Introduction
The general purpose of the study was to develop the mLearning implementation model for undergraduate English Language learning. The model aimed at proposing a guide on how mLearning could be incorporated and implemented in the formal classroom language learning. mLearning was adopted not only as a complement but to augment formal learning in assisting low proficient students to overcome their language proficiency handicap while satisfying the language course outcomes. This chapter discusses the important relevant concepts and theories of mLearning in its incorporation in formal language learning; theories which define how students learn and achieve their language learning goals through social context, and the theoretical foundation, which serves to scaffold the development of the model. The theories discussed aimed at guiding the selection of appropriate mLearning activities and how the activities could be integrated to be included as elements in the development of the model. Thus, this chapter discusses the following:
1) mLearning in formal education, which provides an overview on how formal learning has been transformed in mobile learning environments, based on past and existing mLearning initiatives and implementation. This is essential to be discussed first to provide an overview of the role of mLearning in transforming the landscape of formal education especially on how feasible or successful mLearning can be in aiding the present generation of students. Coupled with this discussion, the investigation into how widespread mLearning has been implemented in mainstream education especially in developed
countries could further justify the feasibility of the study in employing mLearning in classroom learning. This is followed by the discussion on the concepts and definition of mLearning.
2) Concepts and definition of mLearning discuss how mLearning entails a new paradigm of learning plotting against current teaching and learning practices to provide the foundation of the development of the mLearning implementation model. The discussion could lead to better understanding on how to position mLearning in its incorporation in formal learning. For example, on the basis of the concepts discussed, we would want to know whether in its implementation, mLearning should be taken as wholly substitute of formal learning, or as a supplement to classroom learning, or probably as a tool to enhance formal learning. In other words, how mLearning could redefine not only formal learning but also learning itself.
3) A discussion on theorizing mLearning follows suit to present the underlying principles which serves as a guide on the development of the mLearning implementation model. Next, based on the concept, definition, and theories of mLearning, the chapter presents the theoretical foundation of the study.
(4) The theoretical framework is divided into two main parts: a) Learning theories that proposed the underlying principles and theories on how learners learn through mLearning. Specifically for language learning, theories on language learning were also presented to describe how undergraduate second language learners learn through mLearning and to provide the needs of the elements to be observed in developing the model, and b) Theoretical foundation of mLearning implementation focusing on framing and selecting mLearning activities. This section elaborates on the definition of mLearning activity specifically why it was chosen as the main element for the model. This is followed by the
language activities (both formal language activities and mLearning language activities) for the implementation of mLearning.
5) Finally, based on the above discussions, a conceptual framework for the development of mLearning implementation model for undergraduate English Language Learners is presented in the final part of this chapter.
mLearning in Formal Education
The American K-12 formal school environment is an important reference in the educational technology literature in citing successful implementation of mLearning in mainstream education. K-12 school is a sum on primary and secondary education widely used in the US and the Philippines (Garrison & Anderson, 2000). This section presents a brief reference to American K-12 schools in the adoption of educational technology and the wireless university to explore teaching and learning in the mLearning environment. This serves as a center stage on how mLearning could change the landscape of formal education especially in the impact on learning.
As a brief history background on the employment of mLearning, Lederman (1995) presented an article elaborating on the role and aspect of Local Area Network (LAN) in developing a technology plan for schools in the US. The following year, Rothstein (1996) presented a thesis on architecture models, cost evaluation, and benefits of networking the K-12 schools. Rapidly, in 2000, the US government equipped close to 98 percent of public schools with Internet access with an impressive ratio of 5 to 1 in terms of number of students to instructional computers (Cattagni & Ferris, 2001). In no time, widespread wireless wide area networks began to dominate the K-12 school environment (Nair, 2001). Consequently, in 2002, the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), Washington DC published an online article promoting the feasibility and benefit of mobile
and wireless education in US schools (Nair, 2002). This article reappeared the following year in 2003 coupled with a publication on WLAN guide in K-12 schools by the Consortium for School Networking, Emerging Technologies Committee, Washington DC (Lightbody, 2004).
In the same year, tertiary education institutions in the States began to realize the potential of wireless technology in education and installed the technology around their campuses (Meru Network, 2005). These development results in numerous articles highlighting issues of wireless networking and reports on a growing list of mobile enabled schools (Norris & Soloway, 2008; Pascopella, 2006). One of the issues mentioned was the problem of low bandwidth that resulted in connectivity issue but this issue was quickly brushed off with the entry of 4G Wifi technology in 2009 that greatly supports the continuity of mobile learning environment in both K-12 and higher learning institutions (Meru Network, 2009). Shin, Norris, and Soloway (2007) presented an important and comprehensive review of effectiveness of mLearning in K-12 education. Their findings revealed that besides giving positive impact to students’ motivation and achievement, mobile devices were used effectively in researching, managing, and sharing ideas, capturing and analyzing data, and communication and collaboration as well. In 2007, NCEF published another online article on resource lists in the integration of technology in higher education.
In the European block, Germany began to take pride in the adoption of mLearning with the introduction of WELCOME, a mobile architecture model by Lehner, Nosekabel, and Lehmann (2003). The main contribution of the model was the introduction of future mobile layers into main components. The first component consists of elements of mobile education, such as the students, teaching staff, administration, and education system. The second
and content. The final component was the database layer, which held the main resources for mLearning. The database was further divided into two types of databases, one to store educational content and another stored additional feature, which might be useful to the mobile environment in future. The whole mLearning system facilitated learners in four types of assistance:
1) Connect students with lectures or notes on mobile technologies for knowledge acquisition,
2) Managing students learning process by posting information via Learning Management System (LMS),
3) Provides active communication services synchronously and asynchronously through both pull and push technology to scaffold learning, and
4) Monitoring students’ learning progress that is reliable and cost effective.
In the Asia region, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore took the lead in mLearning initiatives in the formal school environment but unfortunately other neighboring countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines were still left behind in adoption of mLearning (Chan et al., 2006). However, these countries have taken steps in upgrading their wireless technology and the progress has been robust. In Malaysian context, the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) of Malaysia had executed its main national education plan called the National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP). The plan was aimed at developing and transforming the national higher education for the future beginning the year 2007 which reach its maturity targeted goals in 2020 aligned with the national vision 2020 (PSPTN, 2013). The main objective of the plan was to produce high quality human capital and first class intellectuals for the nation in the aspiration of being a developed country by 2020. The plan consisted of four phases, which were Phase 1 (2007 -
2010): Laying the Foundation, Phase 2 (2011 - 2015): Strengthening and Enhancement, Phase 3 (2016 - 2020): Excellence, and Phase 4 (Beyond 2020): Glory and Sustainability. At present, the plan has reached its second stage beginning the year 2011 and ends in 2015. The ministry had developed 23 Critical Agenda Projects (CAPs) containing their respective objectives, indicators, and set target achievements through various activities to ensure smooth implementation of NHESP based on each phases. The activities were collectively executed at all levels of education parties including the ministry, MOHE agencies, and all higher education institutions. In support of the current technology trend, mobile learning (mLearning) has been listed as one of the CAPs project, which was described in the plan as learning through enhanced portable technologies such as mobiles and tablets (PSTPN, 2013).
The present generation of students has engaged themselves with mobile technologies but mostly for edutainment and communication. Mobile devices have apparently becoming an essential part of their lives and have become a trend. Kyriazakos, Soldatos, and Karetsos (2008) stated that with the fourth generation or 4G in wireless technology, mobile technology might overwhelm even developing countries with more and more public demand in affordable devices and connectivity. Soon, with this development, mobile technology will penetrate into the education institutions.
Nevertheless, the US learning institution especially the K-12 schools still sets the best example in excellent mLearning teaching and learning especially considering mLearning is still at its infancy in terms of worldwide acceptance in mainstream education. One of the major contributing factors to the US success in the rapid development of mLearning nationwide is the holistic cooperation among all levels of education stakeholders.
In terms of teaching and learning strategies, research findings revealed that mLearning success thrives on social interactions and collaboration in learners’ learning process (Inkpen, 1999) and promotes active participation of learners, productive negotiation of knowledge and creativity. Past studies strongly indicated that collaborative learning is the main approach in students’ engagement in mLearning (Gay, Rieger, & Bennington, 2002). Zurita and Nussbaum (2004) identified the use of mobile computer devices in effectively support collaborative learning activities. In a more advanced research in collaborative learning, McArdle, Monahan, and Bertolotto (2006) introduced 3D collaborative virtual environment for mLearning. However, virtual learning environment has been in existence in the past. For instance, in 1997, CoVis or Learning through Collaborative Visualization had been introduced to assist in a collaborative initial testing for science education via Internet. In this initiative, teachers and students were provided learner-centered software powered with high performance computing to engage them in project-based collaborative learning (Cerf et al., 1993; Lederberg & Uncapher, 1989). The key advantage of collaborative learning is that it allows the shift of teacher-centered learning to learner- centered learning and in the process promotes decision-making skills, management skills, as well as equal-participation from all students (Ormrod, 2004, p. 45). Uniquely for mLearning differing from other technology based education employment, mobile community collaboration could also result in collaborative new and customized software design rather than relying heavily on reuse available software. This according to Fischer (2002) is the new identity of the 21st century software technology. The examples that we could observe today are the collaborative knowledge construction through ‘Wikis’ and ‘Blogs’ and the mushrooming of mobile applications for mobile devices generated by individuals or groups of novice experts.
In language learning, mobile devices have been discovered to bring impact on both content delivery and collaborative learning (Godwin-Jones, 2011; Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Although most studies were conducted in higher education (e.g., augmented reality game for undergraduate students learning Spanish), promising results were also identified at K-12 students. For example, one study informed that mLearning could complement formal classroom learning by allowing students to bring the devices home for self-practice (Sandberg, Maris & De Geus, 2011). Another study conducted by Lan, Sung, and Chang, 2007) employed strategies that use mobile devices to implement collaborative reading activities at the elementary level.
Besides the academic aspect, a number of studies revealed that mobile devices could also improve student’s behavior. For instance, past studies indicated that classes that allow mobile devices to be used in the classroom experience increase in students’ attendance, motivation, higher commitment in completing learning tasks as well as decrease in behavioral problems (Swan, Van’t Hooft, Kratcoski, & Unger, 2005; Pollara & Broussard, 2011). Upon investigation into the potential of technology in education, Tinker (2009) stated that information technologies not only provide new type of resources and approaches in teaching and learning. The adoption of technology has also resulted in new level of knowledge and skills among students. His findings verified that middle school students were able to conduct a quantitative forecast on world population using multiple feeds of assumptions; while elementary school students could comprehend the basic calculus concept using a mobile sensor equipped with a computer program that could plot a real-time graph of the students’ motion and velocity.
In short, this section discusses the impact of mLearning adoption in mainstream education and resulting in change of teaching and learning approaches. As exemplified by
education has gone through a new paradigm shift especially in students’ learning autonomy and environment. While issues of mLearning adoption in schools are still being debated especially in developing countries, the US has made a new leap in learning innovation. The role of teachers have shifted from merely teaching to making new discovery in teaching approaches in collaborative designing of new learning experiences with the students to be applied in the fields of mathematics, science, language learning and other fields. The notion of student-centered learning has never become more realistic where students are given the liberty to personalize and manage their own learning at their own time and space. However, being in its infancy stage, although mLearning has transformed the teaching and learning strategies in formal education, the adoption has done little to change the curriculum system and content. Nevertheless, the future and potential of mLearning is very promising and its direction for global acceptance is only forward.
Concept and Definition of mLearning
Concept of mLearning
In his study of mLearning in Africa, Brown (2005) suggested a model for mLearning (shown in Figure 2.1) which offers discussion in the concept of mLearning. Based on the model, mLearning could qualify to be a subset of distance learning in the context of learning beyond the realm of formal traditional classroom learning. In terms of technology accessibility, distance learning could be divided into two main types:
a) Non- electronic distance learning (mail correspondence through postal service) or paper- based distance learning as termed by Brown (2005), and
b) Electronic distance learning aided by technology devices (computers, pc tablets, electronic kiosks, palmtop, PDA, mobile phones, smartphones, MP3/MP4 player, and game
stations) and supported by electronic facilities/applications such as the internet, Bluetooth, GPRS etc.
Figure 2.1. mLearning model. Adapted from “Towards a Model for mLearning in Africa,”
by T. H. Brown, 2005, International Journal on E-Learning, 4(3), p. 310.
Thus, mLearning could naturally be divided into two types in terms of technology accessibility:
a) mLearning type 1: the first type dominantly focuses more on the learners of the olden days who traveled from one place to learning and attaining new knowledge with or without a predetermined intention to seek knowledge. This type is a non-formal learner-centered learning that involves the mobility of learners in engaging themselves to learn through people they meet along their journey and through interacting with the environment as they move. Their knowledge is passed on and exchanged with others when they meet with other people and this promotes development of knowledge themselves and to the knowledge itself. Distance Learning Paper-based distance learning e-Learning Online Learning mLearning Flexible learning Face-to-face Learning
According to Tokoro and Steels (2003, p. 20), knowledge is only formed when the sender and the receiver of information share a common context of situation which he termed as “common ground”. He elaborated that knowledge will be formed in oneself when the information received is “grounded” in the common ground. For example, when the sender gives information about a certain place to a receiver, the information will stay as information to the receiver. However, when the receiver goes to the place mentioned by the sender, meaning will be given to the information and the receiver will gain ‘grounded knowledge’ and no longer having mere information (Tokoro & Steels, 2003, p. 20). In other words, in this context, mobile learning is explorative, situative, contextual, and cooperative in nature.
b) mLearning type 2: the second type of mobile learning involves learning aided by mobile electronic technology especially mobile communication devices brought about by broadband technologies in aiding learners who are separated from time and distance to learn. It is important to note that the learners of this type still interact with people and their immediate environment to learn similar to mLearning type 1 but making use of the advantages of computational power of the mobile devices (Goth et al., 2006). The main distinctive feature of mLearning type 2 as compared to mLearning type 1 is the learners, both the sender and the receiver could possibly share a common physical ground in gaining knowledge without being there physically. In other words, they could share grounding wherever they are, using mobile technology advancements developed by broadband technologies. Alternatively, the learners could also share a virtual situation/space that closely resembles reality. Thus, the transformation of information to knowledge will be much easier. Hence, the learners are liberated from time and space constraint to gain knowledge.
mLearning type 2 could also be referred to as electronic mobile learning or e- mLearning to differentiate itself from mLearning type 1. However, e-mLearning should not be confused with mobile e-Learning (also commonly addressed or abbreviated in the literature as mobile learning or mLearning). Mobile e-Learning is e-Learning using mobile computational devices (Quinn, 2000; Trifonova & Ronchetti, 2003), which is also an e- Learning perspective of defining mLearning. This will be elaborated further in this chapter. E-mLearning on the other hand is mLearning mediated by mobile computational devices. In this study, the term mLearning refers to mobile learning type two or electronic mobile learning (e-mLearning).
Perspective and Definition of mLearning
Defining mLearning not only establishes a shared understanding but it could also help to us to observe its evolution and direction (Traxler, 2009). However, the mLearning community of practice has yet to come to a single agreement on the definition of mLearning though mLearning has emerged since the first published studies in 2000 (Sharples, 2000; Traxler, 2009). This was especially due to the dynamic nature of mLearning as a new concept of learning. Early attempts to conceptualize mLearning were techno centric which focused on technology where scholars in this field were referring to online learning to describe mLearning as means of training using mobile devices especially through mobile phones besides PDAs, iPods, digital audio players, and other such devices (Van’t Hooft, 2013; Keskin & Metcalf, 2011). Examples of definitions based on these perspectives are mLearning as learning through mobile devices such as Palms, PDA and mobile phones (Quinn, 2002) or mLearning as any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices (Traxler, 2004). Another
learning involving the use of mobile devices (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005). Definitions that are more recent could be mLearning as any activity that allows individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information, mediated