What is mLearning?

The recognition of the vast educational opportunities presented by new technologies and the need to keep up with the pace of innovations have been voiced by a number of proponents of technological innovations in education. Here is just a couple of examples:

• "Things are moving faster: we have less time, there’s more information, we have fewer resources available, and we have more responsibility. In short, the demand is for increased performance. Couple that with the fact that we’re more mobile than ever, in meetings, visiting sites and people, at conferences, and we really need portable, personal performance improvement" (Quinn, 2011).
• "The only limits that exist on accessing education are those imposed by access to technology and by the availability of learning resources at the place where the persons interested to learn are, at the time they have available to learn" (Andronie & Andronie, 2014). 
• "Educators began to notice something different happening when they began to use tools like wikis and blogs in the classroom a couple of years ago. All of a sudden, instead of discussing pre-assigned topics with their classmates, students found themselves discussing a wide range of topics with peers worldwide" (Downes, 2005).
• "The lifelong learning is increasingly seen as a constant practice. Therefore, there is a great expectation about whether mobile technologies have the potential and feasibility to be used in lifelong learning systems in a large scale" (Negas & Ramos, 2011).

These concerns found their realisation in the emergence of a subtype of eLearning, mLearning. Just as eLearning, the concept of mLearning came to cover a number of connected but different things for different people, depending on their goals, background and overall attitude towards technology in education. To create the most comprehensive picture, it makes sense to look at several definitions (emphasis added): 

• "The term “mobile learning” can be applied to any learning activity that utilizes a mobile device (defined here as smartphone, tablet, or cell phone), from a simple text message to a sophisticated augmented reality experience" (Teachingcommons).
• "Mobile learning, or m-learning, can be any educational interaction delivered through mobile technology and accessed at a student’s convenience from any location" (Ormrod, 2012).
• "Mobile learning, as the intersection of online learning and mobile computing, promises the integral access to applications that support learning anywhere and anytime. Only the employment of specific types of technology differentiates mobile learning from other forms of learning. Namely, mLearning is learning that takes place via wireless devices, for example in the use of mobile phones, personal digital assistants or laptop computers." (Granič, Čukušič, & Walker, 2009).

The first two definitions are rather straightforward and, thus, do not offer much to be discussed. They approach mLearning as a combination of two elements: m, meaning 'utilising mobile devices and benefits that come with them, such as internet access, camera, microphone and applications for input processing' and learning, meaning 'learning activities performed on that mobile device'.  The third definition concurs with the previous ones in key points; however, it also goes further and makes two statements, one of which seems to be quite valid and another one less so. 

Firstly, Granič et al. (2009) eliminate a lot of fluff by stating that mLearning deserves a separate name only because it makes use of mobile technology that was previously unavailable to an ordinary user. What, it would seem, she does here is implying that no special pedagogical methodology needs to be developed here because all teaching has to 

appropriate new ways of information delivery and knowledge creation, which correspond with current students' needs and patterns of information consumption and communication. This approach is important because renders unnecessary some of the terminology that has sprung up around the topic. Such terms as 'ubiquitous learning' (ulearning) or 'workflow learning' (Downes, 2005), while undoubtedly significant in the eyes of their creators, proliferate confusion and delay the realisation changes need to be holistic, not patch up whatever holes technological innovations make the education theory of the day.

Secondly, Granič et al. (2009) list devices that fall into the 'mobile' category. This matter will be dealt with in more detail in later posts. At this point, it is enough to say that today laptops can hardly be considered mobile devices for two reasons: technology is becoming smaller and more powerful. An obvious example is the race of smartphone producers for thinner phones with larger memory chips and RAMs and more camera lenses. The news of ever-thinner devices seem to attract a fare share of attention: at the moment of writing, Vivo is in the lead. Today, the essential criterion for device mobility is that it should fit in the pocket or a small handbag and could be taken out and held comfortably in one palm in any place, especially a crowded one. A 13'' laptop hardly fits this definition. 

Cochrane (2014) has approached the definition differently. He also uses a smartphone as an entry point but puts more emphasis on learning as a process of production, not only reception on the part of learner.

(Source: Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65-82.)

Thus, a smartphone for education purposes is conceived in the same way as for everyday use: people receive/record information, process/internalise it and, if necessary, create something new with it. This seems so natural and yet, it is perceived as innovative in education. The learning process and outcomes may benefit from appropriating of this dynamic because it could make learning fit into a daily routine, not interrupt it. 

Further, there appears to be a set of characteristics, both positive and negative, that is ascribed to mLearning at its current stage. Sometimes they coincide with eLearning, and sometimes they are unique to mLearning (a few of these have been discussed above, emphasis added): 

• "ubiquity and unique capabilities of mobile devices to make course materials available to students wherever they are, and to create new kinds of learning experiences... [and] opportunities for students to take [them] with them into the world" (Teachingcommons).
• "the user has to participate actively. It requires students to think about what they are doing as opposed to passively receiving information from the teacher, as in some traditional teaching methods" (Granič, Čukušič, & Walker, 2009).
• "development of independent learning skills and ability to apply knowledge, so preparing students for future careers" (Granič, Čukušič, & Walker, 2009).
• "problem-solving and enquiry based learning, which contribute to the development of qualities like critical thinking and problem-solving" (Granič, Čukušič, & Walker, 2009).
• "foster student engagement and offer opportunities to make learning integral to daily life" through "a variety of devices, many of which are ubiquitous in the lives of students" (Ormrod, 2012).
• "'Just-in-time', or 'on demand' learning is perfect for mLearning, as mobile or field-based employees [or students] will more often than not have their devices on them at the time they need the information, removing the locational restrictions that any potential pre-existing physical or computer-based job tools may have" (Ormrod, 2012).
• "The way mobile devices are used for learning must be designed to be similar to how users do other tasks on their phones – through a short burst of activity, rather than a drawn-out experience. Having the information simply available is not enough, it needs to be quickly accessible" (Ormrod, 2012).
• "What is needed is a sound and compelling pedagogy-driven approach for embedding ICT in learning and teaching" (Granič, Čukušič, & Walker, 2009).
• "Hardware for mobile learning represents a wide range of platforms, screen sizes, and functionality, and no clear standards exist for development that address all of the tools available. As a result, colleges and universities can find infrastructure issues tricky to resolve" (Ormrod, 2012 & 'mobile apps for learning' 2010).

Thus, to summarise, mLearning emphasises knowledge production and collaboration. It primarily involves supplementary activities that take place at learner's convenience within short temporal frames. Information is provided in small on-demand batches through various media by the means of formal and informal resources. mLearning should aim to be ubiquitous, which in practice means making content editable, synchronizable with lager systems, downloadable, shareable and available on desktop. 

References:

7 things you should know about mobile apps for learning. (2010). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7060.pdf

Andronie, M., & Andronie, M. (2014). Information and communication technologies (ICT) used for education and training. Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice, 6(1), 378-386.

Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65-82. 

Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. Retrieved from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1104968

Granič, A., Čukušič, M., & Walker, R. (2009). mLearning in a Europe-wide network of schools. Educational Media International, 46(3), 167-184. 

Negas, M. C., & Ramos, P. (2011). Critical Factors in the use of Mobile Learning by "Digital Natives" on Portuguese Teaching. Proceedings Of The European Conference On 

Information Management & Evaluation, 333-340.
Ormrod, N. (2012). demystifying mLearning. Human Resources Magazine, 16(6), 16-17.

Teaching commons. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://teachingcommons.depaul.edu/Technology/moli.html#whatis

Quinn, C. N. (2011). Designing MLearning : Tapping Into the Mobile Revolution for Organizational Performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.