Content uploaded by Margarete Grimus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margarete Grimus on Jul 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mobile Phones and Learning
Perceptions of Austrian Students, aged 11 to 14 Years
Abstract: This article aims to report on the findings of a study of perception for using mobile
phones for learning in Austria. Surveys were conducted to examine the ownership and usage
of mobile phones of eight to 14 year old pupils. Findings indicate that gathered data show a
lack of perceptions for benefits of mobile phones for learning. Issues based on the research in
2013 and 2014 are discussed with regard to demands and challenges for education. Using
their own mobile phones for various learning activities could build a bridge between students’
practice in everyday life and school learning, and developing indispensable 21st century skills.
1. Introduction
This study aims to figure out perceptions of pupils learning with mobile phones, based on information about
ownership and the use of the devices. It is a follow up research of a previous study, where students’ data from
2009 and 2013 were compared (Grimus & Ebner, 2014).
In recent years mobile technologies changed nearly all fields of daily life. Mobile phones play an
increasingly important role for active participation in our society and future developments. The nearly universality
of this 21st century tool leads to question the integration of mobile phones for learning in our educational system in
order to equip students with 21st century skills (e.g. self-directed and collaborative learning). The majority of
children are using smartphones as a basic media equipment for communication, for the procurement of
information, for playing, creating images and videos. (JIM 2014) A mobile phone functions as a storage medium,
media player, navigation system, encyclopedia, camera, game console, news portal and last but not least as a
communication platform.
Mobile phones offer the possibility to learn at any time everywhere. Up-to-date content is accessible
immediately, and can be repeatedly reviewed for better comprehension and understanding, which is important for
learning purpose. According to Huber & Ebner (2013) mobile devices ‘can provide a level of reach, scope and
immediacy that is largely unattainable through traditional classroom environment’. Because of the presence of
mobile phones in the pockets of students, the devices could be easily integrated into the learning process without
additional costs.
2. Methodology
Objective of the Research
The purpose of this study is to carry out conditions and perceptions for using of mobile phones for learning
in Austria. Ownership and daily user routines (SMS, photo/ video taking, Internet Search, e-Mail) were
questioned.
The major research questions are defined as following:
1. Ownership of modern mobile phones as presuppositions for learning purposes? (eight to 14 years)
2. What are the perceptions for using a mobile phone for learning? (eleven to 14 years)
Research Method
In order to examine the conditions research was conducted with questionnaires in Styria, Austria, in two
cycles (in 2013 and 2014). Data collection was performed anonymously. The study group in 2013 consisted of 83
pupils (43 girls and 40 boys), in 2014 the sample consisted of 43 pupils (20 girls and 23 boys), aged from eight to
14 years (grade three to grade eight).
Limitation of the study: In 2013 girls’ data are based from nine to 14 years of age, and boys’ of the age from
eight to 13 years; in 2014 girls data are based on the age from eight to 13 years and boys aged from eight to 14
years. Despite the fact the study is of low scale, insights of students’ perceptions for using mobile phones for
learning could be gathered.
3. Findings
3.1. Mobile Phone Ownership
Overall ownership of a mobile phone was reported to be 77 percent in 2013, and 84 percent in 201. Gender
related data of phone ownership are displayed Table 1 and in Figure 1 and 2. Remark: no eight-year-old girls and
no 14-year-old boys participated in the survey in 2013, in 2014 no 14-year-old girls took part.
Table 1: Ownership of a mobile phone: girls, boys, total (numbers, %)
Figure 1: 2013. Ownership; gender; age Figure 2: 2014. Ownership; gender, age
While in 2013 ownership was already at a high level with 100 % from the age of 11 years and up it has
increased in 2014 in younger ages. Girls’ ownership of a mobile phone outnumbers that of boys.
While only five (of 43; 12 %) girls did not report ownership of a mobile phone in 2013 this was the case with
fourteen (of 40; 36 %) boys. In 2014 ownership of a mobile phone was reported from 18 girls (90 %) and 18 boys
(78 %), only two (of 20; 10 %) girls did not own a mobile phone, while five (of 23; 22 %) boys were without a
phone. Higher rates of girls’ ownership are in line with other research, for example findings in Germany (KIM
2014, JIM 2014) and earlier studies in Austria. (Hödl, 2009)
3.2. User Profiles
The following results are based on pupils who previously reported ownership of a mobile phone.
Year 2013: 64 (38 girls, 26 boys). Year 2014: 36 (18 girls, 18 boys).
3.3. Brand of Phones
Even though the models of the phones are changing within a short time, it is important to figure out to what
extent the phones could be used for learning. Smartphones offer a wide range of learning opportunities. In 2013
Ownership
Girls
Boys
total
2013
38 (of 43); 88 %
26 (of 40); 65 %
64 (of 83); 77 %
2014
18 (of 20); 90 %
18 (of 23); 78 %
36 (of 43); 84 %
the majority already used smartphones with mainly similar functions. The devices differ only in technical details.
By analyzing the specification of the models it can be assumed that nearly all phones are equipped with a
camera, Bluetooth, memory etc. According to the findings in the JIM study (2014, p. 45), most of the devices
owned by the age from nine years up are less than one year old.
A slight difference was figured out when looking at the brand of the devices in 2013, by comparing boys and
girls were present with low numbers. One boy was not aware of the type of his mobile device.
In 2014 no prevalence of a single brand could be determined, however, Nokia and Samsung were the most
common brands mentioned. A dominance of Samsung followed by iPhones is in line with recent research (JIM
2015: Samsung 45 %, iPhone 23 %).
3.4. Internet Access
When using mobile phones for learning the possibility to access the Internet is important. Permanent Internet
access is possible with mobile Internet. Alternatively Internet can be accessed whenever Wi-Fi is available.
Questions:
Are you able to connect to the mobile Internet with your smartphone/mobile phone? [yes /no]
Are you able to connect to the Internet via free WiFi with your smartphone/mobile phone? [yes /no]
In Table 2 access to mobile Internet and via Wi–Fi are outlined.
Internet Option
Year
Girls
Boys
total
Mobile Internet
2013
20 (of 38); 53 %
11 (of 26); 42 %
31 (of 64); 48 %
2014
8 (of 18); 44 %
11 (of 18); 61 %
19 (of 36); 53 %
Wi-Fi
2013
19 (of 38); 50 %
16 (of 26); 62 %
35 (of 64); 55 %
2014
8 (of 18); 44 %
11 (of 18); 61 %
19 (of 36); 53 %
Table 2: Internet Access: Mobile Internet, Wi-Fi; girls, boys and total
Permanent access to the Internet slightly increased from 2013 with 48 % (girls 53 %, boys 42 %) to 53 % (girls
44 %, boys 61 %) in 2014. In 2013 access to the Internet via Wi-Fi was reported from 55 % (50 % girls, 62 %
boys) and in 2014 from 53 % (44 % girls, 61 % boys).
Data of mobile access to the Internet with regard to gender and age are displayed in Figure 3 for 2013 and
Figure 4 for 2014.
Figure 3: 2013. Access to mobile Internet; girls, boys Figure 4. 2014. Access to mobile Internet; girls, boys
Mobile Internet and Wi-Fi access is low with kids up to ten years, while more than half of the eleven year
olds can access mobile Internet. It is argued that this may be due to costs and security reasons. Similar figures are
provided for access to the Internet via WiFi in Figure 5 for 2013, and in Figure 6 for 2014.
According to Livingstone (et al, 2014; JIM 2015) Internet access varies slightly with gender across Europe,
which could be confirmed in our research. Younger kids prefer computer and laptop for Internet-access instead of
mobile phones. (KIM, 2014, Lenhart, 2015)
Figure 5: 2013; Internet via WiFi; boys, girls Figure 6: 2014; Internet via WiFi; boys, girls
Remark: It is uncertain if all pupils have definite knowledge of their Wi-Fi option, and it has to be
considered that in 2014 the number of respondents was low, particularly in the lowest and highest age-group.
3.5. SMS, Photo /Video, Internet Search, eMail
A further question dealt with daily routines: SMS, photo / video taking, Internet surfing and e-Mail. Between
2013 and 2014 not much difference was observed, texting and photo /video-taking are dominant (see Figure 7).
Voice calls were not part of the survey.
Figure 7: SMS, Photo/Video, Internet Surfing, eMails. Comparison of Likert grades in 2013 and 2014 (max=3)
A Likert scale is preferred for measuring attitudes or opinions in research, using fixed choice response
formats. The procedure allows a comparison of general results. Each item is a statement that the respondent is
asked to select, assigned to a weight to each answer choice. The answers are choices within four categories,
graded between 0 and 3 points: never = 0; rarely =1; often = 2; regularly = 3 (maximum weight). The average
provides an overall perception of the specified item.
1
.
Likert rates for girls and boys are displayed in figure 8 (2013) and figure 9 (2014)
Figure 8: 2013, Figure 9: 2014: Likert grades for SMS, Photo/Video, Internet Surfing, eMails; boys, girls
In 2013 girls were dominant with SMS and photo / video taking. E-Mails are not very popular among kids.
Other communicative applications (e.g. Whatsapp or Facebook) were not questioned.
3.6. General Perceptions of Using a Mobile Phone for Learning
Response to the question Do you use your mobile phone for learning? [Yes / No] was gathered from 58
learners in 2013, and from 26 in 2014. In Table 3 the number of responses and gender-related data are displayed.
Do you use your mobile phone for learning?
2013
2014
yes
no
yes
no
28 % (16)
72 % (42)
27 % (7)
73 % (19)
G. 25 %, B: 31 %
G. 75 %, B: 69 %
G. 27 %, B: 27 %
G. 73 %, B: 73 %
Table 3: 2013, 2014.;Approval (yes), denial (no) of using a phone for learning; total percentage, B(oys), G(irls)
Use of mobile phones for learning is scarce, with 28 % approval in 2013 and 27 % in 2014, while abstention
to this question is remarkably high. A slight gender-related difference was observed in 2013, equal results were
achieved in 2014.
3.7. Using Mobile Phones for Learning at School and at Home (on transfer)
The results in paragraph 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 are based on data of students aged from 11 to 14 years.
Students were asked about learning attitudes to determine the location (at school, at home /on transfer) where
they use a mobile phone for learning. A high abstention rate to the question was observed in 2013, with 36 and 25
respondents (from 47; 31 girls, 16 boys). In 2014 only half of the 26 participants responded to learning at home.
A Likert scale, graded between 0 and 3 points (never = 0; rarely =1; often = 2; regularly = 3) was a taken for
defining the Likert-grade of approval. Total Likert-grades and the percentage of grades of approval for using
mobile phones for learning at school and at home (on transfer) are displayed in Figure 10.
1
Calculation: Multiply each scale with the number of responses; never is multiplied by the factor 0, rarely by 1, often by 2 and
regularely by 3; summarise the values and divide it by the number of total responses to the respective function
Figure 10: 2013, 2014. Likert grade, grading the use of phones for learning at school
and at home/ on transfer (never =0; rarely=1 ; often=2; regularly=3)
A slight difference was observed with regard to gender. On a very low level, boys are more open for using a
mobile phone for learning at school (see Table 4). Likert grades in 2013 of boys are 0.61, girls gained 0.33 Likert
grades, and in 2014 boys’ responds reached 0.87 Likert-grades, girls’ 0.57 respectively. The overall score
increased from 0.47 Likert grades in 2013 to 0.77 in 2014. All scores are below 1, thus, approval is lower than
‘rarely’. A reason for this may be that mobile phones are banned in most of Austrian schools.
Year
Likert grades gender-related: Mobile phone for learning
at school
at home/on transfer
Girls
Boys
total
Girls
Boys
total
2013
0,33
0,61
0,47
1,07
0,73
0,92
2014
0,57
0,87
0,77
1,80
1,00
1,36
Table 4: Comparison of Likert grades in 2013 and 2014; boys, girls and total
Slightly higher rated is the use of mobile phones for learning at home, increasing from 0.92 Likert grades in
2013 to 1.36 in 2014. Although learning at home gains higher appreciation than at school, it ranges also on a very
low level.
3.8. Perceptions towards Using Mobile Phones in order to Improve Learning
The question Do you think using your mobile phone could benefit your learning? [Yes / No] gathered the
lowest response-rate: in 2013 twenty-three (49 %) and in 2014 seven (32 %) students did not answer to the
question. Boys show higher rates of abstention (69 % in 2013; 50 % in 2014) than girls (39 % in 2013; 17 % in
2014). Rates (numbers, percent) of approval (yes) and denial (no) for possibly expected benefits for learning are
displayed in Table 5. The results match those of the question Do you use your mobile phone for learning?
Do you think making use of your mobile phone could benefit your learning?’
2013 (24 responses)
2014 (15 responses)
yes
no
yes
no
7 (29 %)
17 (71 %)
3 (20 %)
12 (80 %)
Table 5: Expectation of learning improvement with mobile phones in 2013 and 2014.
Summarizing the overall outcome: It can be assumed that pupils below 14 years of age have hardly any
experience with, and show marginal imagination of benefits for using mobile phones for learning.
3.9. Students’ Comments
With regard to achieving insights about students’ views of advantages and/or disadvantages, they were asked
to comment on their expectations of benefits and challenges for learning with mobile phones in the future.
Answers to What benefits could be expected ? What challenges? What conditions could change your mind? are
summarized below.
Disadvantages of mobile phone-use in classroom learning outnumbers potential advantages. The majority
mentions distraction and cheating. Benefits are searching for information and the use of a calculator. In general,
the comments were quite vague, but however differed slightly between boys and girls. Boys annotated the
possibility to find additional, actual and unlimited information for different topics in addition to what they gained
in the lessons (googling). They also mentioned apps and tools, dictionaries and translators, less handwriting and
less books to carry as expected benefits. Girls claimed guidelines and useful concepts for research. In addition,
girls required assistance and inspiration for beneficial activities in contrast to using a phone for gaming, and
listening to music. Girls expect an increase in ambition and fun with learning. Seven pupils (4 girls, 3 boys)
recommended the use of mobile phones for learning in class in the future (19 denied).
4. Discussion
4.1. Youth and Mobile Phones
Mobile phones belong to youth culture and have become ubiquitous in modern life. Most students have never
known a world without those devices. In recent research, where common behavior-patterns of young people were
analyzed (JIM 2015), show that common activities for about 90 % youths are browsing the Internet, listening to
music, and communication in social networks with their smartphones, tablets are less prevalent. Twelve to 13-
year-olds are online on an average weekday for 156 minutes (self-estimate), 62 % make use of an ‘all inclusive-
package’ for Internet access. Similar findings are reported from Ólafsson (et al, 2013), by stating that youngsters
most popular device for going online is a smartphone, while the use of PCs is declining. Internet is the information
source of choice, Google search dominates. Pupils have invested a great deal of time experiencing features and
limitations of their phones effectively firsthand outside a classroom. Norris (et al, 2011) Thus, students grow up
by expecting the assistance of these devices. Incidental learning (occurs while carrying out an activity that is
seemingly unrelated to what is learned) trigger self-reflection and could be harnessed to encourage students to use
the devices for learning.
Our findings show, that, while there is a nearly overall evidence of modern mobile phones in the hands of
pupils, using mobile phones for learning scarcely finds approval. Students are familiar with the tool for texting,
taking photos, making videos, and search the Internet as a third option. Merely 27 % agree to use a mobile phone
for learning, while 73 % said no (after 28 % abstention).
4.2. Curriculum and Media-Literacy
In the Austrian School Education Act the use of ‘21st century technology and essential tools to enable 21st
century knowledge and skills’ is clearly outlined. Media education is a compulsory goal in the school-curriculum
with the aim to ‘equip students to a critical-reflexive use of all media’. (BMBF, 2012) According to §17 of the
School Education Act ‘lessons have to take in account scientific knowledge as well as the experiences and
possibilities of the students and their social environment’
2
. Special attention is drawn to students from
10-14 years, taking into account their individual experience, conventions and habits, and to position themselves in
the digital world. ‘The quality of teaching and learning should be increased by the application of ICT, by
integration of innovative learning scenarios into the educational process.’ (ÖIAT, 2014) The International
Society for Technology Education defines standards for critical skills for 21st century students to learn effectively
for a lifetime: creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, research and information fluency,
critical thinking (problem solving, decision-making), digital citizenship, technology operations and concepts.
(ISTE, 2007)
2
German Original: Der Unterricht hat sich entsprechend § 17 des Schulunterrichtsgesetzes sowohl an wissenschaftlichen
Erkenntnissen als auch an den Erfahrungen und Möglichkeiten, die die Schülerinnen und Schüler aus ihrer Lebenswelt
mitbringen, zu orientieren.).
Prochazka (2013) states that while mobile Internet is of prime importance, Austrian children use the Internet
less intensively than in other countries. Although today’s kids are the mobile technology generation, basic
elements of youth culture, mobile phones, are spared out in most Austrian schools. Internet-research and use of
digital learning material is commonly limited to timetables and the availability of a computer-lab. While using
laptops or PCs in a lab is meaningful for specific purposes (e.g. subject-related software, typing larger text or
presentations), it is time-consuming (moving to the lab, booting, shut down), hence it does not allow to access
relevant information when there is an ad hoc demand. It seems that ICT in school-context is recognized merely
with the use of PCs and laptops (sometimes tablets), smartphones are not recognized as an essential tool in
education. This is in contrast to what is experienced in daily practice, with a perfect tool in the pocket for
immediate use in concrete situations. Smartphones are now almost as powerful as a desktop or laptop PC,
providing multi-functionality, portability, and connectivity. The education act outlines to consider individual
experiences and habits in media-education, however in our research we could not verify evidence of providing
instruction for developing related skills, for example, acquiring digital literacy with the devices primarily used by
students.
4.3. School: Mobile Phones, Pro’s and Con’s
As Mc Coy (2013) points out, smartphones may interfere with classroom learning, when used for non-class
purposes, therewith are causing learning distractions. Integrating smartphones in education raise discussions on all
levels of education with arguments both for and against allowing mobile phones at schools. Kuznekoff (et al.
2015) argue that appropriately integrating the use of mobile phones into class may help students to learn. Lemke
(2010, p. 244), refers to the responsibility of educators to ensure that ‘today’s students are ready to live, learn,
work and thrive in this high-tech, global, highly participatory world’.
Keengwe (et al. 2014, citing Fisher & Frey 2010) indicate mobile phone prohibition as a ‘disservice to
today’s students and educators’. School is the safest place and a controlled environment to learn how to use the
devices efficiently and properly.
Our research states that the majority has very limited vision of how mobile phones could be beneficial for
learning. Compulsory education ends at 15 years. This implies that what is not integrated in education thus far
would be out of reach for those finishing school at 15 years. Most of them are coming from underprivileged
families. Thus, skills for individual learning need to be developed before 15 years of age, to be prepared for
employment and further career. With these arguments in mind, it is important to shift the discussion from if mobile
phones should be used in class, to how to focus on the potential of the devices for assisting and aiding learning.
(Seipold et al, 2014) According to Johnson (2010, p. 22), ‘savvy teachers can figure out how to change distraction
by using students’ personal technologies to improve learning and teaching’.
4.4. Mobile Phones as Learning Tools
Mobile phones can be a perfect supplement for classroom engagement and a cooperative tool for working in
groups on projects, sharing information and discoveries, problem solving and decision finding. They are perfect
for supporting independent learning with audio and video capabilities and access to educational apps. Addressing
topics of safe and responsible personal behavior and fair practice could help to prevent phenomena like Cyber
mobbing or other abusive behavior in online-communities. Examples for successfully integration can be found in
American school reports. Recommendations and 22 examples for attracting kids to experiment with smartphones
to increase knowledge in different aspects are available at ,http://kids.t-mobile.at/22-beispiele-fuer-den-unterricht-
mit-smartphones/, and for natural science at http://kids.t-mobile.at/22-beispiele-fuer-den-unterricht-mit-
smartphones/, in German Language (Geyer-Hayden, 2015, Streiff, 2010).
There is no doubt that smart-phones can be used inappropriately at school (Purcell,et al, 2012). It is essential
to understand policies and become familiar with proper and effective use of the devices for learning purposes.
Developing guidelines together with the pupils scales up acceptance and makes students feel respected. (Grimus,
2014) According to Kuznekoff (et al. 2015, p 345), integrating students’ personal devices for class appropriate
purposes would benefit, rather than detract from learning. ‘When students are engaged in their learning - and
they’re almost always engaged with their phones when given a choice - they are less likely to succumb to
distractions.’ (Ehnle, 2015)
With regard to limited financial resources it is also very important to think about the fact, that using the
potentials integrated in the devices, which play an inherent role in students everyday lifeworld, does not raise
additional costs in schools, – in contrast to other supplemental technology.
5. Conclusions
The study aimed to figure out preconditions and perceptions for using students’ mobile phones for learning.
The use of mobile phones for learning could not be determined in our research: Approval was rated between never
and rarely. It can be assumed that the majority has hardly any experience with using mobile phones for learning,
while texting (SMS), taking photos and videos, and Internet search is common. Integrating mobile devices in
learning scenarios can foster skills as selection ability, differentiation ability, structuralisation ability, hence, can
help students with developing the ability to manage their own learning. (MLA, 2015). Pupils grow up with mobile
technology in their pockets, anytime and anywhere ready for research and communication, and at the same time
they show hardly any experience of possible benefits for using mobile phones for learning, with slightly more
preference of using mobile phones for learning at home than at school.
Preparing students to use their personal and highly appreciated devices to learn, collaborate, share and create
in meaningful ways could increase their ambitions for learning. Schools may need to re-evaluate methods for
instruction by creating learning scenarios with innovative practices, harnessing the power mobile phones offer for
learning. Guidance is indispensable for achieving skills essential for students’ further development, including
online safety and effective solutions to handle the issues of misuse. Integrating the tools in class-teaching is a
chance for conditioning students to expect and respond best to individualised learning and would help to
overcome disparities of inside- and outside- classroom skills: When students are educated to use smartphones
appropriately and responsively, learning can continue beyond the walls of the classroom.
While there is a clear need for research to meet the demands for using mobile phones in the context of
learning, it is essential to include the topic in teacher education and teachers’ professional development. It is
pedagogically irresponsible to leave students alone with an important issue of abundant potential and missed
opportunities for mobile learning. Students’ perceptions of using the tools for formal and informal learning, as a
part of their personal learning environment, needs to be part of todays education.
6. References
BMBF 2012. Erlass des Bundesministeriums für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur GZ 48.223/6-B/7/2011,
Rundschreiben Nr. 4/2012 31. Jänner 2012 https://www.bmbf.gv.at/ministerium/rs/2012_04.pdf?51oyce
Ehnle, K. (2015). Six ways to use Students Smartphones for Learning. ISTE Blog 9/4/2015
https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=528&category=Toolbox&article=
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Preparing students for mastery of 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S.
Brandt (Eds.), pp. 221–240. Solution Tree.
Geyer-Hayden, B. (2015). Connected Kids. http://kids.t-mobile.at/forschendes-lernen-mit-smartphones/ and
http://kids.t-mobile.at/22-beispiele-fuer-den-unterricht-mit-smartphones/ (20. Februar 2015).
Grimus, M. & Ebner, M. (2014). Learning with Mobile Devices Perceptions of Students and Teachers at Lower
Secondary Schools in Austria. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2014 (pp. 1600-1609). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Grimus, M. (2014). Mobile Phones and Gender. Chances and Challenges in Education around the World. In:
Gender and Education from Different Angles. Jarecka-Zyluk, M.; Holz, O. (eds.) LIT Verlag Berlin-
Münster-Wien-Zürich-London. Reihe Gender-Diskussion, Issue 22, 2014, pp 184-203.
Hödl, S. (2009). mLearning im Schulunterricht: Theoretische Konzepte – Reale Bedingungen. Abschlussbericht
zum Projektpraktikum. Graz University of Technology.
Huber, S. & Ebner, M. (2013). iPad. Human Interface Guidelines for M-Learning. In Z.L. Berge & L.Y.
Muilenburg (eds.). Handbook of mobile learning. (pp. 318-328). New York: Routledge.
ISTE 2007. International Society for Technology Education. Standards for Students
http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students.
JIM 2014. Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in
Deutschland. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. http://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-
pdf14/JIM-Studie_2014.pdf
JIM 2015. Youth, Information, (Multi)-Media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12 - bis 19 -Jähriger in
Deutschland. Eds. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (mpfs)
http://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf15/JIM_2015.pdf
Johnson, D. (2010). Taming the chaos. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(3), 20–23.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903512.pdf
Keengwe J., Schnellert, G. Jonas, D. (2014). Mobile phones in education: Challenges and opportunities for
learning. In. Education and Information Technologies, Springer, June 2014, Volume 19, Issue 2,
pp 441-450. http://litr630.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/7/9/6479633/keeng.pdf
KIM 2014. Kinder , Medien Computer, Internet. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 6- bis 13-Jähriger in
Deutschland. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (Eds.) Stuttgart. http://www.mpfs.de
Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining the Effects of
Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student Learning, Communication Education, 64:3, pp 44-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727
Lemke, C. (2010). Innovation through Technology. In J. A. Bellanca &R. S. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills:
Rethinking how students learn (pp. 243–269). Solution Tree.
Lenhart, A. (2015) Teen, Social Media and Technology. Overview 2015. Pew Research Center, April 2015
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Vincent, J., Mascheroni, G. and Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net Children Go Mobile: The
UK Report. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
McCoy, B. R. (2013). Digital Distractions in the Classroom: Student Classroom Use of Digital Devices for Non-
Class Related Purposes" (2013). Faculty Publications, College of Journalism & Mass Communications.
Paper 71. Journal of Media Education, 4, 5–14. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/journalismfacpub/71
MLA (2015). Mobile Learning Academy. Five Skills Students develop by Using Smartphones.
http://mobilelearningacademy.org/2013/02/5-skills-students-develop-by-using-smartphones/
Norris, C, Hossain, A, Soloway, E. (2011). Using Smartphones as Essential Tools for Learning. Educational
Technology. May-June 2011 (pp 18-25).
http://cecs5580.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/50303907/ET %20article %20Norris %20Soloway.pdf
ÖIAT (2014) Handy in der Schule. Mit Chancen und Risiken kompetent umgehen. Saferinternet. Österreichisches
Institut für angewandte Telekommunikation https://www.bmbf.gv.at/schulen/efit21/index.html
Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2013). Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review
of the European evidence base. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU %20Kids %20Online %20reports.aspx
Prochazka, F. (2013). Austria. In: Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European
evidence base. Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (eds) http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50228/ and
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/ParticipatingCountries/austria.aspx
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., Chen, C., Zickuhr, K. (2012) How
Teens Do Research in the Digital World. Pew Internet and American Life.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/ ?
Seipold, J., Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., Döbeli-Honegger, B. (2014). Mobile learning: Strategies for planning and
implementing learning with mobile devices in secondary school contexts. In: Leask, M., Pachler, N. (Eds.):
Learning to teach using ICT in the Secondary School. Routledge, 3rd ed., London: Routledge, pp 185-04.
Streiff; A. (2010). Mobiles Lernen Handy und Smartphones im Unterricht. Educa.Guides. Schule und ICT.
https://guides.educa.ch/sites/default/files/mobileslernen_d.pdf
Links accessed 10th December 2015
