See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/372447949

Learning In Mobile Age

Article in International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning · March 2009

DOI: 10.4018/jmbl.2009010101 · Source: [Link]

CITATIONS READS

517 885

1 author:

John Traxler
University of Wolverhampton
145 PUBLICATIONS 6,162 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Traxler on 19 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 

Learning in a Mobile Age

John Traxler, Learning Lab, University of Wolverhampton, UK

Abstract
The launch of the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning is one of several indicators that
mobile learning globally is reaching a critical and sustainable momentum and identity. The past six or seven
years have seen a host of pilots and initiatives across sectors and across countries and these have established
firstly that mobile learning takes learning to individuals, communities and countries where access to learn-
ing was challenging or problematic and secondly that mobile learning enhances, enriches and extends how
learning is understood. Environmental factors have meant that this development has been haphazard. The
mobile learning community is now faced with broader challenges of scale, durability, equity, embedding
and blending in addition to the earlier and more specific challenges of pedagogy and technology, but these
developments take place in the context of societies where mobile devices, systems and technologies have
a far wider impact than just mobile learning as it is currently conceived. This paper looks at the definition
and evolution of mobile learning as the starting point for a discussion of this wider impact.

Keywords: mobility; mobile; mobile learning

Introduction limitations. Over the last ten or so years this

‘conventional’ e-learning has been exemplified
We need to define what we mean by ‘mobile technologically by the rise of virtual learning en-
learning’, not merely as a way of establishing vironments and the demise of computer assisted
a shared understanding but also as a way of learning ‘packages’, and pedagogically by the
exploring the evolution and direction of mobile rise of social constructivist models of learning
learning. In discussing how we define mobile over the behaviourist ones, by the growth of
learning we address many wider issues in terms the learning object approach, by expectations
of explaining, understanding and conceptualis- of ever increasing multi-media interactivity and
ing it. of ever-increasing power, speed, functionality
‘Mobile learning’ is certainly not merely and bandwidth in networked PC platforms.
the conjunction of ‘mobile’ and ‘learning’; it has These are some of the points of departure for
always implicitly meant ‘mobile e-learning’ and mobile learning. They refer back to ‘conven-
its history and development have to be under- tional’ e-learning and perhaps this is the mark
stood as both a continuation of ‘conventional’ of early ‘mobile learning immigrants’ and not
e-learning and a reaction to this ‘conventional’ the mark of the growing number of ‘mobile
e-learning and to its perceived inadequacies and learning natives’.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

We have to recognise that attempts at his pocket. I therefore define mobile learning
identifying and defining mobile learning grow as ‘the provision of education and training on
out of difference, out of attempts by emergent PDAs/palmtops/handhelds, smartphones and
communities to separate themselves from some mobile phones.’ One of the characteristics of
older and more established communities and mobile learning is that it uses devices
move on from perceived inadequate practices.
Interestingly, at the first mLearn conference in • which citizens are used to carrying every-
the spring of 2002, a key-note speaker predicted where with them,
that mobile learning would have a separate • which they regard as friendly and personal
identity for perhaps five years before blending devices,
into general e-learning. This has yet to happen • which are cheap and easy to use,
and mobile learning continues to gain identity • which they use constantly in all walks of
and definition rather than lose them. life and in a variety of different settings,
Irrespective of the exact definition, mobile except education.” (Keegan, 2005:3)
and wireless technologies, including handheld
computers, personal digital assistants, camera- The MoLeNET initiative, a £6m pro-
phones, smartphones, graphing calculators, gramme across the UK vocational sector, still
personal response systems, games consoles and takes this approach, defining mobile learning as,
personal media players, are ubiquitous in most “exploitation of ubiquitous handheld hardware,
parts of the world and have led to the develop- wireless networking and mobile telephony to
ment of ‘mobile learning’ as a distinctive but enhance and extend the reach of teaching and
ill-defined entity (see for example the reviews learning” (MoLeNET, 2007)
by Cobcroft 2006, and Naismith et al 2004). These definitions were too technocentric
and imprecise. The transience and diversity
of the devices, systems and platforms means
Easy Definitions that these definitions are also highly unstable.
They merely put mobile learning somewhere
Early approaches at defining mobile learning on e-learning’s spectrum of portability (ending
focussed on technology, for example saying it perhaps in ubiquitous, pervasive and wearable
was “any educational provision where the sole or learning). Furthermore, whilst these attempts
dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop at definition use specific technical attributes to
devices” (Traxler, 2005), or on the mobility consolidate a definition of mobile learning in
of the technology, describing mobile learning order to help us reason about it, other technical
as, “elearning through mobile computational attributes, notably connectivity, usability and
devices: Palms, Windows CE machines, even latency, have the very opposite effect and disrupt
your digital cell phone.” (Quinn, 2000). Another the notion that there is such a thing as mobile
view of mobile learning says it involves: “Any learning as an artefact of mobile technologies.
sort of learning that happens when the learner The uncertainty about whether laptops and
is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or Tablets deliver mobile learning – because of
learning that happens when the learner takes the lack of spontaneity in carrying them and
advantage of learning opportunities offered by starting them up - illustrates the difficulty with
mobile technologies” (O’Malley et al., 2003), this kind of definition and the emergence of
whilst Desmond Keegan took a similar posi- the UMPC (Ultra-Mobile PC) format and the
tion in 2005, saying “I feel that in the defini- low cost XO systems will further trouble this
tion of mobile learning the focus should be on boundary. They do however hint at the underly-
mobility. Mobile learning should be restricted ing challenge, that of conceptualising mobile
to learning on devices which a lady can carry learning in a way that recognises its origins and
in her handbag or a gentleman can carry in practices in specific technological systems but

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 

is abstract enough to be durable and to act as a 2007) have put case studies into the public
stable platform for theorising about education domain. In looking at these, Kukulska-Hulme
and learning. and Traxler (2007) see emergent categories and
Mobile learning, however defined, is now these may tackle the problem of definition from
sufficiently mature and varied to have greater a different direction:
clarity about the significant issues (see for ex-
ample Sharples 2006, defining the ‘big issues’), • Technology-driven mobile learning – a
a more sharply defined research agenda (see specific technological innovation is de-
for example, Arnedillo-Sánchez et al, 2007) ployed to demonstrate technical feasibility
and most importantly has established that the and pedagogic possibility, perhaps the new
mobile learning community can iPhone
• Miniature but portable e-learning – mobile,
• Take learning to individuals, communi- wireless and handheld technologies are
ties and countries that were previously used to re-enact approaches and solutions
too remote, socially or geographically, found in ‘conventional’ e-learning, perhaps
for other types of educational initiative. porting an established e-learning technol-
The m-learning project in Europe (www. ogy onto mobile devices.
[Link]) is the best example. • Connected classroom learning – the same
• Enhance and enrich the concept and activ- technologies are used in a classroom setting
ity of learning, beyond earlier conceptions to supported static collaborative learning,
of learning. The MOBILearn project in perhaps connected to other classroom
Europe ([Link]) is a good technologies; personal response systems,
example of this achievement. graphing calculators, PDAs linked to in-
teractive whiteboards etc.
There are still the significant challenges of • Mobile training and performance support
scale, sustainability, inclusion and equity in all – the technologies are used to improve
their different forms in the future, and of context the productivity and efficiency of mobile
and personalisation in all their possibilities, of workers by delivering information and
blending with other established and emerging support just-in-time and in context for their
educational technologies, and of tracking the immediate priorities, roles and duties
changes in technology. There is also the chal- • Large-Scale Implementation – the deploy-
lenge of developing the substantial and credible ment of mobile technologies at an institu-
evidence-base that will justify further research tional or departmental level to learn about
and development. These challenges will further organisational issues
shape our understanding of mobile learning. It • Inclusion, assistivity and diversity – using
is probably the case to date that these develop- assorted mobile and wireless technologies
ments in mobile learning have often been driven to enhance wider educational access and
by pedagogic necessity, technological innova- participation, for example personal in-
tion, funding opportunities and the perceived formation management for students with
inadequacies of conventional e-learning, and dyslexia
have perhaps worked within relatively narrow • Informal, personalised, situated mobile
educational discourses, those between and learning – the same core technologies are
amongst technologists and educationalists. enhanced with additional unique func-
More recent mobile learning publications tionality, for example location-awareness
(Kukulska-Hulme et al, 2005; JISC, 2005), or video-capture, and deployed to deliver
and conference proceedings (for example, Ally, educational experiences that would other-
2006; Attewell and Savill-Smith, 2004; Oliver, wise be difficult or impossible; for example
informal context-aware information in

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

museum spaces • For behaviourist-type activity, it is the

• Remote, rural and development mobile quick feedback or reinforcement element,
learning – the technologies are used to facilitated by mobile devices, that is most
address environmental and infrastruc- notable.
tural hurdles to delivering and supporting • For constructivist activity, mobile devices
education where ‘conventional’ e-learning enable immersive experiences such as
technologies would fail. those provided by mobile investigations
or games.
This classification is not purely theoreti- • For situated activity, learners can take a
cal. It has implications for the objectives and mobile device out into an authentic context,
methods of evaluation and for the techniques and or use it while moving around a context-
objectives for implementation; it may also imply aware environment in a specially equipped
the presence or otherwise of different underly- location such as a museum.
ing models of pedagogy and learning. These • For collaborative learning, mobile de-
may be innovative or conservative technically vices provide a handy additional means
or pedagogically by virtue of their place in the of communication and a portable means
classification. Of course, this attempt to define of electronic information sharing.
mobile learning by making instances - defini- • For informal and lifelong learning, mobile
tion by denotation – is potentially problematic devices accompany users in their everyday
since in choosing the instances we create a experiences and become a convenient
circular definition but it nevertheless takes us source of information or means of com-
a bit further forward. munication that assists with learning, or
Niall Winters (2006) provides a similar records it on the go for future consulta-
taxonomy which gives us an additional perspec- tion.
tive on what might characterise different types • Support, or coordination of learning and
of mobile learning, saying, “Current perspec- resources, can be improved by the avail-
tives on mobile learning generally fall into the ability of mobile technologies at all times
following four broad categories: for monitoring attendance or progress,
checking schedules and dates, reviewing
• Technocentric. This perspective dominates and managing, activities that teachers and
the literature… learners engage in at numerous times during
• Relationship to e-learning. This perspec- the day.
tive characterises mobile learning as an
extension of e-learning… An attempt by Sharples, Taylor and
• Augmenting formal education… Vavoula (2005:4) suggested that a theory of
• Learner-centred…” mobile learning should be assessed against
the following criteria; this was in effect their
and this echoes the earlier points. perspective on the defining characteristics of
Another classification of mobile learning mobile learning:
that might help us towards a definition is due to
Naismith et al. (2004) who suggest that mobile • Is it significantly different from current
technologies can relate to six types of learning, theories of classroom, workplace or life-
or ‘categories of activity’, namely behaviour- long learning?
ist, constructivist, situated, collaborative, • Does it account for the mobility of learn-
informal/lifelong, and support/coordination. ers?
The mobile learning may be manifest in the • Does it cover both formal and informal
following ways: learning?

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 

• Does it theorise learning as a constructive with these two technologies, the static and the
and social process? mobile, must also be vastly different.
• Does it analyse learning as a personal and This distinction based around learner
situated activity mediated by technol- experience is however not only blurred but in
ogy? part is also only temporary. Many of the virtues
of ‘conventional’ e-learning are the virtues of
Ann Jones (Jones et al 2006) makes a the power of its technology (and the invest-
similar contribution based on the motivational ment in it) and these virtues will be accessible
or affective aspects of mobile learning as defin- to mobile devices too as market forces drive
ing characteristics. These are both important in improvements in memory size, interface design,
themselves and often cited anecdotally as major processor speed, battery life and connectivity
factors behind decisions to deploy a mobile bandwidth. Nevertheless, this approach under-
learning strategy. They are, pins a definition of mobile learning in terms of
the learners’ experiences and an emphasis on
• control (over goals) ‘ownership’, informality, spontaneity, mobility
• ownership and context that will always be inaccessible to
• fun ‘conventional’ e-learning. We should add that
• communication the reported learner experience of mobile learn-
• learning-in-context ing may depend on where the specific project
• continuity between contexts fits into the earlier taxonomy.

There have also been attempts to define

mobile learning and thus to distinguish it from Theories of Mobile
‘conventional’ e-learning in terms of the learn- Learning
ers’ experiences. One view (Traxler, 2006)
in looking at the characterisations of mobile The communities cohering around mobile
learning found in the literature finds words learning may still feel the need for a theory of
such as ‘personal’, ‘spontaneous’, ‘disruptive’ mobile learning as well as a definition, for ex-
‘opportunistic’, ‘informal’, ‘pervasive’, ‘situ- ample because of the ability of theory to define
ated’, ‘private’, ‘context-aware’, ‘bite-sized’ a research agenda or produce useful predictions
and ‘portable’. These are contrasted with words and generalizations (although in a postmodern
from the literature of ‘conventional’ e-learning era, the role of theory as an informing construct
such as ‘structured’, ‘media-rich’, ‘broadband’, is under threat). Such a theory may how-
‘interactive’, ‘intelligent’ and ‘usable’. We ever be particularly problematic since mobile
can use these to make a blurred distinction learning is an inherently ‘noisy’ phenomenon
between mobile learning and ‘conventional’ where context is everything and confounding
e-learning. However this distinction, based on variables abound, and if theory is something
the learners’ experiences of the two different generated by abstracting upwards from practice
modes of learning, misses a greater distinction. and experience, then perhaps mobile learning
‘Conventional’ e-learning nearly always takes has yet to reach the critical mass of experience
place in situations where the learners’ time and practice that justify such abstraction and
and space have been dedicated and committed has been too fragmented to justify transferable
to e-learning, facing their computer, sat with generalisations. The work of Kuhn (1962) on
their back to the world, with e-learning taking the structure of intellectual change provides
centre-stage. Mobile learning in the sense that some insights into the role of ‘theory’ in rela-
we have been talking about it takes place woven tion to the professional activities of researchers
into a host of daily tasks, places and situations. (though not one without its critics)
The associations that learners generally have

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

‘Conventional’ e-learning has certainly the tasks set, the information available online,
gained credibility and status from the work of, the characteristics of the world they are in, and
for example, Laurillard (2002) and Salmon peer support.” This is a case of mobile learning
(2000) but there is currently insufficient work looking to challenge and extend an accepted
in mobile learning generally to underpin much e-learning theory.
theory building. Theories of ‘conventional’ e- The emerging theories of ‘connectivism’
learning rest on the experience of stable tech- (Siemens, 2004) and ‘navigationism’ (Brown,
nology platforms; the dominant and enduring 2005) are nearer to the second option. People are
nature of Windows, QWERTY, IP, HTML and now learning “through communities of practice,
WWW means that theorising about ‘conven- personal networks, and through completion
tional’ e-learning can take place in a technology of work-related tasks” in an environment in
environment that is consistent, homogeneous which “know-how and know-what is being
and transparent – the technology no longer supplemented with know-where (the under-
gets in the way. The technology platform upon standing of where to find knowledge needed)”
which mobile learning theory might rest is by (Siemens, 2005).
comparison volatile, inconsistent and haphazard Thirdly, it is fair to say that many of the
and so must impede the work of understanding more theoretically inclined members of the
mobile learning itself. mobile learning community (see for example
We could argue that the mobile learning Sharples et al, 2005) subscribe to versions of
community in looking for theory is – to over- Yrjö Engeström’s ‘Activity Theory’ (1987) and
simplify - faced with three different options this would be the most obvious example of the
and dilemmas: third option, an analysis of much or all purposive
human activity. Engeström and his colleagues
• Import theory from ‘conventional’ e-learn- refers to Activity Theory as a “commonly ac-
ing and worry about transferability cepted name for a line of theorizing and research
• Develop theory ab initio locally and worry initiated by the founders of the cultural-histori-
about validity cal school of Russian psychology.” whilst oth-
• Subscribe to some much more general and ers (Er and Kay, 2005) say that the underlying
abstract theory and worry about specificity philosophy of the theory is to explain human
and granularity activity and behaviour. Learning is analysed as
a cultural-historical activity system, mediated
Diana Laurillard’s current recognition of by tools that constrain and support the learners
the impact of mobility and mobile technologies in their goals of transforming their knowledge
on the Conversational Framework (Laurillard, and skills. This is not an attempt to explain or
2007) is an example of taking the first option. She assess Activity Theory but merely to position
discusses the possibilities of increasing interac- it as a broad and abstract account of more that
tion between the learner and the environment just learning and technology.
but also how problematic or unproductive this Returning to the issue of definition, Josie
might be in informal learning or unsupervised Taylor (2006) comes at it from a high level,
learning (for example, in museum spaces) where seeing the question as whether ‘mobile learn-
a teacher is neither in a position to set appropri- ing’ signified:
ate tasks nor to provide meaningful feedback.
This is within more general remarks about the • Learning mediated by mobile devices, or
use of the Conversational Framework to support • Mobility of learners (regardless of their
“a rigorous approach to working out how to devices), or
support all the component learning activities, in • Mobility of content/resources in the sense
remote locations, with learners guided only by that it can be accessed from anywhere.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 

In this account her audience preferred the device to demolish locatedness, start with, “I’m
broader concept of learning taking place in the on the train”. Clearly we are still adjusting to
‘mobile age’, rather than the use of the narrower the disembodied world of mobility.
term ‘mobile learning’. Focussing on defining Mobile devices are reconfiguring the
mobile learning in an age where actually noth- relationships between spaces, public ones and
ing stays still is perhaps missing the point; the private ones, and the ways in which these are
question, ‘what is mobile learning?’ must be penetrated by mobile virtual spaces. This is
replaced by the questions, ‘what is learning documented in the literature of mobilities, for
in a mobile age?’ or perhaps ‘what is mobile example Plant (2000), Katz & Aakhus (2002),
learning?’ Our societies are changing as mobile Ling (2004) and Brown et al (2004). Virtual
devices, systems and technologies become space, and its tasks and relationships, that used
universally owned, accepted and used, and as be occupied by people sat down, monopolising
a consequence the meaning and significance of their attention and partitioning them from the
learning are changing too. other people and the physical spaces around
them moving, now moving amongst these other
people and spaces and amongst other tasks and
Time, Space, Place, relationships. This is accompanied by what goes
Groups in a Mobile Age on in those spaces; Cooper (2002) says that the
private “is no longer conceivable as what goes
Mobile devices, and their technologies and on, discreetly, in the life of the individual away
systems, are eroding established notions of from the public domain, or as subsequently rep-
time as a common structure that had previ- resented in individual consciousness”, Sheller
ously underpinned social organisation and and Urry (2003) argue “that massive changes
the consensual understanding of the world. are occurring in the nature of both public and
Time-keeping is being replaced by the ‘ap- private life and especially of the relations
prox-meeting’ and the ‘multi-meeting’ (Plant, between them.” and Bull (2005) writing about
2000), ‘socially negotiated time’ (Sørensen et the iPod says “The use of these mobile sound
al, 2002), the ‘microcoordination of everyday technologies informs us about how users attempt
life’ alongside the ‘softening of schedules’ to ‘inhabit’ the spaces within which they move.
(Ling, 2004) afforded by mobile devices and The use of these technologies appears to bind
Nyiri (2006:301) says, “with the mobile phone, the disparate threads of much urban movement
time has become personalized”. Whereas pre- together, both ‘filling’ the spaces ‘in-between’
viously our social and business relations had communication or meetings and structuring
to be organised and synchronised by absolute the spaces thus occupied.” Earlier work on the
clock time, now mobile technologies allow us Sony Walkman came to similar conclusions,
to renegotiate meetings and events on-the-fly. “the Walkman disturbed the boundaries between
Mobile devices are also eroding physical place the public and private worlds” (Du Gay et al
as a predominant attribute of space. It is being 1997: 115)
diluted by “absent presence” (Gergen, 2002), Mobile devices are redefining discourse
the phenomenon of physically co-located groups and conversation. Goffman (1971), for example,
all connected online elsewhere – everyone in noted the phenomenon of ‘civil inattention’,
the room is online elsewhere - and “simultane- where in certain situations it is customary not
ity of place” (Plant, 2002) created by mobile only to not speak to others but to avoid looking
phones, a physical space and a virtual space of directly at others. This management of gaze is
conversational interaction, and an extension of one way in which the boundary between public
physical space, through the creation and juxta- and private is negotiated and is now often a
position of a mobile “social space”. Ironically characteristic of creating a private space for
many conversations on the mobile phone, the mobile phone conversations in a public setting;

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

a similar concept is the ‘tie-sign’, those signs Knowledge in a Mobile

that keep a face-to-face encounter live and ‘in Age
play’ whilst servicing an interruption caused by
a mobile phone call. The recipient of the call Mobile devices, systems and technologies
is obliged to “play out collusive gestures of also have a direct and pervasive impact on
impatience, derogation, and exasperation” ac- knowledge itself, and how it is generated,
cording to Goffman. Murtagh (2002) describes transmitted, owned, valued and consumed in
a wide set of non-verbal actions and interactions our societies. At the most superficial level, they
with the mobile phone in public, and these are do finally deliver on the ‘anywhere, anytime’
part of a wider transformation of discourse and promise and apparently on other slogans too,
social interaction as society engages with mobile namely ‘just-in-time’, ‘just-for-me’. These may
technologies. Alongside these evolving patterns be however less simple and benign than they
of behaviour, mobile devices help communities seem. Firstly, knowledge is not an absolute. It
and sub-cultures define themselves by afford- has been argued that it is socially determined
ing new forms of language, txt-speak being the and socially constructed but it has also always
obvious example of a language that helped its been mediated by its container, its medium, its
original users mark themselves out as different repository. Mike Sharples (2005:1) says,
from non-users, usually their parents. “Every era of technology has, to some
Mobile devices are creating communities extent, formed education in its own image.
and groupings, sometimes transient and virtual That is not to argue for the technological de-
ones, arguably at the expense of existing and tra- terminism of education, but rather that there is
ditional ones, captured in Howard Rheingold’s a mutually productive convergence between
(2003) defining book. With these groupings main technological influences on a culture
come new norms, expectations, ethics and and the contemporary educational theories and
etiquettes (for example, see Ling (1997, 2004) practices. In the era of mass print literacy, the
for a discussion of ethics in a mobile context; textbook was the medium of instruction, and a
and shifting ideas about the self and identity.) prime goal of the education system was effec-
Geser (2004:11) points out that, “the cell phone tive transmission of the canons of scholarship.
helps to stay permanently within the closed During the computer era of the past fifty years,
social field of familiar others: thus reinforcing education has been re-conceptualised around the
a unified, coherent individual identity.” construction of knowledge through information
These are the contexts of ‘learning in a processing, modelling and interaction. For the
mobile age’. Clearly there is much here for era of mobile technology, we may come to con-
educators and learning technologists to digest, ceive of education as conversation in context,
from the changes in expectations and practices of enabled by continual interaction through and
interpersonal behaviour in the tutorial, seminar with personal and mobile technology.”
and lecture to the expectations of universities, Furthermore, the earliest formats, the book
schools and colleges in specifying the times and the lecture, originally constrained knowl-
and places to deliver education. edge to a linear format, the book having at least
Obviously mobile devices, systems and usually some facilities of graphics, review and
technologies are also dramatically changing organisation and more recently, computers
the economy, thus changing our ideas about provided web-based hyperlinked information.
artefacts and assets, and the jobs and organisa- This was delivered with greater multi-media
tions needed to create, distribute and trade them, richness than books but in smaller chunks
and dramatically changing the nature of work governed by the heuristics of usability and
itself. Educators must digest these too in their increased non-linear navigational complexity.
role preparing learners for employment. Mobile devices can now deliver information in
far smaller chunks but with a vastly increased

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 

navigational overhead. Clearly, these different the debate and dichotomy between utilitarian
formats must each have an affect on informa- and liberal views of education, and challenges
tion and on knowledge in their different ways, the idea of a common curriculum or universal
on what is accessible and what is valued. With canon of accepted and useful knowledge that an
mobile devices, there is a concern that they serve education system must deliver. It challenges too
up vast amounts of information and knowledge formal learning, its institutions and its profes-
in small disconnected and trivial chunks. As T. sionals, in their roles as society’s gate-keepers
S. Elliott (1934) said, “Where is the Life we to learning and technology for disadvantaged
have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we individuals and communities.
have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge
we have lost in information?”
Search engines and knowledge bases can Conclusion
now serve up information that is uniquely cus-
tomised to the user and their context, meaning This paper puts the work and evolution of mo-
their history, their location, their interests, their bile learning into the broadest possible context
preferences and their environment. Whilst this and explores the significance of ideas about
level of personalisation seems attractive and ‘learning in a mobile age’ in the context of the
desirable, there is also concern that knowl- current development of mobile learning. The
edge and information become individualised, mobile learning community has an increas-
a ‘neo-liberal nightmare’ where each user ingly clear sense of its achievements and its
exists in their own unique information world, direction but looking beyond the immediate
fragmenting learners in a ‘fragmented society’, community reveals a far more complex and
to use Bauman’s (2001) phrase in an accurate changing situation. At this point, we can only
but narrower sense than he intended. sketch parts of the evolving picture, guess
User-generated content, meaning in user- how society, its conception of learning and the
generated knowledge and user-generated in- role of mobile technologies in supporting that
formation, is increasingly available on mobile conception will fit together and wonder at the
technologies. Google and Wikipedia (originally place of our current work. The challenge for
as Wapedia) are examples and they both allow the mobile learning community is the balance
learners control over what they learn, unmedi- between facing inwards, to develop its work,
ated by any formal institutional learning. They and facing outwards, to understand the context
also allow learners to participate in creating and importance of that work.
learning through their contributions. This can
take place through such systems as Wikipedia
but most conspicuously with mobile technolo- References
gies through the activity of citizen-journalism
(Owen, 2005), where members of the public Ally, M. (2006) mLearn2006 Book of Abstracts,
using camera-phones capture images of break- Available online at [Link]/CD/BOA_
ing news and post them straight onto shared [Link]
file-spaces such as Flickr or YouTube. Journal- Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Sharples, M. & Vavoula, G.
ism has been called the first draft of history and (Eds) (2007), Beyond Mobile Learning Workshop.
here we see it generated without the intervention Dublin: Trinity College Dublin Press.
of professional journalists or centralised and
Brown, T.H. (2005) Beyond constructivism: Explor-
controlling organisations, perhaps from the ing future learning paradigms. Education Today,
perspectives of a mobile culture or particular issue 2 of 2005, Aries Publishing Company, Thames,
mobile subcultures. This generation of new New Zealand.
knowledge intrudes a new protagonist into

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
10 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

Brown, B., N. Green, et al. (2002). Wireless World— Public Performance. Cambridge University Press,
social and interactional aspects of the mobile age. Cambridge, pp. 227-241
London, Springer.
Goffman, E. (1971), Relations in Public, Harmond-
Bull, M. (2005). No Dead Air! The iPod and the sworth: Allen Lane
Culture of Mobile Listening. Leisure Studies 24(4):
343-356. JISC (2005) Innovative Practice with e-Learning:
a good practice guide to embedding mobile and
Cobcroft, R. (2006) Literature Review into Mobile wireless technologies into everyday practice, Bristol:
Learning in a University Context, Queensland Joint Information Services Committee.
University of Technology. Online available: http://
[Link]/archive/00004805 Jones, A., Issroff., K, Scanlon, E, Clough, G and
McAndrew, P (2006) Using mobile devices for
Cooper, G., (2002) The Mutable World: Social learning in Informal Settings: Is it Motivating? Pro-
Theory in The Wireless World In B. Brown, N. ceedings of IADIS International conference Mobile
Green and R. Harper (Eds) Wireless World: Social Learning. July 14-16, Dublin.
and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile World.
London: Springer Katz, J. E., and Aakhus, M. (Eds). (2002). Perpetual
Contact—Mobile Communications, Private Talk,
Donner, J. (2008) The Rules of Beeping: Exchanging Public Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Messages Via Intentional ‘‘Missed Calls’’ on Mobile University Press.
Phones, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion 13 (2008) 1–22 Keegan, D. (2005) The Incorporation of Mobile
Learning into Mainstream Education and Training.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L. & Nequs, K. (1997) Proceedings of mLearn2005- 4th World Conference
Doing cultural studies : the story of the Sony Walk- on mLearning, Cape Town, South Africa, 25-28
man, London: Sage October 2005. [Link]
pers/[Link]
Eliott, T. S. (1934) The Rock
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolu-
Engeström, Y (2003) [Link] tions, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press
fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/ last
accessed 21/12/05 Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J., (2007) Design for
Mobile and Wireless Technologies In H. Beetham
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An & R. Sharpe (2007). Rethinking Pedagogy for the
activity-theoretical approach to developmental Digital Age London: Routledge
research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamäki-Gi- Learning: a Handbook for Educators and Trainers.
tai, R. (1999) Perspectives on activity theory. In London, UK: Routledge.
International Congress for Research on Activity
Theory. 1999. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge Kukulska-Hulme, A., Evans, D. & Traxler, J. (2005)
University Press. Landscape Study in Wireless and Mobile Learning in
the Post-16 Sector, Technical Report, Bristol: Joint
Er, M. and Kay, R. (2005) Mobile technology adop- Information Services Committee
tion for mobile information systems: an activity
theory perspective. In International Conference Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teach-
on Mobile Business (ICMB’05). Sydney, Australia: ing - A Conversational Framework for the Effective
IEEE. Use of learning Technology, 2nd edition, Routledge,
London.
Geser, H. (2004) Towards a Sociological Theory of
the Mobile Phone University of Zurich. Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogic forms of mobile
learning: framing research questions. In N. Pachler.
Gergen, K. J. (2002) The challenge of absent pres- Mobile Learning - towards a research agenda. Lon-
ence. In: J. E Katz & M.A. Aakhus (eds.) Perpet- don, Institute of Education, University of London:
ual Contact. Mobile Communication, Private Talk, 153 - 177.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009 11

Ling, R. (1997). One can talk about mobile manners! undertaken for the Higher Education Academy. At
The use of mobile telephones in appropriate situations [Link]/[Link]
In L. Haddon (Ed) Communications on the Move: the
experience of mobile telephony in the 1990s, COST Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005).
248 Report. Farsta: Telia Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceed-
ings of mLearn2005- 4th World Conference on
Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection—the cell mLearning, Cape Town, South Africa, 25-28 Oc-
phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA, tober 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. [Link]
%20Theory%20of%[Link]
Metcalf, D.S. (2006). mLearning: Mobile Learning
and Performance in the Palm of your Hand, Amherst, Sharples, M. (Ed) (2006) Big Issues in Mobile
MA: HRD Press Learning. Nottingham: Kaleidoscope Network of
Excellence, Mobile Learning Initiative
Murtagh, G. (2002) “Seeing the “Rules”: Preliminary
Observations of Action, Interaction and Mobile Phone Sharples, M. (2005). Learning As Conversation:
Use” In B. Brown, N. Green and R. Harper (Eds) Transforming Education in the Mobile Age. In Pro-
Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of ceedings of Conference on Seeing, Understanding,
the Mobile World. London: Springer Learning in the Mobile Age (pp. 147-152). Budapest,
Hungary.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & Sharples,
M., (2004), Literature Review in Mobile Technologies Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A Learning
and Learning. Bristol: NESTA FutureLab Theory for the Digital Age. elearnspace Dec 12th
2004. [Link]
Nyiri, K. (2006) Time and Communication in F. [Link]
Stadler and M. Stöltzner (eds) Time and History: Pro-
ceeding of the 28 International Ludwig Wittgenstein Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning
Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria 2005 Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal
of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning,
Oliver, C. (2007) mLearn2007 Conference Proceed- January 2005, [Link]
ings, Available online at [Link] [Link].
files/mLearn_2007_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2003) Mobile Transforma-
O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J., Taylor, J., tions of ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Life, Theory, Culture
Sharples, M. & Lefrere, P. (2003). Guidelines for and Society, Vol. 20, pp. 107-125
learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environ-
ment. Mobilearn project deliverable. Available Sheller, M. (2004). Mobile publics: Beyond the
from [Link] network perspective, Environment and Planning D:
[Link] Society and Space, vol. 22, 39-52.
Plant, S. (2000): On the Mobile. The Effects of Mobile Sheller, M.. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobili-
Telephones on Social and Individual Life. [Link] ties paradigm, Environment and Planning A, Vol.
[Link]/mot/documents/0,1028,333,[Link] 38,207-226.
Quinn, C. (2000) mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, in Sørensen, C., L. Mathiassen, & M. Kakihara
your Pocket Learning. LineZine, Fall 2000. http:// (2002): Mobile Services: Functional Diversity
[Link]/2.1/features/[Link]. and Overload, presented at New Perspectives On
21st-Century Communications, May 24-25, 2002,
Rheingold, H. (2003) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Budapest, Hungary.
Revolution Perseus Books
Souza e Silva, A. (2006). From cyber to hybrid:
Salmon, G. (2000). e-moderating - the key to teaching Mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces,
and learning online; Kogan Page: London Space and Culture, Vol. 9, 261-278.
Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. & Francis, R. Tamminien, S., Oulasvirta, A., Toiskallio, K., and
(2006) The undergraduate experience of blended Kankainen, A. (2003). Understanding mobile con-
e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice texts. Udine, Italy: Springer.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.
 12 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009

Taylor, J. (2006) What are appropriate methods Proceedings of mLearn2005: 4th World Conference
for evaluating learning in mobile environments? on mLearning, Cape Town, South Africa, 25-28 Oc-
Evaluating Mobile Learning In M. Sharples, (Ed) tober 2005. Online available: [Link]
Big Issues in Mobile Learning. Nottingham: Kalei- [Link]/CD/BOA_p.[Link]
doscope Network of Excellence, Mobile Learning
Initiative Traxler, J. (2008) Mobile Learning: Moving Through
Philosophical Space, Proceedings of IADIS Mobile
Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning- it’s here but Learning, Algarve, Portugal, April 2008
what is it? Interactions 9, 1. Warwick: University
of Warwick Winters, N. (2006) What is Mobile Learning? In
M. Sharples, (Ed) Big Issues in Mobile Learning.
Traxler, J., (2007) Defining, Discussing and Evalu- Nottingham: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence,
ating Mobile Education, International Review of Mobile Learning Initiative
Research in Open and Distance Learning
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobili-
Traxler, J. & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005) Evaluating ties for the 21st Century, London: Routledge.
Mobile Learning: Reflections on Current Practice,

John Traxler is Director of the Learning Lab in Shropshire and is Reader in Mobile Technology for e-Learning
in the School of Computing at the University of Wolverhampton. He is the Chair of mLearn2008 in Ironbridge
and a Founding Director of the International Association for Mobile Learning. He has contributed to the
development of mobile learning in a specifically African context in the ICT4D community and is interested
in the impact of scalable sustainable context-aware mobile learning in informal settings

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global
is prohibited.

View publication stats