USING MOBILE LEARNING TO TEACH READING TO NINTH-GRADE STUDENTS

USING MOBILE LEARNING TO TEACH READING

TO NINTH-GRADE STUDENTS

by

Lucianne Brown

CARLA LANE, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

CAROL BERG O’TOOLE Ph.D., J.D. Committee Member

MARGARET NUGENT, DA., Committee Member

Harry McLenighan, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

November 2008

Abstract

Portable technology devices such as the mobile phone offers

an opportunity for students to have their own computer tool

for learning and support one-to-one computer learning. This

study re-evaluated the mobile phone as a portable computer

tool and investigated how ninth-grade reading students could

improve vocabulary building. This mobile learning study

determined whether appropriately designed frontloading

techniques improved comprehension and produced a significant

difference between students who used mobile phones versus

students in a traditional non-digitized delivery. It also

examined an increase in motivation by students using mobile

phones. This study used a descriptive quantitative method to

determine how much, if any, the use of mobile phones

improved reading vocabulary for the test group, and an

exploratory qualitative method to determine whether the use

of the mobile phone created a motivational interest to

continue to study. Findings revealed an increase in

vocabulary comprehension when ninth-grade average students

used appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading

techniques delivered via mobile phone. However, there was no

significant difference between the treatment group that used

mobile phones to study vocabulary and the control group that

studied vocabulary in the traditional non-digitized method.

If more time were provided for the treatment group use of

the mobile phones, there might have been a difference. The

treatment group’s motivation increased their study of

vocabulary because of using the mobile phone for learning.

Dedication

I dedicate my dissertation in memory of my parents,

John and Anna Donatelli who made me realize the importance

of education, and my sister, Dr. Rosemary Donatelli, who was

a caring educator and professor.

I also dedicate this to all of my grandchildren, Annie,

Shianne, Jack, Nate, Grace, Caleb and my future

grandchildren. These are the digital kids extending their

personas with mobile phones and technologies now and in the

future. May they focus, care, love, and achieve their goals.

iii

Acknowledgments

First of all I would like to thank Dr. Carla Lane, my

mentor, for her expertise, encouragement and guidance

throughout this process. I would also like to thank my other

committee members, Dr. Margaret Nugent and Dr. Carol Berg

O’Toole. Dr. Nugent’s professional guidance and friendship

moved me to completion. Dr. Berg O’Toole reviewed my work

quickly and with a new professional view.

Second I would like to thank James Wen, CEO of Positive

Motion for the use of his company’s online mobile program.

Under his supervision, his programmers supported my

requests.

Third I would like to thank my work associates and in

particular Dr. Sondra Estep, my Director and friend, for

her patience and advice, and Dr. Sandra Gandy for her

support and professional editing experience during the last

stages of my doctoral work.

iv

Fourth I would like to thank my family and friends who

put up with me throughout this process. My loving daughter,

Dea, listened to me on the phone on a daily basis,

encouraged me to never stop, and sent me cards and

meaningful gifts. Tracy my daughter-in-law and owner of TC

Data Web Design, for surprising with a new design for my

research Web site. Joram, my son, lifted my spirits with

some early morning conversations. My niece, Mary Beth, sat

with me over morning coffee keeping me positive. Bob, my

brother, and Maureen, my sister-in-law, refueled me with

good food and conversation. I also would like to thank my

dear friend, Kathy Novinski, who wrote numerous letters for

me to obtain mobile phones from service providers. Special

thanks go to my husband, Steve, whose patience and love said

“GetRdone.”

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv

List of Tables ix

List of Figures x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 6

Problem Statement 12

Purpose of the Study 12

Data Analysis 14

Research Questions 14

Nature of the Study 15

Significance of the Study 16

Definition of Terms 17

Assumptions and Limitations 19

Summary 19

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 21

vi

Introduction 21

Rationale for the Research 22

Theoretical framework 24

Research Relationship to Major Literature Themes 24

Designing a Meta-Structure for mLearning 25

mLearning with PDAs 28

Widespread Use of Mobile Phones In Different Cultures.

30

Special Projects and Pilot Projects in mLearning 33

Precursors to Beginnings for mLearning Designs 38

Choice of Reading Instruction Content for Mobile Phones

40

Summary 43

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 45

Introduction 45

Statement of Problem 45

Purpose of Study 45


vii

Hypothesis and Null Hypothesis 46

Research Design 47

Materials 50

Teacher Training 51

Research Schedule 52

Sample Selection 53

Instrumentation and Data Collection 54

Validity and Reliability 55

Comparing Treatment Group and Control Group 55

Ethical Issues 57

Limitations of The Study 57

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 58

Introduction 58


Quantitative Data Collection 63

Post Vocabulary Test Quantitative Data 76

Post Survey Results Quantitative 78

Qualitative Data Collection 81

viii

Summary 88

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90

Introduction 90

Summary and Discussion of Results 90

Research Question 1 Findings 91



Assumptions and Limitations 97

Summary of Findings 99

Conclusions 99

Recommendations 100

REFERENCES 103

APPENDIX A. CURRICULAR EXAMPLES 114APPENDIX B. PARENT AND STUDENT CONSENT LETTER 115

APPENDIX C. READING TEACHER INSTRUCTIONS 116

APPENDIX D. READING STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS 117

APPENDIX E. PRE-SURVEY 118

APPENDIX F. STUDENT GUIDELINES FOR MOBILE LEARNING 121

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Behaviorist Tenets Versus Constructivist Tenets 9

Table 2. SMS & MMS Usage 2001-2004. 31

Table 3. Research Schedule 52

Table 4. ACT EXPLORE Pretest Treatment and Control Group Scores 65 Table 5. Treatment Group Pre-Survey Questions

66

Table 6. Two Way ANOVA on between Experiential and Control Groups, 78 and Pre and Post Administration Time

Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time 78

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Context meta structure 28

Figure 2. Teachers’ evaluation of general benefits of handheldcomputers 29

Figure 3. Ketai use among Japanese elementary and junior high students 32 Figure 4. Reading achievement level for adolescents 42

Figure 5. Example of vocabulary mobile phone screen 49

Figure 6. Password protected Web portal to identify specific

school and course 61

Figure 7. Vocabulary sets

62

Figure 8. Mobile Prep mobile phone view of the program 62

Figure 9. Mobile Prep mobile phone of word, review, and drill 63

Figure 10. Pre-survey results of frequency of mobile phone useper day 67

Figure 11. Pre-survey results about monthly paid SMS service

68

xii

Figure 12. Pre-survey results about frequency of SMS

68

Figure 13. Pre-survey frequency results of making phone calls per day 69

Figure 14. Pre-survey results of frequency of sending picturesper day 69

Figure 15. Pre-survey results of frequency of taking pictures per day 70

Figure 16. Pre-survey results of frequency of downloading ringtones 71

on mobile phones

Figure 17. Pre-survey results of frequency of downloading music on 71

mobile phones

Figure 18. Pre-survey results of frequency of playing games onthe mobile phone 72

Figure 19. Pre-survey results of frequency of computer use in eighth grade to 73

complete homework

Figure 20. Pre-survey frequency results of IM use on the computer ……73

Figure 21. Pre-survey frequency results of blogging on the computer 74

Figure 22. Pre-survey frequency of downloading music on a

xiii

computer 74

Figure 23. Pre-survey frequency results of e-mailing friends and family on a 75computer

Figure 24. Pre-survey motivational attitude results to study school subjects 76on a mobile phone

Figure 25. Pre-survey motivational attitude results in becoming a better 77student because of using a mobile phone

Figure 26. Pre-survey motivational attitude results to spending more time to 77study if using a mobile phone

Figure 27. Pretest and posttest means for treatment and control groups 79

Figure 28 Post-survey results of frequency of using mobile prep 80

Figure 29 Post-survey, frequency of listening to vocabulary words 80

Figure 30. Post-survey, two-thirds of the students took pictures with the mobile 81phones during the study

Figure 31. Post-survey-high percent of students respond favorably to using mobile 81

phones to study other subjects after the study was completed

xiv

Figure 32. Post-survey-two-thirds of the students thought thatthey would be 82better students if they can use mobile phones to study in school

Figure 33. Quantification of first interview question responses from treatment 83group

Figure 34. Interview question response to use own mobile phones 87

xv

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

American educators still struggle to meet the needs of

the 21st century learner and prepare students to be

successful workers in a global society. Rueff (2006) put it

well: “We don’t need chug buggy schools that may do a fine

job preparing students for lives in the 1910s and 20s. We

need schools to help students embrace the challenges ahead

of them in the 21st century” (¶ 10). To do this, the

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004), a collaborative

educational and business consortium supported by the U.S.

Department of Education, stated that all students must use

technology, advance beyond the core subject areas, and

demonstrate critical thinking skills to create new knowledge

to be successful as 21st century learners. This way of

teaching meets the requirements of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, Part D. Enhancing Education through

Technology, Section 2402, Goals (2001) that all eighth-grade

students’ need to move into high school with technology

literacy skills. This technological capability supports 1

societal growth and the possibility of obtaining a viable

working position as a citizen in the 21st century (Partnership

for 21st century skills, 2004).

In the United States, this technology typically

involves learners using desktops or laptop computers (Park &

Staresina, 2004; Prensky, 2005). In addition, the mobile

phone is a digital tool that is beginning to provide

research-based evidence to support mobile learning

(mLearning) in countries outside of the United States

(Miyaki, 2005; Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples,

2005; Okabe & Matsuda, 2006). mLearning is learning anytime

and anywhere with a mobile device, and an understanding of

its potential for learning is still being explored. Mobile

phones are simply a transitional technology vehicle that

conveys mLearning (Papert, 2004). Keegan (2005) states,

“mLearning remains on the periphery of the planning of the

wireless telecommunications operators” (p. 2). Business is

ahead of education again in this area, and care has to be

taken to insure that education takes a lead in developing

appropriately designed learning materials rather than 2

gravitating toward business applications (Divitini,

Haugalokken, et al., 2002; Trotter, 2000).

Twenty-five years ago, the personal computer provided a

hopeful vision to change K-12 education in the United

States. However, without focused educational objectives and

assessments, placing computers in computer labs down the

hall from classrooms and/or one or two computers in each

classroom had a minimal effect on improving student learning

(Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003). Computer teachers tried to

make students into mini programmers, rather than teaching

them effective strategies for learning with technology (Kay,

2007).

In addition, educators also discovered that learning

with technology can only improve learning when students have

access to computers on a regular basis (Norris, Poirot,

Soloway, & Sullivan, 2003). In the United States, K-12

public schools provide instructional computers for students

in the ratio of 4.1 to 1 and computers in classrooms at 8.0

to 1 (Park & Staresina, 2004). Prensky (2005) asked why our

country struggles to purchase more computers for learning 3

when the mobile phone is in 40% of junior high schools, 75%

of high schools, and 90% of colleges. With appropriate

educational program design, students could use this

ubiquitous tool for learning. Breck (2006) stated that

“their learning would become a seamless, ubiquitous

cognitive experience within the Web world that now awaits

education” (p. 5).

The mobile phone offers benefits for learners of all

ages as a computer learning device and supports different

learning styles (Attewell, 2005.) Because students use a

mobile phone so extensively, they view it even as a way to

extend their persona. As a result, it has the potential to

be a very motivating tool for learning. The mobile phone is

similar to a laptop, as stated by a middle school student,

“It’s part of my brain. Why would I want to leave it behind

in a computer lab?”(Chen, 2002, p. xxii). Just as the laptop

was the emerging technology a few years ago, the mobile

phone is the emerging technology presently.

Maximized learning occurs when the instructional

designer understands how learning happens (Jensen, 1998). As4

technology supports students who have difficulty in

expressing ideas in writing with a hypertext medium to

become active learners, taking more control of their own

learning, so does research-based instructional design

(Ambron, 1988; Dede, 1998). One such design uses Canfield

(1980) learning styles (LS) with mobile phone capabilities

to meet the needs of 21st century learners (Santo, 2005; Shi

& Mills, 2007).

Learning style is an individual's preferred way of

learning that provides motivation to continue learning

(Canfield, 1988). For example, recent neuroscience research

about brain studies and LS presents the argument that there

are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners (Jensen,

1998; McKenzie, 2005). This means that individuals learn

best using their personal preference (Canfield, 1988;

Gardner, 1999). Visual learners learn best through seeing,

auditory learners learn best through hearing, and

kinesthetic learners learn best through hands-on approaches

(McCarthy, 2005).

5

The basic mobile phone can accommodate visual learners

by displaying educational material that can be viewed on the

small screen (McConatha & Praul, 2007). This includes

flashcard vocabulary games and dictionary proficiency (Wen,

2006). Auditory learners receive voice-only phone language

by keying a code into the mobile phone that allows them to

listen to short English passages (Arts on call, 2006). This

feature of mobile phones also supports verbal learners.

Kinesthetic learners can enter their responses through

mobile learning software and a short messaging service

(SMS).

Even if educational programs specifically developed for

mLearning were readily available, students would have little

opportunity to use them to increase learning. For the most

part, U.S. schools demand that student phones be turned off

during class time because they interfere with the learning

environment. Policy regarding this portable computer tool

needs to be evaluated along with ways that students can use

the mobile phone for learning. This study investigates

mLearning and is important for four reasons: students know 6

how to use this tool better than most adults (Prensky,

2005); it offers scaffolding methods that have been proven

to enhance learning (Dodge, 1998); it provides the

educational arena with opportunities to maintain the pace of

computer education, rather than lagging behind the time of

real world learning (Jacobs, 2001; Nelson, 2003); and it

does not add a financial drain on school budgets because

most students can use their own phones and those who do not

are provided with a mobile phone through educational

funding. Additional funds might be needed for professional

development so that teachers can employ technology

effectively, and teams can design the curriculum.

Learning is not solely about the technology, but

without the technology the students cannot bring themselves

into the 21st century. Therefore, this study also looks into

reading, a content area that needs to be supported and can

coordinate well with these small technological devices.

According to the 2004 National Assessment of Educational

Progress, “only three out of ten eighth graders read at or

above grade level” (Guensburg, 2006, p. 35). The overlooked 7

adolescent reader in middle schools and high schools needs

to be in a school-wide program that augments student skills

in building vocabulary capacity and comprehension (Critical

issue: Monitoring the school literacy program, 2000).

Educational policy demands proven instructional

interventions both in design and teaching to improve

students’ scores, but classroom teachers still face the

challenge of how to accomplish this. Practitioners need to

determine how educational technology fits into the

educational system (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2003). Perhaps

instead of abolishing mobile phones, teachers could

introduce them as an educational medium to improve

achievement for their students (Jukes & Dosaj, 2003;

Prensky, 2005).

Using media that are more familiar to today’s students

moves educators into a 21st century sensibility that

requires a new way to think and teach. Tapscott (1998)

explained that the echo boom generation or those born from

1977 on are mobile, technology frequent users, and the first

generation to grow up digital. Being cognizant about learner8

characteristics and utilizing the technology to support

their successes is obligatory for the 21st century teacher

(Oblinger, 2006). Today’s learners demand immediacy, voice

their opinions, utilize informal learning, and possess

hypertext minds (Brown, 2006).

Educators can move forward from what they know about K-

12 students learning with computers to initiate good

instructional design techniques no matter what the latest

and greatest technology might be. Even though the reading

content area is selected for this study, the container for

learning and the integrative technological pedagogy remains

the focus of this study, based on best practices.

Background of Study

Since the establishment of European open universities

in 1970s and the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1995, E-learning

has advanced distance education further in the past 12 years

than the first 100, since distance learning began with mail

order courses in the 1870s (Keegan, 2005). Peter Dirr (1999)

states that after the first generation of correspondence 9

courses, distance education progressed into the second

generation of TV courses in the 1950s, and the third

generation of military and some online courses through the

Internet in the late 1980s. The fourth generation began in

the late 1990s with full online professional degrees at

numerous institutes of higher learning (Dirr, 1999). Web 2.0

is moving online learning to include anywhere, anytime

learning on mobile devices.

Mobile learning is a subdivision of distance education

that is still exploratory but not readily acceptable.

Computers and the Internet allow for convenient learning at

home, but online learning means more than using stationary

desktop computers. Advances continue to mLearning, which is

learning anytime and anywhere through digital mobile devices

such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs),

or MP3 players for connectivity (Naismith, Lonsdale,

Vavoula, & Sharples, 2005). Laptop computers are also a

technological vehicle for mLearning, but not considered in

this study because of their programming development based on

desktop software for the larger screen. mLearning is a 10

subdivision of E-learning, but it is currently in a period

of criticism because of the multiple functionalities of

various models of handheld devices and the lack of agreement

in designing programs for smaller screens (Ally, Fuhua,

MCGreal, & Woo, 2005). This is similar to the criticism of

distance education from the 1970s when distance

correspondence was viewed as second-rate education (Keegan,

2005).

Technological influences are changing how society

interacts and communicates. The embedding of computer

technologies in everyday devices influences how we learn and

think (Schank, 2002). Children, particularly those of high

school age, build technological fluencies because of their

continuous use of the devices. Twenty-first century

educational instructional designers need to be involved in

the developmental processes for mLearning because they are

trained with an understanding of how to use proven

instructional design (ID) models, educational pedagogies,

technology innovations, content analysis skills, and

collaboration techniques. In addition, theories of learning 11

must be considered in the process. The tenets of the

behaviorist model of learning have characterized most

perspectives of traditional educational instructional models

(Skinner, 1954; 1968). Behaviorism is a learning theory that

concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be

observed and measured and is the most pervasive approach to

teaching. Behaviorists view the learner as the receiver of

knowledge without taking into consideration the actual ways

that people learn (Good & Brophy, 1990). Lever-Duffy,

McDonald, and Mizell (2003) state that “it is a passive

process of learning, that is, one learns as a response to

the environment, not necessarily because of any specific

mental activity” (p. 14).

Constructivist pedagogical theories, on the other hand,

emphasize how students build new knowledge upon their

experiences to advance newer thinking both individually and

collaboratively. John Dewey (1933) emphasized the role of

personal experience in the learning process. His

philosophies laid the foundation for the constructivist

theory, supported in various forms known as problem-based 12

learning, project-based learning, understanding by design,

brain-based learning, learn by doing, engaged learning,

multiple intelligences learning, diverse learning style

learning, and 4MAT (Jensen, 1998; Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski,

& Rasmussen, 1995; McCarthy, 2002; McTighe & Wiggins, 1998,

1999; Torp & Sage, 2002).

All of these constructivist models are “concerned with

engaging people in meaningful and mindful learning”

(Brandon, 2004, p. 2). As a result, there is always a

continuous production of new categories, openness to new

ideas, and more than one perspective. Leading

constructivists, both past and present, John Dewey, Jean

Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Howard Gardner, Seymour Papert, and

Charles Reigeluth focus their beliefs that learning is a

unique process for each individual based on experiences

within which those mental processes occurred (Bloom, 1956;

Dewey, 1906/2002; Gagné, 1992; Gardner, 1993, 1999; 2004;

Lever-Duffy, McDonald, & Mizell, 2003; Papert, 1980; Piaget,

1979). Table 1 compares the tenets of traditional behavioral

learning with constructivism. 13

Generally speaking, technology leads users toward the

constructivist approach, involving more active involvement

and problem solving. Some theorists believe that educators

have not taken advantage of this fact. For example, Trotter

(2000) explains that over the past 100 years, most

technologies have “drifted into the margins of school

practice not disappearing, but failing to achieve the impact

for which they seemed destined” (p. 100).

Table 1 Behaviorist Tenets Versus Constructivist TenetsBehaviorism ConstructivismTeacher centered Student-centeredPassive learning Active learningMemory learning Process learningMultiple choice assessment Problem-solving assessmentLittle to no student-to-student interaction required

Collaborative team learning necessary

Note. (From Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology by B.F. Jones, G. Valdez, J. Nowakowski, and C. Rasmussen, 1995, Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Copyrighted 1995 by North Central Regional Laboratory. Adapted with permission.

This technology list includes television, radio, films,

telephones, ditto machines, copiers, overheads, and more;

however, the power of the digital technologies, could “mark

a watershed” for students and teachers in the 21st century

(Trotter, p. 100). The Internet is a major technological 14

tool to support the digital skills needed for students to

prepare to enter the workforce (Tapscott, 1998; Thornburg,

2002). What is not known is how technology shapes students’

activities and changes how they think (Papert, 1980; 2004).

The development of e-Learning courses has advanced from

inadequate reading of text on the Web to interactive

constructivist designs based on proven instructional design

strategies (Schank, 2002). mLearning is an extension of e-

Learning and should not be defined as an online course for

the mobile phone. Wagner (2007) states that “mobile learning

combines strategies, practices, tools, applications and

resources with proven advances in technology to support

‘anywhere, anytime’ learning” (¶ 6). mLearning is so new,

but users can interact with programs that are based on

proven e-learning designs that support generic learner needs

and the development of content based on ID models using the

ADDIE process. ADDIE is an instructional design model that

includes five phases; analysis, design, development,

implementation, and evaluation (Kruse, 2006).

15

Many e-Learning courses still employ the behaviorist

model, but sometimes the course content requires the

establishment of an exchange of ideas between student and

teacher, and between student and student. These activities

cannot be accommodated by the behaviorist model. Little

student-to-student interaction is required or desired with

behaviorism, and assessments are the same for all students

(Skinner, 1954). Behaviorism does not support developmental

ideas for different learning styles, multiple intelligences,

emotional intelligences, brain-based learning, or the No

Child Left Behind Act requiring all children to achieve

successfully at grade level (Gardner, 1999; 2004; Goleman,

1995; Jensen, 1998, 2001; No Child Left Behind Index, 2001).

The constructivist model, however, can positively affect

online and face-to-face course structure and teaching

(Brandon, 2004). The Internet goes beyond connectivity in

the classroom. However, due to further advances in handheld

devices such as PDAs, MP3 players, and mobile phones,

ubiquitous access provides a real 21st century learning

opportunity based on proven e-Learning practices. 16

The basic voice phone has additional advantages beyond

ubiquitous access. It can accommodate visual, verbal, and

kinesthetic learner needs in the following ways. Voice-only

phone language can be accessed by dialing a number for short

English lessons that are designed for researched-based

scaffolding, flash card vocabulary games, and dictionary

word proficiency. These features can accommodate first

auditory learners and secondly visual and kinesthetic

learners as they enter their responses through short

messaging service (SMS), known as text messaging. Guided

tours of history could support auditory learners with

cooperative grouping encouraged through engaging lectures

with mobile phone call-ins and multi-way discussions

supporting the needs of active and reflective learners.

Literature for reading comprehension can accommodate verbal

and auditory learners, while storytelling and public

speaking enhance the learner styles of kinesthetic and

verbal learners.

Advancing mLearning capabilities ubiquitously enable

communication possibilities and learning opportunities 17

beyond business training rooms and computer instructional

centers. Educators must immediately advance with mLearning

investigations just as the business world has initiated. At

present, there is limited information available on mLearning

studies. Since this field is so new, the design structure

for instruction and learning is not well developed, and

experimental pilots are in the beginning stages.

Nevertheless, because of this general testing of mostly

piloted projects in the United Kingdom, Japan, and

Australia, some guidelines for structure are under

discussion (Frohberg, 2006).

mLearning instructional designers must consider two

criteria when deciding on a curriculum content area for use

in a study. First, the area must be one that needs

improvement and, second, it must be compatible with current

mobile phone capabilities. Adolescent readers in middle

schools and high schools need to be in school-wide programs

that teach vocabulary and comprehension skills (Critical

issue: Monitoring the school literacy program, 2000; The

Knowledge Loom, 1999). Some schools have established reading18

programs for adolescent readers, but with limited success.

mLearning programs designed to teach reading skills have the

potential to address these students’ need for additional

instruction and to be a motivating factor in students’

learning.

Problem Statement

Internet and wireless capabilities are continuously

increasing, but unless students have ubiquitous access,

including in-school use, they cannot gain the full benefits

of learning with technology (Dede, Korte, Nelson, Valdez, &

Ward 2005). With well-designed instructional programs,

students could use the mobile phone as a ubiquitous tool for

learning. Handheld devices to support learning are not new

to this country. In countries outside of the United States

however, pilot projects are beginning to build interest in

the use of mobile phones as a digital tool to support

learning. Mobile phone authoring programs might use a design

process, such as ADDIE, which can be adapted for small

screens. Programs need to include analysis, development,

design, implementation, and evaluation (Kruse, 2006). 19

Effective instructional strategies can be designed for

specific content areas.

The content area of reading comprehension for ninth-

grade students was selected for this study. It is not known

whether, or to what extent, there is a significant

difference in reading vocabulary comprehension for average

ninth-grade readers when mobile phones serve as the tool for

delivery for reading in vocabulary building and

comprehension, and whether, or to what extent, average

readers are able to improve reading ability and motivation

to learn after participating in reading instruction

delivered via mobile phones.

Purpose of the Study

The focus of this study was to determine whether using

mobile phones as the medium for student learning with

appropriately designed materials could increase educational

achievement and motivation for these learners. The purpose

was to take advantage of the transparent technology fluency

in a device that is natural for high school students. Based

on the percentages of mobile phone use by high school 20

students, mobile phone technology has been integrated into

their extended communication capabilities. Learning with

technology can improve learning when students have access to

technological tools on a regular basis (Negroponte, 2006).

Teachers do not send students to the pencil lab or set up a

check out system to pass a few pencils around the room. In

educational program designs, students need a ubiquitous tool

for learning. The suggested tool in this study was the

mobile phone.

Mobile phone use as well as using the phone to learn

might be a novelty for some students. For most students, the

mobile phone is a fact of everyday life; thus learning

through the phone becomes a natural extension of their use.

These millennials, or digital natives, normally multi-task,

and most have developed expeditious thumb key speed due to

playing games on handheld game consoles like Play Station

Portables (PSP) and Game Boys. Digital natives are also

known as the Net Generation, those who were born in 1977 and

later (Prensky, 2005; Tapscott, 1998). When these students

text, their thumb keying speed surpasses the struggling 21

digital immigrants or those born before 1977. Tapscott

(1998) explains that this echo boom generation is mobile,

tech savvy, cool with chaos, and the first generation to

grow up digital.

Another consideration is that the mobile phone

restricted use in most high schools might appeal to some

learners to use this tool for learning, especially before

the newness of using mobile phones in schools quickly fades

and schools begin to change their policies. Then again,

technology changes rapidly, and mobile phones are no

different. With new gadgets, the consumer students will be

on the cutting edge to obtain these future mobile phones by

persuading their parents of their usefulness.

A content area for this study was reading, which can

easily be adapted to the present day structure and functions

of the mobile phone and addresses an identified need to

improve learning for ninth-grade high school students.

Reading is used in all content areas, and many ninth graders

do not read at grade level. This study was conducted with

average readers, defined as those students who score between22

43% and 92% on the EXPLORE Reading Achievement Exam (a

subtest of the national Academic College Test) for eighth

and ninth graders. It is hoped that vocabulary building and

comprehension scores for average ninth-grade readers will

improve significantly when they use mobile phones with

instructional programs and learning materials that are

appropriately designed and based on best practices from past

technology.

Data Analysis Conceptual Framework

The indicator of significant change was the comparison

of pretest and posttest scores as well as a comparison to

the control group. Data collection measured vocabulary score

results for the first time using the mobile phone as the

technology vehicle in comparison to traditional classroom

methods of assessment. At the end of the study, participants

were interviewed and provided suggestions and information on

how to advance this study. This data was exported and

interpreted with charts developed to represent the data

graphically.23

Research Questions

The following research questions were explored:

1. Will appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading

techniques delivered via mobile phones improve

comprehension for ninth-grade average reading

students?

2. Will there be a significant difference in


students when mobile phones serve as the tool for

delivery versus traditional non-digitized delivery?

3. Will there be an increase in motivation by students

to study vocabulary words when mobile phones are

used?

Nature of Study

Mixed methodology with an experimental design was used

for this study and included pre- and post surveys, pre- and

post vocabulary tests, and interviews. The surveys were used

to determine students’ familiarity with technology,

24

specifically their mobile phone use before and after the

study. The pretest was given before new vocabulary was

introduced in their reading lessons, and the posttest given

after the vocabulary words have been studied for meaning and

included in their reading passages. Treatment group

interviews took place after the use of the mobile phone

vocabulary learning had been completed.

All freshmen who scored between 43% and 92% on the ACT

EXPLORE reading placement test were enrolled in reading

classes. Sixty of these students were participants in the

treatment and control groups. The treatment group consisted

of 30 students taught by the same reading teacher who

volunteered her classes for this study. The treatment group

did all of their vocabulary learning and review via the

mobile phone instructionally designed digital lessons.

Existing reading materials selected for the study included

two formats: vocabulary frontloading, providing definitions

of words related to future reading selections, and self-

assessment tests. The 30 students in the control group

completed all of their vocabulary learning and review 25

without the use of the mobile phone, but they used the same

learning materials in hard copy format. Gender breakdown of

the treatment and control groups was even.

Significance of the Study

This study addressed the need to investigate how to

design opportunities for using the mobile phone as a

learning device. It re-evaluated this portable computer tool

and explored ways that students can use it for learning.

This area of research is important to the digital generation

because it has the potential to address different learning

styles, helps prepare them to become effective 21st century

citizens, and uses a communication device with which they

are comfortable and competent.

This study fulfilled the needs to advance research in

the literature of mobile learning (mLearning). This type of

learning has numerous descriptions without a universally

accepted definition. Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2005)

state that mLearning will “recognize the essential role of

26

mobility and communication in the process of learning” (p.

1). The learner is emphasized rather than the technology.

Technology has changed the culture of learning and

will continue to do so. Virtual relationships are second

nature to the digital generation, and mobile phones are

becoming transparent to their communication so it seems

logical to utilize the learning capabilities by designing

learning programs to enhance instruction.

Definition of Terms

Since the technology landscape grows rapidly, mLearning

and wireless capacities have many new acronyms which are

used in this study. The following definitions support this

study:

2G. “second-generation mobile telephone technology. 2G

cannot normally transfer data, such as e-mail or

software, other than the digital voice call itself and

other basic data such as time and date” (Wagner, 2005,

p. 47).

3G. “third-generation mobile telephone technology. The

services associated with 3G provide the ability to 27

transfer both voice data and non-voice data” (Wagner,

2005, p. 47).

4G. fourth-generation mobile telephone technology.

ADDIE. an instructional system design model that

includes five phases: analysis, design, development,

implementation, and evaluation (Kruse, 2006.

Effect Size. measure of strength of the relationship

between two variables (Clark & Mayer, 2003).

Global System for Mobile-telephones (GSM). is the most commonly

used cell phone standard in the world.

Intelligent messaging system. is also known as short

messaging system (SMS) allows communication on small

screen devices anyplace and anytime (Verisign, 2008)

ITED Norm Reference Test. is the Iowa Test of Educational

Development. “The main purpose for using a standardized

achievement battery is to gather information that can

be used to improve instruction” ( ITED, 2008,¶ 1)

IVR. Short for interactive voice response, a telephony

technology in which someone uses a touch-tone telephone

to interact with a database to acquire information from28

or enter data into the database. IVR technology does

not require human interaction over the telephone as the

user's interaction with the database is predetermined

by what the IVR system will allow the user access to

(Webopedia Encyclopedia Online, 2006).

Keitai. is a Japanese mobile phone system with the mobile

phone simply called keitai (Ito, Okabe & Matusba,

2005).

Mobile learning. “is the provision of education and

training on PDAs, smartphones, and mobile phones”

(Keegan, 2006, p. 66).

Mobile phone. cell phone

Multimedia Messaging System (MMS). enables subscribers to

compose and send messages with one or more multimedia

capabilities.

Short Message Service (SMS. a service that permits the

sending of short messages or text messages.

Smartphone. “any handheld device that integrates

personal information management and mobile phone

capabilities in the same device” (Wagner, 2005, p 48). 29

Stack. the term used in the mobile program, Mobile Prep,

to represent multiple digital flash cards in a set

(Positive Motion, 2007).

WAP mini browser. “a collection of technologies letting

you browse Websites from small screen technologies”

(Wagner, 2005, p. 48).

Assumptions and Limitations

An assumption for this study was that classrooms at the

participating high school would have wireless connectivity

with acceptable sending and receiving signals for mobile

phones to access the Internet. This supported the

downloading and uploading of the application materials. A

second assumption for this study was that all participants

were average readers based on the ACT EXPLORE reading

placement test.

Limitations included mobile phone use and

generalization of the results to other content areas. Many

schools adopted the "use it during school—you lose it"

policy (Lett, 2004, p. 1), and the participating school was 30

no exception. Students used mobile phones in schools only

during the reading modules tested, and they were not used in

other classes or study halls. The mobile phones used in the

study remained in the classroom. Because of this mobile

phone restricted time use, results did not include the

anytime, anywhere feature of this technology tool. Results

were based on mobile phone time used only in the classroom.

This limited the analysis of motivational usage and possible

increase of study time for improved educational achievement.

The results of this study were not applied to any other

content area, but rather confined to reading comprehension

achievement. The results were also confined to high school

students and average reading students. Students who were

considered struggling readers could not be included in this

study because of school restrictions.

Summary

Constructivist pedagogy supported this mLearning study

using mobile phones as the technological tool for ninth-

grade students to explore the possibility of improving 31

vocabulary knowledge and an increase in reading

comprehension. Since students have this tool readily

available, according to statistics, accessibility for

technology use was not an issue. Vocabulary frontloading

instruction was delivered through text and voice messages.

Schank (2002), a leading constructivist known for his learn-

by-doing approach to education and business states, “our

education system has reduced most intelligent inquiry and

argumentation into test preparation. The educational model

was set up in 1892 and still remains the same today.

Education should be about preparation for living in today’s

world” (p. 15). This study addressed the need to prepare

students to learn using today’s technology.

32

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Educators today face a significant and spiraling gap

between students’ learning with technology and technology

capacity in the classroom (Park & Starsina, 2004). This gap

has notable dimensions. One of these dimensions is the rapid

growth in Internet technologies, software, and hardware. It

is increasingly difficult for teachers and students to

purchase and master new tools (Williams, 2006). When today’s

teachers went to high school, the “blackboard” was something

people wrote on with chalk; now “Blackboard” is an

innovative online learning and classroom software system

that allows students and faculty to communicate and interact

in ways that were never before possible. Beyond this, the

21st century workforce continues to extend the use of the

Internet by supporting the use of handheld devices such as

Blackberries, PDAs, pocket PCs, and mobile phones to conduct

mobile learning (mLearning). mLearning can be defined as

learning anywhere and anytime with a mobile device

(Attewell, 2005). This use of mobile phones is new, and an 33

understanding of its potential for learning is still

exploratory. Keegan (2005) states, “mLearning remains on the

periphery of the planning of the wireless telecommunications

operators” (p. 2).

The key components for experiential learning in

mLearning includes being cognizant of the technologies that

are transparent in the hands of the younger generation, and

being willing and equipped to develop research supported

learning materials for these technologies. This review of

the literature provides the theoretical framework for the

study, examines recent research on mLearning, and explores

vocabulary instruction that is compatible with the

technology.

Rationale for the Research

The technological explosion is changing available modes

for learning at an incomprehensible pace. Internet advances

supported by wireless networks and increased connection

speeds of the past 10 years are forcing new configurations

for education, including possibilities for distance

learning, the place for new learning environments to develop34

(McConatha & Paul, 2007). These changes in instructional

possibilities encourage educators, parents, and community

members to rethink educational organization and delivery

(Virtual School Forum, 2002). Dede et al. (2005) holds “A

primary challenge for U.S. education is to transform

children’s learning processes in and out of school and to

engage student interest in gaining 21st century skills and

knowledge” (p. 3).

Before the emergence of the Internet, American public

and private schools utilized distance learning through the

technologies of satellite, microwave, and broadcast

television (NEA, 2002; Robyler, 1999). The Internet now

dominates distance learning and pushes virtual learning to a

new level (Berman & Tinker, 1997; Maeroff, 2003). E-learning

is one of the fastest growing distance learning technologies

to emerge in the past 10 years (Blomeyer, 2001). The

escalations of Internet multimedia capabilities along with

increased speed in technological connectivity in more

schools and homes extends students’ educational

35

opportunities outside the geographical community in which

they live (NEA, 2002).

According to Zucker, Kozma, Yarnall, and Marder (2003),

virtual learning is needed in this digital age because it is

“using teaching strategies that build on the learning styles

of young people growing up in a media-intensive world” and

“involving excellent instructors to employ pedagogical

strategies difficult to use in traditional classroom

settings” (p. vii). Students’ educational opportunities can

be expanded by providing alternate opportunities to support

their learning and exchange of ideas (McConatha & Paul,

2007).

Schools have experimented with one computer in the

classroom, computer labs down the hall, and laptop portable

computer carts to provide one-to-one, hands-on computing

time for each student in the classroom. The state of Maine

provided laptops for all students in the seventh and eighth

grades and claimed that it has changed the way teachers look

at instruction and students engage in learning, producing

improved products (Polster, 2003). Irving Independent School36

District in north Texas, Urban School in San Francisco, and

Peck School in Morristown, New Jersey also support

successful one-to-one laptop programs (Levin, 2005-2006;

Livingston, 2005-2006; Owen, Farsii, Knezek, & Christensen,

2005-2006).

The “One Laptop per Child” program is designing a $100

laptop for the education of the world’s children who are

part of the digital divide (Negroponte, 2006). These

examples all support research, stating that when the tools

are in the hands of the students on a regular basis,

teaching with technology can improve learning in general.

Handheld devices like mobile phones along with wireless

access also can escalate possibilities for learners.

Learning does not have to remain in the classroom, but can

continue online in the hand of the learners. Handheld

digital technologies are beginning to offer the wireless

generation opportunities to change learning in K-12

classrooms. Recent research and literature on the use of

handheld digital technologies other than mobile phones is

37

increasing, but mobile phone learning research itself is

limited (Ally et al, 2005; Froberg, 2006).

Theoretical Framework

Constructivism supports mLearning just as it does E-

learning. Constructivism is student centered with the role

of the learner changing from receivers of knowledge to

explorers and producers of knowledge and with students

collaboratively managing their own learning. Supportive

ideas found in constructivist models mean that there is

always a continuous production of new categories, openness

to new ideas, and more than one perspective. This view of

learning supports the interactive needs of the digital

generation, as they continually need to build new knowledge

and skills appropriate for cultural awareness and social

responsibility in the 21st century (enGauge, 2000; Tapscott,

1998).

Research Relationship to Major Literature Themes

38

The purpose of this literature review is to discuss key

issues in mLearning, reading research, and instructional

design for mobile phone use. It is organized around six

topics:

1. designing a meta-structure for mLearning

2. results of mLearning using PDAs

3. widespread use of the mobile phone in different

cultures,

4. special projects and pilots for mLearning,

5. precursors to beginnings for mLearning designs

6. selecting reading instruction as the content area

for the study

39

Designing a Meta-Structure for mLearning

MLearning is so recent that the structure of how to

design learning with these devices is not well developed.

Instructional design is essential for this research, but

there is no agreed upon design for mlearning for mobile

phones. However, researchers have piloted projects in other

countries, and these provide some guidelines and ideas for

discussion.

Frohberg (2006) states that mLearning needs a meta-

structure to permit systematic analysis. Presently several

structures have been proposed but the debate is not settled.

Naismith et al. (2005) divided their literature review in

mLearning on a pedagogical basis with the following proposed

categories: behaviorist, constructivist, situated,

collaborative, informal and lifelong, and learning and

teaching support.

There is some attempt at reducing Web content to make

it fit on smaller devices. Frohberg (2006) objects to this

practice based on three perceived weaknesses: shifting

pedagogical focus in the project; overlapping of pedagogical40

implementation from the beginning; and lack of direction for

categories. The first weakness explains that small changes

in the design of projects might shift the project into

another pedagogical category. A situated learning example

can take place in a museum and in real time, but the

assessment plan changes to a didactic behaviorist

traditional format.

Second, from the beginning, projects can overlap into

more than one pedagogical framework. An example might use

the behaviorist traditional questionnaire, but allow

questions to be answered collaboratively between student

teams. When this is the case, recommendations and specific

guidelines for design would be difficult to formulate.

Third, the categories do not provide direction because

of their static placement and their lack of stages of

development without link to other pedagogies. The

pedagogical prescriptives are not necessarily linear, but

rather designed within a hypertext design, crossing over

several pedagogies to improve learning.

41

Integrated educational technology that has been well-

designed supports improved student learning. The CEO Forum

on Education and Technology (2001) reports evidence from

their case studies in West Virginia; student achievement

increases in basic skills areas. “Eleven percent of the gain

directly correlates to the Basic Skills/computer education

technology 10 years ago” (p. 4). It also improves student

self-assessment and motivation. Technology with

instructionally designed modules, based on curriculum and

clear objectives, supports increased learning.

Frohberg (2006) proposes a meta-structure based on

categories of context rather than pedagogy: “The five

categories are free, formalized, digital, physical, and

informal contexts” (p. 2). Free context means that the

learner is without context for the learning activity.

Examples include technology driven application for online

learning on mobile devices such as AvantGo, Macromedia, and

e-tutor, and organizational applications such as “calendar,

learning games, quizzes, diary, calculator, and scheduler”

(Frohberg, 2006, p. 3). 42

Formalized context means a behaviorist broadcast of

learning to many with students channeling in responses using

systems such as ActiveClass. Here the teacher can propose a

short answer or multiple-choice question and students reply.

Digital context on a mobile device is a participatory

simulation where the learner can like a simulation but in

this way, the learner is out away from the computer screen

and carrying out the simulation in a “tangible world” (p. 4)

where interaction takes place. Students become part of the

simulation itself, called participatory simulations. An

example of programs for handhelds other than mobile phones

is Cooties™, which allows students to beam simulated viruses

to experience rapid multiplication patterns and understand

how treatment can be effective (GoKnow, 2006).

Frohberg (2006) explains: “Physical Context is

dedicated to situated, cooperative, and explorative learning

in a real environment” (p. 5). Mobile learning projects that

take place in physical context unite digital interaction

with the environment of the learner in a way that

contributes to an active role in learning. One example is 43

http://www.goknow.com/Products/Cooties/

the Tate’s Modern Multimedia Tour Pilots where the learner

can ask more questions, take notes, and take pictures.

Another example is the Arts on Call, where mobile phones

users can call in, type in a code, and listen to the artist

explain the art form that the student is observing (Arts on

Call, 2006).

Informal context is any activity pursuing understanding

of an area in life that could assist with a behavioral

change such as weight management or exercise relevance for

health (Learning Mobile Author, 2008). This can be looked on

as mobile support, such as assistance for a nurse

probationer producing video clips in the field.

Frohberg’s (2006) meta-structure based on context leads

to higher levels of student involvement, and indicates a

constructivist stance in support of online engaged learning.

Figure 1 illustrates that a graduated higher complex context

is learner centered.

44

Figure 1. Context meta-structure. From Mobile Learning is Coming of Age: What We Have and Still Miss. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Darmstadt, DELFI(4 )p. 6.

mLearning with PDAs

Mobile learning evolved from Palm, the original PDA

(Palm Education Pioneer Program, 2002). The Palm company

distributed these handheld devices, which provided an

educational opportunity. There are only a few pilot projects

to review on PDAs, but best practices as determined by the

Palm projects assist in future development for mobile phone

learning instructional design.

Palm initiated a grant program in 2001 and trained

educational professionals, mainly in K-12, to become

trainers of how to use this device and integrate it into the

school curricula. Palm Pioneers Program hired SRI

45

International to complete the research of The Palm™

Education Pioneer (PEP) programs for 102 grant teachers in

K-12 schools in 2001 (Vahey & Crawford, 2002). These

innovative teachers designed the instructional use of the

handhelds within their own classes. Figure 2 depicts general

results from the research.

Approximately 90% of PEP teachers felt that handhelds

were an effective instructional tool and had the potential

for a positive impact on students' learning. (Vahey &

Crawford, 2002). Ninety-two percent stated that the

handhelds had a positive effect on students’ learning. Each

classroom had a set of handhelds supporting one-to-one

computing goals of today’s classrooms. Give them the tools

and the digital students will use them (Negroponte, 2006).

46

Figure 2. Teachers' evaluation of general benefits of handheldcomputers. From Palm Education Pioneers Final Report (2002, p. 8) by P.Vahey and V. Crawford. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Copyright 2002 Palm, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Teachers in the study were from all grade levels and

subjects and had different teaching styles. The handhelds

were more compatible with science subjects because probes

could be connected to the handheld device (Caughlin &

Vincent, 2003). Other subject area software was developed

later.

Since this final research report, Palm™ handheld

success stories have been continually posted on their Web

47

site, but this final report really provided qualitative

research in support of additional uses for these handhelds

that contribute to an awareness of how mLearning can be

designed (Vahey & Crawford, 2002).

Both Soloway and Norris have conducted pilot studies

using Palm handheld devices since 1996 (Norris & Soloway,

2003; Soloway, 2001). As co-founders of GoKnow Learning,

they presented scientifically-based research (SBR) that

“demonstrates that handheld computer use in K-12 classrooms

leads to student achievement gains” (p. ). Learning

Environment ™, a GoKnow Learning handheld product, allows

students to illustrate their understanding of science

concepts and problems. This is an example of educators who

developed learning objects within a product they produced to

support improved student learning.

Widespread Use of Mobile Phones in Different Cultures

There is ample research and data to support the use of

mobile phones for this study and that lead to an

understanding of how widespread mobile phone use is and how 48

adolescents use it. The ubiquitous nature of mobile phones

is reflected by the current record of 2.1 billion users, far

surpassing the number of Internet users, 700 million. By

2010, the number of projected users will climb to four

billion (Kirkpatrick, 2006, ¶ 1). This projection is based

on the steady growth of the number of users—91 million in

1995, 954 million in 2001, and 2 billion in 2005 (Downing,

2005; Kassesniemi, 2003; Kirkpatick, 2006). The Nordic

countries, Japan, China, Australia, Korea, and the United

Kingdom (UK) profess ubiquitous mobile phone use. Even

though mobile phone use in the United States is moving at a

slower pace than other countries, it is also increasing.

The Nordic countries showed a rapid increase in mobile

phone output since 2000. The data collection was 50 to 100%

increase in output for mobile phone use for Denmark,

Finland, Iceland, and Norway from 2000 to 2004, and a 40%

increase for Sweden from 2001 to 2004.

Mobile phone use can be examined closer by looking at

specific features of the communication device. Figures are

available for the Nordic countries, as shown in Table 2. 49

There is a high percentage of SMS use. MMS use is increasing

at a slower rate because not all phones have this feature,

or if they do, not all users are willing to pay for this

service. An interesting anecdote explains how this all might

have started. A Nokia engineering student accidentally sent

the first text message. Although it was considered not very

valuable by the telecommunication systems, Agar (2003)

states that the users discovered “the power of text” (p.

177). By 2004, 100% of Norwegian teenagers from 16-19 years

old had mobile phones and were sending an average of eight

SMS per day (Turrettini, 2004).

Table 2. SMS & MMS Usage 2001-2004.

Note. From Nordic Information Society Statistics (2005, p. 8) Copenhagen:Nordic Council of Ministers. Reprinted with permission.

50

Japanese young adults and teenagers were the first to

be called the thumb culture, owing mainly to their interaction

with mobile phones, or Keitai. Based on their nationwide

survey, Okabe and Matsuda (2006) concluded that before the

introduction of the mobile phone in Japan in 1990, young

adults and teenagers lived an isolated life predicated on

their culture. That is hardly the case now. According to

Ito, Okabe, and Matsuda (2005),

A keitai is not so much about a new technical capability or freedom of motion but about a snug and intimate technosocial tethering, a personal device supporting communication that are a constant, lightweight and mundane presence in everyday life. (p. 1)

Figure 3 shows Keitai use for students from fifth grade to

junior high (10-14 years old). Further survey questions

indicate that among Japanese 10-14 years old with Keitai,

emergency use is the highest overall for both genders, SMS

for girls is second, and chatting with friends for girls is

third. Boys’ Internet usage is the highest in junior high.

51

Figure 3. Keitai use among Japanese elementary and junior highstudents. From Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (2005, p. 282). By Y. Miyaki. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted with permission. Copyright MIT Press.

Similar rapid growth in mobile phone use is evident in

other Asian countries. Wagner (2005) points out: “One

interesting statistic notes that Chinese mobile phone users

sent 217.76 billion short messages in 2004, up 58.8 percent

from the previous year” (p. 8). By July 2006, China reached

434 million mobile phone users, which is double the number

in the United States (Wagner, 2005).

In 2004, 66% of Americans had mobile phones and by

2006, there were 195 million mobile phones in the United

States (Rainie & Keeter, 2006). According to Lenhart,

52

Madden, and Hitlin (2005), 45% of teenagers from 12 to 17

years old had mobile phones and 33% were using SMS. The

projected increase in 2006 is 50% of teenagers having mobile

phones and over 51% using SMS. SMS, however, is utilized by

teenagers world wide (Grinter & Eldridge, 2001; Kasesniemi &

Rautianinen, 2002). According to Evenson (2004),

The technology changes society and the pattern of how we interact with one another. If you ask a young personhow many friends he has, the answer may be one hundred.It is the number he has in his address book in his phone. (¶ 10)

Special Projects and Pilot Studies in mLearning

The widespread use of mobile phones has resulted in

innovative uses of mobile phones but not necessarily ones

that are appropriate practices for learning (Naismith et

al., 2005). Research investigations in mLearning are in a

developmental stage, with the best examples stemming from

mLearning conference proceedings beginning in 2001 (From e-

learning to m-learning, 2001). This review consists of some

highlighted examples in the field that assisted with the

design of this study.53

Attewell and Savill-Smith (2004) led the pan-European

research and development of an mLearning project sponsored

by the Learning and Skills Development Agency and the

European Union’s Information Technologies together in

partnership with Cambridge Training and Development and

Ultralab at Anglia Polytechnical University, both in the UK,

the University of Salerna in Italy, and the E-learning

company in Lecando, Sweden. Presently this is one of the

most advanced studies in large-scale trials in mLearning

(Attewell, 2005). Approximately 150 subjects from 16 to 24

year olds who were not in school and who did not find

learning meaningful in their lives were members of the study

group. Eighty percent of participants were unemployed.

Two objectives for the study were to create a desire to

learn and to improve literacy and numeracy. This project

used mobile phones rather than other handheld devices that

have been selected for most mLearning research. Mentors were

trained face-to-face, through the mportal, and through the

development of training manuals in three languages. Mentors

54

assisted study groups to be sure that they understood the

research and the learning materials.

The design was set up in phases, from 2001 to 2004.

Phase I began with the researchers developing and

administering a survey to determine attitudes towards mobile

phones. Additional goals for the first year were to design

the infrastructure of the mportal to enable downloading of

mLearning technologies, develop generic materials for all

mobile devices, and develop specific versions of the

materials for specific mobile devices.

Research activities for Phase II from 2003 to 2004

included delivering learning materials through mportals,

mentor-student support, individual learning, and

collaborative learning. The password mportal contained the

following features: a mini-Web page builder tool for

students to build and edit their mini-Web pages for viewing

on mobile devices and accessible from a desktop computer; a

learning management system that includes a repository of

online materials and learning tracking system; communication

capabilities for collaborative activities; Web resource 55

links; and help guides to the system (Learning Skills

Development Agency, 2005).

Some of the learning materials produced included an SMS

quiz engine in which participants could text in their

answers after reading a hard copy of a multiple-choice test

question, verify the results, and send themselves

suggestions for improvement, a form of self-assessment. The

SMS quiz engine is functional on any phone, and supportive

for blended learning environments. The Italian mentors used

the SMS quiz engine with their study group for language

learning and created 100 language concepts (Attewell, 2005).

Results indicated that immediate feedback on tests can

support reflective review within a scaffolding format.

Thornton and Houser (2005) suggest that “students of a

foreign language should review words at spaced intervals,

and in a variety of contexts, to facilitate long term memory

storage” (p. 4). Such research demonstrates that mLearning

can support both intentional learning and incidental

learning.

56

During Phase II, 90 mobile devices were made available

for the participants in mLearning pilots involving more than

SMS. The smartphones, O² XDA IIs and Sony Ericsson, P800 or

P900 were used. The O² XDA IIs is a hybrid PDA/phone device

running Pocket PC platform with improved Web browsing and

Flash support. The Pocket PC PDA/phone device allowed

participants to test voice and games. Collaborative learning

activities used the Sony camera phones (Learning Skills

Development Agency, 2005). Study groups were 10 to 20

participants and lasted between 3 and 7 weeks. Research

instruments were pre- and post questionnaires, and post

interview questions for participants and mentors, all of

which were posted directly to the mportal.

Results for learners indicated that a quick response

between mentor and learner assists the learner and “can help

deliver and support literacy, numeracy and language

learning” (Attewell, 2005, p. 2). In addition to discrete

learning in literacy, the researchers found that use of the

mobile phone raises self-confidence, self-esteem, and can

make learning fun (Attewell, 2005).57

The results from this study have implications for

developers of research projects using mLearning. First,

creating generic learning materials for all mobile phones is

not effective (Attewell, 2005; Learning Skills Development

Agency, 2005; Traxler & Kukulska-Hulme, 2005). The designed

materials need to be specific to the capabilities of the

phones being used. This is because of different operating

systems for mobile phones. In the United States, carriers

control proprietary features without permitting other

carriers to exchange information with each other. One

company attempting to bridge this gap is Sybase iAnywhere

that boasts interoperability communication between carriers,

but for a very high price. Educational learning is not part

of their vision (Sybase.com, 2008).

Second, developers should utilize a blended learning

approach. Finally, researchers must maintain contextual

environments for learning and at the same time attempt to

develop standards for research with evolving technologies

(Attewell, 2005).

58

Further examples of mLearning research are not as well

developed as this first study, but they still contribute

different ideas to this growing field. They include SMS in

an economics class, SMS intelligent messaging system between

students and lecturers, an inquiry-learning example, and

research from Palm pilot grants.

In the first example, an economics class used SMS

messaging to promote marketing and economic models (Cheung,

2004). The format design of blended learning combined face-

to-face, team role-playing activities; computer input by

individual members of the team; and delivery of responses to

teams to interact in this economic simulation. The SMS with

spreadsheet produced the opportunity to work in a wireless

environment without the expense of networking. Results

indicated not only that time was saved, but also automation

of individual feedback on quizzes led to an increase in

iterative assessment by the students.

Another research project involved Moop, an inquiry-

learning environment and collaborative exchange of ideas.

Matilla and Fordell (2005) stated that “Moop is an 59

interactive mLearning environment for situations” where

Finnish primary school pupils, aged 10-12 years old, “make

use of a mobile phone to analyze their surroundings and to

communicate within groups” (p. 1). The students were in

control of collecting observations from surroundings outside

the classroom during school time and in leisure time.

Two main components of this project were the learning

process and the Moop learning environment. The learning

process was a knowledge-building process, including inquiry

and analysis (Matilla & Fordell, 2005). In this

constructivist environment, students were not memorizing

facts, but rather problem solving in a collaborative

environment. To support this learning process, the Moop

learning environment consisted of tools for observation

including camera, video, voice recorder in the mobile phone,

GPS location technology, push-to-talk function over the

phone, phone as a user-designed interface, and Moop network

for delivery (Matilla & Fordell, 2005). The pilot project

began with 25 students in one class making over 360

observations for practice. Then three classes of 20 students60

each used the Moop environment to investigate different

topics related to the curriculum. Mistakes were allowed and

were part of the learning, which supported a learner-

centered technology environment.

Precursors to Beginnings for mLearning Designs

The design and format of these mLearning studies, along

with The Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM),

the standardized repository for learning objects, Learning

Management Systems (LMS), logical containers to assist with

delivery, and learner-centered teaching based on

constructivist pedagogy, present some guidelines for

mLearning development. In addition to these educational

concepts, there is a sampling of a few ideas implemented by

business. However, these are not readily accessible to

educators. Perhaps lack of funding, time focused on

maintaining networks, and assessment and evaluation

improvements detain educational researchers from mLearning

development. Viewing a few examples in business might move

education forward, so that business does not set the 61

standards without professional educational direction.

Moreover, these ideas lend support for this study.

EJ4, whose logo means “Just as needed, Just enough,

Just in time, Just right,” develops 30 second to 10 minute

streaming video learning materials for handheld devices such

as cell phones and PDAs (ej4, 2005, ¶ 1). Their focus is to

assist companies to increase sales, save money on training,

and provide convenient training materials for performance

support anytime and anywhere. They do attempt to follow e-

Learning best practices, but perhaps there is a

misconception of engagement. ej4 (2006) states that “One of

the biggest challenges in self-study e-Learning continues to

be the problem of engaging the learner…It is now possible to

take fantastic instructors or celebrities and put them

online” (p. 2). ej4 supports companies such as Pepsi Cola

and Agilla Systems with satisfactory results, demonstrating

the business application of the materials.

One of the leading entertainment industries,

television, has networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX

competing for multi-platform development and streaming of 62

shows online and multiple devices called the “third screen”

(Ulrich, 2006, p. 48). Leading companies that develop mobile

solutions “take the station’s existing content and reformat

it based upon each wireless carrier’s tech specs” (Ulrich,

2006, p. 48). For example, Verizon uses WAP, and Sprint uses

JAVA. At this time, mobile phones cannot pick up all digital

transmissions for long periods of time, but these three

companies have the lead in developing the best of what is

available: Local Solutions Network (LSN) distributes free

delivery; News Over Wireless (NOW) a subdivision of Capitol

Broadcasting CO’s New Media Group; and Weather News Inc.

(WNI), a subdivision of Weathernews Americas, Incorporate.

“NOW and WNI are paid services with the station receiving a

share of the subscription fee, which can range from $2.99 to

$4.99 per month” (Ulrich, 2006, p. 48). The company’s

projection indicates that these small device productions are

going to grow, especially if educational applications are

pursued.

Another area that is worthy of notice is the SMS free

broadcasting options. Voting for a popular reality TV show, 63

voting on current affairs, and checking due dates for bills

are some of the SMS Web service functions. Using this same

technology, some universities push class information and

questions to students (Soon & Sugden, 2003). Best practice

solutions of SMS push capabilities demonstrate how

interactive learning opportunities for students can produce

the best results. Research studies are currently limited at

creating learning objects for SMS.

Choice of Reading Instruction as Content for Mobile Phones

The subject area for this research is vocabulary

recognition and understanding that can lead to an

improvement in reading comprehension. After third grade,

reading is usually not taught as a subject, but increased

use of content area textbooks means that students must use

reading to learn new concepts. The vocabulary and

comprehension levels of content area texts increase

significantly as students move through middle school and

high school. After the fourth-grade slump, reading scores

generally decrease from 5th grade on up (Grigg, Donahue, & 64

Dion 2005). Reading strategies for primary learners—phonemic

awareness, vocabulary development and building, phonics,

decoding strategies, comprehension strategies (Education

Commission of the States, 2004) are not necessarily

successful for adolescent readers (Adolescent Literacy

Research Informing Practice: A Series of Workshops, 2002).

Successful reading across the curriculum requires

comprehension and vocabulary strategies for content area

texts and for older readers.

There is a recognized need for middle schools and high

schools to set up school-wide programs that teach students

skills in comprehension. Area schools have struggled to

select management tools to diagnose student data and

products, prescribe, and report. A diagnose/prescribe format

must be established to determine appropriate techniques

needed to accommodate learners.

Biancarosa and Snow (2004) suggest that reading

programs for adolescent readers need to include “direct,

explicit comprehension instruction, which is instruction in

the strategies and processes that proficient readers use to 65

understand what they read, including summarizing, keeping

track of one’s own understanding, and a host of other

practices” and programs need “a technology component, which

includes technology as a tool for and a topic of literacy

instruction” (¶ 10).

Programs for adolescent readers have been shown to be

effective in addressing student achievement. For example,

Thurgood Marshall Academic High School developed a reading

course for freshman called Academic Literacy based on

metacognitive skills and personable reading materials.

Students were tested with the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP)

test, developed by Touchstone Applied Science Associates and

a student survey (Cziko, 1998). After one year, scores

improved equivalent to two years of growth and improved

readers’ attitudes. Improvement is still needed in building

background knowledge, fluency, vocabulary, and self-

assessments (Cziko, 1998).

An alternative to programs for students is to train

content area teachers in appropriate comprehension and

vocabulary strategies. High school teachers are considered 66

to be content matter experts; however, in some states they

are required to take only one course in reading for high

school students. In others, no classes in reading are

required at all. Reading strategies can easily be combined

with content area subjects to increase students’

comprehension and reading skill in other subjects as well.

This alternative was successful in one school.

Concerned that 68% of their adolescent readers were scoring

below average in reading (see Figure 4), a school in

Beaverton, Oregon hired reading specialists to coach

teachers in content subject areas. Reading specialists might

work with groups of students who are struggling with

reading. In this case, they worked only with teachers over a

period of 3 weeks, demonstrating ways to teach reading

strategies, and visiting the classroom to see how the

implementation was working.

67

Figure 4. Reading achievement level for adolescents. From “WhyJohnny Can’t Read” (2006). by C. Guensberg. Edutopia 2(1), p. 36. Reprinted with permission.

Guensberg (2006) suggests the following research-based

adolescent reading comprehension strategies:

1. vocabulary frontloading

2. brainstorming prior knowledge

3. reading aloud/think aloud

4. structured note taking

5. leveling questioning

6. Inference

7. self-selected reading

8. group discussion (p. 39)

68

Vocabulary frontloading, the strategy chosen for this

study, is a technique that provides definitions for

appropriate vocabulary words taken from specific reading

selections that students will read soon. Vocabulary is

important for improving comprehension, but theories vary on

how best to build vocabulary capacity (Rubenstein, 2006).

Summary

This study fulfills the need to advance research in

mLearning in reading for adolescents. Literature cited

indicates the appropriate use of mobile phones for this type

of research and demonstrates the need to design mobile phone

research for the digital generation by developing compatible

learning materials and formats. Digital natives are grasping

learning for themselves in a different manner than

previously, proving that the interactive capabilities of

these new technologies far surpass all of the previous

technologies. Although multimedia environments surround

digital learners, some still struggle with achieving success

in reading and other basic learning requirements. Literature69

discussed here confirms the need for additional support for

adolescent readers.

This study uses mobile phones as the transparent

technology tool to investigate whether ninth-graders’

vocabulary learning can improve. Even though the mobile

phone is the tool of choice in this study, the emphasis is

on students as the center of learning.

Whether a context-based structure, pedagogically-based

structure, or a combination of both should direct and guide

research in the development of mLearning still remains a

question. Even though this study, or any single study,

cannot finalize this decision, it contributes to the growing

body of literature and could draw attention to this area of

research. mLearning requires that there be higher quality

studies that meet the standards of scientifically based

research (Faux, McFarlane, Roche, & Facer, 2005).

70

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Although 75% of American high school students use

mobile phones for communication with friends and family,

most schools prohibit the use of mobile phones within the

educational arena (Prensky, 2005). Moreover, adolescent

readers frequently have difficulty with reading. According

to the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress,

“only three out of ten eighth graders read at or above grade

level” (Guensburg, 2006, p. 35). Some schools have

established reading programs for the adolescent reader, but

with limited success. Perhaps instead of abolishing mobile

phones, educators could introduce them as an educational

tool that might improve reading skills for these “digital

natives” (Jukes & Dosaj, 2003; Prensky, 2005).

Statement of the Problem

It is not known whether, or to what extent, there is a

significant difference in reading comprehension for average

ninth-grade readers when mobile phones serve as the tool for71

delivery of vocabulary terms using frontloading technique

and whether, or to what extent, average readers will be

successfully motivated to study vocabulary words using

mobile phones.

Purpose of the Study

This study (a) determined whether average readers were

successful at learning vocabulary using mobile phones with

appropriately designed reading materials for this small

screen device, and (b) projected future learning objects in

content areas designed for mobile phones as a basis to

advance educational opportunities for adolescent learners.

Research Questions

The following research questions were explored:




students?

72







used?

Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses

1. If appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading

strategies were delivered via mobile phones, then

vocabulary learning would improve for ninth-grade

students. The null hypothesis is if appropriately

designed vocabulary frontloading strategies were

delivered via mobile phones then vocabulary learning

would not improve for ninth-grade readers.

2. If average ninth-grade readers used appropriately

designed vocabulary frontloading strategies

delivered via mobile phones, there was a significant

difference for those who used the traditional non-73

digital method for delivery. The null hypothesis

states that the there was not a significant

difference in learning for average ninth-grade

reading students via mobile phone delivery versus

traditional delivery.

3. If mobile phones were used for delivery for studying

vocabulary for average ninth-grade readers, then

their motivation for learning would increase. The

null hypothesis stated that if mobile phones were

used for delivery for studying vocabulary for

average ninth-grade readers, then their motivation

would not increase.

Research Design

This study used mixed methodology with experimental

design to determine whether the use of vocabulary

frontloading, auditory reading passages, and self-assessment

tests designed according to approved ID for mobile phone

screens improved vocabulary comprehension for the test

group, and exploratory qualitative methods to determine 74

whether the use of mobile phones created motivational

interest to learn with this tool. Educational studies have

used mixed methodologies to improve educational practices

(Creswell, 2003; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The design was

based on constructivist theories of learning, and the

technology capabilities accommodated various styles of

learners.

The treatment group received and responded with the

reading materials via mobile phones. The control group

received and responded with the reading materials in a

traditional classroom format without mobile phones. Three

reading strategies for adolescent readers were

implemented: vocabulary frontloading, vocabulary practice

quizzes, and auditory vocabulary words and reading

passages. Vocabulary frontloading provided students with

critical and difficult vocabulary before reading prepared

passages and books. Single and double root words from

Greek and Latin vocabulary were chosen for the development

of vocabulary cards. Students could choose to read the

cards or hear passages and vocabulary words read for them.75

In this study, the participating school district’s

curriculum design team had previously researched reading

strategies and designed the district’s freshman reading

program using the ADDIE instructional design process. The

district assessed their students’ needs based on low

reading scores, designed and developed the program with

reading consultants, implemented the program for three

years, and evaluated the program using a standardized

national test and teacher interviews. This reading

standards-based program was in its third year.

Learning materials were uploaded to a protected Web

site that provided: mobile materials for vocabulary

frontloading, assessment quizzes, and codes to access

interactive voice recognition of vocabulary words and

reading passages that could be heard on the mobile phone.

Pre- and post student survey links were also posted

on the same Web site. For the treatment group, vocabulary

frontloading was delivered through digital flashcards

designed for mobile phones. The format of the digital

flashcards can accommodate visual learners. Here the 76

teacher prepared the student by going over difficult and

challenging vocabulary before the reading assignment (see

Appendix A). Figure 5 shows schematics of a mobile phone

used in the study.

The second reading strategy invited students to

review vocabulary words by answering multiple-choice

quizzes that were produced randomly on the mobile phone.

This strategy assists both visual and kinesthetic

learners. The control group received the vocabulary words

in the classroom in hard copy, and they completed self-

assessments with paper and pencil.

77

Figure 5. Example of vocabulary mobile phone screen. From “Mobile Prep’’ [email protected], 2007). Reprinted with permission.

The third reading strategy provided the auditory

learner with spoken vocabulary words and reading passages.

Students in the treatment group could listen to these in

the reading classroom by using the IVR program. The

control group studied the words independently. The teacher

provided the proper pronunciation only when asked by a

student.

78

mailto:[email protected]

The treatment group used mobile phones for vocabulary

strengthening and improved reading comprehension. The

control group continued to follow through in vocabulary

strengthening and improved reading comprehension with the

reading curriculum, but without the use of mobile phones.

Exploratory qualitative research methods determined

whether the use of the mobile phone created motivational

interest or a positive attitude to learn with this tool.

This assessment was accomplished by providing a section

designed with the pre- and post survey of motivational

attitudes. SMS messaging was used in the form of

motivational prompts by the instructor. Interviews of the

treatment group following the research were conducted by

asking question via SMS questions related to their

motivation. The control group was assessed with a standard

written multiple-choice test.

Materials

Several companies supplied cost-reduced technology

services for the study. Positive Motion provided flashcards 79

and quiz features, and Angel.com provided the IVR

components. Specially designed teaching materials were

developed for this study by collaboration of the school

district reading advisor and reading teachers.

Permission was obtained from the high school

administration to use mobile phones for learning for a

sample group of students; however, students were not

allowed to use their personal or family phones for this

study. Independent mobile phones obtained for this

research study released the school of any liability.

Mobile phones could be carried in the school by

students, but they normally could not use them in the

classrooms. Because of this restriction, mobile phone

parameters were established for the treatment group and

agreed upon by the school administration. They consisted

of the following:

1. Mobile phones were used only during the reading course in the school day.

2. Phone use followed the regular school rule in the student manual, outside of the reading course.

80

3. Password confidentiality was honored at all times.Students did not give the research site password to non-respondent students.

4. Students used only reading materials on mobile phones in the reading classroom.

5. Parents signed the letter of agreement stating therules and that their child would abide by them.

A parental information letter explained how students

were permitted to use mobile phones during the study and

supported the use of mobile phones for students to do

homework outside of the school community. A copy of the

parameters for student use of mobile phones in this study

was included for the parents along with a copy of

assurance that all information obtained in this study was

confidential and honored anonymity (see Appendix B).

Teacher Training

Teacher training occurred face-to-face and online.

Training included background information about mLearning,

mobile phone terminology and functions applicable for

learning styles, technology transitions, and Web site

collections. A letter was provided for the teacher to 81

assist their students (see Appendix C). They distributed

the student letter (see Appendix D).

Research Schedule

Table 3 presents the schedule for the steps in

the research process.

Table 3 Research Schedule

Steps Date

Meet with School District Administration

October 2006

Reading teacher meets with reading

advisor

November 2006

Interview mobile phone learning technology companies

October -December

2006

Assistant Superintendent meets with

principal

February 2007

Prepare Website and surveys February 2007

Pilot Web site and Pilot pre-survey

questions

March 2007

82

Prepare parent and student consent

forms

May 2007

Teacher training May 2007

Prepare and test student e-mails

with phone program

July 2007

Distribute consent forms through

reading teacher

September 2007

Pre-survey for treatment group October 1, 2007

Begin research module October 10, 2007

End research module, give post survey October 30, 2007

Interview students through SMS November 1, 2007

Sample Selection

All ninth-grade students in the study attended a south

suburban high school in the Midwest. A reading teacher

volunteered her two classes to be involved in the study. One

class was the treatment group, and the other class served as

the control group. Random sampling of students could not be

considered since permission was given for only two classes

83

to participate. Both the treatment and the control groups

were students who scored between 43% and 92% (average) on

the ACT EXPLORE reading placement test, which is used by the

district to place incoming ninth graders in appropriate

reading classes. According to its developers, “The EXPLORE

Reading Test measured abilities to understand written

material from different school subjects” (Explore, 2006, p.

1). Students read passages in prose fiction, humanities, and

social studies and tested their ability to draw conclusions

and make comparisons and generalizations. All testing was

done with paper and pencil.

Students who were classified as average readers were

enrolled in the ninth-grade course called Reading Seminar

that “provided students with intensive and skills-based

instruction in the art and science of reading” (Lincoln-Way

High School, 2005, p. 1).

The development of this course was researched-based and

focused on skills to become effective readers (Lincoln-Way

High School). The school district supported their students

84

in reading by offering advanced reading courses beyond ninth

grade.

Quantitatively, to validate the original starting place

of all reading students in these courses and study, students

took the standardized Iowa Test of Education Development

(ITED) in reading at the beginning of the study.

Standardized achievement tests can compare groups to groups

to determine whether a program is making a difference. The

ITED tests levels 15-17/18 (Grades 9-12) as developed by the

University of Iowa and as the high school testing

continuation of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills given to 3rd

to 8th graders (University of Iowa, 2006). ITED examines the

students in vocabulary and reading comprehension. The

vocabulary test provides words “that represent a cross

section of vocabulary encountered in general communication:

reading, writing, and listening” (Description of Iowa Test

of Educational Development Tests, Levels 15-17/18 (Grades 9-

12), 2006, p. 1). The reading comprehension test provides

passages in subject areas that ask questions for students to

“demonstrate understanding at each of the three process 85

levels usually associated with reading comprehension:

literal, or factual understanding, inference and

interpretation, and analysis and generalization”

(Description of Iowa Test of Educational Development Tests,

Levels 15-17/18 (Grades 9-12), 2006, p. 1).

Results of the ITED Test indicated that the treatment

group and the control group were evenly matched at the

beginning of the study.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

The study began October 10, 2007, and ended on October

30, 2007. Instrumentation included students taking a

recognized standardized test at the beginning of the study

to verify similar student abilities in the treatment and

control groups, a pre- and post-vocabulary test, a pre- (see

Appendix E) and post survey for the treatment group designed

for the study, and an interview given at the end of the

study to the treatment group via SMS. The indicator of

significant change was the determining factor shown by

comparing the scores of the pretest to the scores of the 86

posttest, and a comparison to the scores of the control

group who received the same training in a traditional

classroom.

Validity and Reliability

ITED provides high validity and reliability. “Validity

refers to the extent to which a test measures what we

actually wish to measure. Reliability has to do with the

accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure” (Cooper &

Schindler, 2001, p. 210).

Types of scores reported from this test are raw scores

(RS), percent correct (PC), grade equivalent (GE),

developmental standard score (SS), and percentile rank (PR).

The type of score interpretation for the ITED provides norm-

referenced interpretation, comparing a student’s score with

the scores of other students obtained on the same test. The

ITED is a norm-reference test. Norm-reference tests can also

provide criterion-reference interpretation, comparing a

student’s score with a subjective standard of performance.

Both the norm reference and criterion-reference 87

interpretations apply in this study. There are no validity

or reliability figures available for the vocabulary quizzes.

Comparing Treatment and Control Groups

The treatment group and the control group scores for

the vocabulary tests were compared. Based on the means and

standard deviations of each group, the measure of

probability was determined.

Four t tests were conducted to determine difference

between groups at pretest and posttest and treatment group

and the control group from pretest to posttest. A two-way

ANOVA between treatment and control group and pre- and post

administration time was conducted. Even if the use of mobile

phones for learning has a statistical significant effect,

the effect size (ES) can determine the strength of the

significance. Effect size is an estimate of the magnitude of

a difference, a relationship, or other effect in population

represented by a sample (Gall et al., 1996, p. 758). ES

answers explain the strength of the effect of the variable

tested. When the ES is less than .2, there is no difference.88

When the ES is .5, there is a moderate difference. When the

ES is .8 or higher there is a significant difference.

According to Gall et al., “The higher the effect size, the

greater the difference between the two" (p. 194). Another

way of explaining the ES is to inquire how many standard

deviations (SD) there are between the two groups.

Qualitative research instrumentation included surveys

and interviews. The pre-survey was developed for the study

and administered online through a survey generator service

for the treatment group. Since mobile phones usually have

to be turned off in schools, there were no surveys

developed that could address mobile phone learning in

reading or any subject. This data was exported and

interpreted with tables and charts developed to represent

the data graphically. The focus of the study in

qualitative research was on the emic, the nature of

understanding based on the participant’s viewpoint (Beebe,

2001).

The pre-survey included questions in four areas:

mobile phone use, technology literacy other than mobile 89

phone use, identification of features used on the mobile

phone, and motivational attitudes about using mobile

phones for learning (see Appendix E). Mobile phones used

in this study had the following functions: Internet

connection, text messaging (SMS) and multimedia

capabilities (MMS), and unlimited calling.

The treatment group was interviewed after they had

taken the post-vocabulary test. Reponses were transcribed

and coded to analyze the responses as data as well as

qualitatively. With the quantification and qualification

of data produced by the study, triangulation of data was

possible.

Ethical Issues

International Review Board rules for researching with

children less than 18 years of age were followed according

to the proper procedures. Parental permission was obtained

for students to participate in this study. Anonymity was

honored.

90

Limitations of the Study

Limitations included in this study were difficulty of

transferring reading materials to phones restrictions of

mobile phone use imposed by the schools district, and

reduced classroom time of mobile phone use due to the

teacher’s illness. Transferring reading materials to

mobile phones required training for teachers and students.

Some mobile phones presented technological difficulties

periodically. Frequency in the time used for reading

through the mobile phone by participants in the test group

was not easily measured. Some students did use certain

features of the phones more frequently than other

students.

91

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

The research findings of this study, addressing the

questions of whether average ninth-grade readers could

improve reading comprehension when using appropriately

designed vocabulary frontloading techniques for learning via

mobile phones, and whether average ninth-grade average

readers would be successfully motivated to study using

mobile phones for delivery, are presented in this chapter.

Sixty-three ninth-grade reading students from a

suburban high school participated in the study. One reading

teacher volunteered two ninth-grade reading classes as

participants. All students who participated were classified

as average readers, scoring between 43% and 92% on the Iowa

ACT EXPLORE reading placement test given to eighth graders

and repeated during their first month as ninth-grade

students. According to its developers, “The EXPLORE Reading

Test measured abilities to understand written materials from

different school subjects” (Explore, 2006, p. 1).

92

Thirty students from period one and 33 students from

period two made up the treatment and control groups

respectively. The treatment group used mobile phones for

delivery and learning, and the control group used the

traditional non-digital delivery to study and learn the same

reading material in the module.

This chapter presents the analysis of the quantitative

and qualitative data in response to these three questions:

93

Research Questions




students?







used?

All treatment group participants were provided with

four technology tools: a mobile phone with the same learning

software; a new e-mail address specific for this study; an

interactive voice recognition system access; and a password

protected Web site. The mobile phone was a Razor V3ms smart

phone with the same service provider and features that

enabled students to comply with ubiquitous technology access

to learn (Dede et al, 2005). The mobile phone features 94

included a) unlimited calling, b) short messaging service

(SMS) capabilities, c) wireless application protocol (WAP)

or Internet mini browsing, and d) multimedia messaging

system (MMS). These mobile phones are smart phones because

they “integrate personal information management and mobile

phone capabilities in the same device” (Wagner, 2005, p.

48). The mobile software used for this research was Mobile

Prep, a mobile learning program designed for small screens

(Positive Motion Inc., 2007). Positive Motion Inc. provided

a password protected Web portal where course materials were

uploaded to their server, specific for the school and

course. To meet this requirement, the school site was

registered to Governors State University. The course title

was LWHS Reading Seminar 101 (see Figure 6).

95

Figure 6. Password protected Web portal to identify specific

school and course.

Curriculum materials were uploaded via Mobile Prep’s

Web portal. This consisted of four groups of 20 vocabulary

words and one group of 22 vocabulary words based on their

order of appearance in the book the students were reading in

the module (see Figure 7). The five vocabulary stacks

(Mobile Prep defines groups of words as stacks.) were

created and uploaded to the Mobile Prep Web portal. All

phones were signed into Mobile Prep with e-mails and

passwords created for this study. Mobile Prep was downloaded

and installed on each Razor V3ms smart phone via WAP and the

application feature in the mobile phone. After Mobile Prep

96

was installed on the mobile phones, the vocabulary stacks

were downloaded to the mobile phones.

Figure 7. Vocabulary sets, also known as stacks, were availableusing the wireless access feature of the phone to access theInternet.

The treatment group accessed Mobile Prep through the

application selection on the mobile phone. Stacks were

composed of digital flash cards, one flash card per

vocabulary word. Users controlled the text based vocabulary

words with short quiz reviews and drills. The screen

97

provided a choice of which stack to select. Then the next

screen provided the user with a choice of review or drill

(see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Mobile Prep mobile phone view of the program (a) Views the first screen choices in the program, (b) Views thescreen after choosing the stack.

If review was selected, an individual vocabulary word

appeared on the screen. When the user pressed the advancing

key, the definition appeared. If the user decided the word

was sufficiently understood, the word could be removed

before the drill began. If drill was selected the screen

provided a short multiple choice quiz using the chosen stack

of vocabulary words (see Figure 9).

98

Figure 9. Mobile Prep mobile phone of word, review, and drill (A) Views one word (B) Views the Review selection, (C) Viewsthe Drill selection.

The second Web-based program, an Interactive Voice

Recognition System (IVR) by Angel.com, provided the users

with recorded voice messages (Angel, 2007). For this study,

the treatment group used their phones to call a number to

access the service. The vocabulary words were prepared

daily. When participants called in, they heard vocabulary

words with correct pronunciations, definitions of the words,

and passages read from the book in the module that included

the vocabulary words. The research for the treatment group

was originally designed to accommodate visual, auditory, and

99

kinesthetic learners. However, permission was not given to

test the learning styles of the students.

A research password-protected Web site included links

to Mobile Prep, pre- and post surveys for the treatment

group, and the phone number for Angel’s Interactive Voice

Recognition (IVR) system. The treatment group took their

pre- and post surveys in a computer lab with one computer

per participant. The high school permitted the treatment

group to use the phones in the classroom for only 20 minutes

each day for 7 days or a total of 160 minutes. The control

group studied the vocabulary words 20 minutes each day for

14 days or a total of 280 minutes. The teacher became ill

during the study, and the students were not permitted to use

the phones unless the teacher was present. This resulted in

a difference of 120 minutes between the treatment and the

control groups.

Data resulted from experimental quantitative design,

presented as quantitative data; and exploratory qualitative

research, identified as qualitative data in this chapter.

100

Quantitative Data Collection

Following the experimental quantitative design, data

was collected from the ACT EXPLORE reading placement test,

online pre- and post surveys, and pre- and post vocabulary

tests. The ACT EXPLORE reading placement test and the

vocabulary tests were taken by both groups with paper and

pencil. A score of 44 points was possible for the ACT

EXPLORE test. Based upon the scores, the treatment and

control groups’ test responses were closely matched (see

Table 4). The mean for both treatment and control groups

indicated a positive skew. The standard deviations for the

both the treatment group and control group was 6.908 and

6.463 respectively, which is a difference of .545. The

gender factor of the treatment group was 62% female and 38%

male, and the control group was 64% female and 36% male. The

results of the mean and standard deviation indicate that the

treatment and control groups were closely matched.

Table 4ACT EXPLORE Pretest Treatment and Control Group Scores

101

Treatment Group Control Group

Mean 27.833 26Standard Error 1.261 1.107Median 26.5 25Mode 35 24Standard Deviation 6.908 6.363Minimum 16 11Maximum 41 37Count 30 33

An online pre-survey was given to identify students’

(a) mobile phone use, (b) technology literacy use, other

than mobile phone use, and (c) motivational attitudes about

using the mobile phone for learning (see Table 5). The first

section of the pre-survey consisted of 10 questions

pertaining to mobile phone use. The survey used the term cell

phone rather than mobile phone, because that is the term used

in the United States.

102

Table 5. Treatment Group Pre-Survey Questions

Mobile Phone Use Technology Literacy UseOther than Mobile Phones

Motivational Attitudes about Using Mobile Phones for Learning

Do you have your owncell phone?

How often did you use the computer in eighth grade to complete homework?

Do you think you would like to use a cell phone to study school subjects?

How often do you useyour cell phone perday?

How often do you IMon a computer?

Do you think you would be a better student if you coulduse your cell phone for studies?

Do you have amonthly paid textmessaging service onyour cell phone?

How often do youblog on thecomputer?

Do you think you would spend more time studying if youcould use a cell phone for your studies?

How often do you text per day?

How often do youdownload music tothe computer?

How often do you make phones calls per day

How often do you e-mail on the computer?

How often do you send pictures on youphone per day?

How often do you take pictures per

103

day?

How often do you usethe Internet per day?

How many times have you downloaded ringtones on your cell phone?

How many times have you downloaded musicon your cell phone?

How many times have you played games on a cell phone?

The first question asked the students whether they had

their own mobile phone, resulting in 90% of students having

their own mobile phones. The second question asked the

frequency of daily use of the mobile phones. Fifty percent

used mobile phones more than 10 times per day (see Figure

10).

104

Figure 10. Pre-survey results of frequency of mobile phone useper day.

Eighty-four percent of the treatment group had text

messaging (SMS) service included in their service (see

Figure 11). Sixteen percent of the treatment group did not

SMS, but 84% did SMS daily (see Figure 12). This supports

the increased use of SMS by teenagers from 12-17 (Lenhart,

Madden, & Hitlin, 2005).

105

Figure 11. Pre-survey results about monthly paid SMS service.

Figure 12. Pre-survey results about frequency of SMS use on

mobile phones per day.

Nineteen percent made phone calls 10 or more times per

106

day, 15% made phone calls five to nine times per day, and

62% made phone calls one to four times per day (see Figure

13).

Figure 13. Pre-survey frequency results of making phone calls per day.

Eight percent of the treatment group sent pictures

five to nine times per day, 32%, one to four times per day,

and 60%, never (see Figure 14).

107

Figure 14. Pre-survey results of frequency of sending picturesper day.

Eighty-one percent of the students took pictures each

day, with 4% 10 times or more per day, 15%, five to nine

times per day, 62% one to four times per day, and 19%, never

(see Figure 15).

108

Figure 15. Pre-survey results of frequency of taking pictures per day.

Seventy-six percent of the treatment group downloaded

ringtones on mobile phones, with 28%, 10 times or more, 16%,

five to nine times, 32% one to four times, and 24% never

(see Figure 16).

109

Figure 16. Pre-survey results of frequency of downloading ringtones on mobile phones.

Fifty-one percent downloaded music, with 20%, 10 times

or more, 4% five to nine times, 28%, one to four times and

49%, never (see Figure 17).

Figure 17. Pre-survey results of frequency of downloading musicon mobile phones.

110

Sixty-eight percent played games on the mobile phone,

with 12% 10 times or more, 20% five to nine times, 36% one

to four times, and 32%, never (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Pre-survey results of frequency of playing games on the mobile phone.

The second section of the pre-survey provided five

questions focused on technology literacy use other than

mobile phones. The first question in this category asked how

often students used the computer in eighth grade to complete

homework? All participants answered that they had used the

computer in eighth grade to complete homework, with 24%

using it monthly, 59% using it weekly, and 17% using it 111

daily (see Figure 19).

Figure 19. Pre-survey results of frequency of computer use in eighth grade to complete homework.

The second question in this category asked participants

how many times they used IM on the computer? Participants

used IM on the computer 61% more than once a day, 29% once a

day, 4% once a week, 4% once a month, and two% never (see

Figure 20).

The third question in this category was based on the

use of blogging on the computer. Fourteen percent blogged

daily on the computer, 21% blogged weekly, 10% blogged

monthly, and 55% never blogged (see Figure 21).

112

Figure 20. Pre-survey frequency results of IM use on the computer.

Figure 21. Pre-survey frequency results of blogging on the computer.

The fourth question asked the frequency of downloading

music to the computer. Results showed that 93% of the

students have downloaded music to the computer with 24%

downloading music more than once a day, 31% once a day, 31%

113

once a month, and 7% never downloaded music on the computer

(see Figure 22).

Figure 22. Pre-survey frequency of downloading music on acomputer.

The fifth question about computer use asked how often

they e-mailed friends and family on the computer. This

communication activity resulted in a response of 82% e-

mailing friends and family on a daily basis, with 11% e-

mailing more than once a day, 14% e-mailing once a day, 39%

e-mailing once a week, 18% once a month, and 18% never e-

mailing on the computer (see Figure 23).

114

Figure 23. Pre-survey frequency results of e-mailing friends and family on a computer.

The third section of the pre-survey asked three

questions in reference to students’ motivation for using

mobile phones for learning. The first question asked

students if they thought they would like to use mobile

phones to study school subjects. Eighty-nine percent

projected a positive view of learning school subjects via

mobile phones (see Figure 24).

115

Figure 24. Pre-survey motivational attitude results to study school subjects on a mobile phone.

The second question asked “ Do you think you would be a

better student if you could use mobile phones for

learning?” Eighty-five per cent stated that they thought

they would become better students (see Figure 25).

116

Figure 25. Pre-survey motivational attitude results in becoming a better student because of using a mobile phone.

The third question asked whether they thought they

would spend more time studying if they could use a mobile

phone. Eighty-six percent stated that they would spend more

time studying if they could use a mobile phone (see Figure

26).

117

Figure 26. Pre-survey motivational attitude results to spending more time to study if using a mobile phone.

Post Vocabulary Test-Quantitative Data

The treatment group used the appropriately designed

vocabulary frontloading module selected for this study on

Mobile Prep, the mobile flashcard and review software

program and the Angel.com audio program. The control group

used the same appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading

module within a traditional non-digitized process. To

examine differences on vocabulary test scores by group and

test administration, a two-way ANOVA (between treatment and

118

control groups, and pre- and post administration time) was

conducted (see Table 6).

Table 6. Two–Way ANOVA on between Treatment and Control Groups, and Pre- and Post Administration.

Source F

Si

g.

Et

a

Powe

rTime 102.77

2

.0

01

.6

28

1.00

0Time x

group1.941

.1

69

.0

31.278

Error (18.63

4) Group

.658.4

20

.0

11.126

Error (109.1

41) Note. df=1, 61. Numbers in parenthesis represent Mean squareerror.

The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met. There was

a main effect by time: both groups had greater scores at

posttest compared to pretest (see Table 7).

119

Table 7. Means and Standard Deviations by Group and Time.

Control

Treatme

nt M SD M SDPrete

st

51.

85

9.

24

54.

43

8.

40Postt

est

60.

73

7.

02

61.

17

7.

05

There was no main effect by group, or a group by time

interaction.

Additionally, four t tests were conducted to assess simple

effects. There was no significant difference between groups

at pretest, t (61) = -1.158, p =.251, nor at posttest, t

(61) = -.248, p =.805. There were differences from pretest

to posttest for the control group, t (30) = -8.466, p<.001,

and for the treatment group, t (29) = -5.96, p < .001 (see

Figure 27). More students had lower scores on the pretest in

the control group than in the treatment group, which lowered

the mean.

120

Figure 27. Pretest and posttest Means for Treatment and Control Groups.

Post Survey Results-Quantitative

When students were asked how many times they used

Mobile Prep, the cell phone flash card and short question

test to review vocabulary words, post survey responses

showed 7% reported using it six or more times; 36%, 4-5

times; 54% 2-3 times; and 3% only once (see Figure 28).

When students were asked how many times they accessed

the IVR, results were 11% of the students called IVR 4-5

times; 79% called IVR 2-3 times; and 10% of the students

called IVR once (see Figure 29).

121

Figure 28. Post-survey results of frequency of using mobile prep.

Figure 29. Post-survey results of frequency of listening to vocabulary words.

122

Seventy-five percent of the students used the mobile

phones during the study to take pictures (see Figure 30).

Figure 30. Post-survey results of frequency of students who took pictures with the mobile phones during the study.

After the study was completed, 82% of the students

responded that they would like to use a cell phone to study

other subjects in school (see Figure 31) and 67% thought

that they would be a better student if they could use mobile

phones to study (see Figure 32). This was a decrease of 18.3

% who answered yes when participants were asked the same

question in the pre-survey.

123

Figure 31. Post-survey results in high percent of students responded favorably to using mobile phones to study other subjects after the study was completed.

Figure 32. Post-survey results in high percent of students whothought that they would be better students if they can use mobile phones to study in school.

124

Qualitative Data Collection

To execute exploratory qualitative research, interviews

of the treatment group were conducted. Since the students

were able to use SMS on the phones supplied for the study,

interview questions were communicated via SMS. Permission

was given for SMS interviews rather than face to face.

Responses were transcribed for review (Appendix F).

The three interview questions were:

1. Would you like to use a cell phone in reading later in the school year? Why or

why not?

2. Do you have any suggestions to improve the use of cell phones

for learning in school?

3. Would you have liked to use your own cell phone in

class, rather than the one that was given to you to

use? Why or why not?

The first interview question was keyed into SMS with an 82%

response by the treatment group. Quantifying the first

interview question responses resulted in 63% favorable

125

responses, 34% unfavorable responses and 3% indifferent

responses (see Figure 33).

Figure 33. Quantification of first interview question responses from treatmentgroup.

The content analysis from question one interview responses

produced three common categories that were coded (a) Time-

lack of time, needed to use the cell phones for a longer

time, (b) Learning was fun-this process produced excitement

to learn, (c) Did not help-use on cell phones appeared more

difficult to learn.

Favorable comments for question number one were

1. I liked using the cell phone and the program Mobile

Prep to study (b)126

2. Yes, because it is fun an easier to learn if it is

fun (b)

3. I liked that the program repeated the words many

times until you learn them (b)

4. Yes, because it’s a fun exciting way to learn

different vocabulary words (b)

5. Learned a lot of terms exciting to learn (b)

6. I would definitely want to use them later in the

year, because I thought it was pretty helpful, but

we need to have a longer trial because we could only

use them four or five times (a) (b)

7. Yes, it helped me improve dramatically in my

vocabulary (b)

8. It was cool (b)

9. Yes, because I like using Mobile Prep and it helped

me (b)

10. Yes because it killed time (a)

11. Yes, because it makes you learn the words by

repetition each time. I would do at least 50 words

at a time (b)127

Unfavorable comments for interview question number one were

1. It was more complex than using flash cards or paper

(c)

2. No, because it didn’t help (c)

3. No, because I did not retain anything I studied (c)

4. No, because I work better with hands-on flash cards

(c)

5. Maybe, but it sort of distracted me in ways (c)

6. I didn’t think that I learned enough, nor quick

enough for it to be useful to me. I am usually very

good at memorization and the cell phone learning was

more difficult for me to learn with. (c)

7. No, because I feel it didn’t feel it helped me learn

the words very well (c)

8. I didn’t think it helped me that much (c)

9. No, because I did not find it helped (c)

10. Ummm, probably not because I don’t think it really

helped me learn the vocabulary completely because we

didn’t get to use them that much (c)

128

11. It really does not matter, because it helped me

only a little, but it was still fun (b) (c)

12. Need an extended time (a)

The second interview question asked what suggestions

students would make to improve the use of the cell phone for

learning in school and received an 82% response. The content

analysis from the responses to this question produced three

common categories that were coded (a) more time-lack of

time, needed to use the cell phones for a longer time, (b)

content and process improvement and (c) class rules

reinforced. Comments requesting more time were

1. Let us use the cell phones more often

2. Have a longer time using it

3. I would make it so we used them for longer period oftime instead of 2 times per week for only 2-3 weeks

4. Have more time to use them

5. Bring the cell phones out of the classroom to study with. We only got 20 minutes of class

6. Time with them

7. Have a time to use them every day for at least ten minutes to go over the vocabulary

129

8. The service did not always work, so have a longer time to use them

9. Maybe use them in other classes.

10. Arrange times during the day that cell phones can

be used

11. I think we should have more time to use them

12. Give a lot longer time with the phones

13. Use for a little longer next time

14. Use for longer periods of time

15. Let us take them home to study with.

16. We didn’t have very much time.

17. It would be better if we could have taken the phones home.

Content and process responses from interview question two were

1. Make it a bit more fun

2. Some of the definitions had the word it them

3. If you get some vocabulary words wrong, only repeat ones as they rotate so you don’t review things so many times

4. Improve the software

5. Make a list of the words for the phone

130

6. I don’t think that the word should be used in the definition in Mobile Prep

7. Funner games like using the words

8. I don’t think that the word should be used in the definition in Mobile Prep

9. That the program would be able to be used with more games or so

10. Make the vocabulary have more complex definitions

11. Some vocabulary words did not make sense

12. It did not help me remember the words that much because it was all multiple-choice

13. Did not like sending vocabulary words in a text message

14. It distracted me

15. It was kind of hard to text and use mobile prep atthe same time.

16. Texting-did not like this

17. I don’t like to study in the first place, so I just did not like it

Classroom rules responses for interview question two were 1. Make restrictions so no one will mess around2. When there are 28 kids around asking questions, it

is hard to study with them3. More restrictions

131

4. No texting with your friends, because people were texting things that had nothing to do with what we were doing

The third interview question asked whether students

would have liked to use their own cell phone in class,

rather than the one that was given to them to use and why.

There was an 85% response by the treatment group. Seventy-

five percent said yes, 18% said no, and 7% said maybe (see

Figure 34).

Figure 34. Interview question response to use own mobile phones.

From the 75% yes responses, four categories were

evident: ease and comfort of using own phone; ubiquitous

desire to use it at home or other places at any time;

132

responsibility; and daring. The 55% who answered yes stated

that they would like to use their own phone because they

were more familiar with it, and it was easier and faster to

use. Twenty-five percent desired the ubiquitous capability

of using it at home or anywhere, at anytime. One percent

felt that did not want to damage the phone they were using,

and one percent appeared daring, to be able to use

something of their own that they could not normally use in

school.

Of the no responses, either they liked the study phone

better or they did not have a phone. Of the maybe

responses, it mattered what kind of phone they had and what

they could do with them.

Yes responses for interview question three were

1. Because I know how my phone works and it was sometimeshard to find the stuff or send texts to people. I feelmore comfortable.

2. Ubiquitous desires: Because if we wanted to study and home we could: Because then you would have these studytools with you at home and wherever else you are. Because then I could have had the link on my own phone.

133

3. Responsibility Factor: And it’s mine, so I can do whatever with it and not have to worry about damaging it

4. Daring: Because you are not suppose to use them here, and it might be a bit cool for a change

No responses for interview question three were

1. No because I don’t like people to have my number and Idon’t have texting on my phone and most people don’t have texting. The phone we had was just great

2. Because my phone broke and I would have to buy a new one, so I liked the ones you gave us to use

3. No the razors are cool

4. No because I do not have a cell phone

Maybe responses for interview question three were

1. I don’t think it really mattered. I liked the way my phone works better but I don’t know if I would want toput that program on my phone.

2. It matters if I like the phone given3. It depends on how we are allowed to use them and what

we are allowed to do with them

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine whether

average ninth-grade readers improved learning when using

appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading techniques 134

for learning via mobile phones for delivery, and whether

average ninth-grade readers will be successfully motivated

to study using mobile phones for delivery. The data

collection from different formats helped to verify the

digital native characteristics of the participants in this

study and their desire to use present day technologies to be

in control of their learning. Results from this study were

1. The pre-survey verified that these ninth-grade

students were technology savvy and anxious to use

mobile programs and phones for learning.

2. Students using mobile programs improved their

learning, rejecting the null hypothesis that

students should not use mobile phones to improve

learning. Evidence was provided by the t tests.

3. The two way ANOVA revealed that there was an

increase in scores from pretest to posttest time,

but not a significant difference between treatment

group and control group at the end of the study. The

amount of time spent on studying the same content

material between treatment group and control group 135

accidentally varied. Even so, the null hypothesis,

that the treatment group would not have a

significant difference in learning compared to the

control group was accepted.

4. The treatment group demonstrated an increased

motivation to use mobile phones for learning,

indicated by their responses to more time and more

places to use the mobile programs. The null

hypothesis that students would not be motivated

using mobile phones for learning was rejected.

5. The mobile phone could accommodate visual learners

by presenting instructionally designed material that

can be viewed on the small screen.

6. The mobile phone could accommodate auditory learners

by their listening to learning materials as well as

viewing them.

7. The mobile phone could allow students to exercise

their kinesthetic preference because they entered

their responses through mobile learning software and

SMS.136

8. Participants responded that the instructional

designed mobile learning materials could be improved

by creating games and/or visuals.

137

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine whether

ninth-grade average readers improved reading comprehension

when using appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading

techniques for learning via mobile phones for delivery, and

whether ninth-grade average readers could be successfully

motivated to study using mobile phones for delivery. These

results were compared to ninth-grade average readers who

studied the same materials in the traditional classroom

without technology.

Research Questions




students?



138





used?

Summary and Discussion of Results

With the integration of appropriately designed learning

materials, learning with technology improved when students

accessed technology on a regular basis (Chen, Chang, & Wang,

2008; Norris, Poirot, Soloway, & Sullivan, 2003). New

technologies like the Internet and wireless networks have

changed available modes for learning. Virtual learning is

one of those modes with expansion capabilities in mlearning,

anywhere and anytime learning (Keegan, 2005).

Mobile phone learning is so new that there is no agreed

upon design to develop the materials for this alternative

learning environment. Frohberg (2006) reported that there

are weaknesses in the shifting of pedagogical focus in its

development and suggested a meta structure based on context.139

Mlearning with PDAs has provided some learning research in

one-to-one computing because of numerous grants offered for

teachers (Vahey & Crawford, 2002).

This study was done to contribute research for

mlearning on a mobile phone.

The subject area selected for this study was reading

comprehension for ninth-grade students. Based on evidence

from the Education Commission of the States (2004), reading

interventions are not usually exercised with 9-15 year olds,

and comprehension still remains a problem. Vocabulary

frontloading is a reading strategy that can improve

comprehension (Guensberg, 2006). Instructionally designed

programs that could provide students with vocabulary words

to study on their anytime, anywhere mobile phone could

improve comprehension. The results of this research study

contribute to an understanding of the expanding and

ubiquitous mlearning environment.

Research Question 1 Findings

140

Did appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading techniques delivered

via mobile phones improve comprehension for ninth-grade average reading

students?

Ninth graders have 21st technology skills that

demonstrate their knowledge of present day technology. In

order to determine the extent of their mobile phone skills

and technology literacy, an online pre-survey was taken by

the treatment group. Ninety percent of the treatment group

had their own mobile phone. Responses supported their mobile

phone daily use with 50% stating that they used their phone

more than ten times, 84% sent and received SMS, 96% made

voice phone calls, 40% sent pictures, and 81% used the

camera feature. More results of mobile phone use indicated

that 67% have downloaded ringtones, 51% have downloaded

music, and 68% have played games on their phones.

The second category of pre-survey questions focused on

technology use other than mobile phones. Reponses included

100% use of the computer in eighth grade to complete

homework, 98% used IM, 45% blogged, 93% downloaded music,

and 82% e-mailed. These results indicate that the students 141

in the treatment group were sufficiently proficient in the

use of technology, specifically a mobile phone, to enable

them to actively and confidently participate in the

activities necessary for the study. Their familiarity with a

mobile phone also increased the possibility for them to gain

maximum benefits from using it for studying vocabulary.

The third category of pre-survey questions focused on

motivational interests in using the mobile phone for

learning. Responses were 89% who wanted to use the mobile

phone to study school subjects, 85% said that they would be

better students if they used the mobile phone for learning,

and 86% said that they would spend more time studying if

they used the mobile phone for learning. The pre-survey

established that the participants were typical digital

students with mobile phone skills, computer skills, and the

willingness to use the mobile phone for studying

(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004).

A vocabulary pretest and posttest was administered to

the treatment group with the following results. Pretest

produced M = 54.43 with the SD of 8.4 and a posttest of M = 142

61.17 and a SD of 7.05. A t test produced t (29) = -5.96, p<

.001, which supported the question of whether appropriately

designed vocabulary frontloading techniques delivered via

mobile phones improved comprehension for ninth-grade average

reading students. The treatment group did just as well as

the control group and in less time. Either the program was

effective, or the novelty of being permitted to use the

phone in class and for schoolwork increased learning, or

both.


Was there a significant difference in comprehension for ninth-grade

average reading students when mobile phones served as the tool for delivery

versus traditional non-digitized delivery?

Both the treatment and control groups used the

appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading technique

based on the module studied. The treatment group used

programs on the mobile phones to study the vocabulary words,

and the control group used the traditional paper and pencil

technique to study the vocabulary words. A two-way ANOVA, 143

between treatment and control groups and between pre and

post administration time, was conducted. Results indicated

that there was a main effect by time: both groups had

greater scores at posttest compared to pretest, but there

was no main effect by group, nor a group by time

interaction. Each group was scheduled for 280 minutes over 3

weeks to study vocabulary words using a frontloading

strategy, but the treatment group only had 160 minutes to

study. This was due to the fact that the teacher became ill

during the study, and the phones were not used if the

teacher was not present. The substitute teacher held class

discussion of the module’s reading book interpretation,

rather than use frontloading vocabulary work sheets that the

control group used. The treatment group was given permission

to use the mobile phones only during the reading class time.

In the case of the second question, the null hypothesis was

accepted that there was no significant difference between

groups in comprehension for ninth-grade average reading

students when mobile phones served as the tool for delivery

versus traditional non-digitized delivery. The treatment 144

group scored nearly as well as the control group but with

less study time. If the number of minutes had been equal,

maybe the treatment group would have significantly outscored

the control group.


Was there an increase in motivation by students to study vocabulary

words when mobile phones were used?

Quantitative and qualitative results were provided by

the post-survey and the SMS interviews respectively, which

were administered to the treatment group.

Learning style assessments were utilized by this school

district for only one year, but since this evaluation of

student learning styles assessment and the proper

instructional strategies exercised by teachers were still in

the beginning stages in the district, the district wanted to

protect any possible misinterpretations of these results. A

request to give the treatment group a separate learning

style evaluation was denied, because it was determined that

the students had received one and did not want to confuse 145

students with former learning style results if differences

resulted.

Since the mobile phone used in this study could

accommodate visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners,

results provided evidence that these learning styles where

present in the treatment group, and provided an interest to

use the features supporting these styles. The district

reading module did not present vocabulary words in an

auditory format. Instead, the vocabulary words were

presented on work sheets with some of the vocabulary words

spoken when a student had a question about one. The

traditional module did not include listening to the

vocabulary words or repetitive to reinforce learning.

Evidence of visual and kinesthetic learners being part

of the treatment group is provided in the post-survey

results of 97% of students using the Mobile Prep vocabulary

review flash cards and short question test to study and

review vocabulary words. Evidence of auditory learners being

a part of the treatment group resulted in accessing the IVR

100%. Even though no aligning of individual learning styles 146

with instructional strategies can be proven in this study,

nor can identification of individual learning styles be

aligned with frequency of choice preference, it still can be

assumed hat the treatment group consisted of visual,

auditory, and kinesthetic learners.

After the study was completed, 82% of the students

responded that they would like to use a cell phone to study

other subjects and believed that they would improve their

grades. Sixty-seven percent thought that they would be a

better student if they could use mobile phones to study as

compared to 85% who thought they would become better

students. This decrease could be due to some lack of time

actually being able to use the phones as frequently as the

treatment group indicated in the qualitative data results.

Qualitative data was compiled via SMS interviews. The

first interview question asked if the student would like to

use a cell phone in reading later in the school year. Why or

why not. Results produced 63 percent favorable responses, 34

percent unfavorable responses, and 3 percent indifferent.

Favorable responses included: 147

“I liked using the cell phone and the program Mobile Prep to

study.”; “I liked that the program repeated the words many

times until you learn them.”; “Yes, because it is fun and

easier to learn if it is fun.”; “and I would definitely want

to use them later in the year, because I thought it was

pretty helpful, but we need to have a longer trial because

we could only use them four or five times.”

Unfavorable responses included: “It was more complex

using flash cards and paper.”; “Maybe, but it sort of

distracted me in ways.”; “No, because I feel it didn’t help

me learn the words very well.”

The second interview question asked what suggestions

would you make to improve the use of the cell phone for

learning in school? Results produced three categories of

suggestions: more time, improved content and process; and

establish better classroom rules. The first category of time

indicated with most of the students responding that they

needed more time with the phones. The second category

offered some suggestions in how to improve the presentation

of the study material with game format and more complex 148

definitions. The third category indicated that students

should understand the classroom rules for using the phones

and adhere to them.

The third interview question, would you have liked to

use your own cell phone in class, rather than the one that

was given to you to use? Why or why not, was keyed into SMS

with an 85% response by the treatment group. Seventy-five

percent said yes, 18% said no, and 7% said maybe. Comments

corresponding to yes included two major categories: Easier

and more comfortable to use and ubiquitous capability to use

it at home and anywhere, at anytime.

In the case of the third question, the null hypothesis

was rejected, because participants indicated that motivation

was increased based on the facts that they wanted to use the

mobile phones to study for longer time, make them available

in more than the classroom, and offered suggestions of how

to improve the mobile phone program.

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

149

Several assumptions were made for this study. The first

assumption was that classrooms at Lincoln-Way High School

have wireless connectivity with acceptable sending and

receiving signals for mobile phones to access the Internet.

This supported the downloading and uploading of the

application materials.

A second assumption was that all participants were

classified as average readers based on scores between 43%

and 92% (average) on the ACT EXPLORE reading placement test,

and placed in a ninth-grade reading course called Reading

Seminar (Explore, 2006).

A third assumption was that the same teacher would be

teaching the same module to both the treatment and control

group. The teacher volunteered her classes for this study so

random selection was not possible.

A fourth assumption was that permission was granted

from the high school administration to use mobile phones

for learning for a sample group of students and identify

Lincoln-Way High School as the research site; however,

students were not allowed to use their personal or family 150

phones for this study. Independent mobile phones obtained

for this research study released the school of any

liability.

Limitations

Participants used mobile phones only during the reading

modules tested and were not permitted to use them in other

classes or study halls. The mobile phones used in the study

remained in the classroom. Because of this, mobile phone use

results did not include the anytime, anywhere feature of

this technology tool. Results were based on mobile phone

time in the classroom.

The results of this study were not applied to any other

content area, but rather confined to reading comprehension

achievement. The results were also confined to high school

students and average reading students. Low reading achieving

students could not be included in this study because of

school restrictions.

Ease of transferring reading materials to mobile phones

required training for teachers and students. Frequency in

the time used for reading through the mobile phone by 151

participants in the test group was not easily measured. Some

participants did use certain features of the phones more

frequently than other students. At the time that this study

was done, Mobile Prep, did not have the data collection

feature of frequency of use by participants. The frequency

of use by participants was collected through a post-survey

and SMS transcriptions.

152

Summary of Findings

Responses of the treatment group to the pre-survey were

consistent with expectations given the demographics of the

school district. Almost all of the students owned their own

mobile phone and most used it for a variety of communicative

and personal purposes. All were familiar with computers and

used them for homework, e-mail and other personal

communication. In addition, most were highly interested in

using the mobile phone for study purposes with a desire of

more time for learning on the phone and using the phone in

other subject areas.

Students provided recommendations how to continue

learning on the mobile phones. They would like to see self-

tests designed in game formats with icons, photos, and

animations, be sure that definitions used in the study are

correctly defined, use the mobile phone anytime and

anywhere, not confining its use only inside the classroom,

and be able to use their own phones.

153

Conclusions

Educators must have a say in the development of

learning materials for small screen devices. Studies such as

this one can increase legitimacy for mobile phone in the

United States. Designing educational materials for learning

on mobile phones should be a focus of instructional

designers as well as teachers. Some companies are

encouraging educators to work with them. Mobile Prep donated

their services at a reduced rate and supported this

research.

High school student use of mobile phones is ubiquitous.

They are motivated to use this tool to learn and extended

their persona. There is still limited research in favor of

their use in educational settings. Pilot projects will

continue, but scientifically-based research in mobile

learning needs to be expanded and documented. This research

reveals a desire for mlearning, a fact that increases the

need for more research.

154

Recommendations

Based on the results in this study, six recommendations

are suggested for future research using mobile phones for

learning. These recommendations will allow for advanced

studies that encourage mLearning understanding for

instructional design, and delivery using mobile phones.

First, the data analysis revealed that the motivation

of participants remained high. The results of the interviews

suggested the use of mobile phones for learning in other

subject areas and again in reading. Based on these results

and other studies, the first recommendation is to continue

mobile phone learning programs in reading, foreign

languages, and math. Students were motivated to use the

mobile phones, and if they are provided with the opportunity

to so in other subject areas, they might show considerable

learning gains.

Second, this study would be improved if a learning

style pre-assessment was used to design programs addressing

specific needs of students. The second recommendation is to 155

provide the learners with a Canfield Learning Style Pre-

Assessment to compare more detailed data in this important

educational area. Since mLearning has the capacity to

provide instruction for specific learning styles, further

study in this area could help pinpoint strategies and

activities that are effective for each learning style.

Third, average readers improved their vocabulary

comprehension by using mobile phones for learning with

appropriately designed programs on mobile phones. The

participants used this tool with the program developed for

their vocabulary comprehension and positively reinforced

their ability to improve comprehension. Based on these

results, the third recommendation is to allow struggling

readers the use of mobile phone learning with appropriately

designed programs based on the learning style pre-assessment

results. The appeal of mobile phones should prove to be

motivating for struggling readers and therefore increase the

length of time they spend studying and reviewing the

vocabulary words.

156

Fourth, based on the fact that a small sample of

students were successful using the mobile phone for

learning, a fourth recommendation would be to use a larger

student sample. This would allow for an increased

generalization for a larger population. Sample size should

be increase to 300 students or more in ninth and/or 10th

grade. In addition, the length of any study should be at

least three months to allow time for students to become

familiar with the technology and to eliminate the novelty

effect and show true gains in vocabulary.

Fifth, since the participants were under 18 years of

age and in high school, the universal policy of not using

mobile phones in school was difficult to overrule. The

recommendation would be to obtain a grant to support the

learning that will allow students to use their own phones or

take the grant phones home to be used anywhere and anytime

for the mobile learning experience. Students had expressed

the desire to use their own phones for learning. This would

increase the learning time for 24 hour use.

157

Sixth, the program used for this study did not allow

visuals to be part of the mobile phone learning program.

Students suggested that this be added in the program.

Creating visuals is so important to support visual literacy

for digital users. Two other mobile learning programs are

Learning Management System by HotLava.Inc and OOKL, a United

Kingdom, mlearning service. These systems support the

creation of visuals to assist learners. The recommendation

is to provide a program or design that allows the creation

of visuals.

158

REFERENCES

Adolescent literacy-Research informing practice: A series ofworkshops. (2002). Summary of the Adolescent Literacy Workshop: State of the Science and Research Needs. Retrieved May 15, 2007,from http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/adolescent/summary.html

Agar, J. (2003). Constant touch: A global history of the mobile phone. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.

Ally, M. Fuhua, L., McGreal, R., & Woo, B. (2005, October) An intelligent agent for adapting and delivering electronic course materials to mobile learners. Conference Proceedings from the 4th Annual Conference of MLearning. Retrieved September5, 2007 from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Ally-an%20intelligent.pdf

Ambron, S. (1988). New visions of reality: multimedia and education. In S. Ambron & Hooper, K. (Eds.), Interactive multimedia: Visions of multimedia for developers, educators, and information providers (pp. 1-11). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

Angel. (2007). Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://angel.com/

Arts on call. (2006). Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://info.walkerart.org//about/contact.wac#Contact

Attewell, J. (2005). From research and development to mobile learning: Tools for education and training providers and their learners. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/

Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). Mobile learning and social inclusion: Focusing on learners and learning. In J. Attewell &

159

http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/

http://info.walkerart.org//about/contact.wac#Contact

http://angel.com/

http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Ally-an%20intelligent.pdf

http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Ally-an%20intelligent.pdf

http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/adolescent/summary.html

http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/adolescent/summary.html

C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Learning with mobile devices research and development: A book of papers (pp. 3-11). London: Learningand Skills Development Agency.

Beebe, J. (2001). Rapid assessment process. Walter Creek, CA:

Altamira Press.

Berman, S., & Tinker, R. (1997). The world 's the limit in the virtual high school. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 52.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf

Blomeyer, R. (2001). Online learning for k-12 students: What do we know now? Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Brandon, B. (2004 June) Applying instructional systems processes to constructivist learning environments. The e Learning Developers' Journal. Retrieved on November 4, 2004 from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/062904DES.pdf

Breck, B. (2006). Why is education not in the ubiquitous Web world picture? Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://goldenswamp.com/articles/edTech8.06/edTechP1.html

Brown, T. (2006 October). mLearning across generations: Are we ready for the challenge? Paper presented at the mLearn: Across generations and cultures: 5th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Bannf, Alberta, Canada.

160

http://goldenswamp.com/articles/edTech8.06/edTechP1.html

http://goldenswamp.com/articles/edTech8.06/edTechP1.html

http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/062904DES.pdf

http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf

http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf

Canfield, A. (1980). Learning styles inventory manual. Ann Arbor, MI: Humanics Media.

Canfield, A. (1988). Learning style inventory manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Cauglin, J., & Vincent, T. (2003). Handhelds for teachers and administrators: A complete resource for using handhelds in grades k-12. Watertown, MA: Scholastic.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). Retrieved August 20,2006, from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/forum3.pdf

Chen, G. D., Chang, C. K., & Wang, C.Y. (2008). Ubiquitous learning Website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Computer Education, 50(1), 77-90.

Cheung, S. (2004, December ). Fun and games with mobile phones: SMS messaging in microeconomics experiments. Paper presented atthe 21st Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE ), Australia.

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2001). Business research methods (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Critical issue: Monitoring the school literacy program. (2000). Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/reading/li700.htm

161

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/reading/li700.htm

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/reading/li700.htm

http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/forum3.pdf

Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy. Washington DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

Cziko, C. (1998). Reading happens in your mind, not in your mouth: Teaching & learning "Academic Literacy" in an urban high school. California English, 3(4, Summer 1998).

Dede, C. (1998). ASCD yearbook 1998 learning with technology. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.

Dede, C., Korte, S., Nelson, R., Valdez, G., & Ward, D. (2005). Transforming learning in the 21st Century. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the education process. Boston: Henry Holt.

Dewey, J. (2002). The educational situation [reprint of 1906article]. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(2), 104-118.

Dirr, P. (1999). Distance and virtual learning in the UnitedStates. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved May 5, 2008 from http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=35

Divitini, M., Haugalokken, O. & Noverik, P. (2002). Improvingcommunication through mobile technologies: Which possibilities? IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. Vaxjo, Sweden: The Printing House of the IEEE Computer Society & IEEE.

Dodge, B. (1998). Schools, skills, and scaffolding on the Web. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/scaffolding.html

162

http://edWeb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/scaffolding.html

http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=35

http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=35

Downing, J. (2005). Mobile phone subscribers pass 2 billion. RetrievedAugust 20, 2006, from http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/08/25/2_billion_mobil.html

Education Commission of the States. (2004). Reading literacy. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=97

ej4. (2005). ej4. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.ej4.com/default.asp#Scene_1

ej4. (2006, April). Generating business results with mLearning. ej4 Briefings, 2.

enGauge: 21st century skills. (2000). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/execsum.htm

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2001). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/

pg34.html#sec2401

Explore. (2006). Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.act.org/explore/index.html

Evenson, T. (2004). How do children think about technology? Innovations Report: Science, Industry, and Business. Retrieved March 5, 2006 from http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/social_sciences/report-37423.html

Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006). Handhelds: Learning with handheld technologies. Bristol, UK: Future Lab.

163

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/social_sciences/report-37423.html



http://www.act.org/explore/index.html

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html#sec2401

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html#sec2401

http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/execsum.htm

http://www.ej4.com/default.asp#Scene_1

http://ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueID=97

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/08/25/2_billion_mobil.html

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/08/25/2_billion_mobil.html

Frohberg, D. (2006). Mobile learning is coming of age: What we have and what we still miss. Conference proceedings from of the 4th DELFI Conference. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/im/fileadmin/user_upload/personen_downloads/2006_DELFI_Darmstadt_MLearn_Framework.pdf

From E-leaning to M-learning. (2001) Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/thebook/chapter4.html

Gagne, R. (1992). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt,Rinehart, & Winston.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). Longman, NY: Longman.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence in the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2004). Critical thinking conference. Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://sta.uwi.edu/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=73

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantum Books.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1990). A realistic approach (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

GoKnow (2006). Cooties. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.GoKnow.com/Products/Cooties/

164

http://www.GoKnow.com/Products/Cooties/

http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/thebook/chapter4.html

http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/thebook/chapter4.html

http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/im/fileadmin/user_upload/personen_downloads/2006_DELFI_Darmstadt_MLearn_Framework.pdf

http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/im/fileadmin/user_upload/personen_downloads/2006_DELFI_Darmstadt_MLearn_Framework.pdf

Grigg, W., Donahue, P., & Dion, G. (2007) The nation's report card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2005/2007468.asp

Grinter, R., & Eldridge, M. (2001). Y do tngrs luv 2txt msg? in W.Prinz, M. Jarke, Rogers, K. Schmidt and V. Wulf (eds.):Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW '01, Bonn, Germany. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.219-238.

Guensberg, C. (2006). Why Johnny (still) can't read. Edutopia2(1), 35-36.

ITED. (2008). Retrieved September 22, 2008 from http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/ited/ited_about_prp.htm

Ito, M., Okabe, D., Matsuda, M. (Eds.). (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

Jacobs, S. (2001). Success factors in educational foundations. Retrieved February 21,

2006, from http://www.coe.ufl.edu/Leadership/Distance/7990/group1/group1notes/Successfactorsined.founds.html

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA, ASCD.

Jensen, E. (2001). Arts with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using educational technology. IL:North Central Regional

165

http://www.coe.ufl.edu/Leadership/Distance/7990/group1/group1notes/Successfactorsined.founds.html

http://www.coe.ufl.edu/Leadership/Distance/7990/group1/group1notes/Successfactorsined.founds.html

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/ited/ited_about_prp.htm

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/ited/ited_about_prp.htm

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2005/2007468.asp

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2005/2007468.asp

Educational Laboratory.

Jukes, I., & Dosaj, A. (2003). The disconnect: What causes this disconnect?

Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://www.apple.com/au/education/digitalkids/disconnect/landscape.html

Kassesniemi, E. (2003). Mobile messages: Young people and a new communication culture (H. Liikala, Trans.). Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Kassesniemi, E., & Rautianinen, P. (2002). Mobile culture ofchildren and

teenagers in Finland. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.),Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 170-192).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kay, A. (2007) The PC must be revamped now! CIO Insight. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Alan-Kay-The-PC-Must-Be-Revamped151Now/

Keegan, D. (2005 October). The incorporation of mobile learning into mainstream education and training. Paper presented at the mLearn 2005, South Africa.

Kirkpatrick, D. (2006). Life in a connected world. Fortune. Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380862/index.htm

Knowledge Loom. (1999). Adolescent literacy in the content areas. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from http://knowledgeloom.org/practices3.jsp?location=1&bpinterid=1174&spotlightid=1174

166

http://knowledgeloom.org/practices3.jsp?location=1&bpinterid=1174&spotlightid=1174

http://knowledgeloom.org/practices3.jsp?location=1&bpinterid=1174&spotlightid=1174

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380862/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380862/index.htm

http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Alan-Kay-The-PC-Must-Be-Revamped151Now/

http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Alan-Kay-The-PC-Must-Be-Revamped151Now/

Kruse, K. (2006). Introduction to instructional design and the ADDIE Model. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.E-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm

Learning Mobile Author. (2008). Hot Lava Software. Retrieved May4, 2008, from

http:// www.hotlava.com

Learning Skills Developmental Agency. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and mLearning project summary. London: Learning Skills Development Agency.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005Web.pdf

Lett, R. (2004). Kids & cell phones. Retrieved July 18, 2006, fromhttp://ezinearticles.com/?Kids-and-Cell-Phones&id=1037

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. B., & Mizell, A. P. (2003). Teaching and learning with technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Levin, H. (2005-2006). Laptop program update. Learning & Leading with Technology, 33(4), 17-20.

Lincoln-Way High School 210. (2006). Reading program. RetrievedJuly 6, 2006, from http://www.lw210.org/central/departments/Reading/Descriptions.html

Livingston, P. (2005-2006). Laptop program update. Learning & Leading with Technology, 33(4), 21-22.

Maeroff, G. (2003). A classroom of one. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

167

http://www.lw210.org/central/departments/Reading/Descriptions.html

http://www.lw210.org/central/departments/Reading/Descriptions.html

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005Web.pdf

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005Web.pdf

http://www.hotlava.com/

http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm

http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm

Matilla, P., & Fordell, T. (2005). MOOP—Using MLearning environment in primary schools. Retrieved August 20, 2006, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Mattila.pdf

McCarthy, B. (2002). Key researchers, from Retrieved October 10, 2004 from http://www.aboutlearning.com/4matonline/wheel1.html

McCarthy, B. (2005). Teaching around the 4MAT® cycle: Designing instruction for diverse learners with diverse learning styles. Corwin Press: CA.

McConatha, D., & Paul, M. (2007, August 22-24). Mobile learningin the classroom: An empirical assessment of a new tool for students and teachers. Paper presented at the Washington Interactive Technologies Conference sponsored by Society for Applied Learning Technology in Arlington, VA.

McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology: Amanual for every mind (2nd ed.). Eugene, Oregon: ISTE.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1999). Understanding by design handbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Miyaki, Y. (2005). Keitai use among Japanese elementary and junior high students. In M. Ito, O. Daisuke, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 277-299). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2005). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning (No. 11).UK: University of Birmingham.

NEA Report: Guide to online high school courses. (2002). Retrieved March31, 2004, from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlinecourseguide.html

168

http://www.nea.org/technology/onlinecourseguide.html

http://www.aboutlearning.com/4matonline/wheel1.html

http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Mattila.pdf

Nelson, E. (2003). Faculty technology survey. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from

http://www.csufresno.edu/ait/03fac-openends.htm#obstacles

No child left behind act index. (2002). Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/hqt/edlite-index.html

Negroponte, N. (2006 June). One laptop per child. Keynote addressat National Educational Computing Conference in San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNx0qcjXJTU

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2003). The viable alternative: Handhelds. The School Administrator, 60(4), 16, 27-28.

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27.

Oblinger, J. (2006). Ensuring students' success. EDUCAUSE Review, 10-11.

Okabe, D., Ito, M., Matsuda, M. (2006, August 9). Ketai in public transportation: Part

two. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.japanmediareview.com/japan/stories/060809okabeito/

Owen, A., Farsail, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2005-2006). Teaching in the one-to-one classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 33(4), 12-16.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (1st ed.). USA: Basic Books.

169

http://www.japanmediareview.com/japan/stories/060809okabeito/

http://www.japanmediareview.com/japan/stories/060809okabeito/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNx0qcjXJTU

http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/hqt/edlite-index.html

http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/hqt/edlite-index.html



Papert, S. (2004 May). The slow revolution. Keynote Address at 1:1 Computing Conference. Sydney, Australia: Apple. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://homepage.mac.com/stager/iMovieTheater23.html

Park, J., & Staresina, L. (2004). Tracking U.S. trends: Education week survey of state technology contacts, 2004. Education Week, XXIII(35), 64-67.

Partnership for 21st century skills. (2004). Retrieved July 15, 2004, from

http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf

Piaget. (1979). Relations between psychology and other sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 1-8.

Palm Education Pioneer Program. (2002). Retrieved September 2, 2006, from http://palmgrants.sri.com/grants.html

Polster, S. (2003). Maine laptop program shows strong results. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage..action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15269

Positive Motion. (2007). Retrieved May 1, 2007 from http://mobileprep.positivemotion.com/home/

Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything!. Innovate. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83

Rainie, L., & Keeter, S. (2006). Cell phone use. Retrieved June15, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Cell_phone_study.pdf

170

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Cell_phone_study.pdf

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Cell_phone_study.pdf

http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83

http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83

http://mobileprep.positivemotion.com/home/

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage..action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15269

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage..action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15269

http://palmgrants.sri.com/grants.html



http://homepage.mac.com/stager/iMovieTheater23.html

Roblyer, M. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? Study of student motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 157-171.

Rubenstein, G. (2006). The new drill. Edutopia, February, 5-8.

Rueff, J. (2006, May 22). Chug buggy education for the 21st century. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.eye2theworld.com/i16a1.htm

Santo, S. (2005). Canfield’s learning styles inventory. Retrieved August20, 2005, from http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/canfield.html

Schank, R. (2002). Designing world class E-learning: How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at E-learning (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005 October). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Paper presented at the mLearn 2005, Africa.

Shih, Y., & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the new standard with mobile computing in online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). 1-16.

Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.

Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: MeredithCorporation.

Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, B. (2001). Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 15-20.

171

http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/canfield.html

http://www.eye2theworld.com/i16a1.htm

Soon, L., & Sugden, D. (2003, November). Engaging students through SMS messaging. Paper presented at the Ferl 2003 Conference workshop. Ferl, Becta, 28.

Sybase.com. (2008) Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://www.sybase.com/products/mobileenterprise

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thornburg, D. T. (2002). The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005 November). Using mobile phones in education. Paper presented at the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'04). Japan.

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Traxler, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Evaluating mobile learning: Reflections on current practice. Retrieved August 2, 2006, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Traxler.pdf

Trotter, A. (2000). Technology in the classoom. In S. o. E. Week (Ed.), Lessons of a Century: A Nation's Schools Come of Age. Betheseda, MD: Education Week.

Turrettini, E. (2004). 100% of Norwegian teens have a mobile phone. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/03/27/100_of_norwegi.html

Ulrich, J. (2006, July). What's your mobile strategy? Television Broadcast: The Biz, 48-49.

172

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/03/27/100_of_norwegi.html

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/03/27/100_of_norwegi.html

http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Traxler.pdf

http://www.sybase.com/products/mobileenterprise

University of Iowa. (2006). Description of Iowa test of educational development tests, levels 15-17/18 (Grades 9-12). Retrieved July 7, 2006 from http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/ited/ited_about.htm

Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm education pioneers final report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Verisign. (2008). Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.verisign.com/static/002638.pdf

Virtual School Forum. (2002, October 21-22). Paper presented at the Virtual School Forum, Denver, CO.

Wagner, E. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 40-53.

Wagner, E. (2007). Mobile learning: The next step in technology-mediated learning, Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_article.asp?articleid=1686&zoneid=77

Webopedia encyclopedia online. (2006). Retrieved November 9, 2006,from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/IVR.html

Wen, J. (2006). Positive motion. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http://mobileprep.positivemotion.com/home/index.php

Williams, B. (2006) Handheld computers and smartphones in secondary

schools: A guide to hands-on learning. Eugene, OR: InternationalSociety in Technology in Education.

Zucker, A., Kozma, R., Yarnall, L., & Marder, C. (2003). Thevirtual high school: Teaching generation v. New York: Teachers College Press.

173

http://mobileprep.positivemotion.com/home/index.php

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/IVR.html

http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_article.asp?articleid=1686&zoneid=77

http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_article.asp?articleid=1686&zoneid=77

http://www.verisign.com/static/002638.pdf

http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/ited/ited_about.htm

APPENDIX A. READING CURRICULUM EXAMPLES

The reading program is dividing into modules that include vocabulary frontloading, a short non-fiction book with discussions, six-way paragraphs that focus on factual reading and a Habit from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens, by Sean Covey.

A. Vocabulary frontloading includes the origin of the word, the word, definition and its pronunciation. The vocabulary words are divided into the following categories. Examples are provided within each category.

Space and Time Roots: enni______________ bicentennialFirst Place: In the Beginning: Nat_______________natural, nativityFamily and Family Roots: Matr______________matrimony, matriarchWrite it Down: graph_____________graphic, autographFull or Empty: pan_______________panorama, panaceaInside Out: infra______________infrastructure, infraredTouchy-Feely: bel_______________belligerent, bellow, Words About Seeing: imag______________imagination, imageryWords About Hearing: aud_______________audio, auditoryWords About Listening: phon______________phonograph, phonicWord About Speaking: narr_______________narrator, narrative

Other exercises include: Over 100 ways to say I love you.Over 100 ways to say saidWord presented and your predictions

B. Example book: Of Beetles and Angels: A Boy’s Remarkable Journey from a Refugee Camp to Harvard. By Mawi Asgedom

174

Vocabulary is prepared in conjunction with the book and discussion and comprehension techniques are used.

C. Steps in a Nutshell to Get the Most out of your Reading for ComprehensionThink about the title of the passageRead the passage quicklyAnswer the questions, using the dot systemRead the passage again carefullyMark your final answersMark your answers on a diagnostic chartCorrect your answersFind your total comprehension scoreGraph your progressTake corrective action

D. Habit number 4, Think Win-Win, is read, discussed and comprehension process is applied.

175

APPENDIX A. PARENT AND STUDENT CONSENT LETTER

September 15, 2007

Dear Parents,

Your high school student will participate in a research study about how they can use cell phones for learning in twomodules of their reading program here at Lincoln-Way High School. This study will begin on October 2007 and end on October 2007.

To participate, a few guidelines must be followed.

1. Students will only use cell phones during the reading

course for the reading class.

2. Cell phones used must follow the regular school rule in

the student manual outside of the reading class.

3. Password confidentiality must be honored at all times.

Students will not give the research site password to

non-participatory students.

All information obtained in this study will be confidential

and honors anonymity.

If you have any questions, please contact (name), reading

coordinator.

Sincerely,

176

Lucianne SwederCapella University Ph.D. Candidate ResearcherGovernors State University Lecturer and Assistant Director of the Adventures of the American Mind Library of Congress Program.

Parents’

Signature:________________________________________Date______

______

Student

Signature________________________________________Date_______

______

177

APPENDIX C. READING TEACHER INSTRUCTIONS

September 20, 2008

Dear Reading Teacher,

In preparation for mobile (cell) phone learning research, ninth-grade reading students will take an online pre-survey to determine student demographics, technology literacy otherthan mobile phone use, mobile phone use, and identification of mobile phone capabilities of students’ mobile phones. Please provide time for students to take this Web-based survey by date, 2007

Prepare your students by instructing them that they will be taking an online pre-survey. Once they start the pre-survey, they must answer all questions to complete the survey and submit the survey by selecting the submit button.The student instructions are reproduced in this letter and copies of the instructions are provided for you to distribute to each of your students.

Student instructions:

Dear Reading Student,

You will be taking a Web-based pre-survey to help us learn how you use cell phones. Even if you do not have a cell phone of your own, take the pre-survey. We want to obtain some information to determine if you can be part of aspecial study in reading. Follow these steps.

1. Type in http://aam.govst.edu/lwhs/cellphones.asp2. Click on the link that says Pre-Survey for LWHS

Reading Students.3. Read the instructions and answer all questions.4. Click on submit.

178

Thank you for your assistance with this pre-survey and support of learning. Sincerely,

Lucianne SwederCapella University Doctoral StudentGovernors State University Lecturer and Assistant Director of the Adventures of the American Mind Library of Congress Program.

179

APPENDIX D. READING STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS

Date

Dear Reading Student,

You will be taking a Web-based pre-survey to help us learn how you use cell phones. Even if you do not have a cell phone of your own, take the pre-survey. We want to obtain some information to determine if you can be part of aspecial study in reading. Follow these steps.

1. Type in http://aam.govst.edu/lwhs/cellphones.asp2. Click on the link that says Pre-Survey for HS

Reading Students3. Read the instructions and answer all questions.4. Click on submit.

Thank you for your assistance with this pre-survey. Sincerely,

Lucianne SwederProject Director for Mobile Learning ResearchCapella University Doctoral StudentGovernors State University Lecturer and Assistant Director of the Adventures of the American Mind Library of Congress Program.

180

http://aam.govst.edu/lwhs/cellphones.asp

APPENDIX E. PRE-SURVEY

Instructions will be provided on the Internet Survey SiteSchool District Cell (Mobile) Phone Student Pre-Survey

1. Select your gender.a. Maleb. Female

2. Do you have your own cell phone? If you do not, then skip to the questions listed

from 3-10.a. yesb. no

3. How often do you use your cell phone each day? a. never

b. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

4. How often do you text message on your cell phone each day?

a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

5. How often do you send photos on your cell phone each day?a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

6. How often do you use your cell phone to make phone calls each day?


181

7. How often do you take pictures with your cell phone?a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

8. How often do you search on the Internet with your cell phone?


9. How often do you download ring tones on your cell phone?a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

10.How often do you play games on your cell phone?a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more

11. How often do you use a computer to IM?a. neverb. once a monthc. more than once a weekd. once a weeke. once a dayf. more than once a day

12. How often did you use a computer in 8th grade to complete schoolwork?

a. neverb. once a monthc. more than once a week

182

d. once a weeke. once a dayf. more than once a day

13. How often do you blog on the Internet?a. neverb. once a monthc. more than once a weekd. once a weeke. once a dayf. more than once a day

14. How often do you download music to the computer?a. neverb. once a monthc. more than once a weekd. once a weeke. once a dayf. more than once a day

15. How often do you download pictures to the computer?a. neverb. once a monthc. more than once a weekd. once a weeke. once a dayf. more than once a day

16. Do you think you would like to use your cell phone for learning subjects in school?

a. yesb. no

17. Do you think that you would be a better student if you could use your cell phone for learning in school?

a. yesb. no

183

18. Do you think you would spend more time studying if you used your cell phone in school?

a. yesb. no

Thank you for your participation.

184

APPENDIX F: STUDENT GUIDELINES FOR MOBILE PHONE LEARNING

to cell phones in reading.You are helping me with a special project and I hope that I plan on helping you with your vocabulary words in Reading Seminar.

Do!1. You will use Mobile Prep to study vocabulary words.You can text message. Make sure you use text messaging to send vocabulary words or other ideas about your reading to other students in class. You can text message by typing in the phone number, but abetter way is to add a contact. Reading Teacher 815-409-9562…add this contactCapella University Ph.D. Candidate Researcher 815-409-9575…add this contact 2. You can create your own screen savers by taking

pictures. 3. You can call 800-395-5912 to hear the vocabulary words

of the day read to you. Add this # to contacts.

Do Not! 1. Do not delete any text messages2. You should not download games, music, on demands,

videos, etc. because you have to purchase all of these.If you accidentally do, let me or Mrs. Matty know as soon as possible. If you do not go to these areas, then you should not have any difficulties.

More about Mobile Prep…

185

1. Go to Applications under the My Content (looks like a folder with a star)

2. Select Mobile Prep, choose stack, review,

Review Drill

186

1. Vocabulary

2. Vocabulary Set Two

3. Vocabulary Set Three

4. Vocabular

USING MOBILE LEARNING TO TEACH READING TO NINTH-GRADE STUDENTS

Documents

Transcript of USING MOBILE LEARNING TO TEACH READING TO NINTH-GRADE STUDENTS