Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior

5 downloads 14277 Views 256KB Size Report
Traxler and Dearden (2005) indicates a surprisingly in- teresting fact that most of the educators are not aware of the possibility of sending bulk SMS text ...
Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior Zheng Yan University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Managing Director: Managing Editor: Director of Intellectual Property & Contracts: Acquisitions Editor: Production Editor: Development Editor: Multi-Volume Book Production Specialist: Typesetters: Cover Design:

Lindsay Johnston Austin DeMarco Jan Travers Kayla Wolfe Christina Henning Erin O’Dea Denna Jo Zombro Lisandro Gonzalez, Kaitlyn Kulp, Cody Page, Amanda Smith Jason Mull

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2015 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of mobile phone behavior / Zheng Yan, editor. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4666-8239-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-8240-5 (ebook) 1. Cell phones--Social aspects. 2. Mobile communication systems--Social aspects. 3. Interpersonal communication--Technological innovations--Social aspects. I. Yan, Zheng, 1958HE9713.E63 2015 303.48’33--dc23 2015003299 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Category: Technologies and Apps

1163

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology Ilker Yengin Institute of High Performance Computing (A*STAR), Singapore Adem Karahoca Bahcesehir University, Turkey

INTRODUCTION SMS technology is a service using standardized communications protocols for transferring short messages between mobile communication systems (Ally, 2009). SMS text messages can be up to 160 characters using 7-bit encoding (Brown, Shipman & Vetter, 2007).

OVERVIEW Mobile technologies may facilitate collaboration, interaction, accessing, discovering, discussing and sharing information with the use of SMS services (Ryu & Parsons, 2009; Keegan, 2005; Metcalf, 2006). These opportunities are possible because mobile phones have more global usage than many other educational technologies and have less dependency. SMS technology only depends on a service provider in order to connect to the network. The SMS technology is widely available to many people around the globe and very personal to the users. This makes SMS potentially much more acceptable technology by the students and teachers (Keegan, 2006). Many other educational technologies may require additional effort and costs such as having registration, need of extra infrastructure, need of extra device purchase, maintenance and licensing. Mobile phone is used more generally in many schools. Nearly every student own one so there won’t be another cost to buy another device to receive the lesson content. Mobile phone and SMS is easier to use and

people are already using these functions for years almost since the first generation mobile phones. Therefore the learnability and adaptation of this technology is much greater. There is no need to have any extra effort to learn something new to operate the device in order to start benefiting it for teaching and learning. Uses of SMS with mobile phones have very different examples of successful implementations in education as in this study also presents. Hence school administrators and policy makers’ should consider SMS with mobile phones as another educational technology which has many potential benefits for education. The potential benefits of this technology are not very recent; they had been already discovered by the pioneer researchers in the field. For instance, Although there might be other research initiatives in the field that could be considered as the pioneers for the use of SMS technology for educational purposes, there were some specific examples of initial projects (e.g. Stone, Briggs & Smith (2002; Traxler & Dearden, 2005) that could be considered as the pioneers due to their findings that clearly informed us about the possible effective applications of using SMS technologies in education. These projects showed that SMS technologies were already there to be effectively used in learning. Considering these projects and their research history on the use of SMS in education and other issues in the mobile learning field, it is possible to presume Andy Stone at Kingston University, UK and John Traxler at University of Wolverhampton as the one of the initial example scholars of the pioneers. Following these initial

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch095 Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

T

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology

pioneers, Mohammad Ally at Athabasca University, CA; Hokyoung Ryu and David Parsons at Massey University, NZ could be considered as the most influential scholars in the field.

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN EDUCATIONAL POTENTIALS OF SMS TECHNOLOGY First of all, in general sense, use of mobile phones in education can enrich the learning experience (Attewell, 2005). Using mobile phones can give freedom and productivity to students by allowing them to study in any place and any time they want, not only in a classroom. Students can receive and send information via short message services (SMS) any-time and anywhere a mobile technology is used for sending and receiving text messages using global or local network-based infrastructures. Use of SMS in education is not a new concept; the idea of use of mobile technology has been discussed before by many authors (Kim, Mims & Holmes, 2006; McGhee &Kozma 2001). Even in last decade, the SMS was using widely by many students. For instance, Swett (2002) reported that in US, 90% of public universities and 80% of private universities have a network supporting wireless technologies. In this article, only SMS message sending and receiving capacity of mobile phones are investigated. Other capacities including use of 3G services are not covered here and are not taken as a parameter in the discussion. Also when referring a mobile phone, a simple 1G based services with sending/receiving text message capacity are referenced. PDA, smart phones and other wireless mobile devices are not considered in this discussion.

Using SMS for Learning The advantages and/or disadvantages of the mobile phone technology come basically from the capacities of the devices that create the enabling factors.

1164

Enabling factors can be interpreted as the factors that are affecting human learning due to device capacities For example, internet creates enabling factors to learn remotely because it is a technology that provides the opportunity to receive and send data form remote places. Thus, internet itself does not help learning but it creates functionality for us to be able to do a learning task. This is very similar to ideas of Clark (1994) where he advocates that the media does not help learning and does not have any pure learning benefits but it has some methodological and economic advantages. In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of any technology we should first look its’ enabling factors and its’ social effects. The functionalities of mobile phones bring some enabling factors which create advantages. For instance, mobile phones have the capacity of storing information and receiving texts in SIM cards that will allow students to review and edit information later. Because mobile phones give chance to receive information and feedback on real time and on demand it is much more nonthreatening and private than other classroom technologies. According to one research study, being accessible, context, collaboration and appeal are the main social advantages of using mobile phones (Geddes, 2004). Use of mobile phone is very easy for many students so adaptation of the technology is fairly easier than any other unusual educational technologies (Yengin, 2011). Different than the limited implementation of computers labs or other educational technologies with physical dependencies, when a SMS system is set up and run, it could be delivered to many students. Unlike the many other educational technologies, SMS is a two way technology that allows communication in two ways between teacher to student, students to students and teacher to teacher. SMS can be sent from mobile phones to mobile phones, from a computer to mobile phone or vice versa. Traxler and Dearden (2005) indicates a surprisingly interesting fact that most of the educators are not aware of the possibility of sending bulk SMS text

Category: Technologies and Apps

messages from a regular computer (PC or laptop PC) using software which is very similar to a regular e-mail client (e.g. Outlook). Use of mobile technology in education helps students to learn in “no fixed location or time” (Kinshuk, Graf & Yang, 2009). This function is the most striking point of using mobile phones in education because there is no real option for mobile usage for other educational technologies such as computers (partly mobile). Mobile technologies could facilitate collaboration and interaction, accessing, discovering, discussing, and sharing environmental information with use of SMS services (Cavus & Uzunboylu, 2008). As mentioned before, how to use a mobile phone is well known by the many users. Mobile phones are daily electronic devices for people which require no additional training to operate. Mobile phones are almost natural to students so they are already ready for using SMS services to receive learning materials. For example, a study in Kingston University showed that students are naturally ready to use SMS services in cases where there are multiple message sending and receiving requirements to complete the learning tasks (Stone, Briggs & Smith, 2002). The idea and practice of using mobile phone and SMS for carrying learning may be perceived unusual than traditional learning methods such as in class lectures and presentations. Experiences of using SMS services to continue learning activities may also be little bit different than online learning activities which are mostly carried over web based services. Different than traditional lectures and online learning models, SMS and mobile phones offer alternative models. The basic mobile learning framework relies on a ‘Push’ model allowing the school or the teacher to send out messages to students that are enrolled in a specific lesson as well as a ‘Pull’ system which enables learners to receive data in different forms such as questions - answer, content specific feedback (Motiwalla, 2007). Most other usage of mobile phones includes short answering, ranking, matching, fill in blanks,

true/false, multiple choice questions (Sharma & Miller, 2004).Additionally to these interactive benefits, SMS can be used to inform students about a certain event or to announce specific facts (Divitini, Haugalokken, & Norevik, 2002). Learners have more self-confidence using mobile phone to engage in discussions (Felix et al., 2007). Also as the other technologies, mobile phone usage may have different positive results when used in a blended approach (Wang et al., 2009). Besides the advantages, using SMS in learning also has some issues. These issues may have negative effect on the learning experiences of students. They may not be totally limiting the learning but still they should be minimized to fully benefit from the technology. Generally speaking, mobile phones have relatively small screens that will allow them to present information in chunks which offers to distillation of materials into knowledge bytes (Mellow, 2005). Some mobile phone models have relatively large screen sizes which make reading much easier. On the other hand, compared to computers and laptop screen sizes, mobile phone screens are still relatively small. The size of the screen also effects how users perceive the information. For instance, Chae and Kim (2004) study showed that the effect of screen size of mobile phones and information structure affect user behaviors and perception. Another issue would be the privacy of the students. Instructors and institutions should be careful about using SMS. For example, sending SMS to all students may be a topic of SMS spam and should be carefully implemented. Spams may involve legal problems for the educational institutions. Thus, universities should make sure that message they sent to the students should not be related the business, marketing or sponsorship issues (Riordan & Traxler, 2005).

Examples of SMS Use in Education Use of SMS in education has been researched by several authors. Some of them (Cheung, 2004;

1165

T

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology

Horstmanshof, 2004) discussed that students would have a significant improvement when they are instructed with the aid of SMS text messages. SMS use is reported to be effective results in some of the universities and projects. In 2004, Open University Malaysia (OUM) investigated the effective use of SMS services as a support tool for learning (Safie, 2004). Under this project students are provided multiple choice tests with feedback. According to the survey results in OUM pilot study, majority of students (M=0.88) participating to the OUM pilot study indicated that they found the SMS quizzing positively helpful to support their understanding of the concepts. Another study reports implementation of mobile phone study support system called StudyTXT where students receive SMS messages to study the content very similar to ‘digital flash card’ resulted with positive outcomes such as improvement of collaboration and cooperation between students and faculty. In India Institute of Technology, use of SMS for question – answering in the learning showed a great promise for the future implementation of such a system (Ramados & Balasumdaran, 2007). One study at Kingston University (Stone, Briggs & Smith, 2002) showed that it is possible to create a journey kind of complex interaction with using a series of interactive SMS in order to help learners to achieve tasks or reach a goal in their learning. In Finland, MoCoCoMa, an application for mobile collaborative concept mappings based on SMS was developed and investigated (Silander, Sutinen & Tarhio, 2004). MoCoCoMa system allows students to communicate and collaborate in authentic learning situations and allows teacher to combine classroom activities with mobile learning activities based on SMS text messages. Results showed that students’ attitudes to MoCoCoMa system were almost positive and they benefited such a system. In Germany, researchers implemented SMS based learning systems that creates an environment for communication and discussion based on sending SMS (Bollen, Eimler, & Hoppe, 2004).

1166

In this system students engage in SMS dialog according to their specific role. SMS messages are collected in a database and presented later on in a discussion scenario with SMS. In England, a university applied the use of SMS in their lesson which requires students to visit museums (Tate Modern) then engage in discussions by sending SMS to each other (Holley & Dobson, 2008). In this study researchers show that students are adapted their seminar groups quickly.This study also discuss the advantages and the importance of engaging in social activities with the support of mobile technology. In Cyprus, researchers investigated use of SMS and MMS based technologies and found that students have positive attitudes such as enjoyment of peer collaboration, feeling of learning useful information and improved learning benefits such as being more aware of to the content (Cavus & Uzunboylu, 2008). SMS also could be used as an assessment tool. For instance, students may fill in blanks in the messages that are sent via SMS (Tretiakov, 2005). In Asia, there are also pilot testing studies implementing to deliver content via SMS (Chun & Tsui, 2010). In a research done in Thailand, the mobile phone usage found as effective regarding to testing (Whattananarong, 2004). Another example of SMS usage for learning had been implemented in 2004 Olympics where tourists were sent Greek vocabulary via SMS (Pincas, 2005). Regarding to teaching vocabulary, in Australian university students received SMS to learn foreign languages (Levy& Kennedy, 2005) and to learn German literacy in another institution (Bollen, Eimler, & Hoppe, 2004). Also in Japan, university students were sent SMS to teach English vocabulary (Thornton & Houser, 2005). According to the results, students preferred SMS method rather than using computers for the same kind of lessons. A study in Shefield Hallam University showed that students have a positive attitude to SMS where they see this technology immediate, convenient, and personal (Garner, Francis & Wales, 2002).

Category: Technologies and Apps

Other studies also described the positive effects of using SMS as an enabling technology. For instance, Attewell (2005) describes that SMS could be used as a quiz tool that facilitates learning by giving the function of automated response system for multiple choice questions. In this system, the quiz questions could be displayed in a presentation screen in the classroom, in a web site or in handouts, and then students are asked to send the answers by SMS where they are recorded into a database and receive real time feedback. Attewell (2005) also describes another use of mobile phone usage in a boarding tool system where teachers create interactive learning tasks that require students to send information on the board by SMS. In one study, students are provided vocabulary instruction by SMS and results showed that the SMS group learned over twice the number of vocabulary words than the control group and they scored nearly twice (Thorton & Houser, 2002, 2003);.Same researchers ran another study (Thorton & Houser, 2005) in order to implement a classroom polling system to survey students during class in order to determine vocabulary retention in a similar fashion as in clicker systems. The questions sent to students’ mobile phones and they replied them using mobile phones again. After that, the results are also projected as bar graphs. The study also illustrated that students like to receive immediate feedback using SMS oriented clicker system.

Socio- Economic Value of SMS Technology SMS technology can be an alternative solution in countries where there is no wired infrastructure. For example, Brown (2008) explains that the use of basic SMS technology may become a gateway to e-learning for most learners where there is no wired infrastructure available in the places they live. Implementation of SMS technology heavily relies on other services to buy from outside so it could be costly to install. Some commercial

mobile language learning programs are given free in some places such as BBC World Service’s Learning English with SMS in Francophone West Africa and China (Jones, 2005) and BBC Wales Welsh lessons (Andrews, 2003). Educational institutions also may run their free services in the campus but they should consider the costs. For example, in order to run SMS traffic, mobile operators should have a node in the network called SMS Center (SMSC) and this center could be a third party aggregator (provider) that could connect to other operators (Nix, Russell, & Keegan, 2007). This also enables educational institutions to have their own service centers to run much cheaper than direct connections to operators. These kinds of aggregator are relatively easier to develop an application using Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) or HTTP protocol (http:// www.w3.org/TR/soap/). This kind of implementing could reduce costs of ownership efforts and expertise requirement. For instance, Sidek (2010) proses an alternative application where the system can be manageable easily by school staff without a need for SMS Gateway Provider. Another example comes from StudyTXT project, a cost sending 4 example SMS text to 200 students per week would be around $1000 in a semester (Mellow, 2005). Also implementation of a SMS server that can host a database of text messages would be set up for $9,000 and it will cost $500 per month for maintenance. Students using StudyTXT are charged 0.30–0.50 cents per message. Integration of such a system into Blackboard LMS would cost $10K per year and 0.17 cents per message/student. StudyTXT gives an idea about how the pricing could be when an SMS based mobile learning is the case; but also one should be aware of that pricing may change according to different cases and examples. In pull systems, students can download messages as they need so it will give the control to them and they can manage the costs of receiving according to their needs. However students’ skill for self-regulated learning is unknown; we don’t know yet if they are capable of deciding which

1167

T

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology

message to download or not. Sometimes students would feel that all the information presented are very important and they would like to receive all not to miss anything. This would be avoided by sending only very important key information via SMS and informing students about the urgency of the message. SMS could be tagged according to their importance which helps students to decide. Also some authors remind that (Cavus & Dogan, 2009), some of the mobile phone service providers offer lower cost plans for the students or educational institutions that will allow reducing project costs. With respect to cost of implementation, mobile learning is relatively cost low in many countries. There is no need to investigate on a new technology for the communications (such as WLAN or RFI) and most of the students already own mobile phones. Also unlike in the clicker system and in some of the podcasting delivery, there is no cost for the license, the owner ship belongs to the teacher who creates the content. Also this makes it easy to share the content with other teachers and students. Mobile phones are well accepted and used widely all over the world especially within young students in higher education (Grinter & Eldridge; Hegarty, 2002). A new generation of students called the “Millennials” especially find using mobile phones usual a way of their communication (Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004). As many studies show, the use of SMS in education is not only welcomed and found useful by students (Faulkner, 2004; Stone & Briggs, 2002) but also by teachers (Virvou, & Alepis, 2005). This wide acceptance of the technology is documented in many studies. For example, according to a survey at Auckland University of Technology, 82% of students reported owing a mobile phone (Mellow, 2005). Another study indicates that mobile phones are cheaper to own so almost all students can acquire one (Cavus & Dogan, 2009). In 2003, there were more than 107 million Americans who had cell phone and 8 million had web enabled cell phones (Trainning, 2002). Also Mediamark

1168

Research and Intelligence (Keneddy, 2010) shows that the number of youngsters who have mobile phones almost doubled since 2005, according to a report from The New York Times. Another study showed that 82% of students in higher education in US own mobile phones (Kvavik, 2005). Today, students in the age group of 17 – 24 are perceived as the net generation group who are very capable of using new technologies more often than previous generation of students (Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2004). This suggests that use of mobile phone won’t be very hard to adapt for the students that already use them in their daily life. Also researchers indicate that the use of mobile phone becomes an essential tool for management of social life (Horstmanshof, 2004). In SMS based mobile learning, the system is open that students can construct knowledge where there are collaborative knowledge building activities are present which supports social-cultural learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978; Hakkarainen,, 2001). Thus, we could interpret that SMS technology supports collaborative learning. For instance, investigating the basic usage SMS technology in classroom support the activities where students are required to study in teams, a study reports that these activities have positive effects on learning (Shields, & Potfak, 2002). Also, in terms of social interactions, like communicating with their class mates, students also value to be in contact with their teachers personally (Krause & Duchesne, 2000). We could interpret that using mobile phones therefore supports learning in a social context where students are discovering, questioning and creating knowledge together by interacting with their peers. This also could improve creativity that is fed by curiosity desire for social discovery. Another important effect is preventing isolation in class by joining a social network which has its own unique authenticity and culture that allows students to control direction of their learning. In conclusion, SMS is a mobile learning tool where students receive real time and on demand instruction in a very flexible way. Ownership of SMS belongs to teacher and there is no need to

Category: Technologies and Apps

pay a license for the content. SMS is widely used by students and it is a global technology which is accessible by almost anyone who has a mobile phone and it is scalable to large number of students.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS In near future, it is expected that SMS still will play a role to enable learning to take place in settings where students will collaboratively create and share information in and outside the classroom (Keegan, 2002). Thus, we could expect to see more implementations of using SMS in daily teaching and learning tasks. We can also predict that reducing amount of costs of SMS services carried by different services providers and increasing amount of mobile phone users makes SMS technology a potential strong, easy and relatively effortless (in terms of adaptability and scalability) technology for education. In future, we can expect more studies to be conducted to understand the users’ behaviors while operating complex mobile learning tasks enabled by SMS technology. For instance, different learning effects of organization and flow of knowledge structure and lesson contents to be delivered in chunks as SMS text should be studied more carefully. The situational cognitive effects of using SMS for teaching and learning also become another important topic of future research study. For example, students may receive the learning content in SMS text format in an inconvenient place to study such as in a very crowded and loud place or the timing of SMS message may not be best for the students. The place may not have the suitable factors to stimulate the motivation and will for learning or the timing may be simply not good. These kinds of factors and their effects on learning should be investigated in future research studies.

REFERENCES Ally, M. (Ed.). (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press. Andrews, R. (2003). Learn Welsh by txt msg. BBC News World Edition. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ wales/2798701.stm Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency, 2(4). Bollen, L., Eimler, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2004). SMS-based discussions – Technology enhanced collaboration for a literature course. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’04). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ WMTE.2004.1281393 Brown, J., Shipman, B., & Vetter, R. (2007). SMS: The short message service. Computer, 40(12), 106–110. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.440 Brown, T. H. (2008). M-learning in Africa: Doing the unthinkable and reaching the unreachable. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 861-871). Springer US. Cavus, N., & Dogan, I. (2009). M-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 78–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x Cavus, N., & Uzunboylu, H. (2008). Collaborative mobile learning environmental education system for students. In Proceedings of CIMCA 2008, IAWTIC 2008, and ISE 2008. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ CIMCA.2008.199

1169

T

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology

Chae, M., & Kim, J. (2004). Do size and structure matter to mobile users? An empirical study of the effects of screen size, information structure, and task complexity on user activities with standard web phones. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(3), 165–181. doi:10.1080/01449290410 001669923

Garner, I., Francis, J., & Wales, K. (2002). An evaluation of the implementation of a short messaging system (SMS) to support undergraduate student learning. In AnastopoulouS.SharplesM. VavoulaG. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 15-18), Birmingham, UK: Academic Press.

Cheung, S. (2004). Using mobile phone messaging as a response medium in classroom experiments. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=906681

Geddes, S. (2004). Mobile learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners. The knowledge Tree, 6. Retrieved Dec 1, 2013, from http://flexiblelearning.net.au/knowledgetree/edition06/html/ pra_simon_geddes.html

Chun, D., & Tsui, E. (2010). A reflection of the state of mobile learning in Asia and a conceptual framework. Academic Press.

Grinter, R. E., & Eldridge, M. (2003). Want2tlk? Everyday text messaging. In Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2003 (vol. 5, pp. 441-705). ACM.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. doi:10.1007/ BF02299088 Divitini, M., Haugalokken, O. K., & Norevik, P. A. (2002, August). Improving communication through mobile technologies: Which possibilities? In Proceedings of Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 86-86). IEEE Computer Society. Faulkner, S. (2004). Have you got my number? Campus Review, 17, 18–24. Felix, L. (2007). Uses of the cell phone for education in the Philippines and Mongolia. Distance Education, 28(2), 231–244. doi:10.1080/01587910701439266 Firdaus bin Haji Sidek, S. (2010, June). The development of the short messaging service (SMS) application for the school usage. In Proceedings of Information Technology (ITSim) (Vol. 3, pp. 1382-1386). IEEE.

1170

Hakkarainen, K. L., Lipponen, S., & Järvelä. (2001). Epistemology of inquiry and computersupported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hegarty, S. (n.d.). Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Irish Times, p. 17. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 139–150. doi:10.1080/17439880802097683 Horstmanshof, L. (2004). Using SMS as a way of providing connection and community for first year students. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ascilite conference (pp. 423–427). ASCILITE. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.ascilite.org. au/conferences/perth04/procs/horstmanshof.html http://www.parentdish.com/2010/03/11/talkshow-number-of-kids-with-cell-phones-nearlydoubles-since/

Category: Technologies and Apps

Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004, July). The millennial effect: Implications for academic development. In Proceedings of the 2004 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) (pp. 356-366). HERDSA.

Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communication, and control: How students use technology. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 7.1-7.20). Boulder, CO: Educause. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen

Jones, R. (2005). Messaging, gaming, peer-to-peer sharing: Language learning strategies and tools for the millennial generation. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 17–22. Retrieved from http://llt. msu.edu/vol9num1/emerging/default.html

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). Learning Italian via mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.

Keegan, D. (2002). The future of learning: From eLearning to mLearning. Retrieved 1st December, 2013 from http://deposit.fernuni-hagen. de/1920/1/ZP_119.pdf Keegan, D. (2005, October). The incorporation of mobile learning into mainstream education and training. Paper presented at the World Conference on Mobile Learning, Cape Town, South Africa. Keegan, D. (2006) The arrival of mobile learning. In Proceedings of ILTA Annual Conference. ILTA. Keneddy, L. (2010). Talk show: Number of kids with cell phones nearly doubles since 2005. Academic Press. Kim, S. H., Mims, C., & Holmes, K. P. (2006). An introduction to current trends and benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. AACE Journal, 14(1), 77–100. Kinshuk, M. C., Graf, S., & Yang, G. (2009). Adaptively and personalization in mobile learning. TICL. Krause, K.-L., & Duchesne, S. (2000). With a little help from my friends: Social interactions on campus and their role in the first year experience. Sydney: School of Education, Macquarie University. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from www.fyhe. com.au/past_papers/papers/KrausePaper.doc

McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. (2001). New teacher and student roles in the technology-supported classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Mellow, P. (2005). The media generation: Maximise learning by getting mobile. In Proceedings of Ascilite 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: Maintaining the Momentum? ASCILITE. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from: http://www. ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/ proceedings/53_Mellow.pdf Metcalf, D. S. (2006). mLearning: Mobile learning and performance in the palm of your hand. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011 Nix, J., Russell, J., & Keegan, D. (2007). Mobile learning/SMS (short messaging service) academic administration kit. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from: http://www.molenetprojects.org.uk/moletech/docs/Ericsson.Mobile.A5.pdf Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the net generation. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.educause.edu/content. asp?page_id=5989&bhcp=1

1171

T

Educational Potentials of SMS Technology

Pincas, A. (2005). Using mobile phone support for use of Greek during the Olympic Games 2004 (the Inlet project). International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www. itdl.org/Journal/Jun_04/article01.htm

Silander, P., Sutinen, E., & Tarhio, J. (2004). Mobile collaborative concept mapping – Combining classroom activity with simultaneous field exploration. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’04). IEEE.

Prensky, M. (2004). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything! Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.marcprensky.com/ writing/default.asp

Stone, A., Briggs, J., & Smith, C. (2002). SMS and interactivity–Some results from the field, and its implications on effective uses of mobile technologies in education. In Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on the Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp.147–151). IEEE. doi:10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039238

Ramados, S. (2007). SMS for questionanswering in m-learning scenario. Journal of Computer Science, 3(2), 119–121. doi:10.3844/ jcssp.2007.119.121 Riordan, B., & Traxler, J. (2005, November). The use of targeted bulk SMS texting to enhance student support, inclusion and retention. In Proceedings of Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. IEEE. doi:10.1109/WMTE.2005.65 Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2009). Designing learning activities with mobile technologies. In Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 1-20). Academic Press. Safie, N. (2004, November). The use of short messaging system (SMS) as a supplementary learning tool in Open University Malaysia (OUM). In Proceedings of 18th Annual Conference Association of Asian Open Universities (AAOU) (Vol. 27, pp. 1-11). AAOU. Sharma, S., & Miller, F. (2004). Web services architecture for m-learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downl oad?doi=10.1.1.122.1699&rep=rep1&type=pdf Shields, J., & Potfak, A. (2002). Areport card on handheld computing. Technology and Learning, 22(7), 25–36.

1172

Swett, C. (2002). College students’ use of mobile wireless-internet connections becomes more common. Washington, DC: Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x Thorton, P., & Houser, C. (2002). M-learning in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing face of CALL (pp. 229–243). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Thorton, P., & Houser, C. (2003). Using mobile web and video phones in English language teaching:Projects with Japanese college students. In B. Morrison, C. Green, & G. Motteram (Eds.), Directions inCALL: Experience, experiments & evaluation (pp. 207–224). Hong Kong: English Language Centre,Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Training, W. (2004). Wireless training or ‘mlearning’ is here: First movers in the pool. Lifelong Learning Market Report, 5(22), 3-5.

Category: Technologies and Apps

Traxler, J., & Dearden, P. (2005, September). The potential for using SMS to support learning and organisation in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Proceedings of Development Studies Association Conference. Milton Keynes, UK: Academic Press.

Whattananarong, K. (2004). An experiment in the use of mobile phones for testing at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www. seameo.org/vl/krismant/mobile04.pdf

Tretiakov, A. (2005). Creating a pervasive testing environment by using SMS messaging. In Proceedings of Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 62-66). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ WMTE.2005.13

Yengin, I. (2011). Analysis of instructional potential of clicker (response system), iPod (audio podcasting) and mobile phone (SMS). In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 2809-2816). Academic Press.

TxtTools. (2004). SMS text messaging for education, healthcare and business. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from: http://txttools.co.uk/ Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2005). Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalized tutoring. Computers & Education, 44(1), 53–68. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.020

ADDITIONAL READING Ally, M. (Ed.). (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2007). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. Routledge.

Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x

Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 41–42.

1173

T