mLearning: Anytime, anywhere learning transcendingthe boundaries of the educational box

Micah Shippee & Jared Keengwe

Published online: 31 August 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract In the age of our mobile learning, an impending onus is placed oneducational institutions to embrace this technological innovation that is widelyaccepted, used, and available globally. The clear societal value of mobile technologyas a productivity tool for engagement, creation, and collaboration has generated anew need for education to revisit existing instructional paradigms constrained byphysical walls and time. Mobile learning (mLearning) creates a venue to promote aculture of participation where learners and leaders alike can engage in combinedefforts with multiplicative outcomes of greater success. This article explores thefactors that national, state, and local educational organizations must understand inorder to make steps toward successful integration of mLearning technology.Characteristics necessary for effective and efficient use of mLearning strategies foreducators are also examined.

Keywords Anytime learning . Anywhere learning . Mobile learning . mLearning .

Mobile technology

1 Introduction

An era of high technology in education is revealing a new paradigm where learnerstake control of their own learning. Alternative opportunities for traditional and web-based instruction are ubiquitous in availability yet limited in their present usage. Thestruggle to break from traditional industrial revolution thinking combined with the

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9211-2

M. ShippeeInstructional Design, Development and Evaluation Program, Syracuse University,330 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340, USAe-mail: micahshippee@gmail.com

J. Keengwe (*)University of North Dakota, Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202-7189, USAe-mail: jared.keengwe@email.und.edu

perspective of new technology as being instruction versus a tool for intuitive supportof instruction provide insights on the rate at which innovation is effectively adoptedin education, change management in education has proved most difficult.

For some scholars, technology integration is understood and examined in terms ofhow teachers use technology to carry out familiar activities more reliably and produc-tively, and how such application may be re-shaping these activities (Hennessy et al.2005 in Hew and Brush 2007). Reframing our understanding of technology integra-tion as media literacy allows us to better conceptualize the many areas of our dailylives impacted by our digital age. Emerging technology allows learners at every levelto reference content faster, yet also to participate, collaborate, and generate contentdemonstrating a new level of self-reflective meaning making unparalleled in thehistory of the modern educational experience.

Technology skills are critical to success in our increasingly digital global commu-nity. The level of technological skills a learner holds is correlated to their ability toattain success in many professional fields. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills2007 has identified “Information, Media, and Technology Skills” as a key element inthe strengthening of American education (www.21stcenturyskills.org). Schools as theprimary, traditional distributor of skill-sets necessary for successful citizens mustadapt to a changing world.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently stated, “For the first time, stateassessments will make widespread use of smart technology. They will providestudents with realistic, complex performance tasks, immediate feedback, computeradaptive testing, and incorporate accommodations for a range of students.” (Duncan2010). Duncan further expounded on the coming use of adaptive technologies toscaffold questions and problem statements specific to each students’ response.Acknowledgement of the need to incorporate smarter technology that is “welcome”by the teachers (Duncan 2010) highlights a theme in our current age.

An annual report, by The New Media Consortium, reveals that mobile learningand cloud computing are poised to reach widespread adoption in schools in one yearor less, with game-based learning and open educational content not far behind(Devaney 2011). Options like eLearning, and home-based learning are attractingstudents away from traditional settings at every level of education. The at-your-own-pace, convenience of space, and often lower costs these alternative educationalsettings offer appeal to an increasingly growing learner base.

To date, the onset of Internet technology in education has enriched instruction on aglobal scale. eLearning programs and websites provide anywhere any time learningfor those with Internet access, making strides toward closing the digital divide with anarrow bridge of opportunity. The ubiquity of mobile technology has surpassedtraditional landline Internet in availability, with over 4 billion subscribers globally,more than two-thirds of whom live in developing countries. This global networkcovers more territory than the electrical grid (Johnson et al. 2010) providing alessening gap in the digital divide broadening the bridge of opportunity via mobilelearning (mLearning). The lines clearly drawn between Internet technology andcellular technology are disappearing (Johnson et al. 2010). In the near future,eLearning and mLearning as distinguishable forums for education will no longer bediscrete space, hybrids will and have formed creating a symbiotic relationshipbetween the two.

104 Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113

Many teachers are bound by one goal, to effectively and efficiently reach the needsof all of their students. The attainability of this goal is more accessible throughmLearning. Perhaps the greatest foundation stone in education is the value placedon “seat time,” the traditional physicality of learning space. Educators are hesitant togive the learner more control over their learning. The measurable quantity of time andspace must be relinquished for the meaningful quality of anytime and anywheremLearning environments. Perhaps the paradigm shift is actual a cyclical re-visitationon pre-industrial revolution learning principals where for thousands of years, learningwas contextual with walls and boundaries only built around the needs of the individ-ual learner-apprentice.

1.1 Defining mobile learning

Mobile Learning (mLearning) is the exploitation of ubiquitous handheld technolo-gies, together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support,enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning (MoLeNET 2011).mLearning uses mobile technology to aid in the learning of, reference of or explo-ration of information useful to the user at that moment or in a specific use context(Float 2011).

Mobile Devices are defined by several criteria: Form, connectivity, and state. Theform factor clarifies a mobile device as comfortably fitting into the palm of one’shand. Mobile devices must be connected to a network via a cellular network or awireless network. A mobile device is “always on” allowing for instant on-demandlearning, anytime, anywhere. (Agarwal 2009). Mobile devices vary is size fromfitting in the palm of your hand to larger tablets, smartphones make up the middlerange of these sizes.

1.2 Statement of the problem

mLearning represents a largely untapped resource for engaging students in and out ofthe traditional classroom settings. Where eLearning provides at-your-own-pace,convenience of space, and often, lower costs for education, mLearning does more.The mLearning environment is at-you-own-pace, just in time, and on-demand, notlimited by a hard line connection and with the equipment that is often cheaper than adesktop and/or laptop computer. Our cognitive process has been effected by thisaccessibility of information. Sparrow et al. (2011) states “The internet has become aprimary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collec-tively outside ourselves.”

In the educational realm, the knowledge available or rather information availablemust be used, and taught to be used, judiciously. Is the information fact or opinion?The instantaneous availability of the source does not equate to its reliability. Forexample Google, Bing, and yahoo searches of “mLearning” reveal Wikipedia as thefirst source of information. Wikipedia’s content is written by volunteers and editableby anyone who has access to the site. If the searchable status quo remains, criticalanalysis of information must be a component to mLearning in the classroom.

According to the Atkins et al. (2010), a gap exists in the available technology thatenables connected teaching and the conditions necessary to leverage it. The gap in

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113 105

technology understanding influences program and curriculum development, fundingand purchasing decisions about educational and information technology in schools,and pre-service and in-service professional learning. This gap prevents technologyfrom being used in ways that would improve instructional practices and learningoutcomes (Atkins et. al. 2010).

1.3 mLearning in practice

Mobile technologies are the next instructional computing tool. The prevalence of“Bring your own device days” (BYOD) in educational institutions that had previous-ly barred use of mobile technology demonstrates a shift in practice. Some studiesshow parents are supportive to the point of personally purchasing data plans to allowtheir student Internet access on their device (Evans 2011). Currently, 17 % of highschool teachers say their students use personal cell phones for classroom assignmentsor activities (Grunwald and Lippincott 2011).

Mobile applications (apps) geared to assist learners (and parents) of all ages,levels, and abilities. Calendar, Agenda, Notetaking, Typing (even assistive typing(ex. Dragon) are readily accessible to increase student productivity. While apps forMath, Science, English, Social Studies, support traditional learning content areas.Apps that help with social skills and communication are available for developmen-tally disabled students. VizWiz by ROCHCI lets blind users recruit remote sightworkers to help them with visual problems in nearly real time. Users take a picturewith their phone, speak a question, and then receive multiple spoken answers(Bigham 2011). mLearning in the Age of Mobile is rapidly building bridges ofinformation access to countless populations globally.

For effective and efficient integration of mLearning into education, several shiftsmust occur in organizational strategies to appreciate the value of mLearning andextend resources for the development of an evolving pedagogy.

2 Organizational strategy

National, State, and Local educational agencies have a responsibility to endorse andsupport the educational integration of trending technology in order to prepare futuregenerations for success. Their evident leadership must insure that training andresources are available to meet these needs.

2.1 Diffusion of innovation

Rogers’ (2003) work with the Diffusion of Innovation can be used as a framework forunderstanding technology integration (the innovation) and its use in instructionalsettings (rate of adoption). This research informs the study in contextualizing thenecessary attributes of an effective and efficient technological innovation that posi-tively affects training and development. “Individuals’ perceptions of these character-istics predict the rate of adoption of innovations” (Rogers 2003). Innovation:something perceived as new. Rate of Adoption: relative speed of adoption of aninnovation. The five variables stressed by Rogers identify key themes in diffusion

106 Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113

research that are directly related to half or more of an innovations rate of adoption. Asummary of this information is provided in Fig. 1.

3 Ely’s factors in the adoption of innovation

There are many articles exploring the issue of technology integration in K-12education. Don Ely’s work with technological innovations is most notable. Ely pointsout that “Implementation” of technology requires special knowledge to do the jobefficiently and thoroughly (Ely 1990). Researchers can use these variables as anassessment tool when studying teacher centered technology integration. Ely states“Technology is the answer! But what is the problem?” his comment promotes furtherresearch into efficient use of technology in instructional settings. Discussed withinEly’s eight variables are themes to consider when facilitating the adoption, imple-mentation, and institutionalization of educational technology innovations thatinclude:

1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo: may come from teachers who are notmotivated to consider change in their teaching procedures.

2. Knowledge and Skills Exist: a teacher must possess the competencies to teachstudents the use of these tools

Fig. 1 Variables determining the rate of adoption of innovations (Rogers 2003)

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113 107

3. Resources are available: tools and relevant materials are accessible to assistlearners to acquire learning objectives.

4. Time is available: Paid time. Teachers need time for in-service training; they needtime to revise existing teaching plans; they need time to practice with newmaterials; they need time to try out and evaluate new teaching procedures.

5. Rewards or Incentives Exist for Participants: Why should anyone change? Ifcurrent practice is going reasonably well, why risk new techniques? Whatever thereward, intrinsic or extrinsic, it should be there in some form.

6. Participation is Expected and Encouraged: Shared decision making, individualsshould be involved in the decisions that will affect them. Participation may occurat many levels: during problem identification. During consideration of alternativesolutions, and during decision making when new programs or approaches areadopted.

7. Commitment by Those who are involved: Administrators should provide clearand visible support that endorses implementation.

8. Leadership is Evident: Leaders should insure that the necessary training is givenand the materials to do the job are easily available; they are available forconsultation when discouragement or failure occur; and they continually com-municate their enthusiasm for the work at hand.

Moore and Benbasat’s (1991 in Rogers 2003) worked with perceived attributes (ofinnovation) and the rate of adoption in the context of personal work stations proposedthree additional attributes: (a) Voluntariness: the degree to which use of PWS isperceived as being an optional innovation-decision; (b) Image: the degree to whichuse of a PWS enhanced an individual’s status in the organization; and (c) ResultDemonstrability: the degree to which use of a PWS is easy to communicate to others(similar to the concept of observability). Moore & Benbasat’s scale items and thesophisticated and careful methodology they utilize to develop their measures of theperceived attributes of innovation, may suggest other techniques to futureinvestigators.

3.1 Barriers of technology integration

Through a review of past empirical studies, Hew and Brush (2007) found a total of123 barriers in providing technology integration barriers, the authors classified theminto six main categories: (1) resources, (2) knowledge and skills, (3) institution, (4)attitudes and beliefs, (5) assessment, and (6) subject culture. The greatest attribute ofsuccessful diffusion of innovation, which transcends all other aspects, is value. Themerit or worth (value) placed on an innovation by a community is directly related toits ability to inform educational practice. Through usage and personal adoption, thewhole educational community (administrators, teachers, student, and parents) hasplaced high value on trending mobile technology.

3.2 Design based research on technological innovation

McKenney (2001) initiated a design based research study to explore the potential ofcomputer supported curriculum development within the context of secondary level

108 Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113

science and mathematics education in southern Africa. Through the iterative processof analysis, prototype design and evaluation, insights were sought with regard to thecharacteristics of a valid and practical tool that possesses the potential to impact theperformance of its users. McKenney’s research was guided through the central tenetsof local relevance, collaboration, authenticity, mutual benefit, and continuous (re)analysis. The research also found that in an educational setting this allowed for theeducators to (1) update their subject matter knowledge, (2) strengthen their basicteaching skills and (3) begin to understand and implement more innovative teachingmethods. At the same time sharing the materials among other educators can assist inimplementing new technology integration strategies.

McCaughtry and Dillon’s (2008) study used cognitive developmental learningtheory to examine shifts’ in preservice teachers’ perceptions about using personaldigital assistants (PDAs) to enhance instruction in physical education, and toidentify factors leading to their shifts in thinking. This framework helped theresearchers to analyze two important facets of teacher learning: substantial,qualitative shifts in teacher thinking about the learning process and factors thatled to the teacher shifts in understanding. The authors collected data throughteacher observations, journaling, and formal and informal interviews. Theirstudy revealed four factors that resulted in the teachers’ shift in thinking aboutusing handheld computing to enhance their teaching; time to play or use the device,availability of a credible instructor, real-world experience, and an informal peer learningcommunity.

4 The affordances of mobile learning (mLearning)

The widespread availability of mobile technology can be interpreted as societiesvalue on it. The next piece of understanding mLearning’s role in education is howto incorporate mobile technology into a community that is thriving in the Age ofMobile.

4.1 Participation in a digital culture

The work of (Jenkins et. al. 2006) demonstrates a clear relationship with the attributesand characteristics of mLearning. (Jenkins et. al. 2006) describe the development of aparticipatory culture as paramount for the success of future generations. This partic-ipatory culture can be defined as one that is: Comfortable with artistic expression andcivic engagement; Supported in creating and sharing others; Engaged in informalmentorship sharing and passing information and experiences as novices and experts;Appreciated as a contributor; and Socially connected. This participatory culture isonly enhanced with mobile technologies role in everyday lives.

The researchers also identified core skills that will foster the development of aparticipatory culture which should be employed in educational setting through the useof mobile technology that include: Play: the capacity to experiment with one’ssurroundings as a form of problem-solving; Performance: the ability to adopt alter-native identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery; Simulation: theability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes;

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113 109

Appropriation: the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content;Multitasking: the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed tosalient details; Distributed Cognition: the ability to interact meaningfully with toolsthat expand mental capacities; Collective Intelligence: the ability to pool knowl-edge and compare notes with others toward a common goal; Judgment: theability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources;Transmedia Navigation: the ability to follow the flow of stories and informationacross multiple modalities; Networking: the ability to search for, synthesize, anddisseminate information; and Negotiation: the ability to travel across diversecommunities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping andfollowing alternative norms.

4.2 Characteristics of mLearning

There are two types of mLearning: formal and informal. Formal is much likeeLearning coursework viewed on a mobile device, which are managed by an instruc-tor in a planned setting. Informal incorporates more web 2.0 themes: two-waycommunication and social media. Informal’s self-managed approach finds the learnerusing the technology to gather reference and performance support materials, contentand courseware, and media-based content (Brink 2011; Wang and Shen 2011). Thefrequency of informal mobile learning increases the importance of structured educa-tional uses of the same technology to provide a safe instructional environment wherelearners can be taught to be judicious about their information gathering and appro-priately engage in communication and collaboration with their mobile devices.

Studies on mobile learning in higher educational settings recommend incorpora-tion of the following characteristics:

1. Real world relevance: Use mobile learning in authentic contexts.2. Mobile contexts: Use mobile learning in contexts where learners are mobile3. Explore: Provide time for exploration of mobile technologies4. Blended: Blend mobile and non mobile technologies5. Whenever: Use mobile learning spontaneously6. Wherever: Use mobile learning in non traditional learning spaces7. Whomsoever: Use mobile learning both individually and collaboratively8. Affordances: Exploit the affordances of mobile technologies9. Personalise: Employ the learners’ own mobile devices10. Mediation: Use mobile learning to mediate knowledge construction11. Produse: Use mobile learning to produce and consume knowledge

(Herrington et. al. 2009)There are two types of applications for mobile devices to be used for mLearning:

Stand-alone applications and web-based applications. Stand-alone applications allowthe user to use the native hardware and software features on the target device oftenwithout the need of Internet (web) access. Web based applications allow users to use awider range of devices but they are based on web browser capabilities and access.Like the successful gaming industry, mLearning’s greatest potential is found in itsability to foster collaboration and engage students (users) deeply in the process oflearning (Johnson et al. 2010).

110 Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113

Digital games have skyrocketed in popularity with multiple gaming platformsavailable to gamers. The military and private industries have reaped the rewards ofa well-trained (gamed trained) workforce. Subject mastery in problem solving sit-uations is emphasized in game play lending itself to easy “fits” for discussion andteam building in education (Johnson et al. 2010). A blogger referred to the OregonTrail game as the only “good” educational game adding a quote by game reviewersScrewattack.com “Let’s face it. Educational Games suck…except Oregon trail.”(The_Light_Triton (1971).

4.3 User experience

User experience (UX) describes the level of engagement of the mLearning user.Positive UX yields further user participation and a more positive user mLearningenvironment. As previously noted, digital natives already participate and share viamultimedia and social networking applications why the ubiquity exists and how itcontinues to engaged can be understood through research on self-efficacy, socialexchange theory, and social networking.

4.4 Self-efficacy

“Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how longthey will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences” (Bandura 1977).Bandura further states, “The strength of people’s convictions in their own effective-ness is likely to affect whether they will even try to cope with given situations.”Bandura (1977) elaborates on these four sources of efficacy information:

1. Performance accomplishment - personal mastery experiences: Successes raisemastery expectations; repeated failures lower them, particularly if the mishapsoccur early in the course of events.

2. Vicarious experiences - Seeing others perform threatening activities withoutadverse consequences can generate expectations in observers that they too willimprove if they intensify and persist in their efforts.

3. Verbal persuasion - people who are socially persuaded that they possess thecapabilities to master difficult situations and are provided with provisional skillsfor effective action are likely to mobilize greater effort than those who receiveonly the performance aids.

4. Emotional arousal - By conjuring up fear-provoking thoughts about their inep-titude, individuals can rouse themselves to elevated levels of anxiety that farexceed the fear experienced during the actual threatening situation.

These four areas of self-efficacy provide a framework for researchers to explorethe theory’s impact on educational program design and development.

5 Social exchange theory and social networking

The economic analysis of non-economic social situations, (Emerson 1976, andThibaut and Kelley 1959) states that people are likely to engage in a social exchange:

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113 111

anticipated reciprocity; expected gain in reputation and influence on others; altruismand perception of efficacy; and direct reward. The economist Kuhn (1963) states themost organized social groups, both small and large, are based upon the single genericprocess that economists call production. In his example, Kuhn, describes a villageoperated as a corporate group, it members bound together in a special form ofexchange. The result is a valued product that might be divisible among all producers,or that might be converted through simple exchange to a divisible medium anddistributed among members by some distribution rule (Emerson 1976).

The group-ness of mobile usage in the Age of Mobile is thus established as a socialexchange network, where each member can be a valuable contributor to the othersgrowth. Further, the functionality of social exchange theory in social networking(online) groups can serve as a form of mentorship. Social networking sites are quitepopular, and are beginning to attract attention of academic researchers. The results ofa study by Dwyer et al. (2007) were inconclusive as to which sites (Facebook vs.MySpace) were more effective and why. A popular retweet (on Twitter) states“Facebook asks what I’m thinking. Twitter asks what I’m doing. Foursquare askswhere I am. The internet has turned into a crazy girlfriend.”

6 Conclusion

The Age of Mobile demands our attention. Learning with a mobile device can create alearning experience that transcends time and place, allowing for continued exposureto peer experience with support and collaboration that moves beyond physicalclassroom walls. The rate of societal adoption has created a new norm, a new standardof value, which must translate into education settings to best prepare our future. Theissue of trust in online social networking sites has also been closely linked to thesocial exchange theory (Roloff 1981 and Dwyer et al. 2007) and is determined as aprecondition for successful online social networking (Metzger 2004). However, theresults of the Dwyer et al. (2007) study encourage future research to understand thefunctionality of social networking. Collaborative educational activities may prove tothrive in these environments.

References

Agarwal, Prabhat (2009). The Silver Bullet for Your Learning Organization. CIT Mobile Learning.Atkins, D. E., Bennett, J., Seely Brown, J., Chopra, A. Dede, C., Fishman, B., Gomez, L., Honey, M.,

Kafai, Y., Luftglass, M., Pea, R., Pellegrino, J., Rose, D., Thille, C., and Williams, B. NationalEducation Technology Plan 2010. (NETP). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84(2), 191–215.

Bigham, J. VizWiz. (2011) Rochester Human Computer Interaction (ROC HCI). Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vizwiz/id439686043?mt08.

Brink, J. (2011). M-Learning: The future of training technology. Training and Development, 27–29.Devaney, L. (2011). An annual report pegs mobile learning, and cloud computing as Imminent. eSchool

News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/05/17/annual-report-pegs-mobile-learning-cloud-computing-as-imminent/.

112 Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113

Duncan, A. (2010). Beyond the Bubble Tests: The Next Generation of Assessments. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/beyond-bubble-tests-next-generation-assessments-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-state-l.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passarini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concerns within social networking sites: Acomparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the thirteenth Americas conference on infor-mation systems. Colorado: Keystone.

Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. In A. Inkeles, J. Colemen, & N. Smelser (Eds.), Annualreview of sociology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Evans, J. (2011). Is it time to reconsider Public Enemy #1 status of mobile devices in school? ProjectTomorrow. Retrieved from http://speakupblog.tomorrow.org/?p0284.

Float. (2011). Float mobile learning. Retrieved from http://floatlearning.com/about/.Grunwald, P., & Lippincott, R.M. (2011) The more we use it the more we love it. The Journal. Retrieved from

http://thejournal.com/Articles/2011/06/17/The-More-We-Use-It-the-More-We-Love-It.aspx?Page01.Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject

teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.Herrington, A., Herrington, J., & Mantei, J. (2009). Design principles for mobile learning. In J. Herrington,

A. Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobilelearning in higher education (pp. 129–138). Wollongong: University of Wollongong.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledgegaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research Development, 55,223–252.

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges ofparticipatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2010). 2010 horizon report: K-12 edition. Austin: TheNew Media Consortium.

Kuhn, A. (1963). The study of society: A unified approach. Homewood: Irwin-Dorsey.McCaughtry, N., & Dillon, S. (2008). Learning to use PDAs to enhance teaching: the perspectives of

preservice physical educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 433–459.McKenney, S. E. (2001). Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa:

Exploring potentials. Ipskamp: PrintPartners.Metzger, M. J. (2004). Privacy, trust, and disclosure: exploring barriers to electronic commerce. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(4), 00.MoLeNET (2011). Learning and skills council (UK). Retrieved from http://www.molenet.org.uk/.Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting

an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly Hills: Sage

Publications, Inc.Sparrow, B., Lui, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of

having information at our fingertips. Science (online). Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/13/science.1207745.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007, November 29). Framework for 21st CenturyLearning. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskil ls .org/index.php?option0com_content&task0view&id0254&Itemid0120.

The_Light_Triton. Oregon Trail (Video Game 1971) - IMDb. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb).Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857332/.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2011). Message design for mobile learning: learning theories, human cognition and

design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01214.x.

Educ Inf Technol (2014) 19:103–113 113