home

=Mobile Learning: Challenges facing the uptake and implementation of effective MLearning initiatives= //Melinda Garcia, Callan Moroney and Susan Walsh//

Technological developments in recent decades have offered immense possibilities for the education sector. Advances in mobile technology have given rise to Mobile Learning, commonly referred to as MLearning, which employs wireless devices such as mobile phones, laptops and tablet computers to deliver ubiquitous content and learning support (Leung & Chang 2003; Muyinda 2007) in both formal and informal learning contexts. MLearning acknowledges that learning “flows across locations, times, topics and technologies" (Sharples et al 2007, p4) and can be accessible from anywhere network coverage exists (Johnson et al 2011). Mobile technology is a rapidly developing sector; some estimates project “mobile internet usage will overtake desktop usage before 2015" (O'Dell 2011). This, coupled with changes in learner expectations where "audiences increasingly expect information and experiences on demand, where and whenever they are” (Burnett et al, 2011), signifies a market that will continue to grow for education providers. Progressively, educators are acknowledging that "the world is dynamic ... learning will move more and more outside of the classroom and into the learner's environments, both real and virtual and the MLearning is well positioned to champion these innovations" (Muyinda 2007, p.102).
 * Introduction﻿**

Despite the wealth of supporting literature and popular opinion positioning MLearning as a innovative pedagogical approach in education, key obstacles remain and must be considered by any educator hoping to employ MLearning as part of their program.

Three key challenges have been considered for the purposes of this report, selected for their relevance to the authors’ own professional practices (secondary education, medical training and museums). At the conclusion a wider list of obstacles is presented. Whilst not exhaustive, this should provide a broad perspective for the reader to consider.

Change management is a broad term that encompasses the need for a structured approach in transitioning from an existing paradigm into a more desired one. Change, and the management of that change is a significant obstacle facing MLearning. This section will explore the idea of change management and MLearning within a secondary educational context, but are ideas that can be applied across other areas.
 * Change Management**

Perhaps the most significant aspect of change in terms of MLearning is the need to change pre-existing and prevailing notions about pedagogy and best teaching practice. Many teachers are cynical about the efficacy of MLearning, questioning the “possibility of retaining the essence of the learning content” at the same time as integrating new pedagogies such as the use of MLearning (Bhati et al 2009, p.7).

Aside from teacher beliefs, teacher training is a major aspect of the change management that needs to be addressed. Convincing teachers that MLearning is a sound pedagogical tool is one thing, equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to achieve effective MLearning is entirely another. There is currently a lack of teacher training, or more accurately, a lack of teacher re-training in the field of MLearning. Teachers lack the confidence and knowledge to use MLearning in their practice (Cobcroft et al 2006, p. 24).

Teachers and educators are also faced with the burning question of ‘who is responsible?’ In many instances teachers are left with the challenge of managing the administration of online tools, as well as balancing the content and pedagogical knowledge (Bhati et al 2009, P.6). Teachers are required to produce content, as well as maintain the various devices, technologies and tools required for effective MLearning (Burnett et al 2011).

Change, and how best to implement change management is one of the most significant obstacles facing the uptake of MLearning.

Inadequate technology as an obstacle to MLearning is a reoccurring theme amongst academic literature. This can be further divided into problems with the provider and user of the technology, both will be explored in the following section.
 * Inadequate Technology**

The provider of the network and IT infrastructure restricts the reality of being able to utilize MLearning to its potential. Unreliable network coverage and bandwidth constraints that impair uploading/downloading speeds negatively impact on MLearning. (Bhati et al 2009; Burnett et al 2011; Mason & Rennie 2008). However, as infrastructure improves, so do the tools, potentially creating a continuous cycle where “technical problems such as bandwidth may appear to be addressed until a new tool requiring yet more bandwidth is introduced” (Bhati et al 2009, p. 6).

The tools themselves may not be supportive of MLearning as most hardware devices are designed and marketed for recreational, corporate or retail use and not specifically for education. Mobile phones for example differ greatly in their design and function according to their manufacturer. They vary in their storage capacities; have limited battery life and smaller screens and keyboards which impact on the learning experience as content is reduced to smaller fragments. (Bhati et al 2009; Kulkulska-Hulme 2007). The users of technology face the challenge of keeping up to date with the latest technologies and needing to understanding the fullest potential of those technologies.

In the context of medical training lack of access to mobile devices is a major obstacle in the hospital setting. The limited hardware devices that are available such as laptops are mainly used to look up pathology results, order tests and search patient records, which leaves very little opportunities for it to be used for MLearning. The use of mobile phones is not widely accepted within areas of the hospital (e.g. intensive care units) for concerns that they may cause interference with monitoring equipment.

Sources of funding to support MLearning programs are a key challenge for all professional areas of practice. With innovations in technology come additional expenditure for education providers, both monetary and in terms of human resources: costs of developing new content for mobile devices, costs of publishing to, or licensing the use of, different platforms, as well as analytics and evaluation (Burnett et al 2011). For those with learners who don’t have the required devices, there are "high costs of procuring, installing and maintaining new technologies" (Bhati et al 2009 p.7). Costs associated with training and developing staff to produce effective MLearning resources or programs should also be factored in, as more organisations take production in-house to reduce costs.
 * Funding**

Sustainable business models offer one means for supporting MLearning initiatives. Museums can employ ‘Freemium’ models, where free content is supported by paid premium content, facilitated by logins or in-app purchases. Sponsorship from the corporate sector and paid advertising are also potential sources of funding subject to compatibility with organisation goals and consideration of the learner audience. Micro-donations offer a smaller scale of contribution available to wider audiences seen to great effect during the Haiti Relief Campaign in 2010 (Burnett et al 2011).

This is an overview of the multitude of the obstacles that face that successful and effective uptake of MLearning in a variety of industries, a review of relevant literature, as well as some possible solutions or suggestions. Other obstacles include security/privacy concerns, new eLearning design considerations and content management. The issues explored in this report outline what the authors perceive as the key obstacles facing MLearning today.
 * Conclusion**

**Reference List**
Bhati, N., Mercer, S., Rankin, K., Thomas, B. 2009. ‘Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of tools for online pedagogy’, //International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,// Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 5-19.

Burnett, A., Cherry, R., Proctor, N., Samis, P. 2011. ‘Getting on (not under) the mobile 2.0 bus: emerging issues in the mobile business model’, //Museums and the Web: Proceedings//, //March 31 2011//, viewed 27 April 2011, <[]>.

Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J. & Bruns, A. 2006, ‘Mobile learning in review: opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions’, //Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006,// pp. 21-30.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. 2011. //The 2011 Horizon Report//. The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas.Kukulska-Hulme, A. 2007, ‘Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt?’ //International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning//, Vol. 8, No. 2, viewed 25 April 2011, <[]>.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. 2007, ‘Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt?’ International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 8, No. 2, viewed 25 April 2011, <[]>.

Leung, C. & Chan, Y. 2003, //‘//Mobile learning: a new paradigm in electronic learning’, //Proceedings of the The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,// viewed 29 April 2011 <[]>.

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. 2008, //E-learning and social networking handbook: R\resources for higher education//. Routledge, New York.

Muyinda, P.B. 2007, ‘Mlearning: pedagogical, technical and organisational hypes and realities’, Emerald. Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 97-104.

O'Dell, J. 2011. ‘New study shows the mobile web will rule by 2015 [STATS]’, //Mashable,// viewed 19 April 2011 <[]/>.

Sharples, M., Sánchez, I. A., Milrad, M. & Vavoula, G. 2007. //Mobile learning: small devices, big Issues,// Nottingham: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence, Mobile Learning Initiative.