Figure 5: Kearney et al. [7] M-learning Framework

The basis of the framework is time and space. Together time and place creates
“malleable spatial-temporal contexts of learning”. Kearney et al. [7] also stated sub-
scales for each of the three constructs (personalisation, authenticity and collaboration).
The authenticity feature highlights the opportunities for contextualized,
participatory and situated learning; the collaboration feature captures the
conversational and connected aspects of m-learning; the personalisation feature
has implications for ownership, agency and autonomous learning.
Kearney et al. [7] also highlighted that the way that learners experience these
aspects is strongly influenced by the organisation of spatial and temporal aspects
of the m-learning environment.
Proposed framew ork of mobile learning
After an inclusive analysis of the various mobile learning frameworks and 21 st
century learning environment a new framework is proposed (Fig. 6).

11
 Figure 6: A new proposed mobile learning framework

Technological, social and cultural changes do and will influence learning. They
will affect the structure and content of curricula (e.g., the national core curriculum),
the nature of learning environment and the methods, systems and tools for
supporting the learning (e.g., the national digital strategy). Consequently social,
cultural and technical factors are taken into consideration at the external level of
the framework.
The 21st century learning environment provides structures (e.g., student-
centered pedagogies, ICT implementation & integration strategies, innovative
teaching practices, learning objectives and teacher’s competencies) that facilitate
mobile learning. And vice versa, mobile learning is one way to support teaching

12
and learning of 21st century skills outcomes. The 21st century learning environment
is organized such way that it supports teaching and learning of 21st century skills
outcomes. Learning can occur in classroom, virtually or in informal settings. The
environment is flexible and adaptable and enables collaboration, interaction and
information sharing in relevant, real world 21st century contexts [35]. The 21 st
century learning environment with its structures creates the inter-medium level of
the proposed framework.
The majority of the existing mobile learning frameworks highlight the context
(e.g., [7, 27]) and time (e.g., [7]). Especially aspects such as authenticity,
situatedness and contextualisation are emphasized. In proposed framework the
context, time and space shapes the central of the internal level. By this way the
mobile technologies unique ability to support learning anywhere and anytime is
highlighted. Mobile technologies truly give the learner the opportunity to gain
knowledge, skills and experiences in different contexts. Learning can occur in
formal and informal as well as physical and virtual settings.
Also the learner aspect is highlighted in most of the mobile learning frameworks
(e.g., [7, 27]). Especially the personalisation, customisation, autonomy, and self-
regulation are emphasized. In other words, individual's cognitive abilities,
memory, prior knowledge, emotions, possible motivations, attitudes, experiences
are in a significant role in mobile learning. This is why learner aspect is taken into
consideration at the internal level of the proposed framework.
The social aspect is taken into consideration at the internal level of the proposed
framework as most of the mobile learning frameworks highlight the social
interaction and collaboration (e.g., [7, 27]). The impact of interaction on learning
cannot be underestimated.
The device aspect is taken into consideration at the internal level of the
proposed framework as well. There are several challenges with mobile devices,
such as connectivity, small screen sizes, limited processing power, and reduced
input capabilities. But at the same time mobile devices generates opportunities to
personalize and use them in different settings. However, mobile devices by
themselves do not guarantee effective teaching or learning. Learning is depending
on context, time and space, learner aspects as well as social aspects, learning
environment and its structures. In device aspect especially the device usability is
emphasized. Device usability means the physical, technical and functional
characteristics of a mobile device and applications that influence the learners’
experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, etc.
When all these aspects are realised the mobile learning experience is progressing
smoothly and is a pleasant and motivating for the learners. The learner aspect for
instance can be realised by ensuring that the learner’s needs are taken account.

13
Whereas, the social aspect can be realised by ensuring that the learners can
exchange information and collaborate. The device aspect should take into account
when planning the mobile applications as well as when planning the mobile
learning activities.

4 The current mobile learning research

As described, the mobile learning has had very diverse theoretical and pedagogical
approaches. Because of this mobile learning projects have illustrated learning
across different educational contexts (schools, universities, museums, informal
learning, professional development and workplace settings), with diverse target
groups (including children, adult learners, and professionals) [36]. Next sections
will summarize what kind of methods, contexts and target groups there have been
in the current research and what countries have been most active in mobile
learning research.

4.1 The research topics

Petrova and Li [37] analysed 333 articles and identified three main research
domains: 1) technology, 2) educational theory, and 3) pedagogy. Also domain
generalist was included. Their result indicated that there was a shift from focus on
technology to focus on theory in 2006 and 2007 [37].
Because of different theories and perspectives also the research topics vary.
Cheung and Hew [38] found four main research topics that were: 1) usage profile,
2) viability as an assessment tool, 3) learning outcomes and 4) attitudes.
Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that 58% of 164 studies took
evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning as the primary research purpose and the
second-most frequently-cited research purpose was mobile learning system design
(32%). These research purposes were followed by investigating the affective domain
during mobile learning (5%) and evaluating the influence of learner characteristics in the
mobile learning process (5%).
In other words, the mobile learning research has so far focused on user
acceptance and attitudes, personalization, the effectiveness of mobile learning and
the design principles and recommendations. However, the research in the field of
mobile learning should offer explicit proof of educational outcomes and impacts.
Educational outcomes and impacts cannot be assessed before the use of mobile
devices in education is in stable form. Consequently, one major challenge is that
the mobile learning solutions have not deeply-rooted to educational contexts or to
practices. There should be cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework and a
set of best practices. Without these it simply takes too much teachers' time and

14
energy to interweave all crucial aspects together. Teachers alone will be unlikely to
bring the width of implementation needed.

4.2 Types of research methods

Cheung and Hew [38] have summarised types of research methods and data
collection methods in their literature review. The various research methods that
Cheung and Hew [38] found include descriptive research, true experiment, experiment,
quasi-experiment, ex-post facto, single-subject, design-based research, and mixed method.
Their results showed that the most common type of research method was
descriptive research (65.9%), followed by experiment (11.4%), mixed-method
(6.8%), quasi-experiment (4.5%), true experiment (4.5%), ex-post facto (2.3%), single
subject design (2.3%), and design-based research (2.3%) [37].
Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that for evaluating the effects of
mobile learning the researchers primarily relied on surveys followed by experimental
research methods and descriptive methods. As for evaluating the influence of learner
characteristics in the mobile learning process the experimental research methods were
used most often, followed by surveys, descriptive methods and observation. For
investigating the affective domain during mobile learning only two methodologies
were used: surveys and interviews. As for designing a mobile system for learning
surveys were the most commonly used methodology, followed by experimental
research methods, descriptive methods, case studies and observation. [39]
The most common type of research method evidently seems to be descriptive
research methods, followed by experimental research methods, design and
evaluation-based research methods, and case study.
The data collection methods that Cheung and Hew [38] found include tests,
quizzes, questionnaires, interviews, discussions, observations, and content analysis. Their
result showed that the most common of all data collection methods used previous
studies was questionnaire (31.4%), followed by test or quiz items (22.5%), content
analysis (20.6%), interview or focus group (18.6%), and observation (6.9%) [38].
The most common method evidently seems to be questionnaires, followed by
content analysis, interviews and observations. Also literature review is very
commonly used method. These methods also could be mixed together to get richer
and more exact or objective view about the subject.
Based on my findings I argue that the lack of cohesive theoretical mobile
learning framework and mobile learning standards have led to a situation in which
mobile learning research and pilots are characterised by short-term, small-scale
studies focusing on either user acceptance or attitudes measured with
questionnaires. Very often the learning outcomes are reported to be positive
without sufficient evidence.

15
4.3 The research samples and learning domains
Hwang and Tsai [42] reviewed 154 journals from 2001 to 2010 and identified the
research samples and learning domains. The research samples were identified and
they were elementary school, junior and senior high school, higher education, teachers,
working adults and non-specified. They found that from 2001 to 2010 the most
selected research sample was higher education followed by elementary school
students and high school students. Only a few studies selected teachers and
working adults as the research sample. [42]
Wu et al. [39] found in their review that mobile learning is most frequently used
by higher education students (51.98%), followed by elementary school students
(17.51%), adult learners (12.43%), secondary (post-secondary) school students
(8.47%) and disabled students (0.56%).
The most common research sample evidently seems to be higher education
followed by elementary school students, and teachers. Only a few studies select
working adults as the research sample. There are also such research samples as
migrant/rural children and experienced mobile device users.
Learning domains that Hwang and Tsai [42] categorized into subcategories were
science (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology, medical and sport science),
mathematics, language & art, social science, engineering (including computers), others
and non-specified. They found that most studies did not involve any learning
domain; instead, they mainly focused on the investigation of motivations,
perceptions and attitudes of students toward mobile and ubiquitous learning. So
the most common subcategory was non-specified followed by engineering,
language and art and science. Hwang and Tsai [39] also noticed that studies on the
learning domains of engineering, arts and language, science and social science
significantly increased in years 2005—2010. But at the same time they also pointed
out that the ratios for mathematics and other learning domains were relatively low.
[42]
Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that studies on mobile learning in
educational contexts most frequently focus on use in supporting professional
subjects and applied sciences (29%), followed by humanities (20%), and formal
sciences (16%). Wu et al. [39] also noticed that mobile learning was widely used in
courses related to environmental studies, forestry and health sciences, but less in
other courses such as statistics or law. They also suggested that mobile learning
can be applied to any course or subject matter. [39]
On the whole it seems that most studies do not involve any learning domain so
the most common subcategory is non-specified followed by engineering, science
and social science. Based on my findings I argue that the mobile learning practices

16
can best support cross-curricular longer-term projects in which the mobile
technology is enhancing, for example, observation and data collection processes.

4.4 The contributing countries

Hwang and Tsai [42] investigated the major contributing countries of mobile and
ubiquitous articles. They found that the major contributing countries (years 2006 to
2010 and 154 publications total) were:
 Taiwan (51 publications),
 UK (16 publications),
 USA (12 publications),
 Singapore (5 publications),
 Netherlands (4 publications),
 China, Chile, Ireland, Japan (3 publications),
 Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey (2 publications),
 China, Chile, Ireland, Japan (3 publications),
 Brazil, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain
(1 publications).
In my review I found that the major contributing countries (years 2007 to 2011
and 33 publications total) were:
 Taiwan (7 publications),
 China, USA (4 publications),
 UK (3 publications),
 Australia, Singapore (2 publications),
 Chile, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan,
Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain (1 publications).
Evidently more and more countries have contributed to the mobile and
ubiquitous learning studies in the past years. Especially in Asia there is
considerable interest in mobile and ubiquitous learning.
The mobile learning infrastructure varies across the world. Some of the
countries are very well developed and ICT (information and communication
technologies) are extensively integrated into schools but at the same time there are
also countries where the development is in its infancy and even in some developed

17
countries there could be so called geographic digital divides. In the next sections
the state of the mobile learning across world is summarised.
Mobile learning in Europe
In Europe mobile learning began in 1980s when hand-held devices were first tested
in a few schools [43]. In broader perspective mobile learning arose in the mid-1990s
with research projects that exploit a new generation of pen tablet and PDA devices
for learning [36].
There have been several European projects (e.g., HandLeR, MOBILearn, M-
Learning) that have shaped developments in mobile learning. Also the national
and European policy has shaped and formed the impact of mobile learning in
Europe. For example, The European commission has funded many mobile learning
projects. [36] Also some individual countries have funded mobile learning projects
as part of their national education agendas (e.g., The United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and Denmark) and also several local or private-funded mobile
learning projects that have not anchored to government plans or educational
programs have been implemented. [44]
Even though there have been carried out many research and development
projects regarding the use of mobile technology in education the practice of using
mobile devices for education is still emergent, and the concept of mobile learning
has not yet reached the policy level. Most of the pilot projects are typically
conducted on a small scale and driven by enthusiastic teachers. [44]
In Europe mobile technologies have been used to support learning across
various context with diverse target groups. Many of the European projects involve
elements of inquiry-based and problem-based learning. [36] Many of the research
projects are, for example, demonstrating how mobile technologies can used to
support interdisciplinary, student-centred, interactive and inquire-based learning
activities [44]. Also the learner collaboration is seen important aspect and the
mobile devices are seen as tools to support collaborative and conversational
learning outside the classroom. [36]
There are also some examples of seamless learning spaces. Seamless learning
implies learning spaces where students can learn whenever they are curious and
spaces where they can switch easily and quickly from one scenario to another (e.g.,
learning individually, learning with another student, learning with a small group
or a large online community, face-to-face interaction or different modes of
interaction, learning at a places such as classrooms, outdoors, parks and museums).
[43]
In many cases there have been blended technologies and educational
approaches to support the design of learning experiences that cross spatial,

18
temporal and conceptual boundaries, and interweave with the learner’s everyday
life and into her web of personal knowledge, interests and learning needs [36]. The
most effective European projects and programs have blended mobile devices with
fixed technologies such as desktop computers. This blended approach has made
learning more accessible and flexible. [44]
Unfortunately many governments, policy-makers, parents and teachers treat
mobile technologies as disruptive devices and are worried about inappropriate
behaviours like cheating and cyber-bullying. Many countries (e.g., France) have
banned or restricted mobile device use in school. [44]
Mobile learning in Asia
Mobile learning in Asia is still relatively new phenomenon. This is because the
countries vary greatly in terms of their technological and social infrastructure,
economic development, educational contexts and the degree of ICT
implementation and integration. Nevertheless, there has been remarkable progress
in ICT development in the Asia in the last decade. [45]
In his literature review So [45] argued that despite the tremendous diversity
Asian countries tend to fall into one of three main categories in terms of their
engagement with mobile learning:
 Category 1: Countries with a mature mobile market, high penetration of
mobile phones and strong ICT infrastructure (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore and
South Korea). Mobile learning is included under the broad context of
national-level ICT policies.
 Category 2: Countries with a growing mobile market, medium to high
penetration of mobile phones and basic ICT infrastructure (e.g., Bangladesh,
India, Pakistan and the Philippines). Mobile phones are used for distance
learning and in informal learning contexts.
 Category 3: Countries with an emerging mobile market, low to medium
penetration of mobile phones and weak or basic ICT infrastructure (e.g.,
Afghanistan and Nepal). Mobile learning activities are scarce.
Only very few policies (regional, national or local) speak directly to mobile
learning. In most cases mobile learning is buried inside broader ICT or digital
learning policy documents [45].
Because the mobile learning in Asia is still relatively new phenomenon most of
the mobile learning initiatives are small-scale and ad hoc. Some academic
researchers and small groups of teachers have launched disparate projects to
explore how mobile devices might be used to improve teaching and learning. [45]

19
 One of the key characteristics of mobile learning in Asia is the ability to make
learning more accessible for people living in rural areas and to people who are less
reachable through other types of technologies. Especially literacy education and
distance education are supported by mobile phones. [45]
Another key characteristic is a pedagogical shift toward self-directed learning.
Mobile devices have been identified as tools for facilitating self-directed learning
and linking formal and informal learning spaces. [45]
The third significant characteristic is the movement toward designing future
learning environments. This focus seems to be in more developed countries on
designing technology-enhanced learning environments that meet the demands of
twenty-first century learners. [45]
Unfortunately the use of mobile technologies for educational purpose remains a
controversial issue in many Asian countries. The mobile phone use in schools has
raised some concerns about mobile technologies as distracting, addicting and
harmful. [45]
In my literature review I found that despite the controversial issues there is
considerable interest in mobile learning in Asia.
Mobile learning in Latin America
Latin America is a heterogeneous region and it faces several significant educational
challenges (e.g., drop-out rates, illiteracy, access to education, education quality).
Also the technological infrastructure can vary significantly. Some higher-income
countries have more advanced infrastructures, while lower-income countries are
still in the initial stages of infrastructure development. [46]
Because of the difference in technological and social infrastructure, economic
development, educational contexts and the degree of ICT implementation and
integration the mobile learning initiatives are still in the early stages of
development. Also at the policy level mobile learning is still in its infancy. The ICT
policies tend to focus more on computer-based programmes and most of the
mobile learning programmes are pilot projects, driven by non-profit organizations
or universities targeting small groups and focusing on particular of local needs.
Nevertheless, Educators and policy-makers have shown some interest in exploring
how mobile technologies can be used to address educational issues such as literacy,
educational access and retention. [46]
Because of the heterogeneous, essential elements, such as situation specificity,
cultural sensitivity, practical usability, theoretical applicability, economical
scalability, and viable sustainability and learning needs must be taken account to
develop a usable and effective personal mobile learning model [47].

20
 One of the biggest obstacles of mobile learning is the existence of regulations
restricting the use of mobile phones in the classroom. Mobile devices are viewed as
fundamentally disruptive to teaching and learning. [46]
Mobile learning in N orth America
The role of national government in education varies between the United States and
Canada. Canada does not have a national ministry of education and the federal
government does not play a significant role in determining education policy. All
thirteen Canadian provinces and territories belong to the CMEC (the Council of
Ministers of Education, Canada) that provides education leadership at the national
level. In the USA, the Department of Education enacts federal education laws,
provides guidance and establishes program requirements. The US states and
Canadian provinces hold the primary responsibility for education in their
countries. States and provinces have a role in setting guidelines and policies and
issuing recommendations related to education. [48]
Many educators have recognized the potential of mobile learning and with the
increase of online and blended learning also mobile devices are becoming more
common in education. Mobile learning typically only appears in the larger context
of education technology and access and mobile learning programs are often part of
larger school reform efforts. Many mobile learning efforts tend to be school- or
district-led. The United States government, however, has initiated several national
programs that support and promote mobile learning. Also several state and
provincial programs exist. [48]
The mobile technologies are seen as tools to provide opportunities for
personalized instructional strategies that best meets the need of individual
students. The mobile technologies are also seen as tools to personalize professional
learning. [48]
Augmented reality is seen one of the key characteristics of mobile learning.
Augmented reality applications use mobile devices built-in camera, GPS and
compass features to gather information about the learner’s surrounding and then
project additional information. Augmented realities in an educational context can
increase student engagement and facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills in
real-life situations. [48]
The biggest barrier to mobile learning is the way people feel about mobile
phones in education. Many policy-makers, parents and educators worry about the
possible negative effects (a small screen, distraction, cheating, cyber-bullying). Also
some national laws and policies are unclear, outdated or overly restrictive in
regards to mobile technologies and may limit the possibilities for mobile learning
in schools. [48]

21
Mobile learning in Africa and the Middle East
The African and Middle East region covers a diverse range of communities,
cultures, languages, histories and education systems and it has faced endemic
crises. Over the past two decades several initiatives have tried to address ways in
which ICT can play an enabling and systemic role in education. There has been
much attention especially to the potential of mobile learning to improve teaching,
learning and institutional efficiencies. [49]
In the African and Middle East region, mobile learning projects have emerged in
a number of sectors and fields (e.g., health care sector, banking sector, agricultural
sector, food security sector, and media sector) and all education levels and settings.
Many of the mobile learning projects start out as pilots. Mobile learning is still a
relatively new phenomenon and because of this many projects are explorative or
experimental in their intent and design. The majority of the projects are initiated by
individuals or organizations backed by private corporations or donor agencies.
Only a few pilot projects have adopted an evolutionary design strategy that
enables the project to expand over time. [49]
Most of the projects are small-scale projects and they mostly used text-based
communication (e.g., SMS). Majority of the projects are situated in urban
environments. Even though there are growing number of mobile learning projects
in the African and Middle East region the formal integration of mobile learning in
education systems is very much in its infancy. [49]
Mobile learning initiatives in African and Middle East have demonstrated how
to support education for all goals by mobile learning. Unfortunately many
institutions have banned the use of mobile phones because of the concerns about
the disruptive nature of mobile phones. [49]

5 Mobile technologies and their uses in education

Mobile technology consists of mobile IT devices and variety of communication
technologies [2]. As described in introduction part there is variety of different
mobile IT devices. Also the applications of mobile learning can vary greatly
according to the needs of the learners’ or organisations’. One of the biggest
challenges is the rapid development of technologies. The development of the m-
learning clearly is balancing between student and organisational needs and the
rapid technological changes [2].
Pollara and Broussard [50] studied and summarized 18 key studies published
from 2005-2010. They found that the most common m-learning technology tool
tested was the mobile phone and PDA (n=14). Two studies also used an mp3
player.

22
 Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that mobile phones are most
commonly used for mobile learning (36.55%), followed by PDAs (30.96%), laptop
computers (9.14%), iPods (4.06%), mp3/mp4 players (2.54%), podcasts (2.04%), and
cameras (1.52%). Wu et al. [39] also found that in formal education contexts, higher
education institutions favored mobile phones (34 studies), followed by PDAs (30)
and laptops (7). PDAs were more commonly used in elementary schools (18
studies). Wu et al. [38] also noticed that in non-formal education contexts, mobile
phones were still predominant (5 studies) and similarly, mobile phones were used
in informal education (6 studies). Wu et al. [39] also found that other devices and
mobile services (e.g., mp3/mp4 players, iPods, cameras, podcasts, GPS devices, and
satellite TV), are applied in all three educational contexts but with very low
frequencies.
In my review I found that the most common tool tested was PDA (n=12)
followed by mobile phone (n=9), laptop (n=3), smart phone (n=2), cameras (n=2),
mp3 player (n=1), and e-book (n=1). I also noticed that mobile phones were most
tested tools in such studies that focused on rural or remote places.
Klopfer et al. [51] enumerated the core features of the ubiquitous portable
devices (such as PDAs). According to Klopfer et al. [51] core features are:
 portability, can take the computer to different sites and move around within
a site;
 social interactivity, can exchange data and collaborate with other people face
to face;
 context sensitivity, can gather data unique to the current location,
environment, and time, including both real and simulated data;
 connectivity, can connect handhelds to data collection devices, other
handhelds, and to a common network that creates a true shared environment;
 individuality, can provide unique scaffolding that is customized to the
individual's path of investigation.

Also Sharples [52] represented core characteristics for mobile technologies to

support contextual life-long learning. According to Sharples [48] technologies
should be:
 highly portable, so that they can be available wherever the user need to learn;
 individual, adapting to the learner's abilities, knowledge and learning styles
and designed to support personal learning;

23
  unobtrusive, so that the learner can capture situations and retrieve
knowledge without the technology obtruding on the situation;
 available anywhere, to enable communication with teachers, experts and
peers;
 adaptable to the learner's evolving skills and knowledge;
 persistent, to manage learning throughout a lifetime, so that the learner's
personal accumulation of resources and knowledge will be immediately
accessible despite changes in technology;
 useful, suited to everyday needs for communication, reference, work and
learning;
 intuitive to use by people with no previous experience of the technology.
Some of these requirements can of course be satisfied by traditional tools and
methods but new technologies can supplement traditional tools and methods by
offering learners the opportunity to manage their learning over long periods of
time, to engage in worldwide collaboration, and to relate near-unlimited
information to situated problems [52].
Device that truly supports mobile learning have to be 'hand-held' and also
'hand-operated'. DeGani et al. [53] mapped device types against definition of
mobile learning. Devices that need to be carried (e.g., netbooks) or require
preparation (e.g., cameras) break the concept of learning as a spontaneous
everyday activity. DeGani et al. [53] reminded that two points are important to
note. The first relates to the rigidity of the definition of mobile learning devices.
Some devices might be closer to the pure definition than others. The second point
has to do with the ways in which the devices are used in. Some tasks with
particular device engage students more in mobile learning than others. [53]
The potential of m-learning is depending on the design and develop of
pedagogically proper opportunities and environments that enhance learning. The
handheld devices by themselves do not guarantee enhanced learning. In other
words the uses of mobile devices considerably depend on pedagogical strategies
and goals, target group, and devices. To support learning, pedagogic, behavioural
and usability elements need to be integrated with technology to create appropriate
educational applications. The intention should not be to make teaching and
learning to be bounded to the mobile devices but to promote more student-centred
learning. The mobile technology should be an enabler to stimulate the
transformation of teaching and learning. [54] At best learning can happen in places
outside of the classroom and learning materials are no longer limited to textbooks
[55].

24
 The applications of mobile learning can vary greatly according to the context,
situations and devices. Cheung and Hew [38] found seven categories of the uses of
handheld devices. The seven categories included: 1) multimedia access tool (to
access multimedia resources), 2) communication tool, 3) capture tool (to capture
data and media or to co-create content in situ), 4) representational tool (to
demonstrate students' thinking, ideas, experiences and knowledge), 5) analytical
tool (to manipulate data or variables), 6) assessment tool (to answer examination
questions, tests, or quizzes), and 7) managing tool (personal information managers,
for example, calendar, address book, task lists, attendance rates). In my review I
found that mobile devices were used as cognitive tool (to engage and facilitate
student cognitive processes), guiding tool (to assist teachers in-class management or
guide the students’ schoolwork), communication tool (to communicate information
from one person to others), information access tool (to access information resources),
activating tool (to foster students to active learning, for example, to participate),
capture and content creation tool.
Rogers and Price [56] in turn categorized mobile learning activities in terms of
four types: 1) physical exercise game (e.g., Nintendo Wii applications) (games that
incorporates learner into a number of physical activities), 2) participatory
simulations (e.g., Virus game) (sensor-based devices are worn or carried to enact a
complex phenomenon), 3) field trips and visits (visits to museums and other places)
and 4) content creation. Pollara and Broussard [50] identified tasks and found four
different types of tasks. The tasks were 1) facilitating the individualized learning of
content (self-evaluation systems or other tools that helps students to learn different
subjects), 2) group projects/discussion (mobile devices as collaborative learning
tools), 3) assessment, and 4) teacher-directed lecture (for example, podcasts).
Cheung and Hew [38] found that the three most frequent uses of mobile devices
were utilizing the devices as communication (21.8%), multimedia access (20.5%),
and task management (17.9%) tools. Pollara & Broussard [46] found that the mobile
technology was most commonly used for the interaction between student and
content. Interaction between student and instructor and interaction between
students was also supported by mobile technologies.
I found that the mobile devices were used throughout field trips and visits and
some learning activities included games, content creation, reflective journals or
portfolios. Some of the reviewed studies focused mainly on handheld devices and
informal learning (for example, learning to change tire with how-to-do list, data-
collection activities to produce information to bird watch database, reading
postings on forums) (e.g., [33]).
Mobile learning activities can engage in critical thinking skills, inquiry and
problem solving in a meaningful context in and out of classroom. Commonly these

25
activities presume group work, presentations, investigations, discussions or peer
evaluations. Some activities can be multiple choice quizzes, questions as warming
or cooling exercise. Mobile learning activities can also include listening, watching
or reading something with mobile device. Basically one can argue that the
possibilities are nearly boundless.
On the basis of mobile learning uses described in reviewed literature, I created a
list of main uses of m-learning. These uses are:
 access to resources,
 assessment,
 capturing & creating (also co-creating),
 collaboration,
 communication,
 edutainment (entertainment is a part of learning materials and interaction
e.g., games),
 extending learning beyond the classroom,
 management & guiding,
 augmented reality.
I also created a list of things that need to be considered when designing m-
learning tasks. These things are:
 content,
 context,
 device & connectivity,
 pedagogical strategies and goals,
 target group and learners needs.
The key elements for planning the teaching are the curricular goals, the nature
of learning tasks, the teacher’s acts in learning situation, the teacher and student
roles, conceptual knowledge and applied knowledge, the importance of social
context for learning, and evaluation methods. It is also important that learner has
the opportunity to examine subject with several different manner. For example,
real-life situations and problems are usually conceptually rich and they challenge
the learner to examine problem with different angles. Real-life situations can also
insure that learning is constructive and contextual. Learning should also be in

26
some extent collaborative (collaboration either between teacher & students or
students & students). [57]
In other words effective teaching is much more than performing to or
interacting with audience. To support learning, the teacher has to select adequate
objectives, teaching methods, contents, assignments, evaluation methods, formats
of interaction, and to organize learning situations. [58]

5.1 Pedagogical models

Teaching is usually based on practical experience and also theoretical reference
framework or pedagogical model. Pedagogical model can help and direct the
planning of teaching-studying-learning situation and design of teaching materials.
There are numerous pedagogical models with different emphasis that can be used
when designing teaching and learning environments. [59] Next chapter will
introduce some of the models and those models are linked to mobile learning.
Situated learning
Situated learning theory posits that learning and cognition are situated and that
activity and perception are prior to conceptualization. By result of this knowledge
is part of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used. This
is why authentic activities are important for learners. [60] Situated learning
activities promote learning within an authentic context and culture [6].
With mobile technology the learning environment can be extended into
authentic contexts. Mobile devices are available in different contexts and that's
why they are well suited to context-aware applications. [6]
One example of mobile system and situated learning in authentic context
includes the Ambient Wood by Rogers et al. [61]. In their playful learning
experience children explored and reflected upon a physical environment and
biological processes. A variety of devices and multi-modal displays were used to
trigger and present the 'added' digital information. The learning experience was
structured into three distinct stages: 1) exploring and discovering, 2) reporting
back, consolidating and hypothesizing, 3) experimenting and reflecting. The
learning experience was also designed for pairs to collaborate during the
explorations.
Also the problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and context-aware
learning can be considered in relation to the situated learning paradigm [6].
The problem-based learning
The problem-based learning approach considers a whole range of different
learning theories [62]. It is an instructional and learner-centred approach [63].

27
Problem-based learning is also affected by the structural and pedagogical
environment into which it is placed, in terms of discipline or subject, the faculty
and the organization concerned. [62]
In problem-based approach the focus is in organizing the curricular content
around problem scenarios to encourage students to engage themselves in the
learning process [62]. Learners conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and
apply knowledge and skills to develop a solution to a defined problem. Learners
have the responsibility for their own learning and also collaboration is essential.
The role of tutor is a facilitator of learning. [63]
Problem-based learning platform can be built in mobile learning environment
(Fig. 7). For example, Li and Chun [64] designed and built learning platform that is
based on problem-based learning.

Figure 7: Problem-based mobile learning environment [60]

28
 The learning loop (Fig. 7) and student learning process starts by giving students
an inspired question through mobile device. After this students discuss with each
other and follow the instruction to learning spot. In the learning spot, students
observe and collect learning objects in mobile learning environment (QR-codes
with information). System estimates students learning by asking questions. The
system selects and leads students to next suitable learning spot after student
complete learning objective. [64]
The inquiry-based learning
Inquiry-based learning approach is very similar with problem-based learning.
Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered and active learning approach that is
focused on questioning, critical thinking, and problem solving. Activity starts with
a question followed by investigating solutions, creating new knowledge,
discussing discoveries and experiences, and reflecting on new-found knowledge
(Fig. 8). [63]

Figure 8: Inquiry-based learning

29
 The primary difference between problem-based learning and inquiry-based
learning relates to the role of the tutor. In a problem-based approach the tutor
supports the process but does not provide information related to the problem. In
the inquiry-based learning the tutor is both a facilitator of learning and a provider
of information. [63]
Shih et al. [65] used an inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhance the
learning performance of the students. The learning content and activities were
related to the historic site. In the first learning stage, the students were led out on
the fieldtrip to the Peace Temple. Students used the mobile devices to explore the
temple. The pre-designed hints guided them to spots that were related to learning
theme. Students could also gather more information with the PDA. In the second
stage the students participated in the production stage. Students were asked to
synthesize and categorize the data collected in the field and to construct reports to
share with classmates. There were also discussion and feedback that stimulated
higher levels of thinking. In the third learning stage, the students were asked to
give a learning result presentation. Students also created a story based on the field
collections and then designed a new temple using paper crafts. [65]
Also Looi et al. [66] designed their mobilized curriculum to be student centered,
inquiry based and also collaborative in nature. The students started the inquiry
learning by playing a cooperative game. After the game the teacher recapped what
students had learnt. After this students were tasked to conduct an experiment at
home using the smartphone to video record the experiment and to discuss about
experiment in class. After the discussion the students were required to do online
research using their smartphones and to share their findings with classmates.
Students also updated their own KWL (what do I already know? What do I want to
know? What have I learned?), created animations and evaluated another’s work.
The lesson culminated in teach-your-parent activity. Students had to teach their
parents what they had learned and these interactions were recorded and discussed
and reflected with a partner. [66]
The context-aw are learning
Context awareness means gathering information from the environment and to
make available activities and content that are relevant to the environment. Mobile
devices are very well suited to context-aware applications. [6]
Museum and gallery sector has been on the forefront of context-aware mobile
computing by providing additional information based on the visitor's location [6].
For example, in July 2002, Tate Modern, London launched interactive audio-visual
tour of its galleries. The location-sensitive wireless network fed the correct
information to visitors at the right time. Multimedia tour allowed background

30
information in a variety of different media. For example, visitors could see video
and still images, could listen expert talk about details of a work.
Location is the most commonly used variable in context recognition and several
different location detection techniques have been exploited. One of the most
commonly used technologies is the global positioning system (GPS) [67]. For
example, Games Atelier is a learning tool that uses mobile phones, GPS and
Internet to collectively create, play and watch location-based games. The student’s
surroundings are the source of information and the setting for a gaming storyline.
With mobile phones and with GPS it is possibly to make various types of
information, stories and media accessible. Students navigate their surroundings
and look for assignments or game clues. Each game can be watched afterwards, so
students can share and reflect their experiences and learning moments. [68]
The collaborative models
In Collaborative learning the interactions among peers is the most important factor
of learning. But collaboration and group achievement are not necessarily
accomplished by just assigning students to groups and telling them to work
together. The task need to be appropriate to the capabilities of the individual
learners and to the collaboration process and structured so that learners must work
together cooperatively. The teacher has a significant role to play in organizing
fruitful collaboration. [69] In other words collaborative learning activities are such
that promote learning through social interaction [6].
Alvarez et al. [70] implement collaborative learning activities supported by
mobile devices. They used CollPad script originally introduced by Nussbaum et al.
(2009) (Fig. 9). The idea is to encourage social interactions toward constructing
shared understanding of open-ended tasks. Learners are randomly assigned to
small groups. After groups are organized, the teacher delivers the learners an open
ended task. First learners work individually. Then the system shows all group
members a visualization containing their individual answer and group has to
submit in agreement one of the available answers, or choose to write a new answer
collectively. After this teacher can start a whole class discussion. Teacher can pick
random students from each group, who must defend the answer submitted by
their groups verbally. When the whole class agrees on a final response the problem
can be closed. [70]

31
 Figure 9: Phases of the CollPad script [70]

The model of experiential learning

Experiential learning theory is a holistic integrative perspective on learning that
combines experience, perception, cognition and behaviour. The experience plays
central role in the learning process. Experiential learning is the process of creating
knowledge through the transformation of experience. Learning can be conceived as
cycle (Fig. 10) where experience is the basis for observation and reflection.

Figure 10: The experiential learning cycle

32
 Knowledge is continuously derived from and tested out in the experiences.
Learners need four different kinds of abilities - concrete experience abilities,
reflective observation abilities, abstract conceptualization abilities, and active
experimentation abilities.
This is because learners must be able to involve in new experiences and reflect
and observe experiences. Learners must be able to create concepts that integrate
their observations into theories and must be able to use these theories to make
decisions and solve problems. [71]
Chen et al. [72] strengthened experiential learning cycle with the challenge
approach where they start experiential learning cycle with a challenge phase
(Fig. 11).

Figure 11: A Challenge-Experiential cycle on the handheld computer [72]

33
 First the teacher gives an introduction to the problem and students record some
of their prior knowledge through questions like “what I know, what I want to
know, what I learned”. In other words students are given a challenge. In the
experience stage students are equipped with handheld computers to carry out
learning tasks. In the next stage students generate a report on handheld computers
and upload it to a portal. In other words students are reflecting and generalizing
what they have learnt. After this students view the work of other groups and
provide feedback to their peers.
Finally each group of students makes presentation to the class by using their
designed artefacts and represents their ideas. In other words student relate what
they have experienced by making an action plan. Students are also asked how they
would apply what they have learned to similar or different situations.
Know ledge building
Knowledge building refers to the creation and improvement of ideas that are
subject to evaluation, revision and application [73]. In educational context
knowledge building means engaging learners in the full process of knowledge
creation. Knowledge building is clearly a constructive process. [73] Often in
educational contexts knowledge building tends to be related with approaches such
as learning-by-discovery, project-based learning, anchored instruction and
collaborative learning [73].
Seow et al. [74] examined how mobile and web-based technologies can be
utilized to support seamless knowledge building processes. They used web-based
mapping service Google Maps as a typological-topological space and their learning
scenario included six phases from generating initial ideas and guiding queries to
sharing and comparing diverse ideas mapped in Google Maps space. It appeared
that the students socially constructed meaning from places. Students created
locative content using mobile devices, situated in the real environment of the field
trip and were enabled to continue their learning journey and interactions in the
virtual space after the field trip. Seow et al. [74] suggests that with tight coupling of
mobile technologies for pedagogical perspectives, learners can engage in
participatory knowledge building process linking formal and informal learning
experiences.
Game-based learning
Game-based learning is learning through play with games and with simulations.
Games can offer more choice for learners and an enriched learning experience. [75]
Mobile games in educational contexts can combine situated and active learning
with fun [76].

34
 For example, Sánchez and Olivares [77] implemented learning activities based
on mobile games. One game represented the process of biological evolution and
another guided the visit either a zoo or a museum. Classroom intervention was
carried out in two stages (Fig. 12) and students worked in small groups. In first
stage included game-based learning activities out-of-school context and work
activities performed in the classroom. The students presented a product that
summarized what they had learned. Second stage included game-based learning
activities in-school context, and work activities performed in the classroom.
Students worked in research activities that allowed them to systematize,
complement and deepen their learning of contents worked with the game. [77]
Sánchez and Olivares [77] found that this game-based approach had an impact
on collaboration and problem solving skills among the students. Students
expressed that the class was entertaining and exiting.

Figure 12: The stages of the game-based leraning [77]

35
Shih’s mobile learning model
Shih's [78] mobile learning model (Fig. 13) is based on Keller's (1987) ARCS model
of motivational design where the learning cycle includes: attention, relevance,
confidence, and satisfaction. Shih's model was created to support instructional
design for mobile learning and the learning cycle in Shih's model includes: 1)
sending a multimedia message to trigger and to motivate learners, 2) searching
related information from the web, 3) discussing with peers by text, voice, picture,
or video messaging, 4) producing a digital story telling of what they have learnt, 5)
applying what they have learnt in the simulated environment. [79]

Figure 13: Shih's Mobile Learning Model [79]

36
 Background of this model is the philosophy of social constructivism through the
use of collaborative discussion and a learning styles theory based on digital story
telling. Also Vygotsky learning theory is incorporated in Shih's model through
peer learner interactions via mobile communication. [79]
Shih and Mills [79] conducted an experiment of applying Shih's mobile learning
model in a Children's Literature hybrid course in California State University. Shih
and Mills [79] found that this model substantially improved students' overall
online learning experience and helped them to achieve better learning outcomes.
The Conversational Framew ork
Laurillard [80] introduced the conversational framework (Fig. 14). The framework
defines a dialogic process between 'teacher' and 'student' on two levels, the
discursive level (focus is at theory, concepts, description-building) and the
experiential level (focus is at practice, activity, procedure-building) [81].

Figure 14: The Conversational Framework [80]

37
 Each of the activities within the conversational framework motivates to other
activities. In other words framework creates a continual iterative flow of attending,
questioning, adapting, experimenting, analysing, sharing, commenting, reflecting,
and articulating. [81]
Question cycle
Dufrence et al. [82] introduced a question cycle (Fig. 15). This cycle combines
instructor’s questions, co-operative learning and class-wide discussions. Dufrence
et al. [82] used a classroom communication system called Classtalk to facilitate the
presentation of questions, as well as the collection of student answers and the
display of histograms of the answers. Questions and answers led into a class-wide
discussion. The aim was to engage students and to enhance the overall
communication within the classroom. Question cycle is divided into 7 stages: 1)
question generation and selection, 2) sending the question, 3) cooperative group
work, 4) collection of answers, 5) histogram display, 6) class-wide discussion, and 7)
closure. These stages form flexible guidelines rather than an instructional recipe.
The instructor spends time to present information approximately one-third of the
class period and the other two-thirds of the class period is spent to students’ small
group discussion or discussion as a whole class.

Figure 15: Question cycle [82]

38
AEFIRIP model
Silander and Rytkönen [83] developed a pedagogical model called AEFIRIP
(Fig. 16). This model is based on the contemporary learning theories and
pedagogical models like "Progressive Inquiry", "Activating Instruction" and
"Problem Based Learning" but it is focused on the characteristics of mobile learning.
In this model learning is seen as mobile-CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning) that relies on socio-cultural learning theories. [83]

An
authentic
situation

Figure 16: AEFIRIP model [83]

39
 In AEFIRIP model mobile technology is seen not just as a mediator of the
learning activity or collaboration, but also as a trigger and platform that includes
guidance and support. Silander and Rytkönen [83] stresses that the problems being
solved during the mobile learning process should be as authentic as possible. The
steps of AEFIRIP model are described in Table 2.

Table 2: AEFIRIP phases

Phase Description of activity
1. Activation Activating student’s prior knowledge and
cognitive strategies by context

2. Externalization Externalization of student’s prior

knowledge and thinking models. Students
become aware of their prior knowledge by
making it visible and exposing it to
reflection.
3. Focusing Focusing students perception and
cognitive processing in an authentic
learning environment according the
objectives of the learning situation (e.g., by
focusing questions or assignments)
4. Interpretations Explicit interpretations done by student
based on perception and prior
knowledge/cognitive strategies as well as
situational factors.
5. Reflection Reflection of own interpretations and
situational factors.
6. Information processing Information processing consist of sub
learning processes (cognitive processes)
such as problem solving, classification,
comparison, elaboration, etc.

40
Learning the stages or process
Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is learning the stages or
process (Fig. 17). When learning the stages or processes the essential part is to
direct the learners to observe the process and the stages in authentic learning
situations. However, in some circumstances, this can be very difficult. The
recording of the authentic situation with mobile devices (e.g., video, photos, audio)
and the structuring and analysing the stored process/stages can bring a solution to
this problem [84]. The steps of this model are described in Table 3.

Figure 17: Learning the stages / process

41
 Table 3: The phases of the learning the stages / process pedagogical model
Phase
1. Guidance to observation
2. Recording the stages /process with
mobile device
3. Conceptualization of the stages /process
4. Division of the stages /process into steps
5. Reflecting and processing the structured
process
6. Training or imagery-based learning
7. Reflection
42
Description of the phase
Learner's observation in an authentic
environment should be directed to
meaningful targets. This guidance can be
short instruction or observation frame. In
this phase it is also important to give clear
instructions for the next phases.
In this phase the learner records the stages
or process performed by a professional
with mobile device (e.g., video, audio, and
picture) It is important that also the tacit
knowledge emerges.
In this phase the stages / process are
conceptualized. When the process is
conceptualized the learner can develop
deep understanding of the subject. In this
phase it is important that the learner
explains the process with her / his own
words.
In this phase the process is divided into
explicit and meaningful steps and every
step is also named. The result of this stage
is a structured description of the process
(e.g., video, cartoon, text).
In this phase the learner re-examines the
structural description and the original
recording and considers what needs to be
changed or what needs to be added?
In this phase the learner is training the
process by doing herself/himself or by
simulating the mental images. The training
can be the mixture of learning by doing
and imagery-based learning.
After the training it is important to reflect
the performance and the know-how with
relation to process. The reflection supports
the development of thinking skills and
modeling.
Case-based mobile learning
Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is case-based
mobilelearning (Fig. 18). In this model there are several cases to be analysed. From
each case there are specific issues to observe and analyse. Observation is supported
by mobile devices.

Figure 18: Case-based mobile learning

43
 The phases of the case-based mobile learning (Fig. 18) are
1. Authentic learning situation,
2. Recording the cases with mobile devices,
3. Aggregating the cases to shared place,
4. Analysing the cases (e.g., highlighting and inspecting some specific issues),
5. Perspectives, synthesis, similarities, differences and generalities of the
selected issues,
6. The formation of the generalized mental model.
Mobile-spotting
Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is mobile-spotting (Fig. 19).
In this model the aim is to build a learning process where information is searched
in the authentic environments. The information is stored with a mobile device and
then explored, classified and analysed as wholeness.

Figure 19: Mobile-spotting

44
 The phases of mobile-spotting (Fig. 19) are:
1. Observation-orientation, for example, with the instructions,
2. Observation and the recording of the observations,
3. Identification with the help of information resources or identification tools,
4. Adding other information to a recognition (e.g., date, time, location,
circumstances),
5. Producing notations (own observations and notes),
6. Classifying the observation,
7. Saving the observation to the library for further use, analysing the
wholeness.
Reflective problem-solving
Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is reflective problem
solving (Fig. 20). This model is based on self-analysis in the authentic situations.
The process begins with setting the problem and recording the situation. The
analysis is done by "thinking out loud" (annotation) and in conclusion there is
reflection with the mobile learning diary.

Figure 20: Reflective problem-solving

45
Mobile learning example investigating grow th factors
The idea of the task is to blend traditional learning methods with mobile learning.
First the group of students form research question, for example, why does the
lingonberry thrive in dry environment but the blueberry doesn’t (Fig. 21).
After this the group documents some observations in the field (for instance
taking some pictures, doing measurements, etc.). Then the group searches
information to support their findings. When the group thinks that they knew the
solution they start to form questions and tips for other students. Other students try
to find solution to the research question. Finally all the students make some
conclusions together.

Figure 21: Investigating growth factors

46
6 Learning attitudes and achievements
Even though teaching and learning tasks were good enough, without the learner's
contribution hardly anything happens. Learning depends widely on learner’s
activity and this is affected by learner's attitudes and expectations. It is difficult to
describe learning explicitly, because learning is a very complex process. At present,
learning is seen as learner’s activity and knowledge construction so in many cases
the knowledge production is measured somehow. In this section I’m going to
summarize research data about learners’ perceptions and attitudes of mobile
learning and mobile technology’s effects on learning and learning outcomes.
Pollara and Broussard [50] found that overall (in the 18 studies), student
perceptions of mobile learning was positive. In my review I also found that
students held positive attitudes towards the use of mobile devices in the learning
activities (e.g., [72]). Students’ learning attitude was reported to be enthusiastic and
positive (e.g., [30, 31]) and students were remarkably motivated, and clearly
enjoyed using mobile devices (e.g., [41]). Hwang and Chang [85] reported that
learning interest in subject and learning achievement were improved.
Students’ intention to adopt m-learning was reported to be high (e.g., [40]). The
factors that most shown to influence intention to adopt mobile learning were:
perceived usefulness of mobile learning, perceived ease of use of mobile learning,
and learner self-monitoring ability (e.g., [16, 40, 86, 87]). Taking this into account,
mobile learning applications should attract learners and they should be easy to use.
It is also important to encourage learners to enhance self-learning ability.
Also the quality of services, social influence and cultural aspects, have effects on
adopting m-learning (e.g., [16, 86]). Many studies have shown that learners have
very varying needs, goals and expectations of m-learning (e.g., [33, 87]). So to
enhance learning, mobile learning should take into account context and
personalized needs with quality in mind. We cannot forget the social influence
either. Learners can either encourage their peers to use m-learning or go against it.
Also learners’ preconceptions about using PCs can influence use of mobile
devices [12]. The smallness of the device screen can negatively impact on the
acceptance and integration of mobile learning. Churchill and Hedberg [14]
mentioned that learning objects are often simply downloaded from computers to
handheld devices rather than designed to “fit”. Gu et al. [33] emphasized that the
usable mobile learning products must be practical, micro and simple both for
content and activity.
So overall, learners’ attitudes and perceptions about mobile learning were
remarkably positive. Learners were reported to be enthusiastic and that learners
were motivated and enjoyed. But only few studies took into account the “novelty

47
effect” which means that learners and teachers are more likely to use the devices
because the devices are new to them compared to participants who have used
them for a longer period of time and this might introduce a significant bias to the
results [38, 85].
Several studies have reported positive learning outcomes or achievements. Chen
et al. [72] studied understanding of content knowledge with pre-test and post-test,
self-reports and with open-ended questions. Their design-based research used
handheld computers as cognitive tools to facilitate students' inquiry-based learning
on environmental issues. About 480 students from six schools in Singapore
participated in the project, which spanned over two weeks. Chen et al. conducted a
study on 79 primary grade-4 students from one of the participating schools to
evaluate what students had learned and how students had applied their
understandings. Their data showed that the students overall conceptual
understanding increased significantly. [72]
Also Hwang and Chang [85] evaluated the learning effectiveness of the students
with the pre-test and post-test. They used a formative assessment-based approach
for improving the learning achievements of students in mobile learning
environment. An experiment was conducted on a local culture course in southern
Taiwan and the participants were two classes of fifth grade students of an
elementary school. 29 students were assigned to be the experimental group and the
other 32 students was the control group. Actual mobile learning activity was only
120 minutes in length. Their results showed that the average learning achievement
of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group.
[85]
Hwang et al. [41] also used pre-test and post-test. A mobile learning
environment was developed for students to observe the local cultural heritage. The
participants were two classes of sixth grade students of an elementary school in
Taiwan. One class (26 students) was assigned to be experimental group, while
other class (30 students) was the control group. The learning activity was
conducted in the Sheng-Mu temple in Tainan city, and the learning content was the
"local culture" unit of the social science course. Hwang et al. [41] noticed that the
difference in the post-test scores of the students resulted from the different
teaching methods. Results showed that the mean score of the experimental group
was higher than that of the control group, which means that after the experiment,
the learning achievement of the experimental group was significantly higher than
that of the control group. [41]
Looi et al. [30] compared the students' general science final examination scores
after the mobilized lessons. They designed a mobilized primary grade-3 science
curriculum which was enacted in a class in a primary school in Singapore where

48
the students had a total of 21 weeks of the mobilized lessons in science. Looi et al.
[30] results showed that there was significant difference on year-end science exam
scores among classes after controlling the exam score before the introduction of
mobilized lessons constant. The class difference explained 41.1% of the variance in
the year-end exam scores. [30]
Shih et al. [65] analyzed the students' test scores before and after the mobile
learning activity. Shih et al. [65] presented a mobile exploration activity that
guided elementary students to learn during a social science activity with support
from mobile devices. 32 fifth grade students were arranged to carry out
investigations in the Peace Temple of southern Taiwan with the inquiry-based
mobile learning system. Shih et al. [65] found that students made significant
improvement in learning achievement.
Wu and Lai [12] asked instructor about students' performance in the PDA-
enhanced practicum versus the more traditional method. PDAs were loaned to
students for the three-week practicum period. Wu and Lai [12] implemented a
handheld learning environment which was used to support a clinical nursing
practicum course. The clinical practicum setting was a private middle-size mental
hospital located in central Taiwan. Instructor considered that students became
engaged and self-directed in learning, attained better theory knowledge, and had
stronger self-confidence. [12]
Liu et al. [88] studied the effects of mobile natural-science activities on students'
performance of learning aquatic plants. Their study took place in an elementary
school in Taiwan. Liu et al. [88] used the 5E Learning Cycle model combined with
mobile computing. A total of 46 fourth-grade students were considered the case to
be studied and the seven learning activities which each took 160 minutes were
arranged. Students took a knowledge test regarding their knowledge levels of
aquatic plants before and after the mobilized activities. Students also took an
understanding test regarding their understanding levels of aquatic plants before
and after the mobilized activities. Data was collected also from observations,
interviews, and reflective journals. Students' mean scores after learning activities
were significantly higher than students' mean scores before learning activities and
this confirms that students' knowledge of aquatic plants increased. Also students'
understanding of aquatic plants increased after their engagement in the learning
activities. Liu et al. suggested that support of mobile devices might have helped
the students to correct their related misconceptions. [88]
Huizenga et al. [76] studied the effects of a mobile city game. They investigated
pupils’ engagement in the game, historical knowledge, and motivation for History
in general and the topic of the Middle Ages in particular. 458 pupils from 20 classes
from five schools in Amsterdam participated. The pupils in 10 of the classes played

49
the mobile history game whereas the pupils in the other 10 classes received a
regular lesson series. Game involved the entire day whereas regular lessons
involved only two class hours (of fifty minutes each). Motivation was measured
with pre-test and post-test questionnaires. Historical knowledge was measured
using multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. The notes from 110
observation forms were used to detect the engagement. Huizenga et al. [76] found
that technical problems might have negatively influenced the engagement of the
pupils but that overall most of the pupils appeared to like the game and were
engaged by the game. No significant differences were found between playing the
game versus attending regular lessons with respect to motivation for the subject of
history in general or the topic of the Middle Ages in particular. A significant effect
was found for knowledge. The pupils who played the game generally attained
higher scores on the knowledge test than the pupils who received regular
instruction. The results also showed that pupils from the higher levels of education
benefit more from playing the game than pupils from the lower levels and that
those pupils with an initially low History ability benefited more from playing the
game than pupils with higher level of initial History ability. Huizenga et al. [76]
noted that it is not clear which elements of the game contributed to pupil learning.
But Huizenga et al. [76] claimed that mobile games constitute an excellent means to
combine situated, active and constructive learning with fun. [76]
Chen et al. [72] evaluated the effects of mobile technology on an outdoor
experiential learning. Students from two fifth-grade classes (a total of 34 students)
at an elementary school participated in activity (90-minute learning activity). One
class used PDAs and the other class used papers and pencils. Before the field-trip
students were given a pre-test and after the learning activity, students took a post-
test. Also an attitude questionnaire was composed. No significant difference
existed between two groups' pre-test scores but the learning achievement scores of
the with-PDA group were significantly higher than those of the without-PDA
group. The with-PDA group retained and created more knowledge than the
without-PDA group. PDAs and their embedded functions, however, did not
sustain engagement. Chen et al. [72] argued that it seemed that most of the
disadvantages of PDAs in the learning environment stem from their novelty and
unfamiliarity. [72]
Attewell et al. [89] reported that in the MoLeNET programme (UK's largest and
most diverse implementation of mobile learning involving 20000 learners and 4000
staff in 115 colleges and 29 schools) a number of colleges found improvements in
retention rates and improvements in achievement but in some cases researchers
commented that it is difficult to attribute changes to mobile learning as they need

50
to be seen in conjunction with the other strategies for improvement taking place in
academies. [89]
Costabile et al. [90] reported that there were no significant differences between
learning outcomes with the two game conditions paper-based and mobile.
Costabile et al. [90] evaluated Explore! the excursion-game. Their study involved
two second year classes at the Italian middle school. A total of 42 pupils
participated as part of their school-work. Data collection took place at the
archaeological park and followed up session to evaluate learning. 19 students,
divided into 5 groups, played the paper-based version and 23 students, divided
into 6 groups, played the mobile version. The two game conditions gave rise to
different behavioural and social patterns but no significant difference in learning
outcomes of the two game conditions were found. [90]
However, learning is reported to be more constructive, deeper, personal,
interesting, motivating and engaging (e.g., [30, 41, 72]). Mobile learning
applications have the potential for motivating learners to study in different
environments (across formal and informal settings) as their individual
requirements are also taken into consideration. Learners can feel more
personalized and content and learner can learn their own preferred pace and route.
So overall learning can be more learner-centered and learning process can be more
individualized [65, 72].
When we discuss about mobile technologies effects on learning outcomes we
have to remember that one big limitation which also Cheung and Hew [38]
highlighted is the limited duration of studies (ranging from as short as a few hours
to one semester). Also Zhang et al. [54] stated that the longitudinal studies have
been scarce. Future studies should be longitudinal in nature. Doing longitudinal
studies provides opportunity to examine whether perceptions of mobile devices
undergo changes and also to examine if the reported positive impacts on learning
outcomes hold over time [38].
As pointed out with mobile technologies and with coherent mobile curriculum,
learning can be more learner-centred. But how learning changes?
Attewell [91] analyzed the evidence collected during research (a total of 128
learners in the UK, Italy and Sweden) and found that mobile learning may have a
positive contribution to make in the following areas:
 Mobile learning helps learners to improve their literacy and numeracy skills
and to recognize their existing abilities;
 Mobile learning can be used to encourage both independent and
collaborative learning experiences;

51
  Mobile learning helps learners to identify areas where they need assistance
and support;
 Mobile learning helps to combat resistance to the use of ICT and can help
bridge the gap between mobile phone literacy and ICT literacy;
 Mobile learning helps to remove some of the formality from the learning
experience and engages reluctant learners;
 Mobile learning helps learners to remain more focused for longer periods;
 Mobile learning helps to raise self-esteem;
 Mobile learning helps to raise self-confidence.
Attewell [91] suggested by the research evidence that mobile learning can make
a useful contribution to attracting young people to learn, maintain their interest
and support their learning and development.
Attewell et al. [89] identified key benefits of mobile learning from their research
findings. Their identified benefits for learners were ‘engagement/motivation’,
‘competence/achievement’, ‘personalization’, ‘enjoyment/confidence’, ‘mobility,
accessibility, convenience and communication’.
Attewell et al. [89] suggested by their findings that using mobile technologies in
teaching and learning can:
 encourage and support learning at anytime and anywhere (e.g., in college or
school, at home, in the workplace, on field trips, in transit);
 make learning more convenient, accessible, inclusive and sensitive to
learners’ individual needs and circumstances;
 make learning more interesting, more enjoyable and more attractive to
learners;
 encourage different learners to engage in learning and to improve their self-
confidence and self-esteem;
 help to provide differentiated learning activities to suit different learning
styles or preferences and different ability levels;
 support dialogue between teachers and learners;
 improve access to learning resources and guidance for learners;
 encourage and support both independent and collaborative learning;
 support revision;

52
  include formative assessment that is more enjoyable for learners and
facilitate peer assessment and self-assessment;
 improve the speed and quality of feedback to learners during learning;
 improve learners’ concentration, focus and behaviour;
 improve evidence-gathering.
Tuomi et al. [92] studied a mobile social video sharing services' (MoViE’s) use in
part of the 8- and 9-graders biology and cultural geography lessons. 50 students
responded to their survey and almost half of the students (44%) felt that with
mobile videos it was easier to demonstrate learning and outcomes. 21% of students
thought that it was easier to express oneself and know-how with videos than with
text. This supports the idea that mobile learning is suitable for at least some
different types of learners and that mobile learning enables variety of ways to
participate and learn.
In study by Tuomi and Multisilta [93] students justified their positive learning
experiences with convenience of the use of information technology in comparison
reading books. They felt that learning (e.g., exploring new things) was easier with
devices. Positive user experiences created successful learning experiences. But at
the same time technical difficulties and adversity contributed to a desire to learn.
[93]. Also Ching et al. [94] emphasized that poorly designed mobile technologies
can adversely affect usability and distract the user from his/her learning goals. But
overall in study by Tuomi and Multisilta [93] students held positive attitudes and
felt that learning was more pleasant and that mobile technology can bring expected
change in everyday learning.
Zhang et al. [54] noticed that learners had more flexibility in controlling their
own pace and sequence for the task. Students could open files in any order and
freely switch among the different files. They also observed a shift in the classroom
behaviour. Students became more engaged and motivated and they were self-
disciplined and managed to complete their tasks independently. There was an
emergence of participatory culture among the learners and a change towards
collective knowledge construction. [54]
Hwang et al. [41] discovered that mobile devices in the real-world environment
can reduce cognitive load. Chen et al. [72] emphasized that mobile devices allow
learners to construct knowledge and that mobile devices can support self-reflection
and on that account mobile devices can help amplify learners’ thinking. Also
positive shift on collaboration, interaction and problem solving skills has been
reported (e.g., [12, 77]).
Kukulska-Hulme et al. [95] gathered examples of mobile technology use in
relation to life and learning during 2006—2009 in Australia, Hong Kong, Portugal,

53
Sweden and United Kingdom (a total of 270 students, mostly aged 25–44,
completed the questionnaire). Their examples showed that learners are actively
using their mobile devices (cell phones, smart phones, PDAs, mp3 players) to
create, collect and access useful resources, to communicate inventively in a variety
ways with other individuals and communities. Considering the expectations that
educators have of 21st century learners (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, problem
solving, communication, collaboration, media and ICT literacies, initiative and self-
direction, social and cross-cultural skills), personal use of mobile technologies
might support these aspirations. There are indications that mobile devices could be
instrumental in giving learners scope to adopt an active stance in relation to the
process of learning and to develop their initiative, digital competence, knowledge
production and communication. [95]
So overall, learning with mobile technologies can be personalized (e.g., provide
different learning activities suit to different learning styles and preferences and
different ability levels), situated (e.g., learning at anytime and anywhere, a shift
from one-to-one to many-to-many communication, a shift from virtual to physical
environments) and authentic (e.g., learning in informal contexts). Mobile learning
at best can bridge formal and informal learning, make learning more student-
centred and meaningful and encourage creativity and innovation by both learners
and teachers.

7 Challenges
Now we have some evidence that mobile technologies overall can be very effective
tools for learning. But why mobile technologies have not integrated to education?
There are still some challenges that need to be exceeded. In this section I
summarized some main challenges of m-learning.
There are still cultural norms that define mobile devices as primarily
entertainment and lifestyle implementers [94]. Primary and secondary schools in
United States have, for the most part, banned mobile devices from classrooms.
Also United Kingdom banned cell phones in 2008 from primary and secondary
schools [96]. Ford and Leinonen [97] pointed out that there is a lot of “under the
table” use of mobile phones in classrooms and that they can have distracting
influences. Ford and Leinonen [97] also added that the appropriate use of devices
can be encouraged through value based principles. But Ching et al. [94] came to a
conclusion that in some cases it seemed to be easier to ban the cell phones
completely rather than create policies and punishments.
One of the biggest challenges is to understand what content should be delivered
with small devices and how it should be adapted [90]. One great problem is that

54
there is the lack of platform and operating system standardization and that existing
applications tend to employ design and evaluation principles taken from
traditional or e-learning theories. This design approach doesn’t take into account
the distinct aspects of learning through mobile technologies [94]. Mobile learning
has specific characteristics and the potential for mobile technologies rests on the
establishment of principles that highlight and exploit these characteristics [98].
Serrano-Santoyo and Organista-Sandoval [99] stated that it is necessary to continue
developing a solid and cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework. Taking
these facts account it seems that the best practices of using mobile devices in
teaching and learning are still undefined. Traxler [5], however, stressed that theory
of mobile learning may be problematic since mobile learning is inherently a ‘noisy’
phenomenon where context is everything.
Moreover the technological constraints, another major issue are differentiated
access. For example, one student may bring an iPhone with many features whereas
next student may have older cell phone with just calling and text messaging
capabilities and some students may enter with no device at all. The mobile learning
approaches that can accommodate this flexibility will have the best chance of
success [98] One great concern is how we can reduce the digital divide, the gap
between those with access to information technology and those without such
access. In academic context one solution is that academy will buy devices for each
student or participating team. But then teacher has to keep track of the devices. The
use of student owned equipment can remove the security issue for the academics
but then new problems can arose. All students don’t have devices and those who
have, don’t always know what to do with their devices or how to adapt their
personal devices to the educational settings [100] But if we suppose that each
student is equipped with handheld device and know how to use it, in this scenario
it is possible for the teacher to launch ICT-based activity directly in the classroom
or whenever it is necessary and switch from one approach to another without
disruption or that the class needs to transfer into the computer laboratory [101].
Even though there now are new technologies and learning opportunities, the
classroom of today is much like the classroom of 200 years ago [102]. ICT in school
settings has become quite common but in most cases it is more a supplemental
resource that is occasionally exploited than integrated part of learning activities
[101]. Mobile learning has not yet taken an important role in teaching practice. But
in the future, it is expected that learning will move outside the classrooms and
lecture halls into the learners’ environment both real and virtual and then mobile
learning has the potential to enhance learning. Mobile learning experiences are
well suited to supporting active exploratory activities [61]. Such activities can help
learners to learn skills that they will need later in life. So even more learning

55
scenarios with innovative practices should be designed and implemented in
schools than before [103].

8 Conclusions
In this paper, I have reviewed articles to summarize the current research
concerning the mobile learning. There are diverse set of researches and blended
trials and experiments from all over the world. All of them have diverse aims,
pedagogical approaches, different contexts, and diverse target groups.
The most commonly emerged themes seemed to be personalization and context
awareness. The main concern seemed to be learners’ mobile learning needs and
goals and how to adapt these to design. Another concern seemed to be how to
develop pedagogically proper opportunities and environments that enhance
learning. There still is not cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework or set of
best practices of using mobile devices in teaching and learning. Maybe because of
this the use mobile devices in learning have not taken an important role in teaching
practices yet. It simply takes too much teachers’ time and energy to interweave all
crucial aspects together. So teachers alone will be unlikely to bring the width of
implementation needed.
Many studies mainly focused on the investigation of motivations, perceptions
and attitudes of students toward mobile learning. In my review I found that
overall student perception of mobile learning was positive and students’ intention
to adopt m-learning was reported to be high but that the “novelty effect” was not
considered. Pollara and Broussard [50] emphasized that although there are studies
about learners’ motivation and comfortable to use mobile devices as a part of
learning there still is not clear understanding how mobile devices and mobile
applications can increase learners' skills, comprehension, and knowledge [50].
Several studies have reported positive learning outcomes or achievements and
many more mobile learning’s potentials. Overall, mobile technology seems to have
the enormous potential to enhance learning across formal and informal settings,
allowing learners to lead at somehow. Learning at best can be very learner-centred,
especially when we focus more on the learners than the technologies. But when we
discuss about mobile learning research and learning outcomes we have to
remember that several studies have the limited duration and some of them have
used a weak experimental method to examine student learning outcomes. There
should be more rigorous and longer-term evaluations.
It is important to start exploring both how to support learning with mobile
devices and how they can be best used. In other words theories and approaches
should be linked to concrete mobile learning practices. And as So et al. [103]

56
emphasized future research should move the current focus of content delivery-
centred mobile learning to learner-centred participatory mobile learning. And for
this we have to design and implement more learning scenarios with innovative
practices [103].

References
[1] J. Traxler. Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and
Blended Learning. 1(1), 1—12, 2009.
[2] J. Lam, J. Yau and S. Cheung. A review of mobile learning in the mobile age.
In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Hybrid Learning,
2010.
[3] J. Norrena, M. Kankaanranta and M. Nieminen. Kohti innovatiivisia
opetuskäytänteitä. In Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa. University of
Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research and Agora Center,
Jyväskylä, 2011.
[4] M. Sharples, I. Sánchez, M. Milrad and G. Vavoula. Mobile learning: Small
devices, big issues. In Technology enhanced learning: Principles and
products. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
[5] J. Traxler. Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving
finger writes and having writ…. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning. 8(2), 2007.
[6] L. Naismith, P. Lonsdale, G. Vavoula and M. Sharples. Literature Review in
Mobile technologies and learning. NESTA, Bristol, 2004.
[7] M. Kearney, S. Schuck, K. Burden and P. Aubusson. Viewing mobile
learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology.
20, 2012.
[8] J. Roschelle. Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile
devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 19(3), 260—272, 2003.
[9] J. Attewell, C. Savill-Smith, R. Douch and G. Parker. Modernising education
and training: Mobilising technology for learning. LSN, London, 2010.
[10] A. Kukulska-Hulme. Mobile usability in educational context: What have we
learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
8(2), 1—16, 2007.

57
[11] Y. Park. 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. 2011.
[12] C. Wu and C. Lai. Wireless handhelds to support clinical nursing practicum.
Educational Technology & Society. 12(2), 190—204, 2009.
[13] A. Al-Hmouz and A. Freeman. Learning on location: An adaptive mobile
learning content framework. In Technology and Society (ISTAS), 2010 IEEE
International Symposium. 2010.
[14] D. Churchill and J. Hedberg. Learning object design considerations for
small-screen handheld devices. Computers & Education. 50(3), 881—893,
2008.
[15] I. Mierslus-Mazilu. M-learning objects. In Electronics and Information
Engineering (ICEIE), 2010 International Conference. 2010.
[16] Y. Wang, M. Wu and H. Wang. Investigating the determinants and age and
gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology. 40, 92—118, 2009.
[17] K. Hakkarainen, K. Lonka and L. Lipponen. Tutkiva oppiminen: Älykkään
toiminnan rajat ja niiden ylittäminen. WSOY, Porvoo, 1999.
[18] A. Herrington and J. Herrington. Authentic mobile learning in higher
education. In AARE2007 International Educational Research Conference.
2007.
[19] N. Keskín and D. Metcalf. The Current Perspective, Theories and Practices of
Mobile Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 10(2),
202—208, 2011.
[20] L. Naismith and D. Corlett. Reflections on success: A retrospective of the
mLearn conference series 2002-2005. In MLearn 2006: Across Generations
and Cultures. 2006.
[21] D. Frohberg, C. Göth and G. Schwabe. Mobile learning projects – a critical
analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assited Learning. 25(4),
307—331, 2009.
[22] T. Georgiev, E. Gerogieva and A. Smrikarov. M-learning – a new stage of
E.learning. In The International Conference on Computer Systems and
Technologies – CompSysTech. 2004.
[23] J. Traxler. Defining mobile learning. In IADIS International Conference
Mobile Learning. 2005.

58
[24] Y. Laouris and N, Eteokleous. We need and educationally relevant definition
of mobile learning. In the 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning. 2005.
[25] S.J. Geddes. Mobile learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners.
Knowledge Tree e-journal: An E-journal of Flexible Learning in VET. 30(3),
214—218, 2004.
[26] C. O´Malley, G. Vavoula, J. Glew, J. Taylor, M. Sharples and P. Lefrere.
Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment.
MOBIlearn – Pedagogical Methodologies and Paradigms. 4, 2005.
[27] M.L. Koole. A model for framing mobile learning. In Mobile learning:
Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University
Press, Edmonton, 2009.
[28] K. Walker. Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. In big
issues in mobile learning. Kaleidoscope, Nottingham, 2007.
[29] D. Belshaw. JISC mobile and wireless technologies review. JISC e-Learning
Programme, 2011.
[30] C. Looi, B. Zhang, W. Chen, P. Seow, G. Chia and C. Norris. 1:1 mobile
inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of
learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27(3), 269—
287, 2011.
[31] P. Rebaque-Rivas, E. Gil-Rodrígues and I. Manresa-Mallol. Mobile learning
scenarios from a UCD perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and
Services. 2010.
[32] D. Churchilla and J. Hedberg. Learning object design considerations for
small-screen handheld device. Computers & Education. 50(3), 881—893,
2008.
[33] X. Gu, F. Gu and J. Laffey. Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning
on the move. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27(3), 204—215, 2011.
[34] J. Yau and M. Joy. A mobile and context-aware adaptive learning schedule
framework from a usability perspective – A ‘diary: Diary-questionnaire’
study. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education, ICCE. 2009.
[35] T. Magner, H. Soulé and K. Wesolowski. P21 Common Core Toolkit. A
Guide to Aligning the Common Core State Standards with the Framework
for 21st Century Skills. Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011.

59
[36] A. Kukulska-Hulme, M. Sharples, M. Milrad, I. Arnedillo-Sánches and G.
Vavoula. Innovation in Mobile learning: A European Perspective.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning. 1(1), 13—35, 2009.
[37] K. Petrova and C. Li. Focus and Setting in Mobile Learning Research: A
Review of the Literature. Communications of the IBIMA. 10, 219—226, 2009.
[38] W. Cheung and K. Hew. A review of research methodologies used in studios
on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 25(2), 153—183, 2009.
[39] W. Wu, Y. Wu, C. Chen, H. Kao, C. Lin and S. Huang. Review of trends from
mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 59, 817—
827, 2012.
[40] X. Lu and D. Viehland. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile learning.
In ACIS 2008 Proceedings. 2008.
[41] G. Hwang, W. Kuo, P. Wu, Y. Huang and Y. Zhuang. An investigation on
students’ cognitive load and learning achievements for participating in a
local culture mobile learning activity. In Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous
Technologies in Education (WMUTE), 6th IEEE International Conference.
2010.
[42] G. Hwang and C. Tsai. Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A
review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal
of Educational Technology. 42(4), E65—E70, 2011.
[43] A. Kukulska-Hulme, M. Sharples, M. Milrad, I. Arnedillo-Sánchez and G.
Vavoula. The genesis and development of mobile learning in Europe. In
Combining E-learning and M-learning: New applications of blended
educational resources. IGI-Global, 2011.
[44] J. Hýlen. Turning on mobile learning in Europe. Illustrative initiatives and
policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning.
UNESCO, 2012.
[45] H. So. Turning on mobile learning in Asia. Illustrative initiatives and policy
implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO,
2012.
[46] M. Lugo and S. Schurman. Turning on mobile learning in Latin America.
Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper
series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012.

60
[47] P. Kim, T. Miranda and Olaciregui. Pocket school. Exploring mobile
technology as a sustainable literacy education option underserved
indigenous children in Latin America. International Journal of Educational
Development. 28(4), 435—445. 2008.
[48] J. Fritschi and M. Wolf. Turning on mobile learning in North America.
Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper
series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012.
[49] S. Isaacs. Turning on mobile learning in Africa and Middle East. Illustrative
initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile
learning. UNESCO, 2012.
[50] P. Pollara and K. Broussard. Student perceptions of mobile learning: A
review of current research. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference. 2011.
[51] E. Klopfer, K. Squire and H. Jenkins. Environmental detectives: PDAs as a
window into a virtual simulated world. In Wireless and Mobile
Technologies in Education, IEEE International Workshop. 2002.
[52] M. Sharples. The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning.
Computers & education. 34, 177—193, 2000.
[53] A. DeGani, G. Martin and F. Wade. E-learning standards for an m-learning
world. Mobile learning shareable content object. Tribal Education Ltd., 2010.
[54] B. Zhang, C. Looi, P. Seow, G. Chia, L. Wong and W. Chen. Deconstructing
and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized
curriculum. Comput.Educ. 55(4), 1504—1523, 2010.
[55] J. Shih, H. Chu, G. Hwang and K. Kinshuk. An investigation of attitudes of
students and teachers about participating in a context-aware ubiquitous
learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology. 42(3), 373—394,
2011.
[56] Y. Rogers and S. Price. How mobile technologies are changing the way
children learn. In Mobile technology for children; Designing for interaction
and learning. Elsevier Inc., 2009.
[57] J. Enkenberg. Oppimisesat ja opetusmalleista yliopistokoulutuksessa. In
Opettajatiedon kipinöitä. Kirjoituksia pedagogiikasta. Joensuun yliopisto
Savonlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitos, 2000.
[58] Y. Engeström. Perustietoa opetuksesta. Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki,
1984.

61
[59] S. Vahtivuori-Hänninen, T. Karaharju-Suvanto and K. Suomalainen.
Characteristics of pedagogical models in the mobile teaching studying
learning (TSL) environments: Preliminary findings of the I-trace project. In
Pen-based Learning Technologies, International Workshop. 2007.
[60] J. Brown, Acollins and P. Duguid. Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher. 18(1), 32—42, 1989.
[61] Y. Rogers, S. Price, G. Fitzpatrick, R. Fleck, E. Harris, H. Smith, C. Randell, H.
Muller, C. O’Malley D. Stanton, M. Thompson and M. Weal. Ambient Wood:
Designing New Forms of Digital Augmentation for Learning Outdoors. In
IDC ‘04 Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and
children: building a community. 2004.
[62] M. Savin-Baden and C. Howell. Foundations of problem based learning.
MCGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, 2004.
[63] J. Savery. Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions.
Purdue e-Pubs, 2006.
[64] S. Li and K. Chun. Apply problem-based learning in mobile learning
environment. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies. 2011.
[65] J.L. Shih, C. Chuang and G. Hwang. An inquiry-based mobile learning
approach to enhancing social science learning effectiveness. Educational
Technology & Society. 13(4), 50—62, 2010.
[66] C.K. Looi, P. Seow, B. Zhang, H. So, W. Chen and L. Wong. Leveraging
mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda.
British Journal of Educational Technology. 41(2), 154—169, 2010.
[67] J. Häkkilä. Usability with context-aware mobile applications: Case studies
and design guidelines. University of Oulu, 2006.
[68] J. Huizenga, R. Hordijk and A. Lubsen. The world as learning environment:
Playful and creative use of GPS and mobile technology in education. 2008
[69] M. Nussabaum, C. Alvarez, A. Mcfarlane, F. Gomez, S. Claro and D. Radovic.
Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers
& Education. 52(1), 147—153, 2009.
[70] C. Alvarex, R. Alarcon and M. Nussabaum. Implementing collaborative
learning activities in the classroom supported by one-to-one mobile
computing: A design-based process. J.Syst.Softw. 84(11), 1961—1976, 2011.

62
[71] D.A. Kolb. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
[72] W. Chen, N. Tan, C. Looi, B. Zhang and P. Seow. Handheld computers as
cognitive tools: Technology-enhanced environmental learning. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 3(3), 231—252, 2008 .
[73] M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter. Knowledge building environments:
Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In
Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Sage Publications, 2003.
[74] P. Seow, H. So, C. Looi, G, Lim and K. Wong. Leveraging knowledge
building in seamless learning environments. In ICCE 2008 Workshop
Proceedings. 2008.
[75] S. de Freitas. Learning in immersive worls: A review of game-based learning.
JISC e-Learning Programme, 2006.
[76] J. Huizenga, W. Admiraal, S. Akkerman and G. T. Dam. Mobile game-based
learning in secondary education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a
mobile city game. J. Comp. Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332—344, 2009.
[77] J. Sánches and R. Olivares. Problem solving and collaboration using mobile
serious games. Computers & Education. 57(3), 1943—1952, 2011.
[78] Y.E. Shih. Seize teachable and learnable moments; SMSE instructional design
model for mobile learning. In International Association for Development of
the Information Society International Conference Mobile learning. 2005.
[79] Y.E. Shih and D. Mills. Setting the new standard with mobile computing in
online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning. 8(2), 1—16, 2007.
[80] D. Laurillard. Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the
Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, London, 2002.
[81] D. Laurillard. Pedagogical forms for mobile learning. Framing research
questions. In Mobile learning – towards a research agenda. WLE Centre,
London, 2007.
[82] R.J. Dufrence, W. Gerace, W. Leonard, J. Mestre and L. Wenk. Classtalk: A
classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education. 7(2), 3—47, 1996.
[83] P. Silander and A. Rytkönen. An intelligent mobile tutoring tool enaglind
individualisation of students learning processes. In 4th World Conference on
mLearning. 2005.

63
[84] P. Silander. Mobiilioppimisen pedagogiset mallit, 2012.
[85] G. Hwang and H. Chang. A formative assessment-based mobile learning
approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students.
Comput.Educ. 56(4), 1023—1031, 2011.
[86] J. Chong, A.Y. Chong, K. Ooi and B. Lin. An empirical analysis of the
adoption of mlearning in Malaysia. International Journal of Mobile
Communications. 9(1), 1—18, 2011.
[87] A. Xie, Q. Zhu, H. Xia. Investigating college major differences in the need of
mobile phone learning. In Multimedia Technology (ICMT) 2011
International Conference. 2011.
[88] T. Liu, H. Peng, W. Wu and M. Lin. The effects of mobile natural-science
learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Educational
Technology & Society. 12(4), 344—358, 2009.
[89] J. Attewell, C. Savill-Smith and R. Douch. The impact of mobilelearning.
Examining what it means for teaching and learning. Learning and Skills
Development Agency, London, 2009.
[90] M.F. Costabile, A. De Angeli, R. Lanzilotti, C. Ardito, P. Buono and T.
Pederson. Explore! Possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 2008.
[91] J. Attewell. Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-
learning project summary. Learning and Skills Development Agency,
London, 2005.
[92] P. Tuomi, J. Multisilta and L. Niemi. Mobiilivideot oppimisen osana –
kokemuksia MoVie-palvelusta Kasavuoren koulussa. In Opetusteknologia
koulun arjessa. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational
Research and Agora Center, Jyväskylä, 2011.
[93] P. Tuomi and J. Multisilta. Mobiilivideoiden hyöyntäminen peruskoulussa.
In Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa II. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish
Institute for Educational Research and Agora Center, Jyväskylä, 2011.
[94] D. Ching, C. Shuler, A. Lewis and M. Levine. Harnessing the potential of
mobile technologies for children and learning. In Mobile technology for
children: Designing for interaction and Learning. Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers/Elsevier, 2009.

64
[95] A. Kukulska-Hulme, J. Pettit, L. Bradley, A. Carvalho, A. Herrington, D.
Kennedy et. al. An international survey of mature students’ uses of mobile
devices in life and learning. In Proceedings of 8th World Conference on
Mobile and Contextual Learning. 2009.
[96] C. Norris and E. Soloway. A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on
the mobile technology revolution. In Mobile technology for children:
Designing for interaction and learning. Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers/Elsevier, 2009.
[97] M. Ford and T. Leinonen. Mobile tools and services platform for formal and
informal learning. In Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of
education and training. Athabasca University Press, Edmonton, 2009.
[98] C. Shuler. Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote
children’s learning. Unpublished manuscript.
[99] A. Serrano-Santoyo and J. Organista-Sandoval. Challenges and
opportunities to support learning with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the
3rd Mexican Workshop on Human Computer Interaction. 2010.
[100] L.E. Dyson, A. Litchfield, E. Lawrence, R. Raban and P. Leijdekkers.
Advancing the M-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning:
Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 25(2),
250—267, 2009.
[101] F. Pozzi. The impact of m-learning in school contexts: An inclusive
perspective. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Universal
Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Services. 2007.
[102] C. Norris and E. Soloway. A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on
the mobile technology revolution. In Mobile technology for children:
Designing for interaction and learning. Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers/Elsevier, 2009.
[103] H.J. So, I.S. Kim and C.K. Looi. Seamless mobile learning: Possibilities and
challenges arising from the Singapore experience. Educational Technology
International. 9(2), 97—121, 2008.

65