Volume 56, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2012 49

AbstractThis article considers the growing amount

of research on using mobile technologies in edu-cation. As mobile devices become increasingly more prevalent, it is imperative to study their use and effect on the growing field of distance educa-tion. This brief review of existing literature indi-cates that traditional theories of learning, in both traditional and distance settings, are relevant and applicable to mobile learning, and that mobile de-vices can be brought thoughtfully into pedagogy at the distance level. Flexibility, portability, and accessibility contribute to an overall positive im-pression on students, while faculty concerns can be met with appropriate training and tailoring to the various teaching and learning styles present in distance education. Student and faculty expec-tations of a mobile-integrated distance education experience will continue to grow, while teaching and learning should thrive in this increasingly more connected environment.

Keywords: distance education; mobile learn-ing; mobile technologies

istance education is growing rapidly as a means of teaching and learning in a flexi-ble, online environment. Its rapid growth is

staggering, as only 15% of U.S. households owned a computer in 1990 (Shelton & Saltsman, 2005); that number rose to 78.7% by 2008 (United Na-tions Development Programme, 2010). Within the past five years, not only has the number of people with computers increased, the emergence and prevalence of mobile devices has changed the personal technology landscape. As of Febru-ary 2012, for example, 46% of adult Americans own a smartphone (Pew Research Center, 2012).

There are several types of mobile devices, with each having differing features. Electronic book (or “e-book”) readers are small, lightweight devices that are designed primarily for read-

The Impact of Mobile Technologies on Distance EducationBy Shauna’h Fuegen, East Carolina University

ing digital texts, such as PDFs and electronic books (Nie, Armellini, Witthaus, & Barklamb, 2011). Tablets are small profile computers with mobile-optimized operating systems, generally lacking a physical keyboard, that provide inter-active opportunities through built-in function-ality and third party applications. Smartphones are mobile handsets with data connections via cellular and/or wireless networks. They have similar capabilities as tablets, but a smaller screen size.

What role does mobile usage play in dis-tance education? That is the question being considered by this review of existing research. Integral to considering this question is the con-cept of mobile learning: its definition and po-tential for impact in a distance environment. According to Yousef (2007):

Mobile learning is defined as the provi-sion of education and training on mo-bile devices: Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), smart phones and mobile phones. One of the characteristics of mobile learning is that it uses devices which citizens are used to carrying everywhere with them, which they re-gard as friendly and personal devices, which are cheap and easy to use, which they use constantly in all walks of life, and in a variety of different settings” (p. 117).

The use of portable devices that are familiar to students is key to harnessing the potential of mobile learning.

Research has shown that “facilitating mo-bile learning can improve the entire distance education [experience] by enhancing ways of communication among distance learners, tu-tors, and supporting staff ” (Yousef, 2007, p. 114). This improvement in communication

D

50 TechTrends • November/December 2012 Volume 56, Number 6

is accompanied by an increase in flexibility, as “mobile technology offers access to learning ma-terial regardless of location and time” (Yousef, 2007, p. 117). This allows students and faculty the ability to use time that would otherwise be unavailable to them (such as while traveling or without computer access) for teaching and learning.

The educational potential of mobile devices is large, and this paper attempts to examine it from several angles, including faculty and stu-dent concerns and expectations.

Transactional Distance TheoryDistance education, while a valuable and

flexible option for both students and faculty, also brings with it some limitations and con-cerns. The transactional distance theory de-fines distance education in terms of not only the physical separation of teacher and student, but of a psychological separation as well (Park, 2011). Transactional distance is impacted by the amount of dialogue present in the course between instructor and learners. As communi-cation between teacher and students increases, transactional distance decreases (Park, 2011). Mobile technologies, with their ability to create diverse learning contexts with increased dia-logue and communication, have great potential to overcome the transactional distance divide that is inherently a part of distance education.

Educational PotentialThe potential for mobile devices to both ef-

fect and affect learning in distance education environments is large. These devices have be-come even more relevant and dynamic as Web 2.0 (and, on the horizon, Web 3.0) tools and social networking applications have evolved into more sophisticated products that are de-signed to interact with mobile devices (Park, 2011). Attention should first be paid, however, to traditional learning theories and how mobile technologies can fit into them. This broad in-spection is critical, as researchers seek to ex-plore the influence of specific mobile devices on students and faculty.

According to Keskin and Metcalf (2011), there are nine theories of learning that can be examined through the lens of a mobile environ-ment: Behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, sit-uated learning, problem-based learning, context awareness learning, socio-cultural theory, col-laborative learning, and conversational learning. Each of these theories has a different focus, and mobile devices are well suited to applications of

those theories. For example, collaborative learn-ing seeks to promote learning through the use of active participation and communication be-tween students. This can be accomplished with multiple Web 2.0 tools, social networks, mobile educational gaming, e-mail, or mobile video conferencing (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011). Learners can use mobile devices to engage in constructiv-ist instruction through the use of virtual real-ity, communicating with mobile phones (using SMS, voice, e-mail, video conferencing, or social internet-based tools), or interactive podcasting (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011).

These are but a few examples of the wide variety of ways that mobile devices can facilitate learning, including learning at a distance. Some other mobile strategies include using voice re-cording software, mobile response system ap-plications, multimedia (images, film, television, animations, audio) viewing, simulations, elec-tronic texts, mobile learning/course manage-ment system applications, instant messaging, interactive images, listening to course lectures, and virtual fieldtrips (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011). The portability of mobile devices, as well as the programmability their hardware, software, and operating systems provide, allows for a learning experience that can be customized to both stu-dent and faculty needs.

Based on Yousef ’s (2007) research, mobile learning brings many benefits to the distance education experience:

• Can be used for independent and collabora-tive learning experiences

• Helps learners to overcome the digital divide

• Helps to make learning informal

• Helps learners to be more focused for longer periods

• The provision of course content to off- campus students

• The provision of feedback to off-cam-pus students

• The provision of student support services to off-campus students

• Student-to-student interactivity

• Student to tutor and institution interactivity (pp. 117-118)

The strongest advantage of learning with mobile devices, however, is portability (Park, 2011).

While mobile technologies have huge poten-tial for learning, particularly in a distance envi-ronment, they are not without their limitations.

Volume 56, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2012 51

Usability problems are prevalent, such as physi-cal limitations (screen size, weight, battery life), software limitations (missing functionality, frag-mented availability of applications across mobile platforms, initial procedural learning curve), de-pendence on available networks and speeds, and physical environment considerations (using the device outdoors, device security, exposure to ra-diation) (Park, 2011). Using students’ own devic-es helps to overcome some of these concerns, as individuals are more likely to have a base knowl-edge of their own hardware and software, rather than being assigned a specific device by their in-stitution (Elias, 2011).

Student Needs and ExpectationsAs Shelton and Saltsman (2005) point out,

the distance education student, more than oth-er types, is “removed from personal interaction with the institution” (p. 83), both by geographical space and a psychological distance, as the trans-actional distance theory suggests. It is important to consider the student benefits of mobile learn-ing when examining the overall impact of por-table devices on the field of distance education.

The population of distance education stu-dents is largely composed of those who work full-time and are balancing many demands on their time. Mobile technologies provide these students with the flexibility to access content at a time and place most convenient to them. This is not only a benefit to student scheduling, but is also helpful from a pedagogical perspective. The flexibility grants students the ability to progress in their learning at their own pace, maximizing their learning potential (Yousef, 2007). While distance learning is, by its very nature, more flex-ible than education that takes place in a tradi-tional classroom, mobile learning is “more inter-active, involves more contact, communication, and collaboration with people” (Yousef, 2007, p. 121). This helps substantially to overcome trans-actional distance and the challenges of being a part-time student and full-time employee. Stu-dents have voiced support for mobile learning, as it provides “immediate support” in a distance education environment (Youself, 2007, p. 119).

Mobile technologies also assist with student organization, through the use of calendaring and scheduling utilities, as well as communication, collaboration, and the construction of knowl-edge, through the use of instant messaging and file sharing. These attributes allow students to both create and consume learning materials, in-dividually as well as with others (Park, 2011).

One of the larger factors driving the move to mobile learning is the expectations of the

so-called Net Generation, students who have grown up with reliable access to the Internet, are comfortable using computers and mobile devices, and not only want, but expect, learn-ing to be possible from these devices. Accord-ing to Anderson (2008), “this new generation of learners is smart but impatient, creative, expecting results immediately, customizing the things they choose, [and] very focused on themselves” (p.203). Connecting all of these characteristics is a growing reliance on using multiple portable devices to customize this ex-perience (Carlson, 2005).

Distance education is drawing increasingly more of this type of student, but even those not of that generation are more comfortable with technology. Distance educators are find-ing themselves with technologically savvier students, and must adapt to meet their needs and expectations (Anderson, 2008). Students want to be able to access course resources from anywhere at any time. They want to be more in control of when and how they learn. According to Jafari, McGee, and Carmean (2006), “learn-ers determine what they see, hear, do, and ac-cess. Thus learners are ‘in class’ while they are washing clothes in the Laundromat, cooking dinner, or driving to work” (p. 58). Expecta-tions are growing for not only a learning/course management system in distance education, but for an all-encompassing electronic learning en-vironment (Jafari et al., 2006).

Nie et al. (2011) provide compelling evi-dence of student impressions of a mobile de-vice used in a distance education environment. Sony PRS-505 e-book readers were given to students in two distance education courses, and corresponding surveys on usage, usability, and usefulness showed students’ overall experi-ences were positive, and they reported several benefits to their learning.

E-readers in general have a low learning curve, and students with varying degrees of technical aptitude were able to navigate the PRS-505 with little difficulty. Flexibility and portability were highly valued by the students, and many students used the e-readers while traveling or in public places. The use of e-ink on the device, as opposed to the backlit screen of a tablet or smartphone, increased readabil-ity and made it ideal for students who wanted to study outdoors. One student mentioned how convenient it was to pre-load course texts onto the e-reader, and then not need to worry about having access to an Internet connection while traveling. This increased the likelihood students would read course material outside of

52 TechTrends • November/December 2012 Volume 56, Number 6

their traditional study times (Nie et al., 2011). Another student reflected on how the e-reader brought more opportunities to study.

The nature of distance learning means you have to squeeze in study whenever you have time…Before this, I had been allo-cating weekends to spend on one or two units, and I would only study through the week if I had a few hours to spare (Nie et al., 2011, p. 29).

The instant ‘on’ and ‘off ’ functionality of the PRS-505, along with the ability to bookmark texts, increased the probability of students using the devices in short stretches of time and while traveling (Nie et al., 2011). In summary, the mo-bile device helped students make more efficient use of their time, and many students reported that the device affected how they studied.

Students expressed concern over some limitations of the device, as well, although the majority of these have been resolved by hard-ware and software updates since the study was undertaken. The most pressing limitation not-ed was the lack of a note-taking feature, which has since been added (Nie et al., 2011). As with all mobile devices, the marketplace changes so quickly and frequently that limitations are rarely in place for long.

Faculty ConcernsAlthough technology is present, in some

form, in most modern classrooms, many faculty members have been hesitant to embrace it and evolve their pedagogical practices to keep up with it. A number of factors contribute to this, including attitude, anxiety, self-efficacy, risk aversion, time commitments, competency with computers, and whether they feel technology is relevant to their pedagogy (Shim & Shim, 2001).

Shim and Shim (2001) postulate that faculty need substantial training in and support of tech-nology to reflect their increased usage. Some institutions of higher education have aimed to increase faculty familiarity with technology by issuing all professors laptop computers, yet putting the tools in faculty hands alone is not enough to effect change. According to Shim and Shim (2001), mobile computing is only as effective as the infrastructure supporting it on an institution’s network. The researchers cau-tion, however, that faculty use of “computers, electronic mail, and the Web in classes appeared to have no association with their perceptions to-ward mobile computing for educational activi-ties” (p. 350).

Many faculty members tend to view mobile technologies as benefitting their students more than their pedagogical and procedural interests. In a survey, faculty predicted that mobile learn-ing would most improve, in ranked order, com-munication, student learning, faculty teaching, and collaboration (Shim & Shim, 2001).

What may motivate faculty to embrace mo-bile technologies is to go beyond simply provid-ing the devices. Organizing workshops, semi-nars, and training provides professors with the opportunity not only learn to how to use mobile devices, but to become enthusiastic about the pedagogical opportunities they present (Shim & Shim, 2001). As Park (2011) notes, “instruction-al designers and teachers need a solid theoretical foundation for mobile learning in the context of distance education and more guidance about how to utilize emerging mobile technologies and integrate them into their teaching more ef-fectively” (p. 79).

According to Elias (2011), a solid theoreti-cal foundation in mobile learning addresses eq-uitable use, flexible use, simple and intuitive in-terfaces, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical and technical effort, commu-nity of learners and support, and instructional climate. These principles could manifest them-selves in the following ways:

• Equitable use: Use cloud-based storage for content delivery

• Flexible use: Consider unconventional as-signment styles and delivery methods

• Simple and intuitive: Use minimalistic, open-source software

• Perceptible information: Add captions and descriptive text to all media, in case mobile screens don’t properly align content

• Tolerance for error: Allow students to edit forum posts that may suffer from the limita-tions of small mobile screens and keyboards

• Low physical and technical effort: Select software and websites that are either format-ted for mobile devices or are easily readable on smaller screens

• Community of learners and support: Group students based on technological abilities and preferences

• Instructional climate: Faculty member is regularly accessible and in contact via a variety of mobile-friendly methods (email, video conferencing, and instant messaging, for example)

Volume 56, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2012 53

Education that is inclusive and accessible by all types of learners is the goal of universal design principles. Mobile technologies have the ability to open distance learning to even more students in even more situations.

The number of faculty, and certainly the number of students, asking for a more integrated course experience (including mobile integration) is growing. Faculty and students are looking for their online learning/course management sys-tems to provide a fuller experience than simply delivery of text content. They expect multimedia along with intuitive chat and messaging tools, built into the software (Jafari et al., 2006). This is expanding to include accessibility of those fea-tures via a mobile device.

At least half a decade ago, mobility became important to distance educators (Jafari et al., 2006). Mobility is no less important today. Mo-bile integration, much like it provides for stu-dents, allows additional flexibility for distance professors who are, out of necessity, connected to network services more often than traditional brick-and-mortar faculty.

ConclusionAlthough mobile technology holds great

promise as a medium for learning, the challenge for educators is to create and provide instruction using the medium in order to engage learners and teach them effectively (Anderson, 2008). It is important to remember that while technology is a critical component of distance education, ul-timately educators and administrators must re-main focused on learner needs and instructional goals and outcomes (Yousef et al., 2007).

While limitations and concerns about mo-bile learning exist, with regards to current mobile capabilities (as well as the impact on program administration, which was not discussed here), the increased flexibility, minimizing of transac-tional distance, and educational benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages. As student and faculty expectations for mobile-integrated edu-cation grow, distance education programs and institutions will be pressed to keep up with de-mand. The demands, however, should result in more connected, efficient learners and instruc-tors that will continue to thrive in an increasingly networked world.

AcknowledgementsThis manuscript was originally submitted for

a course in East Carolina University’s Master’s of Science in Instructional Technology program.

Shauna’h Fuegen, M.S.Ed (sfuegen@bates.edu) is a Cur-ricular Technology Consultant for the humanities at Bates College. Ms. Fuegen’s research interests include mobile learning and distance education. She is currently a student in East Carolina University’s Master of Science in Instruc-tional Technology program.

ReferencesAnderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of

Online Learning, Second Edition. Edmonton, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.e-booksdirec-tory.com/details.php?ebook=2097

Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A34.

Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design prin-ciples for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 143-156. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Jafari, A., McGee, P., & Carmeal, C. (2006, July/August). Managing courses, defining learning: What faculty, students, and administrators want. Educause. Re-trieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Keskin, N.O., & Metcalf, D. (2011). The current perspec-tives, theories, and practices of mobile learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 202-208. Retrieved from http://www.ebsco-host.com

Nie, M., Armellini, A., Witthaus, G., & Barklamb, K. (2011). How do e-book readers enhance learning opportunities for distance work-based learners? Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 19-38. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102. Retrieved from http://www.ebsco-host.com

Pew Research Center, Internet & American Life Project. (2012). Nearly half of American adults are smart-phone owners. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012.aspx

Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An Administra-tor’s Guide to Online Education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Shim, M.K., & Shim, S.J. (2001). Mobile computing in higher education: Faculty perceptions of benefits and barriers. J. Educational Technology Systems, 29(4), 345-354. Retrieved from http://www.ebsco-host.com

United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Hu-man Development Report 2010; The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf

Yousuf, M.I. (2007). Effectiveness of mobile learning in distance education. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(4), 114 – 124. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the property of Springer Science

& Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.