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
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
Research Questions 46
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
Research Questions 59
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
Research Question 2 Findings 93
Research Question 3 Findings 94
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
comprehension for ninth-grade average reading
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
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:
1. Will appropriately designed vocabulary frontloading
techniques delivered via mobile phones improve
comprehension for ninth-grade average reading
students?
72
2. Will there be a significant difference in
comprehension for ninth-grade average reading
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?
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
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
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
comprehension for ninth-grade average reading
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?
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
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
comprehension for ninth-grade average reading
138
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?
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.
Research Question 2 Findings
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.
Research Question 3 Findings
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more
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?
a. neverb. 1-4 timesc. 5-9 timesd.10 times or more
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
Top Related