What impact does mobile learning have on distance education and what are the best practices in adapting mobile technology in a distance education environment?

Terry Beachy
University of Maryland University College
Capstone Project 
OMDE 670- Spring 2011 

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements	4
Abstract	5
Introduction	6-7
Literature Review	8-13
Methodology	14
Analysis
Common Characteristics, Definition and Examples of Mobile Devices	15
Definition of Mobile Learning	15
Strengths and Weaknesses of Mobile Learning	15-19
Complexity of Labeling Strengths and Weaknesses	19-20
Pedagogy	20-21
Theoretical Perspectives
     Behaviorist 	21-22
     Constructivist	22
     Situated Learning	22
     Collaborative Learning	22
     Informal and Lifelong Learning	22-23
     Learning and Teaching Support	23-24
Initiatives Presently Undertaken	24-27
Challenges and Strategic Options	27-28
Recommendations	28-31
Conclusion	31-32 
References 	33-37

Acknowledgements
In doing this research, it would not have been possible without the support of my children, Sandra and Andrew. I was constantly bouncing ideas off of them and they even assisted in organizing my many scribbled notes into a readable form and diligently proofread my plethora of ideas. I also thank the many instructors at University of Maryland University College, as they have broadened my horizons beyond belief. Finally, I would like to thank and commend the Writing Center and also the writing coaches such as Brenda Ledford who constantly critiqued my work for submission. Each in their own way has provided a scaffold to enable a lifelong learner like myself to flourish.

Abstract
The growing use of mobile technologies is having an impact on distance education. With the increased availability of mobile instruments comes the potential for its use in higher education. Theories of learning confirm it has applicability to facilitate and enrich experiences of learners. While some may undermine its positive impact, the best practices for integrating its use are identified. 

Introduction
“A society which is mobile, which is full of channels for the distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must see to it that its members are educated to personal initiative and adaptability. Otherwise, they will be overwhelmed by the changes in which they are caught and whose significance or connections they do not perceive.”  - John Dewey

Use of mobile devices proliferates our landscape immensely. Saulnier (2010) reports that "Out of a total U.S. population of 308 million, there are 285 million cell phones and 41% of the global population of 6.3 billion carry mobile phones" (para. 3). Nix, Russell, and Keegan (2006) expand upon mobile phone penetration in varying countries in Table 1.  
Country	Mobile Phone Penetration	Country	Mobile Phone Penetration	
Austria	103% 	Latvia 	96% 	
Belgium	88% 	Lithuania 	96% 	
Cyprus	107% 	Luxembourg 	107% 	
Czech Republic	111% 	Malta 	107% 	
Denmark	101% 	Netherlands 	102% 	
Estonia	96% 	Norway 	106% 	
Finland	102% 	Poland 	71% 	
France	79% 	Portugal 	99% 	
Germany	91% 	Slovak Rep 	85% 	
Greece	100% 	Slovenia 	44% 	
Hungary	92% 	Spain 	94% 	
Ireland	101% 	Sweden 	113% 	
Italy	111% 	UK 	108% 	
Table 1: Mobile Phone Penetration (Nix, Russell & Keegan, 2006, p. 1)
Mobile devices are a conduit not only for personal entertainment, but also for communication. In knowing that mobile devices have become omnipresent, those in higher education are experimenting with their place in learning as fertile ground is only as far as a learner's fingertips. Thus, the information presented will pose the question, what impact does mobile learning have on distance education and what are the best practices in adapting mobile technology in a distance education environment? 
The research will first identify the common characteristics of mobile devices, the definition of mobile learning and examples of mobile devices. Second, it will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of mobile learning along with the complexity of labeling strengths and weaknesses. Third, the pedagogy of mobile learning will be evaluated.  Fourth, the theoretical perspectives of behaviorist, constructivist, "situated learning, collaborative learning, informal and lifelong learning, learning and teaching support" will be examined in the role they play in using mobile devices for learning (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, and Sharples 2004, p. 4). Fifth, present initiatives to incorporate mobile learning in higher education will be examined.  Sixth, the challenges of using mobile technology in education will be addressed.  Finally, a framework for application for using mobile technologies in distance education will be communicated. 

Literature Review
Introduction
Higher education has begun experimenting with mobile technology examining new opportunities for engaging teachers and learners in the field of distance education. Kim, Mims and Holmes (2006), refer to the findings of “Swett (2002)” claiming "more than 90% of public universities" in the United States have various levels of mobile technologies already in place “such as mobile wireless devices and networks” (p. 79). Caverly, Ward and Caverly (2009), state that "60% of the world’s populace has access to a mobile phone" (para. 1). Simsek (2011) conducted an interview with Tony Bates, a well-known expert in distance education, gleaning the following quote, "Mobile learning is the future, but because there are no technical standards between different phones, there is a shortage of good educational applications to date.  This will change around 2012, when HTML5 enables a common standard for web browsers on mobile phones" (p. 89). Thus, the goal of this paper is to review the literature to identify and evaluate what impact mobile technology has to date in higher education; comparing its strengths and weaknesses, current developments, identifying contemporary trends and to recognize pitfalls and gaps, along with prospective strategic options to fully integrate mobile technologies into higher education. The review is organized as follows: common characteristics with definition and examples, strengths and weaknesses, pedagogy, learning theories, initiatives presently undertaken, challenges and strategic options to identify the value of mobile technology in the delivery and practice of distance education. 
Common characteristics, definition, examples
Mobile learning has such common characteristics as being portable and accessible anywhere at any time. (El-Hussin, Osman & Cronje 2010, Geddes 2004, Hutchison, Tin & Cao 2008, McLean 2003, and Zawacki-Richter, Brown & Delport 2007). The specific term, mobile learning, indicates attitudes and behaviors whilst in motion (El-Hussin et al., 2010). Mobile technologies take numerous forms such as "mobile and smart phones, personal digital assistants, tablet computers, portable media players and laptops" (Geddes, 2004 & Hutchison et al., 2008). El-Hussin et al. (2010) state that to understand mobile learning in a comprehensive manner, it needs examined from three mobilities: that of technology, of the learner and of the learning process. 
Strengths and weaknesses
Mobile learning has a plethora of strengths as stated by researchers in the field, Cochrane and Bateman (2010), Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007), Geddes (2004), Hutchison et al. (2008), Kim et al. (2006), McLean (2003); and Sampangi, Viswanath, and Ray (2010). They include, but are not limited to the following: freedom of location and use, increased participation, simplicity, scalability, and enhanced learning environments. Cochrane and Bateman (2010) acknowledge rich data sharing, scaffolding, and asynchronous communication as positive affordances of mobile learning. Researchers acknowledge mobile technologies have potential in distance education; however, the question remains why it is not used extensively. Further research will define this gap in understanding its potential and application.
Mobile learning has weaknesses as well. Small screens, reliance on battery operated devices and limited storage, out-dated technology and lack of cross-platforms top McLean’s (2003) list while Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) state increased potential for cheating, the increased use of shorthand affecting student’s writing abilities, a disadvantage to non tech-savvy students, costs, and technology is quickly outdated as flaws. Macleans OnCampus (2010) refer to cell phones as an apparatus capable of mass distraction. Caverly et al. (2009) second this thought. Acknowledging these challenges begs the question, what impact does mobile learning have on distance education and what are the best practices in adapting mobile technology in a distance education environment? 
Pedagogy
Instructional methods are another important factor to consider when contemplating mobile learning. Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) state educators need to adapt their teaching strategies from face-to-face to the online environment. McLean (2003) lists "urgency of learning need, initiative of knowledge acquisition, mobility of learning setting, interactivity of learning process, location of instructional activities and integration of instructional content" key items to consider when incorporating mobile devices with learning (p. 10). Cochrane and Bateman (2010) conducted a four-year study on mobile learning projects and take a strong stance on correlated mobile technologies with various pedagogies. Specifically, they discuss using smart phones to meet the demand of social constructivist pedagogies and to connect learners in higher education. Geddes (2004) connects andragogy and metacognition as important determinants in adopting mobile learning technologies. A report from STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop poses the question, “Does the delivery of contextual and location-based education result in shallower learning strategies?” (Brown, 2010, p. 47). They also discuss the psychology of learners and social challenges that are likely to crop up, deterring learners from excelling. The notable authors take varying viewpoints; further investigation is needed to find the gaps between pedagogy and mobile technology.
Learning theories
Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) examine the learning theories behaviorism, constructivism, situated learning, collaborative learning and informal/lifelong learning in mobile learning design. Both imply that cognitive architecture (thinking and doing patterns) is paramount insight for successful mobile learning as it differs from the face-to-face environment. Cochrane and Bateman (2010) from their study rely on a social constructivist approach while Muyinda (2007), suggests that four variables need recognition in mobile learning theories: 1) what makes mobile learning stand out, 2) how much learning occurs outside the classroom, 3) what about learner, knowledge, assessment and community centeredness, 4) and the ever-present use on personal and shared technology. Zawacki-Richter et al. (2007) discuss collaborative, co-operative and active learning to convey the rich opportunities that mobile learning affords. The authors represented have noted differences in opinions, thus warranting further investigation into their backgrounds, seeking any bias including what they are studying and how they justify their position, which will be helpful in defining the purpose mobile learning has in education. 
Initiatives presently undertaken
Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007), Hutchison et al. (2008), Kim, et al. (2006) and McLean (2003) report that many use the technology to text message, exchange text materials such as schedules, notes and syllabi, and give quizzes. While others share digital images and send campus-wide broadcasts to create a paper-free environment; all are interesting angles in the argument for moving forward with mobile learning. Sampangi et al. (2010) focus on the positive points of mobile technology by describing how India is reaching out to the masses as global barriers are broken down. These authors come forth with optimism that the mobile learning paradigm holds promise as flexible customization makes it easily adaptable. Mentor and Ahmad (2010) offered a mobile learning course on how to incorporate mobile phones. It focuses on learning theories and design factors to maximize success of mobile learning. Caverly et al. (2009) share the fact that there are "over 60,000 software applications available for mobile phones" (para. 5). McConatha and Praul from West Chester University of Pennsylvania and Lynch from Temple University (2008) share a survey of sociology students using HotLava software indicating that users demonstrated greater success with mid semester tests than those who did not use the software. OnPoint Digital CellCast (2011) is on the cutting-edge of mobile learning introducing countless innovative smartphones and tablets on the market to manage mobile web content. Banks (2008) shares learning initiatives from Africa and expresses confidence for new possibilities mobile technology can bring. Further research will articulate how the customization of mobile technology will allow for the successful implementation into the distance learning environment.
Challenges
Mobile learning is not without challenges. Kim et al. (2006) focus on the issue of security and discuss the issue of how to network resources along with how funds are allocated to support mobile technology in higher education. Sampangi et al. (2010) imply mobile learning is viewed as degrading traditional values and cultures. Muyinda (2007) sees challenges also as mobile learning is driven by technology, teachers and learners are not versed in mobile phone capabilities, entrenched educational models, cultures and government control are hard to change, and more learning models need to be developed. Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) note teacher resistance as a deterrent. Litchfield, Dyson, Lawrence and Zmijewska (2007) state present studies are small scale and may only focus on one discipline, thus dealing with a single pedagogical issue. Cost is also a factor as well as the steps needed to educate instructors and learners how to use mobile technology. Research will address these challenges and make recommendations for resolution to implement mobile learning as a mainstay in higher education.
Strategic options
Looking ahead, mobile learning can have a profound effect on educating the masses. McLean (2003) cites the following strategic options to consider when adopting mobile learning: cost factors, not adapting to one technology fitting all, to augment existing practices, a collaborative effort and joint investment is essential among partners and tracking of successful projects for future use.  Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) are envisioning sophisticated mobile learning devices with power and storage to accommodate a variety of venues, yet success is ultimately dependent on instructors and learners accepting the technology. Kim et al. (2006) sense more research to determine the actual benefits it has to offer higher education. Mentor and Ahmad (2010) feel combining preexisting knowledge in an abstract educational structure is a recipe for success while taking into consideration how to reach learners that are not techno-savvy. McConatha et al. (2008) see mobile technology to supplement learning as cell phones are predominant fixtures to college learners. Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) see successful adoption with great applicability as mobile technology can serve as a bridging tool between formal and informal learning and used to empower teaching professionals to keep pace with technology. Geddes (2004) acknowledges mobile learning has potential because it is flexible; allowing learning dependent on context, particularly at times when previously deemed unproductive. 
Conclusion
As the review indicates, mobile learning is identified as the new frontier in higher education allowing for unlimited, unique, ubiquitous educational opportunities. Educators could profit immensely knowing what place mobile technology has in higher education. As more research becomes available, it will become clear and practical to adopt mobile technologies in the higher education realm. 

Methodology
Description
This paper addresses the question, what impact does mobile learning have on distance education and what are the best practices in adapting mobile technology in a distance education environment? Thus, research will be conducted to determine present trends in higher education using mobile technology and what strengths and weaknesses have been documented.  Emphasis will also focus on pedagogies and learning theories of learning and how they fit into the realm of mobile learning. Further research will identify what are the best practices to adopt mobile technologies into the distance education environment. 
Apparatus 
Collegiate databases and Internet articles 
Procedure 
My research methodology requires me to gather and analyze data and sort it into the following subtopics: common characteristics of mobile learning with definition and examples, strengths and weaknesses, pedagogy, learning theories, initiatives presently undertaken, challenges and strategic options to secure its success. Variables in the research will include the context the articles were written in along with the timeframe will be given strong consideration as mobile technology is a dynamic field. 

Analysis
Common Characteristics, Definition and Examples of Mobile Devices
It is important to clarify mobile devices as presented in this paper as new technologies are blurring a clear distinction. Attewell and Savill-Smith (2004) expand upon this claiming, 
While more mobile phones now have Palm-like functionality (eg contacts database, a calendar, etc.), palmtop computers now include, or can be upgraded with, mobile phone functionally. Also a number of hybrid phone-palm devices are now available which combine typical phone and palmtop functionality (p. 5).

For the purpose of this writing, mobile devices will be defined as any device that is designed to provide access to information in any location while it is on the move (Geddes, 2004). Specific examples as described by Hutchison, Tin and Cao (2008) include, but are not limited to the following: iPad and the iPod Touch, mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs, such as Palm®, iPAQ®); smart phones (integrated telephony, computing and communication devices such as Blackberry®, Treo™; and portable media players such as MP3 players, iPod®) (p. 202). 
Consideration will be given to any specific software necessary to use these devices in mobile learning along with establishing the need for a WIFI connection.
Definition of Mobile Learning
	It is also crucial to define mobile learning (also referred to as m-learning or mobile education) for the purposes of this paper. Per Hutchison et al. (2008), “Mobile learning is the delivery of electronic learning material with built-in learning strategies on portable computing devices to allow access from anywhere and at any time” (p. 2).  This definition comes into play with distance education as the devices hold great value when used with students taking courses at a distance. 
Strengths and Weaknesses of Mobile Learning
As mobile technologies are scrutinized for their potential use as a venue for learning, it is important to address their potential strengths and weaknesses they create. Alexander (2004) makes the comment, “Mobile learning is conservative in the best sense and can be viewed as deepening higher education’s connection to its roots” (p.31). 
Strengths
Other than their obvious small size and ease of portability, mobile devices have numerous other benefits. They are used to enhance communication between instructors and learners as many learners have already adopted this trend-setting mode of collaboration. Mobile devices are appealing as they allow the learning to be focused on the learner providing flexible, anytime, anywhere access (Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil, 2007). Zawaki-Richter, Brown and Delport (2007) agree and report that mobile learning is more flexible than online learning environments, specifically stating, “because of the ubiquitous and pervasive nature of mobile devices, it can also be more spontaneous situated (authentic) and explorative” (p. 8). This is important to note as mobile devices have the propensity to bring rich learning opportunities to students. 
Central Carolina Community College sees strengths in mobile learning as they have integrated it into their distance learning courses via the learning management system Blackboard. Table 2 displays a chart they have created demonstrating the compatibility of various mobile learning devices with Blackboard Learn 9.0.
Blackboard Features 	Netbook 	iPad® 	iPhone® 	Android® 	Blackberry® 	
Announcements 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Items with text 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Microsoft Word™ 
document 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	No 	
Adobe®Acrobat® PDF attachment 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	No 	
Microsoft PowerPoint™ attachment 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	No 	
Image (.jpg) 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	
Folders 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
External links 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Embedded YouTube™ video 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	
Discovery Education™ 
Video 	Yes 	No 	No 	No 	No 	
My Grades 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Blackboard Learn™ Assignment feature 	Yes 	No 	No 	Yes 	Yes 	
Turnitin™ Assignment 	Yes 	No 	No 	Yes 	No 	
Multiple Choice Test* 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Essay Question Test* 	Yes 	No 	No 	Yes 	Yes 	
Hot Spot Test* 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	Yes 	
Discussion Board 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	Yes 	Yes 	
Blog 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	Yes 	Yes 	
Journal 	Yes 	Yes 	No 	Yes 	Yes 	
 * While the testing features may work on a mobile device, the most reliable way to take a test is on a wired network. We recommend your home computer, a library, or a computer lab. Mobile networks can be spotty, especially if you are traveling while taking your test and could cause you to lose your signal. A lost signal could cause you to get locked out of your test and student responses would not be saved. Please keep this in mind when planning for assessments in your course(s).	
Table 2: CCCC Blackboard Learn™ Mobile Device Compatibility Chart (Central Carolina Community College, 2011)

As demonstrated in the chart, mobile devices have much flexibility and have the potential to bring many options to the learner's mobile device.  Ally (2008), in addition to noting the physical attributes of mobile devices, reflects on the specific benefit mobile devices bring to education listing the following:
•	Mobile devices make education "scalable" (p. 59). Scalable in this instance would mean that a certain number of tables and chairs would not be needed as in a classroom. Instead, the course would allow a flexible number of learners to take the course regardless of space.  
•	Educational materials are easily updated with mobile devices as they have direct access to a server or the Internet.
•	Learning materials can be accessed globally.
•	Mobile devices allow learners to complete their education regardless of their location.
•	Mobile technologies allow designers to "personalize the learning experience for individual learners" (p. 59). In essence, educators can control the amount of technology their learners use.
•	Use of mobile technology empowers learners to emerge themselves in the learning process and "thus motivate [them] to achieve higher level learning" (p. 59). 
Weaknesses
Avrellis et al. (2004) are quick to list a number of disadvantages related to using mobile devices such as “small screen, audio capability and ability to input large amounts of text into a device to take notes or answer on essay type question” (p. 15). Thus, poses the issue is it realistic to expect students to turn in complete projects via m-learning particularly those devices that have little to no keyboards? Consequently, the question arises if using cultural jargon acronyms diminishes writing skills and using proper English.  Macleans OnCampus (2010) admit that wireless devices are ubiquitous however their potential for educational use is limited as social interaction trumps learning. In essence, courses may become more technology focused coupled with less learning. 
There are also the thoughts from Corbiel and Valdes-Corbiel (2007) that mobile devices make it “easier to cheat and there would be disproportional advantage of 'tech savvy students' over their nontechnical classmates" (p. 54). Another issue is access; as no matter how many have the technology, there will still be a group of disadvantaged that will be without.  Yet, another disadvantage is establishing a WIFI connection. Many of the devices need WIFI to operate; again separating the haves from the have nots.  However, many public locations such has restaurants, libraries, coffee shops and the like offer WIFI for free to entice customers. The issue of security is another potential weakness when using mobile devices. Hutchinson et al. (2008) acknowledge this by stating, “There are inherent security issues in using a wireless device and connecting to an outside environment” (p. 206). Attewell and Smith (2004) expands upon this by emphasizing that mobile phones lend themselves to the risk of virus writers; consequently making educators and designers slow to adopt the newest of technologies.  
Complexity of Labeling Strengths and Weaknesses
In discussing strengths and weaknesses of mobile devices, it is paramount to note that an advantage to one learner might be a hindrance to another. Rainger (2004) delves into this subject as he discusses those with disabilities or learning difficulties. For the blind and visually impaired, the small screen size coupled with low screen resolution may be problematic. However mobile devices equipped with “live text to speech and speech recognition” make the once impossible, possible (Rainger, 2004, p. 133). Many devices are equipped with various text size options to assist those with vision challenges.
For the deaf and hearing impaired the mobile device may be of low audible quality, however “vibrating alerts, flashing LED and flashing displays” may thwart this issue (Rainger, 2004, p. 133). Consideration must also be given to those with a missing hand, manual dexterity issues or “gross motor impairment” (Rainger, 2004, p. 133). While the small and lightweight feature can be considered a plus too many, it is a challenge to others. This dilemma can be rectified by mounting fixed accessories to a desk or wheelchair. along with  incorporating speech recognition (both text transcription and for auctioning commands) (Rainger, 2004). Caverly, Ward and Caverly (2009) acknowledge learners may have disabilities and claim “[having] a mobile phone’s GPS with speech aided student’s mobility, text messaging with speed improved the delivery of messages from the college, and the Mobile Daisy Player read e-books to students” (p. 38). In essence, designers and instructors struggle to meet the diversity of its learners and mobile devices offer a level of customization to accommodate learners at all levels.  
Pedagogy
For purposes of this paper, pedagogy is defined as “the art of teaching” (Geddes, 2004, p. 4).  As mobile devices are evaluated for their usefulness in higher education Taylor (2004) suggests developing an understanding of the following parameters: 
The new learning opportunities presented by the new mobile technology, its (potential) impact on the way people perform learning tasks, its (potential) impact on human social processes and interaction, and how these in turn are changed or modified by the technology (p. 167). 

Thus, this brings us to dissecting the pedagogical approaches in the mobile environment. Without doubt, mobile devices used for learning facilitate the need for “new pedagogies and new approaches to delivering and facilitating instruction” (Corbiel and Valdes-Corbiel, 2007, p. 54). Mclean (2003) suggests the following pedagogical aspects be considered, “urgency of learn[er] need, initiative of knowledge acquisition, mobility of learning setting, interactivity of learning process, situatedness of instructional activities and integration of instructional content” (p. 10). In essence, Mclean (2003) suggests looking at the connection between the learner and the device, specifically asking in what context is it being used; is the device superior to other forms of learning such as face-to-face and will the learner optimize the learning opportunities that mobile devices provide? In acknowledging the need to adapt pedagogies, Corbiel and Valdes-Corbiel (2007) make the following suggestions from the standpoint of learning theories:
•	Behaviorism - Mobile devices allow for instant feedback, hence reinforcement.
•	Constructivism - Mobile devices can be used for activities so learners can create new ideas and incorporate previous knowledge to form innovative experiences. 
•	Situated Learning - Mobile devices allow genuine learning situations
•	Collaborative Learning - Mobile devices provide an extra means of communication.
•	Informal/Lifelong Learning - Mobile devices support varying contexts with unlimited experiences.
•	Learning and Teaching Support - Mobile devices provide scaffolding in the form of resources such as calendars, planners and the like.
Mclean (2003) claims mobile devices are "proactive" in that the information is positioned in front of learners (p. 10). This can be accomplished in at variety of manners to include the following:
•	Allowing learning via context, specific to task.
•	Make the mobile device transparent - seen only as a medium for delivery and support.
•	Understand that voice and hand recognition and mouse clicking are the new norm for responding.
•	Decentralize from the mode of client/server networks delivering the information and shift to "peer-to-peer networks" which personalize the learning experience (Mclean, 2003, p. 10). 
Theoretical Perspectives
Implementing mobile technologies into the curriculum is supported by a number of existing learning theories. Naismith et al. (2004) along with Herrington and Herrington (2006) discuss the following theoretical perspectives and justification to using mobile technologies: behaviorist theory, constructivist, situated learning, collaborative learning, informal and lifelong learning and learning and teaching support.
Behaviorist
From a behaviorist standpoint, hence a stimulus creating a response from feedback, mobile technologies have the capability of texting which allows for immediate feedback. Naismith et al. (2004) provide the examples of two classroom response systems: "Classtalk" and "Qwisdom” as they allow for input coupled with immediate feedback (p. 2).
Constructivist
In comparison, from a constructivist standpoint where learners are active as they build upon previous concepts to produce new ideas, Herrington and Herrington (2006) provide the sample learning projects “Virus Game" and "Savannah Virus Game” which are interaction simulations using personal digital assistants (p. 3). More specifically, they both simulate the spread of a virus and the learner is to participate and act out their part to thwart the spread of the virus. 
Situated Learning
Situated Learning, in comparison, is dependent on context, hence where the learner is located. Mobile devices fit well into this learning mode as being mobile is transient. Herrington and Herrington (2006) provide the example of the learning tool, "Ambient Wood" to illustrate which uses PDAs to explore outdoor learning habitats (p. 4). Particularly, learners are placed in an outdoor environment and information is provided to them about the habitat via the PDA based on their location.
Collaborative Learning
Collaborative learning, in relationship, is premised upon learning via social interaction (Herrington and Herrington, 2006). Thus, mobile devices step in to replace face-to-face interaction that occurs in the classroom by having students access discussion boards and blogs.
Informal and Lifelong Learning
Described by Naismith et al. (2004) informal and lifelong learning is never ending, thus void of a prescribed learning environment and recognized curriculum. Mobile technology fits nicely into this description as learning can occur at any time and place. Herrington and Herrington (2006) provide the example of “disadvantaged youth” who could prosper by using mobile technology to access online courses thereby breaking down the barrier of access (p. 4).
Learning and Teaching Support
Mobile technology also conforms well to the theory of learning and teaching support. Described by Naismith et al. (2004) this theory consists of using resources to enhance learning. Mobile devices can assist in fulfilling this definition as they allow for access to a variety of course materials posted by the instructor such as “due dates for feedback, assignments and information about timetable and room changes” (Naismith et al., 2004, p. 4). Thus, it can be argued that using mobile devices in higher education can be powerful learning tools if used in the proper fashion.
Cochrane and Bateman (2010) conducted a four-year study on mobile technology and wrote a paper entitled, Smart phones give you wings: Pedagogical affordance of mobile Web 2.0.  Their paper discussed the key advantages of m-learning, specifically the benefits of smart phones as they are tied to social constructivist theories. The paper also included the ranking of individual smart phones and their affordances in a rubric. Cochrane and Bateman (2010) list numerous key drivers of m-learning including the following:
•	Explores contemporary approaches to teaching and learning 
•	Enables genuine learning experiences focused around individual learners
•	Capitalizes on the perks of mobility such as unlimited access, ease  of connectivity and networking capabilities
•	Narrows the digital divide as costs are not prohibitive to learners
•	Acknowledges that learning is not confined to a particular time and place.
Table 3 demonstrates the many affordances that smart phones allow using social constructivist principles: 
Activity	Overview	Examples	Pedagogy	
Video streaming	Record and share live events	Flixwagon, Qikhttp://www.qik.com/	Real time event, data and resource capturing and collaboration.	
Geo tagging	Geo-tag original photos, geo-locate events on Google Maps	Flickr, Twitter, Google Mapshttp://tinyurl.com/5a85yh	Enable rich data sharing.	
Micro-blogging	Post short updates and collaborate using micro-blogging services	Twitter http://tinyurl.com/2j5sz3	Asynchronous communication, collaboration and support.	
Txt notific-ations	Course notices and support	Txt tools plugin for Moodle and Blackboard txt and twitter polls: http://www.polleverywhere.com/http://twitter.polldaddy.comhttp://twtpoll.com/	Scaffolding, learning and administrative support	
Direct image and video blogging	Capture and upload images and video of ideas and events	Flickr, YouTube, Vox	Student journals, eportfolios, presentations, peer and lecturer critique.	
Mobile codes	2D codes scanned by camera phone to reveal URL, text, etc.	QR Codes, Datamatrix 2D Codeshttp://tinyurl.com/af2u6d	Situated Learning –providing context linking	
Enhanced student podcasts	Remote recording of audio, tagged with GPS and images, etc.	AudioBoo	Situated and collaborative learning– providing context linking	
Social networking	Collaborate in groups using social networking tools	Vox groups, Ning, peer and lecturer
comments on blog and media postshttp://tinyurl.com/4uz6rj	Formative peer and lecturer feedback.	
Table 3: Affordances of smartphones mapped to social constructivist activities for 2009 (Cochrane & Bateman, 2010, p. 5)

Initiatives Presently Undertaken
Mobile technologies are infiltrating the higher education landscape. Adkins (2010) comments, “The US market for mobile learning products and services reached $632.2 million in 2009. The demand is growing by a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.3% and revenues will reach $1.4 million by 2014” (p. 6). Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) share the following mobile learning initiatives in higher education:
•	“[…] Master of Science students at the University of Birmingham” used mobile devices to “deliver course materials, messages, submissions, and facilitate collaborative communication” (p. 224). From this pilot, they reported encouraging responses, however it was indicated that “only 30%” were utilizing the mobile devices everyday by the completion of the experiment (p. 224). It was also discovered there were “technical problems” and “some perceived limitations” (p. 224).
•	“[…] University of Helsinki - used mobile devices” as a collaboration tool between teachers and learners and exchanged “SMS and digital images” (p. 224). The project end result was as follows: “Heavy use of the program UNIWRAP II indicated that students engaged with the project and it created flexible learning solutions” (p. 224).
•	Kinjo Gakwin University in Japan used SMS for English language lessons and determined that language test results were better for the mobile-learning students as opposed to traditional students.
•	Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Queensland is moving forward on various fronts to incorporate mobile learning strategies. PDAs and smartphones are common in lectures, while the faculty of Business and the Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit studies are using podcasts to deliver audio lecture files. They are also using the system, Question Answer Technology, which allows lectures to be downloaded to the learner’s mobile devices.
As cautious supporters of mobile learning wanting sound pedagogical backing, Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) post many positive attributes of mobile learning to include the following:
•	It eliminates boundaries of brick and mortar traditional learning
•	Moves the focus to the learner in a constructivist learning environment
•	May be used in combination with other learning techniques
•	To be used only if it fits the need
•	Creates an informal learning environment which learners may find attractive and thereby enhancing motivation, teamwork and communication
•	Provides an avenue for "disenfranchised learners” as they can see the mobile devices simplicity (p. 228).
As described, Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) see the positivity that mobile learning brings and recommends this powerful tool be given strong consideration when deciding to implement technology as “it could be harnessed in a meaningful and contributing manner” (p. 230).
Kim, Mims, and Holmes (2006) additionally advocate for implementing mobile technology in higher education and list more initiatives presently being undertaken in higher education including the following:
•	University of Iowa and Kansas State University implemented the use of PDAs for note taking, reading books and accessing course information and determined their use minimized paper use, encouraged interaction with teachers and other students and increased motivation for students. Table 4 shows an expanded list of mobile technologies used in higher education.
Schools	Users	Tool	Key Uses	
North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh NC	Students	PDA	•	Accessing to medical references
•	Participating in wireless polling during class	
University of Central Oklahoma College of Education, Edmond OK	Faculty and Students	PDA	•	Accessing to information
•	Supporting innovative teaching practices
•	Enhancing collaboration and builds relationships	
UC Berkley School of Education K-12 Schools, Berkley, CA	Students	PDA	•	Offering students mobile data-gathering tool
•	Allowing for new types of curricular activities
•	Helping students understand difficult science concepts	
Stanford University, Stanford CA	Faculty, Students, and Staff	PDA	•	Accessing data
•	Enabling on-going communication among faculty, students, and staff
•	Data exchange	
Carnegie Mellon University	Students	Wireless Computer	•	Collaboration	
University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA	Faculty and Students	Wireless LAN	•	Providing better networking service for laptops and PDAs	
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL	Faculty and Law and MBA Students	Wireless LAN	•	Providing better teaching and learning environment	
Wake Forest, Winston-Salem, NC	Faculty and Students	Wireless LAN	•	Providing innovative technology	
Table 4: Mobile Wireless Technologies Uses in Higher Education (Kim et al., 2006, p.80)
Kim et al. (2006) add to the list of benefits by emphasizing that mobile devices enhance communication and participation opportunities for learners. Moreover, mobile devices allow for individual learning if needed (based on learners prior test results), which can result in an increased pace of self-learning. Additionally, mobile learning not only allows learners to access educational content, but also the same holds true for instructors as the mobile devices allow for the most up-to-date information on educational topics.
Hutchison et al. (2008) also note initiatives in mobile learning from Athabasca University who used MP3 to provide library material such as “journal articles, video clips, and eBooks” (p. 208). In addition, those that are on the forefront are “using mobile phones to deliver interactive course materials” such as grammar lessons, quizzes, and other course material (Hutchison et al., 2008, p. 208). This finding suggests that if mobile learning is not all inclusive, there is still potential for it to be used as a supplementary device. 
Challenges and Strategic Options
Implementing mobile technology into a learning setting is not without challenges. Instructors and developers must examine which activities lend themselves to using mobile devices on an all-inclusive basis in a learning management system and which may be used in a supplemental nature for integrating m-learning. Duncan-Howell and Lee (2007) see teacher resistance as a critical issue; however it can be circumvented by providing educators with “access to more training, more information and more opportunities to see and use new technologies for themselves” (p. 229). 
In comparison, Kim et al. (2006) see security an issue when implementing mobile technology. Specifically they claim, “at the current stage of mobile wireless technologies, there is virtually no security feature” (p. 96). Thus, potentially making those in higher education slow to adopt the usage mobile technology has to offer.
Along with acknowledging the security issue, Hutchinson et al. (2008) add that smaller screens may be challenging for older learners, in addition to inadequate storage capabilities and there is not a common platform to be shared among mobile devices. 
McLean (2003) recognizes the aforementioned challenges and adds that there is a proliferation of software applications on the market which may not be adaptable to all mobile devices and the cost may be prohibitive to all learners (or institutions) to use. Thus, with all the variances, it would be difficult to track student success in adding to developing a stable learning environment. 
As the challenges are dutifully noted, they can be considered “birth-pangs” that allow optimism to “provide a basis for developing much-needed new paradigms in the application of m-learning” (McLean, 2003, p. 13). However, it must be noted that mobile technologies can be counterproductive to the entire learning process if used in the wrong manner.
Recommendations
With the accelerated momentum of using mobile technologies to support learning, a number of recommendations are suggested to implement its use. Kim et al. (2006), feels three critical questions need to be examined before moving forward with mobile devices: 
1)	What mobile technologies are already in place?
2)	How are they networked? 
3)	What are its benefits? 
Elias (2011), in relation, recommends looking at eight parameters for integrating mobile devices into the learning landscape. Table 5 demonstrates these parameters.
Table 5: Recommendations for M-Learning (Elias, 2011)
To elaborate, when considering using a mobile device the question needs to be asked: is it impartial to all, whether it is their location or even considering their abilities? Elias (2011) suggests using "cloud computing" to circumvent location differences (p. 3). Flexible use would be using short messaging systems (SMS). Thus, chunk the text so learners do not have to contend with download speed. Flexibility can also take the form of allowing litheness in assignments. Examples would be allowing learners to choose from listening to podcasts or viewing pictorials. Simple and intuitive would be just that - straightforward, yet insightful. This would be accomplished by offering no or low-cost open software to keep learner costs down and also implementing a user-friendly interface that is effortless to use. 
On a similar note, another recommendation by Elias (2011) is to incorporate "perceptible information" (p. 3).  Thus, add descriptors or captions to pictures, tables and the like for ease of understanding. Elias (2011) also recommends compensating for potential errors of use by scaffolding in the form of such as SMS. According to Elias (2011), that mobile devices would require a diminished amount of "physical and technical effort" (p. 3). This is important to consider for the visually or hearing impaired and incorporate assistive devices. 
It is important to also consider how to support learners, particularly their expertise with technology. Even though there is an abundance of digital natives sprawling the landscape, they may only be fluent in abbreviated text messaging. Thus, Elias (2011) suggests using a diversity of mobile communication methods to allow for collaborative learning environments. Finally, from analyzing Elias (2011) article, there is a need to focus on the instructor to present content. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways such as sending SMS about due dates, upcoming assignments and the like or even posting podcasts and visual aids for learners to access.
Naismith et al. (2004), acknowledges some of the previous mentioned recommendations and adds some additional guidelines to consider for effective implementation of mobile devices. They include the following:
•	Examine all costs involved including the device, the infrastructure needed (networking) and cost of services (such as technical support).
•	Review advantages and disadvantages of the device and its suitability to the discipline.
•	Address security issues and privacy protection for all users involved.
•	Provide a means for continued training to allow for reinforcement and continued upgrades to mobile devices. 
These guidelines underpin the digital frontier, which is supported by pedagogies and learning theories mentioned earlier. As educators we need to recognize the dynamic synergy that mobile devices and learning allows. Keegan (2003) makes the compelling statement, 
The challenge for distance systems at the dawn of the third millennium is to develop didactical environments for mobile phones and mobile computers as the availability of mobile devices spreads to a billion users. The mobile telephone is becoming a trusted, personal device with Internet access, smart card usage, and a range of possibilities for keeping the distance student in touch with the institution's student support services, in contact with learning materials and fellow students, while at home, or at work, or traveling (para. 31).

Mobile learning is an untapped gateway to supplement learning with potential implementation in the distance educational realm. 
Conclusion
With the strong case that mobile devices have infiltrated the global landscape, we explored the question, what impact does mobile learning have on distance education and what are the best practices in adapting mobile technology in a distance education environment? We first defined mobile devices providing examples and identified that these devices are used on the move and come in a variety of forms such as Smartphones, PDA's, IPads and the like. We characterized mobile learning from the perspective of delivering learning materials with current technologies and identified various strengths and weaknesses that come into play when incorporating mobile devices into education. Some weaknesses included costs, security issues, and the proliferation of devices potentially hampering cross-platform compatibility. The weaknesses were counterbalanced with a number of strengths such as being able to provide innovative teaching tools regardless of local, its simplicity of use and scalability, and its opportunities to increase participation and enhance learning environments. What is paramount to consider is the independence that mobile devices offer to access educational material whenever and wherever learners desire. 
It is clearly demonstrated that mobile devices are being used in many diverse ways to support higher education as evidenced by the numerous pilot projects reported. Additionally, a convincing case can be made for using mobile devices for education as it is supported by a variety of pedagogies and sound learning theories such as behaviorist, constructivist, and situated learning among others. 
Clearly, mobile devices have the propensity to have a profound effect on learning. However, designers and instructors must grapple with the challenges and complexities that mobile devices inherit as a paradigm shift is on the rise in higher education. With the proliferation of mobile technologies brings to mind the question if technology should be the core that all learning theories and pedagogies should focus around if institutions are to remain in check with contemporary approaches to teaching and learning. Whether learning with mobile devices is sustainable in educational contexts certainly warrants further investigation. Simply acknowledging the fact that our society has embraced mobile devices and have permeated popular culture, whether it is at work or play commands a need to address this phenomenon. 

References
Adkins, S. (2008).  Ambient insight comprehensive report - The US market for mobile learning products and services 2009 - 2014 forecast and analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/AmbientInsight_2008-2013_US_MobileLearning_Forecast_ExecutiveOverview.pdf 
Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review (39)5, 28-35.
Attewell, J. and Savill-Smith, C. (2004). Mobile learning and social inclusion: Focusing on learners and learning, 3-12. In Attewell, J. and Savill-Smith (Eds.). Learning with Mobile Devices. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/Learning%20with%20Mobile%20Devices%20-%20A%20Book%20of%20Papers%20from% -0MLEARN%202003.pdf
Avellis, G., Scaramuzzi, A., and Finkelstein, A. (2004).Evaluating non-functional requirements in mobile learning contents and multimedia educational software, 13-20. In Attewell, J. and Savill-Smith (Eds.). Learning with Mobile Devices. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/Learning%20with%20Mobile%20Devices%20-%20A%20Book%20of%20Papers%20from%20MLEARN%202003.pdf
Banks, K. (2008). Mobile learning in developing countries: Present realities and future possibilities in Education for a digital world – Advice, guidelines, and effective practice from around the globe. Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth of Learning.
Beaudoin, M. F. (2005).  Reflections on Research, Faculty and Leadership in Distance Education. ASF Series, Vol. 8. Oldenburg, Germany: Oldenburg University Press.
Belshaw, D. Mobile and wireless technologies review. Retrieved from http://mobilereview.jiscpress.org/ 
Caverly, D.C., Ward, A.R., & Caverly, M.J. (2009). Techtalk: Mobile learning and access. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), 38-39.
Central Carolina Community College. (2011). Distance Education. Retrieved from http://www.cccc.edu/distanceeducation/gettingstarted/  
Cochrane, T. & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (1), 1-14.
Corbeil, J. R., &  Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0726.pdf 
Duncan-Howell, J., & Lee, K. (2007). M-Learning: Finding a place for mobile technologies within tertiary educational settings. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/duncan-howell.pdf
El-Hussein, M., Osman, O., & Crone, J. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Educational Technology and Society, 13 (3), 12-21. 
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/965/1675
Geddes, S. J. (2004). Mobile learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners. Retrieved from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition06/download/Geddes.pdf 
Herrington, A. and Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic mobile learning in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/her07131.pdf 
Hutchison, M, Tin, T., & Cao, Y. (2008). In your pocket and on the fly: Meeting the needs of today’s generation of online learners with mobile learning technology in The theory and practice on online learning. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/08_Anderson_2008_Cao_etal-Online_Content.pdf 
John Dewey (2011). Retrieved from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dewey
Keegan, D. (2003). The future of learning: From elearning to mLearning. Retrieved from http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/thebook/chapter1.html
Kim, S. H., Mims, C., & Holmes, K.P.  (2006). An introduction to current trends and benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. AACE Journal, 14(1), 77-100. Retrieved from http://clifmims.com/site/documents/MobileWireless-HigherEd.pdf 
Litchfield, A., Dyson, L., Lawrence, E. & Zmijewska, A. (2007). Directions for m-learning research to enhance active learning. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/litchfield.pdf  
Macleans OnCampus. (2010). Don’t give students more tools of mass destruction. Retrieved from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/09/28/dont-give-students-more-tools-of-mass-distraction 
McConatha, D., Praul, M., & Lynch, M. (2008). Mobile learning in higher education: An empirical assessment of a new educational tool. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational technology – TOJET, 7(3), 15-21.
McLean, N. (2003). The m-learning paradigm: An overview. Retrieved from http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:8TG_o8_3CYIJ:scholar.google.com/+The+m-learning+paradigm:+An+overview&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21&as_vis=1 
Mentor, D. & Ahmud, N. (2010). Teaching America's first course on mobile phone learning. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TeachingAmericasFirstCourseonM/213692 
Muyinda, P. (2007). MLearning pedagogical, technical and organisational hypes and realities. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(2), 97-104. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?hid=17&sid=1a3f796f-535d-4dfd947460f962787767%40sessionmgr14&vid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eric&AN=EJ801063  
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf 
Nash, S. (2007). Mobile learning, cognitive architecture and the study of literature. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2007/IISITv4p811-818Nash399.pdf
Nix, J. Russell, J., and Keegan, D. (2006).  Mobile learning/SMS (Short Messaging System) academic administration kit. Retrieved from http://www.edenonline.org/contents/publications/SMS/Ericsson.Mobile.A5.pdf 
OnPoint Digital’s CellCast. (2011). Technology overview: Smartphones and tablets. Retrieved from http:www.mlearning.com/tech_overview.html
Rainger, P. (2004). Usability and accessibility of personal digital assistants as assistive technologies in education, 131-138. In Attewell, J. and Savill-Smith (Eds.). Learning with Mobile Devices. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/Learning%20with%20Mobile%20Devices%20-%20A%20Book%20of%20Papers%20from%20MLEARN%202003.pdf
Sampangi, R., Viswanath, V. & Ray, A. (2010). Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning; 2010, 350-357.
Saulneir, D. (2010). Mobile learning in higher education. Retrieved from http://saulnier.typepad.com/learning_technology/2010/10/mobile-learning-in-higher-education.html 
Simsek, A. (2011). Interview with Tony Bates on the aspects and prospects of online learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1). 88-94. Retrieved from http://cedtech.net/articles/216.pdf 
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. In
K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of E-learning Research (pp. 221-247).
London: Sage.
STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop series. (2010). Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. Retrieved from http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/ejb/preprints/ARV_Education_in_the_wild.pdf 
Taylor, J. (2004).A task-centered approach to evaluating a mobile learning environment for pedagogical soundness, 167-172. In Attewell, J. and Savill-Smith (Eds.). Learning with Mobile Devices. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/archive/docs/Learning%20with%20Mobile%20Devices%20-%20A%20Book%20of%20Papers%20from%20MLEARN%202003.pdf
Zawacki-Richter, O. Brown, T. & Delport, R. (2007). Mobile learning - a new paradigm shift in distance education? Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2149/1258