ChapterPDF Available

Prospective Teachers—Are They Already Mobile?

Chapter

Prospective Teachers—Are They Already Mobile?

Abstract

This research study investigated the prospective teachers’ purposes of using mobile phones and laptops, as well as the significant differences across genders and grades. Furthermore, the frequency of connecting to Internet via both mobile devices was investigated comparatively. The study was designed based on cross-sectional survey and casual-comparative methodologies in order to first determine specific characteristics of the relevant population, and to determine the possible causes for differences in terms of variables investigated. A total of 650 prospective Turkish teachers participated in the study. The results point out that, compared to mobile phones, laptops were used more frequently for various purposes, particularly the educational ones. However, in-class use of both laptops and mobile phones for educational purposes was not very common. Mobile phones were used less for educational purposes, but more for communication and entertainment purposes. Though there were statistically significant differences in terms of some purposes, given the lack of practical significance, both male and female prospective teachers can be said to use mobile phones and laptops for various purposes with similar frequencies. The same was also true for the grade variable: all prospective teachers from first to fourth years used mobile phones and laptops for various purposes with similar frequencies in practice. The present study also revealed that, for prospective teachers, connecting to the Internet via mobile phones is not very common and even significantly less common than doing so via laptops. The findings in general suggested a need to raise awareness among prospective teachers about the mobile learning potential of mobile phones in general and in-class use of laptops in particular. Keywords Mobile learning M-learning Pre-service teachers Laptops Mobile phones
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
1&
&
Prospective Teachers Are They Already Mobile?
Süleyman Nihat Şad1*, Özlem Göktaş1, and Martin Ebner2
1 İnönü University, Curriculum and Instruction, Malatya, Turkey
nihat.sad@inonu.edu.tr,&ozlemgoktas44@hotmail.com
2 Graz University of Technology, Institute for Information Systems Computer Media, Graz, Austria
martin.ebner@tugraz.at
Abstract. This research study investigated the prospective teachers purposes
of using mobile phones and laptops, as well as the significant differences
across genders and grades. Furthermore the frequency of connecting to Internet
via both mobile devices was investigated comparatively. The study was
designed based on cross-sectional survey and casual-comparative
methodologies in order to first determine specific characteristics of the relevant
population, and to determine the possible causes for differences in terms of
variables investigated. A total of 650 prospective Turkish teachers participated
in the study. The results point out that, compared to mobile phones, laptops
were used more frequently for various purposes, particularly the educational
ones. However, in-class use of both laptops and mobile phones for educational
purposes was not very common. Mobile phones were used less for educational
purposes, but more for communication and entertainment purposes. Though
there were statistically significant differences in terms of some purposes, given
the lack of practical significance, both male and female prospective teachers
can be said to use mobile phones and laptops for various purposes with similar
frequencies. The same was also true for the grade variable: all prospective
teachers from 1st to 4th years used mobile phones and laptops for various
purposes with similar frequencies in practice. The present study also revealed
that, for prospective teachers, connecting to the Internet via mobile phones is
not very common and even significantly less common than doing so via
laptops. The findings in general suggested a need to raise awareness among
prospective teachers about the mobile learning potential of mobile phones in
general and in-class use of laptops in particular.
1 Introduction
Since the 1980s technologies have become an important agenda in educational discourse
mainly because digital technologies became widely available and learning how to use them in
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
2&
&
teaching became a must, changing the nature of classroom and instruction (Mishra & Koehler,
2006). This caused to redefine the competences required by teaching profession so as to
include the technological competences. Today both in-service and pre-service teachers are
expected to know how to integrate technology into teaching and learning processes (Cuhadar,
Bulbul, & Ilgaz 2013; Meric, 2014; Ozturk & Horzum, 2011; Şad & Nalçacı, 2015; Yavuz-
Konokman, Yanpar-Yelken & Sancar-Tokmak, 2013).
One recent approach regarding the integration of technology into teacher education and teacher
professional development context is the framework of “Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge [TPCK]”. Proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), the conceptual framework of
TPCK was intended to provide a theoretical grounding for educational technology by
extending “Shulman’s formulation of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ to include the
phenomenon of teachers integrating technology” (p. 1017). Though a rather new concept,
TPCK has become a commonly referred framework in defining a teacher’s technology
integration competences especially in terms of teacher training context (Alayyar, Fisser &
Voogt 2012; Graham, Borup & Smith 2012; Şad & Nalçacı, 2015; Şad, Açıkgül, & Delican,
2015; Timur & Tasar, 2011; Yurdakul Kabakci et al. 2012). TPCK framework is based on
three main components (content knowledge-CK, pedagogical knowledge-PK, and
technological knowledge-TK) and three pairs of knowledge intersection (pedagogical content
knowledge-PCK, technological content knowledge-TCK, and technological pedagogical
knowledge-TPK) and one triad (technological pedagogical content knowledge-TPCK) (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006). To Koehler & Mishra (2008) in the model technology has an integral part
requiring the teachers to “accomplish a variety of different tasks using information technology
and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task” (TK) (p.15), “have a deep
understanding of the manner in which the subject matter (or the kinds of representations that
can be constructed) can be changed by the application of technology” (TCK) (p.16), seek
“forward-looking, creative, and open-minded” ways of using “technology, not for its own sake,
but for the sake of advancing student learning and understanding” (TPK) (p.17), and
“understand the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use
technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts
difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that
students face; knowledge of students' prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and
knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop
new epistemologies or strengthen old ones” (TPCK) (p.17-18).
Especially in the Turkish context, researches show that either teachers or prospective teachers
have not reached the desirable level in terms of technology integration (Akbulut, Odabasi &
Kuzu, 2011; Hirca & Simsek, 2013; Ulas & Ozan, 2010; Yılmaz, 2007). In a comprehensive
study, Tezci (2011) surveyed 1540 teachers from 330 primary schools in 18 cities in four
geographical regions of Turkey and found out teachers lack both favourable attitudinal input
and technical capabilities to integrate information technologies into education. However, it is
evident that today instructional environments arranged by teachers who have poor computer
literacy, cannot use other instructional technologies like interactive whiteboards, tablets, etc.
adequately, are not aware of the importance of integrating technology into their instruction, and
are reluctant to learn and use new or changing technologies are not productive or effective
places to learn (Yavuz-Konokman et al., 2013). Thus, raising teachers with skills regarding
technology integration is a must today. Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer & O'Connor (2003), for
example, suggest that pre-service and in-service teacher education programs may be
encouraged teach how to use “technology to deliver instruction, to prepare for instruction, to
accommodate instruction, to communicate with others in and out of the school, and to direct
students to use technology for specific instructional purposes” (p. 307). It is difficult to
completely list and define the spectrum of technologies to deliver instruction or to direct
students to use for specific instructional purposes. However, one recent domain of instructional
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
3&
&
technologies that has come into prominence recently seems to be mobile learning, which has
evolved from e-learning and computer-supported collaborative learning (Pereira & Rodrigues,
2013). As presented below in the literature review, mobile technologies like laptops, smart
phones, tablets, iPods etc. have become very prevalent especially among young population and
learning with these mobile devices has its promises and limitations in terms of education
(Ebner et al., 2013, 2014). Despite their ubiquity and flexibility, using these devices for
educational purposes had little room in educational sectors and developments seem to be more
about the design of the tools than ensuing learning by them (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, &
Aubusson 2012). Moreover, although mobile phones are gradually transforming into handheld
computers, university students may still perceive mobile phones beneficial for fun and
communication purposes rather than education (Suki & Suki, 2011) or prospective teachers
may not believe in the potentials of m-phones as m-learning tools (Şad & Göktaş, 2014). Thus,
from the TPCK perspective it can be claimed that future teachers should also learn how to
integrate the mobile devices into teaching learning process. This is because when they become
teachers they will be either teaching/having feedback about their subject matter using mobile
devices like laptops, tablet PCs, smartphones etc. or teaching their learners the strategies about
using mobile devices for learning. Thus, we believe it is necessary to understand the actual
situation about prospective teachers’ use of mobile devices for different purposes including the
educational ones. Describing how prospective teachers use these mobile tools is considered to
be critical in understanding to what extent mobile learning has been adopted by prospective
teachers.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Prevalence of mobile technology
Fast-growing technologies change our lives in many aspects including work habits, how we
access to information, how we socialize or learn etc. Today, a large spectrum of mobile devices
including cellular phones, smart phones, mp3 and mp4 players, iPods, digital cameras, data-
travelers, personal digital assistance devices (PDAs), netbooks, laptops, tablets, e-readers etc.
have been introduced into our lives very smoothly (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010; Franklin,
2011; Kalinic, Arsovski, Stefanovic, Arsovski, & Rankovic, 2011). With these mobile devices,
the world has not just become a global village, but also a mobigital virtual space where
people can learn and teach digitally anywhere and anytime (Şad & Göktaş, 2014, p.606).
These mobile devices have been adopted very rapidly and have become popular (Isik,
Ozkaraca & Guler 2011; Kalinic et al., 2011) especially among younger people such as the
university students (Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, 2012; Kalinic et al., 2011; Park, Nam, &
Cha, 2012; Ebner et al. 2012). To illustrate, even in developing countries, over 90 percent of
young adults from 16-24 year-olds have a mobile phone (Kalinic et al., 2011). Cheon et al.
(2012) reported in their study that 152 college students out of 177 (86%) had mobile devices.
All 107 graduate and undergraduate students participating in Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil’s
(2007) study had a mobile or smart phone while 92% had laptops, which was even more than
that of faculty members (83%). In Finland, even a decade ago, about 98% of university
students had a mobile phone (Seppälä & Alamäki 2003).
2.2 Mobile learning
With the advance of mobile technologies in daily life, learning via mobile devices has
gradually become a widely investigated research subject in education (Jeng, Wu, Huang, Tan,
& Yang 2010). Hence, the new term ‘mobile learning’ or ‘m-learning’ was introduced as the
next phase of electronic learning (e-learning) in the early 2000s (Peng, Su, Chou & Tsai 2009).
Pereira and Rodrigues (2013), for example, argue that mobile learning has evolved from e-
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
4&
&
learning and computer-supported collaborative learning. Though the first definitions called it
"mobile e-learning" (Kalinic et al. 2011 p. 1345), it began to be known by its current name,
mobile learning or m-learning, which is in and of itself “a highly popular multidisciplinary
study field around the world” (Keskin & Metcalf, 2011, p.202).
M-learning is a relatively new phenomenon and a sound theoretical basis has not been
developed yet (Kearney et al. 2012). Thus, despite its popularity an exact and well-accepted
definition of m-learning has not been done yet. It can be broadly defined as “learning that
happens anywhere, anytime.” (Franklin 2011, p. 261), or can be defined with a special
emphasis on the need for using certain devices i.e. “the use of portable devices with Internet
connection capability in education contexts” (Kinash, Brand & Mathew 2012, p. 639) or
“learning that happens on any pervasive computing devices” (Jeng et al. 2010, p.6). As it can
be understood from these different definitions, mobile learning is regarded both as an extensive
self-directed learning activity and as an educator-led planned activity. Thus, it is wise to
distinguish these two practices as did Wang & Shen (2012), who define mobile learning that
“occurs under management of a teacher (and generally in a purposefully built environment)” as
formal and the kind that “occurs under self-management of the learner and in ad hoc
environments” as informal (p. 563). In a first final analysis, mobile learning can be defined as
an extensive self-directed or educator-led planned process of learning using any mobile
information and communication devices. According to a review by Wu et al. (2012), mobile
phones and PDAs are the devices used most commonly for mobile learning. Other mobile
devices commonly used for mobile learning include laptops, smartphones, netbooks, electronic
dictionaries, portable multimedia players, and iPods (Franklin, 2011; Keskin & Metcalf, 2011;
Park et al. 2012). Although some (Park et al 2012, p. 592) confine m-learning to “handheld or
palmtop devices”, laptops are also considered as a common mobile learning device (Chen et al.
2012; Franklin 2011; Georgieva, Smrikarov, Georgiev 2005; Shih, Chuang, & Hwang 2010)
2.3 Promises and limitations
Formal or informal, mobile learning has been reported to bring about advantages in education
as exemplified below. First of all, its potential to provide instant access to information
resources is commonly highlighted in several studies (Jeng et al., 2010; Motiwalla, 2007;
Grimus & Ebner, 2013). Accordingly, the removal of time and space limitations is believed to
characterize mobile learning (Franklin 2011; Gulsecen, Gursul, Bayrakdar, Cilengir, & Canim
2010; Houser, Thornton & Kluge 2002; Jeng et al. 2010; Nordin, Embi & Yunus 2010; Peng et
al. 2009; Saran & Seferoglu 2010), and is highlighted to be the most important feature by its
users in higher education (Cheon et al. 2012; Uzunboylu & Ozdamli 2011). Another
commonly-discussed learner-centered benefit of mobile learning is its ability to let learners
learn at their own speed (Cheon et al. 2012; Franklin 2011). Relevant literature highlights the
interactive power of mobile learning between peers, teacher, and learners, which in turn
enhances learning efficiency (Cheon et al. 2012; Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Kim, 2006;
Jeng et al. 2010; Menkhoff & Bengtsson 2012; Park et al. 2012; Uzunboylu & Ozdamli, 2011).
Mobile learning environments are also believed to provide new, exciting and performance
based learning opportunities (Sølvberg & Rismark, 2012; Şad, 2008; Şad & Akdağ, 2010) and
elementary students think using mobile tools (PDAs) is more interesting than teacher-guided
field trips (Shih et al., 2010). The findings about the motivational power of mobile learning,
however, are controversial. Some studies suggested mobile learning tools increase student
motivation (Arslan, 2011; Uzunboylu & Ozdamli, 2011; Yang, 2012), while some others found
that mobile phones especially do not increase university students’ level of motivation to learn
(Avenoğlu, 2005). Kinash et al. (2012), on the other hand, reported that majority of students do
not perceive mobile tools as having a motivational effect on learners.
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
5&
&
Though most mobile learning studies (86% of 164) present positive learning outcomes (Wu et
al. 2012), there are also many limitations attributed to mobile learning (Huber & Ebner, 2013).
In terms of technical limitations, limited screen size (Avenoglu 2005; Motiwalla 2007; Suki &
Suki 2011) and limited memory (Bal & Arici 2011) are common problems attributed
particularly to mobile phones, and limited battery life is cited as a disadvantage of laptop use
(Oran & Karadeniz 2007; Riad & Ghareeb 2008). Data security is another limitation frequently
cited in the literature (Gulsecen et al. 2010; Yılmaz, 2011). One of the most remarked upon
limitations in the literature about mobile learning is the during-class distraction factor of
mobile tools (Cheon et al.2012) especially, that of laptops (Fried 2008) and phones (Suki &
Suki 2011). Fried (2008), for example, reported that spending considerable time with laptops
for things other than taking notes during lectures interferes with students’ ability to pay
attention to and understand the lecture material, which in turn results in lower test scores.
As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, teachers may actually ban handphones, PDAs,
or portable laptops in educational settings (Menkhoff & Bengtsson 2012). However, it would
be more advantageous to ensure that mobile tools are aligned with the course objectives so that
“they make pedagogical sense” (Menkhoff & Bengtsson 2012, p. 240). For instance, using
mobile tools in class and school must be negotiated pedagogically. Jeng et al. (2010) refer to
the role of the teacher as a “mobile coacher” which involves scaffolding the learning in line
with the learner’s needs and abilities.
2.4 Mobile learning in higher education
Higher education students in Europe prefer environments rich in multimedia images where
they can actively get involved in tasks like working in groups through media sharing sites
(such as Flickr or YouTube) and with a profile on a social networking sites (such as MySpace
or Facebook) (Malita & Martin, 2010). Mobile learning is most prevalent at higher education
institutions, which is followed by elementary schools (Wu et al. 2012). There are several
universities which have formally integrated mobile learning applications into their courses
(Kalinic et al. 2011). The educational purposes of mobile devices include either administrative
ones like communicating with students for registration and administration transactions or
instructional ones like delivering lesson content (Keskin 2010); monitoring student progress
and providing feedback to students (Maria & Eythimios 2005); using simulated M3G
technologies in teaching physics (Hangul, Kalayci & Ugur 2008); announcing homework
assignments or emailing products of group work between members (Houser et al. 2002);
providing mini lectures, student presentations, learning goal-oriented walking tours, or field
visits (Menkhoff & Bengtsson 2012); delivering textbook-based mobile content such as
reading, listening, matching, and multiple choice activities (Oberg & Daniels, 2013); testing
vocabulary with interactive short message service (SMS) quizzes (Saran & Seferoglu 2010);
using video recording features to evaluate learners’ speaking skills (Gromik 2012) or finally
use it for microblogging in various ways (Ebner, 2013). In a teacher training context, Seppälä
& Alamäki (2003) piloted a successful application of mobile learning where teachers and
students discussed teaching issues with mobile devices, including SMS-messages and digital
pictures, as a part of the supervising process. However, as reported in several studies (Cui &
Wang 2008; Franklin 2011; Kinash et al. 2012) mobile devices are used more for non-
educative purposes than they are used for learning. These non-educative uses of mobile devices
mainly include leisure time activities such as texting with friends, listening to music, surfing
the web for pleasure, and visiting social network services (Franklin, 2011; Kinash et al., 2012;
Park, 2011).
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
6&
&
3 Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to comparatively investigate the prospective teachers’ frequency of mobile
phone and laptop use for different purposes, including education, entertainment,
communication/information and others. The reason to confine the research to mobile phones
and laptops specifically is their ubiquitousness (Bulun, Gulnar, & Guran, 2004; Corbeil &
Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Franklin, 2011; Oran & Karadeniz, 2007; Saran, Seferoglu & Cagiltay,
2009). Also, prospective teachers’ frequency of using these mobile tools for different purposes
was analysed across gender and grade variables. Finally, we investigated and compared
students’ frequency of connecting to the internet with these mobile tools. For this purpose,
answers to following research questions were sought:
1. How often do prospective teachers use mobile phones and laptops for different purposes
(e.g. education, entertainment, communication/information and others)?
2. Is there a statistically significant difference between prospective teachers’ use of mobile
phones and laptops for different purposes?
3. Is there a statistically significant difference between prospective teachers’ use of mobile
phones and laptops for different purposes by gender?
4. Is there a statistically significant difference between prospective teachers’ use of mobile
phones and laptops for different purposes by grade?
5. How often do prospective teachers connect to internet via mobile phones and laptops?
6. Is there a statistically significant difference between the frequency of prospective teachers’
connecting to internet via mobile phones and via laptops?
4 Research Method
In line with these research questions above, the study was designed based on cross-sectional
survey and casual-comparative methodologies in order to first determine specific
characteristics of the relevant population, and to determine the possible causes for differences
in terms of variables investigated (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012 p.12-13). Thus, we first
determined frequencies of prospective teachers to use laptops and mobile phones for different
purposes. Next, we compared the participants’ frequencies of laptop and mobile phone use for
different purposes, including the differences regarding gender and grade. Finally, the
participants’ frequencies of connecting to internet via mobile phones and via laptops were
described and compared.
4.1 Sampling
A total of 650 prospective teachers participated in the study from two universities in two cities
in Turkey [n=427 (65,7%) in Sivas and n=223 (34,3%) in Malatya]. Sampling was done
according to purposive sampling strategy, where as a part of a larger study only the students
possessing both laptops and mobile phones were selected. Accordingly, the sample consisted
of 67 (10,3%) prospective science teachers, 58 (8,9%) prospective social studies teachers, 68
(10,5%) prospective primary mathematics teachers, 51 (7,8%) prospective classroom teachers,
39 (6%) prospective counselling and guidance teachers, 65 (10%) prospective music teachers,
58 (8,9%) prospective Turkish language teachers, 51 (7,8%) prospective preschool teachers, 47
(7,2%) prospective secondary mathematics teachers, 33 (5,1%) prospective religion and moral
teachers, 48 (7,1%) prospective art teachers, 16 (2,5%) prospective physical education and
sport teachers, 21 (3,2%) prospective English language teachers, 17 (2,6%) prospective
computer and technology teachers, and 11 (1,7%) prospective special education teachers. The
national education system in Turkey is currently structured to involve a 4-year primary stage, a
4-year secondary stage, and finally a 4-year high school stage (popularly known as 4+4+4
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
7&
&
education system). The graduates of preschool teaching department teach preschool students.
Graduates of classroom teaching department teach at the first 4-year primary stage, which
accepts students from 66 months of age upward. Graduates of other departments mostly work
at the second 4-year stage (secondary school) and partially at the last 4-year stage (high
schools). Furthermore, 154 (23,7%) of the participants were first-year students, 167 (25,7%)
were second-year students, 177 (27,2%) were third-year students, 140 (21,5%) were fourth-
year students, and 12 (1,8%) did not reported about their year in university. Female prospective
teachers (n=430) represented 66,2 % of the sample, while males (n=220) represented 34,3% of
the sample.
4.2 Data collection and analysis
The data was collected as part of a larger study during 2011-2012 academic year. The first part
of that larger study investigated the perceptions of 1087 prospective teachers about using
mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools (Şad & Göktaş, 2014). As a
follow-up study, only those owning both a laptop and mobile phone were asked to response to
a second instrument about the frequency of using their mobile devices for different purposes.
This instrument was a five-point (ranging between Always to Never) Likert type of scale
developed to measure the prospective teachers’ frequency of using laptops and mobile phones
for different purposes based on the relevant literature (Avenoglu 2005, Cheon et al. 2012, Cui
& Wang 2008, Franklin 2011, Kinash et al. 2012, Park et al. 2012, Suki & Suki 2011). The
content of the instrument was validated through a qualitative pilot study and expert panel
analysis. First, a pilot group of fifty prospective teachers from different departments were
given a draft questionnaire including several purposes of laptop and mobile phone use. They
were asked to comment on the purposes for using laptops and mobile phones included in the
draft instrument and add more if any. As a result of this rather structured interviews, scale
items were produced under four categories of purposes: education, entertainment,
communication/information, and other. Then, the draft form was consulted to the views of an
expert panel involving faculty members specialized in computer and technology education and
test development, and the form was finalized based on their views.
In total, 26 items under four categories of purposes were listed with two sets of responses of
frequency of use (Always to Never) in two columns, one for laptops and second for mobile
phones. In other words, each participant answered the same item twice: first for laptops and
second for mobile phone. See figure 1 for the structure of the instrument and some sample
items.
Fig. 1. Structure of the instrument and sample items.
Prospective teachers’ frequencies of using laptops and mobile phones for different purposes
were analysed using mean scores (x
̅) for each item ranging from 1 referring to never to 5
referring to always. Next, participants’ frequencies of using laptops and mobile phones for
How often do you use your laptop and mobile phone
for the purposes listed below? Circle 1 for never, 2
for seldom, 3 for sometimes, 4 for usually, and 5 for
always.
Laptop
Mobile phone
1. Recording lessons in audio format
!
"
#
$
%
!
"
#
$
%
2. Recording lessons in in video format
!
"
#
$
%
!
"
#
$
%
Draft&version,&originally&published&in:&Süleyman,&N.&S.,&Özlem,&G.,&Ebner,&M.&(2016)&Prospective&
Teachers&–&Are&They&Already&Mobile?&In:&Mobile,&Ubiquitous,&and&Pervasive&Learning&
Fundaments,&Applications,&and&Trends,&Edition:&1st,&Publisher:&Springer,&Editors:&Alejandro&
Peña-Ayala,&pp.139-166&
8&
&
different purposes were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. The differences
across groups e.g. gender and year at university were tested using non-parametric Mann
Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests, respectively. Non-parametric statistics were preferred
since the comparisons were done item by item. The effect sizes were calculated using 𝑟=!
!,
where z is the z-score and N is the number of total observations (Field 2009, p. 550).
Frequencies of connecting to internet with laptops and mobile phones were analyzed using
descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages and mean scores etc.) and compared using non-
parametric Wilcoxon test again. The significance level in inferential analysis was considered
0.05.
5 Results
5.1 Results about purposes of laptop and mobile phone use
As it is seen in figure 2, prospective teachers were found to use laptops [L] mainly for
educational purposes, i.e. to make research for (x
̅L4=4.48), to prepare (x
̅L5=4.42) and to present
(x
̅L6=4.36) projects/assignments. Other purposes that the laptops were most commonly (usually
to always) used for included watching films/videos (x
̅L14=4.36), surfing the internet (x
̅L24=4.14),
listening to music (x
̅L12=4.07), keeping abreast of national and international developments
(x
̅L21=4.04), and sharing lesson content with instructors/peers (x
̅L7=4.00). Participants stated
they also used laptops frequently for such purposes as to perform written communication (sms,
e-mail, twitt etc.) (x
̅L18=3.98), to visit social networks (facebook, twitter etc.) (x
̅L16=3.97), to
download music (x
̅L11=3.87), to download film/video (x
̅L13=3.81), to download programs
(x
̅L25=3.79), to follow developments in their subject fields (x
̅L9=3.77), to read newspapers
(x
̅L19=3.71), for personal development (e.g. learning a foreign language, new hobbies etc.)
(x
̅L10=3.54), to prepare for exams (x
̅L8=3.46), to play games (x
̅L15=3.34), and to watch TV
(x
̅L20=3.06), respectively. Finally, participant were found to use laptops the least commonly for
banking transactions (x
̅L22=2.93), for spoken communication (x
̅L17=2.81), for shopping
(x
̅L23=2.81), to take notes during lessons (x
̅L3=2.53), to record lessons in video format
(x
̅L2=2.24), to record lessons in audio format (x
̅L1=2.22), and to show off (x
̅L26=2.09).
When it comes to mobile phones [MP], they were found to be used mainly for spoken
communication (x
̅MP17=4.24). Other relatively common purposes of mobile phone use were
listening to music (x
̅MP12=3.99), written communication (Sms, e-mail, twitt etc.) (x
̅MP18=3.58),
and visiting social networks (facebook, twitter etc.) (x
̅MP16=3.21). Prospective teachers were
observed to use mobile phones less frequently for such purposes as playing games
(x
̅MP15=2.90), watching film/video (x
̅MP14=2.79), surfing the internet (x
̅MP24=2.77), downloading
music (x
̅MP11=2.55), personal development (learning a foreign language, new hobbies etc.)
(x
̅MP10=2.49), recording lessons in audio format (x
̅MP1=2.49), keeping abreast of national and
international developments (x
̅MP21=2.32), recording lessons in video format (x
̅MP2=2.31),
sharing lesson content with instructors/peers (x
̅MP7=2.20), downloading film/video
(x
̅MP13=2.20), downloading programs (x
̅MP25=2.20), reading newspaper (x
̅MP19=2.16), banking
transactions (x
̅MP22=2.13), following developments in my subject field (x
̅MP9=2.11), and note-
taking in lessons (x
̅MP3=2.05). Finally, respectively the least common use of mobile phones
among prospective teachers were found to be for making research for projects/assignments
(x
̅MP4=1.99), for preparing projects/assignments (x
̅MP5=1.92), for watching TV (x
̅MP20=1.83), for
showing off (x
̅MP26=1.81), for preparing for exams (x
̅MP8=1.79), for presenting
projects/assignments (x
̅MP6=1.74), and for shopping (x
̅MP23=1.68).
... It is possible that the tools embedded into devices can be more beneficial than mobile application in terms of learning; but students are not aware of it. Şad, Göktaş & Ebner (2016)'s studies also support this finding that in-class use of both laptops and mobile phones for educational purposes are not very common. Mobile phones are used less for educational purposes, but more for communication and entertainment purposes. ...
Chapter
This study examines the views of undergraduate students in Education Faculty related to mobile learning and reveals their mobile usage behaviors. Mobile usage behaviors include students' view about effectiveness of mobile learning, their mobile design preferences, use of mobile device for purpose of learning, the activity types conducted with mobile devices and their mobile usage frequency. It comes out that university students have very positive attitudes towards mobile learning and they think that m-learning is a really effective learning method. However, mobile devices are used mostly for two purposes: socialization and entertainment. University students agree that mobile learning removes constraints like time and space dependency. They view simplicity and fluency as the prerequisites for a mobile application. Their behaviors are infrequent when it comes to the use of mobile devices for accessing library, reading article, doing homework and note-taking. Their readiness for m-learning is considerably high and they have necessary skills for this learning form.
... Mobile devices are used more frequently for different purposes, particularly for educational ones (Şad, Göktaş, & Ebner, 2016). Today, mobile devices that are enriched with sensors can gather information from the nearby area and they can communicate with one another (Specht & Klemke, 2013). ...
Chapter
One of the new concepts that appear in the learning revolution with emerging technological advances is seamless learning. This type of learning involves the continuity of learning experiences by means of technology regardless of environment and time, and without any interruption. A necessary and useful technology in realizing seamless learning is "Internet of Things". IoT technology is an infrastructure on which things can communicate with one another or with human beings by connecting to the Internet, and which has the capability of simultaneously storing and exchanging the collected data on cloud computing systems. With its potential in a wide area of applications in the future, this technology is expected to be used in education as well. Furthermore, it has a huge potential to contribute to seamless learning experiences. Development and expansion of this technology will make future educational institutions feel the necessity to accept and adapt this technology. In this regard, this study aimed to introduce IoT technology and to explore educational potential of seamless learning.
... Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin hızlı gelişimi bireylerin bilgiye ulaşma ve işleme alışkanlıkları ve tercihlerinde de farklılaşmalara neden olmaktadır. Özellikle üniversite öğrencilerinin başını çektiği genç nüfus başta iletişim ve haberleşme amacıyla mobil teknolojileri ve sosyal ağları yoğun bir şekilde kullanmaktadır (Çavuş ve Đbrahim, 2009;Cheon, Lee, Crooks ve Song, 2012;Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007;Ersöz & Şad, 2015;Hark Söylemez ve Oral, 2013;Şad, Göktaş & Ebner, 2016;Yokuş, 2016). Bu da teknolojiye ve bilgiye yüklenen anlamlar açısından yaşı önemli bir değişken haline getirmiştir. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bu araştırmada, öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının dijital yerlilik, dijital göçmenlik ve dijital melezlik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca bu özellikler doğum tarihi, cinsiyet ve öğretmen ya da öğretmen adayı olma değişkenleri açısından incelenmiştir. Araştırma Elazığ il merkezinde 2012-2013 öğretim yılında görev yapan çeşitli branşlara mensup 263 öğretmen ve Fırat Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören 289 öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Betimsel ve ilişkisel tarama desenlerine göre yürütülen araştırmada veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen " Dijital Yerli, Dijital Göçmen ve Dijital Melez Öğretmen Ölçeği " ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde frekans, yüzde, tek yönlü ANOVA ve Ki-Kare tekniklerden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, araştırmaya katılan 552 öğretmen ve öğretmen adayından 102'sinin (%18,5) Öğrenme Ortamlarını Düzenleme boyutundan aldıkları puanlar açısından Dijital Göçmen (DG), 297'sinin (%53,8) Dijital Melez (DM) ve 153'ünün de (%27,7) Dijital Yerli (DY) kategorisine girdiği anlaşılmıştır. Veli ve Öğrenciyle Đletişim kurma tercihleri açısından katılımcıların 358'si (%64,9) Dijital Göçmen (DG), 154'ü (%27,9) Dijital Melez (DM) ve sadece 40'ı (%7,2) Dijital Yerli (DY) kategorisine girmektedir. Son olarak Kişisel ve Mesleki Gelişim tercihleri açısından katılımcıların 224'ü (%40,6) Dijital Göçmen (DG), 258'i (%46,7) Dijital Melez (DM) ve sadece 70'i (%12,7) Dijital Yerli (DY) kategorisine girmektedir. Çalışmada ayrıca görev türü, cinsiyet ve yaş değişkenlerine ilişkin bulgular sunularak sonuçlar tartışılmıştır. Abstract The present study aimed to investigate to what extent the preservice and inservice teachers have the characteristics of digital natives, digital immigrants and digital hybrids. The study also examined these characteristics in terms of variables like data of birth, gender and being a preservice or inservice teacher. The study was conducted on 263 inservice teachers from different subject fields working in the province of Elazığ and 289 preservice teachers attending to different departments of educational faculty of Fırat University during 2012-2013 academic year. In this study, which was conducted in accordance with descriptive and associational survey designs, the data were collected using " Digital Native, Digital Immigrant, and Digital Hybrid Teacher Scale " originally developed by the researchers. Obtained data were analysed using frequencies, percentages, one-way ANOVA and Chi-square tests. The analysis revealed that, according to the scores obtained from the factor Arrangement of Learning Settings, 102 (18,5%) of the participants fell into the category of Digital Immigrants (DI), 297 (53,8%) fell into the category of Digital Hybrid (DH) and 153 (27,7%) fell into the category of Digital Natives (DN). According to their preferences regarding Communication with Parents and Children, 358 (64,9%) of the participants fell into the category of Digital Immigrants (DI), 154 (27,9%) fell into the category of Digital Hybrid (DH) and only 40 (7,2%) fell into the category of Digital Native (DN). For the last factor, in terms of their Personal and Professional Development preferences, 224 (40,6%) of the participants fell into the category of Digital Immigrant (DI), 258 (46,7%) fell into the category of Digital Hybrid (DH) and only 70 (12,7%) of them fell into the category of Digital Natives (DN). Also findings and discussions were presented regarding the participants' preferences in relation to their gender, age, and being a pre-or in-service teacher.
... It is possible that the tools embedded into devices can be more beneficial than mobile application in terms of learning; but students are not aware of it. Şad, Göktaş & Ebner (2016)'s studies also support this finding that in-class use of both laptops and mobile phones for educational purposes are not very common. Mobile phones are used less for educational purposes, but more for communication and entertainment purposes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This study examines the views of undergraduate students in Education Faculty related to mobile learning and reveals their mobile usage behaviors. Mobile usage behaviors include students' view about effectiveness of mobile learning, their mobile design preferences, use of mobile device for purpose of learning, the activity types conducted with mobile devices and their mobile usage frequency. It comes out that university students have very positive attitudes towards mobile learning and they think that m-learning is a really effective learning method. However, mobile devices are used mostly for two purposes: socialization and entertainment. University students agree that mobile learning removes constraints like time and space dependency. They view simplicity and fluency as the prerequisites for a mobile application. Their behaviors are infrequent when it comes to the use of mobile devices for accessing library, reading article, doing homework and note-taking. Their readiness for m-learning is considerably high and they have necessary skills for this learning form.
... Mobile devices are used more frequently for different purposes, particularly for educational ones (Şad, Göktaş, & Ebner, 2016). Today, mobile devices that are enriched with sensors can gather information from the nearby area and they can communicate with one another (Specht & Klemke, 2013). ...
Chapter
Exploring the educational potential of Internet of Things (IoT) in seamless learning: One of the new concepts that appear in the learning revolution with emerging technological advances is seamless learning. This type of learning involves the continuity of learning experiences by means of technology regardless of environment and time, and without any interruption. A necessary and useful technology in realizing seamless learning is “Internet of Things”. IoT technology is an infrastructure on which things can communicate with one another or with human beings by connecting to the Internet, and which has the capability of simultaneously storing and exchanging the collected data on cloud computing systems. With its potential in a wide area of applications in the future, this technology is expected to be used in education as well. Furthermore, it has a huge potential to contribute to seamless learning experiences. Development and expansion of this technology will make future educational institutions feel the necessity to accept and adapt this technology. In this regard, this study aimed to introduce IoT technology and to explore educational potential of seamless learning.
Article
The purpose of this study was to develop a mobile learning acceptance model for pre-service teachers and to examine the relationships among technology acceptance factors. The literature on mobile learning acceptance lacks studies on pre-service teachers and studies that include concrete mobile learning scenarios. To overcome these problems, we have developed and implemented a mobile-technology-enabled information technology course. The data collection and analysis were conducted in two separate studies. First, we developed a mobile learning acceptance scale and applied confirmatory factor analysis with 408 participants. The final instrument included 28 items measuring eight technology acceptance factors, namely behavioral intention, attitude towards use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social influence, facilitating conditions, self-efficacy, and anxiety. After this, we collected a new set of data from 316 participants to examine the relationships among the factors using structural equation modeling. In both studies, we investigated the respective models’ invariance across gender and discipline groups, and both models fulfilled invariance requirements. The results indicated that perceived ease of use and social influence have direct effects on behavioral intention, whereas self-efficacy has an indirect effect. Depending on the group, the explained variance of behavioral intention ranged between 18.1% and 60.6%.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the views of freshmen on using their smartphones in learning English as a foreign language. The study was designed based on a quantitative associational model. The data were collected from the 428 freshmen attending the English preparation programs run at İnönü and Fırat Universities, Turkey, using “Smartphone Use in Learning Foreign Language Scale”. The results showed that participants use their smartphones more frequently to engage in English listening and speaking activities than reading and writing activities. The participants also believe that smartphones scarcely have adverse effects on learning English. However, it was also found that the more time students spend online, the more they suffer from the adverse effects of smartphones in terms of language learning. Results about gender revealed that female students use their smartphones more frequently than their male peers to engage in formal language learning activities. Significant differences related to frequency of smartphone use for both formal and informal language learning purposes were detected, with the Business Administration and Molecular Biology and Genetics department students showing higher frequency. No statistically significant difference was found between students’ views about using smartphones for language learning according to the types of Internet connection (Wi-Fi, mobile data, or both).
Chapter
Full-text available
The use of mobile devices to support learning is increasing in schools and universities. This increase is having an impact on the types of pedagogies that are supporting learning. This chapter explores the use of mobile devices to support pre-service teachers' professional learning. A constructivist framework is used as a critical lens in conjunction with Howland, Jonassen and Marra 's (2012) 'meaningful learning' framework. Additionally, the notions of teacher training about and with mobile learning as described by Baran (2014) are drawn upon to help in understanding the field. The chapter begins with an exploration on-campus learning followed by learning in schools and finally, aspects of on-line learning.
Chapter
Emerging digital technologies offer various opportunities for ubiquitous and flexible learning, independent from time and location. Especially the proliferation of portable devices such as smartphones or tablets has increased the potential for ubiquitous learning environments in recent years. As a consequence, ubiquitous learning has become a buzzword in the literature on educational technology. However, the ways in which features are interrelated are not always clear. The purpose of this paper is to provide a more profound insight into this matter. The present chapter describes ubiquitous learning as a form of self-regulated learning and differentiates it from other popular forms of technology-based education such as mobile learning. Additionally, opportunities for meaningful ubiquitous learning environments are characterized. Based on a review of recent research, recommendations for the educational use of ubiquitous technologies are provided.
Article
Full-text available
The priority of education development is the introduction of modern information and communication technologies (ICT), in particular - technologies of mobile learning, providing improvement of teaching and educational process, accessibility and effectiveness of education for personal development according to individual inclinations, abilities, based on lifelong learning. Due to rapid expansion, proliferation and increasing of functionality of mobile technologies we should use their potential to improve and facilitate learning, ensuring accessibility, equity, individualization and flexibility. The analysis of the basic features and benefits of mobile technologies for lifelong learning was conducted. The model using mobile learning technologies for learning English phonetics is proposed in the article. The mobile application allows organizing the learning process of English practical phonetics. This article describes the methodical implementation of the proposed model for learning of English phonetics. Modern education in many countries, including Ukraine, foresees the necessity of learning of foreign languages. The proposed mobile learning technologies help to achieve the main aim of learning foreign languages – forming the general and professional communicative competence of specialists in the globalized society.
Article
Full-text available
Though Mobile Learning (ML) has a brief history of no more than four decades, the medium is developing rapidly with the upgrading of different mobile devices. Among all the devices, cell phones have great potential in language teaching and learning. This article explores the different devices especially cell phone use in ML. The paper also reviews teaching and learning of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in China and discusses potential applications of cell phones in Chinese EFL teaching and learning.
Article
Full-text available
Mobile learning is a relatively new phenomenon and the theoretical basis is currently under development. The paper presents a pedagogical perspective of mobile learning which highlights three central features of mobile learning: authenticity, collaboration and personalisation, embedded in the unique time-space contexts of mobile learning. A pedagogical framework was developed and tested through activities in two mobile learning projects located in teacher education communities: Mobagogy, a project in which faculty staff in an Australian university developed understanding of mobile learning; and The Bird in the Hand Project, which explored the use of smartphones by student teachers and their mentors in the United Kingdom. The framework is used to critique the pedagogy in a selection of reported mobile learning scenarios, enabling an assessment of mobile activities and pedagogical approaches, and consideration of their contributions to learning from a socio-cultural perspective.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The mobile education became more popular and accessible worldwide. Today there is a big variety of solutions for such systems. In this paper a general classification of existing mobile learning systems is made. A 3D visualisation of this classification according to three indicators of the usability is presented. It gives a possibility easy to take into account the differences in the implementation of the systems as well as their common characteristics. INTRODUCTION The mobile learning is based on the use of mobile devices (pocket size computers (PDAs), cell phones, smart phones, notebooks or Tablet PCs) anywhere at anytime [4]. These devices must support wireless technology and have a possibility to present teaching materials, and to realise an asynchronous/synchronous communication between learners and teachers. The existing wide range of mobile devices and wireless technologies gives an opportunity to realise different systems for mobile education. For example some of these systems can be used only in the area of a university or company, as at the same time other systems ensure a broader usage outside the educational institutions. Some of the systems support user access only to the administrative information, while other systems support an access to educational materials. In the literature there are various classifications of mobile learning systems. These classifications concern: support of mobile devices, usage of wireless communication technologies, the possibilities to access the required information and the type of this information. The known classifications often apply one or two indicators, which concern the information, communication or education technologies used in the systems. According to the information and communication technologies (ICT) the systems are classified by the type of mobile devices (Notebooks, TabletPCs, PDAs, cell phones or smart phones) and the type of wireless communication technologies (GSM, IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth, etc.) which they support. One of the technical classifications written in the literature [9] uses two indicators – the portability of the devices and the personal use ability. The classification regarding educational technologies is made in relation to the supported information and the method to access it. According to this classification the mobile learning systems are divided in several groups. For example, in the literature sources [1, 10] the systems are classified in respect to the abilities to support on-line and/or off-line access to the learning materials. In [6, 11] the systems are classified according to the user abilities to reach learning materials in the university area (on-campus) or outside university (off-campus). In [2, 7] the systems are divided regarding the information connected to the educational process they support – learning and/or administrative. The existing classifications have big disadvantages since they don't include the whole variety of different systems and don't correspond to their progress. These classifications also don't account for the complexity of modern mobile learning systems and the support of e-learning standards and specifications. An attempt to generalise and to classify the main types of the existing mobile learning systems is made in this paper. A 3D visualisation of this classification according to three indicators is presented.
Chapter
Full-text available
In the last few years, microblogging has become a phenomenon of our daily lives. Communicating, sharing media files, as well as acting on digital social communities platforms using mobile devices assist our everyday activities in a complete new way. Therefore, it is very reasonable that academic environments are influenced arbitrarily too. In this publication, different settings for the use of microblogging are pointed out - for teaching and learning as well as for further scientific purposes such as professional conferences. It can be summarized that there are different possibilities to use microblogging in an academic context; each of them are new advantages for the academic life. The publication gives a short overview and a first insight into the various ways to use microblogging.
Article
Full-text available
Today's computers and related technologies have an important role in enabling visualisations of the workings of various scientific concepts, natural phenomena and mechanisms by creating technology-rich environments (TRE). TRE offer opportunities to science teachers in cases of natural phenomena that might be difficult or impossible to view, dangerous to conduct experiments about, impractical or too expensive to bring into the classroom, or too messy or time consuming to prepare in a school laboratory. However, science teaching cannot and should not be undertaken entirely by TRE. Science teachers need to know how to integrate technology into science classrooms. Measuring science teachers' confidence in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) and identifying their views about using TRE in science instruction is an important issue. The present study aims to address challenges faced by in-service science teachers when creating TRE and gives suggestions for successful technology integration into science teaching. The data were gathered through a TPCK confidence survey and subsequent interviews. The results show that in-service science teachers have a low level of confidence in using technology during science teaching. The teachers surveyed stressed their need for professional development activities regarding the effective and meaningful use of TRE in science teaching.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the individual innovativeness of preservice teachers and their competencies in techno-pedagogical education. The sample group for the research comprised a total of 389 pre-service teachers, 288 of which were female (74%) and 101 (26%) of which were male, selected from the senior students of 10 different teacher training programs in the Faculty of Education of Trakya University during the spring term of the 2011-2012 academic year. The "Techno-pedagogical Education Competency Scale" developed by Kabakçi{dotless} Yurdakul, Odabaşi{dotless}, Ki{dotless}li{dotless}çer, Çoklar, Birinci and Kurt (2012), and the "Individual Innovativeness" scale developed by Hurt, Joseph and Cook (1977) and adopted into Turkish culture by Ki{dotless}li{dotless}çer and Odabaşi{dotless} (2010), were used for the research. The results showed that the individual innovativeness of the pre-service teachers fell under the "early-majority" category; while no significant difference was found between individual innovativeness and competency in techno-pedagogical education with the gender variable. It was determined from the research that the techno-pedagogical education competencies of the pre-service teachers were in the "advanced" level. The findings of the research revealed a positive and moderate relationship between the individual innovativeness of pre-service teachers and their competency in techno-pedagogical education.
Conference Paper
The priority of education development is the introduction of modern information and communication technologies (ICT), in particular - technologies of mobile learning, providing improvement of educational process, accessibility and effectiveness of education for personal development according to individual inclinations, abilities, based on lifelong learning. Due to rapid expansion, proliferation and increasing of functionality of mobile technologies we should use their potential to improve and facilitate learning, ensuring accessibility, equity, individualization and flexibility. The analysis of the basic features and benefits of mobile technologies for lifelong learning is conducted. The model of mobile learning technologies in English phonetics learning is proposed in the article. At the proposed mobile learning model we developed the mobile application “English Sounds”. It allows organizing the learning process of English phonetics. The methodical implementation of the proposed model for learning of English phonetics is described. The proposed mobile learning technologies help to achieve the main aim of foreign languages learning – forming the general and professional communicative competence of specialists in globalized society.
Article
Instructional designers and educators recognize the potential of mobile technologies as a learning tool for students and have incorporated them into the distance learning environment. However, little research has been done to categorize the numerous examples of mobile learning in the context of distance education, and few instructional design guidelines based on a solid theoretical framework for mobile learning exist. In this paper I compare mobile learning (m-learning) with electronic learning (e-learning) and ubiquitous learning (u-learning) and describe the technological attributes and pedagogical affordances of mobile learning presented in previous studies. I modify transactional distance (TD) theory and adopt it as a relevant theoretical framework for mobile learning in distance education. Furthermore, I attempt to position previous studies into four types of mobile learning: 1) high transactional distance socialized m-learning, 2) high transactional distance individualized m-learning, 3) low transactional distance socialized m-learning, and 4) low transactional distance individualized m-learning. As a result, this paper can be used by instructional designers of open and distance learning to learn about the concepts of mobile learning and how mobile technologies can be incorporated into their teaching and learning more effectively.