Mobile Learning a Review of Current jeparika/report_E2_ Mobile Learning a Review of Current Research Jenni Rikala Abstract Mobile learning, learning with mobile devices in various contexts, is an ascending

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


Reports of the Department of Mathematical Information Technology Series E. Educational Technology No. E 2/2013 Mobile Learning a Review of Current Research Jenni Rikala University of Jyvskyl Department of Mathematical Information Technology P.O. Box 35 (Agora) FI-40014 University of Jyvskyl FINLAND fax +358 14 260 2771 2013 Jenni Rikala and University of Jyvskyl ISBN 978-951-39-5292-1 ISSN 1795-5726 1 Mobile Learning a Review of Current Research Jenni Rikala Abstract Mobile learning, learning with mobile devices in various contexts, is an ascending trend across different sectors of education worldwide. One major challenge, however, is that the mobile learning solutions have not deeply-rooted to educational contexts and practices as the mobile learning commonly is characterized by short-term and small-scale trials. In this report I give a cross-section about what is topical at the moment in the field of mobile learning. This report will also provide a comprehensive view of pedagogical models and proposes a new mobile learning framework. 1 Introduction Mobile technologies have changed our societies in many respects [1]. They have affected the way people interact with each other, how people communicate, work and travel [2]. Mobile devices, systems and technologies are now universally owned, accepted and used. As consequence also the meaning and significance of learning are changing. [1] Educators, employers, parents and the public have begun to emphasize the need for lifelong learning and 21st century skills. Technologies can respond to these changes in learning. Technologies have made many new educational forms possible but despite this the methods of teaching and learning still are in many respects quite traditional, teacher-centred and classroom-bounded. There remains definite gap between the knowledge and skills that learners learn in school and the knowledge and skills that they will need later in life. It has been shown that innovative teaching can support students development of the skills that they will need in future life and work [3]. Taking this into account even more innovative learning scenarios and practices should be designed and implemented. Researchers and educators all over the world have recognized the potential of mobile technologies as learning tool and mobile technology has promoted a new Department of Mathematical Information Technology, University of Jyvskyl, P.O. Box 35 (Agora), FI-40014 University of Jyvskyl, Finland, 2 learning style mobile learning or briefly m-learning. Innovative learning practices (e.g., student centred pedagogy, extending learning beyond the classroom) can be realized through different mobile learning solutions. At best, mobile devices can be used to support learners needs and to develop a variety of appropriate learning solutions and learning practices. Research in the field of mobile learning has been done widely all over the world. This research is studying how the mobility of learners augmented by personal and public technology can contribute to the process of gaining new knowledge, skills and experience [4]. In other words, mobile learning is learning in which learners are using mobile devices such as PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), laptop computers, mobile phones, smart phones (e.g., iPhone), digital players, media players, cameras, games consoles (e.g., Nintendo DS, Sony PSP), voting systems as well as customized hardware to enhance learning by gaining knowledge, skills and experiences. Learners can learn anytime and anywhere so learning can be very personalised, situated and authentic [5]. Mobile phones and PDAs are the most commonly used technologies for mobile learning but as above listed there is also wide variety of other possible mobile technologies as well. Mobile, commonly understood as portable and movable, can also implicate a personal, so mobile technologies can be classified by using the two orthogonal dimensions of personal vs. shared and portable vs. static. [6] Naismith et al. [6] emphasized that mobile technologies comprise all devices from quadrants 13 and also those from quadrant 4 that are not at the extreme end of the static dimension (Fig. 1). Figure 1: Classification of mobile technologies [6] 3 The new wireless and powerful handheld devices have new exiting capabilities and possibilities such as multimedia, social networking, and geo-location [7]. But also less powerful handheld devices with slower communication have been used for mobile learning for several years now. For example, three applications such as classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering, have been re-implemented many times, and studied by many different research teams. [8] The mobile learning context can be extremely dynamic. Because of this also the applications of mobile learning can vary greatly according to the context and situations (from K-12 to higher education and corporate learning settings, from formal and informal learning to classroom learning, distance learning, and field study). Some of the mobile applications and software have been purpose-built for educational use but some of them are off-the shelf solutions originally intended for other uses like business use. The extremely dynamic mobile learning context and different reasons to utilise mobile technologies in education make it tricky to make any generalisations about the requirements and ways of using them. The ways that mobile technologies have been used to support teaching and learning are, for example: individual study, group work, data collection, recording reflections/diaries, skills practice, feedback/questions to teacher, peer-to-peer communication/support, reviewing knowledge, warm up/cool down exercises. [9, 10, 11, 12] There are several challenges with m-learning, such as connectivity, small screen sizes, limited processing power, and reduced input capabilities. Also the great variety of mobile devices and possibility to personalize and use them in different settings creates challenges to mobile learning. One more considerable challenge is the diversity of educational goals and needs of the users. Also the lack of cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework and mobile learning standards brings some challenges. Undoubtedly, there are number of technological and pedagogical issues that need to be take account. [13, 14, 15, 16] Mobile learning is still developing rapidly, but it is evidently undeveloped compared to technologies and their pedagogies. The use of mobile devices is increasing across every sector of education, and across both the developed and developing worlds. Mobile learning also has growing visibility and significance. There is the growing size and frequency of dedicated conferences, seminars, and workshops. There have also been a rising number of references to mobile learning at generalist academic conferences. There are now much larger and more sustained and blended trials and experiments than before but so far the development and the delivery have focused on short-term small-scale pilots and trials in the developed countries of Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim. [1, 5] 4 The purpose of this report is to review articles to summarise the current research concerning the mobile learning. For this review I have examined articles that I have found in electronic databases using keyword searches including mobile learning and m-learning. I searched articles from the Jyvskyl University librarys Nelli portal which provides access to databases, e-journals and other electronic resources and also from the Google search engine and Google Scholar. I sought to explore and analyse the most recent studies (20072012). 2 Theories behind the mobile learning Mobile devices by themselves do not guarantee effective teaching or learning. Methods of teaching and the teachers views of learning are essential part of the educational use of technology. In the background of every educational effort there is always a theory or idea of how the learners mind works and how the learner should be taught [17]. Pedagogical theories and strategies are normally strongly linked to learning theories so the way to use mobile devices to support learning widely depends on the learning theory. To crystallize the importance of the learning theories in mobile learning, I quote Herrington and Herrington [18] who argued that: Adopting more recent theories of learning has the potential to exploit the affordances of the technologies in more valuable ways. Mobile learning research integrates research from different theoretical perspectives. Many researchers have explored the relationship between existing learning theories and mobile learning. Naismith et al. [6], for instance, compared mobile learning against learning theories such as behaviourist, constructivist, situated, collaborate, informal and lifelong learning. Also Keskn and Metcalf [19] discussed about the mobile learning and learning theories in their literature review. They found that current mobile learning theories are behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, situated learning, problem based learning, context awareness learning, socio-cultural theory, collaborative learning, conversational learning, lifelong learning, informal learning, activity theory, connectivism, navigationism, and location-based learning. In my review I also found theories such as active experiential learning, inquiry-based learning, transactional distance theory, and sense making associated with mobile learning. Some of these theories described above are subsections of broader theories but Im not going to separate them into more detailed groups here. The most important observation is that there is not cohesive theoretical mobile learning theory as mobile learning is supported by various theories. 5 These different learning theories offer different perspectives and views to mobile learning. Naismith et al. [6] presented learning theories in mobile learning contexts and posed the ways how mobile learning can be implemented into learning activities. Also Keskn and Metcalf [19] and Herrington and Herrington [18] presented some examples in their literature review (e.g., behaviourist classroom response systems, situated learning multimedia museum tours, constructivist the virus game). Traxler [1] have stressed that on the whole the mobile learning theory is very problematic matter because mobile learning is an inherently noisy phenomenon where context is everything and confounding variables abound. The lack of cohesive theory and framework could, however, bring some challenges to mobile learning but at the same time it can bring some opportunities too. Everyone can choose the theory that best suits for his/her goals and this at best can enable technology uses that are valuable and instructive. 3 The evolution of mobile learning Mobile learning actually has surprisingly long history [20]. Mobile learning advanced in the 1970s and spread widely in 2000s [2]. The appearance of mobile technology in education has extended the scope of teaching but only the latest mobile technologies have truly enabled learning on the move [20]. Despite the relatively long history, mobile learning is evidently undeveloped compared to technologies and their pedagogies and is still developing rapidly [1, 5]. Also the concept of m-learning is still developing [2]. Because of different theoretical perspectives there are several different views to mobile learning. This has led to the result that there is no common definition for mobile learning. There are various terms such as wireless, ubiquitous, seamless, nomadic or pervasive learning/education and mobile e-learning that all somehow indicates mobile learning. [21] Mobile learning (or briefly m-learning) is not merely combination of mobile and learning. It has always referred more or less to mobile electronic learning (or briefly e-learning) [1]. Mobile learning also has a close relationship with distance learning (or briefly d-learning) [2]. Figure 2 illustrates the place of m-learning as part of e-learning and d-learning. 6 Figure 2: The place of m-Learning as part of e-Learning and d-Learning [22] Even though mobile learning have the close relationship with e-learning and d-learning, mobile learning distinct from e-learning and d-learning. Traxler [23] defined the core characteristics that define mobile learning. Many of these characteristics separate mobile learning from e-learning (Fig. 3). The characteristics that Traxler [23] defined are spontaneous, private, portable, situated, informal, bite-sized, light-weight, context aware and also connected, personalized, and interactive. 7 Figure 3: m-learning vs. e-learning (adapted from Traxler [23]) Table 1: The characteristics of e-learning an m-learning e-Learning m-Learning Computer Mobile Bandwidth GPRS,Gs, Bluetooth Multimedia Objects Interactive Spontaneous Hyperlinked Connected Collaborative Networked Media-rich Lightweight Distance learning Situated learning More formal Informal Simulated situation Realistic situation Hyperlearning Constructivism, situationism, collaborative Also Laouris and Eteokleuous [24] compared the characteristics of e-learning and m-learning (Table 1). Because of the unique characteristics of mobile learning there are also definitions that see m-learning entirely apart from e-learning. Laouris and Eteokleuous [24] proposed the definition of mobile learning after an 8 inclusive review and comparison between e-learning and m-learning. They come to the conclusion that the definition of mobile learning must take into account many parameters and also the ways in which they interact and influence each other. Their formulation for the definition of m-learning function is: MLearn = f {t, s,LE,c,IT,MM,m} (where t is time, s is space, LE is environment, c is content, IT is technology, MM is mental abilities, and m is method). Geddes [25] saw mobile learning as the acquisition of any knowledge and skill through the use of handheld technology, anywhere and anytime. This is also probably the most commonly seen meaning and definition of m-learning. OMalley et al. [26] have defined m-learning from more pedagogical perspective as follows: "Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies." Most mobile learning definitions see the mobility (either learners, devices or contents) and personality to be integral part of mobile learning (e.g., [6, 23, 25, 26, 27]) The most important observation, however, is that mobile learning is not just about learning by using portable devices, but also learning across different contexts [28]. Many early perspectives of m-learning focused mainly on technology but at the present there are many different m-learning perspectives and each focuses on the different features, for example, such as mobility, individualism, and ubiquitous [19]. Belshaw [29] found four different perspectives in his interviewees and literature review: 1) techno centric, 2) e-learning related, 3) augmentation of formal process, and 4) learner-centred. In addition, there are perspectives such as the learner/user centre perspective, the usability perspective, and the context-aware perspective (e.g., [30, 31, 32, 33]). Usually three different perspectives - technical, usability and pedagogical - are incorporated into the design and evaluation of mobile learning applications and materials [34]. There have been some attempts to categorize m-learning. For example, Traxler [5] found six categories of m-learning in his literature review. These six categories are 1) technology-driven mobile learning, 2) miniature but portable e-learning, 3) connected classroom learning, 4) informal, personalised, situated mobile learning 5) mobile training/performance support, and 6) remote/rural/development mobile learning. 9 On the basis of mobile learning perspectives reviewed, there could be created a list of main views of m-learning. These views are: accessible & usable (e.g., portable, light-weight, bite-sized, effective, easy to use), contextual & situated (e.g., time, context and location-awareness), flexible & adaptable (e.g., possibility to spontaneous learning anytime and anywhere), formal vs. informal (e.g., educational contexts vs. real life contexts), interactive (e.g., enhances different ways to communicate and interact with other people, information, or systems), personalized (e.g., awareness of learners attitudes, perceptions, personal needs and goals), technology vs. pedagogy (e.g., technology driven view vs. learner-centred view), authenticity (e.g., authentic real-life tasks and processes), collaboration (e.g., learning activities with peers), ubiquitous. 3.1 Mobile learning frameworks Many researchers have attempted to encapsulate the unique characteristics of mobile learning in the form of a simplified framework. Two of these frameworks are presented in the following sections and a new framework is proposed. The framework for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME) Koole [27] described mobile learning as a process resulting from the convergence of mobile technologies, human learning capacities, and social interaction. Koole [27] introduced the Frame Model (Fig. 4). This model describes a mode of learning in which learners may move within different physical and virtual locations thereby participate and interact with other people, information, or systems - anywhere, anytime. The three aspects, the device, learner and social aspect, are intersecting. 10 Figure 4: The Frame Model (Koole [27]) Mobile learning experiences occur within a context of information. Learners are consuming and creating information collectively and individually and the interaction with information is mediated through technology. [27] Frame model refers theories such as activity theory and it also place emphasis on constructivism. The frame model also takes into consideration the technical characteristics of mobile devices. [27] M-learning Framework Also Kearney et al. [7] introduced a mobile learning framework. Their framework is based on a socio-cultural theory. The framework introduced by Kearney et al. [7] includes three core characteristics personalisation, authenticity and collaboration (Fig. 5). 11 Figure 5: Kearney et al. [7] M-learning Framework The basis of the framework is time and space. Together time and place creates malleable spatial-temporal contexts of learning. Kearney et al. [7] also stated sub-scales for each of the three constructs (personalisation, authenticity and collaboration). The authenticity feature highlights the opportunities for contextualized, participatory and situated learning; the collaboration feature captures the conversational and connected aspects of m-learning; the personalisation feature has implications for ownership, agency and autonomous learning. Kearney et al. [7] also highlighted that the way that learners experience these aspects is strongly influenced by the organisation of spatial and temporal aspects of the m-learning environment. Proposed framework of mobile learning After an inclusive analysis of the various mobile learning frameworks and 21st century learning environment a new framework is proposed (Fig. 6). 12 Figure 6: A new proposed mobile learning framework Technological, social and cultural changes do and will influence learning. They will affect the structure and content of curricula (e.g., the national core curriculum), the nature of learning environment and the methods, systems and tools for supporting the learning (e.g., the national digital strategy). Consequently social, cultural and technical factors are taken into consideration at the external level of the framework. The 21st century learning environment provides structures (e.g., student-centered pedagogies, ICT implementation & integration strategies, innovative teaching practices, learning objectives and teachers competencies) that facilitate mobile learning. And vice versa, mobile learning is one way to support teaching 13 and learning of 21st century skills outcomes. The 21st century learning environment is organized such way that it supports teaching and learning of 21st century skills outcomes. Learning can occur in classroom, virtually or in informal settings. The environment is flexible and adaptable and enables collaboration, interaction and information sharing in relevant, real world 21st century contexts [35]. The 21st century learning environment with its structures creates the inter-medium level of the proposed framework. The majority of the existing mobile learning frameworks highlight the context (e.g., [7, 27]) and time (e.g., [7]). Especially aspects such as authenticity, situatedness and contextualisation are emphasized. In proposed framework the context, time and space shapes the central of the internal level. By this way the mobile technologies unique ability to support learning anywhere and anytime is highlighted. Mobile technologies truly give the learner the opportunity to gain knowledge, skills and experiences in different contexts. Learning can occur in formal and informal as well as physical and virtual settings. Also the learner aspect is highlighted in most of the mobile learning frameworks (e.g., [7, 27]). Especially the personalisation, customisation, autonomy, and self-regulation are emphasized. In other words, individual's cognitive abilities, memory, prior knowledge, emotions, possible motivations, attitudes, experiences are in a significant role in mobile learning. This is why learner aspect is taken into consideration at the internal level of the proposed framework. The social aspect is taken into consideration at the internal level of the proposed framework as most of the mobile learning frameworks highlight the social interaction and collaboration (e.g., [7, 27]). The impact of interaction on learning cannot be underestimated. The device aspect is taken into consideration at the internal level of the proposed framework as well. There are several challenges with mobile devices, such as connectivity, small screen sizes, limited processing power, and reduced input capabilities. But at the same time mobile devices generates opportunities to personalize and use them in different settings. However, mobile devices by themselves do not guarantee effective teaching or learning. Learning is depending on context, time and space, learner aspects as well as social aspects, learning environment and its structures. In device aspect especially the device usability is emphasized. Device usability means the physical, technical and functional characteristics of a mobile device and applications that influence the learners experiences, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, etc. When all these aspects are realised the mobile learning experience is progressing smoothly and is a pleasant and motivating for the learners. The learner aspect for instance can be realised by ensuring that the learners needs are taken account. 14 Whereas, the social aspect can be realised by ensuring that the learners can exchange information and collaborate. The device aspect should take into account when planning the mobile applications as well as when planning the mobile learning activities. 4 The current mobile learning research As described, the mobile learning has had very diverse theoretical and pedagogical approaches. Because of this mobile learning projects have illustrated learning across different educational contexts (schools, universities, museums, informal learning, professional development and workplace settings), with diverse target groups (including children, adult learners, and professionals) [36]. Next sections will summarize what kind of methods, contexts and target groups there have been in the current research and what countries have been most active in mobile learning research. 4.1 The research topics Petrova and Li [37] analysed 333 articles and identified three main research domains: 1) technology, 2) educational theory, and 3) pedagogy. Also domain generalist was included. Their result indicated that there was a shift from focus on technology to focus on theory in 2006 and 2007 [37]. Because of different theories and perspectives also the research topics vary. Cheung and Hew [38] found four main research topics that were: 1) usage profile, 2) viability as an assessment tool, 3) learning outcomes and 4) attitudes. Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that 58% of 164 studies took evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning as the primary research purpose and the second-most frequently-cited research purpose was mobile learning system design (32%). These research purposes were followed by investigating the affective domain during mobile learning (5%) and evaluating the influence of learner characteristics in the mobile learning process (5%). In other words, the mobile learning research has so far focused on user acceptance and attitudes, personalization, the effectiveness of mobile learning and the design principles and recommendations. However, the research in the field of mobile learning should offer explicit proof of educational outcomes and impacts. Educational outcomes and impacts cannot be assessed before the use of mobile devices in education is in stable form. Consequently, one major challenge is that the mobile learning solutions have not deeply-rooted to educational contexts or to practices. There should be cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework and a set of best practices. Without these it simply takes too much teachers' time and 15 energy to interweave all crucial aspects together. Teachers alone will be unlikely to bring the width of implementation needed. 4.2 Types of research methods Cheung and Hew [38] have summarised types of research methods and data collection methods in their literature review. The various research methods that Cheung and Hew [38] found include descriptive research, true experiment, experiment, quasi-experiment, ex-post facto, single-subject, design-based research, and mixed method. Their results showed that the most common type of research method was descriptive research (65.9%), followed by experiment (11.4%), mixed-method (6.8%), quasi-experiment (4.5%), true experiment (4.5%), ex-post facto (2.3%), single subject design (2.3%), and design-based research (2.3%) [37]. Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that for evaluating the effects of mobile learning the researchers primarily relied on surveys followed by experimental research methods and descriptive methods. As for evaluating the influence of learner characteristics in the mobile learning process the experimental research methods were used most often, followed by surveys, descriptive methods and observation. For investigating the affective domain during mobile learning only two methodologies were used: surveys and interviews. As for designing a mobile system for learning surveys were the most commonly used methodology, followed by experimental research methods, descriptive methods, case studies and observation. [39] The most common type of research method evidently seems to be descriptive research methods, followed by experimental research methods, design and evaluation-based research methods, and case study. The data collection methods that Cheung and Hew [38] found include tests, quizzes, questionnaires, interviews, discussions, observations, and content analysis. Their result showed that the most common of all data collection methods used previous studies was questionnaire (31.4%), followed by test or quiz items (22.5%), content analysis (20.6%), interview or focus group (18.6%), and observation (6.9%) [38]. The most common method evidently seems to be questionnaires, followed by content analysis, interviews and observations. Also literature review is very commonly used method. These methods also could be mixed together to get richer and more exact or objective view about the subject. Based on my findings I argue that the lack of cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework and mobile learning standards have led to a situation in which mobile learning research and pilots are characterised by short-term, small-scale studies focusing on either user acceptance or attitudes measured with questionnaires. Very often the learning outcomes are reported to be positive without sufficient evidence. 16 4.3 The research samples and learning domains Hwang and Tsai [42] reviewed 154 journals from 2001 to 2010 and identified the research samples and learning domains. The research samples were identified and they were elementary school, junior and senior high school, higher education, teachers, working adults and non-specified. They found that from 2001 to 2010 the most selected research sample was higher education followed by elementary school students and high school students. Only a few studies selected teachers and working adults as the research sample. [42] Wu et al. [39] found in their review that mobile learning is most frequently used by higher education students (51.98%), followed by elementary school students (17.51%), adult learners (12.43%), secondary (post-secondary) school students (8.47%) and disabled students (0.56%). The most common research sample evidently seems to be higher education followed by elementary school students, and teachers. Only a few studies select working adults as the research sample. There are also such research samples as migrant/rural children and experienced mobile device users. Learning domains that Hwang and Tsai [42] categorized into subcategories were science (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology, medical and sport science), mathematics, language & art, social science, engineering (including computers), others and non-specified. They found that most studies did not involve any learning domain; instead, they mainly focused on the investigation of motivations, perceptions and attitudes of students toward mobile and ubiquitous learning. So the most common subcategory was non-specified followed by engineering, language and art and science. Hwang and Tsai [39] also noticed that studies on the learning domains of engineering, arts and language, science and social science significantly increased in years 20052010. But at the same time they also pointed out that the ratios for mathematics and other learning domains were relatively low. [42] Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that studies on mobile learning in educational contexts most frequently focus on use in supporting professional subjects and applied sciences (29%), followed by humanities (20%), and formal sciences (16%). Wu et al. [39] also noticed that mobile learning was widely used in courses related to environmental studies, forestry and health sciences, but less in other courses such as statistics or law. They also suggested that mobile learning can be applied to any course or subject matter. [39] On the whole it seems that most studies do not involve any learning domain so the most common subcategory is non-specified followed by engineering, science and social science. Based on my findings I argue that the mobile learning practices 17 can best support cross-curricular longer-term projects in which the mobile technology is enhancing, for example, observation and data collection processes. 4.4 The contributing countries Hwang and Tsai [42] investigated the major contributing countries of mobile and ubiquitous articles. They found that the major contributing countries (years 2006 to 2010 and 154 publications total) were: Taiwan (51 publications), UK (16 publications), USA (12 publications), Singapore (5 publications), Netherlands (4 publications), China, Chile, Ireland, Japan (3 publications), Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey (2 publications), China, Chile, Ireland, Japan (3 publications), Brazil, Germany, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain (1 publications). In my review I found that the major contributing countries (years 2007 to 2011 and 33 publications total) were: Taiwan (7 publications), China, USA (4 publications), UK (3 publications), Australia, Singapore (2 publications), Chile, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain (1 publications). Evidently more and more countries have contributed to the mobile and ubiquitous learning studies in the past years. Especially in Asia there is considerable interest in mobile and ubiquitous learning. The mobile learning infrastructure varies across the world. Some of the countries are very well developed and ICT (information and communication technologies) are extensively integrated into schools but at the same time there are also countries where the development is in its infancy and even in some developed 18 countries there could be so called geographic digital divides. In the next sections the state of the mobile learning across world is summarised. Mobile learning in Europe In Europe mobile learning began in 1980s when hand-held devices were first tested in a few schools [43]. In broader perspective mobile learning arose in the mid-1990s with research projects that exploit a new generation of pen tablet and PDA devices for learning [36]. There have been several European projects (e.g., HandLeR, MOBILearn, M-Learning) that have shaped developments in mobile learning. Also the national and European policy has shaped and formed the impact of mobile learning in Europe. For example, The European commission has funded many mobile learning projects. [36] Also some individual countries have funded mobile learning projects as part of their national education agendas (e.g., The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark) and also several local or private-funded mobile learning projects that have not anchored to government plans or educational programs have been implemented. [44] Even though there have been carried out many research and development projects regarding the use of mobile technology in education the practice of using mobile devices for education is still emergent, and the concept of mobile learning has not yet reached the policy level. Most of the pilot projects are typically conducted on a small scale and driven by enthusiastic teachers. [44] In Europe mobile technologies have been used to support learning across various context with diverse target groups. Many of the European projects involve elements of inquiry-based and problem-based learning. [36] Many of the research projects are, for example, demonstrating how mobile technologies can used to support interdisciplinary, student-centred, interactive and inquire-based learning activities [44]. Also the learner collaboration is seen important aspect and the mobile devices are seen as tools to support collaborative and conversational learning outside the classroom. [36] There are also some examples of seamless learning spaces. Seamless learning implies learning spaces where students can learn whenever they are curious and spaces where they can switch easily and quickly from one scenario to another (e.g., learning individually, learning with another student, learning with a small group or a large online community, face-to-face interaction or different modes of interaction, learning at a places such as classrooms, outdoors, parks and museums). [43] In many cases there have been blended technologies and educational approaches to support the design of learning experiences that cross spatial, 19 temporal and conceptual boundaries, and interweave with the learners everyday life and into her web of personal knowledge, interests and learning needs [36]. The most effective European projects and programs have blended mobile devices with fixed technologies such as desktop computers. This blended approach has made learning more accessible and flexible. [44] Unfortunately many governments, policy-makers, parents and teachers treat mobile technologies as disruptive devices and are worried about inappropriate behaviours like cheating and cyber-bullying. Many countries (e.g., France) have banned or restricted mobile device use in school. [44] Mobile learning in Asia Mobile learning in Asia is still relatively new phenomenon. This is because the countries vary greatly in terms of their technological and social infrastructure, economic development, educational contexts and the degree of ICT implementation and integration. Nevertheless, there has been remarkable progress in ICT development in the Asia in the last decade. [45] In his literature review So [45] argued that despite the tremendous diversity Asian countries tend to fall into one of three main categories in terms of their engagement with mobile learning: Category 1: Countries with a mature mobile market, high penetration of mobile phones and strong ICT infrastructure (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea). Mobile learning is included under the broad context of national-level ICT policies. Category 2: Countries with a growing mobile market, medium to high penetration of mobile phones and basic ICT infrastructure (e.g., Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and the Philippines). Mobile phones are used for distance learning and in informal learning contexts. Category 3: Countries with an emerging mobile market, low to medium penetration of mobile phones and weak or basic ICT infrastructure (e.g., Afghanistan and Nepal). Mobile learning activities are scarce. Only very few policies (regional, national or local) speak directly to mobile learning. In most cases mobile learning is buried inside broader ICT or digital learning policy documents [45]. Because the mobile learning in Asia is still relatively new phenomenon most of the mobile learning initiatives are small-scale and ad hoc. Some academic researchers and small groups of teachers have launched disparate projects to explore how mobile devices might be used to improve teaching and learning. [45] 20 One of the key characteristics of mobile learning in Asia is the ability to make learning more accessible for people living in rural areas and to people who are less reachable through other types of technologies. Especially literacy education and distance education are supported by mobile phones. [45] Another key characteristic is a pedagogical shift toward self-directed learning. Mobile devices have been identified as tools for facilitating self-directed learning and linking formal and informal learning spaces. [45] The third significant characteristic is the movement toward designing future learning environments. This focus seems to be in more developed countries on designing technology-enhanced learning environments that meet the demands of twenty-first century learners. [45] Unfortunately the use of mobile technologies for educational purpose remains a controversial issue in many Asian countries. The mobile phone use in schools has raised some concerns about mobile technologies as distracting, addicting and harmful. [45] In my literature review I found that despite the controversial issues there is considerable interest in mobile learning in Asia. Mobile learning in Latin America Latin America is a heterogeneous region and it faces several significant educational challenges (e.g., drop-out rates, illiteracy, access to education, education quality). Also the technological infrastructure can vary significantly. Some higher-income countries have more advanced infrastructures, while lower-income countries are still in the initial stages of infrastructure development. [46] Because of the difference in technological and social infrastructure, economic development, educational contexts and the degree of ICT implementation and integration the mobile learning initiatives are still in the early stages of development. Also at the policy level mobile learning is still in its infancy. The ICT policies tend to focus more on computer-based programmes and most of the mobile learning programmes are pilot projects, driven by non-profit organizations or universities targeting small groups and focusing on particular of local needs. Nevertheless, Educators and policy-makers have shown some interest in exploring how mobile technologies can be used to address educational issues such as literacy, educational access and retention. [46] Because of the heterogeneous, essential elements, such as situation specificity, cultural sensitivity, practical usability, theoretical applicability, economical scalability, and viable sustainability and learning needs must be taken account to develop a usable and effective personal mobile learning model [47]. 21 One of the biggest obstacles of mobile learning is the existence of regulations restricting the use of mobile phones in the classroom. Mobile devices are viewed as fundamentally disruptive to teaching and learning. [46] Mobile learning in North America The role of national government in education varies between the United States and Canada. Canada does not have a national ministry of education and the federal government does not play a significant role in determining education policy. All thirteen Canadian provinces and territories belong to the CMEC (the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada) that provides education leadership at the national level. In the USA, the Department of Education enacts federal education laws, provides guidance and establishes program requirements. The US states and Canadian provinces hold the primary responsibility for education in their countries. States and provinces have a role in setting guidelines and policies and issuing recommendations related to education. [48] Many educators have recognized the potential of mobile learning and with the increase of online and blended learning also mobile devices are becoming more common in education. Mobile learning typically only appears in the larger context of education technology and access and mobile learning programs are often part of larger school reform efforts. Many mobile learning efforts tend to be school- or district-led. The United States government, however, has initiated several national programs that support and promote mobile learning. Also several state and provincial programs exist. [48] The mobile technologies are seen as tools to provide opportunities for personalized instructional strategies that best meets the need of individual students. The mobile technologies are also seen as tools to personalize professional learning. [48] Augmented reality is seen one of the key characteristics of mobile learning. Augmented reality applications use mobile devices built-in camera, GPS and compass features to gather information about the learners surrounding and then project additional information. Augmented realities in an educational context can increase student engagement and facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills in real-life situations. [48] The biggest barrier to mobile learning is the way people feel about mobile phones in education. Many policy-makers, parents and educators worry about the possible negative effects (a small screen, distraction, cheating, cyber-bullying). Also some national laws and policies are unclear, outdated or overly restrictive in regards to mobile technologies and may limit the possibilities for mobile learning in schools. [48] 22 Mobile learning in Africa and the Middle East The African and Middle East region covers a diverse range of communities, cultures, languages, histories and education systems and it has faced endemic crises. Over the past two decades several initiatives have tried to address ways in which ICT can play an enabling and systemic role in education. There has been much attention especially to the potential of mobile learning to improve teaching, learning and institutional efficiencies. [49] In the African and Middle East region, mobile learning projects have emerged in a number of sectors and fields (e.g., health care sector, banking sector, agricultural sector, food security sector, and media sector) and all education levels and settings. Many of the mobile learning projects start out as pilots. Mobile learning is still a relatively new phenomenon and because of this many projects are explorative or experimental in their intent and design. The majority of the projects are initiated by individuals or organizations backed by private corporations or donor agencies. Only a few pilot projects have adopted an evolutionary design strategy that enables the project to expand over time. [49] Most of the projects are small-scale projects and they mostly used text-based communication (e.g., SMS). Majority of the projects are situated in urban environments. Even though there are growing number of mobile learning projects in the African and Middle East region the formal integration of mobile learning in education systems is very much in its infancy. [49] Mobile learning initiatives in African and Middle East have demonstrated how to support education for all goals by mobile learning. Unfortunately many institutions have banned the use of mobile phones because of the concerns about the disruptive nature of mobile phones. [49] 5 Mobile technologies and their uses in education Mobile technology consists of mobile IT devices and variety of communication technologies [2]. As described in introduction part there is variety of different mobile IT devices. Also the applications of mobile learning can vary greatly according to the needs of the learners or organisations. One of the biggest challenges is the rapid development of technologies. The development of the m-learning clearly is balancing between student and organisational needs and the rapid technological changes [2]. Pollara and Broussard [50] studied and summarized 18 key studies published from 2005-2010. They found that the most common m-learning technology tool tested was the mobile phone and PDA (n=14). Two studies also used an mp3 player. 23 Wu et al. [39] found in their literature review that mobile phones are most commonly used for mobile learning (36.55%), followed by PDAs (30.96%), laptop computers (9.14%), iPods (4.06%), mp3/mp4 players (2.54%), podcasts (2.04%), and cameras (1.52%). Wu et al. [39] also found that in formal education contexts, higher education institutions favored mobile phones (34 studies), followed by PDAs (30) and laptops (7). PDAs were more commonly used in elementary schools (18 studies). Wu et al. [38] also noticed that in non-formal education contexts, mobile phones were still predominant (5 studies) and similarly, mobile phones were used in informal education (6 studies). Wu et al. [39] also found that other devices and mobile services (e.g., mp3/mp4 players, iPods, cameras, podcasts, GPS devices, and satellite TV), are applied in all three educational contexts but with very low frequencies. In my review I found that the most common tool tested was PDA (n=12) followed by mobile phone (n=9), laptop (n=3), smart phone (n=2), cameras (n=2), mp3 player (n=1), and e-book (n=1). I also noticed that mobile phones were most tested tools in such studies that focused on rural or remote places. Klopfer et al. [51] enumerated the core features of the ubiquitous portable devices (such as PDAs). According to Klopfer et al. [51] core features are: portability, can take the computer to different sites and move around within a site; social interactivity, can exchange data and collaborate with other people face to face; context sensitivity, can gather data unique to the current location, environment, and time, including both real and simulated data; connectivity, can connect handhelds to data collection devices, other handhelds, and to a common network that creates a true shared environment; individuality, can provide unique scaffolding that is customized to the individual's path of investigation. Also Sharples [52] represented core characteristics for mobile technologies to support contextual life-long learning. According to Sharples [48] technologies should be: highly portable, so that they can be available wherever the user need to learn; individual, adapting to the learner's abilities, knowledge and learning styles and designed to support personal learning; 24 unobtrusive, so that the learner can capture situations and retrieve knowledge without the technology obtruding on the situation; available anywhere, to enable communication with teachers, experts and peers; adaptable to the learner's evolving skills and knowledge; persistent, to manage learning throughout a lifetime, so that the learner's personal accumulation of resources and knowledge will be immediately accessible despite changes in technology; useful, suited to everyday needs for communication, reference, work and learning; intuitive to use by people with no previous experience of the technology. Some of these requirements can of course be satisfied by traditional tools and methods but new technologies can supplement traditional tools and methods by offering learners the opportunity to manage their learning over long periods of time, to engage in worldwide collaboration, and to relate near-unlimited information to situated problems [52]. Device that truly supports mobile learning have to be 'hand-held' and also 'hand-operated'. DeGani et al. [53] mapped device types against definition of mobile learning. Devices that need to be carried (e.g., netbooks) or require preparation (e.g., cameras) break the concept of learning as a spontaneous everyday activity. DeGani et al. [53] reminded that two points are important to note. The first relates to the rigidity of the definition of mobile learning devices. Some devices might be closer to the pure definition than others. The second point has to do with the ways in which the devices are used in. Some tasks with particular device engage students more in mobile learning than others. [53] The potential of m-learning is depending on the design and develop of pedagogically proper opportunities and environments that enhance learning. The handheld devices by themselves do not guarantee enhanced learning. In other words the uses of mobile devices considerably depend on pedagogical strategies and goals, target group, and devices. To support learning, pedagogic, behavioural and usability elements need to be integrated with technology to create appropriate educational applications. The intention should not be to make teaching and learning to be bounded to the mobile devices but to promote more student-centred learning. The mobile technology should be an enabler to stimulate the transformation of teaching and learning. [54] At best learning can happen in places outside of the classroom and learning materials are no longer limited to textbooks [55]. 25 The applications of mobile learning can vary greatly according to the context, situations and devices. Cheung and Hew [38] found seven categories of the uses of handheld devices. The seven categories included: 1) multimedia access tool (to access multimedia resources), 2) communication tool, 3) capture tool (to capture data and media or to co-create content in situ), 4) representational tool (to demonstrate students' thinking, ideas, experiences and knowledge), 5) analytical tool (to manipulate data or variables), 6) assessment tool (to answer examination questions, tests, or quizzes), and 7) managing tool (personal information managers, for example, calendar, address book, task lists, attendance rates). In my review I found that mobile devices were used as cognitive tool (to engage and facilitate student cognitive processes), guiding tool (to assist teachers in-class management or guide the students schoolwork), communication tool (to communicate information from one person to others), information access tool (to access information resources), activating tool (to foster students to active learning, for example, to participate), capture and content creation tool. Rogers and Price [56] in turn categorized mobile learning activities in terms of four types: 1) physical exercise game (e.g., Nintendo Wii applications) (games that incorporates learner into a number of physical activities), 2) participatory simulations (e.g., Virus game) (sensor-based devices are worn or carried to enact a complex phenomenon), 3) field trips and visits (visits to museums and other places) and 4) content creation. Pollara and Broussard [50] identified tasks and found four different types of tasks. The tasks were 1) facilitating the individualized learning of content (self-evaluation systems or other tools that helps students to learn different subjects), 2) group projects/discussion (mobile devices as collaborative learning tools), 3) assessment, and 4) teacher-directed lecture (for example, podcasts). Cheung and Hew [38] found that the three most frequent uses of mobile devices were utilizing the devices as communication (21.8%), multimedia access (20.5%), and task management (17.9%) tools. Pollara & Broussard [46] found that the mobile technology was most commonly used for the interaction between student and content. Interaction between student and instructor and interaction between students was also supported by mobile technologies. I found that the mobile devices were used throughout field trips and visits and some learning activities included games, content creation, reflective journals or portfolios. Some of the reviewed studies focused mainly on handheld devices and informal learning (for example, learning to change tire with how-to-do list, data-collection activities to produce information to bird watch database, reading postings on forums) (e.g., [33]). Mobile learning activities can engage in critical thinking skills, inquiry and problem solving in a meaningful context in and out of classroom. Commonly these 26 activities presume group work, presentations, investigations, discussions or peer evaluations. Some activities can be multiple choice quizzes, questions as warming or cooling exercise. Mobile learning activities can also include listening, watching or reading something with mobile device. Basically one can argue that the possibilities are nearly boundless. On the basis of mobile learning uses described in reviewed literature, I created a list of main uses of m-learning. These uses are: access to resources, assessment, capturing & creating (also co-creating), collaboration, communication, edutainment (entertainment is a part of learning materials and interaction e.g., games), extending learning beyond the classroom, management & guiding, augmented reality. I also created a list of things that need to be considered when designing m-learning tasks. These things are: content, context, device & connectivity, pedagogical strategies and goals, target group and learners needs. The key elements for planning the teaching are the curricular goals, the nature of learning tasks, the teachers acts in learning situation, the teacher and student roles, conceptual knowledge and applied knowledge, the importance of social context for learning, and evaluation methods. It is also important that learner has the opportunity to examine subject with several different manner. For example, real-life situations and problems are usually conceptually rich and they challenge the learner to examine problem with different angles. Real-life situations can also insure that learning is constructive and contextual. Learning should also be in 27 some extent collaborative (collaboration either between teacher & students or students & students). [57] In other words effective teaching is much more than performing to or interacting with audience. To support learning, the teacher has to select adequate objectives, teaching methods, contents, assignments, evaluation methods, formats of interaction, and to organize learning situations. [58] 5.1 Pedagogical models Teaching is usually based on practical experience and also theoretical reference framework or pedagogical model. Pedagogical model can help and direct the planning of teaching-studying-learning situation and design of teaching materials. There are numerous pedagogical models with different emphasis that can be used when designing teaching and learning environments. [59] Next chapter will introduce some of the models and those models are linked to mobile learning. Situated learning Situated learning theory posits that learning and cognition are situated and that activity and perception are prior to conceptualization. By result of this knowledge is part of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used. This is why authentic activities are important for learners. [60] Situated learning activities promote learning within an authentic context and culture [6]. With mobile technology the learning environment can be extended into authentic contexts. Mobile devices are available in different contexts and that's why they are well suited to context-aware applications. [6] One example of mobile system and situated learning in authentic context includes the Ambient Wood by Rogers et al. [61]. In their playful learning experience children explored and reflected upon a physical environment and biological processes. A variety of devices and multi-modal displays were used to trigger and present the 'added' digital information. The learning experience was structured into three distinct stages: 1) exploring and discovering, 2) reporting back, consolidating and hypothesizing, 3) experimenting and reflecting. The learning experience was also designed for pairs to collaborate during the explorations. Also the problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and context-aware learning can be considered in relation to the situated learning paradigm [6]. The problem-based learning The problem-based learning approach considers a whole range of different learning theories [62]. It is an instructional and learner-centred approach [63]. 28 Problem-based learning is also affected by the structural and pedagogical environment into which it is placed, in terms of discipline or subject, the faculty and the organization concerned. [62] In problem-based approach the focus is in organizing the curricular content around problem scenarios to encourage students to engage themselves in the learning process [62]. Learners conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a solution to a defined problem. Learners have the responsibility for their own learning and also collaboration is essential. The role of tutor is a facilitator of learning. [63] Problem-based learning platform can be built in mobile learning environment (Fig. 7). For example, Li and Chun [64] designed and built learning platform that is based on problem-based learning. Figure 7: Problem-based mobile learning environment [60] 29 The learning loop (Fig. 7) and student learning process starts by giving students an inspired question through mobile device. After this students discuss with each other and follow the instruction to learning spot. In the learning spot, students observe and collect learning objects in mobile learning environment (QR-codes with information). System estimates students learning by asking questions. The system selects and leads students to next suitable learning spot after student complete learning objective. [64] The inquiry-based learning Inquiry-based learning approach is very similar with problem-based learning. Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered and active learning approach that is focused on questioning, critical thinking, and problem solving. Activity starts with a question followed by investigating solutions, creating new knowledge, discussing discoveries and experiences, and reflecting on new-found knowledge (Fig. 8). [63] Figure 8: Inquiry-based learning 30 The primary difference between problem-based learning and inquiry-based learning relates to the role of the tutor. In a problem-based approach the tutor supports the process but does not provide information related to the problem. In the inquiry-based learning the tutor is both a facilitator of learning and a provider of information. [63] Shih et al. [65] used an inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhance the learning performance of the students. The learning content and activities were related to the historic site. In the first learning stage, the students were led out on the fieldtrip to the Peace Temple. Students used the mobile devices to explore the temple. The pre-designed hints guided them to spots that were related to learning theme. Students could also gather more information with the PDA. In the second stage the students participated in the production stage. Students were asked to synthesize and categorize the data collected in the field and to construct reports to share with classmates. There were also discussion and feedback that stimulated higher levels of thinking. In the third learning stage, the students were asked to give a learning result presentation. Students also created a story based on the field collections and then designed a new temple using paper crafts. [65] Also Looi et al. [66] designed their mobilized curriculum to be student centered, inquiry based and also collaborative in nature. The students started the inquiry learning by playing a cooperative game. After the game the teacher recapped what students had learnt. After this students were tasked to conduct an experiment at home using the smartphone to video record the experiment and to discuss about experiment in class. After the discussion the students were required to do online research using their smartphones and to share their findings with classmates. Students also updated their own KWL (what do I already know? What do I want to know? What have I learned?), created animations and evaluated anothers work. The lesson culminated in teach-your-parent activity. Students had to teach their parents what they had learned and these interactions were recorded and discussed and reflected with a partner. [66] The context-aware learning Context awareness means gathering information from the environment and to make available activities and content that are relevant to the environment. Mobile devices are very well suited to context-aware applications. [6] Museum and gallery sector has been on the forefront of context-aware mobile computing by providing additional information based on the visitor's location [6]. For example, in July 2002, Tate Modern, London launched interactive audio-visual tour of its galleries. The location-sensitive wireless network fed the correct information to visitors at the right time. Multimedia tour allowed background 31 information in a variety of different media. For example, visitors could see video and still images, could listen expert talk about details of a work. Location is the most commonly used variable in context recognition and several different location detection techniques have been exploited. One of the most commonly used technologies is the global positioning system (GPS) [67]. For example, Games Atelier is a learning tool that uses mobile phones, GPS and Internet to collectively create, play and watch location-based games. The students surroundings are the source of information and the setting for a gaming storyline. With mobile phones and with GPS it is possibly to make various types of information, stories and media accessible. Students navigate their surroundings and look for assignments or game clues. Each game can be watched afterwards, so students can share and reflect their experiences and learning moments. [68] The collaborative models In Collaborative learning the interactions among peers is the most important factor of learning. But collaboration and group achievement are not necessarily accomplished by just assigning students to groups and telling them to work together. The task need to be appropriate to the capabilities of the individual learners and to the collaboration process and structured so that learners must work together cooperatively. The teacher has a significant role to play in organizing fruitful collaboration. [69] In other words collaborative learning activities are such that promote learning through social interaction [6]. Alvarez et al. [70] implement collaborative learning activities supported by mobile devices. They used CollPad script originally introduced by Nussbaum et al. (2009) (Fig. 9). The idea is to encourage social interactions toward constructing shared understanding of open-ended tasks. Learners are randomly assigned to small groups. After groups are organized, the teacher delivers the learners an open ended task. First learners work individually. Then the system shows all group members a visualization containing their individual answer and group has to submit in agreement one of the available answers, or choose to write a new answer collectively. After this teacher can start a whole class discussion. Teacher can pick random students from each group, who must defend the answer submitted by their groups verbally. When the whole class agrees on a final response the problem can be closed. [70] 32 Figure 9: Phases of the CollPad script [70] The model of experiential learning Experiential learning theory is a holistic integrative perspective on learning that combines experience, perception, cognition and behaviour. The experience plays central role in the learning process. Experiential learning is the process of creating knowledge through the transformation of experience. Learning can be conceived as cycle (Fig. 10) where experience is the basis for observation and reflection. Figure 10: The experiential learning cycle 33 Knowledge is continuously derived from and tested out in the experiences. Learners need four different kinds of abilities - concrete experience abilities, reflective observation abilities, abstract conceptualization abilities, and active experimentation abilities. This is because learners must be able to involve in new experiences and reflect and observe experiences. Learners must be able to create concepts that integrate their observations into theories and must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve problems. [71] Chen et al. [72] strengthened experiential learning cycle with the challenge approach where they start experiential learning cycle with a challenge phase (Fig. 11). Figure 11: A Challenge-Experiential cycle on the handheld computer [72] 34 First the teacher gives an introduction to the problem and students record some of their prior knowledge through questions like what I know, what I want to know, what I learned. In other words students are given a challenge. In the experience stage students are equipped with handheld computers to carry out learning tasks. In the next stage students generate a report on handheld computers and upload it to a portal. In other words students are reflecting and generalizing what they have learnt. After this students view the work of other groups and provide feedback to their peers. Finally each group of students makes presentation to the class by using their designed artefacts and represents their ideas. In other words student relate what they have experienced by making an action plan. Students are also asked how they would apply what they have learned to similar or different situations. Knowledge building Knowledge building refers to the creation and improvement of ideas that are subject to evaluation, revision and application [73]. In educational context knowledge building means engaging learners in the full process of knowledge creation. Knowledge building is clearly a constructive process. [73] Often in educational contexts knowledge building tends to be related with approaches such as learning-by-discovery, project-based learning, anchored instruction and collaborative learning [73]. Seow et al. [74] examined how mobile and web-based technologies can be utilized to support seamless knowledge building processes. They used web-based mapping service Google Maps as a typological-topological space and their learning scenario included six phases from generating initial ideas and guiding queries to sharing and comparing diverse ideas mapped in Google Maps space. It appeared that the students socially constructed meaning from places. Students created locative content using mobile devices, situated in the real environment of the field trip and were enabled to continue their learning journey and interactions in the virtual space after the field trip. Seow et al. [74] suggests that with tight coupling of mobile technologies for pedagogical perspectives, learners can engage in participatory knowledge building process linking formal and informal learning experiences. Game-based learning Game-based learning is learning through play with games and with simulations. Games can offer more choice for learners and an enriched learning experience. [75] Mobile games in educational contexts can combine situated and active learning with fun [76]. 35 For example, Snchez and Olivares [77] implemented learning activities based on mobile games. One game represented the process of biological evolution and another guided the visit either a zoo or a museum. Classroom intervention was carried out in two stages (Fig. 12) and students worked in small groups. In first stage included game-based learning activities out-of-school context and work activities performed in the classroom. The students presented a product that summarized what they had learned. Second stage included game-based learning activities in-school context, and work activities performed in the classroom. Students worked in research activities that allowed them to systematize, complement and deepen their learning of contents worked with the game. [77] Snchez and Olivares [77] found that this game-based approach had an impact on collaboration and problem solving skills among the students. Students expressed that the class was entertaining and exiting. Figure 12: The stages of the game-based leraning [77] 36 Shihs mobile learning model Shih's [78] mobile learning model (Fig. 13) is based on Keller's (1987) ARCS model of motivational design where the learning cycle includes: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Shih's model was created to support instructional design for mobile learning and the learning cycle in Shih's model includes: 1) sending a multimedia message to trigger and to motivate learners, 2) searching related information from the web, 3) discussing with peers by text, voice, picture, or video messaging, 4) producing a digital story telling of what they have learnt, 5) applying what they have learnt in the simulated environment. [79] Figure 13: Shih's Mobile Learning Model [79] 37 Background of this model is the philosophy of social constructivism through the use of collaborative discussion and a learning styles theory based on digital story telling. Also Vygotsky learning theory is incorporated in Shih's model through peer learner interactions via mobile communication. [79] Shih and Mills [79] conducted an experiment of applying Shih's mobile learning model in a Children's Literature hybrid course in California State University. Shih and Mills [79] found that this model substantially improved students' overall online learning experience and helped them to achieve better learning outcomes. The Conversational Framework Laurillard [80] introduced the conversational framework (Fig. 14). The framework defines a dialogic process between 'teacher' and 'student' on two levels, the discursive level (focus is at theory, concepts, description-building) and the experiential level (focus is at practice, activity, procedure-building) [81]. Figure 14: The Conversational Framework [80] 38 Each of the activities within the conversational framework motivates to other activities. In other words framework creates a continual iterative flow of attending, questioning, adapting, experimenting, analysing, sharing, commenting, reflecting, and articulating. [81] Question cycle Dufrence et al. [82] introduced a question cycle (Fig. 15). This cycle combines instructors questions, co-operative learning and class-wide discussions. Dufrence et al. [82] used a classroom communication system called Classtalk to facilitate the presentation of questions, as well as the collection of student answers and the display of histograms of the answers. Questions and answers led into a class-wide discussion. The aim was to engage students and to enhance the overall communication within the classroom. Question cycle is divided into 7 stages: 1) question generation and selection, 2) sending the question, 3) cooperative group work, 4) collection of answers, 5) histogram display, 6) class-wide discussion, and 7) closure. These stages form flexible guidelines rather than an instructional recipe. The instructor spends time to present information approximately one-third of the class period and the other two-thirds of the class period is spent to students small group discussion or discussion as a whole class. Figure 15: Question cycle [82] 39 AEFIRIP model Silander and Rytknen [83] developed a pedagogical model called AEFIRIP (Fig. 16). This model is based on the contemporary learning theories and pedagogical models like "Progressive Inquiry", "Activating Instruction" and "Problem Based Learning" but it is focused on the characteristics of mobile learning. In this model learning is seen as mobile-CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) that relies on socio-cultural learning theories. [83] Figure 16: AEFIRIP model [83] An authentic situation 40 In AEFIRIP model mobile technology is seen not just as a mediator of the learning activity or collaboration, but also as a trigger and platform that includes guidance and support. Silander and Rytknen [83] stresses that the problems being solved during the mobile learning process should be as authentic as possible. The steps of AEFIRIP model are described in Table 2. Table 2: AEFIRIP phases Phase Description of activity 1. Activation Activating students prior knowledge and cognitive strategies by context 2. Externalization Externalization of students prior knowledge and thinking models. Students become aware of their prior knowledge by making it visible and exposing it to reflection. 3. Focusing Focusing students perception and cognitive processing in an authentic learning environment according the objectives of the learning situation (e.g., by focusing questions or assignments) 4. Interpretations Explicit interpretations done by student based on perception and prior knowledge/cognitive strategies as well as situational factors. 5. Reflection Reflection of own interpretations and situational factors. 6. Information processing Information processing consist of sub learning processes (cognitive processes) such as problem solving, classification, comparison, elaboration, etc. 41 Learning the stages or process Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is learning the stages or process (Fig. 17). When learning the stages or processes the essential part is to direct the learners to observe the process and the stages in authentic learning situations. However, in some circumstances, this can be very difficult. The recording of the authentic situation with mobile devices (e.g., video, photos, audio) and the structuring and analysing the stored process/stages can bring a solution to this problem [84]. The steps of this model are described in Table 3. Figure 17: Learning the stages / process 42 Table 3: The phases of the learning the stages / process pedagogical model Phase Description of the phase 1. Guidance to observation Learner's observation in an authentic environment should be directed to meaningful targets. This guidance can be short instruction or observation frame. In this phase it is also important to give clear instructions for the next phases. 2. Recording the stages /process with mobile device In this phase the learner records the stages or process performed by a professional with mobile device (e.g., video, audio, and picture) It is important that also the tacit knowledge emerges. 3. Conceptualization of the stages /process In this phase the stages / process are conceptualized. When the process is conceptualized the learner can develop deep understanding of the subject. In this phase it is important that the learner explains the process with her / his own words. 4. Division of the stages /process into steps In this phase the process is divided into explicit and meaningful steps and every step is also named. The result of this stage is a structured description of the process (e.g., video, cartoon, text). 5. Reflecting and processing the structured process In this phase the learner re-examines the structural description and the original recording and considers what needs to be changed or what needs to be added? 6. Training or imagery-based learning In this phase the learner is training the process by doing herself/himself or by simulating the mental images. The training can be the mixture of learning by doing and imagery-based learning. 7. Reflection After the training it is important to reflect the performance and the know-how with relation to process. The reflection supports the development of thinking skills and modeling. 43 Case-based mobile learning Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is case-based mobilelearning (Fig. 18). In this model there are several cases to be analysed. From each case there are specific issues to observe and analyse. Observation is supported by mobile devices. Figure 18: Case-based mobile learning 44 The phases of the case-based mobile learning (Fig. 18) are 1. Authentic learning situation, 2. Recording the cases with mobile devices, 3. Aggregating the cases to shared place, 4. Analysing the cases (e.g., highlighting and inspecting some specific issues), 5. Perspectives, synthesis, similarities, differences and generalities of the selected issues, 6. The formation of the generalized mental model. Mobile-spotting Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is mobile-spotting (Fig. 19). In this model the aim is to build a learning process where information is searched in the authentic environments. The information is stored with a mobile device and then explored, classified and analysed as wholeness. Figure 19: Mobile-spotting 45 The phases of mobile-spotting (Fig. 19) are: 1. Observation-orientation, for example, with the instructions, 2. Observation and the recording of the observations, 3. Identification with the help of information resources or identification tools, 4. Adding other information to a recognition (e.g., date, time, location, circumstances), 5. Producing notations (own observations and notes), 6. Classifying the observation, 7. Saving the observation to the library for further use, analysing the wholeness. Reflective problem-solving Another pedagogical model introduced by Silander [84] is reflective problem solving (Fig. 20). This model is based on self-analysis in the authentic situations. The process begins with setting the problem and recording the situation. The analysis is done by "thinking out loud" (annotation) and in conclusion there is reflection with the mobile learning diary. Figure 20: Reflective problem-solving 46 Mobile learning example investigating growth factors The idea of the task is to blend traditional learning methods with mobile learning. First the group of students form research question, for example, why does the lingonberry thrive in dry environment but the blueberry doesnt (Fig. 21). After this the group documents some observations in the field (for instance taking some pictures, doing measurements, etc.). Then the group searches information to support their findings. When the group thinks that they knew the solution they start to form questions and tips for other students. Other students try to find solution to the research question. Finally all the students make some conclusions together. Figure 21: Investigating growth factors 47 6 Learning attitudes and achievements Even though teaching and learning tasks were good enough, without the learner's contribution hardly anything happens. Learning depends widely on learners activity and this is affected by learner's attitudes and expectations. It is difficult to describe learning explicitly, because learning is a very complex process. At present, learning is seen as learners activity and knowledge construction so in many cases the knowledge production is measured somehow. In this section Im going to summarize research data about learners perceptions and attitudes of mobile learning and mobile technologys effects on learning and learning outcomes. Pollara and Broussard [50] found that overall (in the 18 studies), student perceptions of mobile learning was positive. In my review I also found that students held positive attitudes towards the use of mobile devices in the learning activities (e.g., [72]). Students learning attitude was reported to be enthusiastic and positive (e.g., [30, 31]) and students were remarkably motivated, and clearly enjoyed using mobile devices (e.g., [41]). Hwang and Chang [85] reported that learning interest in subject and learning achievement were improved. Students intention to adopt m-learning was reported to be high (e.g., [40]). The factors that most shown to influence intention to adopt mobile learning were: perceived usefulness of mobile learning, perceived ease of use of mobile learning, and learner self-monitoring ability (e.g., [16, 40, 86, 87]). Taking this into account, mobile learning applications should attract learners and they should be easy to use. It is also important to encourage learners to enhance self-learning ability. Also the quality of services, social influence and cultural aspects, have effects on adopting m-learning (e.g., [16, 86]). Many studies have shown that learners have very varying needs, goals and expectations of m-learning (e.g., [33, 87]). So to enhance learning, mobile learning should take into account context and personalized needs with quality in mind. We cannot forget the social influence either. Learners can either encourage their peers to use m-learning or go against it. Also learners preconceptions about using PCs can influence use of mobile devices [12]. The smallness of the device screen can negatively impact on the acceptance and integration of mobile learning. Churchill and Hedberg [14] mentioned that learning objects are often simply downloaded from computers to handheld devices rather than designed to fit. Gu et al. [33] emphasized that the usable mobile learning products must be practical, micro and simple both for content and activity. So overall, learners attitudes and perceptions about mobile learning were remarkably positive. Learners were reported to be enthusiastic and that learners were motivated and enjoyed. But only few studies took into account the novelty 48 effect which means that learners and teachers are more likely to use the devices because the devices are new to them compared to participants who have used them for a longer period of time and this might introduce a significant bias to the results [38, 85]. Several studies have reported positive learning outcomes or achievements. Chen et al. [72] studied understanding of content knowledge with pre-test and post-test, self-reports and with open-ended questions. Their design-based research used handheld computers as cognitive tools to facilitate students' inquiry-based learning on environmental issues. About 480 students from six schools in Singapore participated in the project, which spanned over two weeks. Chen et al. conducted a study on 79 primary grade-4 students from one of the participating schools to evaluate what students had learned and how students had applied their understandings. Their data showed that the students overall conceptual understanding increased significantly. [72] Also Hwang and Chang [85] evaluated the learning effectiveness of the students with the pre-test and post-test. They used a formative assessment-based approach for improving the learning achievements of students in mobile learning environment. An experiment was conducted on a local culture course in southern Taiwan and the participants were two classes of fifth grade students of an elementary school. 29 students were assigned to be the experimental group and the other 32 students was the control group. Actual mobile learning activity was only 120 minutes in length. Their results showed that the average learning achievement of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group. [85] Hwang et al. [41] also used pre-test and post-test. A mobile learning environment was developed for students to observe the local cultural heritage. The participants were two classes of sixth grade students of an elementary school in Taiwan. One class (26 students) was assigned to be experimental group, while other class (30 students) was the control group. The learning activity was conducted in the Sheng-Mu temple in Tainan city, and the learning content was the "local culture" unit of the social science course. Hwang et al. [41] noticed that the difference in the post-test scores of the students resulted from the different teaching methods. Results showed that the mean score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, which means that after the experiment, the learning achievement of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group. [41] Looi et al. [30] compared the students' general science final examination scores after the mobilized lessons. They designed a mobilized primary grade-3 science curriculum which was enacted in a class in a primary school in Singapore where 49 the students had a total of 21 weeks of the mobilized lessons in science. Looi et al. [30] results showed that there was significant difference on year-end science exam scores among classes after controlling the exam score before the introduction of mobilized lessons constant. The class difference explained 41.1% of the variance in the year-end exam scores. [30] Shih et al. [65] analyzed the students' test scores before and after the mobile learning activity. Shih et al. [65] presented a mobile exploration activity that guided elementary students to learn during a social science activity with support from mobile devices. 32 fifth grade students were arranged to carry out investigations in the Peace Temple of southern Taiwan with the inquiry-based mobile learning system. Shih et al. [65] found that students made significant improvement in learning achievement. Wu and Lai [12] asked instructor about students' performance in the PDA-enhanced practicum versus the more traditional method. PDAs were loaned to students for the three-week practicum period. Wu and Lai [12] implemented a handheld learning environment which was used to support a clinical nursing practicum course. The clinical practicum setting was a private middle-size mental hospital located in central Taiwan. Instructor considered that students became engaged and self-directed in learning, attained better theory knowledge, and had stronger self-confidence. [12] Liu et al. [88] studied the effects of mobile natural-science activities on students' performance of learning aquatic plants. Their study took place in an elementary school in Taiwan. Liu et al. [88] used the 5E Learning Cycle model combined with mobile computing. A total of 46 fourth-grade students were considered the case to be studied and the seven learning activities which each took 160 minutes were arranged. Students took a knowledge test regarding their knowledge levels of aquatic plants before and after the mobilized activities. Students also took an understanding test regarding their understanding levels of aquatic plants before and after the mobilized activities. Data was collected also from observations, interviews, and reflective journals. Students' mean scores after learning activities were significantly higher than students' mean scores before learning activities and this confirms that students' knowledge of aquatic plants increased. Also students' understanding of aquatic plants increased after their engagement in the learning activities. Liu et al. suggested that support of mobile devices might have helped the students to correct their related misconceptions. [88] Huizenga et al. [76] studied the effects of a mobile city game. They investigated pupils engagement in the game, historical knowledge, and motivation for History in general and the topic of the Middle Ages in particular. 458 pupils from 20 classes from five schools in Amsterdam participated. The pupils in 10 of the classes played 50 the mobile history game whereas the pupils in the other 10 classes received a regular lesson series. Game involved the entire day whereas regular lessons involved only two class hours (of fifty minutes each). Motivation was measured with pre-test and post-test questionnaires. Historical knowledge was measured using multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. The notes from 110 observation forms were used to detect the engagement. Huizenga et al. [76] found that technical problems might have negatively influenced the engagement of the pupils but that overall most of the pupils appeared to like the game and were engaged by the game. No significant differences were found between playing the game versus attending regular lessons with respect to motivation for the subject of history in general or the topic of the Middle Ages in particular. A significant effect was found for knowledge. The pupils who played the game generally attained higher scores on the knowledge test than the pupils who received regular instruction. The results also showed that pupils from the higher levels of education benefit more from playing the game than pupils from the lower levels and that those pupils with an initially low History ability benefited more from playing the game than pupils with higher level of initial History ability. Huizenga et al. [76] noted that it is not clear which elements of the game contributed to pupil learning. But Huizenga et al. [76] claimed that mobile games constitute an excellent means to combine situated, active and constructive learning with fun. [76] Chen et al. [72] evaluated the effects of mobile technology on an outdoor experiential learning. Students from two fifth-grade classes (a total of 34 students) at an elementary school participated in activity (90-minute learning activity). One class used PDAs and the other class used papers and pencils. Before the field-trip students were given a pre-test and after the learning activity, students took a post-test. Also an attitude questionnaire was composed. No significant difference existed between two groups' pre-test scores but the learning achievement scores of the with-PDA group were significantly higher than those of the without-PDA group. The with-PDA group retained and created more knowledge than the without-PDA group. PDAs and their embedded functions, however, did not sustain engagement. Chen et al. [72] argued that it seemed that most of the disadvantages of PDAs in the learning environment stem from their novelty and unfamiliarity. [72] Attewell et al. [89] reported that in the MoLeNET programme (UK's largest and most diverse implementation of mobile learning involving 20000 learners and 4000 staff in 115 colleges and 29 schools) a number of colleges found improvements in retention rates and improvements in achievement but in some cases researchers commented that it is difficult to attribute changes to mobile learning as they need 51 to be seen in conjunction with the other strategies for improvement taking place in academies. [89] Costabile et al. [90] reported that there were no significant differences between learning outcomes with the two game conditions paper-based and mobile. Costabile et al. [90] evaluated Explore! the excursion-game. Their study involved two second year classes at the Italian middle school. A total of 42 pupils participated as part of their school-work. Data collection took place at the archaeological park and followed up session to evaluate learning. 19 students, divided into 5 groups, played the paper-based version and 23 students, divided into 6 groups, played the mobile version. The two game conditions gave rise to different behavioural and social patterns but no significant difference in learning outcomes of the two game conditions were found. [90] However, learning is reported to be more constructive, deeper, personal, interesting, motivating and engaging (e.g., [30, 41, 72]). Mobile learning applications have the potential for motivating learners to study in different environments (across formal and informal settings) as their individual requirements are also taken into consideration. Learners can feel more personalized and content and learner can learn their own preferred pace and route. So overall learning can be more learner-centered and learning process can be more individualized [65, 72]. When we discuss about mobile technologies effects on learning outcomes we have to remember that one big limitation which also Cheung and Hew [38] highlighted is the limited duration of studies (ranging from as short as a few hours to one semester). Also Zhang et al. [54] stated that the longitudinal studies have been scarce. Future studies should be longitudinal in nature. Doing longitudinal studies provides opportunity to examine whether perceptions of mobile devices undergo changes and also to examine if the reported positive impacts on learning outcomes hold over time [38]. As pointed out with mobile technologies and with coherent mobile curriculum, learning can be more learner-centred. But how learning changes? Attewell [91] analyzed the evidence collected during research (a total of 128 learners in the UK, Italy and Sweden) and found that mobile learning may have a positive contribution to make in the following areas: Mobile learning helps learners to improve their literacy and numeracy skills and to recognize their existing abilities; Mobile learning can be used to encourage both independent and collaborative learning experiences; 52 Mobile learning helps learners to identify areas where they need assistance and support; Mobile learning helps to combat resistance to the use of ICT and can help bridge the gap between mobile phone literacy and ICT literacy; Mobile learning helps to remove some of the formality from the learning experience and engages reluctant learners; Mobile learning helps learners to remain more focused for longer periods; Mobile learning helps to raise self-esteem; Mobile learning helps to raise self-confidence. Attewell [91] suggested by the research evidence that mobile learning can make a useful contribution to attracting young people to learn, maintain their interest and support their learning and development. Attewell et al. [89] identified key benefits of mobile learning from their research findings. Their identified benefits for learners were engagement/motivation, competence/achievement, personalization, enjoyment/confidence, mobility, accessibility, convenience and communication. Attewell et al. [89] suggested by their findings that using mobile technologies in teaching and learning can: encourage and support learning at anytime and anywhere (e.g., in college or school, at home, in the workplace, on field trips, in transit); make learning more convenient, accessible, inclusive and sensitive to learners individual needs and circumstances; make learning more interesting, more enjoyable and more attractive to learners; encourage different learners to engage in learning and to improve their self-confidence and self-esteem; help to provide differentiated learning activities to suit different learning styles or preferences and different ability levels; support dialogue between teachers and learners; improve access to learning resources and guidance for learners; encourage and support both independent and collaborative learning; support revision; 53 include formative assessment that is more enjoyable for learners and facilitate peer assessment and self-assessment; improve the speed and quality of feedback to learners during learning; improve learners concentration, focus and behaviour; improve evidence-gathering. Tuomi et al. [92] studied a mobile social video sharing services' (MoViEs) use in part of the 8- and 9-graders biology and cultural geography lessons. 50 students responded to their survey and almost half of the students (44%) felt that with mobile videos it was easier to demonstrate learning and outcomes. 21% of students thought that it was easier to express oneself and know-how with videos than with text. This supports the idea that mobile learning is suitable for at least some different types of learners and that mobile learning enables variety of ways to participate and learn. In study by Tuomi and Multisilta [93] students justified their positive learning experiences with convenience of the use of information technology in comparison reading books. They felt that learning (e.g., exploring new things) was easier with devices. Positive user experiences created successful learning experiences. But at the same time technical difficulties and adversity contributed to a desire to learn. [93]. Also Ching et al. [94] emphasized that poorly designed mobile technologies can adversely affect usability and distract the user from his/her learning goals. But overall in study by Tuomi and Multisilta [93] students held positive attitudes and felt that learning was more pleasant and that mobile technology can bring expected change in everyday learning. Zhang et al. [54] noticed that learners had more flexibility in controlling their own pace and sequence for the task. Students could open files in any order and freely switch among the different files. They also observed a shift in the classroom behaviour. Students became more engaged and motivated and they were self-disciplined and managed to complete their tasks independently. There was an emergence of participatory culture among the learners and a change towards collective knowledge construction. [54] Hwang et al. [41] discovered that mobile devices in the real-world environment can reduce cognitive load. Chen et al. [72] emphasized that mobile devices allow learners to construct knowledge and that mobile devices can support self-reflection and on that account mobile devices can help amplify learners thinking. Also positive shift on collaboration, interaction and problem solving skills has been reported (e.g., [12, 77]). Kukulska-Hulme et al. [95] gathered examples of mobile technology use in relation to life and learning during 20062009 in Australia, Hong Kong, Portugal, 54 Sweden and United Kingdom (a total of 270 students, mostly aged 2544, completed the questionnaire). Their examples showed that learners are actively using their mobile devices (cell phones, smart phones, PDAs, mp3 players) to create, collect and access useful resources, to communicate inventively in a variety ways with other individuals and communities. Considering the expectations that educators have of 21st century learners (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, media and ICT literacies, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills), personal use of mobile technologies might support these aspirations. There are indications that mobile devices could be instrumental in giving learners scope to adopt an active stance in relation to the process of learning and to develop their initiative, digital competence, knowledge production and communication. [95] So overall, learning with mobile technologies can be personalized (e.g., provide different learning activities suit to different learning styles and preferences and different ability levels), situated (e.g., learning at anytime and anywhere, a shift from one-to-one to many-to-many communication, a shift from virtual to physical environments) and authentic (e.g., learning in informal contexts). Mobile learning at best can bridge formal and informal learning, make learning more student-centred and meaningful and encourage creativity and innovation by both learners and teachers. 7 Challenges Now we have some evidence that mobile technologies overall can be very effective tools for learning. But why mobile technologies have not integrated to education? There are still some challenges that need to be exceeded. In this section I summarized some main challenges of m-learning. There are still cultural norms that define mobile devices as primarily entertainment and lifestyle implementers [94]. Primary and secondary schools in United States have, for the most part, banned mobile devices from classrooms. Also United Kingdom banned cell phones in 2008 from primary and secondary schools [96]. Ford and Leinonen [97] pointed out that there is a lot of under the table use of mobile phones in classrooms and that they can have distracting influences. Ford and Leinonen [97] also added that the appropriate use of devices can be encouraged through value based principles. But Ching et al. [94] came to a conclusion that in some cases it seemed to be easier to ban the cell phones completely rather than create policies and punishments. One of the biggest challenges is to understand what content should be delivered with small devices and how it should be adapted [90]. One great problem is that 55 there is the lack of platform and operating system standardization and that existing applications tend to employ design and evaluation principles taken from traditional or e-learning theories. This design approach doesnt take into account the distinct aspects of learning through mobile technologies [94]. Mobile learning has specific characteristics and the potential for mobile technologies rests on the establishment of principles that highlight and exploit these characteristics [98]. Serrano-Santoyo and Organista-Sandoval [99] stated that it is necessary to continue developing a solid and cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework. Taking these facts account it seems that the best practices of using mobile devices in teaching and learning are still undefined. Traxler [5], however, stressed that theory of mobile learning may be problematic since mobile learning is inherently a noisy phenomenon where context is everything. Moreover the technological constraints, another major issue are differentiated access. For example, one student may bring an iPhone with many features whereas next student may have older cell phone with just calling and text messaging capabilities and some students may enter with no device at all. The mobile learning approaches that can accommodate this flexibility will have the best chance of success [98] One great concern is how we can reduce the digital divide, the gap between those with access to information technology and those without such access. In academic context one solution is that academy will buy devices for each student or participating team. But then teacher has to keep track of the devices. The use of student owned equipment can remove the security issue for the academics but then new problems can arose. All students dont have devices and those who have, dont always know what to do with their devices or how to adapt their personal devices to the educational settings [100] But if we suppose that each student is equipped with handheld device and know how to use it, in this scenario it is possible for the teacher to launch ICT-based activity directly in the classroom or whenever it is necessary and switch from one approach to another without disruption or that the class needs to transfer into the computer laboratory [101]. Even though there now are new technologies and learning opportunities, the classroom of today is much like the classroom of 200 years ago [102]. ICT in school settings has become quite common but in most cases it is more a supplemental resource that is occasionally exploited than integrated part of learning activities [101]. Mobile learning has not yet taken an important role in teaching practice. But in the future, it is expected that learning will move outside the classrooms and lecture halls into the learners environment both real and virtual and then mobile learning has the potential to enhance learning. Mobile learning experiences are well suited to supporting active exploratory activities [61]. Such activities can help learners to learn skills that they will need later in life. So even more learning 56 scenarios with innovative practices should be designed and implemented in schools than before [103]. 8 Conclusions In this paper, I have reviewed articles to summarize the current research concerning the mobile learning. There are diverse set of researches and blended trials and experiments from all over the world. All of them have diverse aims, pedagogical approaches, different contexts, and diverse target groups. The most commonly emerged themes seemed to be personalization and context awareness. The main concern seemed to be learners mobile learning needs and goals and how to adapt these to design. Another concern seemed to be how to develop pedagogically proper opportunities and environments that enhance learning. There still is not cohesive theoretical mobile learning framework or set of best practices of using mobile devices in teaching and learning. Maybe because of this the use mobile devices in learning have not taken an important role in teaching practices yet. It simply takes too much teachers time and energy to interweave all crucial aspects together. So teachers alone will be unlikely to bring the width of implementation needed. Many studies mainly focused on the investigation of motivations, perceptions and attitudes of students toward mobile learning. In my review I found that overall student perception of mobile learning was positive and students intention to adopt m-learning was reported to be high but that the novelty effect was not considered. Pollara and Broussard [50] emphasized that although there are studies about learners motivation and comfortable to use mobile devices as a part of learning there still is not clear understanding how mobile devices and mobile applications can increase learners' skills, comprehension, and knowledge [50]. Several studies have reported positive learning outcomes or achievements and many more mobile learnings potentials. Overall, mobile technology seems to have the enormous potential to enhance learning across formal and informal settings, allowing learners to lead at somehow. Learning at best can be very learner-centred, especially when we focus more on the learners than the technologies. But when we discuss about mobile learning research and learning outcomes we have to remember that several studies have the limited duration and some of them have used a weak experimental method to examine student learning outcomes. There should be more rigorous and longer-term evaluations. It is important to start exploring both how to support learning with mobile devices and how they can be best used. In other words theories and approaches should be linked to concrete mobile learning practices. And as So et al. [103] 57 emphasized future research should move the current focus of content delivery-centred mobile learning to learner-centred participatory mobile learning. And for this we have to design and implement more learning scenarios with innovative practices [103]. References [1] J. Traxler. Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning. 1(1), 112, 2009. [2] J. Lam, J. Yau and S. Cheung. A review of mobile learning in the mobile age. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Hybrid Learning, 2010. [3] J. Norrena, M. Kankaanranta and M. Nieminen. Kohti innovatiivisia opetuskytnteit. In Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa. University of Jyvskyl, Finnish Institute for Educational Research and Agora Center, Jyvskyl, 2011. [4] M. Sharples, I. Snchez, M. Milrad and G. Vavoula. Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. [5] J. Traxler. Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(2), 2007. [6] L. Naismith, P. Lonsdale, G. Vavoula and M. Sharples. Literature Review in Mobile technologies and learning. NESTA, Bristol, 2004. [7] M. Kearney, S. Schuck, K. Burden and P. Aubusson. Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology. 20, 2012. [8] J. Roschelle. Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 19(3), 260272, 2003. [9] J. Attewell, C. Savill-Smith, R. Douch and G. Parker. Modernising education and training: Mobilising technology for learning. LSN, London, 2010. [10] A. Kukulska-Hulme. Mobile usability in educational context: What have we learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(2), 116, 2007. 58 [11] Y. Park. A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2011. [12] C. Wu and C. Lai. Wireless handhelds to support clinical nursing practicum. Educational Technology & Society. 12(2), 190204, 2009. [13] A. Al-Hmouz and A. Freeman. Learning on location: An adaptive mobile learning content framework. In Technology and Society (ISTAS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium. 2010. [14] D. Churchill and J. Hedberg. Learning object design considerations for small-screen handheld devices. Computers & Education. 50(3), 881893, 2008. [15] I. Mierslus-Mazilu. M-learning objects. In Electronics and Information Engineering (ICEIE), 2010 International Conference. 2010. [16] Y. Wang, M. Wu and H. Wang. Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 40, 92118, 2009. [17] K. Hakkarainen, K. Lonka and L. Lipponen. Tutkiva oppiminen: lykkn toiminnan rajat ja niiden ylittminen. WSOY, Porvoo, 1999. [18] A. Herrington and J. Herrington. Authentic mobile learning in higher education. In AARE2007 International Educational Research Conference. 2007. [19] N. Keskn and D. Metcalf. The Current Perspective, Theories and Practices of Mobile Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 10(2), 202208, 2011. [20] L. Naismith and D. Corlett. Reflections on success: A retrospective of the mLearn conference series 2002-2005. In MLearn 2006: Across Generations and Cultures. 2006. [21] D. Frohberg, C. Gth and G. Schwabe. Mobile learning projects a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assited Learning. 25(4), 307331, 2009. [22] T. Georgiev, E. Gerogieva and A. Smrikarov. M-learning a new stage of E.learning. In The International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies CompSysTech. 2004. [23] J. Traxler. Defining mobile learning. In IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning. 2005. 59 [24] Y. Laouris and N, Eteokleous. We need and educationally relevant definition of mobile learning. In the 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning. 2005. [25] S.J. Geddes. Mobile learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners. Knowledge Tree e-journal: An E-journal of Flexible Learning in VET. 30(3), 214218, 2004. [26] C. OMalley, G. Vavoula, J. Glew, J. Taylor, M. Sharples and P. Lefrere. Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment. MOBIlearn Pedagogical Methodologies and Paradigms. 4, 2005. [27] M.L. Koole. A model for framing mobile learning. In Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press, Edmonton, 2009. [28] K. Walker. Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. In big issues in mobile learning. Kaleidoscope, Nottingham, 2007. [29] D. Belshaw. JISC mobile and wireless technologies review. JISC e-Learning Programme, 2011. [30] C. Looi, B. Zhang, W. Chen, P. Seow, G. Chia and C. Norris. 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27(3), 269287, 2011. [31] P. Rebaque-Rivas, E. Gil-Rodrgues and I. Manresa-Mallol. Mobile learning scenarios from a UCD perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 2010. [32] D. Churchilla and J. Hedberg. Learning object design considerations for small-screen handheld device. Computers & Education. 50(3), 881893, 2008. [33] X. Gu, F. Gu and J. Laffey. Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27(3), 204215, 2011. [34] J. Yau and M. Joy. A mobile and context-aware adaptive learning schedule framework from a usability perspective A diary: Diary-questionnaire study. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE. 2009. [35] T. Magner, H. Soul and K. Wesolowski. P21 Common Core Toolkit. A Guide to Aligning the Common Core State Standards with the Framework for 21st Century Skills. Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011. 60 [36] A. Kukulska-Hulme, M. Sharples, M. Milrad, I. Arnedillo-Snches and G. Vavoula. Innovation in Mobile learning: A European Perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning. 1(1), 1335, 2009. [37] K. Petrova and C. Li. Focus and Setting in Mobile Learning Research: A Review of the Literature. Communications of the IBIMA. 10, 219226, 2009. [38] W. Cheung and K. Hew. A review of research methodologies used in studios on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 25(2), 153183, 2009. [39] W. Wu, Y. Wu, C. Chen, H. Kao, C. Lin and S. Huang. Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 59, 817827, 2012. [40] X. Lu and D. Viehland. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile learning. In ACIS 2008 Proceedings. 2008. [41] G. Hwang, W. Kuo, P. Wu, Y. Huang and Y. Zhuang. An investigation on students cognitive load and learning achievements for participating in a local culture mobile learning activity. In Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE), 6th IEEE International Conference. 2010. [42] G. Hwang and C. Tsai. Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology. 42(4), E65E70, 2011. [43] A. Kukulska-Hulme, M. Sharples, M. Milrad, I. Arnedillo-Snchez and G. Vavoula. The genesis and development of mobile learning in Europe. In Combining E-learning and M-learning: New applications of blended educational resources. IGI-Global, 2011. [44] J. Hlen. Turning on mobile learning in Europe. Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012. [45] H. So. Turning on mobile learning in Asia. Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012. [46] M. Lugo and S. Schurman. Turning on mobile learning in Latin America. Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012. 61 [47] P. Kim, T. Miranda and Olaciregui. Pocket school. Exploring mobile technology as a sustainable literacy education option underserved indigenous children in Latin America. International Journal of Educational Development. 28(4), 435445. 2008. [48] J. Fritschi and M. Wolf. Turning on mobile learning in North America. Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012. [49] S. Isaacs. Turning on mobile learning in Africa and Middle East. Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning. UNESCO, 2012. [50] P. Pollara and K. Broussard. Student perceptions of mobile learning: A review of current research. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. 2011. [51] E. Klopfer, K. Squire and H. Jenkins. Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. In Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, IEEE International Workshop. 2002. [52] M. Sharples. The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & education. 34, 177193, 2000. [53] A. DeGani, G. Martin and F. Wade. E-learning standards for an m-learning world. Mobile learning shareable content object. Tribal Education Ltd., 2010. [54] B. Zhang, C. Looi, P. Seow, G. Chia, L. Wong and W. Chen. Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Comput.Educ. 55(4), 15041523, 2010. [55] J. Shih, H. Chu, G. Hwang and K. Kinshuk. An investigation of attitudes of students and teachers about participating in a context-aware ubiquitous learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology. 42(3), 373394, 2011. [56] Y. Rogers and S. Price. How mobile technologies are changing the way children learn. In Mobile technology for children; Designing for interaction and learning. Elsevier Inc., 2009. [57] J. Enkenberg. Oppimisesat ja opetusmalleista yliopistokoulutuksessa. In Opettajatiedon kipinit. Kirjoituksia pedagogiikasta. Joensuun yliopisto Savonlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitos, 2000. [58] Y. Engestrm. Perustietoa opetuksesta. Valtion painatuskeskus, Helsinki, 1984. 62 [59] S. Vahtivuori-Hnninen, T. Karaharju-Suvanto and K. Suomalainen. Characteristics of pedagogical models in the mobile teaching studying learning (TSL) environments: Preliminary findings of the I-trace project. In Pen-based Learning Technologies, International Workshop. 2007. [60] J. Brown, Acollins and P. Duguid. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. 18(1), 3242, 1989. [61] Y. Rogers, S. Price, G. Fitzpatrick, R. Fleck, E. Harris, H. Smith, C. Randell, H. Muller, C. OMalley D. Stanton, M. Thompson and M. Weal. Ambient Wood: Designing New Forms of Digital Augmentation for Learning Outdoors. In IDC 04 Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community. 2004. [62] M. Savin-Baden and C. Howell. Foundations of problem based learning. MCGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, 2004. [63] J. Savery. Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Purdue e-Pubs, 2006. [64] S. Li and K. Chun. Apply problem-based learning in mobile learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 2011. [65] J.L. Shih, C. Chuang and G. Hwang. An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social science learning effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society. 13(4), 5062, 2010. [66] C.K. Looi, P. Seow, B. Zhang, H. So, W. Chen and L. Wong. Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology. 41(2), 154169, 2010. [67] J. Hkkil. Usability with context-aware mobile applications: Case studies and design guidelines. University of Oulu, 2006. [68] J. Huizenga, R. Hordijk and A. Lubsen. The world as learning environment: Playful and creative use of GPS and mobile technology in education. 2008 [69] M. Nussabaum, C. Alvarez, A. Mcfarlane, F. Gomez, S. Claro and D. Radovic. Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education. 52(1), 147153, 2009. [70] C. Alvarex, R. Alarcon and M. Nussabaum. Implementing collaborative learning activities in the classroom supported by one-to-one mobile computing: A design-based process. J.Syst.Softw. 84(11), 19611976, 2011. 63 [71] D.A. Kolb. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984. [72] W. Chen, N. Tan, C. Looi, B. Zhang and P. Seow. Handheld computers as cognitive tools: Technology-enhanced environmental learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 3(3), 231252, 2008 . [73] M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter. Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Sage Publications, 2003. [74] P. Seow, H. So, C. Looi, G, Lim and K. Wong. Leveraging knowledge building in seamless learning environments. In ICCE 2008 Workshop Proceedings. 2008. [75] S. de Freitas. Learning in immersive worls: A review of game-based learning. JISC e-Learning Programme, 2006. [76] J. Huizenga, W. Admiraal, S. Akkerman and G. T. Dam. Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. J. Comp. Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332344, 2009. [77] J. Snches and R. Olivares. Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Computers & Education. 57(3), 19431952, 2011. [78] Y.E. Shih. Seize teachable and learnable moments; SMSE instructional design model for mobile learning. In International Association for Development of the Information Society International Conference Mobile learning. 2005. [79] Y.E. Shih and D. Mills. Setting the new standard with mobile computing in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(2), 116, 2007. [80] D. Laurillard. Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, London, 2002. [81] D. Laurillard. Pedagogical forms for mobile learning. Framing research questions. In Mobile learning towards a research agenda. WLE Centre, London, 2007. [82] R.J. Dufrence, W. Gerace, W. Leonard, J. Mestre and L. Wenk. Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 7(2), 347, 1996. [83] P. Silander and A. Rytknen. An intelligent mobile tutoring tool enaglind individualisation of students learning processes. In 4th World Conference on mLearning. 2005. 64 [84] P. Silander. Mobiilioppimisen pedagogiset mallit, 2012. [85] G. Hwang and H. Chang. A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Comput.Educ. 56(4), 10231031, 2011. [86] J. Chong, A.Y. Chong, K. Ooi and B. Lin. An empirical analysis of the adoption of mlearning in Malaysia. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 9(1), 118, 2011. [87] A. Xie, Q. Zhu, H. Xia. Investigating college major differences in the need of mobile phone learning. In Multimedia Technology (ICMT) 2011 International Conference. 2011. [88] T. Liu, H. Peng, W. Wu and M. Lin. The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Educational Technology & Society. 12(4), 344358, 2009. [89] J. Attewell, C. Savill-Smith and R. Douch. The impact of mobilelearning. Examining what it means for teaching and learning. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, 2009. [90] M.F. Costabile, A. De Angeli, R. Lanzilotti, C. Ardito, P. Buono and T. Pederson. Explore! Possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2008. [91] J. Attewell. Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, 2005. [92] P. Tuomi, J. Multisilta and L. Niemi. Mobiilivideot oppimisen osana kokemuksia MoVie-palvelusta Kasavuoren koulussa. In Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa. University of Jyvskyl, Finnish Institute for Educational Research and Agora Center, Jyvskyl, 2011. [93] P. Tuomi and J. Multisilta. Mobiilivideoiden hyyntminen peruskoulussa. In Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa II. University of Jyvskyl, Finnish Institute for Educational Research and Agora Center, Jyvskyl, 2011. [94] D. Ching, C. Shuler, A. Lewis and M. Levine. Harnessing the potential of mobile technologies for children and learning. In Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers/Elsevier, 2009. 65 [95] A. Kukulska-Hulme, J. Pettit, L. Bradley, A. Carvalho, A. Herrington, D. Kennedy et. al. An international survey of mature students uses of mobile devices in life and learning. In Proceedings of 8th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning. 2009. [96] C. Norris and E. Soloway. A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on the mobile technology revolution. In Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers/Elsevier, 2009. [97] M. Ford and T. Leinonen. Mobile tools and services platform for formal and informal learning. In Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press, Edmonton, 2009. [98] C. Shuler. Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote childrens learning. Unpublished manuscript. [99] A. Serrano-Santoyo and J. Organista-Sandoval. Challenges and opportunities to support learning with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 3rd Mexican Workshop on Human Computer Interaction. 2010. [100] L.E. Dyson, A. Litchfield, E. Lawrence, R. Raban and P. Leijdekkers. Advancing the M-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 25(2), 250267, 2009. [101] F. Pozzi. The impact of m-learning in school contexts: An inclusive perspective. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Services. 2007. [102] C. Norris and E. Soloway. A disruption is coming: A primer for educators on the mobile technology revolution. In Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers/Elsevier, 2009. [103] H.J. So, I.S. Kim and C.K. Looi. Seamless mobile learning: Possibilities and challenges arising from the Singapore experience. Educational Technology International. 9(2), 97121, 2008.