EDUCATION IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM: USE OF MOBILE

TECNOLOGY IN THE LEARNING OF ENGLISH

Prof. Thahiya Afzal

Assistant Professor
School of Social Sciences and Languages
VIT University
Vellore, India
tahiyaafzal@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

In little more than a decade, mobile phones have become the clear technology of choice for
communication. The technology has proven so useful that it is likely to remain a popular method
of information delivery for some time to come. Short Message Service (SMS) has become an
extremely important way to send and receive information. Texting, as it is otherwise known is
not the only way we use these phones. With the advent of smart phones and use of latest
connectivity with 3G powered phones, these can be used extensively in empowering education.
The use of these phones help in providing a technical impetus and drive to the class room
experience. Mobile technology can be used to empower the teacher to make the class room
livelier and more interactive. This paper looks at how technology in general and mobile phone
technology in particular can be used to enhance the teaching-learning experience. It also explores
ways and means by which mobile phone technology can help in the learning of the English
language.

INTRODUCTION

Information and communications technology or ICT, has evolved over the years as a more
specific term that stresses the role of unified communications and the integration of
telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals), computers as well as necessary
enterprise software, middleware, storage, and audio-visual systems, which enable users to access,
store, transmit, and manipulate information. The term ICT has been used extensively by
academic researchers and educationists in understanding educational theory and methodology
since the 1980s (Melody, 9), but it became popular after it was used in a report to the UK

1
government by Dennis Stevenson in 1997 and in the revised National Curriculum for England,
Wales and Northern Ireland in 2000.

The term ICT is also used largely to refer to the ‘convergence’ of audio-visual and now telephone
networks and ‘mobile technology’ with computer networks through a single cabling or link
system. There are large incentives in the use of mobile technology in education in general and
particularly in classrooms. Almost all major computer hardware manufacturers now produce
small, and steadily cheaper laptops, also known as netbooks. Many projects at different levels
promote the use of netbooks, especially in education. The government of Tamil Nadu under its
new education initiative made available free distribution of laptops to students across schools
and colleges making it viable for young minds to integrate technology into their learning process.

But perhaps discussions are not about whether to use small laptops or mobile phones. It’s likely
that future developments in education in terms of methodology will make use of both
technologies. It does make better sense though to use mobile phones as they are used more
extensively, are not function specific and easily adaptable to different needs. Of course, it helps
that computers and phones now have compatible operating systems, allowing users to run the
same software and applications on both devices. Integration of technology is definitely the most
sensible way to reach even rural areas and connect with the millions of people that can make
using such a system economically and physically viable.

The easy availability of advanced technology on economically viable smartphones on the market
have made it possible for almost everyone to use them irrespective of age and class. The newly
developed Android platform has varied apps for every need with free options in direct
competition to the Apple store that caters to a niche market. The mobile phone as a device faces
the same dilemma that Television faced in the latter half of the 20 th century. It was considered
quite unfavourably as the ‘idiot box’ and a nuisance in most homes. Some even believed it was a
passing fancy but over the years Television has proved to be a medium that is seen to even give
Hollywood a run for its money not to mention the local movie industry we have in India.
Similarly the mobile phone is often considered harmful device with studies that contend that it
interferes with the human brain, causes cancer of the brain due to over exposure to radiation. But
in spite of it all no one can debate the fact that it is an indispensable and integral part of our lives.

2
We cannot possibly imagine life without a mobile phone. In India especially most of us grew into
adulthood without having even envisaged the technology, but having gotten used to the ease and
comfort of staying connected it has become the most public of needs and the most private forum
to use. The world has truly shrunk and the concept of a “global village” has become an operative
reality. With this most people have woken up to the potential and reach of this gadget. From
marketing to social networking, chatting online to surfing the worldwide web, downloading
music, videos and books there’s hardly anything your device cannot do. Educational institutions
too have realized this and use the platform to stay in touch with parents and students alike. If
these devices are indispensable, easily accessible and technology enabled it is high time that the
potential of this device to promote the learning –teaching experience be put to use.

WHAT IS m LEARNING?

‘Mobile learning’ then refers essentially to the use of such technology-especially the use of hand
held devices like mobile phones to help meet a variety of educational objectives in everyday life.
Studies have been carried out to help educationists and academicians in understanding how to
use, harness and effectively exploit the use of this technology to its fullest potential. Twelve new
reports from UNESCO provide a broad overview of what is happening in different regions of the
world in this area. “Shaping the Future-Realizing the potential of informal learning through
mobile” which was released at an eLearning event in Benin, Africa provides an insight into
understanding how mobile phone technology can be used in classrooms extensively even in rural
areas of most third world countries. In late 2011, researchers went into four very different
emerging markets-Ghana, Morocco, India and Uganda-and asked 1,200 people (aged 15-24)
about their day-to-day lives, their ambitions, their education, the way they use mobile now and
how mobile could help them achieve their aspirations in the future. At the same time, over 250
young people from those countries took part in detailed focus group discussions where, with
“great generosity, they shared their hopes, worries and beliefs” (Trucano, 1). The report strongly
recommends and believes that “m Learning” can and will provide another “valued source of
education information” (Trucano, 2). “Organizations involved in developing and delivering m
Learning services need to understand the day-to-day lives of young people if they are to create
services that will improve education and employment prospects”. (Trucana, 4).

3
Many educational institutions are now exploring potential support for m-learning initiatives of
various kinds and looking forward to tying up progressively with leading brands. Mobile
operators themselves can gain proportionally with the many suggestions and recommendations
made as to how such firms can offer or support a variety of services and practices of potential
relevance to young people via mobile handsets. These can be made with specifications related to
their professed education needs and individual contexts and aspirations and help them in learning
better. In Tamil Nadu for example, the government has tied up with Nokia to provide mobile
phones with imbedded technology to help students learn what it calls “the fun way”.

In an almost first of its kind initiative the school education department has launched a website
www.admin.tnschoola.gov.in in which all officials, right from the Chief Minister of the state
down to the School Teacher can check, monitor and gauge the academic performance of the
students. Organizations involved in developing and delivering m Learning services need to
understand the day-to-day lives of young people if they are to create services that will improve
education and employment prospects. Developing that understanding is the primary purpose of
developing this medium says Trucana.

The reach of m Learning is both extensive and intensive. For most young people, classrooms are
not the first source of information. Only half the interviewed named the classrooms as their
‘primary source’ information and education, reflecting the fact that many young people have left
formal educational framework as well as the current limitations of mainstream education.
Friends and family were named more importantly as an information source, as well as networks
such as Facebook and Twitter.

Also, even those who don’t have mobile phones have relatively easy access to them. Amongst
young people across smaller cities, 85% or more have access to a mobile phone or SIM
card…..SIM swapping (the phenomenon of owning not a phone, but of a SIM card that you
could snap into someone else’s phone when you need to use it, so that you, and not your friend,
would incur any related charges), for example, is widespread among many groups. Use of
smartphones, which are becoming more widely available in general, is still relatively in its
nascent stages but growing progressively. Internet usage powered with 3G technology has made
it easier to access information at all levels.

4
Mobile phones are already being used informally in many cases in ad hoc ways to support
learning activities. Communication with friends about homework assignments, recording of
lectures, discussions of educational nature via SMS-these are already in vogue, but not in any
systematic way linked to formal educational delivery programmes. What m learning intends is to
harness these for effective implementation of teaching methodology in classrooms. A majority of
young people also see clear potential in mobile learning. Language learning, reading materials
can be accessed easily at will and can help the student learn in simple ways.

There is an urgent need to re-conceptualise learning for the mobile age. It is also important to
recognise the essential role of mobility and communication in the process of learning, and also to
indicate the importance of ‘context’ in establishing meaning to this process, and establish the
transformative effect of digital networks in supporting virtual communities that transcend
barriers of age, culture and place. In this regard a framework for theorising about mobile learning
is relevant need of the day. It is important to complement theories for infant, classroom,
workplace and informal learning. A related aim would be to work through an informed design of
new environments and technologies to support mobile learning. A series of projects can be
developed to design mobile learning technology as a formal learning teaching experience.

Activity Theory by itself has become a traditional framework for learning. The learning process
can be analysed as a cultural-historical activity system, often restricted and mediated by tools
that both constrain and support the learners in their goals of transforming and enhancing their
knowledge and skills. This system can be seen from two separate perspectives, or layers, of tool-
mediated activity. The semiotic layer describes learning as a semiotic system in which the
learner’s object oriented actions are mediated by cultural tools and signs. The technological layer
represents learning as an engagement with technology, in which tools such as computers and
mobile phones function as interactive agents in the process of getting to know or learning as we
know it. These layers can be sometimes prised apart, to provide either a semiotic framework to
promote discussion with educational theorists to analyse learning in the mobile age, or a
technological framework for software developers and engineers to propose requirements for the
design and evaluation of new mobile learning systems. Moreover the layers can be superimposed
to examine the dynamics and co-evolution of learning and technology.

A first step in garnering a theory of mobile learning is to distinguish what is special about

5
mobile learning compared to other types of learning activity. A very obvious, yet essential,
difference is that it starts from the assumption that learners are not static or in a forced
atmosphere of learning but continually on the move. It is possible to learn across space as we
take ideas and learning resources that are formed in one location and apply or develop them in
another or several others paralelly. We can learn across time, by revisiting knowledge that was
derived earlier in a different context, and more broadly, through ideas and strategies gained in
early years providing a framework for a lifetime of learning. We can move from topic to topic,
managing a range of personal learning projects, rather than follow a single binding curriculum.
We can also move in and out of engagement with technology, for example as we enter and leave
cell phone coverage.

To portray learning as a labile activity is not to separate it from other forms of educational
activity, since some aspects of informal and workplace learning are fundamentally mobile. Even
learners within a school will move from room to room and shift from topic to topic. Rather, it
shows in sharp relief existing practices of learning. By enabling mobility in learning it is
relatively easy to understand the process. A better understanding can be developed of how
knowledge and skills can be transferred across contexts such as home and school, how learning
can be managed across life transitions, and how new technologies can be designed to support a
society in which people on the move increasingly try to cram learning into the interstices of daily
life.

A theory of mobile learning must therefore embrace the considerable learning that occurs outside
classrooms and lecture halls as people initiate and structure their activities to enable educational
processes and outcomes. A study of everyday adult learning found that 51% of the reported
learning episodes took place at home or in the learner’s own office at the workplace, i.e. at the
learner’s usual environment. The rest occurred in the workplace outside the office (21%),
outdoors (5%), in a friend’s house (2%), or at places of leisure (6%). Other locations reported
(14%) included places of worship, the doctor’s surgery, cafes, hobby stores, and cars.
Interestingly, only 1% of the self-reported learning occurred on transport, which suggests both
that mobile learning is not necessarily associated with physical movement, and conversely that
there may be opportunities to design new technology that supports learning during the growing
amounts of time that people spent travelling.

6
M learning offers a lot in terms of advantages as a learning platform. Learner anonymity is an
important potential attribute of learning activities that utilize mobile phones. Students would
perhaps enjoy the opportunity to learn anonymously (particularly those who lack confidence in
classrooms-type environments) while others can repeatedly access the information/lessons,
which would be valuable if they didn’t understand it the first time around. There are a few very
important barriers to the use of mobiles. Costs to users-of the phones themselves, of air time, for
access to individual services—is not surprisingly a key potential barrier to the adoption of m-
learning services. But these are larger concerns and have not impacted the general use of mobile
phones and thereby should not hamper m Learning.

A central concern must be to understand how people artfully and effectively engage with their
surroundings to create impromptu sites of learning. For example, children with internet enabled
mobiles can disappear under a school table and thereby create a private learning space. Or an
adult who wants to learn how to connect a computer to a printer can create a context for learning
out of a computer, a printer and a cable on a table in the house, and a friend with some
knowledge of computer hardware. But most importantly to be of value, a theory of learning must
be based on contemporary accounts of practices that enable successful learning. The US National
Research Council produced a synthesis of research into educational effectiveness across ages and
subject areas (National Research Council, 1999). It concluded that effective learning is:

 learner centred: It builds on the skills and knowledge of students, enabling them
to reason from their own experience;
 knowledge centred: The curriculum is built from sound foundation of validated
knowledge, taught efficiently and with inventive use of concepts and methods;
 assessment centred: Assessment is matched to the ability of the learners, offering
diagnosis and formative guidance that builds on success;
 community centred: Successful learners form a mutually promotive community,
sharing knowledge and supporting less able students.
A theory of mobile learning should take account of the ubiquitous use of personal and shared
technology. In the UK, over 75% of the general population and 90% of young adults own mobile
phones (Crabtree, 2003). A survey in 2003 at the University of Birmingham found that 43% of

7
students owned laptop computers. These figures mask the huge disparities in access to
technology around the world, but they indicate a trend towards ownership of at least
one, and for some people two or three, items of powerful mobile technology including mobile
phones, cameras, music players and portable computers. A trend relevant to a theory of learning
in the mobile world is that some developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are by-
passing the fixed network telephony to install cellphone networks to rural areas. These offer the
opportunity for people in rural communities not only to make phone calls, but to gain the
advantages of mobile services such as text and multimedia messaging.

Sharples in his study in 2002 suggests that Mobile learning can both complement and conflict
with formal education. Learners can extend their classroom learning to homework, field trips,
and museum visits by, for example, reviewing teaching material on mobile devices or collecting
and analysing information using handheld data probes. On the downswing they could also
disrupt the carefully managed environment of the classroom by bringing into it their own
multimedia phones and wireless games machines, to hold private conversations within and
outside the school. By and large this is the conventional approach to mobile phones but Sharples
suggests MALL or Mobile Assisted language Learning.

To effectively incorporate m learning, studies suggest that a theory of mobile learning must be
tested against the following criteria:

 Is it significantly different from current theories of classroom, workplace or lifelong

learning?
 Does it account for the mobility of learners?
 Does it cover both formal and informal learning?
 Does it theorise learning as a constructive and social process?
 Does it analyse learning as a personal and situated activity mediated by technology?

Work in this field of study is underway in parts of the world recognising the potential of this
learning tool. As part of the process of developing a theory of mobile learning, the core members
of the MOBIlearn European project held a reflection session during its final plenary meeting in
January 2005, to discuss what is distinctive about mobile learning and “what do we know now
that we didn’t at the start of the project”. MOBIlearn involved 24 partners from the European

Community, Israel, Switzerland, USA and Australia to develop new methods and systems for
mobile learning.
8
Thornton and Houser also developed several innovative projects using mobile phones to teach
English at a Japanese university. One focused on providing vocabulary instruction by SMS.
Three times a day, they emailed short mini-lessons to students, sent in discrete chunks so as to be
easily readable on the tiny screens. Lessons defined five words per week, recycled previous
vocabulary, and used the words in various contexts, including episodic stories. Students were
tested biweekly and compared to groups that received identical lessons via the Web and on paper.
The authors then explored usability and learning issues. The results indicated that the SMS
students learned over twice the number of vocabulary words as the Web students, and that SMS
students improved their scores by nearly twice as much as students who had received their
lessons on paper. Students’ attitudes were also measured. The vast majority preferred the SMS
instruction, wished to continue such lessons, and believed it to be a valuable teaching method.
The authors theorized that their lessons had been effective due to their having been delivered as
push media, which promote frequent rehearsal and spaced study, and utilized recycled
vocabulary.

Levy and Kennedy created a similar program for Italian learners in Australia, sending
vocabulary words and idioms, definitions, and example sentences via SMS in a spaced and
scheduled pattern of delivery, and requesting feedback in the form of quizzes and follow up
questions.

Another program by and Houser utilized a classroom polling system, EduCALL (inspired by
EduClick), to survey students during class in order to determine vocabulary retention. Poll
questions were projected, students used their cell phones to surf to the polling software and make
their selections, and the tabulations were projected as bar graphs. In this way, students and
teachers alike received immediate feedback.

Kiernan and Aizawa set out to study whether or not mobile phones were useful language learning
tools and to explore their use in task-based learning. They argued that second language
acquisition is best promoted through the utilization of tasks, which require learners to close some
sort of gap, thereby focusing the learner on meaning. In the traditional classroom, however, such
activities are easily defeated by the close proximity of students. The use of mobile technologies
would be one way to separate learners.

9
In India too government initiatives have incorporated this tool into the learning system. Besides
using SMS school inspectors use devices to evaluate and assist teachers in enhancing the
learning process. Specially equipped mobile phones assist teachers in integrating technology. At
VIT where I work the whole learning atmosphere gives ample space to integrate technology as
part of main stream learning. Students use mobile devices to deliver presentations, complete
listening modules, scan and copy class exercises and complete entire projects which they
sometimes shoot and edit on their devices.

A few key recommendations of interest to other groups who are exploring the use of mobile
phones as part of various educational initiatives in classrooms would be Industry will need to
target the whole family when marketing m Learning services, so that parental gatekeepers” see
their value and are willing to experiment. Another is linking m Learning to activities that are
currently embedded in the lives of young people will have the strongest “immediate appeal” to
young mobile users. One example might be sports information with educational information: in a
cricket game listened to on a mobile, for example, half time breaks could feature short
informative language lessons.

WORKS CITED

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading,
Mass: Addison Wesley. 1996.

Banks, B.E-Portfolios: Their Uses and Benefits. Retrieved 25th June, 2005, from
http://ferl.becta.org.uk/content_files/ferl/resources/organisations/fd%20learning/eportfoliopaper
pdf.2004.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher(January-February 1989), 32-42.1989.

Chinnery, George M. Emerging technologies. Going to the mall: mobile assisted language
learning. Language learning & technology10.1.2006.9-16.

Crabtree, J., Nathan, M. and Roberts, S. MobileUK: Mobile phones and everydaylife.London:
The Work Foundation.2003.

Illich, I. Deschooling Society.London: Calder and Boyars. 1971.

10
Kiernan, P.J., & Aizawa, K. Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language
learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84. 2004.

Knowles, M. S., & Associates. Andragogy in Action. Applying modern principles of adult
education.San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 1984.

Leadbetter, C. Learning about Personalisation: how can we put the learner at the heart of the
education system. Retrieved 25th June, 2005, from
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/innovationunit/ pdf/Learningaboutpersonalisation.pdf?
version=1

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler
(Eds.), Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. London: Taylor and
Francis.2005.

Lonsdale, P., Baber, C., & Sharples, M. A Context Awareness Architecture for Facilitating
Mobile Learning. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Learning with Mobile Devices:
Research and Development (pp. 79-85). London: Learning and Skills Development
Agency.2004.

National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.1999.

Melody, William et al., Information and Communication Technologies: Social Sciences Research
and Training: A Report by the ESRC Programme on Information and Communication
Technologies, 1986.

Sharples, M. Disruptive devices: mobile technology for conversational learning. International

Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 12(5/6), 504-520.2002.

Sharples, M.Learning As Conversation: Transforming Education in the Mobile Age. In

Proceedings of Conference on Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age (pp. 147-
152). Budapest, Hungary.2005.

Sharples, Mike, Josie Taylor and Giasemi Vavoula. Towards a theory of mobile learning.
Proceedings of mlearn 2005. 1.1.2005. 1-9.

11
Silverstone, Roger et al., “Learning to a long conversation: an ethnographic approach to the
study of information and communication technologies in the home”, Cultural Studies, 5(2),
pages 204-227, 1991.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. M-learning in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing face of CALL
(pp. 229-243). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.2002.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. Using mobile web and video phones in English language teaching:
Projects with Japanese college students. In B. Morrison, C. Green, & G. Motteram (Eds.),
Directions in CALL: Experience, experiments & evaluation (pp. 207-224). Hong Kong: English
Language Centre, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.2003.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. Using mobile phones in English Education in Japan. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228.2005.

Trucano, Michaeal: Surveying Mobile Learning Around the World (part two), EduTech blog. The
Independent ICT in Schools Commission, Information and Communications Technology in UK
Schools: An Independent Inquiry, 1997. Impact noted in Jim Kelly, What the Web is Doing for
Schools, Financial Times, 2000.

Vavoula, G. KLeOS: A Knowledge and Learning Organisation System in Support ofLifelong

Learning. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.2004.

Vavoula, G. N. D4.4: A Study of Mobile Learning Practices: Internal report of MOBIlearn

project.2005.

http://www.mobiledevelopmentintelligence.com
http://www.admin.tnshools.gov.in

12