Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Technology can be integrated to support teaching and learning, but it is difficult to implement in practice for the following reasons: decisions about technology design and curricular roles (Pea 1987; Zbiek et al. 2007), teacher knowledge and attitudes (Graham and Thomas 2000), and institutional constraints (Kaput 1992; Zbiek and Hollebrands 2008). Teachers’ efforts to integrate technology have become further complicated since the release of the National Educational Technology Plan (USDE 2010), due to the availability of mobile learning devices, cloud computing and collaborative learning environments, and game-based learning technologies in K–12 education, as well as technology expectations for students and teachers (Johnson et al. 2011).

Along with a press for technology integration, educators continually struggle to effectively educate all students in an equitable manner. Rather than a deficit rational that attributes academic failure to student background or economic or social circumstances, successful educators engage students using diverse learning strategies that apply innovative digital multimedia, thereby stimulating students to thirst for the twenty-first-century knowledge and skills (Brown 2010; Valencia 1997).

Two recent reports described the shifting trends of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the USA and education’s impact on the economy. The National Science Board (NSB 2014) biennially mandated Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) report provides a quantitative depiction of the America’s science and engineering readiness. Indicators suggest that the US dominance has slipped in the areas of research and development. While the USA is still a leader in STEM-related research, the gap between the USA and the rest of the world has contracted in the last decade. The report concludes that developed countries are no longer the controlling influence of STEM, but developing STEM professionals has become a democratize enterprise in many developed and developing countries. A product of the new STEM democracy is the development of indigenous high-technology capabilities.

In the second report, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 2010), The High Cost of Low Educational Performance, suggests the economic success of a country is less influenced by the quality of the schooling than by the quality of learning outcomes. The US moderate gains in student achievement seen in international surveys such as Program for International Student Assessment can dramatically increase the gross domestic product (Fleischman et al. 2010). A possible influence on student achievement is to utilize the ubiquitousness of mobile devices to prepare students for the STEM focused globalized economy, because the devices are consistently used for the communication and informational needs of students and teachers inside and outside of learning environments.

Mobile learning provides flexibility and a mechanism for students to experience education seamlessly in all learning environments (Ash 2009; Johnson et al. 2011; Manzo 2009; Shuler 2009; Shuler et al. 2013). Some school systems are using mobile technology as a way for students to connect to the outside world (Ash 2009). Mobile learning devices (MLDs) are relatively affordable and accessible and often reinforce difficult learning concepts and a mechanism for collaboration outside regular school hours (Franklin and Peng 2008). Many management skills used by teachers in the classroom are transferable to learning activities on the students’ MLDs and teaching students accountability for what they are learning (Franklin and Peng 2008).

Mobile learning technology levels the learning field, due to the relatively low cost and its access in most households, including those that lack laptop or desktop computers and connection to the Internet. “It is no longer a question whether we should use these devices to support learning, but how and when to use them” (Trotter 2009, p. 1). Zbiek et al. (2007) stated the need to “study and develop characterizations of judicious use of technology [and] identifying promising variables” (p. 1201). Mobile learning applications developed by researchers, educators, and students that utilize mobile learning unique features challenge the education community to reconceptualize their beliefs about the use of this technology in light of the call by several states for a keener “interplay between societal demand and educational response, as well as the implications of advances in learning science and learning technology” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2007, p. 1).

Mobile learning has the potential to motivate student interest in STEM, to enhance student learning in STEM, and to transfer and sustain their interest toward a STEM career (Johnson et al. 2011). Why can the current generation of students sing the technology song so easily after only a short introduction, while their parents and teachers struggle to stay in tune? Considering students’ ability to accommodate to the new technology, it seems logical to ask students what does and does not work in order to find the most effective ways to facilitate learning. Therefore, involving students is an important part of the teaching process (Druin 2002). Student participation in mobile learning needs to be active: using mobile learning inside and outside of classrooms, participating in the design and development of the curriculum-based applications, and sharing their learning experiences locally, nationally, and globally. Success of high school students in twenty-first-century learning environments needs to have a level of technology facilitation success program (Druin 2002). Students need to move beyond the role of user and participate in the analysis and assessment of new technologies; their input will encourage programmatic and technological readjustments in dedicated mobile learning environments.

With the addition of mobile technology as a significant instructional and learning tool, an evolved educational setting consists of three inseparable components: students, teachers, and technology. As Heid and Blume (2008) suggested, technology changes the interaction between teachers and students through well-planned activities. Utilizing appropriate technology is a transformational learning experience for students whose skills are aligned with the twenty-first-century skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2007). By creating a dynamic interaction cycle of exploring, conjecturing, verifying, and generalizing, students will interact in meaningful learning (Chua and Wu 2005). Appropriate use of technology enables students to develop and test their conjectures with immediate feedback.

Fostering students’ critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity across US classrooms was at one time perceived as a luxury promoted by teachers who adopted constructivist pedagogy; however, students’ development of these skills are now perceived as a necessity as they prepare to contribute to a knowledge-based society. Instructional practices that facilitate students’ development of critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity have been connected to high academic achievement, as research suggests that such skills support students’ conceptual understandings of academic content and may increase students’ motivation to learn academic content (Lopez-Morteo and Lopez 2007; Wenglinsky 2005).

The three types of isolated knowledge (technological, content, and pedagogical) develop into an interconnected knowledge: pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) (Koehler and Mishra 2005; Mishra and Koehler 2006; Niess 2005, 2006). The mobile technology roles and responsibilities must be understood by all participants in the learning process to addresses the need to learn how to use these easily accessible technologies judiciously to help teachers develop professionally as they advance in their TPACK. Understanding the important role of technology in education may be a struggle for some educators, but it is imperative that they become competent users of technology if they are going to facilitate the twenty-first-century curriculum. Competency is derived from opportunities to improve education: Encouraging “anywhere, anytime” learning; Reaching underserved children; Improving twenty-first-century social interactions; Fitting with learning environments; and Enabling a personalized learning experience (Shuler 2009).

Shuler (2009) states, “More than half of the world’s population now owns a cell phone and children under 12 constitute one of the fastest growing segments of mobile technology users in the U.S.” (p. 4). In 2013, “78 % of teens now have cell phones, and almost half (47 %) of those own smartphones. That translates into 37 % of all teens who have smartphones, up from just 23 % in 2011” (Madden et al. 2013). The Horizon Report (Johnson et al. 2011) suggests mobile learning is an appropriate and dynamic use of technology that is readily available to most teachers and students (Franklin and Peng 2008; Hooft and Vahey 2007; Traylor 2009; Trotter 2009). The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) advocates innovative design and delivery of instruction, such as mobile technology for students with a variety of learning needs (King-Sears 2009).

Mobile learning provides flexibility and a mechanism for students to experience education seamlessly in most learning environments (Johnson et al. 2011; Shuler 2009). Many school systems are using mobile technology as a way for students to connect to the outside world. Mobile learning devices (MLDs) are relatively affordable and accessible, and often reinforce difficult learning concepts and a mechanism for collaboration outside regular school hours. Many management skills used by teachers in the classroom are transferable to learning activities on the students’ MLDs and teaching students’ accountability for their learning (Franklin and Peng 2008).

Mobile learning technology levels the learning field, due to the relatively low cost and accessibility in most households, including those that lack laptop or desktop computers and connection to the Internet, while bridging the gap between digital natives (students) and digital immigrants (teachers) (Prensky 2012). “It is no longer a question whether we should use these devices to support learning, but how and when to use them” (Trotter 2009, p. 1).

The majority of the studies reported most mobile learning had positive outcomes (Wu et al. 2012; Ke 2009). For example, 33 studies showed positive outcomes, which showed students were more engaged in mobile learning activities and there were improved student achievement, enhanced learning motivation, and benefits from mobile learning. Research outcomes of ten studies illustrated mobile learning had limited effects on student learning. These studies indicated that mobile learning had partial positive influence on student learning but mainly did not affect their learning. One study reported negative outcomes, which presented that mobile learning did not have a great impact on students’ current study.

In this chapter, mobile learning is described through the lens of Kindergarten–Grade 12 education. A sociocultural theoretical approach will be taken to comprehend the social foundations of mobile learning and technology. From theoretical approach, the authors discuss the student centeredness of mobile learning, where students conduct their own learning through their experiences with mobile technology. The final section briefly explores the impacts of mobile technology on teacher education.

2 Social Foundation of Mobile Learning

2.1 Understanding Mobile Technology Through a Sociocultural Theoretical Approach

Advances in modern communications technology have led to developments in the way in which individuals interact with each other and with the technological artifacts. Townsend (2000) suggested and, perhaps more adroitly, predicted that these developments “will undoubtedly lead to fundamental transformations in individuals’ perceptions of self and the world, and consequently the way they collectively construct that world.” Such a position is one shared by other scholars investigating the effects of technological advances on society (Boyd 2009; Wellman 2001).

The unfettered mobility of various devices, afforded them by their wireless connectivity, ensures that distance and/or location is no longer a significant hindrance in the communicative capacity of individuals and communities. A point is supported in the early twentieth century by John Dewey (1916) who suggested that communication is a major driver of the development of community and that “Persons do not become a society by living in physical proximity… A book or a letter may institute a more intimate association between human beings separated thousands of miles from each other than exists between dwellers under the same roof” (p. 4 ).

2.2 Access and Digital Divide

According to Elliot Soloway, in an interview with The Journal (Nagle 2011) , developments in the technology have assured that the costs are declining for access to the basic levels of connectivity and, consequently, mobile technology can offer opportunities to create and share information to those in lower socioeconomic circumstances, where before their status would have limited technological connectivity. Soloway states that “[g]iven the cost of the device, it is very conceivable that every child, rich or poor, can have one 24/7.” Indeed, the key social benefits associated with mobile technology are perhaps best summarized by Klopfer and Squire (2008) who suggest “portability, social interactivity, context, and individuality” (p. 95) as the main affordances. In terms of opportunity to engage, Marsden (2008) highlights the way in which these features address the limitations previously experienced by individuals looking to participate in digital content creation and general digital participation.

The capability for mobile technology to provide the kind of connectivity that has, in the past, been associated with expensive and extensive computer hardware means that, to some degree, the questions of access to the Internet are answered (Mitra 2009). Formerly disconnected communities, those without the cultural or financial capital to purchase or operate a computer, are now able to do just that with mobile technology. Cell phones and tablets not only provide computing functions and the ability to create content, but they provide the significant ability to access the Internet.

2.3 Role of Mobile Technology in Education

One of the main areas in which developments in mobile technology are most keenly felt is in education, a position supported by Rossing et al. (2012) who state that “changes in technology continue to alter possibilities for learning and create new challenges for pedagogy” (p. 1). According to Beetham and Sharpe (2007), many scholars and education professionals are exploring approaches to students becoming more engaged as creators of digital content and other resources. However, despite the acknowledgement of the advantages mentioned above, there is still a need to develop a better understanding of the role of mobile technology within the learning environment.

3 Students’ Aspects in Mobile Learning

3.1 Student-/Learner-Centered Mobile Learning

Although educators widely use the term “mobile learning,” there is no consensus on its definition so the concept of mobile learning is still unclear (Crompton 2013a, b; Traxler 2009). Since 2005, when mobile learning appeared as a recognized term in a Google search (Crompton 2013a), many scholars and practitioners attempted to define mobile learning. In general, mobile learning is characterized as “personal, spontaneous, opportunistic, informal, pervasive, situated, private, context-aware, bite-sized, portable,” (Traxler 2009, p.13) or “the availability of technologies supporting flexible, accessible, personalized education” (Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes 2010, p. 1). Traxler (2011) portrayed mobile learning as a new learning opportunity in five ways: (1) contingent learning, changing experience students have by responding to the environment; (2) situated learning, in which learning occurs in the conditions applicable to the learning; (3) authentic learning, which is connected to immediate learning goals; (4) context-aware learning, in which the environment and history affect learning; and (5) personalized learning, fitting into each peculiar student according to his/her interests and preferences. Mobile learning’s most important characteristic is the student centeredness by enabling students to easily access Internet, search for information (knowledge), communicate/interact/share ideas with others in real time, and individually and collectively do their own work anytime and anywhere.

3.2 Mobile Devices/Applications/Systems Created for Mobile Learning

Mobile devices provide students with learning opportunities to support their individual and/or collective learning needs with limited time and space constraints. It is certain that using mobile technologies for teaching and learning is an irreversible trend in education. The mobile learning trend scholars and educators began noticing changes in student learning behaviors when mobile devices such as PDAs (personal digital assistants) were first introduced as innovative learning tools and started to see adaptation in their learning as newer devices such as cell phones and in a few years smartphones and tablets were more frequently used in learning environments allowing for more student centered learning (Cochrane 2013).

Early results began to appear in empirical studies on mobile learning from 2010 to 2013 in scholarly journals such as Computers and Education, British Journal of Educational Technology, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Educational Technology Research and Development, and Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (see appendix). A majority of these studies focused on usage of the devices, helping industry and educational institutions to better understand what types of devices were being used for learning. Researchers concentrated on creating mobile learning systems/applications to answer specific research questions about the hardware and software. However, this research trend had adapted to school systems permitting students to use their personal mobile devices in classrooms, commonly known as bring your own devices or BYOD. By allowing for BYOD, students were learning from different devices and software, creating innovative research studies where the researchers and educators had less control over the learning tools (variables) and learning contexts (Hwang and Tsai 2011; Shih et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2012).

3.3 The Influence of Mobile Learning on Student Outcomes

Before the move to BYOD environment, a significant portion of studies reported positive outcomes (Chu et al. 2010; Hwang and Tsai 2011). For example, the learning achievement of the 5th grade students using PDAs equipped with two-tier test guiding system was improved when they learned natural science in Taiwan (Chu et al. 2010). This positive outcome was also shown in students with special needs. Fernández-López et al. (2013) created a mobile learning platform called “Picaa” based on iPad and iPod touch for children with special educational needs. The use of Picaa enhanced the development of learning skills and promoted their interests in learning and attention. While some studies reported only mixed results, according to Ozcelik and Acarturk (2011), there was no difference of test scores between the computer science college students using camera-equipped mobile phones and 2D barcode technology and those using the computer screen.

It is difficult to explore learning outcomes in the ways teachers teach students in the context of mobile learning or how students and teachers consider the mobile learning environment. Factors to take under consideration are the roles and behaviors of teachers in this new learning environment. From this perspective, studies with both preservice and in-service teachers need to be conducted in order to encourage their teaching to be associated with the technologically enhanced learning environment .

4 Teacher Education and Mobile Technology

Efforts to support teacher incorporation of mobile technology began with the expansion of student smartphone accessibility in the early part of the twenty-first century (Clough et al. 2007; Merchant 2012). Early scholarship centered on controlling student usage of the new technology with a focus on mobile safety and avoiding instructional distractions (Kolb and Tonner 2012). Early incorporation followed a linear path that mirrors the adoption of other forms of educational technology such as laptop computers and web-based resources (Lever-Duffy and McDonald 2008).

Training teachers to utilize and incorporate mobile learning devices in instruction began in the early years of the twenty-first century. Hill (2003) noted that mobile technology in the K–12 classroom was being tailored to “meet design requirements of users” (p. 71). Within the process of promoting mobile technology, the development of communities of practice to facilitate instruction with mobile technology and articulating expectations and strategies for mobile technology usage among preservice teachers become primary themes. Mandatory in-service teacher training on the use of mobile technology held within individual school districts was found to have mixed results in terms of effectiveness and long-term sustainability (Sharma 2007). While some participants in these training sessions expressed increased interest to utilize mobile technology in their classroom, many expressed resistance to the mandatory nature of implementation (Sharma 2007; Herro et al. 2013). In contrast, the incorporation of mobile technology was found to be immediate when various incentives (stipends, release time, and technological access), within groups of educators forming communities of practice, were utilized (Herro et al. 2013).

At the college/university level, the empowerment of preservice educators to utilize and incorporate mobile technology within their daily instruction continues to be used. Foulger et al. (2013) developed a five-stage process for implementing mobile technology within the K–12 classroom from exploration to full implementation (exploration, planning, isolated use, multiple uses, and full implementation). This five-stage process is also echoed in observations in American primary schools where students from kindergarten to 4th grade utilized mobile technology extensively (Herro et al. 2013). Merchant (2012) echoed many of these findings as he also included an examination of the social impact of the use of mobile technology and the linkage to the role of privilege in schools.

5 Future Directions

Ultimately, when examining mobile learning’s impact, researchers, educators, and administrators must always return to the user, the students who come to school empowered with technological knowledge and the ability to access information. The adults’ role is to support students’ understanding and refinement of the accessible information. Curriculum must be developed that utilizes a twenty-first-century curricular framework (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2007) that involves the consistent use of technology, a “legacy curriculum” skill that teachers need to learn to become successful twenty-first-century educators (Prensky 2008). Technological skills are the nonjudgmental mediator and partner between students and teachers. The nature of an activity utilizing appropriate technology can transform learning from a static exercise into a dynamic fluid learning experience for students whose skills are more aligned with the twenty-first-century skills. Students’ meaningful learning occurs when they are “curious and willing to learn things they consider useful, enjoy solving “real-life” problems, … [and] begin to think critically” (Pennington 2009, p. 3). Learning to solve problems and issues witnessed inside and outside of the classroom is an invaluable skill. Appropriate use of technology enables students to develop and test their conjectures with immediate feedback.

Understanding the interplay of teacher content knowledge and pedagogy from a decidedly instructional technology perspective will enable teacher educators to design effective and ongoing technology-focused professional development. Teachers need content knowledge as well as technological knowledge to be successful in the twenty-first century (ISTE 2014). The roles and responsibilities of educators and students must be understood as we increasingly bring the wireless world into the classroom. Understanding the current role of technology in the learning environment may be a struggle for some educators, but it is imperative if they are going to facilitate the twenty-first-century learning experience.

Scholars and practitioners started to pay attention to the use of mobile devices such as PDAs (personal digital assistants), mobile phones/smartphones, and tablet personal computers as mobile learning (Cochrane 2013). Rather, recent studies show that the meaning of mobile learning is more connected to designing mobile learning systems/applications. At the early stage of the development of mobile technologies, mobile learning studies were conducted in informal educational settings. However, many schools began to permit students to use their own mobile devices (BYOD, bring your own devices) in class, allowing various mobile learning studies for different ages of students and in different subjects to be available in formal educational contexts (Hwang and Tsai 2011; Shih et al. 2011). Concurrently, there was a push to design learning systems/applications specifically for mobile devices (Wu et al. 2012). Regardless of what types of mobile devices were used, researchers put a lot of emphasis to creating mobile learning systems and applications that reflected specific research pursuits. Currently, there is a substantial research focus emphasis among mobile learning researchers on the design of mobile learning systems and applications rather than developing mobile learning hardware for learning environments.

It may be a natural outcome to see positive results because many mobile learning systems/applications were already targeted on improving mobile learning. However, while it is difficult, it is important to explore students’ engagement with mobile devices equipped with mobile learning systems and/or applications or ways teachers teach students in the context of mobile learning or how students and teachers consider the mobile learning environment, therefore, knowing what the roles of teachers and students are and what they are doing or what they can do in a mobile learning environment.

Successful mobile learning experiences allow school districts to utilize mobile learning technology in their schools through professional collaboration. Each participant becomes an integral piece in the network and contributes value to the learning system (Siemens 2005). In contrast to traditional models, mobile learning experiences are as follows: (1) trusts users as codevelopers, (2) harnesses collective intelligence, and (3) controls unique data sources that get richer as more people use them (O’Reilly 2005). Effective mobile learning experiences “level the learning field” by responding to gaps and weaknesses through research-based recommendations. Educators and students can guide local schools to develop a technology plan aligned with the Common Core Curriculum, twenty-first-century learning goals, and acceptable user policy, by addressing pedagogy, technology infrastructure, policy, professional development, community engagement, funding, and organization as necessary components of a sustainable model for supporting future students and educators.

6 Cross-References