Educ Inf Technol

DOI 10.1007/s10639-015-9400-x

A model driven framework to address challenges

in a mobile learning environment

Ferial Khaddage 1 & Rhonda Christensen 2 &

Wing Lai 3 & Gerald Knezek 2 & Cathie Norris 2 &
Elliot Soloway 4

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract In this paper a review of the pedagogical, technological, policy and research
challenges and concepts underlying mobile learning is presented, followed by a brief
description of categories of implementations. A model Mobile learning framework and
dynamic criteria for mobile learning implementations are proposed, along with a case
study of one site that is used to illustrate how the proposed model can be applied.
Implementation challenges including pedagogical challenges, technological challenges,
policy challenges, and research challenges are described. These align well with the
themes of EduSummIT 2013 that hosted the dialogue resulting in this paper.

Keywords Mobile learning . Implementation types . Framework . Challenges

* Ferial Khaddage
[email protected]
Rhonda Christensen
[email protected]
Wing Lai
[email protected]
Gerald Knezek
[email protected]
Cathie Norris
[email protected]
Elliot Soloway
[email protected]
1
Deakin University School of I.T., Melbourne, Australia
2
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
3
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
4
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
 Educ Inf Technol

1 Introduction

We are moving, headlong, into the Age of Mobilism (Norris and Soloway 2011). It has
been estimated that the number of mobile subscriptions would reach the seven billion
mark in 2013, which would be greater than the number of humans on the planet (Faille
and Morrison 2013), with the growth rates of mobile phone subscriptions in less
economically advanced countries being the fastest (Ally 2013). For example, in Africa,
there were 200 million connected mobile devices in 2006, increasing to 735 million in
2012 (UNESCO 2012). In the U.S., adoption of mobile technology continues to grow
every year, and according to a Pew Internet survey, 91 % of adults in 2013 owned cell
phones with 56 % of those identified as smartphones (Smith 2013). Mobile devices are
virtually ubiquitous for U.S. middle and high school students while one third of them
are using mobile devices provided by their schools (Nagel 2014).
With the advent of mobile technologies and the proliferation of applications (apps) at
a rapid pace, and combined with the massive adoption of social networking platforms,
mobile technologies are currently transforming people’s daily lives. For example,
mobile devices can connect people socially in new and unexpected ways and deliver
information and content to users on the go, via apps and cloud technologies (Hirsch and
Ng 2011). These devices can also change how people spend their leisure time, and how
they learn and construct knowledge in different settings. Technological advancements
have brought new capabilities, opportunities and complexity to the learning process.
Nevertheless, the pace of mobile growth presents a challenge to educational institutions
that must make the best of limited resources to support modern day educational
programs. The educational community is thus grappling with how best to utilize mobile
technologies and apps for teaching and learning.
In the Third International Summit on ICT in Education (EDUsummIT 2013),
members of the Thematic Working Group 2 discussed methods, strategies, and guide-
lines for some of the issues and challenges in the design, implementation, evaluation,
and policy development of mobile learning. The aim was to generate new methods and
strategies to support the merging of formal and informal learning to cater for the needs
of 21st century learners. In this paper we will highlight key challenges and issues that
policy makers, teachers, researchers, and students are facing today in mobile learning.
Some exemplary implementations of mobile learning will be discussed and a frame-
work for identifying and overcoming barriers to best practices for mobile learning will
be presented in the final part of this paper.

2 Challenges facing mobile learning

What makes mobile learning unique? While mobile technologies have been used in
teaching and learning for over a decade, there is yet no consensus on how mobile
learning should be conceptualized. Winters (2006) has summarized four main perspec-
tives of mobile learning: (a) it is primarily seen as learning supported by mobile
devices, and the focus is on the technology; (b) it is considered an extension or a
subset of e-learning, and mobile learning research is primarily part of e-learning
research; (c) mobile devices are used just to complement and augment formal educa-
tion; and (d) mobile learning is student-centered and is about mobility and context. We
Educ Inf Technol

see a gradual shift of understanding of the theory and practice of mobile learning in the
last 10 years, from a technocentric perspective focusing on the attributes and
affordances of the technology, to a learner-centered (Quintana et al. 2004) perspective
focusing on the mobility of the learner (not just space and time, but also access to
people and resources) and contexts (Kukulska-Hulme and Sharples 2009). One exam-
ple of such a perspective is provided by Sharpes et al. (2007), who define mobile
learning as Bthe process of coming to know through conversations across multiple
contexts among people and personal interactive technologies^ (p.255). As pointed out
by Pachler (2009), Sharpes et al.’s (2007) definition emphasizes the cognitive and
social (the communicative) aspects of mobile learning, not the technical aspect or how
mobile devices are used to deliver content.
While recent studies found that students are tapping into various mobile applications
including social media, games and videos to extend the learning process beyond the end
of the school day (Project Tomorrow 2014), many teachers still see a sharp distinction
between formal and informal learning, and using mobile technologies to support informal
learning is not yet widely recognized. For example, in a survey conducted by the Public
Broadcasting System (PBS), PBS & Grunwald Associates LLC (2010) 85 % of teachers
believed mobile phones were a distraction and 64 % believed they have no place in
school. We also need to develop methods and strategies to generate examples of how to
relate and link learning across contexts. Identifying barriers that inhibit bridging formal
and informal learning through mobile technologies is a first step toward resolving the
current sharp distinctions. Instruments for measuring mobile learning attitudes and beliefs
(e.g., Khaddage and Knezek 2013) are beginning to emerge that provide mechanisms for
addressing the psychological teaching-learning barriers that may need to be overcome.

2.1 Pedagogical challenges

There are many design and pedagogical challenges when using mobile technologies in
teaching and learning. These challenges affect all involved stakeholders (teachers,
students, parents administrators). There are questions such as what design principles
and frameworks should teachers follow in creating mobile learning environments, and
what instructional strategies can best be deployed to enhance student learning. While it
is pertinent for all involved stakeholders to understand the pedagogical value and use
mobile technologies and application in education, it is also important to understand the
student perspective, because so many students are already making use of these devices
in their personal and educational lives.
Elias (2011) provides universal design principles for mobile learning that include
many of the same criteria relevant for online learning. The criteria include equitable and
flexible use, simplicity, tolerance for error, and support for a community of learners and
low technology and physical load. There are also issues of what mobile literacy skills
are required for mobile learning, and whether these skills are similar to the media
literacy skills proposed by Jenkins (2006). We know that young people are developing
a set of skills as they use mobile devices in informal settings but it is not clear how
these skills can be readily transferred to formal contexts (Crook 2012). Creating a
learning environment that is enhanced by the use of mobile learning devices requires
new approaches that include the design of instruction, the pedagogical strategy and the
management of instruction. Simply owning mobile technologies does not guarantee
 Educ Inf Technol

their use in education by students and teachers. Students have to be trained on how to
use the device in a pedagogical context; also teachers must have supportive training
focused on the pedagogy of integrating these devices as well as useful strategies for
classroom management that will enable the teachers and the students to feel confident
in their classroom instructional environment. As pointed out in a recent UNESCO
document, current pedagogical approaches are not appropriate for mobile learning and
for the new generation of learners. There must be Ban instructional paradigm shift that
promises to fundamentally change the way students learn^ (UNESCO 2012, p.7).
There is a paradigm shift required for teachers to effectively integrate mobile
devices. No longer is the teacher the only content expert in the classroom. With mobile
devices, students literally have the world at their fingertips. Teachers must design
innovative, challenging learning experiences that require students to think and solve
problems by finding useful information rather than memorizing facts, and creating
knowledge, rather than reproducing knowledge. Teachers will be charged with creating
a personalized learning environment to accommodate multiple types of mobile devices
that will be constantly changing. Mobile learning also requires a change of assessment
practices (Hwang and Chang 2011). As teachers’ access to smartphones is growing
(e.g., from 20 % in 2008 to 54 % in 2011 in the U.S.) (Project Tomorrow 2011), and
teachers have greater access to mobile apps, they are more likely to see the benefits of
using mobile devices in the classroom. Cochrane (2010) investigated the success
factors when using mobile devices and found that the critical factors include: good
pedagogical design of the learning materials, links between mobile course elements and
course assessment, and the teacher modeling the use of the mobile technology. Some
factors that influence a teachers’ willingness to use mobile technology in the classroom
include student access, cost, class disruption, lack of teachers’ technical and pedagog-
ical skills, compelling evidence of effectiveness and a lack of guidelines (Kim 2013).
Many of the professional development models, assessments, and practices for
successful technology integration can be applied to mobile learning with an emphasis
on the affordances of the mobile applications and devices. For example, Fullan (2007)
has pointed out teachers’ feeling of ownership and teachers’ knowledge, skills and
beliefs are core to successful implementation. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM) (Hall et al. 1975) has been applied for decades to the adoption of new
innovations in education. Rogers (1983) introduced Diffusion of Innovations in the
late 20th Century and it has been successful in helping teachers introduce 20th and 21st
Century skills into their classrooms. Griffin and Christensen (1999) and Christensen
(2002) have developed reliable and valid instruments for assessing classroom teachers
general stage of adoption of technology, and Christensen and Knezek (2014) have
revised an earlier standards-based Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment instrument
by Ropp (1999) to include assessment of mobile skills for teachers’ own professional
development as well as for student learning in classrooms. A professional development
model that can be used to combine these components for diagnosing deficiencies and
prescribing training leading to improved practice can be found in Christensen and
Knezek (2008).
Somekh (2008) concluded that lessons learned from early personal learning tech-
nology large scale projects can be directly applied to using mobile devices for fostering
learning in the classroom today. She noted that the goals of the Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow (ACOT) project were to radically change the learning environment through
Educ Inf Technol

the implementation of technology. This well-researched project revealed that the

introduction of technology challenged teachers’ existing pedagogical beliefs creating
an environment that was less structured and less teacher directed (Sandholtz and
Ringstaff 1996). Initially the teachers tried to restrict the student use of technology to
avoid losing control of the classroom structure. The process was slow, but over time,
radical change did occur and the pedagogy evolved into creative uses of technology in
the classroom. While these studies were conducted with computers in the 1980s,
strategies for introducing mobile devices in the classroom can follow these lessons
learned, today. Many models like these can be used to guide the diagnosis and
prescription for technology integration training leading to improved pedagogical prac-
tices with technologies such as mobile devices and applications used for learning.
Additional models may be found in the International Handbook for Information
Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Voogt and Knezek 2008).

2.2 Technological challenges

We live in a society that is driven by technologies and innovations, therefore by

understanding the technologies, infrastructure and architecture behind mobile applica-
tions, we can much better identify a successful implementation of these apps in
education (Khaddage and Cosío 2014). Technologies, infrastructure and architecture
of mobile applications are considered the backbone of their functionalities and capa-
bilities, and can determine what a specific app can or cannot do. They can also
determine accessibility and availability online, offline availability, client server rela-
tions, and so many other capabilities. Many educators may not know the differences
between types of apps, and this may lead to an unclear and uninformed decision in
selecting the most suitable, flexible, effective app – an app that can cater to their
students’ needs and can be device independent across platforms and operating systems,
thereby offering interactive content in the most efficient and robust manner (Khaddage
and Cosío 2014).
A Mobile app is a software application that is always on; it runs in a smartphone,
tablet or other portable device (Seilhamer et al. 2013). Khaddage and Cosío (2014)
define a mobile app as a touch-based, on demand, on the go, and a takeaway software
application that runs on a smart mobile device and can perform a variety of tasks
(Khaddage and Cosío 2014). Mobile apps can be classified into three types: Native
mobile apps, Hybrid mobile apps and Web mobile apps (Korf and Oksman 2012). Each
of these types comes with advantages and disadvantages and certain limitations when
used in education.

Native Apps: Software applications developed specifically to run on the architec-

ture of a mobile device, and that can be downloaded, are called native apps. The
term is used to refer to a locally installed application on the mobile phone
architecture; it does not require a connection to the web server or the cloud, and
it can run locally within the engine of the device itself. One of its advantages is that
it is robust and fast since it runs from within the device engine, and it is capable of
running multimedia and animations. This app type is most suitable for gaming, as
it provides high quality graphics and speed (Korf and Oksman 2012). One
limitation of native apps is that they are device specific and operating system
 Educ Inf Technol

specific. They are initially developed using a software development tool kit (SDK)
for a particular and specific operating system. Therefore developers have to
develop different versions of the same app to support different devices and
different operating systems. This can be seen as a limitation for native app
integration in education, because learning content should be made accessible from
anywhere at anytime, and it should be made flexible, portable and independent
from device specifications and limitations. (Khaddage and Cosío 2014).
Mobile Web Apps: A mobile web app is a web application formatted for
smartphones and tablets, and accessed through the mobile device’s web browser.
Mobile web apps are compatible with each other and are cross platform. This type
along with hybrid apps are considered the most relevant type that could be
integrated into teaching and learning as it supports Bring Your Own Device
(BYOD) to access the learning content, hence the main focus is given to the
learning content and not the technology in use, so students can use any device to
access the content (Boulos et al. 2011; Khaddage 2013; Khaddage and Cosío
2014).
Hybrid Apps combine both characteristics of native and web apps, in that they run
on the device itself, but they run inside a native container within the operating
system of the device itself. They are native apps with embedded web technologies,
they use the web-to-native abstraction layer to enable access to device capabilities
that are not accessible in mobile web apps, such as the camera and other local and
default applications. Therefore if learning content is designed and developed to be
presented to students in this environment, students can access the content via any
device (Mudge 2012; Khaddage and Cosío 2014).

The challenge that we in education are now facing is that the majority of educational
institutions have yet to establish a standard policy on mobile app integration, and a
mechanism for integration is yet to be put in place. Not all apps are developed for a
specific course module description. There are no guidelines or support, especially with
regard to the massive supply of educational native apps in the app store that are freely
available for anyone to download and use. For instance, how do we keep the same
standard if one teacher decides to use a particular app for her course content delivery
and another teacher for the same course / same content decides to use a different app?
This results in teachers as well as students being left feeling lost and confused, since
teaching via apps is usually dynamic unlike teaching via a book where the content is
usually static (Khaddage and Lattemann 2013; Khaddage and Cosío 2014).

2.3 Policy challenges

School systems have challenges as well in trying to embrace the mobile learning
experiences. Funding is a major issue and most school systems have not found a
sustainable way to provide the same device for all students. Schools often do not have
an infrastructure for allowing an entire school population to access the Internet without
adding costly Wi-Fi access nodes. Teachers and students may find access slow and
frustrating, wasting instructional time. This issue is compounded in locations where
high-speed access is cost-prohibitive or completely unavailable (ITU 2010). Many
school systems are considering BBring Your Own Device^ (BYOD) strategies that
Educ Inf Technol

entail additional challenges for educators. When students bring their own devices,
variability in the accessibility and applicability of learning is problematic for teachers’
planning of instruction. However, most schools currently have a policy prohibiting
students from using their own personal mobile devices. In a Speak Up survey (2011),
principals were asked about their major concerns with accommodating student owned
mobile devices at school. Their issues included concerns about theft of the devices and
responsibility of that loss, concerns about network security, concerns about equity for
those who have personal mobile devices versus those who do not have the devices,
concerns about lack of teacher training to integrate a variety of mobile devices,
concerns about the potential for additional distractions from learning and concerns
about student internet safety (Project Tomorrow 2011). More recently, district personnel
concerns regarding equity have grown even larger (Project Tomorrow 2014). There is a
need to develop policy guidelines for equitable access, privacy, intellectual property, e-
waste, and health and safety at the local, national, and international levels (Lai et al.
2013).

2.4 Research challenges

Mobile learning is considered a new field in education research. There has been a
proliferation of mobile learning research projects in the school and tertiary sectors in the
last 10 years. Currently many studies that focus on various research activities to learn
more about the dynamics, the potentials, the barriers, limitations and benefits of mobile
learning are still underway. It seems that we are in the process of divergence and some
research challenges should be considered as well, such as: new innovations that comes
with technological change hence requiring re-designing of the content, with new
designs requiring understanding interaction and usability principles, student and teacher
acceptance assessments plus formal and informal education. The suggested research
challenges for mobile learning do not only help us classify our research projects, they
could also help in further development.
A recent review conducted by Frohberg et al. (2009) identified 102 mobile learning
research projects. The reviewers concluded that mobile learning was at its best in
providing support for learning in context, rather than being used to deliver content.
Some studies have found significantly positive results in the use of mobile devices to
support collaborative learning (Zurita and Nussbaum 2004; Project Tomorrow 2010) as
well as the use of mobile devices to support second language learning (Lu 2008). A
review of 18 key mobile learning studies published from 2005 to 2010 found that
overall student perceptions were reported as positive in all 18 studies. Some studies also
reported an increase in achievement among students attributed to the use of mobile
devices (Shih et al. 2010; Wyatt et al. 2010; Hsu et al. 2008; Williams and Bearman
2008). Other studies have measured the increase in student engagement and access for
learning (Aderinoye et al. 2007). The characteristics of mobile learning have been
extensively researched (Kukulska-Hulme and Sharples 2009; Looi et al. 2010; Pachler
2009; Sharples et al. 2009), and research is beginning to document the relationship
between motivation and mobile learning (Ciampa 2013), as well as mobile learning and
self-regulation (Sha et al. 2011).
Trends in research on mobile learning have been reviewed by Hwang and Tsai
(2011) and Wu et al. (2012).
 Educ Inf Technol

In a study to determine perceived readiness of mobile learning for college students

as well as faculty, 94 % of the students responded positively about the use of mobile
learning for the classroom while only 60 % of the faculty responded positively (Corbeil
and Valdes-Corbeil 2007). It should be noted that mobile devices are not preferred for
all learning situations, even by students. In a survey of 261 students who each had an
iPad device, most students (64 %) preferred to prepare papers on a desktop or laptop
computer although the majority of the students (67 %) preferred taking notes on their
iPad (Christensen and Williams 2015). This preference may create the need for multiple
technology resources in schools. It is likely that faculty would be more positive toward
the use of mobile devices for learning if they had an appropriate amount of training to
prepare them to integrate mobile devices into their teaching.
Cochrane (2010) identified the following gaps in research on mobile learning:

– no clear pedagogical theory for designing effective mobile learning

– limited evaluation for mobile learning activities
– a lack of longitudinal studies on mobile learning to determine the impact on
learning
– providing support for students in mobile learning
– providing support for teachers in mobile learning

Mobile learning is about agency and learner control, and it is very much situated and
context-based. As such, there are challenges in how mobile learning can be evaluated.
In our proposed framework we attempt to further address these challenges: pedagog-
ical, technological, research and policy. These will be discussed in the following
section.

3 A proposed framework and dynamic criteria for mobile learning

implementation

The ability to combine different pedagogical, technological, research and policy chal-
lenges in order to facilitate new and unique learner experiences has become a major
challenge among educators and researchers in mobile learning. As a result of this
radical transformation within the learning environment, many tested models, such as
the TPACK framework that considered three knowledge components (content, peda-
gogy, and technology) have emerged (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Koole (2009)
developed a framework for the rational analysis of mobile learning called the FRAME
model. Koole focused on three elements of mobile learning: the device, the learner, and
the social environment. Koole’s model is unique because he listed criteria along with a
checklist that could help educators plan and design mobile learning environments.
Other applications of frameworks for mobile learning incorporate learning settings,
from formal and informal learning to classroom learning and distance learning
(Khaddage et al. 2009; Lai et al. 2013). Most existing models have technological
limitations and pedagogical concerns (Traxler 2007). Although some researchers offer
models for theorizing about mobile learning (Sharples et al. 2005; Uden 2007; Zurita
and Nussbaum 2004), educators and course designers still need a dynamic, theoretical
set of criteria or a framework to support the ecology of mobile learning, and one that
Educ Inf Technol

can also address other factors such as policies, pedagogy, technology, and innovative
research in the field. More guidance about how to utilize emerging mobile technol-
ogies and integrate them seamlessly into teaching and learning is still needed. Hence
the aim of this section is to propose a framework that identifies barriers that inhibit
the implementation of best practices and introduces design guidelines for proper
mobile learning integration into education. This framework may help to analyze as
well as govern the dynamics of the factors and challenges that have been identified
in the literature, and that were the main issues discussed by TWG2 during
EduSummIT 2013.
Based on the literature, we have classified challenges creating barriers into four
categories: Pedagogical challenges, technological challenges, policy challenges and
research challenges – in order to identify a new and unique mobile learning ecology
that describe the interactions of these four challenges with one another and with the
learning environment. The challenges presented are considered useful techniques that
can be used to test our ecological theory in the proposed mobile learning framework,
hence assisting us later at the phase of practical implementations within the mobile
learning environment. We believe that understanding the ecology of mobile learning is
essential for a seamless mobile learning integration. All evolutionary change usually
takes place in response to ecological interactions that operate on the overall ecosystem,
and in our case the interaction is apparent between these four challenges and they can
allow us understand the structure and function of each one of them. Understanding the
relationships between these challenges are essential for a proper mobile learning
integration and a successful mobile learning ecology (Zhao and Frank 2003).
Therefore our proposed framework is intended to address critical challenges that
were identified in the literature.
As shown in Fig. 1, critical challenges are identified and a graphical representation
of the relationships among the components that describe the logic flow of the dynamic
mobile ecology and link all four components together as one entity are illustrated.
Based on the challenges and issues of mobile learning discussed in the previous
sections, the proposed framework can be used to measure major aspects to ensure
quality implementation. Basically, this framework is a combination of factors that
integrate dimensions of the mobile learning context (Ali et al. 2012). It presents the
four challenges along with the factors that are crucial to consider for each challenge
when planning and designing a mobile learning environment at any level. The Mobile
Learning Framework can be used to ensure that no important factor is omitted from the
design and implementation of the educational innovation.
New technologies lead to new pedagogies, new policy and new research. These four
factors combined can form a solid infrastructure that may help institutions adopt new
ways of teaching and learning in a mobile environment. It is an innovative approach not
only in the creation of new, authentic pedagogies, policies, and research but also in the
action-learning techniques that can be adopted when selecting the appropriate technol-
ogies and the relevant content in order to achieve a successful mobile learning ecology.
In this section we describe examples of several types of mobile learning
implementations where the framework in a specific context is applied and used, and
the four challenges are clearly identified and addressed. One type of mobile learning
implementation is when decision makers at the school district or ministry top level
arrange for mass distribution of devices. Typically, the leaders sign a contract with a
 Educ Inf Technol

Fig. 1 A framework for mobile learning implementation

vender or the manufacturer of the device itself. One challenge in this approach is that
there is often little educator input or needs analysis, and little or no training included,
nor apps provided as part of the package. The underlying assumption is usually that one
size fits all, and that all teachers and students are ready and willing to implement.
Usually the technology is not the problem in this type of implementation, nor is the
policy issues regarding standards and proper operating procedures. However, peda-
gogical issues regarding the fit of the technology with learner needs, and research into
what is working or what needs to be refined based on systematic evaluation, are often
lacking. Examples of this type of implementation include the UAE ipads initiative;
(Khaddage and Zeidan 2012), and the Los Angeles Unified School District initiative
(Norris and Soloway 2013; Campbell 2014). Each of these involved the mass purchase
and distribution of tablet computers numbering in the thousands.
Educ Inf Technol

Another type of implementation is where parents and teachers foresee benefits,

begin a grass roots initiative, then the school conducts needs analysis and pilot test(s).
In this approach, teachers are typically involved at an early stage in planning, provided
training, and provide formative feedback during the entire process. Quite often a parent
group is also involved and may instigate the implementation. Often, teachers conduct
pilot tests and are trained a year ahead, before the mobile devices are required for
teaching and learning. Pedagogy and research are quite strong in this approach, while
standards for technology and uniform policies may be lacking. Examples of this type
include: Abilene Christian University USA (Young 2011; UB Custom Publishing
Group 2012); Punahou Schools, Honolulu, HI USA (Donelly 2013); St. Johns Region-
al College Vic Australia (St. John’s Curriculum 2013). Note that all of the schools in
this are privately funded.
A third type of implementation is when the Ministry of Education sets educational
goals, conducts a needs analysis and pilot test(s), refines and scales up. In this
approach, policy makers, school leaders, and teachers are involved in planning,
provided with training as needed, and provide strong feedback regarding the systematic
implementation of the educational innovation. Alternative configurations and vendors
are piloted. A research/evaluation team assesses impact and suggests revisions. In this
approach, technology, policy, pedagogy, and research all should be strong. One good
example is the Singapore Nan Chiau Primary School WE LearnProject, where the four
identified challenges within the proposed framework have been tackled regularly
during the life of the project. This process will be explained in detail following sections.

4 Singapore project case study

Formally initiated in January 2010, the Singapore WE Learn Project seeks to create
educational practices that are aligned with Singapore’s Masterplan 3 (MP3) for Edu-
cation developed by its Ministry of Education (MoE). MP3 calls for a shift from direct-
instruction pedagogy to inquiry-oriented pedagogy. MP3 was developed to address
MoE’s concern that Singaporean children, while scoring high on tests of content, need
also to develop key 21st century skills such as self-directed learning and collaborative
learning. This case study is presented in this document as an example of systematic,
step by step scale up that is likely necessary for broad scale implementation and
institutionalization of any education innovation.
In the Singapore WE Learn Project, Nan Chiu Primary School (NCPS) developed
curriculum and instructional practices (Looi et al. 2011) that foster inquiry, specifically
for science, English and math in grades 3 and 4 (about 700 students). The catalyst for
the transformation has been the use of mobile devices – smartphones, in particular.
Each and every student in grades 3 and 4 has been issued a smartphone (e.g., Nokia 710
or Nokia 625, Windows Phone 7 and 8) for use 24/7 inside the classroom and outside
the classroom. We say Bcatalyst^ since the very personal and very mobile devices – in
Singapore, the mobile phones are called Bhand-phones^ – uniquely empower students
to pursue their own inquiries, e.g., (1) to seek answers to questions they develop inside
and outside the classroom; and (2) to document, e.g., via the camera, audio recorder,
text editor, the connections they make linking the abstract concepts discussed in the
classroom with their concrete observations made in the everyday world outside the
 Educ Inf Technol

classroom (Norris and Soloway 2013). As described in depth in Looi et al. (2014),
students in grades 3 and 4, where inquiry pedagogy is dominant, appear to continue to
score high on content tests while also scoring high on demonstrations of 21st century
skills.

Pedagogical challenges in the case of Nan Chaiu Primary School in Singapore,

existed in the form of educators being confronted with revising the curriculum and
structure of the content to focus on student-centred learning, by training teachers, and
offering support to students on how to use the device in a pedagogical context.
Challenges existed also in developing rapport among the teachers, parents, and school
leadership, and even in setting aside a common planning time for teacher teams and
researchers to reflect on lesson difficulties and develop alternative strategies. The
teachers of science, which was the first curricular area revised for the smartphones at
Nan Chaiu, came to refer to themselves as a community of practice because of the high
level of support, mentoring, lesson modelling, and encouragement they provided for
one another.

Technological challenges are an ongoing area of challenges that include device/

hardware-software technical, infrastructure and network; apps and devices, usability
and navigation delivery access and implementation. Some of the barriers encountered
at Nan Chiau are as follow: Initially the project settled on providing a Nokia 710
smartphone to all grades 3 and 4 students. At the time, the 710 model was top-of-the-
line, the students all saved their artifacts to a portal – a cloud-based LMS (Learning
Management System) developed at the University of Michigan. However, the LMS
required a different password than the school’s content management system – which in
turn was a constant headache due to lost passwords and confused students. In year 3,
the project moved to a commercial LMS, developed by a local, Singaporean company –
which then gave the students a Bsingle-sign-on^ capability. With this plethora of
devices – almost as heterogeneous as a true BYOD (Bring Your Own Device model)
– making sure the all the students’ devices can run the same software continues to be a
challenge. Smartphones are not as long-lived as PCs or laptops!

Policy challenges were made easier at Nan Chiau through top-level support from the
National Institute of Education and strong encouragement from the Principal for
ubiquitous implementation. Also school leaders played important liaison roles with
parents. Meetings were held with parents at the beginning of the project to inform them
of the goals of the project, how the mobile technologies would benefit their childrens’
achievement of educational objectives, what their children would be doing with their
smartphones and how they could support their children using the new technology.

Research challenges at Nan Chiau were numerous and ongoing. Usability for various
devices and activities, integration into the science and English language curricula,
evaluation of high level outcomes, acceptance by parents (and some teachers), assess-
ment of learning, system capacity for hundreds of devices, storage of content in an
accessible repository, ownership of the devices and responsibility if the devices are lost,
how to recognize and assess informal learning, and how to incorporate new innovations
emerging each year – are all issues that have had to be faced by the project management
Educ Inf Technol

and research team. Solutions to these have been developed but are beyond the scope of
the current paper. Many of these challenges are described in (Looi et al. 2014).

5 Conclusions and future work

This paper discussed the evolution of mobile learning, provided examples of mobile
learning approaches to implementation that are likely to succeed and some that are not
likely to succeed, and introduced a framework for guiding mobile learning
implementations based on four key challenges in mobile learning. The last section
incorporates a dynamic framework for mobile learning implementation requirements
by providing a broader view to take into account the learning context and objectives via
the four most commonly discussed issues in mobile learning: pedagogy, technology,
policy and research. More research is planned in order to improve, extend, and test the
value of the framework in practice.
We conclude that having a dynamic view on models and frameworks seems to be
valuable, both from a practical and a scientific point of view. Integrating knowledge of
mobile learning frameworks with other new innovations, may lead to more robust
models over time.
It is of course recognized that the framework introduced here has not yet been
thoroughly assessed. Future work will involve validating the framework via a generic
design process through a complete mobile learning installation.

References

Aderinoye, R. A., Ojokheta, K.O., Olojede, A. A. (2007). Integrating mobile learning into nomadic education
programmes in Nigeria: Issues and perspectives. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 8(2). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/.
Ali, A., Ouda, A., & Capretz, L. (2012). A conceptual framework for measuring the quality aspects of m-
learning. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 14(4), 31–34.
Ally, M. (2013). Mobile learning: From research to practice to impact education. Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2). http://lthe.zu.ac.ae.
Boulos, M. N., Wheeler, S., Tavares, C., & Jones, R. (2011). How smartphones are changing the face of
mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX. Biomedical
Engineering Online, 10(1), 24.
Campbell, M. (2014). Los Angeles school district to shift away from Apple’s iPad to Windows, Chromebook.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/01/los-angeles-school-district-to-shift-away-from-apples-ipad-
windows-chromebook.
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 411–433.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). Self-report measures and findings for information technology attitudes
and competencies. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook for information technology in
primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2014). The technology proficiency self-assessment questionnaire (TPSA):
Evolution of a self-efficacy measure for technology integration. In T. Brinda, N. Reynolds & R. Romeike
(Eds.) Proceedings of KEYCIT 2014 – Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT, 2014, pp. 190–196.
Christensen, R., & Williams, M. (2015). Teacher and student perceptions during the first year of a one-to-one
mobile learning initiative. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2015 (pp. 1428–1433). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
 Educ Inf Technol

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning.
Cochrane, T. D. (2010). Exploring mobile learning success factors. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology,
18(2), 133–148.
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? Educause Quarterly, 2, 51–
58.
Crook, C. (2012). The ‘digital native’ in context: tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the
school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 63–80.
Donelly, C. (2013). Innovation Drives Lab School @ Punahou. Punahou News, July 23, 2013.
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2).
Faille, M. & Morrison, K. (2013). Rise of the mobile phone. National Post, April 5, 2013. http://news.
nationalpost.com/2013/04/05/graphic-rise-of-the-mobile-phone/.
Frohberg, D., Goth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects – a critical analysis of the state of the
art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307–311.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Griffin, D., & Christensen, R. (1999). Concerns-Based Adoption Model Levels of Use of an Innovation
(CBAM-LOU). Adapted from Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newlove (1975). Denton: Institute for the
Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning.
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: a
framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56.
Hirsch, B., & Ng, J. W. (2011). Education beyond the cloud: anytime-anywhere learning in a smart campus
environment. In Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), 2011 International Conference
(pp. 718–723). IEEE.
Hsu, H., Wang, S., & Cormac, L. (2008). Using audio blogs to assist English-language learning: an
investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 181–198.
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving
the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.
Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of
publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4),
E65–E70.
International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (2010). Measuring the information society 2010. Geneva,
Switzerland: ITU. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of a participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
Khaddage, F. (2013). The iPad global embrace! Are we branding mobile learning?. In Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1, 3234–3240.
Khaddage, F., & Cosío, J. H. (2014). Trends and barriers on the fusion of mobile apps in higher education
where to next and how? In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 903–909). Chesapeake: AACE.
Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). iLearn via mobile technology: A comparison of mobile learning attitudes
among university Students in two nations. Proceedings of the IEEE 13th International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). Beijing, China.
Khaddage, F., & Lattemann, C. (2013). The future of mobile apps for teaching and learning. In Z. Berge & L.
Muilen-burg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning: Definitions (pp. 119–128). London: Routledge.
Khaddage, F., & Zeidan, F. (2012) iPad in Education in the Middle East, Ready or Not? A College Case Study.
Published in: Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), 2012 15th International Conference, E-ISBN :
978-1-4673-2426-7 DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2012.6402161.
Khaddage, F., Lanham, E., & Zhou, W. (2009). A mobile learning model for universities: re-blending the
current learning environment. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 3(1), 18–23.
Kim, J. (2013). measuring factors that influence teachers’ willingness in using mobile phone in the classroom.
In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 3730–3737). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.
org/p/48689.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming
the delivery of education and training (pp. 25–47). Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Korf M., & Oksman E (2012). Native, HTML5, or hybrid: understanding your mobile application develop-
ment options. http://wiki.developerforce.com/.
Educ Inf Technol

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Sharples, M. (2009). Editorial: mobile and contextual learning. Research in Learning
Technology, 17(3), 159–160.
Lai, K., Khaddage, F., Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Looi, C., Sun, D., Seow, P., & Chia, G. (2014). Enacting a technology-based science curriculum across a grade
level: the journey of teachers’ appropriation. Computers & Education, 71, 222–236.
Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry
learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269–287.
Looi, C.-K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2010). 1:1 mobile inquiry
learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 27, 269–287.
Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phones. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 515–525.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for
integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mudge JT. (2012). Native app vs. Mobile web app: A quick comparison six revisions, useful information for
web developers and designers website available online from: http://sixrevisions.com/mobile/native-app-
vs-mobile-web-app-comparison/ [last accessed October 2012].
Nagel, D. (2014). One-third of U.S. students use school-issued mobile devices. THE Journal. Available http://
thejournal.com/Articles/2014/04/08/A-Third-of-Secondary-Students-Use-School-Issued-Mobile-Devices.
aspx?m=2&p=1.
Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in the age of mobilism. Educational Technology,
51(6), 3.
Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2013). Los Angeles’ 640,000 iPad purchase: too big to fail. THE Journal.
Pachler, N. (2009). Research methods in mobile and informal learning: Some issues. In G. Vavoula., N.
Pachler, A. Kukulska-Hulme (eds.). Researching Mobile Learning (pp. 1–15). Peter Lang.
PBS & Grunwald Associates LLC. (2010). Deepening connections: teachers’ increasingly rely on media and
technology. Available: http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/182/PBS-Grunwald-
2011e.pdf.
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Project K-Nect evaluation report. Irvine: Project Tomorrow.
Project Tomorrow. (2011). Speak-up national findings, K-12 students and parents report. Irvine: Project
Tomorrow.
Project Tomorrow: Speak Up. (2011). Learning in the 21st century. Mobile devices + social media =
personalized learning. Washington: Blackboard K-12.
Project Tomorrow: Speak Up. (2014). The new digital learning playbook: Understanding the spectrum of
students’ activities and aspirations. Irving: Project Tomorrow.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding
design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in
preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402–424.
Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In C. Fisher, D. C.
Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (pp.
281–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seilhamer, R., Chen, B., Sugar, A. (2013). A framework for implementing mobile technology. In Z. Berge &
L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Sha, L., Looi, C.-K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B. (2011). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of
self-regulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 366–378.
Sharpes, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, F. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big
issues. In N. Balacheff et al. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233–249). New York: Springer.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn
2005, 1(1), 1–9.
Shih, K., Chen, H., Chang, C., & Kao, T. (2010). The development and implementation of scaffolding-based
self-regulated learning system for e/m-learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 80–
93.
 Educ Inf Technol

Smith, A. (2013). Smartphone ownership – 2013 update. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from http://www.
pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Smartphone-Ownership-2013/Findings.aspx.
Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.),
International handbook for information technology in primary and secondary education. New York:
Springer.
St. John’s Curriculum Goes 1:1 with iPads for Fall 2013. http://www.stjohnschs.org/podium/default.aspx?t=
204&id=655956.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning. The moving finger writes and having
writ…. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–12.
UB Custom Publishing Group (2012). Abilene Christian University mobilizes learning with smartphones,
University Business.
Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and
Organisation, 1(1), 81–102.
UNESCO. (2012). Working paper series on mobile learning: Turning on mobile learning in North America.
Paris: UNESCO.
Voogt, J., & Knezek, G. (Eds.) (2008). International handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education (Vol. 20). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Williams, B., & Bearman, M. (2008). Podcasting lectures: the next silver bullet? Journal of Emergency
Primary Health Care, 6(3), 109–112.
Winters, N. (2006). What is mobile learning. In M. Sharples (ed.). Big issues in mobile learning (pp. 5–9).
University of Nottingham.
Wu, W.-H., Wu, J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang, S.-H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile
learning studies: a meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59, 817–827.
Wyatt, T. H., Krauskopf, P. B., Gaylord, N. M., Ward, A., Huffstutler-Hawkins, S., & Goodwin, L. (2010).
Cooperative m-learning with nurse practitioner students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 109–
112.
Young, J. R. (2011). Smartphones on campus: the search for ‘killer’ apps. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
B6–B8.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless
handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 235–243.