2010 The impact of mobile learning_Examining what it means for teaching and learning

Theim

pactofmobile

learningExam

iningw

hatitmeans

forteachingand

learningLSN

The impact ofmobile learningExamining what it means forteaching and learning

Consulting | Outsourcing | Research | Technology | Training

LSNFifth Floor, Holborn Centre120 Holborn, London EC1N 2AD

Tel 020 7492 5000Email [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-84572-820-5090068RS/07/09/3000© LSN 2009

Learning and Skills Network trading as LSN. A company limited by guarantee.Registered in England no 5728105. Registered as a charity no 1113456

Making learning work for:

� Further education & higher education

� Local authorities & schools

� Public services

� Work-based learning

� International

The impactof mobilelearningExamining what it means for teaching and learning

Jill Attewell, Carol Savill-Smith and Rebecca Douch


090068RS_text_final:1443_txt_final 04/08/2009 13:32 Page 1

Published by LSN

www.lsnlearning.org.uk

LSN is committed to providing publications that are accessible to all.

To request additional copies of this publication or a different format, please contact:

Information and Customer Centre LSNFifth Floor Holborn Centre 120 Holborn London EC1N 2AD

Tel 020 7492 5000Fax 020 7492 5001

[email protected]

Registered with the Charity Commissioners

Authors: Jill Attewell, Carol Savill-Smith and Rebecca Douch

Copyeditor: Jenny Warner

Designer: Joel Quartey

Printer: Newnorth Print Ltd, Kempston, Bedford

CIMS 090068RS/07/09/3000

ISBN: 978-1-84572-820-5

© LSN 2009

You are welcome to copy this publication for internal use within your organisation .Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic , electrical, chemical, optical,photocopying , recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of thecopyright owner.

Further information

For further information about the issues discussed in this publication please contact:

Jill Attewell, LSNTel 020 7492 [email protected]


Contents

1 Executive summary and key messages 1

2 The benefits of mobile learning 6

3 Introduction 11

4 The impact of MoLeNET on attendance, retention and achievement 23

5 Learner and teacher reactions to mobile learning 37

6 The impact of mobile learning on teaching and learning 39

7 Mobile learning for literacy and numeracy 50

8 Mobile learning for languages and ESOL 53

9 Mobile learning for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities 54

10 Widening participation including learners not in employment, 57education or training

11 Work-based learning 59

12 Employer engagement 65

13 Learner engagement, participation, interest and enjoyment 67

14 Self-confidence and self-esteem 74

15 Enhanced communication 76

16 Additional benefits and affordances of mobile technologies 78

17 Exploding myths 80

18 Health and safety 86

19 Distance travelled by MoLeNET institutions 87

20 The future and sustainability 93

Appendix 1 MoLeNET 2007/08 colleges and consortia 96

Appendix 2 Glossary 98



What is mobile learning?There are several definitions of mobile learning. The MoLeNET programme uses a broaddefinition – the exploitation of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wirelessand mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach ofteaching and learning. Learners involved may or may not be mobile. Learning can takeplace in any location, and at any time, including traditional learning environments,such as classrooms, as well as other locations including the workplace, at home,community locations and in transit.

What is MoLeNET?MoLeNET is the UK’s, and probably the world’s, largest and most diverse implementationof mobile learning, involving approximately 20,000 learners and 4000 staff in 115colleges and 29 schools. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and consortia led byEnglish further education (FE) colleges have together invested over £12 million inMoLeNET during 2007 to 2009.

OverviewThis publication reports the findings of research carried out by LSN and practitionerresearchers trained by LSN at the end of the first year of MoLeNET (2007/08) andfocuses on the impact of MoLeNET on teaching and learning. During this yearapproximately 10,000 learners were involved in 32 projects (see Appendix 1 for a list of the colleges and schools involved in these 32 projects). Each project receivedbetween £100,000 and £500,000 of capital funding from LSC and contributedbetween £20,000 and £100,000 to the programme. Participating institutions alsocontributed a great deal of staff time, overheads, resources and enthusiasm. LSNdeveloped and delivered a support and evaluation programme. The aims of theprogramme were to:

� support colleges in the introduction of mobile learning – both within the programmeand in preparation for further mobile learning beyond the life of the programme

� ensure distribution of capital funding in an equitable and efficient manner that willmaximise benefit to the sector

� seek evidence that the introduction of mobile learning can have a significant andpositive impact on teaching and learning.

The research and evaluation strategy developed by LSN recognised that each of the 32 projects had their own aims and objectives, and these varied considerablydepending on the learners involved, the learning contexts, the subjects and levelconcerned, the technologies and pedagogy employed and the local priorities beingaddressed. For this reason the strategy had at its heart 32 practitioner-led actionresearch projects, the findings of which fed into a comprehensive national evaluation.

1 Executive summary and key messages

1


2 The impact of mobile learning: Examining what it means for teaching and learning

The decision to employ action research was informed by a desire to ensure thatmobile learning would not stop when MoLeNET funding ran out. Action research is anapproach that explicitly aims to encourage improvement and assist in the managementof change. It was hoped that the use of action research would ensure that the usefulnessof mobile learning was sufficiently demonstrated and measured to encourage furtherexpansion and embedding post MoLeNET.

The technology

Handheld technologies used included personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobilephones, smartphones, MP3 and MP4 players (eg iPODs), other portable multimediaplayers, handheld gaming devices (eg Sony PSP, Nintendo DS), ultramobile PCs (UMPCs),mini notebooks or netbooks (eg Asus EEE), handheld GPS devices, handheld votingdevices and specialist portable technologies used in science labs, engineeringworkshops or for environmental or agricultural study. Projects also invested ininfrastructure equipment to enable connectivity for downloading, uploading and/oron-line working via wireless networks, mobile phone networks or both, and linking to institutional systems, eg virtual learning environments (VLEs) and managementinformation systems (MIS).

Projects aims

The individual MoLeNET projects had a variety of different aims; these can be groupedinto the following themes:

� Improving teaching and learning, including personalisation and assessment

� Improving learner retention and achievement, including improving motivation,behaviour and confidence which can lead to retention and achievementimprovement

� Improving learning, progression and employability for learners with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities (LLDD)

� Improving communication and interoperability between learners, teachers and systems

� Improving learning outside the classroom

� Improving, developing and supporting vocational study, work-based learning and apprenticeships

� Widening participation and improving access to learning

� Strengthening collaboration and communication between institutions, includingcollaboration in preparation for Diploma delivery.

A few projects also aimed to evaluate the impact of mobile learning to inform future strategy.

Most projects reported successful achievement of their aims or significant progresstowards them. Some also reported a variety of additional positive outcomes. Severalprojects did not fully achieve all their aims and a few projects produced limited anddisappointing results because of a combination of challenges and difficulties withinconsortia. In some cases the project’s aims were rather ambitious in view of theirunfamiliarity with the new technologies and the relatively short timescale. This latterproblem was exacerbated in many cases by delays in delivery of popular technologiesespecially in the run up to Christmas 2007.


Executive summary and key messages 3

Impact on learner retention, achievement and progression

A comparison of the (mostly predicted) retention data for nearly 5000 FE collegelearners (approximately half the total 2007/08 MoLeNET learners) with LSC nationalin-year retention rates for 2006/07 suggests an improvement in retention of 8%.

A comparison of the (mostly predicted) achievement data for nearly 5000 FE collegelearners (approximately half the total 2007/08 MoLeNET learners) with LSC national in-year achievement rates for 2006/07 suggests an improvement in achievement of 9.7%.

In considering this information it is important to bear in mind that the MoLeNETfigures are based on predicted not final, actual Individual Learner Record (ILR) figures.It has not been possible to control for the many factors other than the introduction of mobile learning that could have affected retention and achievement. Somepractitioner researchers and project managers reported that retention andachievement improvement strategies were running in parallel with MoLeNET.Initiatives that involve re-thinking delivery, and particularly those that involve special attention to the personalised learning needs of specific groups of learners, are likely to lead to improvements in retention and achievement whether or not these involve new technologies.

However, the findings of the research carried out at project or institution level bypractitioner researchers include support for the quantitative findings. Nearly all (89%)of the MoLeNET learners for whom progression data was received were found to beprogressing to further learning or employment.

Learner opinions of mobile learning

Of over 900 learners who responded to an SMS survey, 91% agreed that mobilelearning did help or may help them to learn; 93% believed that it did or sometimesdid make learning more interesting; and 84% wanted to do more mobile learning in future.

The impact of using mobile technologies for teaching and learning

The findings of the practitioner-led action research suggest that using mobiletechnologies in teaching and learning can:

� encourage and support learning at any time of day, in any location including incollege or school, at home, in the workplace, on field trips and in transit

� make learning more convenient, accessible, inclusive and sensitive to learners’individual needs and circumstances

� make learning more interesting, more enjoyable and therefore more attractive to learners

� encourage non-traditional learners and learners who have not succeeded intraditional education to engage in learning and to improve their self-confidence and self-esteem

� help to overcome the digital divide between those learners who have broadbandaccess at home and those who do not

� help teachers to provide differentiated learning activities to suit different learningstyles or preferences and different ability levels



� enable teachers to maintain a supportive dialogue (synchronous and/orasynchronous) with learners regardless of their location and including learners who attend college infrequently

� enable technological support for teaching and learning in the normal learninglocation (which could be a classroom) in contrast to the previous experience oflearners having to go elsewhere to use computers

� improve access to learning resources and guidance for learners in remote settings

� enable embedding of e-learning into work-place and work-based learning

� encourage and support both independent (including discrete learning) andcollaborative learning

� support revision and help learners who have missed lessons to catch up

� include formative assessment that is more enjoyable for learners and lessthreatening than paper-based activities

� improve the speed and quality of feedback to learners during learning

� improve the speed of completion and quality of coursework and assignments

� improve learners’ concentration, focus and behaviour

� facilitate peer assessment and self assessment

� improve evidence-gathering and support assessment especially for work-basedlearners. Tutors, assessors and learners have reacted very positively to the use ofmobile technologies.

However the following caveats also apply.

� Mobile learning is not a single solution to delivering or supporting learning. Thereare many possible combinations of technology and pedagogy which may, or maynot, be appropriate.

� Careful planning and preparation are required when introducing mobiletechnologies, particularly if large numbers of learners and devices are to be involved.

� Staff training, support and time to experiment, become confident with thetechnology and plan are critical to success.

� A differentiated approach, in terms of both pedagogy and the technology used, is required, tailored to needs of specific individual learners or groups and theirparticular context, to maximise the benefits of mobile learning.

� Production of learning materials for use on mobile devices can be time consumingand a steep learning curve is involved for teaching staff.

� The advantages of mobile learning are not fully realised if materials consist solely of existing materials simply converted to a format that fits onto a mobile device. It is necessary to start from the lesson objective, take into account the needs of theparticular learners involved and establish how the capabilities of specific mobiletechnologies can be used to enhance delivery.


Executive summary and key messages 5

Further effects of mobile technologies for learners

Other reported effects of giving learners mobile technologies included:

� improved communication between learners and tutors and between colleges and employers

� learners feeling more trusted and valued by their college or school

� work-based learners and learners with learning difficulties or disabilities feeling a stronger sense of belonging to the institution

� improvements in learners’ organisation and time management due to usingcalendars, tasks, reminders and alarms on handheld technologies.

Myths

Some views that MoLeNET projects found to be unfounded or exaggerated were:

� mobile technologies might somehow be inappropriate or too difficult for learnerswith learning difficulties and/or disabilities

� all young people automatically understand new technology and require no trainingto use them – the ‘digital natives’ concept

� allowing the use of mobile technologies, particularly mobile phones, in schools and colleges would make it difficult for teachers to control classes andwould encourage inappropriate behaviour

� providing expensive, portable equipment for learners, especially the young and/ordisadvantaged, would result in high levels of damage, loss and theft – less than 2%of the handheld technologies purchased were damaged, lost or stolen.

The future

MoLeNET projects were very fortunate in that they received significant funding for thecapital costs involved in introducing mobile learning. Most institutions participating inMoLeNET projects agreed that large-scale provision of handheld technology free ofcharge to learners is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Also, in the case ofmobile phones and mp3/mp4 players, many learners already own these technologiesand some have expressed reluctance to carry an additional college/school provideddevice.

Suggestions relating to ensuring the financial sustainability of mobile learning included:

� enabling learners to use their own mobile devices for learning and to accesscollege/school resources

� wireless networks throughout college/school campuses

� taking advantage of reasonably priced data-only mobile network contracts

� requiring learners to purchase mini notebooks/net books as part of the standardequipment required for their course

� including the cost of mini notebooks/net books in course fees

� generally expecting learners to provide their own mobile technology and onlyproviding it to those learners who cannot afford to buy their own

� enabling learners to purchase mobile technologies through their college or schooland pay for these in instalments.


As their 2007/08 MoLeNET projects drew to a close project managers and practitionerresearchers were asked to draw on their experiences and research findings to identifykey benefits of mobile learning for learners, staff and institutions. The benefits theyidentified are listed below organised into categories.

Benefits for learners

Engagement/motivation

� Increased engagement, motivation and enthusiasm for learning

� Improved independent learning, ownership of learning and self-motivation

� Improved punctuality and attendance

� Increased out-of-college learning

� Increased participation in extra-curricular activities

� Increased participation by learners with learning difficulties and disabilities (LLDD).

Competence/achievement

� Improved progress

� Assignments completed earlier and/or to a better standard

� Increased achievement for disadvantaged learners

� Increased rate of completion for some learners

� Development of manual and dexterity skills for learners with learning difficultiesand disabilities

� Increased ICT and m-technology literacy/competence

� Allowed peer-to-peer assessment

� Encouraged e-learning and access to on-line materials

� Wider use and creation of different media

� Allowed alternative methods for evidencing achievement and opportunities tocollect different types of evidence for portfolios

� Rapid access to relevant multimedia learning content for skill development

� Recognition of achievement and sharing of expertise

� Increased level of communication skills due to a new, close, working relationshipwith their tutors.

2 The benefits of mobile learning

6


The benefits of mobile learning 7

Personalisation

� A more personalised curriculum

� More independent learning opportunities

� Greater independence, learners gain control of the access

� New ways of learning

� Greater control over time, location, format and pace of learning

� Ability to review and repeat learning activities to suit individual

� Alternative, own-paced, revision and reinforcement resources and activities

� Improved differentiation.

Enjoyment/confidence

� Increased confidence in m-learning and technology in general

� Learning more interesting, more fun or more ‘cool’

� Learners more interested in the way learning is delivered

� Blended lessons more engaging

� Ability to reinforce learning through self-tests, at learners’ own pace

� Positive effect on the self-esteem

� Encouraged confidence in learners’ own learning potential and passion for further learning

� Being supported in learning when away from the class or on long-term absence

� Pupils introduced to technology they will be expected to manage in the world of work

� Increased access to, and awareness of, internet and m-technology in their own ‘life skills’.

Mobility, accessibility, convenience and communication

� Learning in the workplace, home and college at a location to suit learner

� Increased peer interaction, increased scope for communication and collaboration

� Easy capture and storage of data and evidence for portfolios and assessment

� Improved access to learning materials and the internet via wireless networks

� Increased access to technology in non-IT classrooms

� Increased flexibility and variety in learning activities

� Access to peer-assessment tools/techniques in self-regulated groups

� Improved tutor/learner communications including text messaging

� Simple non-written methods of logging and presenting work

� Ability to interface with Web 2.0 sites seamlessly

� More on-demand access to online resources, especially for learners in practicalsubjects where access to ICT is not always available

� Allows the learner to learn in privacy if they want to

� Improved links between field-work and class-based learning – able to takeresources to different locations easily.



Benefits for staff

Increased teaching opportunities

� Increased access to/use of technology in non-IT classrooms

� Access to resources that enhanced engagement

� Recording of learners’ activity in and outside the session

� Support for teaching and learning in the field

� Greater flexibility in planning and delivering lessons

� Improved learner attendance patterns enabling purposeful progress through thescheme of work and reduced workload supporting absentees.

Increased skills/confidence of teachers

� Increased confidence in using e-learning and m-learning

� Encouraged staff creativity

� Provided an opportunity to think about/assess new pedagogies

� Provided an opportunity to develop own skills

� A change in culture, staff are interested in creating, developing and adaptinglearning scenarios and content for mobile learning.

Improved motivation, communication and collaboration

� Staff motivation and inspiration because of high-quality equipment

� Access to just-in-time, appropriate support

� Opportunities for the teachers involved to meet and exchange innovative ideas andgood practice

� Sharing of best practice and collaboration between staff and with otherm-champions and staff in other colleges

� Improved channels of communication between teachers, assessors and learners.

Changing awareness/perception of technology

� Changing perceptions and working practices about what is learning and how andwhere learning can take place

� Awareness-raising of using mobile devices with e-portfolios

� Increase in the knowledge of mobile technology and the practical applicationsassociated with it.

Benefits for institutions

Increased awareness/interest in m-learning

� Increased organisational awareness of the potential of m-learning

� Increased interest in using mobile devices in teaching and learning

� Opportunity to raise the profile of information and learning technology (ILT) acrossthe college and demonstrate the benefits for learners and staff

� Increasing organisational knowledge of effective practice using mobile learningtechnologies


The benefits of mobile learning 9

� A change in culture across the organisation in the use of mobile learning and mobiledevices to enhance and enrich the learning experience.

Improved infrastructure/resources/skills base

� Increased provision of technology to support teaching and learning

� Efficient and cost-effective integration of technology into learning spaces

� Huge increases in the flexibility of learning environments

� Improvement in wireless infrastructure

� Enhanced learning infrastructure

� Deployment of state-of-the-art technology for use across the organisation.

College e-learning strategy

� Advancement/embedding of college e-learning/ILT strategy

� Opportunity to ‘take stock’ and think about new cross-college learning and teachingmethodologies

� The development of the skill base of teaching and support staff in line with thecollege ILT strategy.

Raising college profile

� The experience of leading a major and innovative project helps to keep the collegeat the leading edge of e-learning developments

� Enhanced reputation and credibility as a lead college that can be relied on foreffective project delivery.

� Increased local profile and prestige

Improved collaboration

� Strengthened relationships with local schools

� Sharing experiences and resources with other colleges

� Opportunity to discuss ideas and benefit from expertise of partnerorganisations/colleagues

� Increased links and improved trust between partner institutions

� The benefits and experience of leading a partnership project

� Success of cross-college collaboration.

Learner-related benefits for the college

� Improved success rates

� Improved learner behaviour

� A buzz from learners about being at the leading edge

� Improved retention

� Improved attendance

� Opportunity to hear the learner voice.



Benefits for the sector

� Increased awareness and experience of mobile learning

� More mobile learning expertise available in the sector to support future development

� On-going development and sharing of learning materials, resources, tools and ideas

� An on-line community of practice established

� Some beneficial relationships with suppliers developed and will provide a basis forfuture negotiation of services.


3 Introduction

11

MoLeNET

Early in 2007 the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) decided that mobile and wirelesstechnologies and the concept and practice of mobile learning were well enoughestablished to justify investment in a significant implementation of mobile learningwithin English further education (FE). As a result the Mobile Learning Network(MoLeNET) was established.

Evidence for this had been provided by the success of initiatives such asWolverhampton Council’s Learning2Go and the findings of several research anddevelopment projects and trials. These included the m-learning project (2001–04) ledby the Technology Enhanced Learning Research Centre (originally part of the Learningand Skills Development Agency and now LSN) and supported by the European Unionand, in the UK, the LSC. However, there seemed to be a shortage of mobile learningexperts, experienced practitioners and good practice exemplars.

To enable significant implementation the LSC made available £6 million of capitalfunding in the 2007/08 financial year. LSC and LSN agreed an innovative fundingmodel involving shared-cost projects. LSN invited proposals for such projects, with theaim of introducing or expanding mobile learning within colleges or consortia led bycolleges, and 32 projects were selected (see Appendix 1 for a list of the colleges andschools involved in these 32 projects).

Each project received between £100,000 and £500,000 of capital funding from LSCand contributed between £20,000 and £100,000 to the programme. Participatinginstitutions also contributed a great deal of staff time, overheads, resources andenthusiasm.

LSN developed a Support and Evaluation Programme to:

� assist participating colleges and their partners to implement mobile learning

� provide continuing professional development (CPD) for staff involved

� provide an on-line environment for sharing knowledge and resources

� support a mobile learning community of practice

� support mobile learning expertise capacity-building

� work with practitioners and their institutions to assess the effectiveness and impactof the initiative and projects.

The formal aims of the programme were to:

� support colleges in the introduction of mobile learning, both within the programmeand in preparation for further mobile learning beyond the life of the programme

� ensure distribution of capital funding in an equitable and efficient manner that willmaximise benefit to the sector



� seek evidence that the introduction of mobile learning can have a significant andpositive impact on teaching and learning.

Research strategy and methods

The research and evaluation strategy developed by LSN recognised that each of the 32 projects had their own aims and objectives and these varied considerablydepending on the learners involved, the learning contexts, the subjects and levelconcerned, the technologies and pedagogy employed and the local priorities beingaddressed. This is one reason why the research and evaluation strategy had at itsheart 32 practitioner-led action research projects the findings of which fed into acomprehensive national evaluation, with components designed to help answernational questions, as illustrated in figure 1.

The choice of action research was also informed by a desire to ensure that mobilelearning would not cease when MoLeNET funding ran out. Action research is an approachthat explicitly aims to encourage improvement and assist in the management of change.It was hoped that the use of action research would ensure that the usefulness ofmobile learning was sufficiently demonstrated and measured to encourage furtherexpansion and embedding after MoLeNET.

The ‘accessibility and inclusion’ project in figure 1 below drew on the experiences and findings of MoLeNET projects involving learners with learning difficulties and/ordisabilities. These, together with examples from other mobile learning projects,contributed to the Go Mobile! publication produced by LSN in partnership with JISCTechDis (2008).

Figure 1 MoLeNET programme research strategy

Overview

Number/types ofpartners, learners,subjects, levels, learning contexts,

technology

Geo-demographic context

MOSAIC postcode analysiscollege/schools and

learners

Project level evaluation

Analysis of bidaims/objectives, project plans and project reports

Meta-analysis

Action research projectsdata and findings

Institution impact

Distance travelled by whole

college/shool

Learner voice

SMS quizzes, ‘diary room’ videos,

interviews

Retention andachievement

ILR estimates, comparison with previous ILR

Teacher voice

videos, interviews/focus groups,

intended v actualoutcomes

Knowledge café

Post project practitioners workshop

32 practitioner-led action research projects

and accessibility and inclusion project

LSN training andassistance

LSN


Introduction 13

The programme definition of action research is: a research approach with thefundamental aim of helping professionals (teachers, managers) to improve practiceand understand change processes, using a cyclical process to diagnose issues forinvestigation, plan research strategies, implement, review and reflect on findings.However, the timescale of the projects limited the number of cycles that could be involved.

Each project was required to nominate a lead practitioner researcher (LPR) to lead theaction research within their project and to liaise with LSN researchers about researchand evaluation.

LSN researchers developed training courses for the LPRs and worked with them torefine their action research plans and ensure that their research was directly relevantto their projects and that the methods they proposed were practical and appropriate.LSN researchers also visited the projects to provide further training and offer assistanceand advice on data collection and analysis. A Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE)course was developed for research and evaluation materials, knowledge-sharing,discussion and on-line support of practitioner researchers.

The overview and geo-demographic data collected and analysed provides a contextfor the other research and evaluation findings and assists interpretation of thequantitative data relating to retention and achievement by providing an indication of how representative the sample of learners was of the total national and furthereducation populations. This interpretation is further supported by the collection andanalysis of a wealth of qualitative data via the action research projects and directlyfrom teachers and learners.

LSN recognised that without using experimental research methods, including control groups and strict attempts to isolate all variables that could affect outcomes(an approach that is very difficult to follow in education, not least because manyeducators do not consider it to be ethical), it would not possible to state with certaintythat any impact observed was solely due to the introduction of mobile learning.However, an holistic consideration of all of the qualitative and quantitative data anddirect involvement of practitioners in the research process does provide someconfidence in apparent impact.

The research population

Some geo-demographic research was carried out to ascertain how representative the MoLeNET learners were of the national and FE learner populations. The findingsindicated that the population in the catchment areas of the colleges involved inMoLeNET were generally representative of the national population over the age of 15and that the learners involved seemed (on the basis of a sample of nearly 5000 orabout 50% of all MoLeNET learners) to differ from the national picture by over or underrepresenting some groups as detailed in the rest of this section.

Methodology

Postcodes were collected for the institutions and learners involved in the MoLeNETprojects and used to carry out a geo-demographic analysis to:

� gain an understanding of the socio-economic characteristics of the local areas thatproviders taking in the project cater for

� highlight key characteristics in relation to the levels of access the population in thecatchment areas have to technology

� compare the above with national characteristics to ascertain whether MoLeNETinstitution catchment areas are representative of England and, if not, how they differ.



Sixty-five of the participating institutions submitted home postcodes for 5617 learners.Using Mosaic UK (see below), socio-economic background and additional geographicalinformation including region and county areas were attached to the learners. Whenthe postcodes were merged with the geographical information, 98% (5527) werematched successfully. The analysis in this section is based on the 5527 postcodes thatwere matched and represents about half of all learners involved in MoLeNET.

Mosaic UK

Socio-economic information and information about likely access to technology werebased on the social grouping application Mosaic UK. Mosaic UK is a geo-demographicapplication developed by Experian that classifies the UK population into 61 socio-economic types, aggregated into 11 main social groups. Each type and group representsa distinct part of the population, and carries detailed descriptions of aspects includingsocio-demographics, lifestyles, culture and behaviours. The 11 main Mosaic groupsare outlined in figure 2.

Figure 2 Mosaic groups

Group Names Description

A Symbols of Success Career professionals living in sought-after locations

B Happy Families Younger families living in newer homes

C Suburban Comfort Older families living in suburbia

D Ties of Community Close-knit, inner-city and manufacturing town communities

E Urban Intelligence Educated, young, single people living in areas of transient populations

F Welfare Borderline People living in social housing with uncertain employment in deprived areas

G Municipal Dependency Low income families in estate-based social housing

H Blue Collar Enterprise Upwardly mobile families living in homes bought from social landlords

I Twilight Subsistence Older people living in social housing with high care needs

J Grey perspectives Independent older people living in social housing with high care needs

K Rural Isolation Independent people with relatively active lifestyles


Introduction 15

Mosaic UK also provides detailed comparison statistics on a range of householdconsumer patterns regarding recreational activities, product preferences and use ofdifferent forms of technology. This last category was selected as the most relevantsource of information for this project and the technologies selected for comparisonwere personal computers, personal organisers or palm-tops, connection to the internet,broadband access at home, email at home, Sky Digital TV, DVD players, MP3 playersand internet-connected games consoles. The profile reports outline how householdswithin each Mosaic group and type compare with all households in the UK in terms of higher- or lower-than-average levels of access to the different technology types.

Profile of provider catchment areas – population and technology use

Population

When the various counties and their corresponding populations were aggregated, theproportional distribution of the catchment areas seemed on the whole very similar tothe general 15+ population of England.

The only groups that appeared to be slightly over-represented in the project were:

� Group E ‘Urban Intelligence’: Educated, young, single people living in areas oftransient populations (11% compared to the 9% for England)

� Group F ‘Welfare Borderline’: People living in social housing with uncertainemployment in deprived areas (7% compared to 5%) but the difference is minimal.

Technology use

Each Mosaic group is associated with a level of use of technology. The Mosaic groupswith, on average, the highest levels of access to technology are:

� Group A ‘Symbols of Success’: Career professionals living in sought-after locations

� Group C ‘Suburban Comfort’: Older families living in suburbia

� Group E ‘Urban Intelligence’: Educated, young, single people living in areas oftransient populations

Together these groups represented 38% of the MoLeNET population in 2007/08.

The Mosaic groups with, on average, the lowest levels of use of technology are:

� Group D ‘Ties of Community’: Close-knit, inner-city and manufacturing towncommunities

� Group G ‘Municipal Dependency’: Low-income families in estate-based socialhousing

� Group J ‘Grey Perspectives’: Independent older people living in social housing withhigh care needs.

Together these groups represented 30% of the MoLeNET population in 2007/08.

The MoLeNET project covered a population group similar to the national picture inrelation to levels of technology use. There was a slightly higher proportion of individualsin the MoLeNET project with higher-than-average levels of technology use comparedto the national average but the difference was minor.



Profile of the learners

Characteristics of learners

The Mosaic profile of the learners is widely spread and there is no dominant group.The largest proportion of the population is classed as Group D ‘Ties of Community’:close-knit, inner-city and manufacturing town communities – this accounts for 19.8%of the learners. This was followed by Group C ‘Suburban Comfort:’ Older families livingin suburbia with 16.1%. Two other groups followed closely behind – Group H ‘BlueCollar Enterprise’: Upwardly mobile families living in homes bought from sociallandlords (13.0%) and Group B ‘Happy Families’: Younger families living in newerhomes (12.3%). All other groups fell below 10%.

When the main Mosaic groups were further disaggregated into social type of learner,some types had distinctly higher proportions of learners compared to all the othertypes. The four top Mosaic types are illustrated in figure 3 below. All other types fellbetween 0.4% and 3.4%.

Figure 3 Top four Mosaic types in MoLeNET research

Mosaic type % of all learners

D26 ‘South Asian Industry’: Communities of lowly paid 5.8%factory workers, many of them of South Asian descent

H46 ‘New Town Materialism’: Social housing, typically in ‘new towns’, with good job opportunities for the poorly qualified 5.0%

C17 ‘Small Time Business’: Small business proprietors living in low density estates in smaller communities 4.1%

D23 ‘Industrial Grit’: Owners of affordable terraces built to 3.8%house nineteenth-century heavy industrial workers

In comparison to the national average there is a notably higher representation oflearners from several groups:

� Group K ‘Rural Isolation’: People living in rural areas far from urbanisation

� Group B ‘Happy Families’: Younger families living in newer homes

� Group G ‘Municipal Dependency’: Low-income families living in estate based social housing

Compared to the national average, there were notably lower than average proportionsof learners:

� Group A ‘Symbols of Success’: Career professionals living in sought-after locations


� Group I ‘Twilight Subsistence’: Older people living in social housing with high care needs

� Group J ‘Grey Perspectives’: Independent older people with relatively active lifestyles.


Introduction 17

Comparison of MoLeNET learner population to England’s FE learnerpopulation

Learner data for the FE sector was gathered from the Individualised Learner Record(ILR) database for 2006/07. In comparison to the general FE learner population acrossEngland there is a notably higher representation of learners from the following groupsin the MoLeNET project:

� Group K ‘Rural Isolation’: People living in rural areas far from urbanisation

� Group H ‘Blue Collar Enterprise’: Upwardly mobile families living in homes boughtfrom social landlords

and slightly more:

� Group J ‘Grey Perspectives’: Independent older people with relatively active lifestyle.

Compared to the general FE population there was lower than average representationof learners from the following Mosaic groups:


� Group F ‘Welfare Borderline’: People living in social housing with uncertainemployment in deprived areas

� Group I ‘Twilight Subsistence’: Older people living in social housing with high care needs.

The technology

In 2007/08 the MoLeNET projects purchased over 10,000 handheld devices. Figure 8below provides a breakdown by type of device.

Ultramobile personal computers (UMPCs), are typically 7-inch-screen mini laptop and tablet PC-type devices including more expensive machines like the Samsung Q1(see figure 4) and cheaper mini notebooks or netbooks, particularly the Asus EEE (see figure 5) which first became available as the 2007/08 projects were starting.

Figure 4 Samsung Q1



Figure 5 Asus EEE

Portable games devices include the Nintendo DS (see figure 6) and the Sony PSP (see figure 7).

Figure 6 Nintendo DS


Introduction 19

Figure 7 Sony PSP

Projects also purchased enabling infrastructure technology (such as servers andwireless routers), equipment to support the operational needs of mobile learning(such as storage, charging cupboards and trolleys), complementary technologies(such as electronic whiteboards to interoperate with sets of handheld devices), somelarger portable computers for staff developing learning materials for mobile learning(such as laptops and MacBooks) and a few Nintendo Wii games consoles, which weremostly used with learners who have learning difficulties or disabilities.

Figure 8 MoLeNET phase one – handheld technologies purchased

Projects aims

The MoLeNET projects had a variety of different aims; these can be grouped into thefollowing themes:

� Improving teaching and learning, including personalisation and assessment

� Improving learner retention and achievement, including improving motivation,behaviour and confidence which can lead to retention and achievementimprovement

� Improving learning, progression and employability for learners with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities

Smartphones

PDA

UMPC

MP3/MP4 players

Video cameras

Digital cameras

Portable games devices

7%

30%

24%

30%

5%

1%

3%



� Improving communication and interoperability between learners, teachers and systems

� Improving learning outside the classroom

� Improving, developing and supporting vocational study, work-based learning and apprenticeships

� Widening participation and improving access to learning

� Strengthening collaboration and communication between institutions, includingcollaboration in preparation for Diploma delivery.

A few projects also aimed simply to evaluate the impact of mobile learning so that thefindings could inform future plans.

Most projects reported successful achievement of their aims or significant progresstowards them. Some also reported a variety of additional positive outcomes. Severalprojects did not fully achieve all their aims and a few projects produced limited and disappointing results because of a combination of challenges and difficultieswithin consortia.

In some cases the projects’ aims were rather ambitious in view of their unfamiliaritywith the new technologies and the relatively short timescale of MoLeNET phase one.This latter problem was exacerbated in many cases by delays in delivery of populartechnologies especially in the run up to Christmas 2007.

However, many of the institutions have clear plans to continue to pursue their aims or to expand their use of mobile technologies in the 2008/09 academic year. Thisprovides evidence of some embedding of mobile learning into these institutions and an indication that sustainability may be achieved.

Practitioner-led action research questions

All lead practitioner researchers were asked to formulate three research questions tobe addressed by their practitioner-led action research. Generally the questions werelinked to the aims and objectives of the projects but sometimes other areas ofparticular interest were investigated. The lead practitioner researchers were asked todevelop a plan for how they would address each of the questions. A planning form(see figure 9) helped practitioner researchers to decide for each question the dataneeded to answer the question and the actions and research methods needed tocollect the data. They also received training from LSN plus ongoing support and advice.


Introduction 21

Figure 9 Action research planning form

Action research plan

Project title: Name of lead practitionerResearcher:

Lead college name: Date:

Research questions: Success criteria:

Action required for implementation Person By Data collection and analysis Research methodsresponsible when

The projects’ research questions can be categorised into five main themes:

� learning and teaching with mobile technologies

� the impact of the use of mobile learning on learners’ ‘soft skills’ or on motivation,engagement or enjoyment

� the use of mobile devices, their functionality and the skills needed to use them

� the impact of mobile learning on retention, achievement, progression andattendance

� broader pedagogical and management of learning matters, including learningmaterials development, use with VLEs, assessment and continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD).

Addressing national and local priorities

MoLeNET project managers were asked which national priorities their projectaddressed. The graph in figure 10 indicates numbers of projects addressing each ofthe national priorities (all projects addressed several priority areas).



Figure 10 National priorities addressed by MoLeNET 2007/08 projects

Projects were also asked which local priorities their projects addressed. The list oflocal priorities identified overlapped considerably with the list of national prioritiesaddressed. The graph in Figure 11 shows the numbers of projects addressing each of the local priorities.

Figure 11 Local priorities addressed by 2007/08 MoLeNET projects

14–19 year olds

Literacy

Numeracy

NEETs

Science

Languages and/or ESOL

WBL

Diplomas

Inclusion/equal opportunity/accessibility

Personalisation

Recruitment/retention/achievement/progression/attendance

Commnity cohesion

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of projects

Learners with learning difficulties and disabilities

Literacy and numeracy

Improving teaching and learning

Improving retention, success and attendance

Work-based learning/vocational study

NEETs

Personalisation

Independent learning any place any time

Diplomas

Enhancing partnerships with colleges/community

Urban rural divide

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Number of projects


4 The impact of MoLeNET on attendance,retention and achievement

23

Twenty-two projects had aims related to improving attendance, retention, achievementand/or progression: 14 of these reported improvement in one or more of these areas.

Achieving improvements in these areas is always difficult and the MoLeNET projectsalso had some specific difficulties. These included the relatively short timescale of the project (in some cases the project ended before learners completed their course);the project not spanning an entire academic year; and grades not being available intime to be included in the report. Many project reports noted that factors other thanthe introduction of mobile learning could have contributed to improvements recordedin these areas and that it is extremely difficult to isolate a single reason for changesobserved.

Retention, achievement and progression data for all learners involved in MoLeNETprojects was requested from all colleges taking part in MoLeNET projects. By the timeof analysis this data had been received for about half the learners. Many projects alsoreported improvements in attendance and suggested that such improvements werelikely to lead to improvements in retention and achievement in future.

Predicted or actual learner outcomes (depending on the data available to the institutionsat the time of reporting) in terms of achievement, retention and progression weresubmitted. Colleges were asked to complete a spreadsheet for all learners involved,which mirrored some of the fields in the LSC’s Individual Learner Record (ILR).

Some projects also reported their own research findings on the impact of mobilelearning on attendance, retention, achievement and/or progression. These includedpredicted and actual data, feedback from staff and learners, and anecdotal comments.

The sections below include an analysis of the retention, achievement and progressiondata together with supporting and illustrative relevant qualitative, and in some cases,additional quantitative data collected by the practitioner researchers.

Throughout this report findings and quotes from practitioner research are generallyattributed to the lead college of MoLeNET consortia although in some cases thefindings may have been generated by another consortium partner.

Attendance

The major ‘hard’ indicators of institutional performance are retention and achievementrates. Attendance is clearly one early indicator of likely future outcomes that affectachievement and poor attendance is often an early warning of possible drop-out thatdirectly affects retention data.

Nine projects found evidence of improvements in attendance. They reported thefollowing findings relating to attendance, including more detailed findings from twostudies – Eccles consortium and Regent consortium.



Eccles consortium used the indicator of absenteeism as one marker, comparing theabsence rate with the previous year. Their hypothesis was that learners who areengaged and motivated by their courses will have a lower absence rate than learnerswho are not engaged by their course. Their findings are outlined below.

� All Level 2 vocational courses, except Travel and Tourism, had improved attendance(see figure 12).

� There was little difference for academic courses.

� The largest difference related to BTEC Sport, which involved only male learners,whereas courses such as Animal Care and Travel and Tourism, with predominantlyfemale cohorts, had below-average attendance for this type of course, with Traveland Tourism attendance falling below the previous year’s level. This information hasgiven rise to speculation that the use of the mobile technology may appeal more tomale learners and could possibly have been a disincentive to female learners butmore research would be required to fully justify this conclusion.

� The researchers felt that college strategies other than mobile learning may have alsocontributed to the improvements in attendance by vocational learners.

Figure 12 Attendance data provided by Eccles consortium

Course Level Year Year Difference2006/07 2007/08

Average 2 80.0% 84.0% +4.00%

BTEC Animal Care 2 78.9% 80.7% +1.80%

BTEC Sport 2 81.0% 88.8% +7.80%

BTEC Travel and Tourism 2 83.6% 81.1% -2.50%

Regent College and its partner, Gateway College, monitored class attendance recordedby teachers. Regent did notice some improvements (see figure 13) but they advise thatit is ‘difficult to isolate one factor that contributes to attendance’, and that attendancedepends on many factors, some intrinsic and some extrinsic to the learner. Teacherfocus groups commented:

If students knew in advance that they would be using a ‘desirable’ piece ofequipment, they would be looking forward to the lesson. We believe formalintegration of m-learning into schemes of work and lesson plans would help with attendance

Figure 13 Attendance data provided by Regent College

Course 2006/07 Attendance Difference

BTEC Level 1 Business Studies 92% 94% +2%

BTEC Level 1 Art 93% 89% -4%

BTEC Level 1 IT 78% 84% +6%

Level 1 Key Skills IT 70% 71% +1%

OCR Level 1 Health and Social Care 87% 91% +3%

Challenge Course (pre-Level 1) 92% 98% +6%


The impact of MoLeNET on attendance, retention and achievement 25

Regent consortium researchers also reported that when teachers used the rightequipment (eg the Nintendo DS or Wii) to provide learners with enjoyable study breaks,the learners looked forward to lessons and that could have affected attendancealthough the teachers insisted that the requirements of the course must come beforeenjoyment. Teachers also warned that if technology is used inappropriately, learnersmay not bother to attend lessons. Some suggested that if material to be delivered inthe lesson could be accessed online learners may feel that little extra benefit is gainedfrom attendance. This suggests that Regent consortium teachers are starting to thinkabout appropriate pedagogy for mobile learning.

The following institutions also reported on the impact of using mobile learning on attendance.

Brockenhurst College reported that ‘attendance and retention data indicatedimprovements (from an already high base in relation to sector benchmarks) for some learners involved in the project’, and ‘increased motivation among learners has contributed positively to improved attendance for some learners’. This wasdemonstrated using a questionnaire, where 8% of learners considered it hadabsolutely improved their attendance and 20% felt it possibly had.

Cardinal Newman College reported that mobile learning could help motivate thelearners to have a consistently high level of attendance. They cited data relating to a group of ICT learners, where attendance was 97% compared with the rest of thecohort which averaged at 95%.

Coulsdon College asked teachers whether using Ameos had improved attendance.One teacher reported ‘increased enthusiasm and motivation, causing the learners to show off to each other’ and noted that ‘these students would not normally havecome in’.

At Lewisham College, a computing tutor reported that class attendance had improvedby 10% across two groups. This also compared favourably with the other two coursegroups who were studying the same qualification, but not using the PDAs. The tutorpredicted: ‘As for the success rate, because we’ve now got the higher rate ofattendance it then should follow that the success rate also increases.’ One reasongiven for this improvement in attendance was that the loan of a PDA depended on80% attendance.

Matthew Boulton consortium used Sony PSP handheld gaming devices in an attemptto re-engage disaffected learners and improve their numeracy skills. The researchernoted ‘there were improvements in attendance and attainment compared with previousyears, and the learners seemed genuinely more engaged’.

Accrington and Rossendale used group text reminders to keep in touch, keep learnersengaged and motivated to turn up to classes. The learners knew that ‘the tutor wouldtext them if they didn’t come in!’.

Rotherham consortiummonitored retention and used text reminders for non-attendance. They report a 10% increase in attendance and are planning to extend this system to include texts for recognition of positive contributions.

There are circumstances in which absence from college is hard or impossible to avoidbut some MoLeNET projects reported that the use of mobile technologies helped tominimise the negative impact of this.

Oaklands consortium described one such case:

When Peter’s close friend passed away, he was able to use his Vario III to communicateboth with Sally and his teacher, Rachael Jones. Sally and Rachael noticed that Peterwas quite depressed and that there was a change in his personality, so they set himtasks and kept him busy using the personal calendar in the device.



Peter could contact either Sally or Rachael at any time and says that this helped himstay on course, as he came close to dropping out. He also completed almost all hiscoursework on the Vario, stating that because he took it with him everywhere hewent, he was able to do work when he felt up to it as opposed to having to book acomputer in Learning Resources when they were available.’

(Names altered for anonymity)

A Regent consortium learner was able to keep up to date with work while on extendedleave because of the materials downloaded onto her iPod for her. At Accrington andRossendale the ability to access the VLE and to take learning outside the classroomfor those unwilling to attend or intimidated by college has been helpful for learnerswith Asperger’s Syndrome.

Retention and achievement

Introduction and overview

A comparison of predicted retention and achievement data for nearly 5000 college-based learners out of the approximately 10,000 2007/08 MoLeNET learners, studyinga wide range of subjects at a variety of levels, with LSC national in-year retention andachievement rates for 2006/07 suggests an improvement in retention of 8% and animprovement in achievement of 9.7% (see figures 16 and 20).

In considering this information it is important to bear in mind the following points.

� The MoLeNET figures are based on predicted not actual ILR data.

� It has not been possible to control for other factors that could have affectedretention and achievement.

� Some practitioner researchers and project managers reported retention andachievement improvement strategies running in parallel with MoLeNET.

� Initiatives that involve re-thinking delivery, and particularly those that involvespecial attention to the personalised learning needs of specific groups of learners,are likely to lead to improvements in retention and achievement whether or not theyinvolve new technologies.

However, qualitative data collected by practitioner researchers via teacher interviews,questionnaires and focus groups provides some support for the suggestion thatimprovements in retention and achievement have resulted from the use of mobiletechnologies. Some teachers reported improved retention and achievement that theybelieved to be a direct result of the introduction of mobile learning. This qualitativedata, and more qualitative data collected by via lesson observations and by teachersand learners responding to LSN’s SMS surveys, suggests that mobile learning has improved the quality of teaching, resulted in better learner engagement andimproved attendance. All these effects are believed to have a positive effect onretention and achievement.

The sample

In total 75 colleges and 18 schools participated in the MoleNET programme for2007/08 and nearly half of them submitted predicted ILR data for analysis.



Figure 14 Summary of colleges that submitted data – MoLeNET 2007/08

No. of colleges All MoleNET % of collegessubmitting data participation submitted data

colleges

Number of lead colleges 26 32 81.3%

Number of partner colleges 23 43 53.5%

Total 49 75 65.3%

They submitted information on 4810 learners which represents approximately half ofall learners estimated to have been involved in MoLeNET in phase one with records forslightly more females (53.7%) than males (46.3%). The national gender ratio isfemales 58.2% and males 41.8% so the gender profile of the MoLeNET sample is notsignificantly different (see figure 16).

Figure 15 gender ratios – sample and national

MoLeNET learners ILR 2006/07

Gender Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Female 2,170 53.7 1,532,814 58.2

Male 1,874 46.3 1,102,389 41.8

Total 4,044 100.0 2,635,203 100

Retention

The retention rate was calculated by comparing the total number of learners who havecompleted their study or are continuing or intending to continue their studyprogramme with the total records (learner completed + learner continuing/intendingto continue + learner withdrawn + learner transferred to another course or provider).Due to the timescales of the data collection process, colleges were asked to submitpredicted completions so the rates presented for MoLeNET learners indicate overallcompletion rates rather than actual results.

The national comparator used was national in-year retention rates for LSC-funded FElearners (see figure 16). In-year retention rates were based on ILR 2006/07 completiondata and calculated using the ILR field A34 Completion Status. The formula applied is similar to that used on the MoLeNET data collected (ie total number of learnerscontinuing/intending to continue and learner completed records divided by the totalnumber of learner continuing/intending to continue and learner completed, learnerwithdrawn and learner transfer). Only completions for LSC-funded learners have beenincluded in the national in-year rate.

The total national in-year retention rate for 2006/07 was 85.3%. This is slightly lower than the benchmarking data LSC retention rate for the same year of 87.0%(source: ILR www.lsc.gov.uk/providers/Data/statistics/success). The businessdefinitions used by the LSC vary slightly from the methodology applied in this analysis(for example: ‘Retention Rate – completers’ is the number of aims that have beencompleted divided by the total number of aims, excluding those that were transferred,and is based on mapped ILR databases).

The rates are distinct as the data sources and definitions used for the calculationsvary slightly, so please note these variations when comparing the results.



Figure 16 MoLeNET predicted retention rates compared to national ILR in-year 2006/07

Projects’ action research findings concerning retention

Research carried out at a number of colleges found improvements in their retentionrates. In some cases practitioner researchers or project managers commented that itwas difficult to attribute such changes to mobile learning as they need to be consideredin conjunction with other strategies for improvement taking place in the colleges.Some colleges reported increases in retention in some courses but not others, andsome colleges stated that due to the short timescales involved retention rates couldnot be measured (although they often went on to comment on it).

Improvements in retention

Aylesbury consortium compared retention, achievement and success statistics withILR data for the last three years to help determine if their MoLeNET project had had animpact on the success rates for the department working with learners with learningdifficulties and disabilities. In 2007/08 the retention rate was 92% but, as retentionhad improved by 2% year on year for the past three years, the college concluded thatit is likely that this improvement would have been maintained without the influence ofthe MoLeNET project.

Brockenhurst College stated: ‘attendance and retention data indicated improvements(from an already high base in relation to sector benchmarks) for some learners involvedin the project’. They believe that for their 16–19 year olds increased motivation hascontributed to improved attendance and retention.

Bournville College noted that their current retention data ‘indicates a positive effect’.

Chichester consortium reported that ‘learners felt inspired to complete courses’.

Coulsdon College reported their retention rates for similar cohorts were 74% in 2005/06,84%, in 2006/07 84% and 100%in 2007/08, an improvement which ‘may have beendue to mobile learning’.

East Berkshire consortium explained that mobile learning technologies have enableda group of their 14–16-year-old learners to access and complete their qualifications,progressing to careers in engineering as a result.

Learner transferred to another course

or provider

Learner withdrawn

Learner continuing/intending to continue &

Learner completed

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

In-year retention rates – National ILR 2006/07

Retention rates (MoLeNET Learners – predicted



Eccles consortium aimed to address success and retention rates at Levels 1 and 2 andreport increased retention and achievement in addition to heightened engagementand improved quality of work with access to mobile technologies. However, theynoted that the: ‘overall improvement the college has experienced is not due solely to the trials having taken place and must be attributed to the other strategies thecollege has been using during the year’.

Eccles consortium particularly focused on male retention, which was perceived as acommon problem across the Level 2 vocational courses of colleges involved in theproject. The retention rate achieved across all the vocational courses was 93.2% andfor the courses involved in MoLeNET the rate was 97.73%, with male retention onmany courses 100% (see figure 17).

Figure 17 Eccles consortium male learner retention and achievement rates

Course No. of Male Malelearners learners retention

BTEC Animal Care 7 2 100%

BTEC Media 9 5 100%

BTEC Sport 11 11 100%

BTEC Travel and Tourism 12 2 100%

GCSE Maths 14 8 100%

IT Practitioners 13 8 100%

BTEC Catering 14 5 80%

BTEC Beauty Therapy 18 0

BTEC Public Services Level 1 14 9 89%

BTEC Public Services Level 2 14 10 100%

NVQ Football Coaching 12 10 100%

Total 138 70 97%

Eccles consortium also reported that teachers noticed improved self-esteem,development of collaborative skills and increased engagement where learners wereprovided with small manageable portions of learning via mobile technologies.

Matthew Boulton College described the involvement of ESOL learners and learnerscategorised as NEET (ie not in education, employment or training) in a Numeracy UpliftProject using Sony PSPs. The member of staff who led the initiative said:

The project was initially about getting bums on seats and keeping them there. Thegames themselves were fun for the students but they were also designed to test theirnumeracy skills. The project was successful and not only was retention increased butthe students tended to be more well behaved in the classroom.

Oaklands Consortium reported that, following a bereavement, a learner becamedepressed and was close to dropping out. He was given a Vario III handheld device sothat he could communicate with the tutor and his teacher at any time, and assignedtasks using the personal calendar. This helped him stay on course, and he completedalmost all his coursework on the device because he took it with him everywhere hewent. He was able to work when he felt up to it, as opposed to having to book acomputer in the Learning Resources Centre.



Regent consortium asked the question ‘Can m-learning improve retention rates?’ Itcan be seen from figure 18 below that all courses where mobile learning was usedincreased their retention rates:

Figure 18 Regent consortium retention rates

Course Retention Retention 2006–2007 % 2007–2008 %

BTEC Level 1 IT 93 94

BTEC Level 1 Art 93 95

BTEC Level 1 Business 88 97

OCR Level 1 Health and Social Care 85 95

Challenge 94 96

Key Skills IT Level 1 85 87

Also learner and teacher focus groups gave anecdotal evidence that mobile learningcan help keep learners on track. One Health and Social Care learner became pregnantduring the academic year and some of her work was put onto Apple iPods so shecould keep up her studies. An IT teacher believes that using the Nintendo DS andNintendo Wii games as a study break or homework treat helped to retain some of herlearners on their course.

However, Regent consortium also noted that:

Cause and effect are very difficult to measure in pass rates and retention rates. It isvery difficult to isolate one factor, such as mobile learning, and state that it affectedstudent success rates. We would need to establish matched control groups and keepall other variables constant (which would be virtually impossible and probablyunethical).

At Boston College, retention and achievement data for 2007/08 was not available.However, they did note that all the learners who were given devices were on two-yearcourses, and all learners had been retained.

Accrington and Rossendale College stated that predicted retention data showed thatall the learners who worked with mobile devices had been retained; all learners willhave achieved and that retention and achievement rates for the group will exceed thefigures for the previous year. Staff and learners found that mobile technology had agreat deal of potential for engaging learners, increasing enjoyment and improvingretention and achievement. It also encouraged learners to feel part of the widercollege community by enabling them to access the VLE and the materials within it.

Lowestoft College reported improvements in retention data for three courses (see figure 19).

Figure 19 Lowestoft college retention data

Course Retention Retention Retention benchmark 2006/07 2007/08

ESOL Entry 1 (day) 79% N/a 90%

Plumbing (16–18) 83% 86% 94%

Pre-Vocational Studies 82% 80% 93%



Retention data for the pre-16 Motor Vehicle group was not available but it was reportedthat these learners successfully used the MDA-Touch devices, mainly for internetaccess and taking photographs of tasks completed for portfolio evidence. Researchersreported that the responses they received from this group indicated that the use ofmobile technologies had been influential in maintaining retention and improvingmotivation. All learners indicated that the technology had made their learning moreinteresting and had encouraged them to stay on the course.

Projects’ predictions of possible impact where retention data was not available

Chichester consortium stated:

Although the trial was too short to measure retention and achievement, it wasgenerally expressed by all staff across both projects and colleges involved, that a positive outcome would be seen in time.

Also:

Qualitative evidence from the Asus users indicates ... this could also demonstrateimproved retention through increased motivation and support with learning, betteraccess to support while in the workplace and improved access to resources.

Cornwall consortium stated that it was ‘very difficult to ascertain whether there had been a distinct and measurable improvement in retention and achievement’ as a result of the use of the devices, although there were isolated cases whereimprovement was evident. The short length of the project was the overarching reason for the lack of findings in this area but it was hoped that more evidence willbecome apparent over the next few months and following academic year. It was,however: ‘evident, from feedback from both teachers and learners, that motivationand engagement were greatly improved’ and ‘if improvement in motivation andengagement can be correlated to improvement in retention and achievement then it seems likely that some positive findings will become evident in the near future in these areas’.

City College Norwich consortiumwas unable to confirm whether retention andachievement rates were improved by accessing individualised learning programmesvia the smartphone. The short project span – November 2007 to July 2008 – meantthat there was insufficient time to test and resolve technical issues and the device’scontribution to individualised learning was not sufficiently embedded within thecurriculum. However ‘qualitative data confirms a rise in levels of self-esteem, whichthe tutors felt would have a positive impact on retention and achievement, recordedin groups of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and “lower” achievers(compared to their peers)’.

Worcester consortium stated that even though one site recorded increments inretention and achievement, it is unclear what, if any, effects the vodcasts (videopodcasts) had on this, as both courses – beauty therapy and computer maintenance –already had action plans to address retention, achievement and destination whichwere actively implemented throughout the year, whereas vodcasts were onlyintroduced in the second half of the year. ‘It is however a reasonable assumption tosuggest that they supplemented teaching and learning in some difficult areas and thattheir use as a contributory factor in the improvements made in these courses during2007/08’. The retention rate increased from 57% to 87% for beauty therapy and from61% to 82% for computer maintenance.



Gloucestershire College stated that in the timeframe of the project it would be difficultto establish if the availability of the technology had contributed to retention, because:

MoLeNET did not take place over the whole year and mobile learning was not used inevery session therefore it can only be a small part of the picture ... There have beenmajor changes at the college, notably a new building in the docks area in Gloucester,which has had a positive impact on the learners and would be a contributory factor tothe college’s improvement in retention and achievement … but the biggest factor inthe college’s improvement in retention and achievement has been through theimprovement in the quality of the teaching and learning process.

However,

…anecdotal evidence and focus groups with learners do show that the installation ofthe infrastructure and the use of mobile devices in some lessons has been positivelyreceived by learners and they thought such devices should be used for learning in thefuture.

Also:

…all the learners who took part in the project completed their programme successfullyand are either progressing to further education, paid or voluntary work.

Lowestoft reported that feedback from pre-16 Motor Vehicle learners indicated that the‘use of mobile technologies had been influential in maintaining retention andimproving motivation, with all learners indicating that it had made their learning moreinteresting and had encouraged them to stay on the course’.

Achievement

Achievement rates for MoLeNET learners were calculated by comparing the totalnumber of ‘Fully achieved’ records with the total number or records (ie Achieved +Partially + Not achieved). Due to the timescales of the data collection process, collegeswere asked to submit predicted outcomes and therefore the rates presented forMoLeNET learners are indicative of the overall outcome rather than actual results.

The national comparator used was national in-year achievement rates for LSC-fundedFE learners. In-year achievement rates were based on ILR 2006/07 outcomes data andcalculated using the ILR field A35 Learning Outcome. The formula applied is similar tothat used on the MoLeNET data collected (ie total number of Achieved records dividedby the total number of Achieved, Partial achievement and No achievement). Courseswith unknown learner outcomes or where exams have not yet been taken or studycontinues have not been included. Only outcomes for LSC-funded learners have beenincluded in the national in-year rate.

The total national in-year achievement rate for 2006/07 was 71.1%. This is lower thanthe Benchmarking data LSC achievement rate for the same year of 88.6% (source: ILRwww.lsc.gov.uk/providers/Data/statistics/success). The business definitions used bythe LSC vary slightly from the methodology applied in this analysis (eg AchievementRate for known outcomes is the number of aims that have been fully achieved dividedby the number of aims that have been completed and have a known outcome over thelength of the learner’s course and are based on mapped ILR databases). The rates aredistinct as the data sources and definitions used for the calculations vary slightlytherefore please note these variations when comparing the results.

As illustrated in figure 20, predicted achievement for the sample of nearly 5000MoLeNET learners in 2007/08 was 9.7% higher than the previous year’s national in-year achievement rate.



Figure 20 Predicted MoLeNET achievement rates compared with national in-year rates for 2006/07

Projects’ action research findings concerning achievement

A number of colleges found improvements in achievement. It was, however, frequentlynoted that it is difficult to attribute such changes to mobile learning as they need tobe seen in conjunction with the other strategies for improvement taking place in thecolleges. Some projects reported that the short timescales involved meantachievement rates could not be measured.

Some consortia reported that improved achievement was found by some partners in aconsortium and not by others, and some colleges reported improved achievement forlearners on some courses only.

Reported improvements in achievement

Aylesbury consortium compared achievement, retention and success statistics withILR data for the last three years to help determine if their MoLeNET project had had animpact on the SLDD department’s success rates. For 2007/08, predicted achievementwas 89%, compared with 82% for 2006/07 and 85% for 2005/06. Furthermore,achievement levels were ‘predicted to rise significantly, by 7% in this academic year’.Aylesbury consortium researchers stated that although it is hard to prove a direct linkbetween the MoLeNET project and improvement in achievement, anecdotal evidencesuggests that this rise could be due to both learners and tutors being very motivatedby using the mobile learning technology.

At Cardinal Newman College, UMPCs were used for ICT AS coursework. When thehighest grades are compared year-on-year, there were improvements – 72% A and Bgrades in 2008 compared with approximately 44% in 2007; and almost 80% A to Cgrades in 2008, compared with approximately 42% in 2007. The college attributedthis to the use of UMPCs, in conjunction with a faster feedback system, which meantthat learners could ask questions at any time including outside lesson time.

Boston College gave mobile devices to learners on two-year courses in order to measureretention and achievement data over a longer period. They reported that all learnerswho completed courses, achieved, and that lesson observation grades improved.

No achievement

Partially achieved

Achieved

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

In-year achievement rates – National ILR 2006/07

Achievement rates (MoLeNET Learners – predicted



Eccles consortiumwanted to improve male learners’ achievement levels by at least3%. They reported positive results for Level 1 and 2 vocational courses, thought to bea result of greater motivation. Eccles consortium researchers speculated that mobilelearning may have appealed to male learners because of their familiarity with othertechnologies, their willingness to experiment, and ‘experimentation skills developedby game playing’.

At Matthew Boulton College a study with learners categorised as NEET, which began before the MoLeNET project, aimed to improve numeracy skills through the use of handheld gaming devices (Sony PSPs). The project found improvements inattendance and attainment compared to previous years and reported that learnersseemed more engaged.

The research conducted by the Stockport consortium found that learners believed thatusing mobile devices had aided their achievement. The learners also reported feelingthat they were trusted and valued by the college as a result of being provided withmobile technologies that they found attractive and perceived as expensive.

One Worcester consortium site reported that achievement was maintained at 100% forbeauty therapy and increased from 75% to 78% for computer maintenance. Theystated that it was unclear what effects the project’s vodcasts had on this, as therewere existing plans to address retention, achievement and progression that wereactively implemented throughout the year. However, they speculated that mobilelearning could have contributed.

Accrington and Rosendale College reported that validated data was not available, but indicators suggested that the learners would achieve and that retention andachievement for the group would exceed the figures for the previous year. Theypredicted that all seven learners classified as NEET would achieve the qualificationand stated that ‘100% retention and achievement may well have something to do withthe project!’.

Regent consortium asked the question – can m-learning improve student pass rates?From test results, final pass rates were estimated and small increases were predictedfor BTEC Level 1 Art (from 97% to 100%), BTEC Level 1 IT (from 92% to 93%), and Level1 Key Skills IT (from 90 to 92%). However, no change was predicted to the Challengepre-Level 1 course (at 100%), and small decreases were expected in BTEC Level 1Business Studies (from 93% to 89%, and OCR Level 1 Health and Social Care (from100% to 98%). The reasons for these small changes were not clear.

Lowestoft College reported improved achievement rates for 2007/08 compared to 2006/07 for various courses although there was no change for some and even a small decrease for Plumbing for ages 16–18 from 89% in 2006/07 to 86% in2007/08. However, particularly good increases in achievement were noted for ESOLEntry 1 courses (50% to 83%) and Preparing for Employment (75% to 89%). Learnerson these courses reported that mobile technologies made them more interesting. The college concluded that the use of mobile technologies ‘had been influential in improving motivation’.

Other feedback where short timescales meant achievement could not be measured

Chichester consortium stated that ‘although the trial was too short to measureretention and achievement, it was generally expressed by all staff across both projectsand colleges involved that a positive outcome would be seen in time’. Assessorsreported that using the Asus EEE machines for workplace learning brought aboutimprovements in the quality (better spelling, presentation and use of photos in assignments), quantity and submission of work from candidates and that wasexpected to have a significant impact on achievement. Early or earlier completion and submission of coursework was also reported with the greatest difference where



learners did not previously have access to a computer outside college. One tutorreported that learners in her group – hairdressing apprentices who attend college just one day per fortnight – had completed their coursework three months soonerthan previous groups. Assessors also considered that quicker links could be madebetween theory and practice, enabling learners to understand more easily.

A focus group was held with 10 hairdressing apprentices who confirmed that the Asusmachines helped them with their coursework. They saw not using pen and paper as a‘big benefit’, especially when preparing assignments and if they had bad handwriting.They also appreciated being able to use the machines to search the internet forexamples to include in their coursework.

Cornwall consortium reported that it was very difficult to ascertain whether there hadbeen a distinct and measurable improvement in retention and achievement as aresult of the use of mobile technologies devices, although there were isolated caseswhere improvement was found. However, feedback from both teachers and learnersindicated that motivation and engagement were greatly improved and this would belikely to lead to improvements in achievement in future.

At Havering College a focus group of Modern Foreign Language learners stated thatthey believed their use of the Asus EEEs had improved their understanding of wordsand phrases. The impact of this on examination grades was not known at the time of reporting.

At Lewisham College the computing class tutor reported that she could not yet tellwhether achievement had improved but that the class attendance had definitelyimproved by 10% and ‘As for the success rate, because we’ve now got the higher rate of attendance it then should follow that the success rate also increases’.

City College Norwich consortium stated that they were unable to confirm a positiveimpact on achievement due to the use of smartphones but they believed that:

There appears to be sufficient evidence to support the view that measured over alonger period, during which time issues with the internet access could be resolved,mobile learning would be shown to make a significant contribution. There is clearevidence that the device has increased levels of self-esteem, particularly withindisadvantaged and ‘lower’ achieving groups which may have an impact on theirachievement.

Gloucestershire College reported that retention and achievement had risen but it was impossible to determine if MoLeNET had contributed to this because of othermeasures occurring at the same time. Gloucestershire noted that improvements in thequality of the teaching and learning processes were a significant factor.

Progression

Progression, including continuing to another learning opportunity or to employment,which may include work-based learning opportunities, is an indicator of positive life-chance outcomes for learners.

Actual/predicted data submitted to LSN

Nearly all (89%) of the MoLeNET learners for whom progression data was receivedwere found to be progressing to further learning or employment. The two mainprogression routes for learners in the sample were continuing to further education or continuing in their existing programme. The next most common outcome wasprogression into employment (including Apprenticeships). A few people progressed tohigher education. See figure 21 below.



Figure 21 MoLeNET learners’ progression by destination

Projects’ action research findings concerning progression

Very little of the evidence collected directly by the projects relates to learnerprogression. However a few lead practitioner researchers made relevant comments.

Gloucestershire reported that all the learners who took part in their project completedtheir programme successfully and are progressing to further education or to paid orvoluntary work.

Accrington and Rossendale reported that all but one of the learners in one groupclassified as NEET had gone on to apply for (progress to) college courses on the maincollege site. The researcher speculated that the use of mobile devices may haveencouraged a sense of belonging that encouraged this progression.

The South Thames consortium reported that increased collaboration with, and learnerprogression between, consortium institutions, including the college, schools and alearning centre, was a significant outcome of their project.

Unknown

Other

Undertaking voluntary work

Continuing to an Apprenticeship

Continuing to higher education (University

Going to paid employment

Continuing existing programme

Continuing to further education study

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percent


LSN carried out two text message surveys looking for first-hand feedback on theexperience of mobile learning from learners involved in MoLeNET projects and theirteachers.

The survey used a Tribal Group plc system designed for text message quizzes. Bothsurveys consisted of six questions (labelled A to F) with two or three numberedmultiple-choice answers for each question. Institutions were also provided with aunique code to act as an identifier. An example of a text response from a learner is‘MOLE 132213 SHIP’ and from a teacher ‘TEACH 132213 SHIP’. The ‘MOLE/TEACH’identifies whether the respondent is a learner or teacher respectively, the numbersrefer to the answers for each of the six multiple-choice questions, and the ‘SHIP’identifies the institution. A prize of an iPod Touch for one teacher and one learner was offered to encourage participation. Complete responses to the surveys werereceived from 902 learners and 112 teachers across 46 institutions. This representsapproximately 10.5% all the learners identified as involved in the project and justunder 7% of all teachers, across over half of all institutions involved in MoLeNET. Atthree institutions some online and paper responses from learners or teachers unableto respond via SMS were passed on by project managers and added to the data.

Responses from learnersThe following charts in Figure 22 summarise learners’ responses regarding theirexperience of mobile learning and 84% said they would like to do more mobilelearning in future.

Figure 22 Learners’ opinions of mobile learning

5 Learner and teacher reactions to mobile learning

37

Yes

No

Maybe

22%

69%

9%

78%

22%

Learners: Does using mobile technology help you to learn?

Learners: Does mobile technology help you to learn in different places?

Learners: Does using mobile technology makes learning more interesting?

Learners: Does mobile technology help you tolearn at different times?

33%

60%

7%

75%

25%

Yes

No

Sometimes



Responses from teachers

The following charts summarise teachers’ responses regarding their experience ofmobile learning and 89% said they would like to use mobile technologies in theirteaching in future.

Figure 23 Teachers’ opinions of mobile learning

Effect of time used on learner and teacher reactions

Statistical analysis was carried out to assess whether there was any relationshipbetween the length of time learners and teachers had been using mobile technologyand the way they answered the SMS survey questions.

For both learners and teachers, although there was a slight increase in positiveresponses for those who had been using mobile technologies for longer, there did not appear to be a strong correlation between the length of time used and theanswers to the questions.

Our conclusion is that if there is a ‘Hawthorne the effect’ (ie a temporary effect due to the novelty of the technology or of the project) the duration of the project was notlong enough for this to become apparent. Further research to be carried out in phasetwo of MoLeNET may provide further insight. Also, slight improvements in positiveresponses over time may be explained by teachers and learners’ increasing confidencein using the technologies and applying them in teaching and learning contexts.

Yes

No

Maybe

25%

73%

2%

73%

25%

2%

Has mobile technology helped your students to learn?

Teachers: Does mobile technology help you to learn in different places?

Teachers: Does using mobile technology makes learning more interesting?

Teachers: Does mobile technology help you tolearn at different times?

26%

71%

3%

86%

14%

Yes

No

Sometimes


Nine projects stated that improving teaching and learning was a local priority thattheir mobile learning project aimed to address. Other projects as outlined below hadrelated aims.

� Chichester consortium hoped to improve the quality and range of resourcesavailable through mobile learning, thus providing high-quality support and meetinglearners’ needs.

� Bournvillewanted to enhance delivery for Train to Gain learners through a mobilelearning ‘toolkit’ targeting weak areas within the curriculum.

� Regent consortiumwished to develop staff skills.

� Lewisham aimed to broaden staff experience and confidence by allowing them toset up projects and analyse learner performance to identify successful mobilelearning practice.

� Brockenhurst aimed to ‘provide a 21st-century teaching and learning environment’,by enhancing formal and informal learning methods through mobile learningtechnologies, and to further develop a culture of innovation through communicationwith staff and learners.

� Brockenhurst and Cardinal Newman colleges aimed to improve their understandingof mobile technologies and related infrastructure and to develop their use forteaching and learning.

� For Gateshead consortium science teaching was high priority, with an aim to expandthe curriculum and widen participation by using mobile technologies to supportscience demonstrations in schools.

� Kingston specifically aimed to improve the quality of teaching within the vocationalcurriculum and reported success in doing this:

Tutors have expressed enormous enthusiasm for the efficient way in which KAMPUS[the MoLeNET project] UMPCs can facilitate access to relevant learning activities fortheir students and for the greatly increased flexibility this provides them withinplanning and delivering lessons. Lesson observations confirm the positive impact of the project on the quality of teaching in vocational subjects.

Teaching and learning in any location, at any time

The size and weight of mobile devices gives them portability which potentially greatlyexpands the scope for learning to take place in locations other than the classroom,the IT suite or indeed the institution. Their use is consequently less restricted bytimetables than desktop computing generally. This portability also has advantageswithin classrooms in that learners and learning need not be tied to a desk.

6 The impact of mobile learning onteaching and learning

39



Over three-quarters of the 32 projects investigated or at least commented on theseadvantages of mobile learning. While there were inevitably technical issues andbarriers to be overcome, most of the projects reported very positive impact. Someexamples of their feedback follow.

It is clear that learning can be effectively accessed out of the traditional classroom.This can be achieved in many ways, eg access to the College VLE using a mobilegadget, using a smartphone during a work experience, using a camera phone to find locations for an art photo shoot, using an iPod for video/audio downloads, etc.

(Regent consortium)

The evidence obtained would indicate that the MDA-Touch pocket PC has been usedfor a range of activities both inside and outside of the classroom. The range ofactivities completed outside the classroom includes taking pictures of productsneeded for Enterprise Project, recording information when off-site, multi-mediatexting (receiving), e-mailing photographs to college and students sites, internetaccess, used for off-site visits and when traveling on coaches to extend learning,taking photographs of community challenge, used on work experience to evidenceinvolvement in tasks and activities, used to provide evidence from workplace forportfolios, used by learners to help with off-site work including employment andhomework, used by learners within the home with other family members to developlanguage skills.

(Lowestoft College)

MoLeNET project learners have reported continuing their learning while travelling by car, on the train, by bus or even walking. They are able to fill this transit time with preparation activities, coursework, quizzes, revision, research and reflection. A Bournville learner stated that their device ‘brings much help when not in college or at home, as I travel up and down the country a lot I find it very useful’.

Learners also reported appreciating that the devices enable them to access the internet,email, MSN messenger and research sources while on the move. Before the project,20% of Worcester consortiummature learners who responded to a questionnairestated that they learnt while ‘out and about’. The post-project questionnaire revealedthat 56% of the respondents now engaged in learning while ‘out and about’.Respondents explained that listening to learning materials on an MP3 player wasuseful as it did not require being in a specific place or staying still. However, onelearner commented that this auditory learning style does not work for all learners andwhen a learner at Norwichwas asked if they could type up notes on the bus home,they replied: ‘What, sitting on a bus?!!’

Cornwall college installed a wireless network on the bus used to transport learnersfrom schools in the Camelford area to the College (approximately a one-hour journey)so that learners could use mobile devices to access the internet en route. They hadsome technical problems, and issues with the internet speed and battery life, whichwere quite frustrating for the learners but feedback was generally positive and theresearcher reported that participants ‘enjoyed using the device and would like to haveaccess to them on the bus in the future’.

Enabling continuous supportive dialogue and spontaneous learning

Gloucestershire claims that key benefits for staff have been changing perceptions of how and where learning can take place and the ability to engage with learners atexternal locations.

Brockenhurst learners used the voice recording tools on mobile devices ‘to help learn scripts for drama performances’ wherever they were. They also used an mLog to reflect on their learning experiences. The project manager commented:


The impact of mobile learning on teaching and learning 41

Personal access to the device at all times meant that learners could record reflectionswhen they wished (including on the bus on the way to/from college) and maintain an asynchronous supportive dialogue with staff which enabled them to improve their learning.

Eccles consortium found: ‘The devices allowed the learners to have consistency of support away from the session or away from the tutor no matter the location or the setting.’

Projects have found mobile devices can provide opportunities for learners to engagein learning outside timetabled sessions in various locations. Matthew Boultonconsortium explained that the wireless infrastructure and ‘allowing the learners morechoice in where they learn, including in ‘their traditional recreational areas, results inempowering them and stripping away the traditional constrictive timetable’. Theystress, however, that tasks should still be directed and managed carefully in order topromote achievement. Huddersfield consortium believe that the wide availability ofWiFi and the ability to access technology 24 hours a day has contributed to learnerscollecting more evidence for their portfolios.

Mobile devices have also provided opportunities for ‘spontaneous’ as opposed toplanned learning. Learners at Brockenhurst explained: ‘Whenever I have a question in my head I can just quickly use the internet to answer it, by using the MDA to go onwebsites’; ‘It is quick and easy to look things up on the internet at that time ratherthan having to wait until you get to a pc or home’ and ‘I think these are really usefulbecause when I remember something that I should have logged earlier I can do itwherever I am, thus improving my work’.

New College Swindon consortium learners agreed saying:

You don’t always get to carry your books around with you but you probably alwayscarry your iPod around so if you want to look at something you can look at your iPodinstead of waiting to get home and look at your books’

and

When you have 10 minutes between appointments you can go and look somethingup, send an email, do whatever.

Supporting homework and enabling additional study

Having access to technology and in some cases the internet too, has meant that manylearners have been able to continue to work and learn in their own time, whether on directed tasks or additional study of their own choosing. New College Swindonconsortium found that many learners enjoy learning at home, particularly in their own rooms. Eccles consortium reported benefits for learners with learning difficultiesor disabilities in being able to access learning at home. Their research showed that a learner using a mobile device to support independent living at home achieved aspecific task much more quickly, and with no additional support or prompting atassessment, than a learner in a similar position using traditional support materials.

Regent consortium learners were able to download programmes from Teachers TVonto their devices and watch these in their own time. Huddersfield consortium foundmobile devices enabled learners to prepare for activities and to review work in theirown time at home, saving classroom time to focus on ‘key learning outcomes’.Huddersfield consortium also report that 88% of learners asked had accessed the VLE at home, with 65% identifying the flexibility of mobile learning as a motivatingfactor in terms of time and location.



Matthew Boulton consortium learners downloaded listening tests and used thepreloaded short videos and questions for revision and assessments outside theclassroom at the end of term. ESOL learners downloaded and watched foreignlanguage films and used Skype on their mobile devices to practise communicatingwith other learners in English. Also an A-level Biology lecturer gave learners homeworkto complete during lunch and reported that ‘The canteen and the surrounding tabledarea would often feature learners working on their coursework via mobile learning’.The lecturer added that the learners were able to deal with any minor technicalproblems and explained that she felt this was because they had taken ownership of the devices.

Kingston reported that ‘because of the intervention in classes with UMPCs they(learners) were using Blackboard at home and out of the College to access learningmaterials, review video footage to help with haircuts, re-run quizzes to test theirknowledge’. One learner explained that this was useful because ‘we’ve just had thatEaster weekend, haven’t we? If we wanted to get on with some ... work … Della’s work,then we could just, if we didn’t know what we was doing, we could just’ve gone onthere at home and then looked and kind of got the basic concept of it.’

A New College Swindon consortium learner commented that having access totechnology outside the classroom means there is freedom to look something up that has not been understood, whereas in the classroom there is not necessarily that level of choice about what will be studied.

Bournville learners are able to access the resources they need wherever they are andthey report that mobile devices have enabled them to keep better contact with theirtutor. Accrington and Rossendale have uploaded work and resources to the VLE, wherelearners can access it at any time wherever they are using their Asus EEEs. Becausethe visual materials used are at a suitable level, those with lower levels of literacy arestill able to access learning without support, which further reinforces the flexiblenature of mobile devices for learning.

Coulsdon specifically investigated whether mobile devices could encourageindependent work outside of literacy lessons, and found that 85% of the learnerswere using their device outside class at least once a week.

However some learners at Havering reported that they did not need a mobile device to encourage them to complete extra college work at home as they already had accessto a computer and, in some cases, they preferred to use a desktop PC when it was available.

Mobile technologies in the classroomPerhaps the most obvious advantage of mobile technologies for learning is thatlearning need not be restricted to a classroom or to a desk. However, they can also be very useful in a classroom context. Six projects reported that one benefit of mobiletechnologies is enabling learners to stay in the classroom to access learning materialsand tasks, rather than having to go to an alternative location to use computers.

Huddersfield consortium noted ‘the iPod touches have been a useful addition to allow learners to work on texts when there is no PC present’ and Boston found thePDAs allowed ‘learners to work on their coursework assignments in their classroomwhere they could be supported by their lecturer rather than the alternative of workingthe Learning Resource Centre’ where they would not have that support and ‘wherecomputers are not always available’. Similarly, Brockenhurst’s drama learners ‘usedmobile internet access to look up references and resources while working in studios or labs (where access to ICT is not always immediately available)’.



A learner at Brockenhurst explains:

As I do BTEC Performing Arts, which is mainly a practical course, we don’t get muchcomputer time in our lessons during the week – it was great to research my currentplays and playwrights in the lesson rather than having to wait for a free lesson to doresearch. I have been able to look up the books on the internet and find the ISBN andavailability for the plays I need, this has avoided traipsing round searching for thebook I need. As I don’t have the internet at home the MDA (mobile device) has been a great help at home so that I don’t fall behind in class, seeing as there is not alwaysenough information in the books I use.

Boston reported that ‘during a formal teaching observation involving externalinspectors…use of [mobile] technology in class was noted as a positive factor inretaining the interest of the learners involved’. It was also identified as an example of model practice which should be disseminated further.

A tutor in the Cornwall consortium added that the mobile devices have been ‘very, veryuseful for research for questions/ideas in class without going to a computer room’.Similarly, at Norwich, a tutor explained that before the smartphones she would sendher learners to the library for research but now could incorporate research into theclass activities enabling learners to respond quickly to questions and discussionpoints. Boston added that enabling learners to work on their coursework in class, asopposed to the learning resource centre, has meant that the lecturer is able to supportthe learners effectively. A Cornwall consortium learner endorses these points: ‘theyhave helped me in lessons as I can do my coursework even if we don’t have acomputer room booked. They have been helpful as I can gain the internet and getinformation I need when I need it’.

Supporting collaborative learning

Mobile technologies are able to encourage and support both independent andcollaborative learning. Coulsdon College reported:

During the course of the project, learning moved from a more traditional style to a collaborative style. Learners tend to work together, initially maybe for technicalsupport, but then for peer learning support. This is particularly true where activitiesinvolve building project responses (marketing and advertising campaign was a goodexample of this – with collaborative preparation, and also collaborative presentationof the results)

but also warned:

There were a few learners, however, who did not respond as well to the more practical,active approach to learning. They might have preferred the more traditional approachto learning, as ethos for learning is different for them. Learning styles do have a partto play.

Kingston found ‘UMPCs are most effectively deployed when learning activities focuson interactivity, collaboration, assessment and access to web-based multimediacontent such as video resources’ but believe ‘UMPCs do not provide an effectivealternative to desktop or conventional laptop machines for authoring long documentsor for extended personal productivity.’



Mobile learning outside the classroom

Learning outside the classroom

Almost one-third of projects aimed to improve learning outside the traditional settingof the classroom, with half indicating that they had achieved at least one of theirobjectives in this area.

Aylesbury consortium used Wildkey software outside the classroom and provided newlearners with mobile devices to help them to navigate their way around the college.Aylesbury consortium also aimed to use mobile devices at outreach centres tosupport small animal care and horticulture entry-level learners at the beginning of thenew academic year.

At Brockenhurst, learning logs have been used to enable learners to reflect on theirlearning, and these has now been made available on personally owned mobiledevices to use at any time and in any place, via the Windows Mobile mLog software.

Eccles consortium has successfully explored the potential of hybrid PDA/phone devices,with 3G capability, to enhance learning outside the classroom.

Huddersfield consortium learners used GPS and GIS systems on mobile devicesoutside the classroom to support geography fieldwork. Within the Gloucestershireproject, National Star College used mobile devices with learners with learningdifficulties and disabilities (LLDD) outside the college, to support them in completingactivities in real-life situations. Learners have identified the mobile devices as aresource that has helped them to achieve these tasks.

Two projects, Rotherham consortium and New College Swindon consortium, aimed tocreate and design an infrastructure for the use of podcasts, which could allow learningmaterials to be accessed, on demand, outside the classroom. Rotherham consortiummentioned that their aim was to supplement content, and provide revision material forabsent learners. They reported that this aim had provided the most successfuloutcome, even though infrastructure problems caused some remote access problems,as it had surpassed expectations in terms of the quantity and quality of learningavailable. New College Swindon consortium also achieved this aim via the launch of the website at http://Mypodcast.newcollege.ac.uk

Excursions and field trips

MoLeNET projects reported several examples of mobile devices enhancingcollege/school excursions. Tower Hamlets’ research compared recent trips with pasttrips where mobile devices weren’t used. They found that learners now have access toa far wider range of resources than merely pen, paper and worksheets. Photo storyand slideshow records of other visits and artefacts from the planned visits were usedto prepare for a trip. During the trip learners were able to use their devices to captureand record images and sounds, and teachers explained that learners appeared todiscuss pictures taken on the PSPs more intently than those taken on their ownmobile phones. After using their mobile devices on the trip more learners visited therelevant website to find more details or compare their experience. Teachers alsocreated follow-up activities using the mobile devices and the visual stimuli collectedby the learners, which learners reportedly completed more enthusiastically. TowerHamlets believes that use of the mobile technology ensures continuity of the learningexperience and reports developing links with a number of local museums to build onexisting good practice.



Learners at Gloucestershire used their Asus EEEs to keep in touch with peers in the UKand also partner countries while on a trip to Finland. They posted daily reports and photographs onto the VLE using the wireless devices. Similarly, staff were able to quickly and easily report directly to the VLE when visiting Turkey to inspect work-based learning for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

On a field trip to the Isle of Arran and another to Iceland, learners at Havering usedtheir PDAs for emails, coursework, taking photos for coursework and the GPS facility tolocate sites. Learners mentioned that the PDA saved time when they arrived back atcollege as they were able to type up notes while on the field trip. The tutor was alsoable to provide feedback on coursework to learners who were not on the trip. AtAccrington and Rossendale, learners took their mobile devices on their annual trip toCornwall and were able to capture a wide range of evidence through photographs,videos and recordings of their thoughts.

Langdon (Eccles consortium) successfully used mobile devices with learners withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities on a trip to Manchester’s Transport Museum togather evidence for their portfolios. Due to the amount of enthusiasm for using mobiletechnologies on such trips, they are now planning to train other staff to make the bestuse of the equipment. Their advice includes the warning that taking technology awayfrom an institutional setting can introduce problems:

When using the mobile devices on excursions, unexpected obstacles can arise; (egweather, time constraints) and advise anticipation of potential problems is required.This can be alleviated by carrying out a risk assessment and contingency planning.Considerable time management and planning for use of mobiles should be built intoany trip schedules – not assumed that use ‘on-the-go’ is always possible.

Preparation and materials development

Projects found that the preparation teachers undertook before introducing mobiletechnologies into lessons was important. As Chichester consortium pointed out: ‘It was recognised early on that the initial preparation time was worthwhile.’

When planning, teachers need to consider how mobile learning can be integrated intopractice in a way that takes advantage of the potential of the technologies and makessense to learners. Gloucestershire identified a risk ‘that materials that could be paperor PC based are simply converted to a format to go onto a mobile device rather thanstarting from the lesson objective and establishing how mobile learning will enhancethe delivery’ and discovered that:

Initially some staff were converting worksheets and using them in sessions as tasksunder the guise of ‘mobile learning’. Learners quickly recognised this and throughthe focus groups identified they didn’t find this useful – learner feedback is vital inevaluating any new developments.

Huddersfield consortium reported:

Teachers and trainee teachers have applied themselves to the problems andopportunities for technology to have a positive impact on learning outcomes throughre-engineering of learning activities.

Gateshead consortium suggested:

There are two contrasting approaches to introducing mobile technologies to supportteaching and learning. It is possible to present the learners with the technology andallow them to use it as a generic means of supporting their learning activity. Thelearners enjoy experimenting with the technology and can find some interesting and



unexpected ways in which to use it (eg photographing a Powerpoint slide as analternative to note taking). This approach provides learners with a flexible tool thatcan be used to meet their specific needs. Predominantly in [Gateshead consortium’sSupporting Science in the Field project] a different approach has been taken – anapproach where specific teaching and learning activity has been carefully planned byteachers to make maximum use of the mobile technologies.

With this approach, planning is of key importance, with opportunities for use oftechnology pre-planned into schemes of work, lesson plans and assignments. Thisapproach has advantages in that learners can more readily see direct advantages inhaving the technology, and learners will usually be more focused on the task in hand.In the longer term, a good balance of the two approaches is probably needed,allowing learners the scope and ownership to find their own way with the technology,while also encouraging teachers to adapt resources/activities to provide appropriateopportunities to use the technology.

Some projects found that ‘production of materials for use on mobile devices provedtime consuming’ and ‘as this was the first engagement with these technologies, alarge learning curve hindered rapid development’ (Eccles partner Pendleton College).In some cases ‘The time it took to create the resources for the devices ... meant that inthe limited time that was left ...the full potential of what could be achieved with thedevices was not met’ (Eccles consortium).

Projects found that a one-size-fits-all strategy was not appropriate to maximise thebenefits of mobile learning. Bournville’s project ‘identified early on the need todifferentiate the approach used to teaching and learning across all learners’ groups’and found that ‘in order to achieve this, close collaboration with the curriculum wasessential’ including a strategy ‘to identify the most appropriate content of the learningresources to be developed and the most appropriate format for delivery of these (via the mobile device)’. Bournville believes that: ‘Learners need to know andunderstand the aim of the learning and why they need to learn it’ and that formativeassessment needs to be given a high priority as ‘when this is incorporated into thelearning experience the quality of learning will improve’.

Therefore:

all the teaching and learning resources were structured to provide this information to the learner and many included self-assessment opportunities. In addition, theproject developed an instance of the VLE (Moodle) that incorporated all the learningresources distributed to the learners via the mobile device and included assessmentand feedback opportunities through the use of quizzes and forums to providefeedback to both learners and teachers on their progress.’

Assessment and feedback

Formative assessment

A third of projects aimed to improve assessment opportunities and processes, and most of them achieved that aim.

Evidence from the MoLeNET 2007/08 projects suggests that the use of mobiletechnologies has affected assessment by:

� changing the way assignments, coursework and portfolios of evidence are assessedbecause of the introduction of mobile methods of collecting evidence

� enabling new methods to assess learners’ understanding and progress throughquizzes designed to be accessed and completed on mobile devices



� opening up new opportunities for peer and self-assessment

� making formative assessment more enjoyable and less threatening for learners.

Lewisham, Matthew Boulton consortium and City College Norwich consortium aimedto use their MoLeNET projects to provide more innovative and flexible assessmentopportunities for their learners. Lewisham explained:

MyLearning Author was used to create multiple-choice quizzes, using sound wherepossible to assist learners with dyslexia and other learning difficulties and appeal tothe different learning styles: visual and auditory questioning responded to throughthe kinaesthetic touch screen interface of the PDAs.

Matthew Boulton consortium aimed to use mobile devices for both formative andsummative assessment and to integrate results from both types of assessment tosupport identification of learners’ progress and individuals at risk. The college feelsthat they have successfully achieved this aim through the MoLeNET project:

Mobile learning has allowed greater flexibility for both the teacher and the learner.This has had particular impact on A-level students where assessment grades areautomatically collated using an online mark book.

Most of the learners agreed that they believed that mobile assessment could helpthem to learn better.

A Matthew Boulton consortium member of staff reported: ‘The students have reallytaken to the iPods so it seemed only natural that we utilise them to get the students tocomplete formative assessment tasks’. Also, an electronics tutor who had beendelivering interactive learning content directly to students’ mobile phones, felt that themobile technologies enabled him to deliver assessment more effectively:

The use of mobile technology within the classroom has allowed me to createassessments based on what the students are currently working on, and provideinstant feedback to them in an electronics working environment. The assessments arerandomised so students can’t cheat or copy each other.

He also felt that being able to complete assessments ‘in situ’ supports recall:

Mobile learning has provided me with assessment opportunities in an environmentthat has, in the past, been entirely paper based. Either that or the students are onlyassessed the following week when they’ve forgotten it all. I still assess them thefollowing week on a standard PC, but now they seem to remember everything.

Norwich found that most of the learners asked were using their smartphones forsending files/videos/pictures to their assessor for assessment.

Regent consortium used Senteo voting systems, Nintendo DS ‘Brain Training’ andTribal ‘MyLearning’ Author-created activities. Consequently, they were able to providelearners with instant feedback and easy tracking of improvement.

Cornwall consortium learners used the Nintendo DS to carry out informal skillsassessments. Teachers reported that this was more successful than the previousmethod as the learners were not aware they were being assessed and so did not feelunder pressure.

Boston’s learners completed educational quizzes on their PDAs, which were subjectspecific when produced by their lecturer/assessor. Lowestoft used quizzes and gamesto develop and assess skills and reported that an additional advantage was thatlearners could complete these quizzes at home. Staff at Norwich could see the benefitof using mobile devices for multiple-choice past papers to check on progressthroughout the year.



Tutors at Tower Hamlets used their digital recorders to record learners practisingspeaking and listening. They found that the devices enabled them to manage thisexercise much more effectively than traditional voice recorders.

At Accrington and Rossendalemobile phones were used to demonstrate theassessment site used for online testing to learners.

Staff at Gloucestershire used the GPS facility on their mobile devices, alongside therelevant software, to track the progress of learners working independently in the towncentre from a distance and in an unobtrusive manner.

Many of the tutors at Kingston carried out authored quizzes on the UMPCs and amixture of feedback, generally positive, was received regarding the ease of doing thiswith mobile devices. However, some tutors experienced technical problems andseveral teachers suggested that it would be better if the quiz could be created bysomeone other than themselves.

Many learners at Kingston reported a preference for whole-class quizzes as opposedto individual quizzes, perhaps because this was what they were used to or maybebecause they enjoyed having an element of competition. However, some of themature learners felt that the quizzes took up time that could be better spent on othertasks; others were just not very impressed, ie ‘…so the odd quiz and things to testyour knowledge is quite fun to do from time to time but other than that I can’t reallysee how much more they could be used during the lesson time’.

One Kingston teacher set up assessment so that when learners had completed thequizzes they were directed to a blog where they could write about their experienceand reflect on their achievements. This teacher noted how the learners supportedeach other in the completion of the quizzes on the devices and found the activityenjoyable. Feedback from teachers indicated that assessment using mobile deviceswas considered to have been delivered in a more innovative and engaging way,improving the learner experience.

Peer assessment and self-assessment

Matthew Boulton consortium used mobile devices to facilitate peer assessment for IT and ESOL learners. The learners produced quizzes for their peers at the same or a lower level and, in the case of the ESOL learners, learners from different partnerswithin the consortium communicated about their assessments via Skype. One ESOLlearner commented:

I enjoyed creating the quizzes. I recorded my voice, looked for images and thought of what to say. Then I put the quiz together. It was fun doing other people’s quizzes.

Brockenhurst learners set up mLogs to record and reflect on what they had learnt andreport having used these learning logs regularly. One learner also described using thevoice-recording facility on their mobile device to record their singing lessons so thatthey could listen to themselves and improve their performance in future rehearsals.

Learners at National Star College used timeline video footage of tasks they hadcompleted to see how they had progressed. Learners working on developingindependence in the community were also able to use their mobile devices to monitorand reflect on their progress in developing the required skills.

Norwich focused on incorporating peer assessment using mobile devices. They feltthat this aim had been partially achieved: ‘The partnership with Cambridge Educationand utilisation of PbyP for online peer assessment has had limited roll-out as accessvia the m-learning devices was limited. Where it has been rolled out it has been very successful.’



Rotherham consortium also used recordings of learners for peer assessment.

Feedback

Following assessment of assignments, coursework, portfolios and quizzes learnersobviously require feedback from their tutor, assessor or peers. Some projects reportedon how the use of mobile devices affected this stage of the assessment process.

Huddersfield consortium participants were asked how long it took for them to receivefeedback after uploading data, and over half reported that they received feedback thesame day, within 99% receiving feedback within the week (evidence from tutorsshowed slightly lower frequency in checking for uploaded evidence, with 40%checking daily and 90% once a week). Both learners and tutors reported keeping intouch not only through face-to-face meetings but also via emails, telephone calls, textmessaging, and even chat rooms. Over half of the respondents asked said theypreferred face-to-face meetings as they felt this was more personal and feedbackcould be understood more quickly and easily. They felt that electronic methodsshould, where possible, be supplementary rather than a replacement for face-to-facefeedback.

Cardinal Newman believed that the speed of feedback possible using the UMPCs andthe fact that learners could ask their tutors questions at any time, including outsidelessons, was a key factor in the measured increase in AS coursework grades in2007/08 compared with the previous year.

Learners at Norwich used their mobile devices to have their work checked beforeassessment. At Boston, learners used Active Sync or Bluetooth to share files so thatassignment requirements and deadlines could be checked. This process wasdemonstrated during a lesson observation involving external inspectors, and wasidentified as an example of model practice to be disseminated across the programmein future.

Similarly, a construction learner at Lewisham used the recording facility on his PDA torecord information about the evidence he needed to gather immediately afterreceiving feedback from his tutor. Another learner explained how the mobile deviceswere useful for sending grammar exercises to the teacher for feedback. A learner atRegent consortium described how they were able to take photographs on their PDAand send them to their teacher for ‘instant’ advice. It was felt that this had amotivating effect on the learner.

Learners at Bournville reported that being able to communicate with their assessor,tutor and peers using the mobile device had been beneficial for their learning, with60% reporting that their assessor or tutor has contacted them monthly and 40%reporting weekly contact. All the learners asked reported that they have receivedregular electronic feedback (via email) from their assessor or tutor; one learner added:‘I like being able to send work to be checked via internet rather than tutor having myfolder for several days at a time.’

Learners at Accrington and Rossendale were able to use their mobile phones to accessinformation on their inspection reports. Additionally, learners in the ‘Choices’ group atAccrington and Rossendale were able to use their Asus EEEs to access and completequizzes, receive immediate feedback and send the results to their tutor. This wouldnot previously have been possible because of the way materials were presented andlearners’ levels of literacy.

At Havering the tutor accompanying learners on an excursion to the Isle of Arran wasable to provide coursework feedback via PDAs to learners not on the trip.


Eighteen projects reported addressing the national priority of improving literacy with a variety of devices including PDAs, smartphones, MP3 players, iPods and NintendoDSs. They were used for creating, listening to and watching podcasts, learning scripts,note-taking, preparing assignments, working on literacy activities embedded in real-life situations, interactive literacy work, role-play and SMS. Projects using theNintendo DS used games specifically available for these such as ‘Brain Training’.

Sixteen projects reported addressing the national priority of improving numeracy.Cornwall consortium chose Nintendo ‘Brain Training’ as the vehicle for numeracyimprovement exercises, while New College Swindon consortium learners used ‘LiveMaths’ online resources. Learners downloaded materials to mobile devices and totheir computers at home. Aylesbury consortium repurposed existing numeracyresources for mobile devices at their college.

Seven projects highlighted literacy and/or numeracy as local priorities:

� Coulsdonmade raising literacy levels the focus for their project because it is a keypriority for their borough.

� Cornwall consortium hoped to improve levels of literacy and numeracy with learnersaged 14–19 in one of its partner institutions by enabling access to learning supportthrough mobile devices.

� Huddersfield consortium used, PDAs at Skills for Life weekends for families, andtheir ESOL learners used mobile devices for community projects involvinginterviewing family and community members to improve literacy andcommunication skills.

� Accrington and Rossendale aimed to address the Skills for Life needs of LLDDlearners through the use of mobile devices and games.

� Oaklands consortium used mobile devices to support Entry-level learners withnumeracy skills and used mobile phones to evidence achievement.

� Regent consortium Level 1 learners used MP3 players to record work and practiserole play. The Nintendo DS was also used for its ‘Brain Training’ and the Senteovoting system to test and refine skills.

� Stratford-upon-Avon involved a variety of different learner groups including somelearners with poor literacy skills and some with learning difficulties or disabilities

Coulsdon College interviewed learners to find out if they thought using mobiletechnologies had improved their literacy skills, and 41% felt they had. Coulsdon alsonoted that using these technologies encouraged learners to remember spellings.

50

7 Mobile learning for literacy andnumeracy


Mobile learning for literacy and numeracy 51

Stratford-upon-Avon College reported that feedback on the use of mobile deviceswithin adult literacy and numeracy classes was generally positive and noted thatliteracy learners perhaps gained the most benefit as the devices enable a range oflearning styles to be catered for and learners could ‘work at their own pace which iskey in our classes where learners are all at different levels of learning’. They alsocommented: ‘One of the most beneficial uses of mobile technology was that usingtechnology removes the stigma of poor literacy skills and feels very ‘adult’.’

Accrington and Rossendale described how they have uploaded work and resources to the VLE, which learners can access at any time using their Asus EEEs. They reportthat, because the visual materials used are at a suitable level, those with lower levelsof literacy are still able to access learning without support, which further reinforces theflexible nature of mobile devices for learning.

Coulsdon specifically investigated whether mobile devices could encourageindependent work outside literacy lessons, and found that 85% of the learners were using their device outside class at least once a week. Over half (53%) of thelearners asked felt that having used the Ameo they had communicated more with the literacy staff.

A Regent consortium IT tutor used numeracy and literacy tests on the Nintendo DS as a study break for learners, and found the competitive and gaming style of theseactivities so successful as a motivational tool that they are now being used as aregular motivator for the learners. Regent consortium aimed to specifically develop IT and numeracy skills using MP3 players, Nintendo DSs and voting systems, andreport that they were successful in achieving this aim.

Cornwall consortium focused on literacy, numeracy, maths, English and post-16performance and felt that they were successful in improving identified weaknesses in these areas. They found that mobile devices could be very beneficial for learnerswith poor handwriting. For example:

One specific student struggles with hand writing in a big way and this does meanthat even though he can explain his understanding clearly, he really struggles to beable to write anything down legibly for assessment and his own records. The PDA hasenabled him to quickly type up notes, etc, without needing to be logged in to acomputer or have a laptop with him, which has caused him concern at the attention it causes.

However, when Cornwall consortium used Nintendo DS machines with a group oflearners with literacy and numeracy difficulties they reported that 25% of learnersgave negative feedback. These learners said that using the device would distract themfrom doing other things they should be doing and they felt less motivated to learnwith them. Cornwall consortium believe this may have been due to using the Nintendomachines, the way in which they were used and the type of learners involved.Feedback from the tutors helps to clarify this:

...there have been incidences when although they have written the correct answer,because of the poor level of writing the device has marked the sum wrong. Thestudents therefore think that 5+2 does not equal 7...

...One of our students has a speech problem and it would not recognise his voicewhen he was shouting the colours. It made him very frustrated...

...Learners at times became frustrated and felt they weren’t achieving well when the (Nintendo) DS didn’t recognise their handwriting when drawing numbers on the screen – over more extended use this may allow the student to improve theirhandwriting performance...



The solution might be using different devices and different functionality or perhapsmore time is needed for these learners to become familiar and confident with thedevice and therefore more able to benefit from its use.

Matthew Boulton consortium used Sony PSP handheld gaming devices to re-engagedisaffected learners and improve their numeracy skills. They noted: ‘there wereimprovements in attendance and attainment compared with previous years, and the learners seemed genuinely more engaged’. They also reported using PSPs in aNumeracy Uplift Project with disengaged learners categorised as NEET. The member of staff who led the initiative, described the outcomes:

The project was initially about getting bums on seats and keeping them there. Thegames themselves were fun for the students but they were also designed to test theirnumeracy skills. The project was successful and not only was retention increased butthe students tended to be more well behaved in the classroom.


Fourteen projects addressed the national priority of languages/ESOL.

At Coulsdon College four learners from China used mobile devices for spoken andwritten English, while at Lowestoft learners took devices home to use with familymembers to support the development of their literacy and communication skills.

Three projects (Worcester consortium, Oaklands consortium and New College Swindonconsortium) commented in particular on the usefulness of podcasts for language andESOL learners; watching, listening to and creating resources. Gloucestershirementionedthat for their project the podcast server will make things simpler for practitioners overthe next year.

An Oaklands consortium Spanish teacher and an AS learner, and a French teacher andan A2 learner, taking part in the MoLeMentors project, used mobile devices to practiseSpanish or French speaking and writing skills. They used Twitter for communication,and work was uploaded to the discussion board area of the course Blackboard. Thisproved very successful as a pilot.

8 Mobile learning for languages and ESOL

53


Twenty projects reported addressing issues of inclusion/equal opportunities/accessibility with their learners. This included those focusing on learners with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities (LLDD) and involvement of employers to promoteemployment of disabled people. Six projects aimed to use mobile technologies tochange and improve the way that learners with learning difficulties and disabilitieslearn. Four of these six projects stated that they were able to achieve these aims.

Aylesbury, National Star College (Gloucestershire consortium) and Langdon (Ecclesconsortium) aimed to improve employability for LLDD learners within their projects.Langdon and Aylesbury consortium reported improvements in Skills for Life,independent living skills and citizenship, and National Star College reported thatimproved achievement has led to learners gaining both paid and voluntaryemployment.

Aylesbury, Stockport consortium, Worcester consortium and Lowestoft all aimed toreduce barriers to learning and thus increase accessibility for learners with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities learners. Aylesbury consortium reported that learnersnow have access to more ICT equipment, which has started to transform the way theylearn. They also predicted a 50% increase in recruitment for their 2008/09 Skills forWorking Life course. The Stockport consortium found some barriers to learning havebeen overcome by the introduction of alternative methods for learning through mobiledevices, such as using images instead of written instructions. Learners at Lowestoftused mobile devices to provide evidence of tasks they had completed and Worcesterconsortium investigated the use of podcasts and vodcasts for visually impairedlearners.

Langdon addressed employability for learners with learning difficulties and disabilitiesby consolidating skills through mobile learning. National Star did this and also focusedon independent travel skills and building citizenship skills.

National Star addressed these priorities by using mobile learning to developconfidence and independence in real-life situations, while continuing to provide ahigh level of support through mobile devices. Several other projects included somelearners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in their target audience, egAccrington and Rossendale and Skills for Life learners.

Cornwall consortium reported instances of increased learner achievement when usinga PDA such as ‘one learner with handwriting difficulties used a PDA to type up notesetc, which was good because when he uses a computer or laptop this attracts theattention of others’. Another learner was helped with his organisational abilities bybeing able to note deadlines and homework, and a further learner who generally didnot submit homework improved considerably with the introduction of the devices.

East Berkshire consortium reported that one of their work-based learners who isdyslexic was able to complete an e-portfolio of evidence using their device andsuggested that without the mobile technology the learner would not have produced a successful portfolio.

9 Mobile learning for learners withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities

54


fMobile learning for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities 55

Langdon reported on the achievements of learners with disabilities or learningdifficulties related to confidence and life skills:

� Learners can be seen to progress through independent living tasks involvingassessment of their confidence and competence, at a faster rate than learners notusing mobile devices.

� Learners decrease the time taken on task-related work.

� Learners using mobile devices remain focused for longer periods of time.

� An improvement in soft skills is noted for learners using mobile devices.

At Stratford-upon-Avon College, they reported that the technology skills of learnerswith learning difficulties or disabilities had improved but that ‘the most meaningfuloutcome was the variety of learner skills which have been enhanced – communicativeskills, learning styles, spatial awareness and deductive reasoning’.

National Star College provided devices to individuals with learning difficulties anddisabilities and reported that this improved their ability to look after themselves. One learner with brain injuries following an accident was able to take responsibility for arriving at lectures on time, going for meals, asking for additional nutrition andreporting for medication. He also started to remember regular appointments like timesfor medication, a significant step for learners with brain injuries as re-establishingroutines are re-learned. Through the use of a Bluetooth keyboard and headset, he canuse the full functionality of the phone to keep in contact with friends via text or phone.This has interested his speech and language therapists because it has improved hisunderstanding of the use of his Lightwriter as a communication aid. He can also listento his choice of music, access the photo gallery to put a face to a name, and amendhis own appointments/contacts.

Also at National Star College, learners with learning difficulties and disabilities haveused their mobile devices to access video instructions for tasks while working on anallotment. These tasks can now be completed without mentor support. This was sosuccessful that a range of further video sequences are being made to cover a variety ofactivities on the allotment. Mobile technologies have also been used to prompt regularroutines for learners with learning difficulties in a range of contexts from ‘individualisedprompting for daily routines to group prompting for workplace timekeeping’.

Accrington and Rossendale College found that mobile technologies had great potentialin terms of engaging learners (particularly those weaker in basic skills), increasingenjoyment, improving retention and achievement and encouraging learners to feel partof the wider college community by enabling them to access the VLE and the materialswithin it. For the ‘Choices’ group, the iPod was too difficult to use and the Asus devicewas preferred – learners with Aspergers’ syndrome were the most enthusiastic. Theoffer of working with an Asus or iPod proved a good incentive and they were offeredas a reward for learners who were up to date or trying hard. The technologies werevery desirable, and hence proved to be very popular. Learners with learning difficultiesand disabilities with retention, organisation and time-management difficulties used thenotes and alarm systems in Microsoft Outlook on their PDAs to help them to organisethemselves better. Comments from learners included:

� The alarm reminded me where to go.

� It helped me remember when to go to class.

� Good fun using it for a diary… It has tasks so you can do to-do lists as well so youdon’t forget to do things.



Langdon successfully used mobile devices with learners with learning difficulties and disabilities on a trip to Manchester’s Transport Museum, to gather evidence fortheir portfolios. Due to the amount of enthusiasm for using mobile technologies on such trips, they are now planning to train other staff and make the best use of the equipment.

Engaging and supporting learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities clearlyinvolves some extra considerations but several project managers emphasised thatthis does not justify excluding these learners from mobile learning. As Aylesburyconsortium advised: ‘When working with LLDD learners the biggest lesson learned isnot to worry they can’t do it!’. However, they also advised:

For LLDD learners it was imperative to use a range of devices to meet a variety ofdifferent and often complex needs. The team decision was to pilot a range of deviceswith learners prior to committing to any orders for equipment. This worked really well and gave some surprising results; devices that were anticipated to be difficult for LLDD learners to navigate around did not cause as many issues as anticipated.

Cornwall consortium cautioned that it was necessary to ‘be careful when selectingmaterials/games … particularly for those with speech difficulties and/or severe writingdifficulties. Use of devices such as the Nintendo DS and ‘Brain Training’ can lead togreat frustration and disengagement when the learner fails to progress’.

Gloucestershire agreed, advising that:

accessible content is only really accessible at point of delivery and dependent on an individual learner’s need or needs … It should be noted that an audio podcast isfantastic, and more accessible than a printed handout, for a learner who has a visualdisability, but the same podcast is completely inaccessible for a learner with anauditory disability.

(For case studies focusing on mobile learning for learners with learning difficulties anddisabilities, including those involved in MoLeNET and other programmes, see also GoMobile! jointly published by LSN and JISC TechDis, 2008.)


Seven projects used mobile technologies in an attempt to widen participation and toimprove access for a wider range of learners, including learners from deprived areasand those learners who had been traditionally hard to reach and engage with in theclassroom. Only one of these projects (Stockport consortium) stated that they havenot yet been able to achieve their aim but they believe that this should be achieved inthe next academic year due to the publicity about m-learning within their partnership.

Also seven projects reported specifically focussing on helping young people not ineducation, employment or training (classified as NEET).

Accrington and Rossendale used iPod Touch devices with learners classified as NEETliving in sheltered accommodation whose attendance was ‘somewhat sporadic’.Tutors sent text messages to learners, which motivated them to attend and stay oncourse. Tutors commented that learners used the devices with enthusiasm and havefelt more motivated to complete work on their own using the mobile devices outsidethe classroom.

Accrington and Rossendale believed that being able to access to the college VLE viatheir mobile devices may have fostered a stronger sense of belonging for learnersclassified as NEET. Although attendance was sporadic, eight of the nine learners haveapplied for courses on the main college site. This suggestion is consistent with thefindings of other projects that some work-based learners and some LLDD learnerscommented that the mobile device had made them feel more connected to or acceptedby the college. One learner also reported feeling quite ‘important’ because they wereasked to take part in the MoLeNET research.

Huddersfield consortium used mobile devices with probation offender learners andNEET learners on their Xplorer programme to develop basic skills. Xplorer is a coursethat allows learners not in education to try a number of vocational areas to identify anew direction for study.

Lowestoft’s NEET Construction learners and Prince’s Trust learners all benefited fromthe MoLeNET project, and Oaklands consortium targeted a learner who was very closeto dropping out of their course, commenting that: ‘The MoLeNET phone enabled thelearner’s tutors to keep him on track and ensured that he completed his course for theyear.’

It was found that NEETs benefited and were more engaged by the use of of devicessuch as PSPs with cameras, Nintendo DS and ‘Brain Training’ software, and vodcastsand podcasts.

Gloucestershire used the PSPs to engage their NEET learners in a learning activity,after which the teacher commented that they were ‘impressed by how much time thelearners spent on the activity, the way in which they collaborated and worked together’.

Norwich suggested that a potential spin-off from the MoLeNET project was thatmarketing could be enhanced by the use of mobile technologies and this might helpto attract NEETs into the college.

10 Widening participation includinglearners not in employment, educationor training

57



Norwich aimed to reduce the number of learners at risk of becoming NEET by raisingtheir self-esteem, while Oaklands consortium focused on providing extra support andpromoting self-respect and communication to encourage learners to stay on course.

Matthew Boulton consortium aimed to re-engage NEET learners through the use ofgames devices. They reported a study with NEETs that began before the MoLeNETproject started, which aimed to improve numeracy skills through the use of handheldgaming devices (ie PSPs). However, because the study had not run for a year, they feltit was not possible to state whether or not the gaming devices re-engaged disaffectedlearners. However, the college did note improvements in attendance and attainmentcompared to previous years. Their tutor reported that the PSPs were fun to use, helpedto secure attendance and retention, promoted engagement and improvements inbehaviour. Matthew Boulton believed that if this approach were successful it wouldbe a significant way of overcoming the multiple barriers some learners face.

Boston hoped to address the fact that low levels of aspiration appear to lead to lowlevels of motivation and confidence to engage with learning. They reported someanecdotal evidence to suggest that motivation and engagement are increased whenusing mobile devices for learning.

Cornwall consortium focussed on raising the standards of at-risk Key Stage 4 learners,while Coulsdon’s project engaged some of the most vulnerable learners in theborough. Lowestoft attempted to meet the local skills gap and managed to includeNEET construction learners in this, while the New College Swindon consortium andTower Hamlets aimed to improve employability skills in NEET learners.

Regent consortiumwanted to use m-learning to help to re-engage and improve theretention and progression of those learners categorised as NEETs. They reported thefollowing success:

NEET retention is 77% ... Regent retention for Level 1 groups is 89%. compared with88% for last year. Gateway retention for Level 1 groups averages at 94% comparedwith 89.6% last year … Of the 17 students who engaged with the NEET programme76% are progressing to college programmes next year. Responses from NEETstudents on the survey were very positive.


More than half of MoLeNET 2007/08 projects (18 projects or 56%) addressed thenational priority of work-based learning. In many cases they used mobile devices forgathering and presenting evidence through e-portfolios. Eleven colleges also mentionedthat work-based learning or vocational study were local priorities.

Colleges’ motives for focusing on work-based learning included a desire to:

� improve access to learning resources and guidance for learners in remote settings(eg Bolton consortium, Boston, Cornwall consortium,Stockport consortium)

� support assessors and improve assessment processes (eg Brockenhurst, Chichesterconsortium, East Berkshire consortium)

� improve the learner experience (eg Huddersfield consortium, Kingston)

� engage more with employers (eg Bournville, Boston and Wolverhampton)

� embed e-learning into workplace and work based learning, and to provide realworkplace opportunities for LLDD learners (Aylesbury).

Vocational subject areas in which mobile learning was deployed include hairdressing,motor vehicle, engineering, electrical engineering, industrial services, care, constructionand plumbing.

The main advantages of mobile learning for work-based learning were found to be:

� convenience, due to size and portability

� improved access to learning and reference resources, including on-location Internet access

� improved communication

� just-in-time, any-location, access to video and video recording

� support for evidence-gathering, portfolio-building and assessment.

Convenience

The convenient size of mobile devices and improvements in their processing power,storage capacity and battery life have enabled the provision of technology to supportlearners in places where this would not have previously been possible due to spaceand power supply limitations. These places include riding and horticultural centres(Bolton consortium) and a variety of workplaces where paperwork can be impractical,such as factories, workshops, salons. Mobile technologies meant that work-basedlearners ‘dispensed with their folders’ and ‘used the devices in a multitude of places’where they were able to continue their coursework and collect material for inclusion intheir assignments (Chichester consortium).

11 Work-based learning

59



A New College Swindon consortium learner explained the benefits of mobile devicesover books at work:

I trained as a chef when I was 15 years old and if I had taken a book into the kitchensomebody would have hit me with something quite heavy probably and there wouldbe a degree of ridicule ... there are times nowadays when guys are doing complexstuff with boilers, highly dangerous stuff with gas and you’ve got to know what you’redoing. If you’re not sure … something like this has to be a good thing. I don’t thinkyou would be laughed off site... I work with guys who have been in the plumbingtrade for years and years … and they can’t remember everything … on site you mightget ribbed a bit but if they think he’s got that on his iPod, that certain boiler, theymight say can I have a look?

Matthew Boulton consortium engineering learners explain why they prefer mobiletechnology:

I hate writing because it makes a mess of my portfolio. What’s better? – this (AsusEEE), if you make mistakes you delete it and start again. This (A4 folder) is a realhassle to get into my bag! Now this (Asus EEE) – piece of cake!

This (Asus EEE) is very good because it’s very light and you can carry it everywhereand use it and I like it very much.

Using these computers (Asus EEE) in the workshop enables us to get work done a lot quicker.

Basically (the Asus EEEs) are very useful, they are easy to use. It doesn’t take muchspace and it’s easy to record information while you are working, save it and keep it.

Improved access to resources

For work-based learners or those on work placements access to a computer and/orthe internet is often limited, if available at all. Therefore a significant advantage ofmobile devices is that they can enable learners to access learning resources andsupport, to continue to work on their coursework and assignments and to keep intouch with staff and peers while on placement.

However, there were sometimes problems due to lack of internet access in somelocations. Chichester consortium learners tried to get around this ‘they had triedMcDonalds (with varying degrees of success) and Starbucks’ and when they wereunsuccessful learners said they felt ‘disadvantaged’, indicating that an expectation ofany time, anywhere access had quickly become established. Lack of internet access insome locations also caused problems for learners trying to carry out research oraccess course materials. The project manager recommended: ‘In future the projectwould need to take more account of this. Possibly in two ways: by making the materialsavailable via a device such as a memory stick or by purchasing broadband dongles(3G, Vodaphone etc).’

Chichester consortium learners also used mobile devices to complete exercises,review notes, view images and video clips, and submit evidence electronically. Theyfeel that more work is required in this area to ensure all learners are fully engaged buthave proved that the systems and infrastructure support online submission of work.

East Berkshire consortium reported that they successfully delivered high-qualityinteractive teaching resources to engineering learners and work-based learners usingPDAs. Stockport consortiumwas able to deliver key skills mobile learning materials to learners in a range of vocational subjects. Huddersfield consortium found mobiledevices enabled learners to access IT on placement, thus enabling them to completetheir professional practice files.


Work-based learning 61

Improved communication

Mobile technologies can improve communication with work-based learners with useof voice calls and text messages where devices have phone/SMS contracts and/oremail communication. Where Skype was used with internet-enabled mobile devices,colleges (for example South Thames consortium) were able to enable phone-callcommunication while controlling costs.

Bournville reported:

One assessor’s feedback revealed that previously, when tasks had been set forbetween meetings, they were sometimes not completed because learners wereuncertain of what they were being asked to do – with MoLeNET regular and instantcommunication ensured all learners understood, which increased the workundertaken by learners between meetings with their assessors.

Just-in-time, any-location access to video and video recording

Gloucestershire College learners working in industrial services were able to accesshealth and safety videos loaded on their mobile devices, and this provided them withprompts and support for their own work. Learners with learning difficulties and/ordisabilities at the Gloucestershire consortium partner National Star College used their mobile devices off site to get video instructions for tasks on an allotment, so that they could be completed without mentor support. This was so successful that a range of further video sequences are being made to cover a variety of activities onthe allotment.

Chichester and their partner Sussex College created how-to guides and videos for Care learners who ‘rarely, if ever, attend the College. So their sole contact is via theirassessors’ and reported:

Learners like the video concept and the consortium has received feedback they arebeing viewed in a variety of settings such as the bus to and from work. Includingquestions on the film clips helps focus attention and also encourages the learner toreflect on the learning content.

At Chichester 14–16 year olds and their tutors found head cameras (head cams) a very effective way of recording outdoor activities such as sailing and kayaking:

Motor vehicle/construction used their devices to project images at the learners’workplace as well as in the college’s workshops. Tutors report that learners like theinstant feedback provided by using film as they can see their mistakes immediatelyand rectify them straight away. Replaying film also stimulates discussion and on aless serious side injects humour into the lesson.’

Hair and Beauty learners at Norwich used their smartphones to record their workplacements and/or Saturday job achievements, to ‘enhance learning in professionalpractice’.

A tutor at Accrington and Rossendale described the convenience of mobile devices forevidence collection – they enabled their learners to record themselves for evidencepurposes rather than having to wait for the tutor to arrive. Accrington and Rossendaleexplained that the Bluetooth tool has been used effectively to send work, materialsand evidence, therefore promoting a streamlined process of managing portfolios.Another member of staff added that access to the VLE using a mobile device meantthe learners felt a part of the wider college community with access to the samefacilities as learners based onsite.



Bolton consortium used video cameras and podcast software to create and deliver a catalogue of content and consortium partner City College Manchester (now part ofThe Manchester College) set up their ‘Our Tube’ site, with functionality similar to ‘YouTube’, to support this. They explained that materials are currently available for use onsome devices (more time is required to develop and provide more learning objects fordevices) and added that the ability for work-based learners to access and downloadcontent had enabled a higher standard of evidence to be submitted.

Evidence-gathering, portfolios and assessment

Three-quarters of the projects involved in MoLeNET reported on the impact of mobiledevices on the assessment process in their college/consortium for both college-basedand work-based learners. This process involves collection and collation of evidence forcoursework, assignments and portfolios, assessment of coursework, assignments andportfolio evidence, formative assessment, peer and self-assessment and reflection,and feedback. Many learners have used the video, voice and camera recording facilitieson their mobile devices to capture their work as an alternative or supplementary wayto provide evidence of progress or achievement. Some examples of positive feedbackfrom teachers and assessors are:

All students have valued the assessment processes that have accurately and fairlymeasured their capabilities and provided effective feedback as a basis for reflection.The project has enabled the students to collect a wide range of mini-assessments,both formative and non-formative, comprising professional assessor, self- and peer-assessments.

(Care, Bournville)

The students uploaded their portfolio of work onto the iPods and then took them outto demonstrate to potential customers in London – the BBC, Quench Design andMainframe. The iPod solved what has always been a massive problem – demonstratingyour work out in the field.

(Performing Arts, Matthew Boulton consortium)

Asked whether use of mobile devices has improved the assessment process, tutorsfrom Accrington and Rossendale responded:

Definitely. The process is much smoother and faster. The students seem moreengaged and willing to collect evidence. As for referencing, it is much easier to claimfor video footage than marking an observation sheet.

… the students have been able to demonstrate their competence in finding theinformation they need. All work has come back completed and to a high standard.

… the students have been more confident in accessing the online site from home andit has given them more confidence. I can also access my emails so I have the most up-to-date information to hand and assessment documents.

Chichester consortium tutors reported that hairdressing learners, using Asus EEE mininotebooks, who only attended college once a fortnight were able to produce courseworkof a higher standard, including photographs as evidence, and that coursework wassubmitted earlier than by previous learners without mobile devices. While at Norwich,hair and beauty learners used their smartphones to record their work placement orSaturday job achievements. Hairdressing learners at Lowestoft used their mobiledevices to record the step-by-step progress of their hair designs, to create PowerPointpresentations to explain what they had done, and to photograph their cutting andstyling techniques for inclusion in their portfolios. Lowestoft highlighted the benefit ofbeing able to capture less common occurrences within the workplace without havingto plan ahead or ensure the presence of the assessor/tutor.


Work-based learning 63

Huddersfield consortium learners collected video, audio and photographic evidence oftheir work for their portfolios, with 95% of the learners asked commenting that themobile device/learning environment had allowed them to collect evidence quickerthan with paper-based methods. It was reported that digital recordings were mucheasier and faster to collect and store than traditional methods. However, there weresome staff concerns about the training required to use the devices and to ensuresufficient documentation of evidence was provided. Staff at Lewisham raised similarissues, commenting that if a PDA were used only for pictorial evidence collection, andnot for provision of resources, then in terms of expense it would not provide value formoney as a digital camera would fulfill the same role.

Nearly all (90%) of the learners asked at Bolton consortium reported that the UMPCs,iPods, MP3 and MP4 players had significantly helped them to organise, record andrecall their learning. Some learners have recorded answers to questions for evidence,which has reportedly also improved their confidence and communication skills.Bolton consortium learners have used web-cams and audio-recording facilities onmobile devices to capture portfolio evidence, and some have started to use their ownmobile phones for this purpose.

Evidence collection at Bournville included using mobile devices to photograph grouppresentations recorded on flipchart paper instead of copying down the presentationsfor marking. The mobile devices were also used to collect photographic evidence fromtheir placements, which received excellent feedback from the assessors regarding thecontext and relevance of the evidence. Also, two of the learners who were dyslexicwere able to produce PowerPoint presentations using their devices and so were ableto complete their knowledge evidence more quickly.

Apprentices at Boston reported easier collection of evidence for portfolios with mobiledevices, in addition to developing a wide range of additional skills (‘video, photostorage, email, file management, word, excel, database’). Learners also felt that notonly was it more enjoyable to use the devices for evidence collection, but also that thequality of the evidence (video evidence in particular) they were submitting was moresubstantial.

Hairdressing learners at Lowestoft used their mobile devices to record the step-by-step progress of their hair designs; create PowerPoint presentations to explain whatthey had done; and photograph their cutting and styling techniques for inclusion intheir portfolios. Lowestoft highlighted the benefit of being able to capture less commonoccurrences within the workplace without having to plan ahead or ensure the presenceof the assessor/tutor. It was commented, however, that the sound quality of the videofootage was not as clear as hoped, suggesting a need to review the type andfunctionality of mobile devices to be used in future. Trainee teachers at Lowestoftused their mobile devices to support their learners, by allowing them to capturephotographic and video evidence for their portfolios, and send Bluetooth evidencefrom the learner’s phone to the trainee teacher’s PDA for downloading. One traineeteacher also used their device to record interviews to validate work-based evidence.

Accrington and Rossendale’s learners used their Asus EEEs to create evidence, using‘Photo story’ to incorporate photographic evidence with voice-over documentation.Those work-based learners were very keen to develop their skills with PDAs and learnhow they could streamline the process of evidence collection, particularly becausesimilar technology is now prominent in many businesses.

E-portfolios

A number of projects trialled the use of mobile technologies interfacing with e-portfolios for on-line collating and recording individual progress and achievement.



At Lowestoft, some work-based learners on Apprenticeships were able to uploadphotographic evidence of completed tasks via mobile devices directly to their e-portfolio and provide a written explanation of the task to complement and expandon the photographs.

All Huddersfield consortium tutors asked found the e-portfolio system easy to navigate,with 70% recommending this method over the traditional paper-based system. IT staffalso supported the storage of evidence in this way. Over three-quarters of tutors askedbelieved that candidates found the e-portfolio system easier than the traditionalpaper-based system and, of these, 86% felt that candidates had uploaded moreevidence because the system was easy to use. Tutors added that the e-portfoliosystem ‘keeps all candidates’ evidence in one accessible place’, with less risk oflosing the different types of evidence; enables candidates to check their progress ‘at a time that is convenient to them’; allows the candidate to contact the tutor at anytime and access feedback online; allows evidence to be uploaded from anywhere;and is more inspiring for the learner. Learners added that they collected more evidencefor their portfolios because they received good training, the tutors and the collegehave supported the system, and neither they nor the tutors had to carry lots of foldersaround with them.

Staff at Boston were asked about possible barriers to introducing an e-portfolio system.They were concerned about duplication of paperwork and the fact that file sharing hadnot been particularly popular. They also felt a whole college approach needed to betaken. Where e-portfolios had been trialed, or were in place, it was felt that this hadreduced travel commitments for assessors.

Cornwall consortium reported that teachers are starting to introduce an online e-portfolio system called ‘PlanIT’ for use on UMPCs and hope to be able to developthis much further in the future.

Engaging with the examining boards

It is clear that mobile devices can support and facilitate new methods of evidencecollection and submission. However, for qualification purposes, these new processesrequire validation by the relevant examining boards.

This project found excellent scope for assessment evidence to be created in diverseand different ways. Because mobile technologies offer more opportunity for instantvisual and aural evidence, staff need to be attuned to these opportunities when writingassessments and awarding bodies have to be flexible in acknowledging this evidence.Acceptable file formats, storage, presentation and transmission methods will need to be agreed to support appropriate assessment procedures. However, duringdiscussions a number of lecturers expressed concern about how willing examinerswould be to accept this type of evidence. (Gateshead consortium)

Boston commented that PDAs have been used successfully for evidence collectionand submission to count towards National Vocational Qualifications. They reportedthat this system has met approval by the relevant examination boards in thevocational areas of motor vehicle and electrical engineering. Other vocational areas,however, are currently in the process of seeking clarification from their qualificationauthority about the validity of electronically captured evidence.

Bournville noted that to ensure the whole process worked effectively, assessors whowork off-site needed to be supported and fully trained to provide the necessary supportand encouragement to their learners.


1 Kolding M and Kroa V (2007) E-skills – the key to employment and inclusion in Europe. IDC White Paper, IDC London.

12 Employer engagement

65

Many MoLeNET projects involve work-based learners or learners who spend some of their time learning in workplaces. To introduce mobile learning for these learnersemployer cooperation was required. In the light of the frequently expressed views of some employers that the education system does not do enough to ensure thatlearners enter the employment market with good ICT skills, for example: ‘The studyshows that European employers do not believe that the education system performsparticularly well in equipping future participants in the job market with the ICT skillsthat will be required.’ (Kolding M and Kroa V, 20071), colleges might have assumedthat the introduction of leading-edge technologies into workplace and work-basedlearning would have been universally welcomed by employers. In practice, the level of employer cooperation and enthusiasm varied.

Lewisham reported: ‘A major cause for concern throughout the project was the lack ofbuy in (and refusal to participate in some cases) from employers on the Train to Gainprogramme.’ And:

Despite the considerable efforts of account managers who were all experienced inselling the benefits of the project there was still concern from employers about takingresponsibility for the devices and allowing their employees to use them while at work.This was particularly significant within the Care curriculum area and it was decided tomove the focus to other areas where the employers had a more progressive approachto innovative methods of teaching and learning.

They noted:

The significant lesson learned was the importance of involving the employers much earlier in the process in order to motivate them and get them to participate in the project prior to creating resources and training staff and assessors in the use of the devices.

Timing is important: ‘Many of our Train to Gain programmes run from January – Juneand because of this we have now developed a cycle for the distribution of devices tothese learners.’

In some cases early apparent agreement by employers did not translate into thecooperation expected. Chichester College thought they had agreement from themanagement of a car manufacturer for Apprentices to use head cams to recordevidence of the skills they were mastering. Unfortunately, when the technology wasbeing deployed the company became concerned about the potential of the headcams for industrial espionage and decided not to allow their use.

However, another employer expressed interest in an employee’s college work and the learner was able to demonstrate what they were doing using their mobile device.Other learners felt that sharing their work with their employer could be beneficial andsaid they would be prepared to involve their employers more in future.



A Regent consortium business studies learner used their smartphone on a workplacement to take photographs for assignments, and not only enjoyed using thedevice but also found that others were interested to find out about it too:

I did my work placement at …. I used the n800 to take pictures of the placement. I enjoyed working at … They liked the way I was working and helping customers andoffered me a job … When I started using the n800 all the staff members were veryinterested in it, they wanted to see how it works.

At Boston one employer requested that his employee have a mobile phone andanother offered to pay 50% of the learner’s contribution towards the cost of the mobilephone. Some of the employers have been shown the mobile phone and have agreedthat there are possible benefits for the learner.

Lowestoft reported very positive reactions to the use of mobile devices for work- basedlearning, commenting that following the project two employers planned to purchasemobile devices for some of their other employees.

Bournville reported that they partially achieved their aim to provide an effective andsustainable bridge between employers, learners and the college, although they foundthe timescale of the project too short to fully achieve this. They also reported a 6%increase in retention of the work-based learners involved in the MoLeNET project.


As part of the process of measuring the success of MoLeNET many projects investigatedthe impact of mobile learning on their learners’ engagement, motivation, participation,interest and enjoyment. Evidence in this area was collected by practitioner researchersusing lesson observations, staff and learner questionnaires, focus groups andinterviews. Positive improvements in these areas may indicate improved teaching andlearning practices and improved learner experience and attitudes, and may contributeto improvements in retention, achievement, progression and attendance. Theirfindings are summarised below.

Motivation, engagement and enthusiasm for learning

Two-thirds of the MoLeNET projects reported on the impact of mobile devices forlearning on learners’ motivation, engagement and enthusiasm. All of them commentedthat this impact had been positive for at least some of their learners and six mentionedcases where there seemed to be no impact or where there was some kind of negativeimpact on motivation, engagement or enthusiasm.

Positive impact

Learners were motivated to attend and stay on course; they used the devices withenthusiasm. NEET learners felt more motivated to complete work on their own usingthe devices outside the classroom. (Accrington and Rossendale)

� Learners were excited and motivated when using the mobile devices. (Aylesbury)

� Mobile devices provided more motivating ways to learn and more choice about learning, thus making it possible to engage hard-to-reach learners. (Bolton consortium)

� PDAs were used by learners to send evidence to their teacher in lessons usingBluetooth. It was felt that this use of technology helped to retain the interest of the learners. (Boston)

� 91% of learners asked felt that mobile learning made learning more appealing. Staff believed that enabling learners to engage with learning at a place and timeconvenient to them, and ensuring a stream of information was available, encouragedmotivation. Innovative uses of the devices such as podcasting and taking thedevices abroad to share with others, also engaged the learners. (Bournville)

� Feedback from learners and staff indicated greater motivation with learningactivities, which contributed positively to improved attendance for some learners.(Brockenhurst)

� Candidates were already motivated to undertake the course but explained that they would choose a course with mobile learning over a course without in future.Improved motivation may also have contributed to improvements in candidates’work and retention. (Chichester consortium)

13 Learner engagement, participation,interest and enjoyment

67



� Low achievers felt motivated to continue with learning while completing activitieson their mobile devices:

...the use of the Nintendo DS with ‘Brain Training’ removed the stigma of a mathslesson with generally disengaged learners. It improved the learner’s performanceand memory of basic mental arithmetic. It also allowed basic arithmetic to bepractised and improved without them becoming disengaged after a short period of time due to boredom...

Time using the Nintendo DS was also given as a reward for completion of tasks, whichencouraged motivation. On one occasion a teacher decided not to use the UMPCs in alesson and noticed a considerable decrease in learners’ motivation and engagement.During another lesson, learners were so engaged with the work they were doing ontheir mobile devices that they actually missed five minutes of their break time. Teachershave observed an overall improvement in motivation and engagement, with learnersbeing quieter during lessons, and one particular learner showing considerableimprovement with homework submission as a result of the introduction of mobiledevices. (Cornwall consortium)

� Most learners completed homework outside lessons using their mobile devices, a good indicator of motivation. Staff reported learners were more engaged duringclasses as they could use their devices instead of writing, and were sharing theirwork and supporting others. One staff member commented that learners attendedwho normally would not have done and that learners with low levels of motivationwere much more motivated and engaged during a lesson observation where themobile devices were used with high-quality teaching. (Coulsdon)

� Tutors noted an improvement in learners’ engagement in class. (Eccles consortium)

� 76% of learners asked agreed that using mobile technologies had made them moremotivated to learn. Most would like to continue to use the technology next year.(Gateshead consortium)

� Mobile technologies have increased learner motivation, and reasons for this mayinclude ease of use, perceptions of being thought responsible and being trusted,tutors being ‘on board’, personalisation of learning, flexible learning, varied learningmethods and more creative, hands-on learning. Learners have also shown increasedinterest in other e-learning programmes. (Huddersfield consortium)

� Assessment was delivered in a more innovative and engaging manner when usingmobile devices, thus improving the learner experience. A class observation alsoshowed higher levels of learner engagement when using mobile devices comparedto before the project. (Kingston)

� Learners often have quite short attention spans but were very engaged when usingthe mobile technologies and were able to show the tutor how to use them. (Lewisham)

� Mobile technologies for learning improved learner motivation and tutors believedthat the devices are useful for motivation. (Lowestoft)

� A business studies tutor used Asus EEEs with his learners to complete portfoliowork and to test a podcast diary and video journal. He felt that ‘using the technologymade the experience more fun and engaging for the learners’. Another tutorexplained: ‘The mobile devices have allowed the learners to be more creative in thelessons, have more choices and take some ownership of their learning. In returnboth their motivation and engagement in the lesson have increased.’ Additionally,Sony PSPs were used with learners classified as NEET improve numeracy skills. The tutor reported that the PSPs were fun to use, helped to secure attendance andretention and promoted engagement and improvements in behaviour. (MatthewBoulton consortium)


Learner engagement, participation, interest and enjoyment 69

� Qualitative feedback indicated a very positive link between using podcasting forlearning and learner motivation, eg:

You can put a wide variety of things onto it so if you have them from different lessonsyou can revise from all your lessons and it’s all in one place which is really tiny andfits in your pocket and it’s not getting out loads of books which take space up and youhave it all spread across your table which makes a lot of mess. And you just go upstairsafter you’ve had a break or something and you just look at it and it just puts you offstraight away coz you have so much there but if you are on your iPod it’s a muchsmaller scale…

Comments from subject tutors supported this positive feedback:

I think I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of the students that have beeninvolved in actually making the podcasts. Yeah the ones that have just been done inthe classroom like this where they’ve been talking or where there has been a lecturethat’s been recorded, they were there but we’ve had some students that have donespecial ones and they have been really enthusiastic about it and there was one groupof students that were really not engaging at all but they had so much fun and soenjoyed doing the podcast and then seeing it later on and making the comments,they really enjoyed it and the lecturer was really pleased and she says that next yearwhen she has students that are not really engaging she will do something similarwith them as well.

We did some exactly the same, really amazed with their motivation, and we didsomething slightly different where we made materials to help them revise for examsand gave them to them on iPods and I was absolutely shocked because there was ameeting that X did in which we gave them so little to help them revise. They were soenthusiastic about what they had been given I was really amazed that what theyactually wanted was more and some of them had revised on the bus, some of themhad revised walking going out on a Saturday night, revising in the canteen.

(New College Swindon consortium)

� Low-achieving ICT and science learners used smartphones to support their learning,and although technical issues prevented them from being used as extensively ashoped, learners felt privileged and trusted. These learners tended to have low levelsof self-esteem, but both confidence and motivation levels rose for those using thesmartphones, and it is hoped that grades will also reflect this benefit. (Norwich)

� Some MoLeMentors (ie learners with mobile devices paired up with a teacher with a mobile device) showed commitment and enthusiasm in the activities they werecompleting, spending extra time to improve on what they have done. Also, tutorsfound the text messaging useful to communicate with learners who normally wouldhave been difficult to engage with. (Oaklands consortium)

� Learners felt m-learning could improve their levels of motivation, and this sentimentwas supported by teachers’ feedback. An IT tutor used numeracy and literacy testson the Nintendo DS as a study break for learners, and found the competitive andgaming style of these activities so successful that they are now being used as aregular motivator for the learners. (Regent consortium)

� PDAs with multimedia gaming ESOL software were used as an incentive for thosewho completed their work successfully; this encouraged learners to engage withtheir work in order to complete it more quickly. Photographs taken using the mobiledevices on an excursion were used to support a literacy follow-up activity back inclass, and that learners were enthused by the visual stimuli. (Tower Hamlets)



Negative reports and warnings

Technical barriers meant some learners became disheartened and disengaged,showing just how important it is for the technologies to be reliable. For some learnerswith low confidence the PDA was an additional burden and something else to worryabout, it took a lot of time and support to get used to. (Accrington and Rossendale)

One learner was not particularly engaged with the device, possibly as a consequenceof other issues, but the tutor concluded that mobile devices for learning may notappeal to everyone. (Cornwall consortium)

Although teachers of a small group of learners felt that using the mobile devices forlearning had increased learners’ motivation, the results from the learner feedback did not necessarily support this view, with 22% indicating that it had had a positiveimpact, 44% that it had made no difference and 33% that it had had a negative impact.(Eccles consortium)

Pockets of resistance to using mobile devices for learning were found. These seemedto be related to the age of the learners and the amount of time spent studying at thecollege each week. Some older childcare learners were much more negative about thetechnologies than younger learners and perceived them to be demotivating, difficultto operate, infringing on class time which they would rather spend interacting withothers and unnecessary as they used PCs a lot at work. Tutor feedback suggests thatmature learners were less able to see the relevance of the UMPCs for learning.(Kingston)

Construction learners were not motivated to use the devices and couldn’t imagine howthey could be used to support their learning. It was felt that this could be attributed tothe fact that tutors received the devices late and were not fully trained to provide thecorrect support and direction. (Lewisham)

Learners pointed out that mobile devices could become demotivating when technicalproblems arose. (New College Swindon consortium)

Concentration and focus

Eleven projects commented on how the use of mobile devices for learning affectedlearners’ concentration and focus on tasks. Eight of these projects explained howmobile devices had had a positive impact in this area but six also mentionedcircumstances where the equipment had had or could potentially have the oppositeeffect and be a distraction for learners.

Cornwall consortium learners found that they were able to focus on their maths tasksmore easily when using the mobile devices and learners at New College Swindonconsortium explained how creating the podcasts as opposed to simply reading orlistening to information had helped them to remain focused on the learning content.Eccles consortium also commented that the devices enabled their learners to remainfocused for longer periods of time, and a tutor at Kingston felt that sharing resourceson UMPCs helped learners to focus more than they would if working alone. Otherprojects reported learners being more focused on activities and learners themselvesexplaining that using the mobile devices to learn helped them to concentrate.

However, Coulsdon noted that when the technology did not work it caused distraction,and in Cornwall some learners with learning difficulties and disabilities or poor literacyfound their devices more distracting than helpful when they did not correctly recognisetheir handwritten or voice input.



Cornwall consortium tutors communicated some concerns regarding the potential ofthe Bluetooth facility (which enables learners to message one another during class),the chat facility, games on the UMPCs and the Skype telephone facility to distractlearners. New College Swindon consortium learners mentioned that non-educationalpodcasts and music could be a potential distraction on the iPod, and most Oaklandsconsortium learners agreed that it was very easy to get distracted by the mobilebroadband or games on their device. Kingstonmentioned that the internet and socialnetworking sites could be a distraction for learners. Although tutors felt they weremanaging well, a few learners felt it was an issue for them and 16% of those asked feltthat the devices caused a distraction in class.

Although distractions and behaviour management were an issue for some projectsCornwall consortium add that disruption mainly occurred when learners first receivedthe mobile devices and that reinforcement of the rules at the beginning of lessons waseffective. Norwich added that consideration must be given to how the devices areused and how learners will be monitored. Oaklands consortium found that learnersprefer set tasks to complete and that this kind of structure minimises the possibility of learners becoming distracted.

Encouraging participation in learning activities

Six projects commented on the impact of using mobile devices for learning on thewillingness of learners to participate in activities. All six projects explained that mobiledevices had had a positive impact on this aspect of learning although one mentionedsome older learners, who had little experience of computers or mobile phones of theirown, who did not want to participate and found the prospect of using the technologydaunting (Accrington and Rossendale).

A learner at Cardinal Newman commented that using the devices during Frenchclasses was much more fun because they could all take part instead of simplywatching the teacher using the interactive whiteboard. One Cornwall consortiumteacher noted that learners were becoming more confident about asking questions in class and were keen to find out how they could complete the task set using thedevice. Eccles consortium staff noted that one particular learner on the NVQ footballcoaching course, who was notorious for not participating, actually expressed his viewsas a result of using the mobile device. Coulsdon’s staff admitted that they weresurprised by the involvement of learners. Accrington and Rossendale added that theyhave managed to encourage learners to participate who normally would not and theselearners have developed in confidence and self-esteem through the use of mobiledevices and becoming ‘experts’.

Data from Kingston revealed that before the introduction of mobile devices learnersfelt that they contributed more during small group activities than when in one largegroup led by the teacher, suggesting that ‘activities requiring a less teacher-focusedapproach could bring about an improvement in the learners’ contributions’. Pre andpost questionnaires showed a reduction in tutor-led activities after the introduction of mobile technologies for learning. All the tutors asked felt that participation hadimproved since the introduction of mobile devices, with class observations revealinghigh levels of participation in lessons. Video footage of hairdressing and childcareclasses showed learners participating well when using mobile technologies, andpositive feedback from learner focus groups also suggested learners wereparticipating well.



Making learning more fun or more enjoyable and improving thelearner experience

Half the projects commented on whether the use of mobile devices for learning hadmade the learning experience fun or more enjoyable for learners. Fifteen stated thatmobile learning had had a positive impact; two mentioned a negative impact onlearner enjoyment.

Learners at Cardinal Newman mentioned that the use of mobile devices made learningfun because it was different from normal teaching and learning methods. The mobilesenabled them to type and take video clips instead of writing everything down and alsoallowed them to use professional resources (hardware and software). Cornwallconsortium reported that most learners enjoyed using the mobile technologies forlearning as it made learning more fun, although some of the use may have beenrecreational rather than educational.

Nearly three-quarters – 68% of Stockport consortium learners asked and 70% atCoulsdon – felt that learning was enjoyable with the mobile devices. Coulsdon’slearners stated that the technology made homework fun and was more fun thanpaper-based learning activities. One learner added ‘I looked forward to coming toEnglish’ and other learners agreed. Eccles consortium staff felt that providing learnerswith a new way of learning, something different, had ‘boosted their morale’ as theyenjoyed using the equipment. Worcester consortium’s learners found listening toother people’s ideas about how to use the PDAs made learning fun.

At Norwich less than half of the learners asked felt that their smartphone had madelearning fun. Some Worcester consortium learners commented that the mobile devicesthey used were not as exciting as they could have been, as they did not havephotographic or video facilities.

Both Cardinal Newman and Lowestoft reported that they had successfully achievedtheir aim of improving learner experience through mobile learning. Lowestoft reportedthat this was a resounding success in their project: ‘Learners were, without exception,extremely positive about using mobile devices for learning, as were the teaching staff.We already have many requests for other groups who would like to be involved in thecoming year.’ Cardinal Newman added that: ‘the challenge now is to further developthe usage of the technology to wider aspects of the curriculum and also to develop itsuse in the pastoral side of College life’.

Chichester consortium also noted that mobile learning had made a positivecontribution towards improved learner experience and Eccles consortium reported:

This has clearly demonstrated to us that the technology works in the hands ofstudents and that they enjoy using it for learning. As the curriculum staff becomemore accustomed to the technology, it is envisaged that innovative teachingresources will continue to be developed to maximise the learning experience of pupils.

Making learning more interesting and stimulating

Thirteen projects commented on whether the use of mobile devices for learning madelearning more interesting or stimulating for the learners. Twelve projects described apositive impact and one reported a mixed response from learners, with some learnersbelieving that mobile devices had made their course much more interesting butothers being less enthusiastic (Eccles consortium).



Learners at Cardinal Newman talked about the educational podcasts they were usingand explained how they make learning interesting, but that it was important thatdifferent and exciting voices were used to prevent boredom. Learners also talkedabout how the other mobile devices made learning more interesting because theyprovided a different and more interactive way to learn.

One Cornwall consortiummember of staff explained that interest in the subject itselfhad increased since the introduction of mobile devices for learning. Huddersfieldconsortium reported that new ways to gather evidence using the mobile technologieswere inspiring for the learners.

Just over three-quarters (76%) of the learners asked at Coulsdon felt that using mobiledevices had made learning more interesting, with staff explaining that it made learningmore informal, and gave learners a different method for learning. Learner feedback atKingston indicated that classes were more varied and interesting as a result of teachersusing e-resources. A majority of learners at Stratford-upon-Avon agreed that using avariety of formats and resources made learning more interesting and contemporary.New College Swindon consortium learners used podcasts to support their learning andexplained that creating podcasts in lessons provided more variety, creativity andcontrol over material than they were used to:

I think people are more likely to enjoy the lessons and have more passion to go to thelessons, more enthusiasm if lessons were a bit more mixed up sometimes and gave abit more variety, and obviously making sure that the topic was covered so you do allthe work.

Well because it differs from the norm about how and using what media people learnlike from textbooks and stuff just because in itself it’s unique and interesting andyou’re doing it yourself and you’re kind of proud of what you’ve made especially if its something new … yeah it’s motivating in the sense that you are doing it yourself.

Nearly all (95%) of Worcester consortium learners asked felt that learning via podcastsmade the learning experience more interesting. Learners at Lowestoft enjoyed this‘new way’ of learning using the different facilities on mobile devices for a variety ofactivities. Accrington and Rossendale’s learners found the new way of deliveringlearning materials stimulating. There was overwhelmingly positive feedback fromGateshead consortium learners who agreed that mobile devices for learning ‘reallybrings teaching and learning to life’.

Will the novelty wear off or are there more benefits to be realised?

Three projects mentioned concerns that benefits observed may be a consequence of the novelty of the mobile devices and therefore may only be short term. However,Accrington and Rossendale commented that although the novelty of the technologiesmay wear off:

… there does appear to be emerging a very sound pedagogy around the potential for personalised learning that mobile learning offers. The more ‘joined-up’ approachusing the VLE is particularly interesting. The use of the VLE in college is growingexponentially, and the number of staff and students accessing it, utilising it formaterials, assessment, developmental activities, communication to name but a fewfunctions suddenly came together with the remote access allowed by the use ofmobile learning technology and there is a growing sense of independence in thelearners who are using it successfully. Putting the two together is now creating apotentially very powerful addition to teaching and learning.

Regent consortium also noted that: ‘The sheer range of learners that were involvedand engaged by the project is clear and the benefits that have been derived are obvious,but this is also, clearly, just the beginning.’


The impact on self-confidence, self-esteem and autonomy

Twelve projects commented on the impact that mobile learning had had on theconfidence and self-esteem of their learners.

Cornwall consortium reported that some learners had become more confident whenasking questions in class and shown an improvement in independence. Teachersnoted that when completing quizzes using their mobile devices learners had feltencouraged to continue when they answered correctly, and that this was a particularachievement for low-level learners.

Similarly, at Norwich, low achievers appreciated being given a mobile device andshowed massive increases in confidence, self-esteem and motivation. Tutors alsoreported improvements in feelings of self-worth, which was thought to have positivelyaffected learners’ attitudes towards education and also retention and achievement.

Accrington and Rossendale learners used their devices to access educational games,which contributed to improvement in the confidence levels of basic skills learners.Both Coulsdon and Eccles consortia reported that the use of mobile devices hadimproved the confidence of their learners. Many learners at Huddersfield consortiumstated that using mobile technology had increased the confidence they felt regardingfulfilling their course requirements.

Lewisham provided an example of a learner, too shy to give a presentation in class,who was able to perform and record the presentation at home using his mobile device,upload it onto the VLE, then play it back in class, thus overcoming the barrier of lack of confidence.

Accrington and Rossendale reported that the mobile devices had given learners withAsperger’s syndrome a route to social interaction as they had become experts at usingthem and so felt more confident around others.

Oaklands consortium learners had used their devices to provide resources and supportfor other learners, with two learners in particular showing increases in confidence as a result of the filming work they had been involved in. At Norwich, one tutor found thateven when using their devices for recreational purposes learners had been sharingresources, which had contributed to group bonding and self-esteem.

At Coulsdon staff also explained that the mobile devices increased teamwork andpeer support, and a New College Swindon consortium lecturer explained how themobile devices had encouraged learners to work together as a group. Oaklandsconsortium noted that for two of their MoLeMentors, the project had helped them todevelop problem-solving skills and to work together, and that this had had a positiveimpact on their coursework.

Kingston, however, reported that the use of the mobile devices had had a negativeimpact on self-esteem for some more mature learners:

14 Self-confidence and self-esteem

74


Self-confidence and self-esteem 75

… there appeared to be a competitive element in this class, where the average agewas 30+, as to how well individuals coped with the technology and how well they didin the quiz … student made reference to ‘feeling stupid’ and the fact that, ‘everyoneelse seemed to know what they were doing’. A different student in the same class hadcomplained about the volume of the feedback noises on the quiz in question, andsaid that the noises were ‘counter-productive’ linked to ‘feelings of self-esteem’ andthat some people would not want others to know how they were progressing in a quiz.

Conversely, one reason learners at Tower Hamlets cited for enjoyed using their deviceswas because learning could be carried out in private, and they could also learn fromeach other’s mistakes. Accrington and Rossendale noted that learners becamedisheartened when devices didn’t work as hoped and that this caused confidenceissues for some learners, particularly those who were already lacking in confidence;‘One comment was that because they went wrong you were never sure if it was notworking because there was something wrong with it or because you were doingsomething wrong.’

The impact on learners’ feelings of being valued and trusted orbelonging

A number of projects reported that some of their learners had reported feeling valuedbecause they felt that their college/school/tutor/teacher had, via the mobile device,provided them with personalised learning and additional opportunities.

Disadvantaged learners at Norwichwho have been provided with smartphonesreported feeling ‘trusted’. Over three-quarters of Stockport consortium learners whocompleted the Moodle questionnaire stated that having a mobile device made themfeel more valued by their college. Learners felt more supported, trusted and valued,and this, according to Stockport consortium staff, appeared to have had a positiveeffect on their approach to their studies.

At Accrington and Rossendale, it was possible that access to the VLE through theirdevices had fostered a sense of belonging for learners classified as NEET, as eight outof nine applied for courses on the main college site. This effect of encouraging a senseof belonging was also reported for a number of work-based learners. Some learnerswith learning difficulties or disabilities also commented that the mobile device hadmade them feel more accepted in the college, with one learner reporting that they feltquite ‘important’ because they were asked to take part in the research.

Oaklands consortium learners said they felt privileged to receive a mobile devicealthough, as some jealousy had been seen from learners who were not provided witha device, tutors had had feedback that it would be preferable for all learners in a classto have a device. At Bournville, learners reported feeling privileged to be provided withthe mobile equipment.


15 Enhanced communication

76

An obvious function of mobile phones was communication either by voice, text oremail and a number of projects have reported on this and possible implications forteaching and learning. However, in many projects such communication was limitedeither because the mobile devices used did not have communication ability, eg iPods,or because mobile phones were used with data contracts that did not include voice ortext messaging. The latter situation was usually due to a project or institutional strategyof controlling costs. Some projects used mobile technologies with the prime functionof a ‘pocket PC’ rather than a personal communication device, eg many of the mininotebook projects, although some of the learners using these did communicate viaSkype or email.

In total two-thirds of the MoLeNET projects reported on the impact of mobiletechnologies on communication including communication between staff and learners,learners and assessors and/or learners with their peers.

Brockenhurst reported that approximately half the learners asked felt that followingthe introduction of mobile technologies communication with their personal tutor orteacher had at least possibly been enhanced. At Coulsdon, 53% of the learners askedfelt that since having the Ameo they had communicated more with the literacy staff.Oaklands consortium reported that: ‘…it is the successful integration of a new form of communication that stands out, especially to the learners on the project.Communication was greatly enhanced across the colleges, amongst the learners andtutors participating.’

Boston reported that they were able to increase communication opportunities with theintroduction of mobile devices and that learners were very responsive to text messages.30 out of the 46 Stockport consortium learners asked felt that having a mobile devicehad enabled them to keep better contact with their tutor.

Stockport consortium’s budget did not include provision for learners to make phonecalls and send texts. They experimented with dual SIM cards but, although this wasinitially a popular idea with many learners, technical difficulties meant the idea had tobe abandoned. Learners were therefore able to send emails and only able to receivetexts and calls. Some learners commented that the ability to make outgoing textmessages would have enhanced communication.

Some ways in which improved communication channels proved useful are outlined below.

Attendance/absence and work reminders

Several projects mentioned that mobile devices had enabled tutors and learners tocommunicate with each other about attendance, absence, delays in arrival, lessoncancellations, room changes, and so on. Stockport consortium reported enhancedtrust between teachers and learners and some learners reported that they felt more in control. Several projects reported that learners were able to find out what they had


Enhanced communication 77

missed and receive work to be completed despite missing a lesson. In some cases (eg Accrington and Rossendale and Norwich) tutors used their mobile devices to sendgroup texts to learners reminding them to attend a session or about homework andassignment deadlines.

Obtaining help or advice

The impact of mobile technologies on the feedback system has been discussed withinthe section on the assessment process. Some projects also added that the deviceswere useful for helping teachers and learners to keep in contact and to ask for help oradvice, particularly when they were away from the college. Cardinal Newman reportedthat they have managed to receive support while carrying out group work in differentparts of the college by using the chat facility on their devices, with one learner addingthat it means they don’t need to draw attention to themselves when they need to askfor help during a lesson. Oaklands consortium also reported that mobile devicesenabled staff to engage less confident learners through text messages.

General contact and information sharing

Some teachers and learners used their mobile devices generally to keep in touch and to share information, files, pictures, videos and learning resources (in addition to assignments or evidence as discussed in the section on evidence gathering,assessment and feedback) with each other. Some projects explained how learnersstayed in contact with and shared experiences with peers or family while on excursions,either via email, calls or blogs/wikis. Matthew Boulton consortium ESOL learners usedSkype on their UMPCs to keep in contact with friends and family from their homecountry as well as practising their spoken English.

Enhancing the recruitment processes

Cornwall College undertook a small pilot with SMS technology by texting successfullearners who applied for courses. The use of SMS on the day before a scheduledinterview and on the day of the interview to remind interviewees of their interviewtime and date resulted in increased attendance rates from 63% at similar events ofthis type to 74%.


As well as the teaching and learning changes and benefits afforded by mobiledevices, several projects described how the provision and use of mobile devices intheir college/school affected the learner in other ways. Although these benefits maynot directly be categorised under teaching and learning or institutional change, theycan be seen to have had an impact on the experience of the learner, which thendirectly affects their learning experience.

The impact of mobile devices on organisation

Approximately one-quarter of the MoLeNET projects reported that the introduction ofmobile devices in their college/school has had a positive impact on the way learnerswere able to organise matters related to their college/school work and responsibilitiesand also other commitments and tasks in their daily lives, including:

� setting reminders about homework and assignment deadlines

� checking timetabled sessions and exam timetables

� recording exam dates in the calendar

� recording important issues to be dealt with in the tasks

� receiving and checking tutor reminders about what to bring to classes

� staff setting individual tasks using the personal calendar for learners with specific difficulties

� prompting regular routines for learners with learning difficulties

� using notes and alarms in Microsoft Outlook on PDAs to help LLDD learners with retention, organisation and time-management difficulties to organisethemselves better.

The impact of mobile devices on efficiency and ease of completing‘written’ workThere were many examples of learners describing how their mobile device had enabledthem to type up notes and assignments more quickly and easily than with pen andpaper and several projects (eg Chichester consortium) noted improvements in thepresentation of learners’ work. Lewisham learners used their PDAs to capture video andaudio recordings of lectures for future reference, and photographed instructions forwork rather than write them all down. Norwich reported that a group of disadvantagedlearners, some of whom were ‘struggling financially’, used their smartphones to showtheir assignments to the tutor on the screen, thus avoiding printing costs that wouldhave been a significant barrier to having their work checked in the past. Some learnerspreferred to write on their mobile devices using transcriber functions but some foundthe keyboard, either real or virtual, easier and more accurate.

16 Additional benefits and affordances ofmobile technologies

78


Additional benefits and affordances of mobile technologies 79

The impact of mobile devices on storage and transportation of work

Some projects described how learners preferred using their mobile devices to storeand transport work and reference material rather than carrying folders and books.They found retrieval of notes and looking up information quicker and easier.

Learners’ perceptions of mobile devices – the ‘cool’ factor

The majority of the projects’ learners were familiar with the capacity and desirability of mobile technologies as communication tools and gaming devices, but for most ofthem using a mobile device in an educational capacity was new. Projects commentedon how learners perceived the mobile devices within an educational context; mostreporting a continuation of this established appeal and hence the popularity of thedevices. A learner from Cardinal Newman commented ‘My opinion is that these “littlelaptops” are very cool and they look the part.’ and from Bournville ‘It’s up to date withtoday’s society.’

A few learners at Norwich also admitted to using their smartphone to impress theirfriends although in some cases (eg some Weston consortium learners) PDAs or mininotebooks were seen as more suited to ‘businessmen’ or more like an educationaltool and therefore less ‘cool’ than their own mobile phones. During a focus group atNew College Swindon one learner explained that an advantage of using the iPod, as opposed to books and folders, for revision, was that peers would not know youwere revising:

… my iPod it’s just tiny in my pocket and I can just listen to it and nobody would know I was listening to stuff about psychology or biology they would just think I waslistening to normal music so it doesn’t matter … so I don’t look like an idiot when I’m revising 24/7.


2 Prensky M (2001). ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants.’ In On the horizon, NCB University Press 9(5).

Some views that MoLeNET projects found to be unfounded or exaggerated were:

� mobile technologies might somehow be inappropriate or too difficult for learnerswith learning difficulties and/or disabilities

� all young people automatically understand new technology and require no trainingto use them – the ‘digital natives’ concept

� allowing the use of mobile technologies, particularly mobile phones, in schools andcolleges would make it difficult for teachers to control classes and would encourageinappropriate behaviour

� providing expensive, portable equipment for learners, especially the young and/ordisadvantaged, would result in high levels of damage, loss and theft.

These are expanded on below.

Mobile learning for learners with learning difficulties or disabilities

Several projects – National Star College, Langdon and Aylesbury consortium inparticular – found that mobile technologies could be of great benefit to learners with learning difficulties or disabilities and in some cases could transform theirlearning experiences.

As Cornwall consortium’s experience indicated, however, it was necessary to ensurethat the technologies used were appropriate for the type of difficulty or disability in anycase and that learners’ preferences were taken into account.

Digital natives?

The experiences of several projects suggested that one should not assume that allyoung people are the ‘digital natives’. Prensky described (saying, for example, ‘Ourlearners today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, videogames and the Internet.’)2, nor that this ‘native’ status means they would need little or no support when using technology.

Brockenhurst, for example, noted that ‘the capabilities of learners in adopting mobiletechnologies were a little over-estimated at the start of the project’ and in future theywould recommend more training.

Havering noted:

It quickly became obvious that to implement these types of devices into teachingsuccessfully it is necessary to provide both the teacher and students with sufficienttraining. Many of the geology students who received an HTC Advantage PDA wereunable to make effective use of them as they were not aware of all of the device’scapabilities.

17 Exploding myths

80


Exploding myths 81

Similarly an m-champion at Norwich observed:

We came to this project with an unspoken belief that young learners would innatelyunderstand how these devices worked, we quickly came to understand that, whilethey can use them well on a superficial level, more demanding tasks stretched theirknowledge of the technology.

Bournville reported ‘The time and cost required to train the students on how to usethe devices was an unforeseen issue.’

Oaklands consortium specifically targeted young learners as their assumptions aboutyoung peoples’ use of and affinitiy with technology had informed the design of theirproject in which young learners acted as mentors to less technology-savvy teachingstaff. In describing the age range of their project’s learners as 14–19 they stated:

…the majority of students involved came from this age range, primarily due to thenature of the courses that the colleges run. However, this is the age range that maybest define the ‘digital natives’ whose skills the project hoped to tap in to.

However, subsequent experience at Oaklands consortium and other colleges andschools suggested that common assumptions about the ICT abilities of young peoplewere often exaggerated.

Lewisham reported that a lack of training and technical skills appeared to be asignificant barrier to learners using their PDAs effectively to collect evidence for their portfolios. Several learners preferred to use their own mobile phones to takephotographs for evidence as they found them easier to navigate. This suggested thatcompetence in the basic functionality of mobile phones was not necessarily a goodpredictor of competence with other less familiar and possibly more complicatedmobile technologies.

In some cases part of the answer appeared to be peer-to-peer support, eg Haveringfound ‘some more inquisitive learners who took full ownership of the devices anddedicated sufficient time to investigate their abilities were able to demonstrate toothers the capabilities that they found with the device’. Eccles consortium reported:‘some learners who were not as able as others, sometimes felt overwhelmed by a taskand allowed others to take the lead roles’ and recommended that ‘this problem canbe addressed by teachers who have a thorough understanding of the requirements ofdeveloped tasks and being able to assist learners who have a lesser understanding of the mobile technologies’.

As with teachers, the learners’ perceptions of what the mobile device is or can be maydiffer and therefore sufficient training is needed to bring everyone up to the samelevel of understanding. Eccles consortium found:

Some students instantly took to the technology and immersed themselves in learningall of the functionality of their phones while others saw it as a mobile phone with acamera and video capability. In future planning of schemes of work to incorporatemobile learning, introduction to the devices and the functionality that they will berequired to use will need to be addressed and included at the beginning of lessons.

However, Huddersfield consortium reported:

One thing that stands out as a particular strength of the project was the very positivereaction from most (though not all) of the learners themselves. Enthusiasm for thetechnology does appear to correlate with youth. If the enthusiasm of our young learnersis representative of their generation, there is clearly an enormous amount of energyfor learning waiting to be tapped by future development along these lines.



Classroom management and inappropriate behaviour

When the introduction of mobile learning is discussed some teaching staff raiseconcerns about the risk of classroom management issues or inappropriate behaviourby learners. Where these topics have been raised by MoLeNET project managers it hasbeen in the context of expected problems that have not arisen or have been lessserious than anticipated. For example:

Classroom management of the devices proved not be as problematic as we hadenvisaged. Most students behaved sensibly and made productive use of the deviceduring lessons. Our terms and conditions documentation (which both learners andparents signed at the outset) detailed our expectation that instructions from staffabout appropriate use of the devices during lessons must be followed.(Brockenhurst)

Classroom management may need to be stepped up to avoid misuse – but it wasfound during our project that the best way to avoid misuse of the devices during classwas to give the learners something interesting to do in the first place. (Cornwall consortium).

Projects were asked to report any incidences of inappropriate use of mobile devicesby learners, such as inappropriate use of the camera, or downloading/accessinginappropriate content. There were no reports of inappropriate use of cameras, such as‘happy slapping’, and similarly no reports of learners downloading or accessinginappropriate content.

Figure 25 Reported incidents across all projects

Incident Number of incidents

‘Happy slapping’ or other inappropriate use of camera 0

Downloading or accessing inappropriate content etc. 0

Other 3

Three projects did, however, mention incidents or concerns. At Brockenhurst, onelearner used their mobile device to make telephone calls, which was breaching theagreed terms and conditions. Lewisham reported that learners found a way to useother people’s identities on the media board to post inappropriate comments, andone Stockport consortium learner attempted to sell their device.

Projects were asked whether any staff concerns resulted in restrictions that had anadverse effect on their project. Four colleges (Accrington and Rossendale, Chichesterconsortium, Eccles consortium and Norwich) reported concerns regarding thepossibility of inappropriate use of the technology by learners. To address this issue,‘user agreements’ and ‘acceptable use policies’ were put in place. Huddersfieldconsortium basic skills tutors expressed fears that the expensive and highly desirabledevices could be sold on by their learners, particularly probation offender learners.Matthew Boulton consortium reported that they managed the security of their devicesvery tightly through a booking in and out system and supervised sessions to avoidproblems. Accrington and Rossendale also had initial concerns and discussions aboutthe security and usage of the devices (which reportedly delayed the project) but laterdecided an element of trust with their learners was needed, with individualoccurrences responded to if they were not appropriate.


Exploding myths 83

In Norwich:

One of the partner schools in the … project informed the project management teamthat they were hugely keen to get fully involved in the trial with a single science class –looking at evidence gathering, peer assessment and group work. The team arrangedto conduct inductions and supplied the school with the requisite number ofsmartphones only to be informed that, as this was a boarding school, camera phoneswere completely banned from the campus. As one of the major premises for havingthese devices was their ability to gather evidence of learning in pictures and videothis looked like a showstopper. However, after some discussion, the management of the school took the matter to their governors to request dispensation for learnersinvolved in the trial. Duly given, these learners worked well throughout the project andtheir teachers reported no disciplinary problems and a real raising in the learners’self-esteem through the trust given.

When planning their project South Thames consortium felt using a firewall was‘paramount as many of the learners were under the age of 18 so it would be importantto both consortia partners and parent/guardians that they were protected frominappropriate content’. However: ‘learners reported back that the firewall was felt toorestrictive’ and in particular it prevented them from accessing the social networkingsites that the project wished to use for collaborative learning involving learners fromthe various institutions. Therefore in the later stages of the project the South Thamesproject manager worked with their supplier to introduce less indiscriminate protection.

Incidences of inappropriate behaviour were minimal and some consensus seems tohave been reached that the best approach was to demonstrate trust in the learnersbut have sanctions ready for individuals who breached that trust.

Breakages, loss and theft

Mobile devices are, by definition, very portable, relatively expensive and easily resoldif stolen. Investigating the levels of damage, loss and theft experienced by MoLeNETprojects provided useful information for educational providers who needed to knowthat investment in mobile learning was sustainable. Institutions also have a duty ofcare towards their learners and staff and, therefore, needed to feel confident thatencouraging the use of mobile device did not put people at unnecessary risk.

In total 30 projects reported on this matter, with eight (Aylesbury, Bolton consortium ,Gateshead consortium, Havering, New College Swindon consortium, Oaklandsconsortium, Rotherham consortium and Tower Hamlets) reporting that they had not hadany experiences of mobile devices being damaged, lost or stolen. Eccles consortiumand Tower Hamletsmentioned that there was concern from staff that the devicescould be lost or stolen in future. Some learners also expressed concerns about thismainly due to worry that they could be responsible for replacements (Cornwallconsortium, Havering, Bournville, Gloucestershire and Accrington and Rossendale).

The number of handheld devices reported as damaged, lost or stolen was less than2% of the total number purchased by MoLeNET projects in 2007/08.



Figure 26 Devices reported as damaged, lost and stolen

Total number of Total number of % of total devicesprojects reporting devices involved

Number damaged 17 95

Number lost 8 16

Number stolen 9 82

Total 193 1.92%

As Figure 26 above shows, more projects reported incidences of devices beingaccidentally damaged than lost or stolen.

Damage

Generally those projects that reported incidences of devices getting damaged statedthat this happened in transit. Three projects mentioned screen damage (Brockenhurst,Chichester consortium, Huddersfield consortium), and Brockenhurst also mentionedirreparable water damage. Damage reported was not only caused by learners; forexample, one college (East Berkshire consortium) reported that a device was damagedwhen a staff member dropped it.

Huddersfield consortium and Norwich expressed concerns about the robustness oftheir devices, Norwich commenting that:

The devices themselves were not that robust, especially when you put them in thehands of a group of lively 14 year olds in a brick workshop – this may account for thelarge number of damaged/faulty devices. A lot of them had small faults/damage(buttons falling off, cracked screen, etc).

Two projects received damaged goods from their suppliers, which were replaced inboth cases.

Loss

There were very few incidences of devices being lost although a few projects reportedperipheral parts of the devices, such as USB cables, chargers, stylos and documentation,missing. Weston consortium commented that one device had been lost by a learnerbut the learner did replace it.

Theft

Far fewer projects reported devices stolen than damaged. The total number of devicesstolen was highest for the following two projects. Unfortunately Gloucestershire hadapproximately 40 mobile devices stolen from the locked cupboard in which they werestored. Accrington and Rossendale reported the theft of two devices, one through ahouse burglary and another from personal theft. Another 10 devices used by homelessyoung people were not returned at the end of the project and it seems likely that thesehave been stolen or lost. They have been included in the stolen figures in figure 26.

For a few colleges it was difficult to define the exact status of some of the devices thathad not, at time of writing, been returned. Coulsdon had had back 21 of the 39 deviceslent to learners, but expected that the rest would be returned. Eccles consortium stillhad five devices left to collect in at the time of writing and reported sending lettersrequesting the return of the devices by a set date, threatening legal action if they arenot returned. South Thames consortium reported: ‘There are currently 33 devices whichhave not been returned. Letters have been written to guardians/learners explaining if


Exploding myths 85

devices are not returned then it will be treated as a theft and reported to the police.’Lewisham reported that devices had not yet been returned so their numbers of stolenor lost devices may yet increase.

Huddersfield consortium were so impressed with the minimal damage, loss and theftthat they commented:

The learners demonstrated a superb level of personal responsibility in their care.Bearing in mind the likely future of learners making use of their own devices in theirlearning, considerations around the cost of lost or damaged devices can bedeliberately omitted from the conclusions of the project.

Similarly, Lowestoftmentioned that they were pleasantly surprised by the attitudesand behaviour of their learners and both Norwich and Regent consortia commentedon the care learners took with the devices. Norwich added that there was a reportedrise in learners’ self-esteem as a consequence of the trust placed in them, andCoulsdon added that the learners felt ‘valued’.

Most of the projects found the levels of damage, loss and theft acceptable. No projectssuggested that concerns regarding damage, loss or theft would hinder future mobilelearning plans and developments.


MoLeNET projects were asked to report details of learners who had refused to takepart for health and safety reasons and to categorise the learners’ concerns as followsin Figure 27.

Figure 27 Health and safety concerns

Concern Total number of learners

Worry about possible health damage, eg cancer 1

Worry about getting mugged due to carrying around 9a valuable device

Five projects (Havering, Huddersfield consortium, Lewisham, Matthew Boultonconsortium, Oaklands consortium) reported that they had a learner or learners whorefused to take part because they were worried about getting mugged carrying avaluable device. At Matthew Boulton College three learners said they were reluctant totake responsibility for the equipment, a concern they might have had because theywere worried about being ‘mugged’, but this did not happen to any of the learners atthe college.

Regent consortiummentioned that a few learners had expressed concern about takingthe devices into the city. Oaklands consortium reported that two vulnerable Entry-levellearners decided not to take the devices home, but instead leave them at the college.

Langdon, a partner in the Eccles consortium, regularly monitored the health, safetyand behaviour of their learners, and the issue arose of learners’ concerns regardingtheir personal safety around other people while using the devices. A member of staffnoted that: ‘The students can appear to be vulnerable due to some of their behavioursand the concern was if they are openly using a piece of equipment that is worth £500then they become a target to attack or theft.’

The learners were advised only to access the devices in a safe place. Learners whoneeded support to access the devices safely outside the classroom were given therequired support. In some cases, larger devices, such as the Samsung Q1, werereplaced by more discreet mobile devices for use outside and when the learner was back at college or home, the evidence collected was transferred back to theoriginal device.

Joseph Priestley College, a partner college of the Huddersfield consortium, reportedthat it was teachers, rather than learners, who were worried about possible mugging.

18 Health and safety

86


3 Venkatraman N and Henderson JC (1993). ‘Continuous strategic alignment: exploiting information technologycapabilities for competitive success.’ European Management Journal 11(2) pp139–49.

Institutions participating in MoLeNET in 2007/08 were asked to complete a simpleself-assessment exercise, the m-maturity survey, on three occasions, (pre-project,during the project and post-project) to assess the distance they had travelled towardsembedding mobile learning.

Development of the research instrument used for these surveys was informed by theMIT90s framework particularly Venkatraman’s five levels of business transformationachieved through the use of IT (Venkatraman and Henderson 1993),3 which has alsoinformed e-learning benchmarking and e-maturity work by UK education-sectoragencies such as Becta.

Key contacts for each of the participating institutions were asked to consider fourareas – senior management, teaching staff, IT department and the institution as awhole – to self-assess the status of their institution in each of these areas and toindicate for each, which of five statements (below) most accurately described thesituation at their institution.

Senior management

1. SMT are not interested in mobile learning.

2. SMT are interested in mobile learning (eg exploring funding opportunities).

3. SMT are actively supporting and engaging with initial implementation of mobilelearning (eg via a MoLeNET project).

4. SMT have a strategy for extending mobile learning to more departments in the future.

5. SMT have a strategy embedding mobile learning into delivery across the institution.

Teaching staff

1. No teaching staff are involved in mobile learning.

2. Some teaching staff are involved in mobile learning (eg via a MoLeNET project).

3. All teaching staff are being encouraged to think about how they could apply mobilelearning and/or are being offered mobile learning continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD).

4. Some teaching staff are embedding mobile learning into their delivery.

5. Most teaching staff are embedding mobile learning into their delivery.

19 Distance travelled by MoLeNETinstitutions

87



IT department

1. IT staff do not support the introduction of mobile learning (eg due to concerns that theintroduction of mobile learning could compromise security).

2. IT staff are providing some support for the introduction of mobile learning (eg somesupport for a MoLeNET project).

3. IT staff are actively involved in selection of technologies and/or implementation ofinfrastructure to enable introduction of mobile learning (eg a MoLeNET project).

4. IT staff are an integral part of a mobile learning/MoLeNET project team and arecommitted to helping to ensure the success of the project.

5. IT department has a strategy for supporting, extending and embedding the use ofmobile learning across the institution.

Mobile learning in your institution

1. Mobile learning is not used in any departments.

2. Some small-scale implementation/piloting of mobile learning is taking place.

3. Several departments are using mobile learning.

4. Most departments are using mobile learning.

5. Mobile learning is embedded into the culture of the institution supported by CPD and strategies for sustainability.

Respondents

In total, 41 institutions took part: 30 were lead colleges (two of which completed the first two parts of the survey only) and the remaining 11 were partner institutions(seven of which completed the first two parts of the survey only). So of the 32complete responses, 28 were from lead colleges and four from partner institutions.

Analysis

It has been possible to analyse responses in two ways; one, in terms of numbers ofresponses at each level for each category at each of the three points in time; and two,by calculating mean responses for each category at each point in time. This makes itpossible to see how ratings of level of m-maturity for each of the four categories wereplaced at different points in time, and also to gain a sense of how m-maturity acrossthe categories developed with time. Using Pearson’s chi-squared test of significance,a trend is apparent for all four areas from before the project to after. Although a strongcorrelation is found across all the three stages, it is largest between the ‘pre’ and‘during’ test stages.


Distance travelled by MoLeNET institutions 89

Figure 28 ‘M-maturity’ distance travelled – all indicators

Correlationcoefficient Significance

Pre -After Pre-during During-After Pre -After Pre-during During-After

SMT 0.589 0.682 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.290

Teachers 0.472 0.428 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.082

IT 0.496 0.497 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.406

Institution 0.605 0.706 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.784

Correlation Negative Positive

Small −0.3 to −0.1 0.1 to 0.3

Medium −0.5 to −0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Large −1.0 to −0.5 0.5 to 1.0

Distance travelled

In terms of developing m-maturity, the graph above shows that the least mature grouppre MoLeNET projects was the institution as a whole, with the most m-mature beingthe senior management team and the IT department. By the end of the academic yearimprovements had been made in all areas with the institution as a whole remainingthe least m-mature group but the IT department having moved to the most m-maturearea and having travelled the furthest.

5

4

3

2

1

0

Mean rating

1 = lowest level of m

aturity

5 = highest level of m

aturity

Pre MoLeNETmean rating During MoLeNET mean rating After MoLeNET mean rating

Mean m-maturity ratings before, during and at the end of MoLeNET

SMT

Teachers

IT

Institution



Senior management – distance travelled

Figure 29 ‘M-maturity’ distance travelled – SMT

Before MoLeNET many institutions reported that their senior management teams were interested in exploring mobile learning but none had actually developed astrategy for its development within the institution. By the end of the project, however,some senior management teams had developed a strategy for the extension of mobilelearning across more departments and the embedding of mobile learning into deliveryacross the institution.

Teachers – distance travelled

Figure 30 ‘M-maturity’ distance travelled – teaching staff

Before MoLeNET, many institutions reported that either no teaching staff, or only someteaching staff, were involved in mobile learning. There was some development overthe course of the project with a large proportion of the institutions reporting that allstaff are being encouraged to think about how they could apply mobile learning orbeing offered mobile learning training and some staff embedding mobile learning intotheir delivery.

SMT are not interested in mobile learning

SMT are interested in mobile learning (eg exploring funding opportunities)

SMT are actively supporting and engagingwith initial implementation of mobilelearning (eg via a MoLeNET project)

SMT have a strategy for extending mobile learning to more

departments in the future

SMT have a strategy embedding mobile learning into delivery across the institution

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PercentBefore

During

End

No teaching staff are involved in mobile learning

Some teaching staff are involved inmobile learning (eg via a MoLeNET project)

All teaching staff are being encouraged to think about how they could apply

mobile learning and/or are being offeredmobile leaning CPD

Some teaching staff are embeddingmobile learning into their delivery

Most teaching staff are embeddingmobile learning into their delivery

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percent

Before

During

End


Distance travelled by MoLeNET institutions 91

IT department – distance travelled

Figure 31 ‘M-maturity’ distance travelled – IT Department

The ‘m-maturity’ of IT departments showed considerable variation before, during andafter their institutions’ involvement in MoLeNET projects.

However, generally, the distance travelled represents a definite shift away fromreluctance to support the introduction of mobile learning and towards active support for,and commitment to, mobile learning as part of their institution’s future ICT strategy.

Institutional distance travelled

Figure 32 ‘M-maturity’ distance travelled – whole institution

IT staff do not support the introduction of mobile learning

IT staff are providing some support for the introduction of mobile learning

IT staff are actively involved in selection of technologies and/or enable

introduction of mobile learning

IT staff are an integral part of a mobilelearning/MoLeNET project team and

are committed the success of the project

IT department has a strategy for supportingextending and embedding the use ofmobile learning across the institution

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PercentBefore

During

End

Mobile learning is not used in any departments

Some small scaleimplementation/piloting of

mobile learning is taking place

Serveral departments are using mobile learning

Most departments are using mobile learning

Mobile learning is embedded into theculture of the institution supported byCPD and strategies for sustainability

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percent

Before

During

End



(NB. One remaining college at the first level of m-maturity by the end of the projectrepresents Wolverhampton, who were not due to begin mobile learning with learnersuntil after this survey. The institution has, however, been included as they have madesignificant efforts in planning and awareness raising.)

In most cases mobile learning was either not used at all or was only being used on asmall scale before the MoLeNET project. By the end of the project, several departmentsin many of the institutions were utilising mobile learning.

Please note that the data is representative of lead colleges, as a high proportion oflead colleges responded to the survey. However, in view of the low response frompartner institutions, it is difficult to say how representative it is of distance travelled by those institutions.

During the second phase of MoLeNET new projects will be asked to complete the ‘m-maturity’ surveys in the same way. Institutions who took part in MoLeNET in phaseone but are not participating via a MoLeNET project in phase two will also be asked tocomplete the self-assessment exercise at the end of 2009 to ascertain whether theyhave continued to expand and embed mobile learning.


All projects reported the intention to continue and to expand mobile learning in future.There was a very strong consensus that adequate staff development and support wouldbe essential to ensure the success of future mobile learning.

Suggestions relating to ensuring financial sustainability included:

� enabling learners to use their own mobile devices for learning and to accesscollege/school resources

� wireless networks throughout college/school campuses

� taking advantage of reasonably priced data-only mobile network contracts

� requiring learners to purchase mini notebooks/net books as part of the standardequipment required for their course

� including the cost of mini notebooks/net books in course fees

� generally expecting learners to provide their own mobile technology and onlyproviding it to those learners who cannot afford to buy their own

� enabling learners to purchase mobile technologies through their college or schooland pay by instalments.

Providing mobile technologies v. enabling use of learner-ownedtechnologies

A view increasingly frequently expressed by MoLeNET project managers and somesenior management was that in the longer term institutions should be seeking tofacilitate the use of learners’ personally owned mobile technologies either instead of or in addition to providing mobile technologies for learners to use.

MoLeNET capital funding has enabled projects to purchase mobile devices for issuingto learners. This has been done on a long-term basis for some cohorts of learners oron a short-term basis for a particular activity, lesson or excursion. However, manyprojects noted that most learners own a mobile phone and many also own iPods, or other MP3/MP4 players, and portable games machines.

Encouraging learners to use their own devices may have advantages in terms of:

� reducing capital costs for institutions

� reducing training needed, as learners will be more familiar with their own devices

� increasing the likelihood that technologies will continue to be updated withoutadditional costs to institutions

� avoiding negative reactions, experienced by some projects in the case of mobilephones, because learners did not want the inconvenience of carrying more thanone device.

20 The future and sustainability

93



Some projects reported their findings and opinions as follows.

Gloucestershire carried out a direct comparison between learners with issued iPodTouches (group A) and those using their own equipment (group B). A key benefit oflearners using their own devices was that this was not a one-size-fits-all solution.Learners were able to use the device that provided the most effective solution for theirspecific needs and preferences. Also, learners with issued devices were very focusedon the device itself, while those using their own equipment progressed more quicklyto discussing the suitability of their devices for learning.

Group B were more positive about the use of mobile devices for learning, perhapsbecause they had been able to overcome barriers with a different, more appropriatechoice of device. They were more determined to make it work and remained enthusiasticthroughout, making their own decisions and adapting learning activities to their ownlearning styles.

Importantly, learners in group A only had access to the issued iPod Touch, whilelearners in group B could use any mobile device they had. Group A suggested severalother options of mobile device that could be used including mobile phones, digitalcameras and games machines, and independently pointed out the benefit of usingone’s own devices, with specialised college equipment being used only when needed.Gloucestershire concluded that learners work best using their own devices and that itis important to ensure arrangements are made for those learners who do not haveaccess to mobile technologies.

Many of Weston consortium’s learners also preferred their own mobile phones to thecollege-issued PDAs, explaining that they felt the PDAs were more suited to businesspeople than learners.

However, Tower Hamlets found that learners using college-issued Sony PSPs to takephotographs while on an excursion discussed the pictures more intently than thoseusing their own mobile phones to take photographs. This was possibly because of thebetter quality of photographs viewed on the PSP screen. This suggests that institutionsneed to consider how they can provide a consistent quality of learning experience forall learners if learners use their own devices.

For financial and sustainability reasons, Bolton consortium also chose to allow learnersto use their own devices including mobile phones, PSPs and iPods. They felt thatlearners would benefit from being able to access resources on devices they alreadyowned and were familiar with, ensuring that learning content and activities could beaccessed at any time, in any location and learners would not need to rely on collegeinternet connectivity. Cornwall consortium felt that issues surrounding recharging ofdevices could have been better managed if learners had used, and therefore beenmore responsible for, their own devices.

Lewisham commented that where learners used their own SIM cards in a device, thisencouraged them to have it with them at all times thus increasing opportunities foreducational use. A few learners also mentioned the benefits of not having to carryaround both a phone and a camera. Stockport consortiumwanted learners to be ableto use both their own and college SIM cards in their issued devices, in the hope thatusing the device would become part of learners’ day-to-day activities. However, theyran into technical problems and learners decided to keep the SIM cards separate.

Some Stockport consortium learners stated that they preferred to keep the educationaland social functions of mobile devices separate. Similarly, some of New CollegeSwindon consortium’s learners had more than one iPod, choosing to use the college-issued one for educational podcasts and their own for non-educational podcasts andmusic. Worcester consortium, however, found that 62% of the learners asked hadloaded non-educational content, such as music, onto their college-issued MP3 player.


The future and sustainability 95

At Brockenhurst, although staff believed that the use of learners’ own devices wouldpromote sustainability of mobile learning, 70% of learners who reported having aninternet-enabled device said that they would not want the mLog software installed ontheir own device. It is not clear why.

Oaklands consortiumwere particularly interested to find out whether the introductionof MoLeMentors (a learner with an issued device paired up with a teacher with anissued device) in classes would encourage other learners to bring in their own mobiledevices for learning activities. There were mixed responses, with some learners bringingin their own devices but others concerned about possible costs.

On the other hand, Chichester College reported: ‘A straw poll of learners found they(the learners) would be prepared to pay £10 per month subscription (for internet access)if the project funded the devices.’

Huddersfield consortium observed:

The most significant recommendation for others developing the use of any kind oflearning technology is to accept that learners will increasingly want to make use oftheir own technology within our institutions, and to recognise that we need to adaptour environments for them rather than expecting them to adapt for our environment.That will cause challenges for IT departments, open debate on security issues, equality,classroom management and pedagogy. Conventional approaches to ban mobilephones don’t resonate with calls for learner-centred education and we can anticipatethat if we don’t realise the advantages of enabling learner-owned technology ourcompetitors will.

When learners can choose their own devices, are already familiar with their operationbefore they use them for learning, the devices are readily able to access the wholeinternet (rather than ‘mobile friendly’ sites) and fast flat-rate data connectivity isubiquitous, the only remaining problem will be how to maximise the learningopportunities available.


Accrington and Rossendale College

Aylesbury College, Buckingham School and National Star College

Bolton Community College, City College Manchester and MANCAT (now TheManchester College), Oldham College

Boston College

Bournville College

Brockenhurst College

Cardinal Newman College

Chichester College and Sussex Downs College

City of Wolverhampton College and City of Wolverhampton LEA

Cornwall College, Helston Community College, Roseland Community College,Liskeard School and Community College, Fowey Community College

Coulsdon College

East Berkshire College, Berkshire College of Agriculture, Langley Wood andChurchmead School

Eccles College, Salford College, Pendleton College and Langdon College

Gateshead College, Newcastle College and City of Sunderland College

Gloucestershire College and National Star College

Havering Sixth Form College

Huddersfield College, Leeds College of Technology, Huddersfield New College,Wakefield College, Shipley College, Joseph Priestley College and Pontefract NewCollege

Kingston College

Lewisham College

Lowestoft College

Matthew Boulton College and Sutton Coldfield College

New College Swindon, Wiltshire College, Swindon College, Cirencester College

City College Norwich, The Hewett School, City of Norwich School, Earlham High School,Framingham Earl High School, Notre Dame High School, Attleborough High School,Wymondham High School, Wymondham College, Old Buckenham High School andHethersett High School

Oaklands College, North Hertfordshire College, West Hertfordshire College, andHertfordshire Regional College

Appendix 1MoLeNET 2007/08 colleges andconsortia

96


Appendix 1 97

Regent College and Gateway College

Rotherham College and Yorkshire Coast College

South Thames College, Battersea Technology College, John Paul II RC School, ChestnutGrove, Salesian College, Southfields Community College, Ernest Bevin College andWandsworth City Learning Centre

Stockport College and Trafford College

Stratford-upon-Avon College

Tower Hamlets College

Weston College, Broadoak Maths and Community College and Priory Community School

Worcester College of Technology, Kidderminster College, Worcester Sixth Form College,Royal National College for the Blind, Herefordshire College of Technology, EveshamCollege, North East Worcestershire College and Hereford College of Arts


3G Third generation (3G) wireless network; offers faster data transfer rates than previousversions (eg 2G)

3GP A type of video recorded by many mobile phones; 3GP is a simplified version of MPEG-4

ADSL An asymmetric digital subscriber line that enables faster data transmission overcopper telephone lines than a conventional voiceband modem

Beaming Using wireless communication to exchange data between two devices; see entries forinfra-red transmission and BluetoothTM

Blog Short for ‘web log’, a blog is essentially an online journal or diary; generally, alongsidetheir messages and/or entries bloggers can also post photos, audio and video files tocreate their own mini website. Blogs are ideal for use in education as reflective logs oras part of wider communities of practice. Viewers can comment on a blog, but cannot change it

BluetoothTM BluetoothTM is a technology that enables your computer, mobile phone, mouse,keyboard, PDA or anything with a BluetoothTM chip to communicate by short-rangeradio instead of cables. This is a free functionality wherever BluetoothTM is installed

Firewall A system configured to permit or deny computer traffic between different securitydomains based on a set of rules and other criteria

Flash® Adobe® Flash® (previously called Shockwave® Flash® and Macromedia® Flash®)is a set of multimedia software created by Macromedia and currently developed anddistributed by Adobe Systems; available on some mobile platforms

Flash Memory Flash memory is a non-volatile memory device that retains its data when the power is removed

Geotagging Adding geographical identification data to various media such as websites or images

GPRS General Packet Radio System. Offers data transfer, albeit significantly slower than 3G.

GPS GPS (Global Positioning System) refers to the use of satellite-to-handheld receiversignals to determine location

Hotsyncing (HotSync®) The primary method for transferring data and programs between a mobile device and a PC, eg a PDA is inserted into a special cradle and files are automatically‘synchronised’ – ie ‘compared’ so that older versions on one device are replaced by newer ones on the other device

Infra-red Infra-red transmission refers to energy in the region of the electromagnetic transmissionradiation spectrum at wavelengths longer than those of visible light, but shorter thanthose of radio waves. Infrared is used in a variety of wireless communications andcontrol applications, eg home entertainment remote-control boxes, wireless local areanetworks, links between notebook computers and desktop computers, intrusiondetectors etc. BluetoothTM is becoming a more reliable form of ‘beaming’

Jaiku A popular micro-blogging site (now part of Google) Ideal for forming communities ofpractice and for people on the move; see http://jaiku.com

Appendix 2Glossary

98


Appendix 2 99

Janet.txt SMS messaging service for the education sector; see www.pageone.co.uk/Janettxt

Java™ Java is a programming language originally developed by Sun Microsystems and isplatform-independent; see www.javascript.com

Linux An open source computer operating system based on Unix. Currently one of the lessermobile phone operating systems, Linux made a big impact in 2007/08 by being thedefault operating system on the Asus Eee PC (UMPC)

Megapixel Quite simply, a megapixel is 1,000 pixels. Pixels are tiny, tile-like picture elements anddigital images consist of many thousands of these. The higher the megapixel count,the more closely packed these elements are and the sharper the image is on screen

Memory Media Flash memory cards; these are solid-state electronic memory data storage devicesused with all kinds of devices. They are small, convenient, fairly reliable, rugged andrewritable. There are also many types: SD Card, Compact Flash, etc. See http://memorycards.notlong.com

Micro-blog This, as the name suggests, is an abbreviated blogging experience. Users contributebrief blog-like comments; usually has a limit on the characters used (140) in much thesame way as a text message; allows contributions from mobile devices, eg Jaiku, Twitter

MOBLOG This is short for mobile blog; mainly featuring posts sent by mobile phone

MP3 MP3 employs a compression technique, with bits of information being discarded toallow data to be compressed into files that are relatively small in comparison with.WAV (see) files but which retain subjective CD quality

MPEG-4 This is also a compression format for audio and video

Operating system (OS) The base software of a computer device; mobile OSs include Palm OS®, PocketPC,Android™ and Symbian™

Personal Digital Assistant A small handheld computer typically providing a calendar, contacts address list,(PDA) calculator and notetaking applications. It may also include other applications, eg

a web browser and a media player. Small keyboards and pen-based input systems are most commonly used to input data

PIM Personal Information Manager refers to applications for computing devices thatorganise personal information, such as addresses, dates and task lists; most handheldmobile devices have this capability

Podcast (a) This is a term that has been popularised by the use of MP3 players (iPods specifically)and is essentially a multimedia broadcast hosted on a website. It can be audio – orvideo-based and is delivered in a format that is compatible with computers and mostmobile devices, generally MP3 or MPEG-4; a podcast can be regularly updated andautomatically downloaded through software such as iTunes® and RSS feeds

Podcast (b) although the term above is technically correct, more colloquially, a podcast has come to mean any type of audio file that is recorded by, or for use on an MP3 device;the recording may or may not have been downloaded from a website

PMP Personal media player – a device capable of storing and playing digital media, eg an Archos

PSP Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP™) – a handheld games console

QR code A two-dimensional barcode which a camera phone equipped with the correct readersoftware can scan to provide information for the user. For example, information aboutbus times and numbers can be accessed from a QR code placed at a bus stop

RSS feed Really Simple Syndication – it is a means of sharing and broadcasting content from a website. Items are automatically downloaded into a special ‘Reader’ or publishedonto another website or device



SD™ card Secure Digital Memory Card. The standard SD™ card capacities range from 8mb to 4gb.More recent updates to the system, SDHC, have increased the capacity to 32gb. MiniSD and microSD are popular on many mobile phones

Shozu Shozu (www.shozu.com) provides a service that allows mobile devices to interactmore fully with other online services, eg a MOBLOG

Smartphone A mobile phone with PC-like functionality, For some, a smartphone is a phone that hasa Windows-based OS while for others it might mean that there are advanced PIM (seeentry above) capabilities and a good camera. In all cases, the device will have fullinternet capabilities and often also a full QWERTY keyboard

SMS Short Message Service (SMS) – better known as text messages (of up to 160 characters)via mobile phones

Streaming A way of sending audio and video files over the Internet in such a way that the usercan view or listen to the file while it is being transferred. See entry for You Tube

Symbian™ A consortium of PDA and mobile phone manufacturers, which use the Symbianoperating system (www.symbian.com) formerly called Psion EPOC

Tablet PC A Tablet PC is a wireless PC that allows a user to take notes using natural handwritingwith a stylus, digital pen, or on a touch screen. It is similar in size and thickness to a paper notepad. There are two formats, a convertible model with an integratedkeyboard and display that rotates 180 degrees and can be folded down over thekeyboard, or a slate style together with a removable keyboard. The user’s handwrittennotes, which can be edited and revised, can also be indexed and searched or sharedvia e-mail or mobile phone

Twitter A popular micro-blogging site (www.twitter.com). Ideal for forming communities ofpractice and for keeping in touch on the move

Ultra-mobile PC (UMPC) Ultra-mobile PCs are the result of a joint development by Microsoft, Intel and Samsung.The original definition for a UMPC included a screen size of 7 inches or smaller, somelater models, while not increasing in size overall, include screen sizes up to 8.9inches. According to Microsoft and its partners, the devices are intended for portableproductivity and entertainment. UMPCs may run a full version of the Windows XPoperating system

VLE Abbreviation for virtual learning environment, a software system designed to supportteaching and learning in an educational setting

WAV A standard format for storing sound in computer files

Web 2.0 A term given to an evolution of the World Wide Web and can be described as a rangeof technologies and functionality which enables anyone to have a presence on, and‘author’ content on, the World Wide Web. Encompasses technologies such as blogs,wikis and sundry other forms of interaction. Provides many opportunities for interactionvia mobile devices

Wi-Fi™ Sometimes known as ‘wireless broadband’ or wireless fidelity, this is the trade namefor the popular wireless technology used in home networks, mobile phones, videogames etc

Windows Mobile Operating system developed by Microsoft for some mobile devices

Wiki A type of website that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit or changethe site’s content. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective toolfor collaborative authoring

You Tube A popular video-hosting website; videos can be contributed and distributed viamobile devices, as well as PCs; see www.youtube.com


Phase one of MoLeNET (2007/08) involved 75 colleges and 18 schools,approximately 10,000 learners and 2,000 staff, in 32 mobile learning projects.The Learning and Skills Council provided funding for handheld technologies andsupporting infrastructure. The LSN MoLeNET Support programme provided adviceand guidance; systems and materials; face-to-face, on-line and on-site trainingand continuing professional development; on-line support including peer-to-peersupport and knowledge and resource sharing. LSN research, and LSN supportedpractitioner-led action research, explored the impact of introducing mobilelearning on learner retention and achievement, teaching and learning, learnerexperiences and participating institutions. The findings of the research aredescribed in this publication.

Theim

pactofmobile

learningExam

iningw

hatitmeans

forteachingand

learningLSN

The impact ofmobile learningExamining what it means forteaching and learning


LSNFifth Floor, Holborn Centre120 Holborn, London EC1N 2AD

Tel 020 7492 5000Email [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-84572-820-5090068RS/07/09/3000© LSN 2009

Learning and Skills Network trading as LSN. A company limited by guarantee.Registered in England no 5728105. Registered as a charity no 1113456

Making learning work for:

� Further education & higher education

� Local authorities & schools

� Public services

� Work-based learning

� International

Documents

2010 The impact of mobile learning_Examining what it means for teaching and learning