COVER SHEET

This is the author-version of article published as:

Cobcroft, Rachel S and Towers, Stephen and Smith, Judith and

Bruns, Axel (2006) Mobile learning in review: Opportunities and
challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions. In Proceedings
Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006, pages pp. 21-30,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Accessed from http://eprints.qut.edu.au

Mobile learning in review: Opportunities and challenges for
learners, teachers, and institutions

Rachel Cobcroft, Stephen Towers, Judith Smith & Axel Bruns

Creative Industries Faculty
Queensland University of Technology, AUSTRALIA
r.cobcroft@qut.edu.au, s.towers@qut.edu.au, je.smith@qut.edu.au, a.bruns@qut.edu.au

Abstract
Opportunities and challenges are emerging for learners, teachers and institutions
from the increasing availability of low-cost mobile and wireless devices and
associated infrastructure. In order to ascertain the current state of knowledge and
research, an extensive review and synthesis of the literature in mobile learning has
been undertaken to identify and harness potential factors and gaps in
implementation.
This paper presents the findings of this review. It seeks to facilitate the inquiry into
‘What is possible in m-learning?’ and ‘Why is it necessary to pursue these
possibilities?’ A central theme is identified as the need to develop overarching
principles and realistic visions for m-learning approaches, moving beyond specific
implementations and branded technologies to examine global trends. This paper
advocates the development of a best-practice framework to guide future action and
thinking.

Keywords
best practice; collaboration; creativity; literacy; mobile learning; social
constructivism; student engagement

Introduction
Rapid developments in information and communications technologies (ICT) and evolving learner
behaviours require learning institutions to continuously revaluate their approaches to pedagogy,
both in the physical and virtual ‘classroom’ spaces. The increasing availability of low-cost mobile
and wireless devices and associated infrastructure heralds both opportunities and challenges for
educational institutions and their teachers and learners. This paper considers these trends to ask:
‘What is possible in m-learning?’ and ‘Which imperatives do higher education institutions face in
pursuing these possibilities?’.
The rationale to undertake a review into mobile devices was to understand and embrace the
changes in learners, teachers and institutions in concert with associated ICT advances, whilst
acknowledging the risks. Research into, and application of, mobile learning potentially brings the
rewards of placing institutions at the forefront of pedagogical practice and addresses student
requirements for flexibility and ubiquity, that is, ‘anywhere, anytime, and any device’ learner
engagement. Furthermore, the review offers insights into whether mobile learning was ‘… highly
situated, personal, collaborative, and long-term; in other words, truly learner-centred learning’ as
envisaged by Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula and Sharples (2004, p. 36). The paper outlines themes
and trends emerging in the literature and highlights the current status of practice and theorising
beyond simple descriptive case studies.
Review of existing literature
An extensive review and synthesis of the literature in mobile learning was undertaken to ascertain
the current state of knowledge and research including identifying potential factors and gaps in
implementation (Cobcroft, 2006). Our goal was to move beyond specific implementations and
branded technologies to examine global trends, in order to present a ‘what to’ approach to guide
future action and thinking for learners, teachers, and institutions. Over 400 recent publications
were reviewed, encompassing conference papers, reports, reviews, and research projects. The
review examined the preparedness of the higher education sector to comprehend, and take
advantage of, the differences between the ‘physical vs. the digital, the sedentary vs. the nomadic’
(Alexander, 2004). It sought to provide a pathway to what Salmon (2004) refers to as the ‘fourth
generation’ of electronic learning environments, which in our view would incorporate the physical
and the digital, the sedentary and the nomadic, and the online, the offline, and the wireless.
Rather than presenting a series of isolated case studies that may or may not be transferable from
specific institutional settings to other learning and teaching contexts, the synthesis of the literature
focuses on presenting a collection of visions for the development of m-learning approaches.
Similarly, instead of offering generic perspectives for learning in a highly technological future
environment, it seeks to synthesise the literature to identify a realistic vision for the application
and implementation of embedded m-learning technologies as they become available.

M-learning’s opportunities and challenges: emerging themes

Several key areas of m-learning theory, application and development were identified from the
literature review. We introduce the changing dynamics of learners, institutions and ICTs to
provide the context for the establishment of mobile learning, emphasising the drivers and
motivations towards adoption, and identifying the systemic impediments towards reaching this
goal; we further present some possible realistic visions for embedding mobile learning to engage
learners in creative, collaborative, critical, and communicative activity, as well as the opportunities
for m-learning implementation. Finally, we argue for the development of a holistic m-learning
framework in which mobile and wireless technologies are efficiently and effectively employed to
enhance learner capabilities. This is intended to establish the need for a formative framework that
progresses past the individual case study to a consolidated approach.

The changing learning & teaching landscape

Higher education institutions are confronted by considerable change driven by multiple external
factors. Relevant to this review were the increasing tensions between the relative costs and
benefits of the physical versus the virtual environments; the dramatic shifts in the characteristics of
learners and how these shape the curriculum; and institutional strategy and policies. Blended
learning environments that incorporate the physical and virtual are seen as critical strategies for
higher education institutions. As summarised by McGovern and Gray (2005, p. 390), such
environments have implications for learners (learning experience), teachers (practices), technology
planning and sustainability. Within this context, the increasing availability of handheld and
wireless devices prompts consideration of their application and benefit in the curriculum and
whether this is marginal activity or ‘core business.’ The changing landscape is discussed in terms
of changes relating to learners, institutions and the technologies.

Learner changes
A constant exposure to digital technologies, gadgets, games, and mobile devices has arguably
evolved a new breed of student, the ‘natives’: those learners who think and process information
fundamentally differently from their predecessors, the ‘immigrants’, whose interaction with these
tools is not innate. Prensky (2001) and several other authors have sought to describe the changes in
learners in terms of generational differences, measuring such differences by the ease with which
they adopt and adapt to new technologies. Oblinger (2003; 2004) considers the key traits of
today’s learners as being digitally literate, ‘always on’, mobile, experimental and community
oriented. Characteristics of the ‘millennial student’ — those born from 1982 (Oblinger, 2003;
Oblinger, 2004; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; McMahon & Pospisil, 2005; Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil,
2004; Howe & Strauss, 2000; Poindexter, 2003; Raines, 2002) — are described as being focused
on ‘connectedness’ and social interaction, and as having preference for group-based activities in
study and social occasions. Being in possession of an information technology mindset and a highly
developed skill in multitasking (McMahon & Pospisil, 2005, p. 421), the millennial generation
stays in contact through SMS, mobile phones, chatrooms, and email, whilst simultaneously
playing computer games, listening to music, and watching television (Frand, 2000, p. 18;
Oblinger, 2003; Rickard & Oblinger, 2003). In their desire to be creative, to collaborate, and with
this, to gain celebrity, today’s learners are also seen to belong to ‘Generation C’
(Trendwatching.com, 2005). This trend indicates a movement towards the do-it-yourself (DIY)
user-led creation of content. A new focus therefore forms on developing these capacities in the
form of creative, collaborative, critical, and communicative responses. Thomas (2005) described
the potential for institutions as ‘pervasive learning’, where a learner ‘authors himself, in a location
that the learner finds meaningful and relevant’ (p. 1). The development of such pervasive learning
models cannot be an end in itself, but is itself a response to learners’ new ways of being.

Technological changes
The changes in mobile and wireless ICTs for learning and teaching are extensive. The literature
review considered the following options for m-learning: tablet PCs (Corlett & Sharples, 2004),
iPods (Duke University, 2004; Perlman, 2005), palmtop computers (Savill-Smith & Kent, 2003),
Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) (Singh, Denoue, & Das, 2004; Squire, Johnson, Holland,
Nataf, & Klopfer, 2002; Cochrane, 2005), mobile phones and SMS (Wagner, 2005; Cheung, 2004;
Faulkner, 2004; Gonzales, Ittelson, & Krebs, 2004; Geddes, 2004; Mellow, 2005), and wireless
infrastructure (Sotillo, 2003; Falk, 2003; Lu, Chun-Sheng, Chang, & Yao, 2003). Some devices
(for example, mobile phones) have enjoyed extensive diffusion, whereas devices such as laptop
computers have only recently reached the price point where they can reach critical mass for
learners. The widespread availability of the technology is fundamental but by itself it is
insufficient for effective learning environments. As suggested by Wagner (2005), ‘The success of
mobile learning will ultimately revolve around a mosaic of rich converged experiences’ (p. 52). As
we will show, this is also inextricably linked to changes in learners and their institutions.
In considering the implementation of mobile learning, Attewell (2005) suggests five broad
categories of technology that should be considered, namely transport, platform, delivery, media
technologies, and development languages, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Technology selection (Attewell, 2005, p. 3)

Institutional changes
Administrators and teaching staff within institutions are increasingly acknowledging and
responding to external factors (such as competition, market trends and government policy
imperatives) and internal factors (such as student preferences, staff capabilities, and pedagogical
approaches). The changing costs of technology purchase and maintenance also mean that the
provision of mobile and wireless access compares increasingly favourably with the maintenance of
on-campus computer facilities, even if students are provided with subsidised or free hardware
when they first enrol.
Beyond the financial bottom line, advances in ICTs influence the acquisition and management of
knowledge and skills, and it is critical that institutions understand and respond to the learners’ and
staff’s changing expectations and shifting capabilities. It is essential that the appropriate blends of
campus-based experiences integrated with virtual learning be determined in order to facilitate
efficient and effective student-centred learning. Agnes Kukulska-Hulme and John Traxler (2005)
analysed a selection of international case studies to explore institutional motivations for
undertaking m-learning projects. Their research reveals that the rationale for employing mobile
technologies in teaching and learning relate principally to access, exploring changing trends in
pedagogy, and alignment with institutional aims.
Bates and Poole (2003) propose a similar model for determining technology choices for effective
learning and teaching in higher education; their criteria include appropriateness and access, ease of
use and reliability, costs, teaching and learning approaches, interactivity, organisational issues,
novelty, and speed. Whatever the list of criteria employed, an investigation of whether the right
technology has been selected is arguably a key aspect of a comprehensive evaluation of mobile
learning.

Responding to systemic challenges

Institutions need to manage adoption independent of specific models and types to conserve
resources and minimise change fatigue. Similarly, institutions should note that ICT adoption is
subject to the Gartner Hype Cycle (Linden & Fenn, 2003) and that infrastructure planning
consequently warrants a strategic risk management approach. Selecting the appropriate technology
infrastructure requires an assessment of the appropriateness, quality, compatibility and cost of the
devices. Issues such as the management of learning through intermittent connections to
institutional learning management systems (LMSs), in addition to maintaining device-independent
delivery, pose significant obstacles to m-learning implementation.
As with all change management projects, gaining institutional support for the m-learning approach
is critical. Areas to be addressed include cost, compatibility, equity of access, security, privacy and
ethical concerns (Traxler & Bridges, 2004; Mobile Learning Group, 2004). In terms of application,
issues including lack of teacher confidence, training, and technical difficulties with devices used
may impact negatively on their uptake and use (Facer, Faux, & McFarlane, 2005).
Effective blended teaching and learning environments require the commitment to integrating ICTs
for more than ‘bolt-on’ information provision to facilitate engagement, connection and to create a
scholarly community of practice in which learners can participate flexibly. Online methods for
learning and teaching need to be ‘viewed as a new context for learning, not just as a tool’ (Salmon,
2004, p. 17). The editors of Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, Agnes
Kukulska-Hulme and John Traxler (2005), provide an impetus for educators, researchers, and
policy makers to integrate evaluation and quality assurance into the development and
implementations of m-learning technologies. They demonstrate that the design, planning,
implementation, and evaluation of the use of mobile technologies must be integrated in order to be
successful. When considering the implementation of mobile infrastructure, it must be conceded
that m-learning will not suit all learners and every situation.
Mobile learning does, however, offer new solutions to traditionally problematic contexts of
information delivery. A number of authors emphasise the opportunities of access afforded by
mobile learning. The range of learners whose needs may be met by m-learning includes
mature-aged, gifted, international and remote learners, as well as those with cognitive, behavioural
or social problems, or with physical or mental difficulties (Savill-Smith & Kent, 2003; Strom &
Strom, 2002; Rodríguez, Nussbaum, Zurita, Rosas, & Lagos, 2001). Mobile devices can help
improve literacy and numeracy skills; encourage independent and collaborative learning
experiences; identify areas where learners need assistance and support; mitigate resistance using
ICTs; engage reluctant learners; enable learners to remain more focused for longer periods and
promote self-esteem and self-confidence (Attewell, 2005, pp. 13–15).
Educators will need to establish the contexts in which the use of mobile technologies is relevant.
For example, significant social, economic, ethical and educational factors will influence the
effective and efficient uptake of mobile technologies. Innovative tools need to be interpreted and
used according to the environment in which they will operate, with the concession that they may
have a major impact on transforming current cultures and practices.

Realistic visions for m-learning

Social software, social networks: social construction of learning

Learners inhabit a social, cultural, and technological environment, and their learning is a
‘constructive process of acting within an environment and reflecting upon it’ (Sharples, 2000, p. 4)
where knowledge is constructed and shared as part of a social process (Johnson, Johnson, &
Smith, 1991, p. 11). A social constructivist view of learning considers that students learn best
when given the opportunity to learn skills and theories in the context in which they are used
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Resnick, 1987; Soloway, Grant, Tinker, Roschelle, Mills,
Resnick et al., 1999). Students then construct their interpretations of a subject and communicate
those understandings to others (Gay, Stefanone, Grace-Martin, & Hembrooke, 2001). Mobile
technologies, if employed effectively, can support social constructivist approaches to learning.
Todd Bryant (2006) sees these technologies as tools to ‘expand discussion beyond the classroom
and provide new ways for students to collaborate and communicate within their class or around the
world’ (p. 61). Equally, the trend towards ‘Web 2.0’ (O’Reilly, 2005), the next iteration of the
World Wide Web characterised by open communication and communities’ interaction in the
creation of content, is considered as a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning
(Alexander, 2006).
Consequently, through the application of mobile technologies within the learning design, students
can be further empowered to undertake ‘user-led education,’ creating their own content and
collaborating with peers and communities within and beyond the classroom. Generation C
(Trendwatching.com, 2005) operates and interacts well as a digital native in this domain. The
involvement of the user in the development of content and institutions’ increased interaction with
community are now seen to harness the power of ‘produsage’ (Bruns, 2005a; 2005b), the
‘collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further
improvement’ (Bruns, 2005b). Moreover, in offering flexibility, ubiquity of access to information,
and motivating increased engagement, mobile technologies and infrastructure facilitate this
revolution of ‘always-on learning, accessible to the masses, but tailored to the individual’
(Thomas, 2005, p. 5). Pervasive learning facilitated by mobile technologies offers flexibility to
learners in terms of community, autonomy, locationality and relationality (Thomas, 2005, p. 2).
In terms of location, for example, mobile learners should have the option of choosing when and
where they learn. This accrues the benefit of allowing learners to translate ‘textbook’ experience
into knowledge apposite to the ‘real world’. According to Mifsud (2003), following Soloway,
Norris, Blumenfeld, Fishman and Marx (2001), flexible access to handheld technology will
provide the tools to help learners construct knowledge throughout their daily activities, thereby
making this technology an integral part of daily learning. Moreover, learning will increasingly
occur in contexts outside the classroom (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Resnick, 1987), where the
importance of community contexts becomes paramount (Sharples, 2000).

Creative, collaborative, critical, and communicative engagement of learners

Synthesis of the relevant literature confirms that mobile technologies are able to support learners’
engagement in creative, collaborative, critical, and communicative learning activities, but
considerable diversity was found in the ways teachers and learners have used digital and mobile
technologies to support these real-world practices.
According to Loveless (2002, p. 4), the affordances of digital technologies are being exploited in
processes such as developing ideas, making connections, creating and making, collaboration, and
communication and evaluation.
Recent literature indicated that mobile and wireless technologies offer considerable benefits and
affordances sympathetic to building and supporting creative, collaborative, critical, and
communicative capacities within learning environments. Several authors refer to the capacity of
mobile learning to enhance collaborative interactions and communities of practice (Cortez,
Nussbaum, Santelices, Rodriguez, Zurita, Correa et al., 2004; Colley & Stead, 2004; Stead, 2005;
Zurita, Nussbaum, & Sharples, 2003; Barker, Krull, & Mallison, 2005). Mobile technologies
obviate the weaknesses of coordination, communication, organisation, negotiation, interactivity,
and mobility encountered in collaborative learning undertaken without technology, as
demonstrated by Zurita and Nussbaum (2004). Similarly, Naismith, Londsale, Vavoula and
Sharples (2004) see the strength of mobile technology as providing a shared conversation space,
given that ‘effective learning occurs when people can converse with each other, by interrogating
and sharing their descriptions of the world’ (p. 27). The facilitation of improved communication
and interaction between staff and students in the university environment via mobile technologies
has also been considered by Beale and Jones (2004), McGovern and Gray (2005), and Field (2005)
in the blended learning environment. The work of Divitini, Haugalokken and Norevik (2002, p. 1)
explores the ‘potentialities’ of mobile technologies for coordination and communication and how
they may be used for accessing timely information independent of place, new communication
channels and facilitating peer and teacher communication.

Conclusion

Towards an m-learning conceptual framework

What is evident from the discussion above is the need for conceptual frameworks to guide the
design of learning-centred educational environments that best exploit mobile and wireless devices.
Boud and Prosser’s (2002, pp. 240–241) broad framework for appraising learning activities using
new technologies is useful to a discussion of what constitutes high-quality m-learning. The
authors’ framework refers to four key areas that are considered to be fundamental to enhancing the
students’ experiences of their learning activities in engaging learners, acknowledging the learning
context, challenging learners, and providing practice.
In adhering to these principles of design, mobile technologies can contribute to quality learning
experiences for students. M-learning could be instrumental in increasing learning flexibility by
customising learning to be a more personalised and learner-centred activity (Leadbetter, 2005,
cited in Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005; Bull & Reid, 2003). Moreover, we propose that
m-learning can support the social construction of knowledge amongst learners by enhancing their
critical, creative, collaborative and communicative engagement within the sites of application of
knowledge. By challenging learners to engage collaboratively in DIY, co-creation of content or
game-playing, m-learning can also contribute to building distributed learning networks of diverse
participants who are actively participating in creative activities, as well as critically reflecting on
their own and others’ practice.
While broad frameworks for e-learning provide some guidance for learning designers, the
literature review indicated that there was little attention being paid to developing specific
frameworks to support the design of mobile learning. An initial attempt offered by Sharples,
Taylor and Vavoula (2005, p. 4) suggested that a theory of mobile learning should be assessed
against the following criteria:
• Is it significantly different from current theories of classroom, workplace or lifelong
learning?
• Does it account for the mobility of learners?
• Does it cover both formal and informal learning?
• Does it theorise learning as a constructive and social process?
• Does it analyse learning as a personal and situated activity mediated by technology?
A conceptual framework for the design of mobile learning should ensure the achievement of
learner-centred, highly situated, personal and collaborative mobile learning (Naismith, Lonsdale,
Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 36) while also providing educators with the ability to understand
and respond to systemic challenges in offering a realistic vision for efficient and effective mobile
learning and teaching. By considering learners’ creative, collaborative, communicative, and
critical engagement, such a framework could provide meaningful insight into the achievement of
enhanced learner knowledge, skills, and attributes. A framework will also need to consider a range
of contemporary options, encompassing mobile learning’s ludic possibilities (Mitchell & Popat,
2003; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004;), and engagement with distributed learning networks and
remote communities (Hine, Rentoul, & Specht, 2003; Laroussi & Derycke, 2003; Viljoen, 2005).
A decisive element to consider for all aspects of m-learning development is the identification of
the ‘tipping point,’ where the uptake of mobile and wireless technologies will gain a critical mass
which compels institutions to adopt effective and efficient mobile learning plans and approaches.
It is beyond this tipping point that the potential for pervasive and seamless m-learning pedagogical
approaches will be realised for learners, teachers, and institutions. Finally, then, as we move
towards that point, the philosophical underpinnings of such m-learning pedagogies will also need
to be further developed.

References
Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review,
35(5), 29–35.
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE
Review, 41(2), 32–44. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from
http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0621.asp?bhcp=1
Attewell, J. (2005). From research and development to mobile learning: Tools for education and
training providers and their learners. Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved December 20,
2005, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Attewell.pdf
Barker, A., Krull, G., & Mallinson, B. (2005). A proposed theoretical model for m-learning
adoption in developing countries. Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2005,
from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Barker.pdf
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Beale, R., & Jones, M. (2004). Integrating situated interaction with mobile awareness.
Proceedings of mLearn 2004: Mobile learning anytime everywhere (pp. 25–26). London:
Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Boud, D., & Prosser, M. (2002). Appraising new technologies for learning: A framework for
development. Educational Media International, 39(3/4).
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
Bruns, A. (2005a). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.
Bruns, A. (2005b). Some exploratory notes on produsers and produsage. Retrieved April 25,
2006, from http://snurb.info/index.php?q=node/329
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2. Retrieved June 20,
2006, from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0627.pdf
Bull, S., & Reid, E. (2003). Individualised revision material for use on a handheld computer. In
J. Attewell, G. Da Bormida, M. Sharples, & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), mLearn 2003 book of
abstracts (pp. 8–9). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Cheung, S. (2004). Using mobile phone messaging as a response medium in classroom
experiments. Social science research network. Retrieved December 13, 2005, from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=605863
Cobcroft, R. S. (2006). Literature review into mobile learning in the university context. Retrieved
August 16, 2006, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004805/
Cochrane, T. (2005). Mobilising learning: A primer for utilising wireless palm devices to facilitate
a collaborative learning environment. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved January 12,
2006, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/
16_Cochrane.pdf
Colley, J., & Stead, G. (2004). Mobile learning = collaboration. Proceedings of mLearn 2004:
Mobile learning anytime everywhere (pp. 57–58). London: Learning and Skills Development
Agency.
Corlett, D., & Sharples, M. (2004). Tablet technology for informal collaboration in higher
education. Proceedings of mLearn 2004: Mobile learning anytime everywhere (pp. 59–62).
London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R., Rodríguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M., et al. (2004).
Teaching science with mobile computer supported collaborative learning (MCSCL).
Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education
(WMTE ’04) (pp. 67–74). JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society.
Divitini, M., Haugalokken, O.K., & Norevik, P-A. (2002). Improving communication through
mobile technologies: Which possibilities? Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on
wireless and mobile technologies in education (WMTE ’02) (pp. 86-90). Vaxjo, Sweden: IEEE
Computer Society.
Duke University. (2004). iPods enter Duke classes. Retrieved December 13, 2005, from
http://cit.duke.edu/ideas/newprofiles/ipod_faculty_articles.do
Facer, K., Faux, F., & McFarlane, A. (2005). Challenges and opportunities: Making mobile
learning a reality in schools. Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from
http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Facer%20-%20Faux%20-%20McFarlane.pdf
Falk, H. (2003). Electronic campus. The Electronic Library, 21(1), 63–66.
Faulkner, S. (2004, August 18–24). Have you got my number? Campus Review, 17.
Field, R. (2005). Favourable conditions for effective and efficient learning in a blended
face-to-face/online method. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/23_Field.pdf
Frand, J. (2000). The information age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher
education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 15–24.
Gay, G., Stefanone, M., Grace-Martin, M., & Hembrooke, H. (2001). The effects of wireless
computing in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 13(2), 257–276.
Geddes, S. (2004). Mobile learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners. The knowledge tree.
Retrieved December 13, 2005, from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/
edition06/download/geddes.pdf
Gonzales, G., Ilttelson, J., & Krebs, A. (2004). Mobile education: On campus and in the
community. Proceedings from EDUCAUSE 2004, Denver, CO.
Hine, N., Rentoul, R., & Specht, M. (2003). Collaboration and roles in remote field trips.
Proceedings of mLearn 2003: Learning with mobile devices (pp. 69–72). London: Learning
and Skills Development Agency.
Howe, N., & Strauss, B. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York:
Vintage.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington,
D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The millennial effect: Implications for academic
development. Proceedings of the 2004 annual international conference of the Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Sarawak, Malaysia.
Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/conference2004/
Contributions/RPapers/P050-jt.pdf
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers. London: Routledge.
Laroussi, M., & Derycke, A. (2003). UBI-LEARN: Distributed learning platform with nomads
objects. Proceedings of the Ubiquitous and Mobile Computing for Educational Communities:
Enriching and Enlarging Community Spaces International Workshop, in conjunction with
Communities and Technologies 2003, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved December 15,
2005, from http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~divitini/umocec2003/Final/laroussi_Derycke.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner's hype cycles. Retrieved April 30, 2006,
from http://www.gartner.com/pages/story.php.id.8795.s.8.jsp.
Loveless, A. M. (2002). NESTA Futurelab Report 4: Literature review in creativity, new
technologies and learning. Bristol, UK: NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved December 17, 2005,
from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/download/pdfs/research/lit_reviews/
Creativity_Review.pdf.
Lu, J., Chun-Sheng, Y., Chang, L., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless
internet. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 13(13), 206–222.
McGovern, J., & Gray, K. (2005). Directions for organisation and management of university
learning: Implications from a qualitative survey of student e-learning. Proceedings of
ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/
brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/46_McGovern.pdf
McMahon, M., & Pospisil, R. (2005). Laptops for a digital lifestyle: Millennial students and
wireless mobile technologies. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006,
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/
49_McMahon%20&%20Pospisil.pdf
Mellow, P. (2005). The media generation: Maximise learning by getting mobile. Proceedings of
ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/53_Mellow.pdf
Mifsud, L. (2003). Learning 2go: Making reality of the scenarios? Proceedings of mLearn 2003:
Learning with mobile devices (pp. 99–104). London: Learning and Skills Development
Agency.
Mitchell, A., & Popat, K. (2003). Exploring the potential of a games-oriented implementation for
m-portal. Proceedings of mLearn 2003: Learning with mobile devices (pp. 105–116). London:
Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A
review of the literature. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved
June 16, 2006, from http://www.m-learning.org/docs/
The%20use%20of%20computer%20and%20video%20games%20for%20learning.pdf
Mobile Learning Group. (2004). Mobile learning: Challenges. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from
http://www3.telus.net/~kdeanna/mlearning/challenges.htm
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). NESTA Futurelab Report 11:
Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Bristol, UK: NESTA Futurelab.
Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/reviews/
reviews_11_and12/11_01.htm
Oblinger, D. G. (2003). Boomers & gen-Xers, millennials: Understanding the “new students”.
EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37–47.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education, (8). Retrieved January 16, 2006, from http://www-
jime.open.ac.uk/2004/8/oblinger-2004-8-disc-paper.html
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved
December 15, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Perlman, D. (2005). Drexel gives iPod photos to education grads. Retrieved December 13, 2005,
from http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/04/42283c0b2ed6e
Poindexter, S. (2003). The case for holistic learning. Change, 35(1), 24–31.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Raines, C. (2002). Managing millennials. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Rickard, W., & Oblinger, D. (2003). Higher education leaders symposium: The next-generation
student. Redmond, WA. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NLI0425a.pdf
Rodríguez, P., Nussbaum, M., Zurita, G., Rosas, R., & Lagos, F. (2001). Personal digital assistants
in the classroom: an experience. Proceedings of the Ed-Media world conference on
educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2001 (pp. 1567–1572). Retrieved
December 17, 2005, from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader
.ViewAbstract&paper_id=8546
Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching & learning online (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Savill-Smith, C., & Kent, P. (2003). The use of palmtop computers for learning: A review of the
literature. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved December 18,
2005, from http://www.m-learning.org/docs/the_use_of_palmtop_computers_for_
learning_sept03.pdf
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers
& Education, 34, 177–193.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings
of mLearn 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from
http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples-%20Theory%20of%20Mobile.pdf
Singh, G., Denoue, L., & Das, A. (2004). Collaborative note taking. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE
workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education (WMTE ’04) (pp. 163–167).
JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society.
Soloway, E., Grant, W., Tinker, R., Roschelle, J., Mills, M., Resnick, M. et al. (1999). Science in
the palm of their hands. Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 21–26.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B.J., & Marx, R. (2001). Hand-held devices are
ready at hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 15–20.
Sotillo, S.M. (2003). Pedagogical advantages of ubiquitous computing in a wireless environment.
The Technology Source. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from
http://education.korea.ac.kr/innwoo/edu603/Wireless/Pedagogical%20Advantages%20of%20U
biquitous%20Computing%20in%20a%20Wireless%20Environment.htm
Squire, K., Johnson, K., Holland, W., Nataf, Z., & Klopfer, E. (2002). MIT games-to-teach:
Design document for: A platform for augmented reality gaming. Environmental Detectives.
Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://cms.mit.edu/games/education/documents/
Handheld/Handheld.doc
Stead, G. (2005). Moving mobile into the mainstream. Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved
December 20, 2005, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Stead.pdf
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2002). Personal digital assistants and pagers: a model for parent
collaboration in school discipline. Journal of Family Studies, 8(2), 226–238.
Thomas, S. (2005). Pervasive, persuasive eLearning: Modeling the pervasive learning space.
Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on pervasive computing and communications
workshops (PERCOMW’05) (pp. 332–336). Kauai Island, Hawai’i: IEEE Computer Society.
Traxler, J., & Bridges, N. (2004). Mobile learning — the ethical and legal challenges. Retrieved
June 20, 2006, from http://www.mobilearn.org/download/events/mlearn_2004/presentations/
Traxler.pdf
Trendwatching.com. (2005). Generation C. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from
http://www.trendwatching.com/trends/GENERATION_C.htm
Viljoen, J-M. (2005). Innovative mLearning to support rural low-tech learners in Africa: The case
of using SMSs to support distance learner–teachers throughout South Africa. Proceedings of
mLearn 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from
http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/BOA_p.71.pdf
Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 40–53.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly
interconnected hand-held computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289–314.
Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M. & Sharples, M. (2003). Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning
through the use of hand-held computers in the classroom. Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2003
(pp. 193–208). Udine, Italy: Springer-Verlag.

Copyright © 2006 Rachel Cobcroft, Stephen Towers, Judith Smith, Axel Bruns.
The author(s) assign to QUT and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this
document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright
statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive licence to QUT to publish this document in
full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors), publication to CD-ROM and in printed form within the OLT
2006 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).