Por
Diogo Jos´
e Lopes Ramos
Orientador: Doutor Jos´
e Paulo Barroso de Moura Oliveira
Co-orientador: Doutor Jos´
e Boaventura Ribeiro da Cunha
Disserta¸c˜ao submetida `a
UNIVERSIDADE DE TR ´AS-OS-MONTES E ALTO DOURO para obten¸c˜ao do grau de
MESTRE
em Engenharia Electrot´ecnica e de Computadores, de acordo com o disposto no DR – I s´erie–A, Decreto-Lei n.o 74/2006 de 24 de Mar¸co e no
Regulamento de Estudos P´os-Graduados da UTAD DR, 2.a s´erie – Delibera¸c˜ao n.o 2391/2007
Por
Diogo Jos´
e Lopes Ramos
Orientador: Doutor Jos´
e Paulo Barroso de Moura Oliveira
Co-orientador: Doutor Jos´
e Boaventura Ribeiro da Cunha
Disserta¸c˜ao submetida `a
UNIVERSIDADE DE TR ´AS-OS-MONTES E ALTO DOURO para obten¸c˜ao do grau de
MESTRE
em Engenharia Electrot´ecnica e de Computadores, de acordo com o disposto no DR – I s´erie–A, Decreto-Lei n.o 74/2006 de 24 de Mar¸co e no
Regulamento de Estudos P´os-Graduados da UTAD DR, 2.a s´erie – Delibera¸c˜ao n.o 2391/2007
Doutor Jos´e Paulo Barroso de Moura Oliveira
Professor Associado c/Agrega¸c˜ao do
Departamento de Engenharias - Escola de Ciˆencias e Tecnologia Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Doutor Jos´e Boaventura Ribeiro da Cunha
Professor Associado c/Agrega¸c˜ao do
Departamento de Engenharias - Escola de Ciˆencias e Tecnologia Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro
”Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” Albert Einstein
”Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”
Stephen Hawking
To my family, girlfriend and friends
Os membros do J´uri recomendam `a Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro a aceita¸c˜ao da disserta¸c˜ao intitulada “ App Inventor Android Based M-Learning Tool ” realizada por Diogo Jos´e Lopes Ramos para satisfa¸c˜ao parcial dos requisitos do grau de Mestre.
Outubro 2015
Presidente: Jo˜ao Agostinho Batista de Lacerda Pav˜ao,
Professor Auxiliar e Diretor do Mestrado em Engenharia
Electrot´ecnica e de Computadores do Departamento de Engenharias da Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Vogais do J´uri: Filomena Maria Rocha Menezes Oliveira Soares,
Professora Associada da Universidade do Minho
Jos´e Paulo Barroso de Moura Oliveira,
Professor Associado c/Agrega¸c˜ao do Departamento de Engenharias - Escola de Ciˆencias e Tecnologia da Universidade de
Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Diogo Jos´e Lopes Ramos
Submetido na Universidade de Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro para o preenchimento dos requisitos parciais para obten¸c˜ao do grau de
Mestre em Engenharia Electrot´ecnica e de Computadores
Resumo — Com o constante desenvolvimento da tecnologia m´ovel, o seu uso por estudantes est´a a crescer cada vez mais. Isto levou a cria¸c˜ao de um novo conceito na educa¸c˜ao chamado Mobile Learning. Este novo modelo proporciona ao estudante uma maior flexibilidade no seu processo de aprendizagem, atrav´es do uso de dispositivos m´oveis em contexto educacional. Quem lida com estudantes j´a se apercebeu que estes possuem uma forte liga¸c˜ao com os dispositivos m´oveis. Assim, torna-se necess´ario criar novas formas de explorar este dom´ınio e tornar a sua utiliza¸c˜ao vantajosa para o processo de ensino/aprendizagem,tanto dentro como fora da sala de aula.
O trabalho desenvolvido no ˆambito desta disserta¸c˜ao consiste no desenvolvimento de duas aplica¸c˜oes com o intuito de ajudar professores e estudantes no seu processo educacional. No desenvolvimento destas aplica¸c˜oes a plataforma usada foi o MIT App Inventor 2, um ambiente visual de projeto e programa¸c˜ao baseado em blocos de c´odigo que torna poss´ıvel a cria¸c˜ao de aplica¸c˜oes Android acess´ıvel a uma ampla gama de utilizadores, com ou sem conhecimento de programa¸c˜ao. As aplica¸c˜oes desenvolvidas Teach2Student e Student2Teach destinam-se a ser utilizadas respetivamente por professores e alunos de uma forma articulada.
Palavras Chave: MIT App Inventor 2, Aplica¸c˜oes Android, Arquitetura Android, Aprendizagem m´ovel.
Diogo Jos´e Lopes Ramos
Submitted to the University of Tr´as-os-Montes and Alto Douro in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computers
Abstract — With the constant development of mobile technology, its use is increasing by students. Therefore, it has led to the creation of a new educational paradigm named Mobile Learning. This new parading provides students with flexibility in their learning process, with the use of mobile devices for learning purposes. It is already known that students have a strong connection with their mobile devices. Thus, it is necessary to create new forms to explore this field, and make it an advantageously way to the teaching/learning process, both inside and outside the classroom.
The work developed under the scope of this dissertation consists in the development of two Android applications with the aim of helping teachers and students in their educational process. To develop this applications the platform used was MIT App Inventor 2, which is a visual block-based development environment that makes Android application creation accessible to a wide range of users with or without programming knowledge. The developed applications: Teach2Student and Student2Teach were designed to be used by teachers and students respectively, in an articulated form.
Key Words: MIT App Inventor 2, Android Applications, Android Architecture, Mobile Learning.
I would like to express my thanks to the Professor Jos´e Paulo Barroso de Moura Oliveira, Associated Professor with Habilitation in the Engineering department -Science and technology school, for his motivations, suggestions, advice, innovative ideas and guidance.
To the Professor Jos´e Boaventura Ribeiro da Cunha, Associated Professor with Habilitation in the Engineering department - Science and technology school, joint supervisor of this dissertation, for his comments, advice and guidance.
To the Professor Eduardo Jos´e Solteiro Pires, Associated Professor with Habilitation in the Engineering department - Science and technology school, for his observations, comments, advice and guidance in the execution of this dissertation.
To all my colleagues of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Master’s degree in the University of of Tr´as-os-Montes e Alto Douro, for their friendships, sympathy and the support over my academic career.
To my girlfriend Vˆania, for her patience, tolerance and understanding during the development of the dissertation. Also her parents and brother are also noteworthy, for all the words of encouragement and support.
Finally, thanks to all my family for the support and encouragement throughout the development of this dissertation.
UTAD, Diogo Jos´e Lopes Ramos Vila Real, 4th August 2015
Resumo xi
Abstract xiii
Acknowledgements xv
List of Tables xxi
List of Figures xxiii
Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations xxv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and objectives . . . 2
1.2 Dissertation structure . . . 4
2 Literature review 5 2.1 From Distance Learning to Mobile Learning . . . 6
2.1.1 Mobile Learning definition . . . 11
2.1.2 Mobile Learning phases . . . 13
2.1.3 Mobile technologies for m-Learning . . . 18
2.1.4 Social and educational challenges for m-Learning . . . 20
2.1.5 Advantages and disadvantages of m-Learning . . . 22
2.1.6 Critical success factors and learning incentives in mobile learning 25 2.1.7 Mobile language learning . . . 30
2.2 Web Stages, from Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 . . . 42
2.3 Block programming language . . . 47
2.4 The Android platform . . . 54
2.4.1 Android market position . . . 54
2.4.2 Android architecture . . . 56 2.4.3 Android SDK . . . 59 2.5 Concluding Notes . . . 61 3 App Inventor 63 3.1 App Inventor 2 . . . 65 3.1.1 Designer window . . . 66 3.1.2 Blocks editor . . . 69
3.1.3 Testing the apps . . . 70
3.1.4 App Inventor in education . . . 73
3.2 Concluding notes . . . 75 4 Teach2Student Application 77 4.1 Teach2Student architecture . . . 77 4.2 Teach2Student development . . . 80 4.3 Teach2Student interface . . . 81 4.4 Teach2Student programming . . . 85 4.5 Concluding notes . . . 92 5 Student2Teach application 95 5.1 Student2Teach architecture . . . 95 5.2 Student2Teach development . . . 98 5.3 Student2Teach interface . . . 99 5.4 Student2Teach programming . . . 103 5.5 Concluding notes . . . 107 6 Preliminary Results 109 6.1 Results overview . . . 109 6.2 Concluding remarks . . . 114 7 Conclusion 117 7.1 Future work . . . 119 References 121 xviii
2.1 Terminology comparisons between e- and m-Learning (Sharma and Kitchens, 2004) as adapted by (Laouris and Eteokleous, 2005). . . 8 2.2 Critical success factors in m-Learning adapter from Alrasheedi and
Capretz (2015). . . 27 2.3 Classification of CSF adapted from Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015). . 28 2.4 Meta-analysis of CSF Statistics adapted from Alrasheedi and Capretz
(2015). . . 29 2.5 Mobile devices differences to computers adapted from Stark (2012). . 36 2.6 Key ideas of Web 2.0 adapted from Miranda et al. (2014). . . 44 2.7 Worldwide Smartphone OS Market Share (IDC, 2015). . . 56
2.1 The place of m-Learning as part of e-Learning and d-Learning . . . . 8 2.2 Virtual Learning Environment adapted from Keegan (2002). . . 9 2.3 Wireless Virtual Learning Environment adapted from Keegan (2002). 9 2.4 Evolution of the Web adapted from Miranda et al. (2014). . . 43 2.5 Evolution of the Web adapted from Spivack (2007). . . 47 2.6 Illustration of the different natures of the web and its applications
Wheeler (2011). . . 48 2.7 Scratch interface . . . 50 2.8 ScratchJr interface . . . 50 2.9 Blocky interface . . . 51 2.10 Stencyl interface . . . 52 2.11 Gamefroot interface . . . 53 2.12 Number of global Mobile and Desktop users (Donovan, 2010). . . 55 2.13 Worldwide Smartphone OS Market Share (IDC, 2015). . . 55 2.14 Android architecture adapted from (Ferreira, 2014). . . 57 2.15 Global Android version distribution May 2015 (Ryan, 2015). . . 59 3.1 Designer Window of App Inventor 2. . . 67
3.4 MIT App Inventor 2 Companion main screen. . . 72 3.5 QR code example generated by App Inventor. . . 72 4.1 Teach2Student’s application architecture. . . 78 4.2 Conceptual design of Teach2Student application. . . 79 4.3 Screenshots from T2S’s home screen. . . 82 4.4 Screenshot of T2S’s screen 2. . . 83 4.5 Screenshot of T2S’s screen 3. . . 83 4.6 Screenshot of T2S’s screen 7. . . 84 4.7 Screenshot of T2S’s user register block. . . 86 4.8 Screenshot of T2S’s click after course insertion block. . . 87 4.9 Screenshot of T2S’s choose course button. . . 88 4.10 Screenshot of T2S’s insert post button. . . 88 4.11 Screenshot of T2S’s WebDB call. . . 90 4.12 Screenshot of T2S’s reset questions. . . 92 4.13 Screenshot of T2S’s send info button. . . 93 5.1 Conceptual design of Student2Teach application. . . 97 5.2 Screenshots from ST2’s main screen. . . 100 5.3 Screenshots from ST2’s Course Posts component. . . 101 5.4 Screenshots from ST2’s Course Posts component. . . 102 5.5 Screenshots from ST2’s Course Posts component. . . 103 5.6 Screenshots from ST2’s Select Teacher ListPicker component. . . 104 5.7 Screenshots from ST2’s Post1 button component. . . 105 5.8 Screenshots from ST2’s Quiz Picker component. . . 106 6.1 Survey results for question number one. . . 111 6.2 Survey results for question number three. . . 111 6.3 Survey results for question number nine. . . 113 6.4 Survey results for question number ten. . . 113
abbreviations
Acronyms List
Abbreviation Expansion
ICT Information and Communication Technologies IT Information Technology
TEL Technology Enhanced Learning LMS Learning Management Systems SMS Short Message Service
CSF Critical Success Factors
MALL Mobile Assisted Language Learning CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning GPS Global Position System
PCs Personal Computers
mGBL Mobile Game-Based Learning NFC Near Field Communication RFID Radio Frequency Identification MMS Multimedia Message Service
SIG Mobile Learning Special Interest Group W3C World Wide Web Consortium
RDF Resource Description Framework ART Android Runtime
AOT Ahead-of-Time
API Application Programming Interfaces SDK Android Software Development Kit ADT Android Development Tools
IDE Integrated development environment AI App Inventor
S2T Student2Teach T2S Teach2Student
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
d-Learning Distance Learning
e-Learning Electronic educational technology m-Learning Mobile Learning
QR code Quick Response Code
IAMLearn International Association for Mobile Learning e.g. For example
1
Introduction
The personal computer and the Internet have provided revolutionary ways to connect people. This also led to the creation of learning methods that took advantage of those connections. The first stages of learning without students being in the same classroom as the teacher were described as distance learning (d-Learning) (Keegan, 2002). Thereafter, the rapid growth of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) led to a new learning model designated e-Learning (Electronic educational technology). It allowed to improve the method that was used by distance learning using technological tools.
With mobile application development growing exponentially over the last few years and with new and more powerful smartphones constantly being introduced, as well as a continuous evolving developments of their operating systems, has been leading to an increase in their use by students. This focus on mobile development is also leading to a transition from e-Learning to mobile learning (m-Learning). M-Learning allows students to get more flexibility in their learning process since they can be frequently in motion (Sharples et al., 2005). Currently mobile devices are widely used by students in and outside the classrooms, which indicates that there are possibilities to use those devices to help both teachers and students for learning
purposes. The best way to reach this audience is to develop educational contents to those mobile devices. This can be done for instance, through applications, where the most used operating system is the Android OS. Android is a complete open and free platform that was designed to work with smartphones/tablets with a touch screen. As a developer friendly platform, Android led to the emergence of several visual programming platforms for creating mobile applications, such as: Scratch (Scratch, 2015) , Blocky (Blocky, 2015) or App Inventor (AppInventor, 2015).
App Inventor with its visual, block-based development environment does not require prior programming knowledge and makes the creation of applications accessible to a wide range of audiences. Indeed, App-Inventor allows both teachers and students, without advanced programming skills to develop their Android mobile devices applications in a fast and effective way. Thus, App-Inventor was the chosen developing platform to be used in this dissertation project, consisting in two applications with the aim in helping teachers and students in their educational process with the use of mobile devices.
1.1
Motivation and objectives
As the use of mobile technological tools is increasing most students in their daily lives use a mobile device. It is well known that currently the connection between students and smartphones is very strong, and its use is intensive, making it difficult to stop inside the classroom, which makes its use difficult to stop in the classrooms. This means that with the evolution of this type of technology more and more students will have access to this type of devices, which makes them a possible platform to be advantageously used in and out of the classroom. This massive use of mobile devices can lead to two situations:
• Schools banning the use of this type of devices, not adapting to the new patterns of learning where the social interaction is the focus. They try to maintain a long history of practices, where learners cannot use their personal
mobile devices or computers in the classroom. This perspective handles the use of those devices as a threat, as users can access to texting, games, social media and the Internet in uncontrollable ways leading to multiple distractions.
• Schools adapt the use of mobile devices under controlled ways, as it is already being done in universities where they are making controlled provision for student’s laptops (Sharples, 2006). Using mobile devices can promote more opportunities for students to work collaboratively (Semertzidis, 2013). As mobile devices have a strong connection with learners they are pleased and motivated to use their devices in the learning process. The use of these tools cannot be restricted only to the classroom but can also be used outside, for instance in field trips (e.g. museum visits). Thus, mobile learning is now more than ever a topic that schools/universities must bear in mind for future years.
This dissertation approach is based on the second aforementioned idea. With many students already owning a mobile device and carrying it at all times, it becomes easy to use it as a learning tool. The work developed focus on a perspective of helping teachers and students not only inside the classroom, but also outside of it.
The objectives of this work are the following:
• Study of the state-of the art regarding mobile applications in the context of teaching/learning purposes;
• Study and exploration of the App-Inventor tool;
• Development of Teach2Student and Student2Teach Applications;
• Testing and validation of the developed applications in a course of Automation and Feedback Control Systems.
1.2
Dissertation structure
• Chapter 1, introduces some concepts that are addressed in later chapters, as well as the motivation to develop this dissertation and proposed objectives; • Chapter 2 provides an overview on how the concept of mobile learning was
reached, its definition and some revised concepts about its mobile application. The Web states from Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 are presented, as well as the technologies used in each generation. Lastly it is presented an overview of some block programming languages, the Android mobile platform, its components, architecture, and market position;
• Chapter 3 discusses the App Inventor tool, its components, interface, how it works and its application in education;
• Chapter 4 describes the first application developed in this dissertation
(Teach2Student), goes over its motivations, architecture, development process, user interface and programming approach;
• Chapter 5 describes the second application developed (Student2Teach) and goes over the same points as the chapter 4, but now for Student2Teach application; • Chapter 6 presents an overview of the preliminary results about the survey
that was taken in a real educational environment where the applications were used;
• Chapter 7 presents the conclusions about the project, and which future work is relevant and necessary to improve the applications.
2
Literature review
The mobile application development has been growing exponentially over the last few years and the tendency is that it will continue to grow (Lee, 2015). With new and more powerful smartphones constantly being introduced as well as a continuous evolving development of their operating systems, have been providing a great technological breakthrough in this field.
This chapter describes how the concept of mobile learning was reached, followed by a discussion on its definition, its phases, mobile technologies used, its critical success and factors, and its advantages and disadvantages. Also some m-Learning projects as well as social and educational challenges of mobile learning are presented. Concepts like mobile language learning and mobile game-based learning are revised followed by some features in mobile application development. To finish, the web stages from Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 are presented in pair with the overview of some block programming languages and the Android platform, its components, architecture and market position.
2.1
From Distance Learning to Mobile Learning
Throughout the ages there have been several forms of learning. The need for simultaneous transmission of knowledge between generations was always there. The more classical manner called “traditional education” which remains almost unchanged is the use of classrooms where teachers are responsible for knowledge transmission to their students sharing the same physical space. Students in this form of learning have the benefit of getting immediate feedback from teachers which accommodate their difficulties, questions or uncertainties. However, as for any learning methodology this also has some drawbacks. For example, the fact that this type of methods implies the existence of a chronological graduated system, where the contents that will be addressed are scheduled and well-defined since the beginning. If some student cannot attend some class, he will miss the contents that were presented, falling behind their classmates (Georgiev et al., 2004). As this type of learning is oriented to a group of students, it becomes difficult to the teacher to dispense some time that is already listed to new topics and use it in contents that have already been taught. Baring this in mind, and with the internet and computer technology growing in use, the search for new ways of teaching and learning has been increasing over the years with the aim of filling the existing gaps in the traditional learning process.
A new learning method that has been around for some time now is referred as “distance learning”. In its first stage this learning method was based on the use of printed content (magazines or newspapers), radio and television. (Keegan, 2002) describes distance education, discusses its two forms and traces its history. He makes a distinction between individual-based and group-based distance education. Group-based distance learning is seen as linking “the teacher and the learners in several geographic location by simultaneous audio, video or satellite links, to a network of remote classrooms” The author states that Group-based d-Learning systems are referred to as “distance learning” in the United States, while individual-based systems are referred to as “distance education in Europe”. He also adds, “The distinctions between the American distance learning based largely on synchronous
communication technologies and the European distance education based mainly on asynchronous technologies is important because it influences development in both e-Learning and m-Learning”. The author concludes that “distance learning had established itself as a valid field of educational endeavor complementary to and side by side with conventional provision”. Distance learning was the start groundwork for the acceptance of university degrees retrieved by e-Learning and eventually by m-Learning courses.
The rapid growth of ICT has been pushing the distance education process to a new learning model designated as e-Learning. It provided new possibilities by using technological tools on the teaching/learning matters, improving the distance learning method that already existed for a long time. Students obtained the possibility to learn regardless their location with a faster communication without the need of a teacher present in the same physical space. However, unlike in the distance learning method, with the new technologies it is possible to students to get feedback from teachers as if they were in the same physical location. According to Moura (2011) e-Learning has his roots in the technological evolution and emerges from the application of ICT to education and training, providing new computer and technology based methods. It gives individualized learning approaches with the learner deciding its rate.
The transition from e-Learning to m-Learning (see Figure 2.1) has been marked by many authors: (Georgiev et al., 2004, 2006; Keegan, 2002; Sharma and Kitchens, 2004). Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) state that the revolution from e-Learning to m-Learning is characterized by a change of terminology. For instance, the dominant terms in the e-Learning era were: multimedia, interactive, hyperlinked, media-rich environment, etc. In the m-Learning era the terms: spontaneous, intimate, situated, connected, informal, lightweight, private, personal etc. are used to characterize the context.
According to Georgiev et al. (2004) m-Learning is a form of existing d-Learning and e-Learning. The main characteristic of the distance education is the distance and time separation between teacher and students. The e-Learning offers new methods
Figure 2.1 – The place of m-Learning as part of e-Learning and d-Learning
for distance education based on new technologies like the computer and internet, notwithstanding other forms of existing d-Learning (like satellite based d-Learning). Thus, Georgiev et al. (2004) concludes that m-Learning is then a part of e-Learning and therefore part of d-Learning. Table 2.1 contrasts the characteristics between the two learning environments.
Table 2.1 – Terminology comparisons between e- and m-Learning (Sharma and Kitchens, 2004) as adapted by (Laouris and Eteokleous, 2005).
e-Learning m-Learning Computer Mobile Bandwidth GPRS,3G,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
Cobcroft (2006) refers as the primary pedagogical differences between the two methods, that e-Learning is characterized by more text- and graphics-based instructions and
m-Learning uses more voice, graphics and animation-based instructions. The learning that used to occur in the classroom, laboratory or at home, it is now possible in school or at any location where the mobile device use is possible (Sharma and Kitchens, 2004). A graphical representation of the transition between e-Learning and m-Learning can be seen in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3, representing respectively the graphic representation of e-Learning environment and a virtual environment supported by mobile technologies.
Figure 2.2 – Virtual Learning Environment adapted from Keegan (2002).
Figure 2.3 – Wireless Virtual Learning Environment adapted from Keegan (2002).
learning process. Sharples et al. (2005) states that what is special about mobile learning over the other types of learning, is that learners can be constantly in motion. Therefore an advantage of m-Learning is that it provides the ability to take ideas and learning resources achieved in one location and apply or develop them in another place, sometime thereafter. This enables the use of knowledge acquired at a later time, or in a different learning context. It also stated in (Sharples et al., 2005) that learning through mobile devices does not try to separate learning from other forms of educational activities, since some aspects of informal learning and learning that takes place in workplaces are fundamentally movable. Even students within a school shift between classes and between different topics.
These new learning methods are emerging based on the learner’s needs and technological developments. The mobile technology development made the access to mobile smartphones possible to the large public, as costs for the average consumer are relatively accessible. Also, currently, smartphones are not only used as a communication object, but as well as entertainment media. That being said, it is necessary to take into consideration that mobile phones provide the opportunity to not only to make phone calls, but offer other benefits. Thus, it is necessary to invest in new learning methodologies in which m-Learning environments can easily be used in those devices. Cobcroft (2006) points out that the use of personal mobile devices provides ample flexibility and ubiquity in the access to information following the principle “anywhere, anytime and any device”, allowing the user access contents “just in time”, with an autonomous and personalized learning. As observed by Cobcroft (2006) and Field (2005), efficiency and flexibility in the learning process means offering flexibility to students decide about the conditions and circumstance of their learning. Teaching models which integrate online learning in a 24x7 framework (Bender, 2003) or provide students with their “own time” study options and assessment choices, shows significant efficiency benefits (Field, 2005).
Sharples et al. (2005) suggests that the m-Learning theory must be tested based on the following criteria:
• Is it significantly different from current theories of classroom, workplace or lifelong learning?
• Does it account for the mobility of learners? • Does it cover both formal and informal learning?
• Does it theorize learning as a constructive and social process?
• Does it analyze learning as a personal and situated activity mediated by technology?
2.1.1
Mobile Learning definition
M-Learning was defined as “e-Learning that uses mobile devices and wireless transmission” in Laouris and Eteokleous (2005); Pinkwart et al. (2003). Moura (2011), referring to Roschelle (2003); Trifonova and Ronchetti (2003) also relates that in general it is possible to call m-Learning to any learning process through the use of computational devices. These devices have been reducing in size and in the needs of power supply increasing their autonomy, allowing their use in any place at any given time. Some authors (e.g., Turunen et al. (2003)) consider mobile devices as a pervasive medium that may assist us in combining work, study, and leisure time in meaningful ways. Polsani (2003) consider this definition too restrictive and proposed the term “network learning” (or n-Learning), the author states that “The Network Learning can be defined as a form of education whose site of production, circulation and consumption is the network”. Also Georgiev et al. (2004) believe that the m-Learning definition should be wider, not including only wireless or internet based notions, but proposes the following definition “the ability to learn everywhere at every time without permanent physical connection to cable networks”. Sharples et al. (2005) took a different approach. He described learning as a “process of coming to know, by which learners in cooperation with their peers and teachers, construct transiently stable interpretations of their world”.
Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) comment the former statement saying that this definition gives mobile technologies a special role, because they dramatically increase the possibilities of communication and conversation. Traxler (2005) defined mobile learning as “any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices”. However, in the former work it is also, stated that this definition might be rater technocentric and as a look at mobile learning should be taken from both the learner and the users perspective. Shannon (2006) refers to m-Learning as “a subset of all learning within a blended learning environment, and is a means to enhance the broader learning experience - not a primary means to deliver courses”. So based on all definitions highlighting different aspects it is possible to realize that the definition of mobile learning has improved with the new mobile technologies and with the context that it is used on. This is also stated by (Traxler (2007); Pachler et al. (2009); Laouris and Eteokleous (2005)). They all state that there is not a consensus about the mobile learning definition and it is necessary to keep researching and developing their foundations.
Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) concluded that while appears to exist some consensus about mobile learning, it needs, to be re-considered in the context of the appearance of electronic mobile devices. He also defends that the term mobile learning is composed of two words (“mobile” and “learning”) and both should demand equal attention. Thus defining mobile learning only in the context of mobile phones is leaving out an equal part out of the definition resulting in an issue. Other issue that this author points is that with the appearance of mobile devices, many terms and concepts should be redefined like “space”, “being-there” or “learning environment”. To conclude this section, it is easy to see that most authors focus their definitions on the devices. Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) refer that the only definitions that consider mobile learning from a more general perspective is the one proposed by Ny´ıri (2002). This author defined it as “learning that arises in the course of person-to-person mobile communication”. His definition stimulates the philosophical considerations of the mobile phones role, because as pointed out (Laouris and Eteokleous, 2005), “mobile communication enhances everyday communication; and is indifferent towards
disciplinary boundaries as m-Learning is”.
With a definition not yet really clear it is necessary to see that when technologies that are at same time, personal, portable, ubiquitous and used in network, the learning through them can boost social interactions in real as well as virtual contexts (Moura, 2011). However Costa (2007) alerts that it is necessary to give special attention to the way that these devices are integrated in the education context, since the learning process does not come along with direct contact with the computer (or other technology).
2.1.2
Mobile Learning phases
In the book entitled “Mobile Learning: Structures, Agency Practices”, Pachler et al. (2009) refer to the topography of mobile learning with an overview using a structure proposed by Sharples (2006). This author outlined three phases of mobile learning characterized by: 1) a focus on devices; 2) a focus on learning outside the classroom; 3) a focus on the learner mobility.
The first phase happened from the middle of 1990 and was characterized by the focus on mobile devices (e.g., PDAs, tablets and mobile phones) used in an educational context for instruction and training. Moura (2011) refers a study conducted by Perry (2003) that took place in the United Kingdom where 150 teachers from 30 schools had the opportunity to test PDAs. The advantages reported relate to the portability, size, connectivity, battery and outdoor use. The disadvantages were pointed out to the screen size being too small, time it took to input data, unstable storage leading to lost data (from flat batteries), whether the PDAs were rugged enough for school use and the need for technical support.
So (2014) also presents some projects that can be included in this first phase of m-Learning; Two projects were conducted by McFarlane et al. (2007, 2008), named “Learning2Go” in Wolverhampton in the United Kingdom and “Hand e-Learning” in Bristol. Both enabled students and their teachers to have individual mobile
devices. Although these researchers recognized the value of incorporating mobile devices in teaching and learning, some key problems were identified: 1) The schools lacked the needed infrastructure; 2) The preliminary training of teachers was rushed; and 3) The teachers of the promoted subject to the use of the devices, were too preoccupied with other matters at the time. Bradley et al. (2007, 2009) also explored the deployment of multimedia learning objects for mobile phones. In 2008 this author designed and developed a series of m-Learning activities for a group of pre-service Information Technology (IT) teachers (So, 2008). The research was aimed at providing opportunities for teachers to explore new trends in teaching and learning and to find out their acceptances.
The second phase is characterized by learning outside the classroom. One of the qualities of mobile devices is the ease to be used, e.g.: on field trips, museum visits, micro learning and other possibilities. So (2014) comments that the recent mobile devices offer powerful connectivity and positioning information, thereby allowing location-aware activities and context-aware learning through these devices. Moura (2011), refers the HandLer project by Sharples (2000), as setting out a framework for the design of a user interface to m-Learning experiences and software development to work in the field. The conclusion of this system was that the technology at the time had a number of limitations which made it almost impossible to be used. However, the author established m-Learning and contextual learning concepts outside the classroom to field work and professional development. So (2014) makes a reference for the “Skattjak” (Treasure Hunt) project developed at Vaxjo University, a mobile game designed to encourage young people to engage in physical activities by solving a mystery surrounding a castle built on the university campus. The game is inspired by treasure hunts and the sport of orienteering. When the game starts, each team receives a clue to find a 4-digit code, which should then be entered to the phone. After which they will receive a question. If they got the answer correct they would receive a clue for the next location. If they got it wrong they receive a detour location without knowing that it was wrong until they reach it. The objective of the game is to be the first team to reach the seventh and final location. So (2014) comments that the researchers claimed that their research would bridge the gap
between learning in informal and formal settings.
So (2014) also indicates the importance of the Short Message Service (SMS) based learning in this phase of mobile learning. Numerous SMS projects for teaching and learning have been reported throughout the years, such as the following cases:
• Traxler (2007) examined the potential for using SMS to support learning and organization in sub-Saharan Africa;
• So (2009) provided an compressive review in the study of an SMS-based teaching and learning system;
• In the University of Wolverhampton (Brett, 2008) has used SMS to improve retention and progression by extending and enriching the contact and support of high education students on- and off-campus;
• Lomin´e and Buckhingham (2009), proposed a typology of possible uses of SMS as well as a practical framework on “how to start with SMS?”.
All the reports indicate that SMS learning can improve student motivation and retention as well as involve students more actively/interactively with the teachers. The third phase is founded on the mobility of the learner, the design or the appropriation of learning spaces, the informal learning and lifelong learning. According to Pachler et al. (2009), in this phase it is possible to distinguish three important topics: i) mixed reality learning; ii) context-sensitive learning and iii) ambient learning. The first topic allows the learner to create contents through mobile devices and share it with other learners so they can access and add to it. Instead of the learner being a consumer he can participate in a media-rich environment. The second topic allows the learners to get information from the surrounding context (Dourish, 2004). For instance, they can get information on the nearest restaurant, pharmacy, or monument. Context-sensitive systems can transmit information about for example, a museum piece. If it has a Quick Response Code (QR code) embedded learners with a simple application on their mobile device that reads QR codes, can receive
instant information about the piece in that moment. As Cook (2009) presents, the third topic makes use of digital artifacts to augment the environment and enable learning, technological tools are used to augment user activity in context. This topic invests effort in designing a rich environment that turn mediates innovative forms of learning and teaching. Some projects reported in these areas are:
• MyArtSpace a service on mobile phones for inquiry-led learning that allows students to gather information during a school field trip which is automatically sent to a website where they can view, share and present it, back in the classroom or at home (Vavoula et al., 2009);
• CONTSENS a project focused in the development of appropriate training/learning materials for mobile learning enhanced by context sensitive and location based delivery (Ericsson, 2008);
• The mobile Augmented Reality Applications project (Nokia, 2009), explores augmented reality using equipped mobile devices as platforms for sensor-based, video see-through mobile augmented reality.
In June 2006, the European Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) brought together leading European researchers to explore six major issues arising from learning with mobile technology of theory, design and evaluation. The mobile learning was a recent topic of TEL presenting several meanings for different communities. It covers (Arnedillo-S´anchez et al., 2007) learning:
1. with portable technologies, where the focus is on the technology (which could be in a fixed location, such as a classroom);
2. across contexts, where the focus is on the learner, interacting with portable or fixed technology;
3. in a mobile society, with a focus on how society and its institutions can accommodate and support the learning of an increasingly mobile population
Arnedillo-S´anchez et al. (2007) states that one clear conclusion is that the landscape of mobile learning is changing rapidly. Projects are moving from research, through pilot studies to implementation in classrooms, lecture theatres, museums and outdoors. Another trend is the increasing use of mobile technology to support personal and informal learning.
Patten et al. (2006) references to Futurelab et al. (2004) commenting that they organized applications based upon the educational theory that they supported. The “theory-based categories” identified were behaviorist, constructivist, situated, collaborative and “informal and lifelong learning”. Patten et al. (2006) refer that while the classification previously mentioned have their merits, theirs classification is more extensive by merging the two perspectives of functionality and pedagogy into one framework. These authors identify seven categories that the applications can be sub-divided into, adapted by Clough et al. (2009):
1. Collaborative applications encouraging knowledge sharing, making use of the learner’s physical location and mobility;
2. Location aware applications, that contextualize information, allowing learners to interact directly with their environment, for example, collecting environmental data linked to geographical context or accessing contextually relevant reference material;
3. Data collection applications, that use the handheld device’s ability to record data in the form of text, image, video, and audio;
4. Referential applications, that use dictionaries, translators and e-books to deliver content when and where it is needed;
5. Administrative applications, that employ the typical scheduling information storage, and other calendar functions available on mobile devices;
6. Interactive applications, that use both the input and output capabilities of mobile devices, allowing the learner to input information and obtain some form of feedback which aids the learning process;
7. Microworld applications modelling real world domains to enable learners to use practice in a constrained version of the learning scenario.
With the focus moving from mobile devices to the mobility of learning, the research development in the m-Learning context is exciting. The new mobile devices are rich in features offering excellent opportunities in many domains of m-Learning and education. However, it is necessary to analyze and take care of some unsolved issues, motivating further research.
2.1.3
Mobile technologies for m-Learning
Mobile technologies are an attractive and great way to gain constant access to information. They facilitate distance learning in situations where access to education is difficult or interrupted because of geographical location or due to post-conflict or post-disaster situations. Mobile devices and personal technologies that can support mobile learning include the following (Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil, 2007):
• E-book Reader, used to download text-based materials. They can store hundreds of e-books, newspapers, and magazines. Learners can use an e-book reader to download and store text-based instructional materials and electronic textbooks. Currently, e-book readers are being replaced by smartphones that offer the same use but with applications developed for the purpose;
• USB Drive, is a small and portable mass-storage device that attaches easily to many computers and other devices. It is a great tool for storing coursework, audio and video files. Learners can share files for collaborative projects, transfer work to and from computers at school, save their work, and transport files from home to school and back.
• iPod, is a small portable media player from Apple that allows users to download music, audio books, podcast, photos and video. Learners can download podcasts of relevant instructional material along with audio and video lectures. It is also
possible to add a microphone to the iPods to capture material for educational use.
• Laptop/Tablet, the most complete and functional system of all the portable devices, they come with Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and Ethernet enabled. A robust productivity tool. Tablet offer additional features such as handwriting recognition and voice-to-text conversion as part of their operating systems. Learners can download audio and video lectures and podcasts, create and edit course-related assignments, surf the web, send e-mails and text-messages. The units provide a high level of interactivity for global collaboration, scientific experimentation, and research. Chen and Denoyelles (2013) document the use of tablets and mobile devices in Higher Education with a survey questionnaire, exploring the basic access and use of mobile devices. In this category the iPads from Apple are also noteworthy, a phenomenal success and can also be used in the learning context, with the vast amount of educational apps - that is, small pieces of specialized software typically obtained through an app store. The same applies to Android tablets from many manufacturers with also a rich store with educational applications. Pegrum et al. (2013) after studying the adoption of mobile handheld technologies in Western Australian independent schools, came to the conclusion that the use of mobile handheld technologies is set to expand dramatically in coming years. The iPad in particular is being widely adopted in educational settings around the world, though its use is still very much at an experimental stage. It was reported by Gawelek et al. (2011) that with no models to work from, their students had to explore, practice, and discover - on their own - the iPad’s potential for expanding learning.
• Smartphone, including Apple’s iPhone, Android phones, BlackBerrys and Windows phones, effectively combine a mobile phone, a digital media player, a digital audio recorder, a digital camera, a PDA, and a computer in one small device. Most importantly of all, they offer internet access, allowing users to download apps, as well as browse, seek information, and communicate online. A key advantage of smartphones is that many students already own these
devices and carry them with them at all times.
• Learning Management Systems (LMS), is a designation used for a wide range of systems that organize and provide access to online learning services to students, teachers etc. These services usually include access control, provision of learning content, communication tools, and administration of user groups. Available functionalities of LMSs typically include folder creation, file uploading, content creation and editing, copying tools, search facilities, etc.
2.1.4
Social and educational challenges for m-Learning
Some Social and educational challenges for M-Learning according to Mehdipour and Zerehkafi (2013) include the following:
• Accessibility and cost barriers for end users; • How to assess learning outside the classroom; • How to support learning across many contexts; • Content’s security or pirating issues;
• Frequent changes in device models/technologies/functionality etc.; • Developing an appropriate theory of learning for the mobile age; • Conceptual differences between E-Learning and M-Learning;
• Design of technology to support a lifetime of learning (Sharples, 2000; Moore et al., 2009);
• Tracking of results and proper use of this information; • No restriction on learning timetable;
• No demographic boundaries;
• Access to and use of the technology in developing countries (Barker et al., 2005);
• Risk of distraction (Crescente and Lee, 2011).
In addition to these challenges Mehdipour and Zerehkafi (2013) points out some barriers to mobile learning:
• high costs associated with equipment; • connectivity; maintenance;
• technical support and teacher training; • Health-related issues;
• a lack of policy support and governmental investment; and/or a lack of interest and awareness on the part of policymakers and the public;
• negative social attitudes that see mobile phones as disruptive devices that students use primarily to play games, chat with friends and potentially engage in inappropriate behaviors such as cheating and cyber-bullying.
Administrators and teaching staff within institutions are increasingly acknowledging and responding to internal factors (such as student preferences, staff capabilities, and pedagogical approaches). Advances in ICT also influence the acquisition and management of knowledge and skills, and it is necessary that institutions understand and respond to the learners and staff’s changing expectations and shifting capabilities. As noted by Herrington and Herrington (2007) many university lecturers may feel less competent in the use of mobile devices and are offered little institutional incentive to explore the advantages of incorporating this into their instruction. The question is not students may or may not learn better using m-Learning, but if that many students are very competent with mobile devices and use them on their daily lives
for communications, data collection, storage etc. The facility and imaginative uses of these devices suggests that there is a great opportunity to be used in higher education teaching. However it is necessary to define a strong pedagogical foundation to facilitate the incorporation of these approaches into an effective method of instruction.
2.1.5
Advantages and disadvantages of m-Learning
Some advantages and disadvantages of Mobile learning (Semertzidis, 2013; Melo, 2010) are the following:
• The technology for social networking is growing rapidly, by companies marketing new services targeting young people. Thus the use of this technology is increasing;
• The need to have virtual space for sharing and communication fits the teenage culture;
• Ample flexibility, ubiquity, ease in the access to information as well as transportation and possibility to learn anywhere and anytime;
• Low prices, mobile devices are cheaper than laptops/desktops;
• Context-sensitive environments, allowing learners to contextualize information interacting directly with different environments;
• Structured already deployed, devices like tablets, smartphones, e-readers are already spread in the teenager’s culture;
• Encourages collaborative work;
• The learning is possible outside the classroom without the need of a teacher.
From the aforementioned it is clear that the mobile learning approach has many advantages. The fact that society is gradually adapting to new technologies reflects
the changing that is happening in the way they access information. Mobile devices like tablets and smartphones mainly are devices that any person has with them, allowing the access to information at anytime and anywhere, the basis for the mobile learning concept. Also the content, learning tools, or learning platforms that already exist in e-Learning can be easily adapted to m-Learning.
The flexibility of m-Learning allows the user access “just in time”, with a personalized learning, as observed by Cobcroft (2006). This author also presents a definition of pervasive learning, as it defines the potential of the “mobile” moment in terms of the creation of new knowledge spaces, with the extension of concepts like collaborative-and cooperative-learning, constructivism, information-rich learning environments, self-organized learning, and adaptive learning, Also referring to Thomas (2005), Cobcroft (2006) emphasizes the pervasive learning concept, “pervasive learning is created through network of devices, people, and situations that allow complex learning. It is about using the technology that a learner has at hand to create relevant and meaningful learning situations, that a learner authors himself, in a location that the learner finds meaningful and relevant”.
This pervasive learning that characterizes m-Learning allows learners to have a self-organized learning, this way they can search or consult documents at their own pace as many times as necessary, allowing them to identify their own optimal way for learning.
The ease that mobile devices offer in the connectivity matter, allows users to be always online, this way they are easily reachable by other users. This allows the creation of an online community that can help each other, allowing collaborative work in a new synchronous and asynchronous way.
Although m-Learning has innumerous advantages, there are also some disadvantages like any other learning method (Melo, 2010; Semertzidis, 2013) following:
• Schools are not committed to integrate children’s personal technology in an evolutionary way, so the transition is likely to be painful;
• Schools are valuable for their assistance to students, and it will be hard to be changed;
• Schools and also parents face new technologies in education thread and a danger to children;
• Some forms of knowledge are not accessible without an official pedagogic process in which the role of the teacher is crucial. Informal social networking develops certain skills but it cannot replace formal learning;
• There is a set of standards established in the schools, changing the practices already in use it is almost impossible. In the first stages the social networking, new technologies and m-Learning should be adapted to the already existing framework, like the e-Learning was in a way that will take advantage of their power;
• The lack of content producers, and rules in how those contents can be created, are a big problem in m-Learning;
• The technologies get outdated quickly;
• Different operating systems forcing the developers to develop for all platforms or choosing the one with bigger audience, as well as different screen sizes and resolutions.
Learning with mobile learning means that students and teachers that are participating in mobile practices need to have some necessary expertise in the use of computers and their own mobile devices. This will require an additional learning curve for non-technical students and teachers, as well as it can create a feeling of isolation of being out-of-the-loop for less technology interested people. When there is a fast evolution on the mobile technology matter every day, it can be hard to keep up to all the newest technologies, meaning that if no one wants to be behind everyone has to have a continuous learning process.
Semertzidis (2013) summarizes as the future scenario that schools neither welcome nor prohibit mobile technologies and online social networking, but rather adapt to new technologies and their opportunities. Sharples (2000), concludes that a general opinion was that schools, colleges, and universities would absorb and digest personal mobile technologies, just as they have done in all previous technologies, without profound change. Sharples (2000) also points some tension points between social and educational technology use. In general, children do not want school to intrude in their personal life. The enthusiasm of schools, and some parents to use some new school features like, parent access to school intranets, bite-sized teaching and revision via SMS, and new technologies such as location-based tracking, can be danger, and may be seen by students as a way to control their social world. The author finished by saying that there is an urgent need for teachers, parents and policy makers to understand new technologies and the new forms of online interaction. And debate the issues, and how can them be transformed into purposes of formal education.
2.1.6
Critical success factors and learning incentives in mobile
learning
According to Semertzidis (2013) and Sharples (2006) there are five main factors in creating learning incentives in m-Learning:
1. Control of learning objectives which have been set. Students find informal learning through mobile devices more interesting, because they feel free to do extra activities and actions related to the subject that they are studying. They have the control of the learning process, which is not the case during formal learning;
2. Sense of ownership and autonomy for the holder of a mobile device. Thus, the same device can be used differently by different users;
Mobile technology can help students to adjust their mobile devices to various activities. The same mobile device can adjust to the activity which student needs to complete,
providing extra capabilities.
3. Fun. Using the mobile device for the appropriate activities creates an identity with students. This can be fun and can enable students to have their own motivation in learning. A device with graphics, sound, images etc. triggers the curiosity to learn while having fun.
4. Communication. Most mobile devices allow users to share various things. This feature by itself can be an incentive to learn, as can be seen from the number of websites that support social networking.
Unlike personal computers, mobile devices can provide instant and direct access as they can be activated at most locations. If a student has a mobile device with a connection to the Internet it allows him to establish a conversation and ask questions receiving answers online. Moreover, the use of mobile devices by students with lack of confidence, who are less likely to participate in a face to face discussion can be really useful. In this way, the use of mobile devices gives more emphasis on the interaction between students, as well as it supports collaborative learning activities.
5. Confidence. With reference to Wishart et al., (2005), Semertzidis (2013) reports that the use of mobile devices develops a sense of confidence, which is connected to the fact that the owners of mobile devices can access the Internet wherever they are. Search engines are very useful creating self-confidence and enabling the users to easily find a direct answer to a question. Students report that they feel very well when they respond to questions from their teachers, something that could not have been done without the use of a mobile device.
Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015) have done a meta-analysis of Critical Success Factors (CSF) of mobile learning with the following conditions for the meta-analysis:
• The studies should have been published in the last 6 years; the cut-off year was 2007. Studies published prior to that year were not included in the analysis; • The studies should have been quantitative, i.e., critical success factors were
determined by making use of quantitative analysis methods;
• The description of quantitative analysis used in the study was clear (a few studies were discarded because the quantitative analysis method used was arbitrary).
With these conditions satisfied they found 19 studies used to source the CSF. A total of 21 factors were discovered in studies that researchers considered to be important for the success of m-Learning. Table 2.2 shows the CSF found in the various studies
Table 2.2 – Critical success factors in m-Learning adapter from Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015).
Critical Success Factors in m-Learning Availability Accessibility Affordability Internet Access Connectivity Choice of Mobile Devices Web 2.0 Software Cross Platform Capability
Ownership Institutional Support Content Assimilation with Curriculum Educator Perspectives Learner Perceptions Learning Community Development Develop Assessment techniques
Faculty Commitment User Feedback
Technical Competence of Instructors Technical Competence of students User Friendly Design of Content
Teoh (2011) subdivided CSF into four categories: i) technology; ii) management support; iii) teaching pedagogy; iv) learning approach. Some factors can be in multiple categories meaning that is an overlap based on the categories of people influencing the particular variable as it is possible to see in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 – Classification of CSF adapted from Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015). CSF Categories Variables Technology Availability Accessibility Affordability Internet access Connectivity Choice of Mobile Devices
Web 2.0 software Cross-Platform capability Management Support Ownership Institutional support Administrative support Assimilation with Curriculum
User feedback
Teaching Pedagogy
Educator perceptions
Technical competence of instructors Faculty commitment
Develop assessment techniques User feedback
Assimilation with Curriculum
Learning Approach
Learning community development User feedback
Learner perceptions
Technical competence of students User friendly design of content
Assimilation with Curriculum
Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015) stated that, most of the m-Learning studies tend to evaluate the success from the learners perspective, based on the factors that are important for learners to ensure that m-Learning is successfully adopted within a tertiary education institution.
Following the meta-analysis Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015) removed the CSF that had appeared in very few studies, defining a threshold of six. After applying the
threshold it resulted in a total of nine CSF, but three of them did not had enough statistical data to conduct a meta-analysis and were excluded from the final list. With the final shortlist of CSF their respective statistics were compared in the various studies in which they were presented and a results table elaborated (see Table 2.4). The dependent variable was the CSF (Learner Perceptions) as the results were a correlation of the statistics of the remaining five CSF with that variable.
Table 2.4 – Meta-analysis of CSF Statistics adapted from Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015).
CSF CSF Rank Learner Perceptions NA User Friendly Design 3 Learner Community Development 4 Technical Competence 2
Content 1
Ownership 5
The ranks of Table 2.4, show how much influence a factor has on the potential success of m-Learning, according to learners. It can be seen that content is the mostly influencing CSF, followed by technical competence of learners, user friendly design, learner community development, and ownership.
Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015) conclude that in their study factors like, for instance, technical competence of educators, the development of assessment techniques, and institutional support have been considered by very few studies as success factors. Although it does not mean that those factors are not important, this may be due to the study focusing only the benefits from learner’s perspectives. The same authors (Alrasheedi and Capretz, 2015) are working on a new study to investigate CSF into different groups such as: from the perspectives of students; instructors; and university management. This could lead to a new conceptual framework proposal to comprehensively study and analyze the relationship among the CSF from related perspectives.
2.1.7
Mobile language learning
Society is being transformed by mobile devices, and as language is a social practice it defines characteristics of communities (Traxler, 2013).
Besides increase of usage, mobile device technology has been drastically developed and transformed in an integrated way. Currently it is possible to maintain a pleasant interaction with mobile devices, due to their screen sizes and resolutions. Also, in addition to the traditional purpose for oral communication via mobile phones, current multifunctional mobile technology enable users to access the Internet, searching information, emailing, reading e-books, and even shopping mostly independently of the location. This technology evolution has led to a new approach in the language learning matter that has been emerging throughout the years, based in the use of mobile technology. Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is a specialization within m-Learning, has been distinguished from Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in its use of personal, mobile devices, such as mobile phones, MP3/MP4 players, PDAs. Smartphones, and tablet computers (Kukulska-Hulme and Shield, 2008).
(Passos, 2012; Zervas and Sampson, 2010) consider that with MALL, students besides having access to learning material can also communicate with lecturers or with other students who are learning the same language or using the same application, at any place or any time. This collaborative learning can occur in a synchronous or asynchronous way. With this concept, students feel a bigger motivation, since they have an instructor with whom they can change messages and clarify questions. If their instructor is available their questions can be explained in that moment, as well as get hints in the resolutions for a given problem (Fotouhi-Ghazvini et al., 2009).
Several studies have been conducted in the MALL matter. Viberg and Gr¨onlund (2012) did a review with an extensive coverage of empirical research concerning use and effectives of MALL in foreign language as second language. On their study they were guided by questions such as:
• What research approaches and methods are used when Analyzing MALL? • Within what theoretical frameworks the studies have been carried out? • What aspects of MALL are being researched?
• In what ways does the use of mobile technology facilitate the acquisition and development of linguistic knowledge and language skills?
• Are there research challenges in the field of MALL research that require further investigation and what can be suggested for the further research?
Godwin-Jones (2011) explored the current state of mobile apps for language learning, focusing on context aware learning apps using Global Position System, (GPS), data storage and synchronization between “cloud” and mobile device. The noticeable development of mobile software were vocabulary learning programs and flashcard software. He commented that the app Supermemo, for example, is one of the powerful spaced repetition software for vocabulary teaching, which is more effective than massed learning Godwin-Jones (2010).
Guerrero et al. (2010) developed a framework to mobile devices to help learning of Spanish grammar with collaborative learning activities. The developed software had two interfaces allowing the collaborative and individual work. More than 70% of students found that the activity helped in the grammar learning and more than 86% found the tool easy to use.
Yang (2013) provided a review on recent research in MALL applications, in terms of newly emerging/integrated mobile technologies. In this study he refers difference between CALL and MALL is presented. CALL had conventional applications, where most learning environments occurred on stationary Personal Computers (PCs). But now with MALL those learning environments can occur independently from the location and time, enabling language learning anywhere. He also states that according to his reviewed research findings, it seems hard to confirm that MALL has already been fully used in educational contexts. However increasing ownership
of mobile devices among teachers and students might not be directly related to computer technology usage for the purpose of language education, but, it could imply the expanding nature of computer technology use in educational purposes. Then, Yang (2013)concludes that the future research on MALL needs to explore teachers and learners perspectives of MALL use, with the need to get a foundation of the pedagogical and theoretical orientations of MALL practices, leading to the development of mobile learning theory.
Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2008) in their research concluded that their survey revealed that although there are currently few reported occurrences of speaking and listening activities employing mobile devices, the range of approaches and learning activities using MALL is developing very fast, and will expand in space of two or three years from a teacher-learner, text-based model to a new model that will support multimedia, collaborative listening and speaking activities and will allow learners to co-construct knowledge to solve problems and fill information gaps.
2.1.8
Mobile game based learning
Games have been recognized as being a good tool to promote learners to actively participate in learning activities (Kirikkaya et al., 2010).
According to Papastergiou (2009) acceptance of games as a way to learn in education is increasing. Games constitute powerful learning environments as they:
1. Can support multi-sensory, active, experiential, problem-based learning; 2. Favor activation of prior knowledge given that players must use previously
learned information in order to advance;
3. Provide immediate feedback enabling players to test hypotheses and learn from their actions;
4. Encompass opportunities for self-assessment through the mechanism of scoring and reaching different levels;
