Integrating mobile technology into educational settings requires the investment of time, patience, and professional dedication. While the anytime-anywhere concept of mobile learning incites a compelling challenge worthy of advocacy, the reality of integration is not without its adversities. Often learners are more interested in the novelty aspects of technology than they are in its academic merits and frequently require coaching to incorporate the value of mobile learning into their existing environments. Further, some learners opt to hide behind technology as a means of avoiding the face-to-face realities of academic, social, and vocational demands. Introducing content to learners via digital media in the information age demands an understanding of learners and their specific contexts.

Denvir et. al. present an interesting viewpoint on a second digital divide wherein issues of purposeful use rather than issues of access are considered in drawing conclusions about learners; the team asserts that “younger users, who, despite the widespread assumption that they possess greater Internet knowhow, may not always see the Internet as a source of information or advice” but rather as a form of entertainment (p. 97). The Denvir study focused on a broad audience of UK-based users in age brackets from 18-24 to 75+ and explored how these users utilized the internet to obtain information and/or advice on legal matters; the research honed in on the 18-24 (college-aged) learners and gleaned that problem-solving issues existed (especially in lower-SES and low academic/employability stationed users). Essentially, although the learners were technology savvy and able to access information, they were not necessarily versed in obtaining information (p. 103). (These findings thoroughly reinforce my plight as an academic professional at an open-enrollment institution!) In a similar vein, Pierce studied the technology use – specifically communication via IM and/or text messaging – of high school students and found that “teens are using socially interactive technology to communicate with others and it appears that social anxiety is influencing this use or at least may be serving as a substitute for face-to-face communication” (p. 1369). Pierce’s study implies that learners may be engaging in online dialogues to avoid real-life social scenarios. (This juxtaposes mobile technology as a tool and mobile technology as a crutch and speaks to the debate of in vivo versus online education, common arguments around the community college watercooler.) Further, Junco and Cotten surveyed college students on their usage of IM while engaging in schoolwork activities and found that the majority of learners reported this type of multi-tasking to be “detrimental” to their academic pursuits (p. 374). While the study was not without its limitations, its “findings contribute to the nascent literature on the relationships between technology usage and academic impairment” (p. 376).

In each of these research scenarios, young adult learners were found to possess a tendency toward academic or social impairments through the use (or possible misuse) of technological devices. And while technology integration poses substantial potential for growth and inquiry among college learners, its practical applications demand the support of qualified and motivated educators. Professionally, I exist in a world where advocating for technology is met with the cynicism of “Computers are replacing us!” Frankly, it is my opinion that precisely the opposite is the case: Educational technology integration cannot exist without us.

____________________________________________

At the onset of this course, we were challenged to formulate our personal definition of mobile learning. Without hesitation, I rather blindly asserted that “Learning with mobile computers involves the acquisition of knowledge in either a formal setting (such as in a classroom or at a training) or an informal setting (such as during personal leisure time or while traveling) through the use of portable wireless devices such as tablets, laptops, and cell phones.” Although I uphold my original definition in its semantic and academic sense, I must admit that the designation rings rather flat to me after spending these months learning the practically boundless facets of the mobile learning phenomenon. I’d not considered aspects such as gamification, augmented reality, and situated learning scenarios; further, I failed to acknowledge the body of research and plethora of philosophical perspectives that support, uphold, and explore mobile learning for the science it is. Having now conceded this I not only embrace this multi-dimensional area of study, I relish its proliferate influence on the future of education as we know it. My objective to gain “a wider perspective on the integration of mobile technology in the learning process” and “to acquire relevant information upon which to build my existing skillset and ultimately enhance my learners’ experiences in the classroom and beyond” continues to be met and I daresay exceeded by the content of this particular course of study, and I feel very confident in my role as an advocate of mobile technology integration within my teaching and learning environment.

Additional Resources:

Restructuring Education Through Technology

There Are No Technology Shortcuts to Good Education

Why new technologies could never replace great teaching

References:

Denvir, C., Balmer, N. J., & Pleasence, P. (2011). Surfing the web – Recreation or resource? Exploring how young people in the UK use the Internet as an advice portal for problems with a legal dimension. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 96-104. Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.10.004.

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56(2), 370-378. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.020.

Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367-1372. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003.