m-Learning and Social Inclusion – Focusing on the Learners and Learning

1. Our presentation m-Learning and Social Inclusion – Focusing on the Learners and Learning Jill Attewell - m-learning programme manager, LSDA Carol Savill-Smith - researcher, m-learning, LSDA

2. Background & related papers Mobile Communication Technologies for Young Adult Learning & Skills Development (m-learning) IST-2000-25270 4 previous presentations: CTAD – developing content and technology Ultralab – m-Portal and the role of computer games University of Wolverhampton – cost issues for mobile learning

3. Research Objectives • inform development of m-learning systems and learning materials • add to knowledge about the use of mobile devices, particularly in learning, which will continue to inform development post-project • in phase 1, research also informed: • development of demonstrator learning materials and systems • planning for phase 2 research and development

4. Phase 1 Research • mobile devices, development tools, software • standards, knowledge and learner modeling • voice and language technologies • users and usage • health and safety literature

5. Phone Users Survey • Would like Music (38%)and TV ( 22%) on their phones • 29% would buy a palmtop if cheaper, 16% only if a phone too, 32% expect never to buy one • 62% “not bothered” by cost of calls • 80% not worried about health & safety • Over 40% “might be interested” ina game which would help improve their reading, spelling or maths • Most can’t imagine being without a mobile

6. ContentTrials • 33 young people; 4 centres; 1 week each • intro & feedback sessions • questionnaire • video camera

7. Trials: what we learnt • Enthusiasm • Many had IT skills • Want rougher (more dramatic) content (“He wouldn’t have died if he knew his sums” ) • no control over context or young people • phone swapping and collaboration (found IR themselves and swapped files) • Reluctance to trust no charge promise

8. Mobile Phones the Literature • Phenomenon of rapid adoption and spread • Uses of mobiles and social functions of these uses • Societal impact, implications and predictions • Use in education and training • Health and safety • Business opportunities, marketing information and marketing applications

9. Ordinary & Extraordinary Use • Levels of ownership/use clearly indicate not a short term fad (Brown & Dhaliwal, 2002) • Coming of age symbol (Ling &Yttri,1999) • Instrumental use of mobiles now ordinary but important aspect of users’ lives • Use for micro-coordination (Ling & Yttri 1999) suggests in future people will be even less tolerant of inflexible education offering learning in particular places, in particular ways, involving long term fixed arrangements.

10. Social Use of Mobiles • Public performance and display including courting rituals (Lycett & Dunbar,2000; Ling,R 2001, Plant S, 2001, Katz and Aakhus,2002 ) • Sustaining/invigorating social networks, messages/sharing as gift giving rituals and symbolic/actual gestures of friendship and allegiance (Taylor and Harper 2001, Ling and Yttri1999) • Co-proximate use, sharing phones & content (Taylor&Harper)

11. Societal Impact Implications • Development of new social etiquette's e.g. for handling private calls in public (Plant S, 2001) • Home/office/street boundaries blurring (Townsend, 2000) • Increasingly flexible social arrangements(Plant S, 2001, Ling, R, and Yttri1999) • Beneficial replacement for cigarette cool and expenditure (Charlton and Bates, 2000) • Improved “emotional communications” for modern families (Cuyvers, P, 1999) • Advantages to young adults of asynchronous approach to delicate social communication(Ling and Yttri1999)

12. Negative Impact/Predictions • Antisocial use of phones and related conflict (Chambers, 1999, Bickers &Fuyuno, 2000,Plant, 2001) • Worryingdependency among some groups of users (Nicholas, D and Chivhanga, M, 2002) • Cultural disaster with meaning replaced by messages, consensus with instructions and insight with information (Myerson, 2001) • Anxiety, depression and bankruptcy due to large bills (Funston, A & MacNeill K 1999 Australia) • Bullying – not phone problem but symptom of deeper problem (Field, E 1999)

13. Education & Training • Learning “will be positively transformed” by anytime/anywhere opportunities of wireless mobile technologies (Shotsberger, P G and Vetter, R 2000) • Parts of the learning process can be supported but fragmented attention and 'bleeding edge' technology can be too frustrating (Regan, 2000) • Various applications for registration, access to student records, improving tutor/student communication and access to information.

14. Learning Theories • Most literature not focused on learning • Where theories of learning subscribed to these are not always explicitly discussed. • In some cases belief that learning should be “any time,anywhere”, “just in time” and customised or “just for me” is clearly implied • belief in the value of collaborative approaches to learning and peer-to-peer communication also found with mobiles seen as potentially valuable

15. LSDA Desk Research 3 scheduled publications: • “Young People, Mobile Phones and Learning”(synthesis of research literature and mobile phone/palmtops study) –mid-2003 • The Use of Palmtop Computers for Learning – A Review of the Literature–September 2003 • The Use of Computer/Video Games for Learning – A Review of the LiteratureOctober 2003 (LSDA/Ultralab publication)

16. research questions Survey into use of mobile phones (and palmtop computers) by young adults • How young adults use their mobile phones? • What the future take-up of new services and facilities on mobile phone and other technology devices might be? • Whether mobile phones were likely to be used beyond a short-term fad? • Would young adults be willing to use their phones for basic skills learning in literacy and numeracy?

17. Survey background Operationalisation of the survey: • 7 UK locations, 3 venues per location • December 2001 – January 2002 • 746 questionnaires for analysis

18. Calls, SMS, Games • Telephone calls – 5-60 minutes/day • SMS – 2-10 messages/day sent/received • “phones are a bit like a soap opera – you get addicted and you can’t wait for the next soap – you can’t wait till the next call”. • Games – 5-30 minutes per day

19. Literacy game • Defined as for “reading/spelling” • 49% expressed an interest • Differences were found relating to: • Gender • Age • Highest qualification level studied to

20. Reasons for use/no use • 291  260  •  General positive (“I’d have a look at it, if I liked it I’d use it” ) n = 112 •  Skills (“Because I’m not very good at spelling and I like using phones”) n = 95 •  Skills (“I’m happy with my ability to read”) n = 94 •  No interest (“I couldn’t be bothered”) n = 67

21. Numeracy game • 44% expressed an interest • Differences were found relating to: • (NOT gender) • Age • Highest qualification level studied to

22. Reasons for use/no use • 234  258  •  Skills (“My Maths is appalling”) n = 89 •  General positive (“Then I could learn without everyone else watching me, a personal way of learning”) n = 87 •  Skills good (“I’m happy with my Maths”) n = 95 •  No interest (“That sounds boring” ) n = 51

23. Our target groups • Outside of full-time education (but including part-time education (n = 478) • Age – both types of game • Qualification levels – both types of game • Not currently employed (n = 162) • Qualification levels and reading/spelling game

24. Reflections on findings • Respondents’ age and qualification levels • Reliability – consistency with findings of pilot study (n = 72, 2 locations) – 40-50% expressed an interest • Increased negativity towards numeracy game • Predominance of male games console users • Predominance of younger handheld games users (not gender) • Differences in perception of subject matter by gender?

25. Phase 2 Research • Trialling learning materials and systems

26. Planning next research

27. www.m-learning.org if you are interested in taking part in our research, please register on our website