Content uploaded by Ken Masters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ken Masters on Sep 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Low-key m-learning: a realistic introduction of m-learning to developing
countries
Ken Masters, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town
kam@its.uct.ac.za
Abstract:
In August 2004, the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) at the University of Cape Town
(UCT), South Africa, recognised a need to communicate with students in ways not
accommodated by current online methods. Consequently, it planned a Pilot project,
to be implemented in January 2005, to examine an m-learning solution. The solution
had to be:
• guided by the current m-learning philosophy, theory, and practice
• contextualised in the current reality, and
• driven by the needs of the courses and the students
After an investigation into these principles, and an examination of the realistic
possibilities, it was decided to use early generation cell phones to supplement
administrative procedures in the running of two of its face-to-face courses. The
courses chosen for the project were the 2nd-year and 3rd –year Medical degree
(MBChB) courses. The type of communication chosen would be exclusively the
broadcast of administrative messages such as re-scheduling (and cancelling) of
classes, network problems, and availability of test results.
At a superficial glance, with its concentration on administrative functions, the project
does not seem remarkable, particularly as the developed world moves into
sophisticated m-learning.
The importance of the project, however, is that it illustrates a set of principles useful
for the introduction of this technology into the third-world environment, or into any
institution making first steps into m-learning. Apart from meeting the current need,
the project aims at a philosophical and psychological goal of adapting current mind-
sets of staff and students to the use of mobile communication in teaching. This will
be in preparation for full-blown m-learning possibilities as the technological context
develops.
This model can be used in other courses at the institution, and at other third-world
institutions, to provide the foundations for transitions into m-learning.
2
1. Introduction
Mobile learning (m-learning) is gathering force around the world. That statement is
so obvious, one flinches at its blandness. Except, of course, that it is not true for
millions of people living in developing countries, and might not even be true for many
in developed countries.
While we, in developing countries, do not have the infrastructure to supporting m-
learning, we do have similar needs for m-learning. We also recognise that m-learning
is more than merely using a mobile device for e-learning,1 and that it requires an
entirely different mindset in education. We must understand this mindset so that, as
the technology becomes more easily available, we can harness it properly. Further,
our solutions might allow us to contribute to the body of knowledge and experience,
thereby weakening the image of the developing country’s begging bowl continually
asking for handouts.
The problem is: where and how to start.
2. Our own vision
A starting point is our own vision, experiences and proposed destinations. Like most
universities, the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, has seen the potential
of communicating with students in scenarios other than traditional face-to-face
situations. The Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) uses WebCT, an online Learning
Management System (LMS), extensively in its undergraduate face-to-face courses.
The LMS is a solid foundation on which to build flexible learning, including m-
learning.
Accessible through computer laboratories or slow and expensive dial-up connections,
however, it does not cater for communication with our students who are mobile; either
travelling to or from campus, or working in off-campus sites such as clinics and
hospitals. It is with these students, that m-learning in Health Sciences will come into
its own. Contributing to the picture is the fact that PDAs are already being used by
both qualified medical professionals2 and in medical education.3
1 As noted by Turuen H. Syvänen, A., Ahonen, M. 2001. “Supporting Observation Tasks in a Primary
School with the Help of Mobile Devices.” In Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning: Essays on
Philosophy, Psychology and Education, pp. 209-221. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
2See Johnson, ED, Pancoast, PE, Mitchell JA, and CR Shyu. 2004. “Design and evaluation of a
personal digital assistant- based alerting service for clinicians.” Journal of the Medical Library
Association 92 (4): 438-44. Torre, Dario M. and Scott M Wright. 2003. “Clinical and Educational
Uses of Handheld Computers.” Southern Medical Journal. 96 (10): 996-999. Giammattei, Frank P.
2003. “Implementing a Total Joint Registry Using Personal Digital Assistants.” Orthopaedic Nursing.
22 (4): 284-289. Fontelo, P, Ackerman, M, Kim, G and C Locatis. 2003. “The PDA as a Portal to
Knowledge Sources in a Wireless Setting.” Telemedicine Journal & E-Health. 9 (2): 141-147.
3 See: Relan, A. and Bailie S. 2001. “Invigorating Clinical Education via Handheld Computing” In
Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning: Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education, pp. 223-233.
Vienna: Passagen Verlag. Torre, Dario M. and Scott M Wright. 2003. “Clinical and Educational
Uses of Handheld Computers.” Southern Medical Journal. 96 (10): 996-999.
3
With this in mind, during August 2004, UCT’s FHS planned a Pilot to investigate m-
learning technology to support its teaching. There were three principles guiding the
planning:
1. A recognition of the current theory, philosophy and experimentation so that
we could learn from others. We would also keep in mind their predictions and
projections, so that their vision could act as a guide.
2. A need to understand our technological and cultural context. South Africa,
although more technology developed than most African countries, is not a
developed country. Implementation strategies must note this for long-term
sustainability.
3. The driving force behind the project was not interesting technological
experimentation, but rather the educational needs and requirements of the
courses, students and staff.
The goal was the practical implementation of a project using an appropriate device or
technology4 that could
• accommodate these principles,
• serve as a frame-work for other projects (our own and other institutions), and
• contribute to the body of theory and philosophy of m-learning.
3. Theoretical Framework
With the wide range of views on m-learning, we cannot accommodate every aspect
and discussion. We can, however, draw on those appearing to be the most prevalent.
3.1 Pedagogy
The driving force behind using the technology is the pedagogy. In particular, m-
learning is driven strongly by (or at the very least, thrives within education that is
driven by) learner-centred and constructivist principles,5 is aimed at life-long
learning,6 is collaborative, 7especially where boundaries between disciplines are
4 Stone, A., Alsop, G., Briggs, J. Tompsett. C. “M-learning as a means of supporting learners:
tomorrow’s technologies are already here, how can we most effectively use them in the e-learning
age?” Networked Learning 2002, Sheffield.
5 Milrad, M. 2001. “Mobile Learning: Challenges, Perspectives, and Reality” in Nyíri, Kristóf (ed)
Mobile Learning Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education. Pp 151-164. Vienna: Passagen
Verlag. Sharma, Sushil K., Kitchens, F.L. “Web Services Architecture for M-Learning.” Electronic
Journal of E-learning. 2 (1): paper 2 [np]. Available: http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-
issue1/issue1-art2.htm
6 Kárpáti, Andrea. “Digital Didactics for Mobile Learning.” in Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning
Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education. Pp 175-187. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
7 Nyíri, Kristóf. 2001. “Preface” in Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning Essays on Philosophy,
Psychology and Education. pp 13-15. Vienna: Passagen. In the same text, see articles by Milrad, M,
Mifsud, L., Kárpáti, A., Stone, et al, and several others.
4
blurred.8 Whatever is transmitted must not merely be de-contextualised information,
but rather useful knowledge or information in context.9
Traditional university teaching, with discipline-specific lectures, is not a good
example of constructivist education. Recent changes in our Health Sciences
curriculum, however, recognising the need the need for life-long learning, has focused
heavily on content integration through Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and
contextualised, experiential and self-directed learning in a changed pedagogical
environment. Although new to UCT, it is this environment that will form the
pedagogical bed for m-learning.
3.2 Mobility
Mobility is crucial, and carries a great advantage over technologies that are non-
mobile10 allowing one to turn “any place into a classroom”.11 In m-learning, this
might seem rather obvious, but degrees of mobility need to be considered.
Technically, the laptop is mobile, even when connected through cables, as it is
portable. It does not, however, fit easily into the vision of the mobile device in m-
learning: a handheld device that can be used for communication while mobile.12
Connected to mobility, however, is the user’s need for mobility. The users should not
merely be mobile, but should need to be mobile in order for the required learning to
occur. There is little advantage to using a small and expensive mobile device if one
spends the entire day at a desk: a desktop computer, far more powerful and versatile,
would be the first choice.
In our students’ life, there is great need for mobility. As most live off-campus, and
the course is primarily face-to-face, our students travel daily to and from lectures and
laboratories (including computer laboratories). As early as their first year, they travel
to off-campus sites such as hospitals and clinics, and in the later years, they have far
fewer lectures on campus, spending far more time in these off-campus sites.
The current solution allowing for electronic communication with these students
usually includes the building of small computer laboratories at these sites. Security,
accessibility, expense and maintenance, however, make this impractical on any scale.
8 Nyíri, K. 2002. “Towards a Philosophy of M-Learning.” Paper presented at the IEEE International
Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE2002), Aug 29-30, Växjö,
Sweden.
9 Nyíri, K. 2003. “Towards a Knowledge Society.” DigiCult.info. 6: pp. 55-57; Nyíri, K. 2002.
“Towards a Philosophy of M-Learning.” Paper presented at the IEEE International Workshop on
Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE2002), Aug 29-30, Växjö, Sweden; Kárpáti,
Andrea op cit.
10 Milrad, M. op cit. Sharma et al op cit., Divitini, M op cit., De Freitas, S. and Levene, M. 2003.
Evaluating the development of wearable devices, personal data assistants and the use of other mobile
devices in further and higher education institutions. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).
Available: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0305
11 Sharma, et al, op cit.
12 Nyíri, K. 2002. “Towards a Philosophy of M-Learning.” Paper presented at the IEEE International
Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE2002), Aug 29-30, Växjö,
Sweden.
5
While the idea of taking the computer to the student is good, the actual computer
taken is not. This solution should be seen as a medium-term solution at best.
3.3 Ubiquity of the technology
Although there is disagreement in the literature about the translation of “ubiquity”
into practice,13 there is agreement that ubiquity of the technology is a requirement.
By ubiquitous, we mean already ubiquitous, not merely ubiquitous for the duration of
a Pilot, for this can create a dangerous illusion of continuity. Stone et al 14 argue that
“Whenever new technologies are being used in a project, it is inevitable that a
dependency exists on the hardware suppliers, in terms of their commitment for the
duration of the research project.” They cite an example of a hardware supplier
withdrawing from a project and the resultant implications. This reliance on an outside
hardware supplier is a risk not worth taking – not only to the project, but also to the
feasibility of a wider application once the project has ended.
In addition, if the technology has been supplied for the Pilot only, then what does one
do with it after the Pilot? Withdrawing it from the students is harsh after the
undoubted reliance has been created, and expanding the supply to all the students will
be an unexpected expense.15
There are two more arguments for the technology’s being already ubiquitous. One is
that it will remove the technological novelty of the Pilot, which might skew survey
results.
Ubiquity will arise because the technology exists in our society; we will not
accomplish it by having an institution make a large-scale purchase (or even receiving
such a donation) of exotic technology in order to meet these needs. This
technological island is not sustainable without massive funding. (As it is, the Pilot
will no doubt highlight issues of scalability not previously considered –it would be
irresponsible to begin a Pilot already knowing that the chief technological component
could not be used in a full-scale project).
Of course, ubiquity of this sort relies on the use of students’ personal equipment for
education. Some research suggests a reluctance of students to have their personal
equipment used in this way.16 Perhaps on blind faith then, we believed that if the
13 For example, a range can be found by glancing at Stone, et al, op cit., Milrad, M. op cit., Sharma,
op cit., Nyíri, K. “Pictorial Meaning and Mobile Communication” In Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile
Learning: Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education, pp. 157-184. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Quinn, C. 2000. “mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket Learning. LineZine.” Available:
http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm Turuen, H. Syvänen, A., Ahonen, M. 2001.
“Supporting Observation Tasks in a Primary School with the Help of Mobile Devices.” In Nyíri,
Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning: Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education, pp. 209-221. Vienna:
Passagen Verlag.
14 Stone, et al op cit.
15 This is probably less of a problem in developed countries, where, by the time the Pilot has ended, the
technology has become more widespread. I am indebted to Marcelo Milrad for this point.
16 Divitini, M, Haugalokken, OK, Norevik, P-A. 2002. "Improving communication through mobile
technologies: Which possibilities?" In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Mobile and
Wireless Technologies in Education, Vaxjo, Sweden, August 2002, IEEE Press.
6
student’s need for the communication is great enough, this reluctance might be
overcome.
In South Africa, the only mobile device that is currently a contender for ubiquity is
the early generation cell phone, recognised as virtually ubiquitous amongst student
communities internationally.17 The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
figures18 show that South Africa’s overall cell-phone density is relatively high (30%)
compared to the world (19%) and African average (5%), and is increasing rapidly, as
it is elsewhere in Africa.19
A 2004 survey showed that more than 95% of our Faculty’s students have cell
phones. There are no figures in South Africa for PDAs, but as recently as 2002, they
were not widespread amongst students in developed countries.20
4. The Choice
The above theoretical and philosophical framework outlines the primary concerns to
be considered when choosing a device for m-learning, and we used this as a guide for
our choice. Ubiquity, especially, led to the choice of the early generation cell phone
over other technologies such as 3-G phones and PDAs. These and other tools as
described in the literature would probably be an aiming point for the future.
5. The Needs
Before implementing the technology, however, one must establish the particular needs
to be met. One must also recognise that, should the chosen technology be unable to
meet enough needs, the project might well be postponed until the technological
context has improved.21 These needs will be part of the pedagogy driving the project.
In essence, we try to answer two questions:
• What needs can be met by the chosen technology?
• Will these needs be enough to justify the project?
17 Stone, et al, op cit.
18 ITU figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point. These are 2002 figures from
International Telecommunication Union (2003) World Telecommunication Development Report,
Geneva, Switzerland (p A-29-A-31). For 2004, SA’s phone density is 36% and Africa is 6%
(International Telecommunication Union (2004) World Telecommunication Development Database.
Available: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/
19 Stone, A, Lynch, K. Poole N. 2003. “A case for using mobile Internet and telephony to support
community networks and networked learning in Tanzania.” ICOOL 2003 - International Conference
on Online and Open Learning.
20 Divitini, M, et al, op cit. (South Africa’s first G3 network came into operation in 2005. This will
surely have an impact on the types of devices used by students, so should be monitored.)
21 One would obviously prefer that the technology were designed entirely in order to meet the needs,
as noted by Milrad, but, failing that, we identify the needs that can be met by the technology at hand.
Milrad, M. op cit.
7
5.1 What needs can be met by the chosen technology?
5.1.1. Broad education needs
It is clear that m-learning needs served by only sophisticated functionality,22 cannot
be considered in the current South African environment. In fact, even static images,
which would add great value to our communication,23 are not currently feasible. The
environment, especially ubiquity, however, should be monitored and evaluated over
time so that we can respond to opportunities. In the mean time, sophisticated
communication will be restricted to WebCT, the LMS.
Other needs can be met by the cell phones, particularly by the Short Message Service
(SMSs). From the literature, one sees that students need assistance with basic time
management,24 (a problem exacerbated by mobility), especially in the form of
“timely, relevant information provision (‘where and when’…)”, information regarding
changes and updates in the LMS, exams, marks, seminars, date changes, and
collection of marked coursework.25
In essence, then, the need that can be met by the cell phone is communicating
information required too urgently to be accommodated by the LMS.
To determine the particular needs, we would survey the staff and students, using the
needs identified as a basis from which to work. The survey would have to take into
account the number of students expressing an interest and registering for the project.
The literature26 indicates that initial interest amongst the students is high, but uptake is
slow. This implies that a low initial registration is expected, but should be monitored
during the program.
Finally, the underlying need to be met would be the changing of the mindset of the
staff: moving from a view of the cell phone as an irritation, to a communication
device useful for education.
5.1.2. Costing Needs
The costs of the Pilot must be met. The Pilot must also take into account the costs to
be met if wide-scale m-learning is implemented.
22 Such as such as wearable computers, videos, web pages, PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets,
and word-processed documents as described in various works. See: De Freitas, S. et al, op cit.
Quinn, C. 2000. “mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket Learning. LineZine.” Available:
http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
23 Nyíri, K. “Pictorial Meaning and Mobile Communication” In Nyíri, Kristóf (ed) Mobile Learning:
Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education, pp. 157-184. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
24 Stone, A., Alsop, G., Briggs, J. Tompsett. C. op cit. Divitini, et al, op cit.
25 Stone, A., Alsop, G., Briggs, J. Tompsett. C. op cit., Stone, A. 2004. “Blended Learning, Mobility,
and Retention: Supporting First Year University Students with Appropriate Technology.” MLEARN
2004, Bracciano, Italy. Divitini, et al, op cit.
26 Stone, A. 2004. “Blended Learning, Mobility, and Retention: Supporting First Year University
Students with Appropriate Technology.”
8
Previous experiments27 had shown that students would not be in favour of paying for
such a service, so it should be as low-cost as possible. We have already referred to
the risk associated with the reliance on outside assistance with equipment; large cash
donations will leave one similarly exposed.
Ubiquity of the technology will already exclude a major cost – the cost of the device.
One should investigate and negotiate for special rates for any external services.
Further cost reductions can be achieved by ensuring that surveys and evaluations are
performed using procedures and systems already in place.
In our case, the cell phone did not require purchase; we obtained a reasonable rate for
the Pilot, and our LMS would be used for the registration, surveys and evaluation.
5.1.3. Reliability Needs
For a working service, one must ensure that one is not hampered by the unreliability
and differences of providers; in our case, the different cell phone service providers.
Given that the messages would assist time management, we would need to conduct
tests across the networks to ensure that there was consistency and reliability in the
message delivery.
5.2 Will these needs be enough to justify the project?
When all the needs to be met have been identified, one must still take a management
decision on whether or not these are enough to justify the project. Only then can one
decide whether to cancel, postpone or proceed with the project.
6. Managing Expectations
Expectations and attitudes amongst staff and students will vary, and the needs to be
met, and the project’s scope, must be advertised before the Pilot is run. Students will
want all needs met, irrespective of costs, and knowledge of the technological
sophistication amongst a few will place an unrealistic pressure on the Pilot.
Contrastingly, all staff will not share this enthusiasm. The literature indicates that
most teaching staff members see mobile devices as problematic,28 and often, they are.
Students will need to learn etiquette – to be aware of when and where the use of these
devices is acceptable. Staff will need convincing that any inconvenience will be off-
set by the convenience offered when they wish to communicate with students. Once
they have experienced this, we anticipate a mindset change that will eventually lead to
the next stage of m-learning: using the technology in their teaching, and by students in
their small group exercises. This is naturally far in the future, and is a long series of
small steps away, but is a journey worth taking.
27 Stone, op cit. Divitini, et al, op cit.
28 Stone, A., Alsop, G., Briggs, J. Tompsett. C. op cit., Milrad, M. op cit., Sharma et al op cit.,
Trotter, A. 2001. Handheld Computing: New Best Tech Tool Or Just a Fad?” Education Week, 26
Sept. 2001 Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/09/26/04palm.h21.html
(Understandably, 200 cell phones unexpectedly bleeping in a lecture fills most teaching staff with
dread.)
9
Finally, it helps tremendously if these devices are already being used in the
profession. From the references cited earlier29 it is clear that the Medical profession
uses these devices extensively – if one can regress this line of professional
development to undergraduate education, then the value will be more obvious.
7. Evaluation
The project’s evaluation is crucial to widespread implementation. Stone30 received a
low response (less than 7%) in surveys attempting to gain feedback from students, and
his result serves as warning to us.
In our registration process, students would be made aware that participation in
surveys is part of the Pilot project. While we reasonably would not expect a 100%
response rate, we hope to have one higher than the 7% experienced by Stone. Further,
we would set aside a discussion area in the LMS for discussion outside the formal
evaluation structures.
8. The Model
The sections above describe the theory and our implementation.
While the first three elements (Pedagogy, Mobility and Ubiquity) have been dealt
with in a linear fashion, that is a function of language’s linearity rather than a
chronological flow, for all three elements are inter-related to form the environment in
which the Pilot is to be run. These first elements then form a single unit, and the
stages and decisions that follow are then more easily represented in a flow diagram.
The diagram is shown in Figure 1.
Some might criticise the model because it is apparently strongly driven by the
technology rather than the educational needs. Surely one should start with the
educational needs and then investigate a technology to meet those needs? The
problem is that the educational needs are so vast, and this model is aimed at relatively
immature technological environments; one risks “feature scope creep”, or scoping
needs that would be met only much further into the future.31
29 Johnson, ED, Pancoast, PE, Mitchell JA, and CR Shyu. 2004. “Design and evaluation of a personal
digital assistant- based alerting service for clinicians.” Journal of the Medical Library Association. 92
(4): 438-44. Torre, Dario M. and Scott M Wright. 2003. “Clinical and Educational Uses of Handheld
Computers.” Southern Medical Journal. 96 (10): 996-999. Giammattei, Frank P. 2003.
“Implementing a Total Joint Registry Using Personal Digital Assistants.” Orthopaedic Nursing. 22
(4): 284-289.
30 Stone, A, op cit.
31 For example, a current need is to have mobile reporting of cases by students in hospitals and clinics.
One obvious solution is the use of PDAs as described by Relan and Balie op cit. Because PDAs are so
scarce amongst our students, however, ubiquity is not addressed, and so this solution cannot be
considered. In time, as the South African technological environment changes, so too will the viability
of this solution.
10
This model proposes that, after recognising a broad need for m-learning, we begin by
examining our available resources, then investigate the needs that could be met by
these resources, and then use these resources to meet the needs.
Figure 1: Model for transitions into m-learning
Which needs (as a subset of the original need) can be met by this technology? Analyse by examining
literature covering experiments. Include broad education needs, and also its relationship to logistical
issues such as budget and reliability.
Will these be enough to justify the project?
Select the most sophisticated device that meets these criteria.
Consider another technology that
meets the criteria. Failing that,
consider not using m-learning.
Yes
Manage expectations – remember that most staff will be reluctant, while most students
will be over-keen
Put structures in place for evaluation
No
Learner-
centred
Pedagogy
Student
mobility
required for
learning
Ubiquitous
Mobile
Technology
11
9. Conclusion
Internationally, many have recognised m-learning’s value. Many more, however,
especially in the developing world, are far from implementing m-learning. For these
countries, the developed world’s emphasis on highly sophisticated devices is a
futuristic dream. That, however, is no reason for developing countries to delay
implementing m-learning; it is imperative that, if the need exists, the institutions
should begin the journey as soon as possible. The problem is, where and how to start.
This paper has proposed a simple model that is embedded in understanding m-
learning theory (in particular, the principles of pedagogy, ubiquity and mobility) but
which also takes into account the specific technological environment, and the needs,
choices and expectation of both students and staff. While this paper’s focus has been
on developing countries, the model is applicable to all institutions that wish to embark
on the road to m-learning.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply indebted to the conference organisers, particularly Kristóf Nyíri, for
assistance in obtaining reference material and for financial assistance allowing the
author to attend the conference “Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age.”
I am also indebted to colleagues, Dr Lindsay Weight and Professor Graham Louw,
my assistant Freda van Breda, and the students of the Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Cape Town for their participation in the Pilot project.
