A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools

A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools

Wan Ng and Howard Nicholas

Wan Ng is Associate Professor in Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching and Science Education in the Schoolof Education at the University of New South Wales. Howard Nicholas is Senior Lecturer in Language Education inthe Faculty of Education at La Trobe University. They have been working on various aspects of learning with mobiledevices for six years in a wide range of educational contexts. They have researched various attempts to implement andsustain initiatives for learning with mobile devices. Address for correspondence: Dr Wan Ng, School of Education,University of New South Wales, Anzac Parade, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]

AbstractWhile there are studies that have looked at the implementation of mobile learning ineducational institutions, particularly the identification of issues encountered, fewstudies have explored holistically the elements that sustain mobile learning. This studydissects the findings of a longitudinal study of a secondary school adopting a personaldigital assistant programme and proposes a person-centred sustainable model for mobilelearning.

BackgroundMobile technologies are one of the fastest growing areas of technology. For educators, they offeran appealing opportunity for learners to transcend teacher-defined knowledge or approaches byaccessing multiple, alternative sources of information. Hardware advances that allow pocket-sized minicomputers to be carried around easily have combined with improved wireless networksto increase the pace and scale of attempts to innovate in learning and teaching, as well asencouraging investigations into mobile devices as classroom tools.

Practitioner Notes

What is already known about this topic

• Studies have mainly focused on externally funded projects.• Leadership style is associated with the take up of new technology innovation.• There are multiple dimensions to sustainability in integrating information and com-

munication technology in education but pedagogy does not have an explicit place.

What this paper adds

• A person-centred model of sustainability for mobile learning that integrates multiplefactors, including pedagogy.

• An explicit view of the role of leadership.• Even well-planned innovations can be not sustainable.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• Inclusive and communicative leadership styles matter.• Agreed purposes for the use of the technology are central for building trust.• Teachers and students’ voices must be listened to.

British Journal of Educational Technology (2012)doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01359.x

© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, OxfordOX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

The pace of engagement with educational applications of mobile technologies while still con-sidered to be in its infancy (Liaw, Hatala & Huang, 2010) has picked up dramatically in the last5 years. A LibXplore search of the education databases Australian Education Index (Informit),ERIC and the Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts in CSA (Cambridge ScientificAbstracts) with the key words &“learning with mobile technology” yielded 287 publicationsrelevant to learning with mobile technologies dating from 2000–2010. Of these publications,88% were in the 5 years from 2006–2010. The graph in Figure 1 shows the surge in researchactivities after 2004. The literature search indicated substantial variation related to the devicesin terms of educational settings as well as the specific technology and theoretical frameworksused. As might be expected in an emerging field, there is no consolidated view of how to sustainthe practices or opportunities that are being explored. Our research addressed the followingissues: in a formal educational institution, how do the interactions between stakeholders andbetween users and devices influence the sustainability of a mobile learning innovation in thatinstitution? In exploring these issues in the school, it became obvious to us that there was aneed to conceptualise the dimensions of an innovation that would contribute to or detractfrom its sustainability. In elaborating these dimensions, we developed a model that focused onthe people involved, and how their relationships with one another and perceptions of the rolesthat the mobile devices could or should play shaped the overall sustainability of the innovation.In this paper, we outline why person-centred notions of sustainability are important fortechnological innovation and how they relate to the wider context of a school’s attempts toinnovate.

Sustainable mobile-based learningMost studies of mobile learning are short-term, funded projects where access to technical supportand pedagogy are often predetermined through sponsorship. The longevity of these projectsbeyond the funding period is usually unclear. There are few studies that conceptualise sustainablelearning with mobile devices.

Reflecting its variable, context-dependent and context-making capacities, many researchers (Fro-hberg, Göth & Schwabe, 2009; Koszalka & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, 2010; Traxler, 2007) have high-lighted the lack of a definitive conceptual framework for mobile learning. Definitions of mobilelearning focus on access (Parsons & Ryu, 2006) and support for learning in multiple locationswithout physical network connections (Geogiev, Georgieva & Smrikorov, 2004). Pachler (2009)asserted that mobile devices enable users to “re-interpret their everyday life contexts as potentialresources for learning” (p. 5) while Looi et al (2010) emphasised personalised, one-to-one tech-nology enabled learning. Other researchers have identified requirements for mobile learning,which include permanency, accessibility, immediacy, interactivity, situating of instructional

Figure 1: Graph of the number of mobile learning publications from 2000 to 2010

2 British Journal of Educational Technology

© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology © 2012 BERA.

activities and adaptability (Ogata & Yano, 2004), but not for its sustainability. Sustainability is acrucial issue since educational institutions are usually required to make substantial investmentsin mobile devices and associated technologies to initiate mobile learning programs. If a particularprogramme is not sustained, the investment will have been wasted and further innovation will bethreatened.

To build these issues into thinking about innovations in mobile learning, we need a moreexplicit model of sustainable practices with handheld computers in institutionalised education.There is currently no model of sustainability for mobile learning in schools in the literature.Indeed, Traxler (2010, p. 63) argued that mobile learning (at least as negotiated “betweentechnologists and educators”) is incommensurate with existing structures of formal educationand therefore unsustainable. His argument draws on the multiple ways in which mobile com-munications challenge central assumptions of formal education. Traxler would seem to suggestthat mobile learning should not be brought into formal education (or alternatively, that formaleducational institutions should surrender their attempts to engage with mobile learning).However, schools are still attempting to reconcile institutions of formal education with mobilelearning. Our focus, therefore, is whether/how those attempts can be made sustainable. We donot (yet) accept Traxler’s position that mobile learning and formal education are incommen-surate, though it is clear that the very issues raised by Traxler echoing Pachler, Bachmair andCook (2010), who Traxler cited, present serious challenges to existing assumptions about whatis normal in formal education. However, there is, in our view, no in-principle reason whyassumptions of normality can not be changed. If they are to be changed, they must beacknowledged and understood. Other researchers (Looi et al, 2010) have assumed commensu-rability of formal education and mobile learning by proposing a framework and researchagenda for bridging formal and informal learning that leverage mobile technology for sustain-able, seamless learning.

Drawing on a more general frame, a possible model is Cisler’s (n.d.) framework for sustainabilityof information and communication technology (ICT) in education. The model contains fourcomponents for sustainability: (1) economic sustainability that refers to the financial capability ofan educational institution to ensure the continuity of ICT-enabled programmes over a longperiod of time. Litchfield, Dyson, Lawrence and Zmijewska (2007) indicated that a major hurdlein the sustainability of many mobile learning projects is overcoming the cost associated withmobile hardware, software, connection and usage charges. There are also additional costsrelated to the maintenance of the infrastructure and professional development of staff. Cisler(n.d.) indicated that it is necessary to develop multiple channels of funding, including throughpartnerships with the community. Community participation connects economic sustainabilitywith the social and political aspects of sustainability; (2) social sustainability that addresses theinvolvement of the wider community in mobile learning projects such as parents, politicalleaders and business partners (eg, computer companies) and the contribution of these stake-holders to the duration or growth of the innovation; (3) political sustainability that refers to therole of leadership and institutional policies required to adopt and maintain mobile learningprogrammes. In bringing new technologies and new programmes into the institution, theleaders (principals, heads of schools/faculties or coordinators of programmes) need to be able toidentify the requirements for successful adoption that is sustainable and manage the changeprocess, eg, ensuring teacher readiness; and (4) technological sustainability that involves decisionmaking on the type of technology that will serve the institutional needs and goals for extendedperiods of time. Deciding factors could be the cost of the technology or the latest innovation (eg,the recent surge in iPad/tablets uptake). Technical support includes access to infrastructure andtechnical assistance to ensure that the mobile technology serves the needs of the teachers andstudents. We think that an additional dimension is needed in this framework: (5) pedagogical

Framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools 3


sustainability is the fifth dimension needed for ICT sustainability in education. It refers toteaching/learning practices that support the long-term goals of the mobile learning pro-grammes. Pedagogical sustainability defines the roles of teachers and learners in facilitatinglearning with mobile devices, the preparation and practices that go with it and the nature ofpeer collegiality required to ensure the best pedagogical practices. It also includes the informallearning that mobile devices facilitate and how this connects with the formal aspects of learningwith mobile devices. This is the area where Traxler (2010) identified commensurability as theissue.

These five components acknowledge the complex relationships between the technical aspects andthe people-related factors that include the interpersonal relationships between leadership andmanagement (principal and programme coordinator), teachers, students, technicians and thewider community (parents, suppliers, policy makers, software developers and researchers).Hence, we think that at the centre of any sustainable framework for learning with ICT are thepeople involved. Al Neimat (2005), citing Weinberger (2004), stated that the success of ITprojects in business is dependent on the process of project management and its alignment withthe culture of the organisation. Smith (2008), in agreement with Al Neimat’s argument, statedthat IT projects fail not because of the technology but because of the people. He indicated that thesuccess or failure of a project depends on the team dynamics, the skills and effectiveness of thepeople involved, their openness to change and their ability to focus. There needs to be a focus onpeople first (see also Inan & Lowther, 2010). Hence, the conceptual framework we propose for thisstudy re-contextualises the human factors that are embedded in Cisler’s framework upfront toenable our theorising of sustainable mobile learning programmes to explore how the stakehold-ers interact with each other and with the technology. The person-centred model, shown inFigure 2, indicates the relationships between players in a mobile learning programme and thelevels of intersection (interactions) between them and with the technology. These interactionsrequire communication (negotiation, consultation, feedback), support and trust between stake-holders. It is in the successful interactions between the key players that the economic, political,social, technical and pedagogical elements of sustainability presented at the beginning of thepaper will be satisfied. As shown in Figure 2, pedagogical sustainability as an issue is embedded inthe interpersonal relationships between teachers and students. These relationships are funda-mentally framed by teachers’ (and students’) views of how the teaching/learning process is to beconstructed. As a result, the elements of Cisler’s framework are not separately identified in ourmodel since the roles they play will vary according to the interactions between the variousstakeholders. In this paper, we will use the person-centred model to explore the varied influenceson the sustainability of the particular innovation.

The person-centred model in Figure 2 shows the various stakeholders and their actions thatcontribute to the sustainability of mobile learning programmes in schools. At the core of theseactions are good communication and support, being consultative and maintaining trust betweenmanagement, teachers, students and technical support personnel. Teachers are central to thesuccess and sustainability of mobile learning, as shown in Figure 2, by the largest number ofdirect interactions with other people involved—leadership and management (principal andmLearn coordinator), parents, students and technician. It is essential that leaders consult andprovide support (technical, professional and emotional) to teachers. Leaders need to work withthe teachers to create a trusting learning environment with the students and incorporate theinformal learning with mobile devices that the students would bring into the classroom. At atechnical level, teachers need to be comfortable with, and develop positive attitudes towards,mobile devices and value mobile learning. Similarly, the students need to learn to value learningwith mobile devices and to take responsibility for the devices so as to use them to participateeffectively in formal learning.



The model provides a framework to investigate the actions of a secondary school in Australia inits attempt to introduce and sustain an mLearn programme using personal digital assistants(PDAs). The pedagogical affordances of PDAs as mobile learning devices in education have beendescribed in numerous papers (eg, Ng & Nicholas, 2007; Nicholas & Ng, 2009; Shih, Chuang &Hwang, 2011). The study spanned approximately 3 years, starting near the end of 2007 withobservations of the staff in-house professional development conference and ending in 2010 withthe final, follow-up informal interview with the project coordinator. While PDAs have beendiminishing in popularity in the last 2 years, particularly with the launch of the first version ofthe iPad in mid-2010 and the subsequent influx of tablets, the focus of the argument is not theparticular technology but rather the ongoing dilemma presented by overall innovation in tech-nology and competition between an established innovation and the “next, best thing” in technol-ogy. We identify the challenges faced in attempts to implement mobile learning if it is to besuccessful and sustainable, regardless of the type of devices adopted. Using the model proposed,we focus on the interrelationships between the various stakeholders and their interactions withthe devices in the programme.

Supplier; software

developers; government

bodies; media; researchersNegotiate;

promote

Consult;delegate

autonomy; trustConsult;

feedback Negotiate

costs;

consult;

inform;

feedback

Consult;

feedback

Feedback is two-

way communication

Consult;

support;

feedback

Trust;

autonomy;

feedback

Phase1:volunteer teachers

Phase 2:assigned teachers

TOP: principal

LEADERSHIP ANDMANAGEMENT

MIDDLE: mLearn coordinator

Mentor; role

modelling

Consult;

feedback

Regular

training;

value

mLearn;

develop

positive

attitudes;

be

responsible

Regular Report; Report;

training;

value

mLearn;

develop

positive

attitudes

Communicate

support; trust

Printer NetworkIWB

Hardware and software

support

Pedagogy

Data

projector

Wireless

access

points

PD

Pedagogy

Formal/informal

learning

Figure 2: Person-centred sustainable model for mobile learning



Context of the studyThe Australian school for this study was chosen because of the enthusiasm and active involve-ment of the principal in initiating the programme and the pioneering nature of this initiative insecondary education in Australia. The principal’s vision for the mLearn programme was toenable the students to have access to a ubiquitous tool with a range of multimedia resourcesthat could provide just-in-time information for learning, to encourage more cooperative learn-ing between the students and also between the students and teachers and to develop betterorganisational skills in students. The principal was technologically savvy and an active partici-pant in the programme. His plan was to be the first in the state to implement such a programmein a secondary school. In contrast to most of the reported research on mobile learning whereexternal funds were available, funds and support for this programme were internal to theschool. It was his plan to begin with one PDA class for year seven and to expand the number ofmLearn classes progressively over the years. Other ideals that were expressed were to increasethe personalisation of learning and learner independence, renew “outdated pedagogical prac-tices” and to make education relevant to the young people and more aligned with their livesoutside the classroom. Parents enrolling their children in the PDA programme purchased thedevices for their children.

Negotiations were carried out by the principal for the purchase of the HP iPAQ PDAs and forsoftware and other features such as metal protective casings for the PDAs. A set of 20 PDAs waspurchased for a group of volunteer teachers to explore in the 7 months prior to the new schoolyear when the programme would be implemented. The volunteer teachers trialled the use of thePDAs in their classrooms. An mLearn programme coordinator was appointed, who was also thee-learning coordinator of the school. The principal also approved and negotiated for the expan-sion of the infrastructure to adopt PDAs usage with the purchase and installation of wireless hubsand access ports—a total of three hubs and 25 access ports.

The principal was also actively involved in the professional development of the staff. He hadexplored a suite of software for the teachers’ PDAs and produced a manual with step-by-stepinstructions on how to use mobile applications such as the eBook reader, quiz-making andtext-to-speech software and how to create podcasts. Manuals were also produced for learninghow to set the PDAs up and the use of their general features such as managing the wirelessconnectivity (Internet Explorer and Bluetooth), synchronisation, using Outlook, Office Mobileand other applications (eg, remote display, VsPainter and a scientific calculator).

The Thinking Tool software (in Australia) (School newsletter, May 2009) whose development wascommissioned by the school during the first year of the programme was to be the central workingtool for the teachers and students in the following year of implementation. It was a self-designedtool that emphasised the fostering of higher order thinking skills and made use of templates torepresent tools such as De Bono’s categories of thinking and Bloom’s revised taxonomy forteachers to incorporate into the students’ learning.

MethodConsistent with the pragmatic paradigm (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), we used a mixedmethod (quantitative and qualitative) approach to answering the research question. Ethicsapproval for the research was obtained from both the State Department of Education and theuniversity that supported the research.

Fifty-seven of the students and 25 teachers participated in the research. We were able to partici-pate in and observe the 2-day residential in-house professional development (mLearn conference)that was conducted about 5 months prior to the implementation of the mLearn programme. Theconference contained show-and-tell opportunities for those teachers who had trialled the PDAs,



opportunities to build confidence with the device and relationships with peers—sharing expertiseand mentoring novice teachers. The conference mood was one of excitement. The teachersshowed a willingness to share and learn.

The study focused largely on the leadership/management (principal and mLearn coordinator),teachers and students and the interactions between them and with the mobile devices. Interwo-ven with the interactions were the participants’ attitudes towards the devices. These aspects wereelicited both quantitatively and qualitatively as shown in Table 1.

The pre- and post-questionnaires contained a similar set of 5-point Likert-scale (strongly agree tostrongly disagree) statements designed to elicit the students’ and teachers’ views of the technicaland learning/teaching aspects of using PDAs in the classroom. Twenty questions (see Table 2)were common to both the students and teachers’ pre- and post-questionnaires. An additionalthree questions were in the teachers’ questionnaires to probe their perceptions of the motiva-tional aspects of their students’ learning and whether they taught better with PDAs (see Table 3).More detailed responses were elicited through the open questions shown in Table 4. The openquestions in the pre-questionnaires probed for expectations. The post-questionnaires probed forachievements or issues that had been encountered.

Observations of how staff engaged with the professional learning at the residential in-houseconferences occurred in the planning and first year reflection stages. Observations of how stu-dents used the PDAs and engaged with the learning were also made. Attempts were made toobserve at least once each subject area that the year seven students studied. However, the classesthat we were invited to observe were limited to one each of history, English and mathematicsclasses and two science classes.

The semi-structured focus group interviews at 12 months into the mLearn programme werestructured around finding out whether there were differences in the opinions or experiences ofthe students and teachers that had emerged over the course of the year.

Table 1: Method of data gathering

Activity (timing of research) Method of data gathering

Preparation for mLearnprogramme (first to sixthmonth of the research)

Participation in and observation of the first residential in-houseprofessional development mLearn conference

First year of implementation ofthe mLearn programme(seventh to 18th month ofthe research )

Start of first year of implementation:• Pre-questionnaires with students and teachersThroughout the year:• Observation of classes and the regular in-school mLearn

programme meetingsEnd of first year of implementation:• Post-questionnaire with students and staff• Focus group interview with students• Focus group interview with teachers• Interview with programme coordinator• Interview with principal• Observation of the second residential in-house professional

development mLearn conferenceSecond year of implementation

of the mLearn programme:(19th–30th month of theresearch)

Reflective journal kept by programme coordinator and follow upinformal interviews



Data analysisPaired sample t-tests, using SPSS, were performed to analyse the quantitative data from thepre- and post-questionnaire responses of teachers and students at the start of the mLearnprogramme and about 12 months later. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alphavalues (for internal consistency of responses) were also calculated. Qualitative data (responsesfrom open questions and interviews) were analysed for themes and then coded against thosethemes.

ResultsImplementation of the mLearn programmeThe idea of a PDA programme was novel and popular with the parents, resulting in three classesof 66 year seven students being formed. In the following sections, we present the data relating tothe students’ and teachers’ thinking at the start of the mLearn programme and 12 months into

Table 2: Means, standard deviations and t-tests results for students’ responses in the pre- and post-questionnaires

Five-point Likert scale students’ questionnairestatements

Pre-questionnaire(start of PDA programme)

mean (SD)

Post-questionnaire(12 months later)

mean (SD)

Technical aspects of using PDAs1. I know how to use a PDA. 3.12 (1.151)* 4.28 (0.854)*4. PDAs are easy to use. 3.35 (0.855)* 4.03 (0.816)*7. I need special training to use a PDA. 2.68 (0.855)* 1.90 (1.103)*

15. Writing with a PDA is easier than writingby hand on paper.

3.14 (0.915)* 2.26 (1.222)*

16. The screen on the PDA makes it difficult todo my school work.

2.70 (0.906) 3.09 (1.330)

17. It is easy to access the Internet with PDAs. 3.47 (0.758)* 2.81 (1.395)*18. With a PDA it is very easy to change what I

have written.3.51 (0.782) 3.53 (1.096)

19. With a PDA, it is easy to send messages tomy friends.

3.65 (0.834)* 2.86 (1.329)*

Learning with PDAs2. PDAs help me learn my subjects better. 3.37 (0.899)* 2.84 (1.105)*3. I like using technology for learning. 4.14 (1.060) 3.86 (0.945)5. PDAs make learning easier. 3.80 (0.773)* 3.05 (0.981)*6. I am excited about using a PDA 4.81 (0.441)* 3.57 (1.230)*8. PDAs make learning fun. 4.02 (0.813)* 3.13 (1.187)*9. I learn better with technology. 4.00 (0.874)* 3.50 (1.095)*

10. With a PDA I can do my school workanywhere at anytime.

3.95 (0.832)* 3.47 (1.112)*

11. There are no disadvantages in using PDAsin the classroom.

3.61 (1.065)* 2.71 (1.211)*

12. PDAs make learning more interesting. 4.09 (0.808)* 3.45 (1.187)*13. PDAs help me organise my time better. 3.77 (0.786)* 3.28 (1.206)*14. PDAs do the same things as a desktop

computer.3.40 (0.821)* 2.74 (1.163)*

20. With a PDA it is easy to take my schoolwork home.

3.96 (0.823)* 3.43 (1.272)*

Pre-survey conducted at start of PDA programme, post-survey conducted about 12 months later. Cron-bach’s alpha for pre-survey = 0.789 and for post-survey = 0.901 (n = 57).*Marks significant differences between pre- and post-surveys, p < 0.05.PDA, personal digital assistant; SD, standard deviation.



the programme (end of first year of implementation) to look for factors that did (or did not)sustain mobile learning within the person-centred theoretical model of mobile learning.

Students’ perspectivesThe reasons for being in the mLearn programmeFour main themes related to why the students elected to be in the mLearn programme:

• to gain knowledge about new technology (29% of total responses);• to help them get more organised (16%);• to help with and improve their learning (41%);• to comply with parental wishes to join the programme (14%).

Anticipated and actual useThe results in Table 5 show that similar themes could be identified in both the pre (anticipateduse)- and post (actual use)-questionnaire responses. The PDA uses identified were accessing the

Table 3: Means, standard deviations and t-tests results of teachers’ responses in pre- and post-questionnaires

Pre-questionnaire(start of PDA programme)

mean (SD)

Post-questionnaire(10 months later)

mean (SD)

Technical aspects of using PDAs1. I feel confident that I know how to use a PDA. 3.59 (1.054) 4.00 (0.775)4. PDAs are easy to use. 3.64 (0.658) 3.73 (0.647)7. I need special training to use a PDA. 3.73 (1.032) 3.46 (1.128)

15. Writing with a PDA is easier than writing by handon paper.

2.32 (1.170)* 1.73 (1.009)*

16. The screen on the PDA is too small for my needs. 3.18 (1.181) 3.46 (1.214)17. It is easy to access the Internet with PDAs. 3.09 (0.971) 3.09 (1.136)18. With a PDA, it is very easy to change what I have

written.3.18 (0.853) 3.09 (1.044)

19. With a PDA, it is easy to send messages to peoplein the same room.

3.23 (0.752) 3.00 (0.894)

Teaching with PDAs2. PDAs definitely help me teach my subjects better. 3.05 (0.722) 2.91 (0.831)3. I like using technology for teaching. 4.00 (1.024) 3.91 (1.136)5. PDAs make teaching easier. 2.80 (0.616) 2.56 (0.726)6. I am excited about using a PDA. 3.95 (0.899) 3.73 (0.786)8. PDAs make teaching fun for me. 3.81 (1.030) 3.70 (1.160)9. I teach better with technology. 3.55 (1.057) 3.64 (0.924)

10. With a PDA, I can prepare my work for schoolanywhere at anytime.

3.14 (1.082) 2.73 (1.104)

11. There are no disadvantages in using PDAs in theclassroom.

2.27 (0.883)* 1.82 (0.751)*

12. PDAs make teaching more interesting for me. 3.55 (0.911) 3.46 (1.128)13. PDAs help me organise my time better. 2.86 (0.854) 2.55 (0.934)14. PDAs do the same things as a desktop computer. 2.36 (0.727) 2.18 (0.874)20. With a PDA, it is easy to take my school work

home.2.91 (0.921) 2.64 (1.120)

21. Students are more motivated to learn with a PDA. 3.55 (1.011) 3.36 (1.0206)22. Students learn better with a PDA. 2.91 (0.811) 2.82 (1.079)23. I teach better with a PDA. 2.68 (0.646)* 2.36 (0.674)*

Pre-questionnaire was conducted at the start of the PDA programme, post-survey 18 months later. Cron-bach’s alpha for pre-survey = 0.808 and for post-survey = 0.834 (n = 11)*Marks significant differences between pre- and post-surveys, p < 0.05.PDA, personal digital assistant; SD, standard deviation.



Internet for research purposes, entertainment, communication, for learning, doing homework,being better organised and doing class work. From Table 5, 23% of the students anticipated usingthe PDAs to access the Internet, while only 13% of the students reported actually doing so. Incontrast, there was slightly more use of the tools in the PDAs than anticipated (25% compared

Table 4: Open questions in students’ and teachers’ pre- and post-questionnaires

Students Teachers

Pre-questionnaire(open questions)at start of themLearnprogramme

• The most important reason for me tojoin the mLearn programme is . . .

• The things that I will be able to dowith my personal digital assistant (PDA)are (list four to five) . . .

• The most important reason for me tojoin the mLearn programme is . . .

• The things that I will be able to dowith my PDA are (list four to five) . . .

• The things that worry me mostabout the mLearn programme are . . .

Post-questionnaire(open questions)at 12 months intothe mLearnprogramme

• The things that I have used my PDAfor are (list four to five) . . .

• The worst things about using my PDAare (list four to five) . . .

• The two subjects where my PDA hashelped me learn the most are . . .

• What recommendations, if any, wouldyou make for the PDA programmeat the school?

• The things that I have used my PDAfor are (list four to five):

• Your sense of how it (use of PDAs)went . . .

• The things that worry me about themLearn programme are . . .

• What recommendations, if any,would you make for the PDAprogramme at the school?

Table 5: Students’ anticipated and actual use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) (n = 57)

Themes identified

Pre-project questionnairestart of mLearn programme

Post-project questionnaireend of first year implementation

Anticipated use of PDA“The things that I will be

able to do with my PDA are. . .”% of responses (total responses = 189)

Actual use of PDA“The things that I have

used my PDA for are. . .”% of responses (total

responses = 229)

Access the Internet 23 13Entertainment––listen to music

or play games19 40

Communication, eg, Bluetooth,MSN, emailing

14 8

For learning, eg, “usecalculator” (student 19),“use Word, Excel” (student57), “take notes” (student50), “do classroom work”(student 4).

21 25

Do homework, eg, “able to dohomework anywhere”(student 46)

13 3

Better organisation, eg, “won’tlose my notes/work”(student 33), “plan for nextday” (student 45)

10 11



with 21%) and an even greater contrast for listening to music or playing games (40% comparedwith 19%). There was also substantially less use of the PDAs for homework (3%) than anticipated(13%).

Perceptions of effectiveness of the technology and learning with PDAsAs indicated in Table 2, the students’ mean ratings for most of the statements relating to theeffectiveness of the programme decreased between the start of the programme and 12 monthslater. The four statements that showed increases in mean values relate to the technical aspects ofusing the PDAs. The two significant (p < 0.05) increases are indications that the PDAs were foundto be easy to use (item 4) and that the students had come to know how to use the PDAs better(item 1). The two non-significant increases relate to the size of the PDA making it difficult for themto do their school work (item 16) and that it was easy to change what the students had written onthe PDA even though they disagreed that writing with a PDA was easier than writing on paper(item 15, p < 0.05). The students’ perceptions of the ease of accessing the Internet and sendingmessages to their friends decreased significantly.

From the learning perspective, apart from the statement “I like using technology for learning”(item 3), the ratings on all the statements relating to learning with the PDA decreased signifi-cantly. The students became less excited about using the PDA (item 6), they felt that the PDAs didnot help them learn better (item 1) nor was the learning made easier (item 5), more interesting(item 12) or fun (item 8). The PDAs did not enable them to do their school work anytime,anywhere (item 10) nor did they help the students organise their time better (item 13). Overall,there was a significant drop in the students’ beliefs that they learned better with technology (item9) even though they maintained that they liked using technology for learning (item 3).

Three focus group interviews were conducted with the students at the end of the first year ofimplementation. A total of 16 students (nine females and seven males) participated. The studentsindicated that the best things about the PDAs were being able to access the Internet (whenworking) anywhere in the school, the environmentally friendly aspect of the technology sincethere was not a need to write on paper all the time, sharing gameplaying and the interactivitywith parents such as parental signatures in their diaries, sending and receiving messages via notewriting or voice recording. They indicated that they used the PDAs mostly in mathematics,English, history and French classes. Use of the PDA for research via the Internet and variousapplications such as VsPainter, Excel, Word, calculator and calendar were among the things notedas the best uses of the PDAs. The students also found the podcasts and vodcasts that the teacherscreated useful. In particular, they appreciated the vodcasts where the English and mathematicsteachers video-recorded “lessons” so that the more able students were able to proceed at a fasterpace and the weaker students could review repeatedly. However, several students expressed apreference for using the PDAs for entertainment:

Good for games ‘cos of the touch screen. You could Bluetooth the games. (Student 9)

More useful for recreation rather than educational. (Student 3)

Issues with using the PDAs highlighted by the students in the interviews included the slow screenresponse, difficulty with cutting and pasting, ease of pressing the wrong buttons, losing files, eg,accidentally deleting or overwriting another file, having to take care of the device and displayingweb pages. Examples of comments were as follows:

Have to look after it, the battery runs out too quickly. (Student 15)

Mobile sites hard to find and more confusing. The writing goes across the page. I explored changing settingsto get page content better displayed. (Student 7)

To address the lack of a camera in the PDAs, some students used their mobile phones to takepictures and Bluetoothed them to their PDAs.



Two main themes stood out as issues in the students’ responses to the open questions “the worstthings about using my PDA are . . .” and “what recommendations, if any, would you make for themLearn programme at the school?” They were the following:

1. More use of the PDAs: 40 students responded to the “recommendation” question. Five of themwrote “no (recommendation).” Of the remaining 35, nearly half (17 recommendations)called for more use of the PDAs. The remaining 18 recommendations were technically based,eg, improving Internet access and purchasing more robust PDAs. Some quotes from thestudents were as follows:

Teachers have more activities to do with them to make the subjects more fun. (Student 27)

I use it to play games only and maybe twice a week for school work. A waste of money. A very expensivegaming console. (Student 31)

Use it more, fix [I]nternet. (Student 55)

2. Technical aspect of the programme: major frustrations in terms of the technical aspects of themLearn programme, as indicated by 85% of the responses for the first open question includedthe lack of reliability of the Internet, short PDA battery life, the device lagging and/or crashingfrequently, smallness of the screen and the limited capacities of some of the software. Com-ments included the following:

Internet speed is not up to date. (Student 1)

We can’t make a slideshow on it you have to make it on the computer and then transfer it. (Student 54)

TeachersApart from the trialling of the PDAs’ uses in the classroom by volunteer teachers and sharingprofessional learning at the pre-programme mLearn conference, mLearn meetings to exchangeideas, discuss issues and catch up on developments were held, monthly or bimonthly. In addition,a second mLearn residential conference was held towards the end of the first year of implemen-tation for “teachers to renew their capacity” (principal, interview response). Our observation atthe second conference was that the mood was less enthusiastic and vibrant. More data on this willbe presented in the “leadership” section later.

Of the 25 teachers involved in the programme, responses from 23 indicated four main reasons forbecoming involved in the mLearn programme.

• Of the total responses, 48% aligned with the theme of keeping up to date with new technologyand developing skills with technology, eg, “to become more familiar with PDA so that I can beat par with the students” (teacher 13).

• Of the responses, 28% indicated using the PDA to motivate and engage students to learn better.• Of the responses, 17% indicated the use of the technology to improve their teaching, eg, “learn

about PDA and how to achieve a higher standard of teaching” (teacher 15).• Of the responses, 7% indicated they were in the programme because they were year 7 teachers

and had to be part of the programme.

There was clearly a desire to improve their technology skills for better teaching and to betterengage their students.

Anticipated and actual use of the PDAWhile 25 teachers filled in the pre-questionnaire, only 11 completed the post-questionnaire. Thedata presented later are based on the matched responses of the 11 teachers. The teachers iden-tified similar themes in the anticipated and actual use of the PDAs in their pre- and post-questionnaire responses (Table 6). They used the PDAs to access the Internet, for communicationand for organisation purposes. They used software such as PowerPoint, VsPaint and Clickview tomotivate and engage students more. From Table 6, it can be seen that reports of the use of the



PDAs to motivate students increased substantially in the post-questionnaire responses. Commu-nication using Bluetooth appears not to have been used much, which is consistent with theobservations we made in the classes where the process of distributing material seemed to be slowand not functioning properly.

Perceptions of effectiveness of the technology and teaching with PDAsSimilar to the students’ results in Table 2, most of the mean values for the 5-point Likert scalestatements associated with the teaching and the technical aspects of using the devices decreasedin the teachers’ post-questionnaire responses (Table 3). However, far fewer decreases were statis-tically significant (p < 0.05) than in the students’ results. While the data in the table show that theteachers had increased in their confidence in using the PDAs (items 1, 4 and 7), there were otherdecreases (mostly not statistically significant) in satisfaction with the technical aspects of usingthe technology. The three statistically significant decreases in the mean values were for thestatements “writing with a PDA is easier than writing by hand on paper,” “there are no disad-vantages in using PDAs in the classroom” and “I teach better with a PDA.” These data suggestthat there were issues with teaching that utilised the PDA. A better insight into these issues isobtained from the open question responses and the interview.

The issues that emerged from the open question “the things that worry me about the mLearnprogramme are . . .” (Table 7) fit within five themes: technical, time, competence, student issuesand others. The major issue that was stated by almost all (10 out of 11) teachers in theirpost-questionnaire related to students—their lack of care for the devices, not bringing them toclass and not taking the use of the devices seriously for learning. Similar to the students’ concernsabout technical issues, the second group of responses of the teachers was the unreliability andconstraints of the software in the PDAs. These concerns were also highlighted in the teachers’interview. Seventeen teachers participated in the interview. Two of the teachers highlighted thedisruption to teaching due to technical issues, eg,

Table 6: Teachers’ anticipated and actual use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) (n = 11)

Themes identified

Pre-questionnairestart of mLearn programme

Post-questionnaireend of first year of implementation

Anticipated use of PDA“The things that I will be able

to do with my PDA are. . .”% of responses

(total responses = 31)

Actual use of PDA“The things that I have

used my PDA for are. . .”% of responses

(total responses = 30)

Access the Internet, eg, “ use it as aportable research device with wireless[I]nternet” (teacher 27)

19 27

Communication, eg, “Bluetoothinformation to students” (teacher 18)

13 3

Use of software, eg, “presentation ofdesign work using technology”(teacher 16)

26 30

Better organisation, eg, “personal/classdue dates” (teacher 19)

16 13

Motivate students, eg, “taking mundaneout of class activities and addinginterest to them” (teacher 8)

13 30

Others, eg, “not sure” (teacher 15) 13 –



. . . sometimes the machine’s working well and then not working and you have 16 working fine and fourwouldn’t and then you spend a lot of time organising them and there’s a lot of frustrations. (Teacher 3)

Within the time constraints of 50 minutes it is difficult to solve technical difficulties and some students wouldfall behind. (Teacher 5)

The time and knowledge/skill development issues were more evident in the interview with teach-ers indicating that while there was a willingness to share knowledge and expertise in the “buddy”system, finding time to do so was problematic:

Time is an issue, if you have a full teaching load, you may not even have time like half an hour to meet withyour colleagues, time is a constraint. (Teacher 10)

Positive aspects of the mLearn programmeFrom the interview and the responses to the open question “your sense of how it (use of PDAs)went . . . ,” the teachers had many positive things to say about the potential of the programmedespite concerns about the attitudes of the students towards caring for their PDAs and notbringing them to class. A representative selection of quotes that demonstrate the students’engagement is given in the next section:

The students were engaged and eager to share their work with the paint programme. The students had tolearn excel fundamentals to complete the timeline. Using a datashow, whiteboard and remote displayprogramme has made teaching using the PDAs easier. (Questionnaire, teacher 1)

They produced podcasts for revision. They enjoyed completing this task. (Questionnaire, teacher 6)

Students very enthusiastic. They enjoyed working collaboratively. (Questionnaire, teacher 7)

Made research interesting for them, rather than trying to access library etc., but technical problems made itdifficult. (Questionnaire, teacher 8)

This year kids recorded a radio advertisement directly on their PDAs themselves and Bluetooth to me, thatworked very well, in terms of engagement, the recording quality was not great, but because it was soindividualised, they could take their PDA and go outside to do their recording and kids who are normally shyand would not say anything they have this fantastic recording to present to the class . . . it is a different typeof participation, if I say write 30 mins on a radio ad and stand in front and present to the class, it will nothave the same quality from most of the students and would not have met with the kind of enthusiasm either.(Teacher 1, interview)

Leadership and managementThe principal and mLearn programme coordinator were the management and leadership team inthe study. The principal took a very active role in the introductory stages of the mLearn pro-gramme. He was also very active at both the teachers’ professional learning conferences but wasless visible at the mLearn meetings in the school during the course of the year. The programmecoordinator facilitated the staff meetings and worked with us in all aspects of the research. Both

Table 7: Teachers’ responses to “the things that worry me about the mLearn program are . . .” (n = 11)

Themes identified

Post-questionnaire(total responses = 35)

% of total responses

Technical issues, eg, “many features or programs are ‘entry’ level in quality”(teacher 8), “batteries running flat” (teacher 6)

23

Time issues, eg, “the amount of extra time to plan lessons” (teacher 2) 9Competence issues, eg, “my own knowledge to fix problems” (teacher 7) 11Student issues, eg, “students not bringing them to class” (teacher 6), “students

constantly being distracted by the games installed” (teacher 2), “students lackof care of the device” (teacher 1)

49

Others, eg, “lack of resources and expert advice” (teacher 8) 9



were interviewed, at separate times, at the end of the first year of implementation. The interviewsprovided an opportunity for them to reflect on how the year went, how well the programme mettheir expectations and the way forward. One way to analyse the relationships between the peoplein the management team (equivalent to the political element of Cisler’s framework) is to examinethe coherence of the leadership team. We will analyse how similarly or differently these twoleaders thought of the programme.

Views of the extent of success of the mLearn programmeWhen asked to rate, on a scale of 1–10, the success of the programme, the principal’s responsewas as follows:

If I gave myself a mark before the mLearn conference it will be 3 or 4 out of 10. For how we coped in termsof ability of staff, capacity was 8/10 at the conference last year. This year is a bit different with staffing andit has slowed down therefore 3 or 4. But going to UK supported by funds from the Department (of Education)which has been running for 4/5 years, looking at our program, we are 9/10. We have done well in one yearcompared with UK schools. (Interview)

This note of optimism from the principal also acknowledged that the programme at the schoolhad not progressed as well as he would have liked. He indicated that three PDA classes wereperhaps too many and that in hindsight, there should have been two classes with a dedicated setof teachers. The setbacks in the programme related to the unreliability of the wireless connec-tions, insufficient wireless coverage and teachers’ frustrations and inability to fix technical prob-lems as they happened in class. Setbacks in the programme were also attributed to the mentalapproach of teachers, with “struggling teachers” lacking trust in the students and demonstratinga “them and us” mentality, often reverting to controlling and set ways of teaching.

The perceptions of the programme coordinator (PrgmCoord) are captured in the interview in thenext section:

PrgmCoord: Mark out of ten? Generous five.Researcher: Okay. And the things that would be, the things that would cause you to give those five, what arethe positives?PrgmCoord: I think it increases the [I]nternet access, it increases what the kids can do within the classroom,um, and I think that’s of great benefit. I think, uh, that’s probably the main thing, umm, and it’s really upto the teachers, how creative they can make that, and that varies across the board.Researcher: And have you seen sufficient creative kinds of things going on?PrgmCoord: That’s why I said generous five.Researcher: So then the things that would take away from the ten?PrgmCoord: Well I just think it’s been . . . it could have been better implemented. I think stronger controlscould have been made on the program. Ah . . . I think there should have been more cohesive leadership ofthe program, um, more support for staff . . . My role as director of e-learning was to lead this program, and,but, I do not lead this program. The principal leads this program, and the principal makes the decisions. Ihold the meetings, liaise with the staff, um, I have very little control over the direction in which the programgoes, or the variety of aspects ie, staffing, PD, any of those sorts of issues, um, I can be overruled, and havebeen . . . I’m there to implement other peoples decisions . . . it leaves me a bit powerless, leaves me queryingwhat my role is, because in other aspects of e-learning I lead, I make the decisions, I carry through and I’mresponsible and if it doesn’t work, well, I have to answer to that. Whereas this one, I might lead, I might dothings and then I will be countermanded, and things will be changed. Researcher: sounds like an issue ofcontested authority . . . ?PrgmCoord: I don’t know if it’s contested; I think it’s two different leadership styles. (Interview)

The two leaders’ perceptions of the success of the programme agreed on the issues relating totechnical difficulties and the lack of some teachers’ ability to understand that the PDA called fora different pedagogy. As the programme coordinator stated

Because they’re used to being the one who tell—works out what’s going to happen in the classroom, and Ithink, when you bring in the PDAs you’ve got to be flexible and be able to move with the group and notcontrol and all of that. Certainly a control issue. It’s a fear of the technology. So if you lose control you losetrust. (Interview)



However, with the difference in leadership styles and with little ownership of the programme bythe programme coordinator and with the teachers seeing the programme as “the principal’sproject,” tensions were raised between key stakeholders that would ultimately make the politicalaspect of sustainability untenable.

Leaders’ perceptions of staff involvement in the programme and professional learningThe expectations of the principal were that the mLearn staff would be resilient and perseverewhen things did not work. They would need to change their pedagogy, have the confidence toallow students to work at their own pace and be enthusiastic when using technology. He acknowl-edged that not all staff demonstrated this capacity even though there had been extensive profes-sional learning opportunities, in particular at the mLearn conferences. Our observation in thesecond mLearn conference was that the staff members were less enthusiastic—this was con-firmed by the principal who said that he “had to do all the work to keep it going.” The programmecoordinator’s view of the teachers’ attitude (lack of enthusiasm) at the second conference wasbecause their issues were not given a hearing even though she had placed them on the agenda.Her perception was that the principal “had a red line sliced through it and said that wouldn’t behappening at the conference as [. . .] a session like that would be extremely negative and detri-mental.” In addition, teachers who had been co-opted into the programme, some halfwaythrough the year, demonstrated some resentment as little time was given in the second conferenceto explore and engage in professional learning. Furthermore, the view that the programme wasthe principal’s project placed added constraints on staff, which restricted them from speaking upat the mLearn meetings, especially when the principal or one of the vice-principals was present.

Views on the way forward for the mLearn programmeThe principal decided that the mLearn programme would expand the following year with twonew classes of year seven students. The strategy was to have a broader group of staff involved, tolink teaching to performance plans, increase technical support, improve wireless capabilities andpurchase an additional class set of PDAs to replace broken ones. Incentive plans included achieve-ment awards for creative use of the PDA for the students. For staff, support was to be providedthrough mentoring and incentives included conference attendance at mLearn conferences andspecial payment to aid with creation of learning materials, eg, vodcasts.

The programme coordinator’s first priority, however, for the way forward with the mLearn pro-gramme differed from the principal’s views:

I think the first priority is for leadership people to get together and have a common approach—[that] wouldbe my top thing, secondly I think we need to support the new members of staff or the alienated members ofstaff as they go in and should adopt some training that will support them in that sort of thing, I think therehas to be a good selection of staff to take the programs, and they have to be nurtured, those relationshipshave to be nurtured with those staff, even if they have to be co-opted because of teaching areas or whatever,so they’re probably my key things . . . I think we both agree that this (mLearn program) is a good way to go,I think it’s just the method of how it’s being advanced is the issue. (Interview)

The second year of implementationThe programme expanded to include two new year seven classes while the previous three yearseven classes moved up to year eight, making a total of five PDA classes in the second year ofimplementation. Feedback from the programme coordinator towards the end of the second yearof implementation indicated that the issues in the first year of implementation persisted and wasmagnified such that no expansion of the PDA programme would be made in the third year withthe decision to move the school to netbooks instead.

The reactions of the students, staff and, ultimately, the school leadership indicate that despite theinitial enthusiasm and strong leadership of the principal, the innovation was not sustainable. The



issue to be explored is why in the context of strong emotional and financial commitments sup-ported by opportunities for exploration and professional development, this programme was notsustained.

Analysis and discussionSustaining a new technology-based initiative is a complex processThe key players studied in this research were the principal, the programme coordinator, theteachers and the students. Using the person-centred sustainable model of Figure 2, we willdiscuss the contributions of the key players in sustaining the programme at the school while alsoidentifying the factors that impeded the implementation of the programme.

As we argued previously, the various elements (economic, political, social and technical) fromCisler’s framework, including our addition (pedagogical) are interwoven and manifested in theinteractions between the various stakeholders and between users and the actual devices. Thechoice offered to parents for their child to be part of the mLearn programme meant a willingnesson the part of the parents to contribute through the purchase (upfront payment or by instal-ment) of the PDAs. The budget appeared to be sufficient to purchase a set of 20 PDAs forvolunteer staff to explore and use in class on a trial basis, buy more hubs and ports for wirelessaccess, pay for a part-time dedicated mLearn technical support person and for the 2-day resi-dential professional development of the teachers for two consecutive years. The school waswilling to invest more as it went into its second year of implementation by purchasing morePDAs to replace damaged ones and providing incentives, including monetary-based awards (eg,conference travel) to motivate both students and teachers. The economic model satisfied theminimal expenditure to get a programme running. The investment, however, did not appear tobe sufficient to provide the technical support that was needed and all the required professionaldevelopment of teachers.

Engagement with the wider community, as shown in Figure 2, took place through the two levelsof leadership/management. The choice of device (where cost was one of the most importantconsiderations) and negotiation with the supplier were conducted by the principal. The pro-gramme coordinator liaised with the university researchers by informing them of meeting/conference schedules as well as administering the questionnaires and organising interviews withstaff and students. These aspects of the social element of sustainability were successfullyexecuted. A factor that did not contribute to success was a lack of interest from the State Depart-ment of Education, despite the school’s efforts to talk with them. Consequently, the school borethe full brunt of the support and funding for the programme. Nevertheless, the interaction withparents was sustained by both levels of leadership/management through information sessions,meetings and regular mLearn newsletters that provided information on not only how the pro-gramme was progressing but also tips for activities that the parents could do with the students(PrgmCoord, reflective journal). Another level of interaction with the wider community was thecommissioning of the software development of Thinking Tools by a parent member of the schoolcouncil. These successful interactions with the wider community indicate that social sustainabil-ity was well provided for in this study.

The study indicates that management and leadership are perhaps the most important part ofsustaining the mLearn programme in the school as the direction and support in ensuring thatthe positive attributes of the programme’s environment and team dynamics come directly fromthe leadership team. The data showed that tensions created between the principal and pro-gramme coordinator and between the principal and some of the teachers, particularly thosewho were co-opted, made this element of sustainability (what Cisler called political sustainabil-ity) the least successful aspect of the programme. As a result, the initial momentum was notmaintained:



Researcher: Okay, so . . . are the original enthusiasts still enthusiastic? The original volunteers?PrgmCoord: Umm, I think they’re less enthusiastic than they were originally simply because of the . . . well,the fact that it has drifted away, the momentum hasn’t been kept up. It has drifted away from the originalintent and then even the passionate ones, their passion seems to dissipate a little. (Interview)

The general identification by the leadership team of the requirements for the adoption andimplementation of the programme, eg, planning for teacher readiness at the conferences, install-ing the necessary hubs and ports for wireless access, developing manuals on how various softwarework and working with researchers to monitor and evaluate progress was well planned. However,the non-cohesive nature of the leadership team and the associated lack of harmony made thiselement of sustainability the least successful. This finding is in agreement with Hadjithoma-Garstka’s (2011) study on the role of the principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICTpolicy. Her study indicated that the school that was most successful in the implementation was theone with the principal characterised by an “affiliative” style and with a “the people come first”approach in relation to a series of developments within the school that supported the implemen-tation. Using the same classification, the principal in the school in this study was probably a“pacesetter” in style. He had lots of ideas and could implement them well in environments that hecontrolled. He was willing to model and share these ideas, but the programme did not become onethat was owned by the staff as a whole. The importance of leadership in facilitating team dynamicsand shared expectations for successful implementation of new IT projects has also been stated bySmith (2008), who indicated that a “master–servant dynamic” would cause strain, frustrationand anger, leading to a failure to meet expectations. He stated the person-centred approach ascrucial for technology projects to be successful and that it is necessary for all parties to be workingtogether as partners, working towards common goals and expectations.

Interaction with the mobile device for teaching and learningAs indicated by the students and teachers, there were technical issues related to device robust-ness, software limitations, wireless reliability and Internet accessibility, although the extent of theproblems seemed to be expressed more strongly by the students than the teachers. The part-timeavailability of IT support was also problematic due to delay in getting things fixed. In addition, thelack of rapport of the IT support person and the students created some tension:

PrgmCoord: Okay well, the technical officer has her way of doing things . . . I can understand where she iscoming from, for example she would say, “You can’t have your PDA back until you bring your metal hardcase,” cause it’s supposed to be in the metal hard case, so she was doing alright the thing she perceived, butwhat the kids’ reaction to that was “Well, keep it, because my teachers are giving me other sorts of work, I’mnot going to get a penalty so it can sit there for a week or two weeks or something and when I think aboutmy metal case I’ll bring it in and then I’ll get my PDA back” so all of that slowed down because then thatstudent didn’t have their PDA, and if there were four or five in that, doing that sort of thing, the teacherswere getting frustrated. (Interview)

Within the person-centred model, this technical element pointed to a lack of sustainability butthe intention of providing more IT support in the following year to increase the satisfaction of thekey players using the devices was designed to contribute to longevity. At another level, ourfrequent visits to the school failed to find evidence of the use of the PDAs with other technologiesin the school, eg, Smartboard, data projector or printer. The ability to use the PDA to interact withother technologies is important for a broader integration of the PDA (Nicholas, 2011).

Sustainability at the pedagogical level involves the roles of teachers in facilitating learning withmobile devices to support achieving the goals of the mLearn programme. It needs to consider theinformal learning that mobile devices facilitate and how this connects with the formal aspects oflearning with mobile devices. Our observations of classes showed uses of the PDAs, consistentwith those expressed by teachers and students, which were the use of the Internet to search forinformation and images, the use of Bluetooth, the ArithmeTick brain training mathematics game,



calculator, Excel and the VsPaint software, eg, drawing abstract shapes and having peers estimatefractions that were shaded. The other pedagogical use of the PDA, gathered from the teachers’interview was the creation of podcasts using the recording software. Our observations of ascience class learning about the circulatory system showed some effective use of the mobiledevices. The class charted their pulse rates before and after exercises in Excel, found individualand class averages using the formula bar, plotted bar graphs for before and after exercise pulserates, used the calculator to work out problems relating to the amount of blood the heart pumpsand used the Internet to search for information about the heart rates for different animals, eg, arat and an elephant, which they compared with their own rates. Data were presented as tablesand graphs from the spreadsheets and problems and descriptive answers were written using WordMobile software (One Microsoft WayRedmond, WA 98052-6399, USA). From our observations,these pedagogical practices that are enabled by the affordances of the PDAs are sustainable oncethe teachers have identified and gained confidence in their use. Our observations indicated thatpedagogical sustainability was not domain-specific.

Pedagogical sustainability is possible with PDAs but is dependent on the teacher’s knowledge ofthe capabilities and limitations of the PDA, the available applications and how to integrate theminto the teaching to achieve the objectives of the learning. Whether the integration of theaffordances is effective (hence sustainable) depends on the pedagogy adopted (see Traxler’s(2010) discussion of commensurability). As the program coordinator commented, if the teach-ers maintain a “teach from the front” approach while using mobile devices, there will be aconflict. Ways of using the devices that enable the students to bring “new” or “discovered”knowledge into the learning must be foregrounded for the devices to have a sustainable role.And, again, as the program coordinator commented, this requires that teachers trust their owncapacities and that relationships of trust exist between teachers and students. As there areconstraints (eg, size and software capabilities) in the use of PDAs, the teacher’s knowledge andconfidence in working with the students under such circumstances is crucial in maintaininginterest and meaningful learning. This was not evident in the teachers’ responses. The students’increase in negativity and more gameplaying at the end of the first year of implementation is anindicative sign of the non-sustainability of the programme, unless there was a countervailingincrease in enthusiasm and knowledge by the teachers. The professional learning experiences ofthe teachers were largely in the school-based mLearn conferences where there were a lot ofshow-and-tell and mentoring. Outside of these conferences, the teachers were expected to findtheir own time and opportunities to work with colleagues to further enhance their skills andknowledge. Their goodwill was relied on in spending their own time to professionally developthemselves. The time-consuming nature of learning how to use the PDA pedagogically wasindicated by the teachers in this study, which accords with other ICT studies (eg, Higgins, 2003;Ng & Gunstone, 2003; Ng & Nicholas, 2009). Just as students’ pedagogy needs to be scaffolded,teachers’ professional learning for mobile devices in their teaching needs to be scaffoldedtoo.

While mobile devices are ideally suited for bridging formal and informal learning (Looi et al,2010; Ng & Anastopoulou, 2011), it did not appear that the teachers were ready to move into theseamless learning environment such as setting homework to encourage the students to movebetween context and between individual and social learning spaces (Looi et al, 2010). Further-more, the voices of the students were not heard. As the programme coordinator indicated, it isnecessary to

Develop the ideas with students. Work with them, let them show the way at times, let them show the way andwhat can be done be a partner with them. If students believe in and own the program the drivers for asuccessful program are there. Their work will be your motivator, your guide and your inspiration. (Prgm-Coord, reflective journal)



While ideally, formal and informal learning with the devices should be concurrent activities thatwill enhance pedagogical sustainability, the issues in the formal setting need to be addressedadequately and teachers develop sufficient confidence and understanding of the pedagogical usesof the devices before taking the use of mobile devices to the next level in informal settings (seeTraxler, 2010).

ConclusionThe non-hierarchical, person-centred model of sustainability of Figure 2 shows that effectiveintegration of ICT into teaching and learning is complex. It is dependent on the successfulinteractions between the leadership team, the community, the technical support personnel andthe key users—teachers and students. A less explicitly person-centred aspect of the model is theinteractions between people and devices (eg, ease and confidence of use, pedagogical ideas) andmanagement’s decisions to provide the financial support to support the interactions. Neverthe-less, the personal dimensions of trust and confidence in the potential of the devices to enableformal learning and in other stakeholders to play their part in supporting the exploration of newpractices mean that the pedagogic uses of mobile devices are clear elements of a person-centredmodel of sustainable innovation in learning with mobile devices.

Sustainable mLearn (or other ICT) programmes in schools need to address fundamental issuesthat are human-related, ie,

• Developing positive attitudes in students and teachers’ towards the programme. This meansensuring the availability of the devices and other supporting technologies, eg, wireless, print-ers, smartboards, data projector and software for pedagogical practices. It also means providingthe necessary support for the maintenance of the programmes, eg, time release for scaffoldedprofessional development and fixing technical issues.

• Ensuring effective communication between the key players, in particular consulting and pro-viding feedback so that intentions are clearly stated and misunderstandings quickly alleviated.Responsive interactions would ensure that tensions do not keep building in the team andlearning community.

• Delegating responsibilities with trust among members of the management team and betweenmanagement and the teachers as well as between teachers and their students. A level of trustis important so that everyone involved has some form of ownership of the programme. Trustalso opens up communication that is not undermining and increases the willingness to shareideas.

The complexity of sustainable mobile learning programmes is further exacerbated by the fastpace of change of digital technologies, where with every change, new possibilities are opened up.There is no single or simple solution to the effective integration of mLearn (or ICT) programmesin teaching and learning and it takes time to develop effective working relationships betweenmanagement, teachers and students. As the school rolls back the PDA programme and changesover to the netbook programme, unless the fundamental issues that are human-related areaddressed, its longevity could be affected in similar ways to the PDA programme.

ReferencesAl Neimat, T. (2005). Why IT projects fail. The Project Perfect White Paper Collection. Retrieved November 1,

2011, from http://www.projectperfect.com.au/downloads/Info/info_it_projects_fail.pdfCisler, S. (n.d.). Planning for sustainability: how to keep your ICT project running (schools online). Retrieved

August 3, 2011, from http://geoinfo.uneca.org/sdiafrica/Reference/Ref6/Sustainabilit-booklet.docFrohberg, D., Göth, C. & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects—a critical analysis of the state of the

art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 4, 307–331.Geogiev, T., Georgieva, E. & Smrikorov, A. (2004). M-learning: a new stage of e-learning. In Proceedings of

International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Rousse, Bulgaria. Retrieved December 8,2010, from http://ecet.ecs.ru.acad.bg/cst04/Docs/sIV/428.pdf



Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of the principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICTpolicy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 2, 311–326.

Higgins, S. (2003). Does ICT improve learning and teaching in schools? A professional user review of UK research.Nottingham: British Educational Research Association.

Inan, F. & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model.Education Technology Research and Development, 58, 2, 137–154.

Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time hascome. Educational Researcher, 33, 7, 14–26.

Koszalka, T. A. & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G. S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential ofmobile technologies. Distance Education, 31, 2, 139–157.

Liaw, S.-S., Hatala, M. & Huang, H.-M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assistindividual knowledge management: based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54, 2,446–454.

Litchfield, A. J., Dyson, L. E., Lawrence, E. & Zmijewska, A. (2007). Directions for m-learning research toenhance active learning. In ASCILITE 2007 (pp. 587–596). Singapore: ASCILITE.

Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W. & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology forsustainable seamless learning: a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 2, 154–169.

Ng, W. & Anastopoulou, S. (2011). Formal and informal use of handhelds by Australian and British stu-dents: a comparative case studies. In W. Ng (Ed.), Mobile technologies and handheld devices for ubiquitouslearning: research and pedagogy (pp. 279–298). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.

Ng, W. & Gunstone, R. (2003). Science and computer-based technologies in Victorian government schools:attitudes of secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science & Technological Education, 21, 2,243–264.

Ng, W. & Nicholas, H. (2007). Ubiquitous learning with handhelds in schools. In A. Norman & J. Pearce(Eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Learning, Melbourne, Australia. 16–19October, 2007 (186–193). Parkville: University of Melbourne.

Ng, W. & Nicholas, H. (2009). Introduction of pocket PC in schools: attitudes and beliefs in the first year.Computers & Education, 52, 2, 470–480.

Nicholas, H. (2011). Ubiquitous computing does not guarantee ubiquitous learning in schools: the case ofhandheld computers. In W. Ng (Ed.), Mobile technologies and handheld devices for ubiquitous learning: researchand pedagogy (pp. 30–44). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.

Nicholas, H. & Ng, W. (2009). Ubiquitous learning and handhelds: an overview of theory and pedagogy. InP. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (Eds), Encyclopedia for online and distancelearning Vol. IV (pp. 2171–2176). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishers.

Ogata, H. & Yano, Y. (2004). Context-aware support for computer supported ubiquitous learning. In J.Roschelle, T. W. Chan, Kinshuk & S. Yang (Eds), Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE (WMTE2004) (pp. 27–34).New York: IEEE Press.

Pachler, N. (2009). Research methods in mobile and informal learning: some issues. In G. Vavoula, N.Pachler & A. Kukulska-Hulme (Eds), Researching mobile learning: frameworks, tools and research designs (pp.1–15). Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing.

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.Parsons, D. & Ryu, H. (2006). A framework for assessing the quality of mobile learning. Retrieved December 10,

2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.2612&rep=rep1&type=pdfShih, J. L., Chuang, C. W. & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Historic monument education: the impact of a collaborative

inquiry-based mobile learning strategy on social relationship development. In W. Ng (Ed.), Mobile tech-nologies and handheld devices for ubiquitous learning: research and pedagogy (pp. 138–169). Hershey, PA: IGIGlobal Publishing.

Smith, D. (2008). Why do most IT projects fail? It’s not because of the technology. Portland Business Journal.Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/10/20/smallb4.html?page=all

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: the moving finger writes andhaving written. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 2, 1–12.

Traxler, J. (2010). Sustaining mobile learning and its institutions. International Journal of Mobile and BlendedLearning, 2, 4, 58–65.

Weinberger, J. (2004). Technology never fails, but projects can. Baseline, 1, 26, 28. Retrieved July 4,2012, from http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Projects-Management/Technology-Never-Fails-But-Projects-Can/.



Documents

A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools