The International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, Vol 8, No 2 (2007), ISSN:

1492-3831
• CURRENT ISSUE

• PAST ISSUES

• ABOUT

• LOG IN

• REGISTER

• SEARCH

• SUBSCRIBE

• CONFERENCES

• RESOURCES

• EDITORS

• SUBMISSIONS
Home > Vol 8, No 2 (2007) > Shih

June – 2007

Setting the New Standard with

Mobile Computing in Online Learning
Yuhsun Edward Shih and Dennis Mills
Capella University, USA

Abstract

Mobile learning represents exciting new frontiers in education

and pedagogy. With the features of 'wearable' computing and
multimedia content delivery via mobile technologies, mobile
learning becomes feasible and offers new benefits to
instructors and learners. How do mobile technologies influence
our teaching and learning in traditional education? What are
the possibilities for m-Learning in the various disciplines, such
as history or English studies? To illustrate these possibilities,
this paper presents an application that combines an innovative
 learning model for mobile learning with an established
literature class. This ongoing study focuses on student learning
outcomes relative to the benefits and challenges of using
mobile technologies in a traditional classroom and online
learning settings.

Keywords: Mobile learning; learning model; instructional

design; hybrid course; motivation

Introduction

Mobile communication technologies are rapidly evolving to

include local area wireless connections using Wi-Fi, Third
Generation (3G) mobile communications, and Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), and related
mobile computing devices such as smart phones, pocket PCs,
tablet PCs, and various Personal Data Assistants (PDAs)
handheld devices. As such, applying mobile technologies in
learning represents an exciting new frontier in education and
pedagogy. With the capabilities of 'wearable' computing and
multimedia content delivery via mobile technologies, learning
with mobile technologies becomes feasible because it offers
many new benefits, such as ubiquitous learning that connect
instructors and learners in both traditional classroom and
online settings. As Alexander (2004) suggests, “the
combination of wireless technology and mobile computing is
resulting in an escalating transformation of the educational
world” (p. 1).

There are many different learning theories that address how

people learn, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism,
control theory, learning styles, and social learning. While
implementing mobile learning, it is necessary to consider – at
minimum – the following aspects of new mobile technologies:
a) new learning opportunities; b) potential influence on
changing individuals’ learning styles; c) potential influence on
social interaction; and d) how the mobile technology itself will
be changed or enhanced. How individuals learn and how
learning takes place are essential considerations for
instructional designers, especially in designing learning
activities in the mobile learning environment. Unfortunately, at
the present time many individuals enter this field with no
pedagogical guidelines, and based on existing research
 findings this has become a major issue. How can we better
utilize mobile technologies to improve teaching and learning in
education? How can we effectively motivate and engage online
learners? This paper proposes a new mobile learning model
identified as the Shih’s Mobile Learning Model. The goal of
Shih’s model is to facilitate mobile learning design and to
achieve better mobile learning outcomes. From a pedagogical
point of view, this paper supports understanding of mobile
learning and facilitates the instructional design for applying
mobile technologies to a traditional learning context.

Mobile Technologies in Education

Internationally, mobile technologies are on the cutting edge of

business applications. Widespread use of mobile phones, PDAs,
MP3 players, handhelds, tablet PCs, and laptops for learning,
working, meeting, and conferencing is evident. The academic
environment has been introduced to mobile learning through
the use of laptops, PDAs, and smart phones. Research
outcomes reported in Attewell’s (2005) summary of the 2001
MLearn project, suggest that the use of mobile learning may
have positive contributions to make in the following areas:

1. Mobile learning helps learners to improve their literacy

and numeracy skills and to recognise their existing
abilities

2. Mobile learning can be used to encourage both

independent and collaborative learning experiences

3. Mobile learning helps learners to identify areas where

they need assistance and support

4. Mobile learning helps to combat resistance to the use of

ICT and can help bridge the gap between mobile phone
literacy and ICT literacy

5. Mobile learning helps to remove some of the formality

from the learning experience and engages reluctant
learners

6. Mobile learning helps learners to remain more focused for

longer periods
 7. Mobile learning helps to raise self-esteem

8. Mobile learning helps to raise self-confidence (Attewell,

2005, p. 13)

Mobile technologies are the next step in the evolution of

technology-mediated teaching and learning. It not only
connects people in information-driven societies effectively, it
offers the opportunity for a spontaneous, personal, informal,
and situated learning. Mobile technologies have sparked the
need for the strategies, applications, and resources necessary
to support anywhere-anytime connections to formal and
situational learning, as well as personal interest explorations
(Wagner, 2005). On the other hand, is mobile learning viewed
as a technological consideration in delivery systems? Or does it
represent a new pedagogy in education? Thomas (2005, p. 9)
posed the question: “How can this m-Learning environment
change teaching and learning?" Thomas further suggested that
wireless connections provide attractive learning environments
in a number of ways:

1. Ubiquity: Faculty and students have access to course

information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, wherever
they are on campus

2. Project sophistication: Student projects created with

laptops tend to be more sophisticated

3. Compatibility: Students have access to the same

hardware and software as faculty

4. Emphasis on learning and teaching: Overcoming

equipment problems allows greater time and resources to
be devoted to pedagogy

5. Savings: Replacing desktop computers with laptops, and

replacing hard-wired networks with wireless ones
translates into cost savings

6. Standardization: A standard platform maximizes access

and minimizes need for technical support (Thomas, 2005,
p. 9)

Mobile computing and wireless connections are accelerating

transformations in the educational world, such as seen in the
rapid development of new delivery platforms for teaching and
learning. The impact of mobile learning in higher education is
that ". . . the physical vs. the digital, the sedentary vs. the
nomadic – the wireless, mobile, student-owned learning
impulse cuts across our institutional sectors, silos, and
expertise-propagation structures" (Alexander, 2004, p. 34).
The culture of education is changing as new avenues are
redefining the old. Information literacy enhanced by
technology has the capacity to deepen the roots of education
while expanding knowledge and information literacy. It may
change the structure of how students experience learning.
Therefore, it is important to continue to grow the roots of
education while exploring new approaches to learning through
technology (Alexander, 2004).

The following characteristics define how mobile technologies

are currently improving online learning environments. The
capabilities for learning anytime and anywhere, just in time,
just for me, and multimedia (text, voice, image, or video)
messaging are essential characteristics. The use of various
types of communication (i.e., phone call, voice/ text
messaging, multimedia messaging, email, Web access), that
provide real-time online interaction in a series of short burst
learning activities, with features such as voice/ video recording
for story telling or even a 'mobblogging' journal, complete the
roster of characteristics that define effective use of mobile
technologies in teaching and learning.

As technology continues to improve, it will be possible to

integrate even more features into smart phones, and with the
likelihood of several different types of small handheld devices,
such as Ultra Mobile Personal Computers (see Figure 1 below).
Consumers can expect mobile computing with handheld
devices to offer an affordable solution to their learning needs
in the classroom, in the lab, at home, or for outdoor activities.
Mobile technologies positively influence today’s teaching and
learning, in both formal and informal settings.

Figure 1. Ultra Mobile Personal Computer (Source: Fourier

Systems http://www.fourier-sys.com)
 Toward a New Learning Model

In contrast to the traditional classroom, mobile technologies

effectively offer students added convenience and flexibility,
and allows them to learn wherever and whenever they choose.
In situations where mobile technologies are integrated into a
classroom environment, there are opportunities to soften the
rigidity of the standard classroom arrangement because each
learner is "connected" wherever they choose to be in that
learning space. Outside the classroom, learners will be able to
continue their studies in spaces that meet their individual
needs. Mobile technologies empower learners to conveniently
participate in learning environments.

How individuals learn and how learning takes place are

essential considerations for instructional design, especially in
teaching and learning with mobile technologies. Several
different learning theories address how people learn, such as
behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and so forth (Smith,
1999). Behaviorism, for example, applies drill-and-practice
strategies to achieve learning that results in a change in the
learner’s behavior. Behaviorists focus on the output of the
learning process by frequently reinforcing concepts with
examples, interactions, and practices. Meanwhile, cognitivism
focuses on how the mind works. Cognitivists believe that the
working process of the mind should be exploited to enhance
the learning process. Control theory is the theory of motivation
which states that behavior is inspired by what a person desires
most at any given time, such as love, freedom, power,
survival, or other basic human needs. Constructivism, on the
other hand, suggests that people construct their knowledge by
experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.
Constructivists encourage students to use experiments and
problem solving skills to create more knowledge and to reflect
on how their understanding is changing. The objective of using
reflection is to encourage students to reflect upon and learn
from their experiences and conclusions.

The learning styles theory emphasizes that individuals perceive

and process information in very different ways, and that
individuals learn more when the educational experience is
geared toward their particular learning styles. Instructors can
introduce a wide variety of experiential elements into the
learning environment, such as sound, music, visuals,
movement, and even gaming. Instruction should be designed
to connect with multiple learning styles (i.e., visual, auditory,
kinesthetic), using various combinations of experience,
reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Vygotsky’s
learning theory emphasizes that learning is social and includes
arguing, reflecting, and articulating to others (Vygotsky,
1978). Learning occurs through interaction between learners
and learning tasks. Social cognition provides learning from a
dialectical process, whereby students can learn through
problem-solving experiences shared with their learning peers
(Riddle & Dabbagh, 1999).

Among these learning theories, learning styles and Vygotsky's

are more relevant to supporting mobile learning activities.
Most mobile devices are capable of taking pictures, capturing
video, and playing music. Mobile technologies can effectively
fit into different learning styles by providing picture-video
messaging, audio-video conferencing, and 3-D simulation
gaming to enhance learners' experiences. It also provides
users with effective ways for communicating and accessing
learning contents at anytime and anyplace, via phone calls,
instant messaging, email, and Web access. These features can
facilitate group interactions for collaborative learning by
helping students share their information and experiences.
Similar to control theory, mobile technologies motivate
learners through the use of automatic instant messaging or
content forwarding, the so-called "push technologies." In a
mobile learning environment, learners can repeatedly practice
learning content anytime and anywhere. This feature of
learning has similarities to the behaviorism learning theory.
Considering how people learn with all these features, the next
step is to put it all together.
 The New Standard for Mobile Learning

According to Keller’s ARCS Model of motivational design, the

learning cycle includes: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and
Satisfaction (ARCS). Keller also determined that motivation
was the most appropriate and useful construct that might be
applied to the problem of variation in learning performance
difference, and that motivation was dependent at least, in
part, on human interactions (Keller, 1987). In the ARCS model
of motivation, the initial phase is to attract learners by
stimulating their interest and curiosity. This can involve the
use of interesting facts or statistics, conflict, humor, audience
participation, variability, and questions. The second phase is
designed to show learners the relevance of their learning, so
that their motivation to learn increases. This can be
accomplished by providing examples, previous experiences,
concepts, and presenting goal-orienting statements. The third
phase allows learners to develop their confidence. This can be
achieved by setting realistic expectations, providing
opportunities for practice, and elevating the contents' difficulty
to increase learner independence for completion. The final
phase provides opportunities for learners to use their newly
acquired skills and/ or knowledge in a real or simulated
setting. Reinforcement sustains the desired learning behavior,
which can produce true satisfaction.

Based on ARCS learning model and mobile technologies’

characteristics in promoting and enhancing human
interactions, a variation to the ARCS model, the Shih’s Mobile
Learning Model (see Figure 2), was created to support
instructional design for mobile learning. The learning cycle in
the Shih’s model includes:

1. Sending a multimedia message to mobile phones to

trigger and motivate learners

2. Searching the Web for relating information by using

embedded hyperlinks (URLs) in the message received in
the phone

3. Discussing with learning peers by text, voice, picture, or

video messaging
 4. Producing a digital story telling of what they learn by
audio or video diary (mobblogging journal)

5. Applying what they learn in the simulated environment,

such as online educational gaming

Figure 2. Learning Cycle in Shih’s Mobile Learning Model

Shih’s mobile learning model draws on the philosophy of social

constructivism through use of collaborative discussion and a
learning styles theory based on digital story telling. Elements
of the Vygotsky learning theory are incorporated in Shih’s
model through peer learner interactions via mobile
communication. This learning model mainly relies on the
mobile computing infrastructure, and would be most suitable
for applications in blended learning and/ or pure mobile
learning environments (Shih, 2005).

Research Experiment

An experiment of applying Shih’s mobile learning model was

conducted in a Children's Literature hybrid course in California
State University, San Bernardino during the 2006 winter
 semester. Forty-six (n = 46) students participated in this
experiment. The course provided students flexibility to use
their smart phones to access mobile learning contents located
on a mobile website (http://mclass.m-learning.us), receive
learning activity notifications via text messages, join online
discussions with fellow students via the regular online learning
site (http://www.m-learning.us), and produce digital stories
for their course learning activities.

The hypothesis and intention of this project was to apply

mobile technologies to offer participants added convenience
and flexibility, arguably two very valuable assets for most
commuter student populations. The study focused on students’
learning outcomes, as well as the benefits and challenges
students face when using mobile learning in a traditional
classroom setting. We anticipated that mobile learning would
provide an additional and useful method of information
retrieval and reception needed to further facilitate collaborative
learning. With an appropriate instructional design used to
adapt mobile learning methods in the course, we expected that
students would be able to better utilize their time for learning,
and be more motivated and active in their learning.

To illustrate these possibilities, we presented an application in

an enhanced Moodle Course Management System that
provided mobile learning capability with an established
literature class. We also demonstrated Shih's model, which
was used to apply new mobile technologies to a traditional
learning context. The learning units were designed to be
completed within a fairly small period of time. For instance,
students could take a quiz or interpret an illustration while
standing in line at the bank, while they are stuck in traffic, or
any other situation where a standard computer would be
impractical. Short messages (SMS) were sent to students to
engage them in – or in many cases, push them forward – in
their group projects. Students were encouraged to use their
smart phones for creating the digital story telling course
projects. In addition, an assessment was built into the study
that allowed students to gauge their own readiness for mobile
learning.

We began with the following questions:

 1. First, and perhaps most importantly, how would our
students initially receive the idea of completing part of
their coursework on a PDA/ smart phone?

2. Would they find the m-Learning techniques helpful and

manageable, or would they view learning in a new
medium as an additional burden?

3. What instructional design techniques are needed in

mobile learning courses to allow for the limitations of a
particular mobile technology?

The survey of the experiments generated some interesting

findings. For instance, one of the greatest difficulties was the
availability of appropriate mobile phones. For representative
statistical charts created from this experiment, see Figures 3-
11 in the Appendix.

When compared to purely online learning courses, this

preliminary study also found the following:

1. Students were more highly motivated (they said they

appreciated the flexibility and convenience)

2. Interaction between the instructor and students was

more enhanced

3. Students appeared to be more encouraged to collaborate

4. The instruction was more attractive to students

5. Quality of learning was found to be 'as good' or 'better'

Within this model, the instructor had a better chance to

observe and assist students who need extra support; this was
accomplished by applying adaptive learning instructions. This
model substantially improved students’ overall online learning
experiences and helped them to achieve better learning
outcomes. This study also revealed additional challenges the
instructor faced when receiving student responses and
feedback on his or her mobile learning device. The study also
revealed the need for support of mobile learning within the
wider university culture.

Future Work
 Future mobile teaching and learning strategies will need to
explore how mobile learning can continue the improvement of
overall learning outcomes. Further study is also needed to
involve a 'control group' to compare the learning results and to
determine whether or not the above findings are supported or
rejected.

In addition, following areas are of special concern:

1. Mobile technologies come with limitations for use in

educational settings, such as different form factors in
mobile devices, communication coverage, and potential
security issues. For instance, what instructional design
strategies are needed in m-Learning courses that better
address limitations of mobile technologies?

2. Mobile learning provides “just in time” help and “just for

me” features that supports various learning styles. How
can instructional design be individualized to support
students with special needs?

3. Messaging capabilities are, such as SMS and multimedia

messages, are some of the most powerful "push"
features of mobile technologies. However, while it is
evident that such push communication can effectively
facilitate and motivate learners in collaborative learning
activities, it may also intrude upon students' personal
space. Therefore the question must be asked: What new
'netiquette' and instructional design strategies are
needed?

4. Social implications in the progress and development of

mass communications, plus related cost factors may lead
to (in)accessibility issues in mobile learning. How can we
maximize the potential of mobile technology in
educational contexts, without creating another digital
divide?

Conclusion

Advancements in technologies have changed the process of

learning, not just in formal educational settings, but continuing
education settings as well. With the use of mobile technologies
in education, online learning communities can incorporate
 students from different backgrounds with vastly diverse
learning styles into a education setting. Motivating online
students, as well as learning how to effectively facilitate
learning in this format, is essential for developing successful
online learning communities. The use of mobile technologies
also incorporates a new concept for teaching and learning in
this environment.

Today, we live in an information era, a world where technology,

economics, society, politics, and theories of learning are all in
a state of transition. This competitive environment suggests
that theories, definitions, and the practice of distance learning
will continue to be contested. In this competitive environment,
it is evident that mobile learning has a range of attributes that
cannot be ignored because it is highly portable, personal, and
contextual. Learning using mobile devices is informal,
spontaneous, situated, and ubiquitous. When comparing
mobile learning to online learning using desktop computers, it
becomes evident that mobile learning comes with many
advantages and some drawbacks. Varied and changing
locations, the ability for more immediate interaction with
teachers and fellow students, and the portability and
affordability of smaller, handheld wireless devices, coupled
with their capacity to accomodate learners from different
backgrounds, make mobile devices a logical choice for
educators. Therefore, as mobile learning moves into the
educational mainstream, the need for appropriate pedagogical
instructional design models, teaching strategies, learning
styles, and effective learning activities, will remain crucial to
ubiquitous mobile learning environments.

Shih’s Mobile Learning Model is a new instructional design

model; it helps instructional designers motivate and engage
online learners and instructors, which in turn enhances their
online teaching and learning experiences. By focusing on the
use of mobile technologies in educational contexts, Shih's
model provides an innovation in instructional design that
guides the use of enhancements for effective teaching and
learning in today's virtual m-Learning environments.

References
 Alexander, B. (2004). Going Nomadic: Mobile learning in
higher education. EDUCAUSE Review 39(5), 28-35. Retrieved
September 14, 2005 from:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0451.pdf

Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile Technologies and Learning: A

technology update and m-learning project summary. London:
Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model

of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development,
10(3), 2-10.

Riddle, E., & Dabbagh, N. (1999). Lev Vygotsky's Social

Development Theory. Retrieved June 6, 2005 from:
http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/theorists/c
onstructivism/vygotsky.htm.

Shih, Y. E. (2005). Seize Teachable and Learnable Moments:

SMSE instructional design model for mobile learning. Paper
presented at the International Association for Development of
the Information Society International Conference Mobile
Learning June 28-30, Malta.

Smith, M. K. (1999). Learning theory, the encyclopedia of

informal education. Retrieved June 6, 2005 from:
www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm

Thomas, M. (2005, May 23). E-learning on the move.

Education Guardian online. Retrieved June 10, 2005 from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/comment/0,10577,
1490476,00.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of

higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press.

Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE

Review, 40(3), 40–53. Retrieved June 4, 2005 from:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0532.pdf

Appendix

Figure 3. Mobile PDA Phone availability survey

Figure 4. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 5. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 6. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 7. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 8. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 9. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 10. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 11. Mobile learning outcomes survey

Figure 12. Mobile learning outcomes survey (See short
answers below)

Short Answer Qualitative Survey

Would you recommend this m-learning class to a
friend? Why or why not?

Responses from participants to this open ended question:

1) Yes, it was a lot of fun I really enjoyed the class.

2) Yes, because it ends up saving stress by being able to

access materials anytime,

3) It’s in the beginning phases and has wrinkles that need to

be ironed out, but I see it as a very positive future method.

4) Only if the m-learning was more organized.

5) If my friend had the capability to use m-learning then I

would recommend it because it does save time for the users.

6) Yes, helpful

7) I couldn’t say. If they are good at phones, yes.

8) Yes, because you learn.

9) No, to much hassle & Stress I trying to figure out new

things online is easier.

10) Yes, It helped me save time, and assisted me in my

learning.

11) Yes and No. I personally did not use the mobile learning
very much I was a mobile learner but did not use it as
planned.

12) Good teacher, m-learning I didn’t really like.

13) No, makes the class more difficult.

14) Yes.

15) Not the m-learning, but the class yes. M-learning really
just takes more time when you could just use the phone or
email.
 16) Yes, if it were a bit more organized.

17) I’m not sure! The class content was great but I couldn’t
follow the organization. It was hard for me to keep up.

18) Yes, Very interesting.

19) Yes, because if you have a busy life m-learning actually

works around your schedule and you have 24/7 access to it.

20) Sure, if wasn’t hard and it helped get things done faster.

21) No, not easily accessible.

22) Yes, I was not affected by the m-learning portion.

23) No, too difficult, need to have phone’s provided.

24) Yes and No. It may be confusing if you do not know how to
work technology.

25) Yes, only if everything goes as planned.

26) Nope, because I didn’t use it.

27) Sure, it was an interesting experience, and the flexibility

made it very every to work with.

28) Yes, I thought that I learned new things I did not know of
before.

29) If they liked children’s literature and didn’t mind the

disorganization.

30) Yes, It everything worked out correctly.

31) If you are good with technology go for it other than that
you may struggle and spent more time than same time. You
don’t have to remember where you left your papers you have
them in email or something end to always have your phone.

32) No, because it was too much all over the board. May be if
it had worked, I would be more positive. However for me it
was too much of a hassle.
 33) I felt very confused in this class and would probably not
recommend it. I am very technological but did not care for the
class.

34) The concept sounds really useful, but since we couldn’t

use the phones fully I couldn’t tell. Overall, the concept sounds
great.

35) Not really b/c it seemed easier just to talk in class and
share ideas with everyone.

http://images.google.com.eg/imgres?imgurl=http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/361/872/2899&imgrefurl=http://w
ww.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/361/872&h=422&
w=559&sz=40&hl=ar&start=1&um=1&tbnid=ASDa_FOoRdzMqM:&t
bnh=100&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstyles%2Bof%2Bmob
ile%2Bdistance%2Blearning%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dar%26sa%3D
N