Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad

Might Apple’s new iPad gain unprecedented traction in education, or is just another example of the over-hyping of new devices in a time of technological determinism (Postman, 2000)? This paper explores the potential affordances and limitations of the Apple iPad in the wider context of emergent mobile learning theory, and the social and economic drivers that fuel technology development. Against the background of effective teaching and learning, the functionality offered by the iPad, and its potential uses for learning, are discussed. A critical review of the way the iPad may support learning, that draws on learning theory, contemporary articles and e-learning literature, suggests that the device may offer an exciting platform for consuming and creating content in a collaborative, interactive way. However, of greater importance is that effective, evidence-driven, innovative practices, combined with a clear-sighted assessment of the advantages and limitations of any product, should take priority over the device itself. Melhuish & Falloon 2010 Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 22(3) 2 Mobile devices and learning The advent in recent years of an array of mobile technologies such as multi-media capable cellular phones, iPods and iPhones, PDAs, and portable netbook computers, has stimulated considerable interest amongst the education fraternity. This interest has revolved around the potential of mobile devices to support a liberalisation of learning, based on their ability to support individuals to connect with others to “produce, consume and store content and conversation” (Traxler, 2010, p. 3). Such potential, according to authors such as Traxler, can lead to a ‘blurring’ of the line between learning which occurs at the expense of real life – that is, defined within the traditional school or university environment – to that which occurs as a part of real life, as learners interact with information and each other using mobile devices, as part of their natural daily activity. However, according to Hemmi, Bayne and Land (2009) education has a wellestablished history of taking devices not originally intended for educational purposes, and attempting to appropriate them for educational gain. Traxler (2010) describes this as education having something of a ‘parasitic’ relationship with technology, where devices originally intended for the corporate environment “continually challenge educationalists to develop educationally sound applications” (p. 4) for them. Such perspectives are also supported by earlier writers such as Todd Oppenheimer in his 2003 book, The flickering mind: The false promise of technology and how learning can be saved, where he laments on the failure of successive iterations of corporate and domestic technological innovation to have any significant impact on the quality of student learning, when ‘transplanted’ into the educational context. Consistent with others such as Cuban (2001) and Postman (2000), Oppenheimer attributes this failure largely to the prevailing assumption that technology which works outside of school, will work just as well in school, and that it is up to educational practitioners and researchers to determine ways of achieving this. Such views, however, tend to be technologically deterministic in nature, and assume that the presence of technologies will act as a catalyst for fundamental and sustained change and improvement, irrespective of the nature and Melhuish & Falloon 2010 Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 22(3) 3 resilience of the context into which they are incorporated. In stating this, due to their pervasiveness and centrality to life in the twenty-first century, it would be equally dangerous (and foolhardy) to ring-fence new technologies, effectively sidelining them and ignoring any potential they may have for supporting learning. Indeed, to do so would reinforce the perception already held by many younger people that their education is becoming increasingly detached and irrelevant, by failing to utilise the capabilities of technology to help them learn using other sources of information and from each other at any time, rather than simply between the hours of nine and three, while at school. According to Traxler (2010), unlike more traditional desktop technologies, mobile technologies (m-technologies) are more difficult to ignore. He comments that using desktop technology “takes place in a bubble – in dedicated times and places where the user has his or her back on the rest of the world for a substantial and probably premeditated episode” (p. 5), whereas interaction with mobile technologies is “woven into all times and places of students’ lives” (ibid, p. 5). In many ways mobile technologies have the capacity stimulate a redefinition of what constitutes a learning ‘space’, away from the constraints of fixed place and time, towards a conceptualisation based on connecting people with each other and information, through virtual collaborative spaces and communities which are highly fluid, and not bounded by time or location. M-learning – Definition and affordances The ability to learn within one’s own context when on the move in time and space, is arguably the central learning affordance of mobile technologies, and it is vital that this idea is captured in any definition of mobile learning, or m-learning. This paper draws on a range of literature in defining m-learning as being just-in-time, situated learning, mediated through digital technology in response to the needs of the user (Traxler, 2009; Laurillard, 2007; Peng, Su, Chou & Tasi, 2005). However, what makes m-learning Melhuish & Falloon 2010 Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 22(3) 4 different from other forms of technology-supported learning is the way it can mediate and facilitate learning experiences (Peters, 2009). This may suggests that m-learning does not offer affordances that are specific to itself, yet, by contrast, it can be suggested that its very ubiquity and mobility make it a discrete learning form (Peng et al., 2009). In other words, the learning experiences that are affected when an individual negotiates meaning for themselves, on their own or collaboratively using their own device in a situated context, is what sets m-learning apart from e-learning. To that end, this paper argues that mobile devices offer five distinct affordances for education:   1. Portability: Mobile devices offer portability in such a way as to change the pattern of learning or work activity (Laurillard, 2007; Sharples, 2007; Klopfer, Squire, Holland & Jenkins, 2002); 2. Affordable and ubiquitous access: Mobile devices (e.g. the 4.5 billion cellphones worldwide) put web access and ‘high-spec’ functionality in the hands of more users than any other digital technology; 3. Situated, ‘just-in-time’ learning opportunities: There is a social expectation that we can engage and process information whenever and wherever we want, and the development of cloud-based computing supports the way in which mobile devices can decentralise our learning experiences (Johnson, Levine, Smith & Stone, 2010; van’t Hooft, 2008). M-learning affords a process of exploring and collaborating within multiple contexts using interactive tools (Sharples, 2007); 4. Connection and convergence: M-learning is often concerned with enabling social interactivity and connectivity. Mobile devices connect us to other people, other devices, other networks, and other technologies (Klopfer, et al., 2002); 5. Individualised and personalised experiences: Mobile devices offer individuality, a “unique scaffolding that can be customised to the individual’s path of investigation” (Peters, 2009, p.117). iPhones, iPads and iTouches offer an array of applications (‘apps’) that can be easily commissioned for local use Melhuish & Falloon 2010 Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 22(3) 5 and can be selected to meet the learning topics and themes that an individual requires. Of course identifying and realising this potential are two totally different matters. As has been introduced earlier, many technological innovations of the past have tried and largely failed – ‘bouncing off’ an education system that seems impervious to significant and enduring change. While there is little doubt that m-technology offers considerable potential to stimulate a rethink about where, when and how learning can occur, it remains to be seen as to whether or not it is able to make any sort of a dent where many others before it have failed. This paper explores the potential affordances and limitations of a new ‘m-kid on the block’, Apple’s new iPad, within the wider context of mobile learning theory and the social drivers that fuel technology development. A central assertion is the importance of seeing beyond the hype surrounding a device, so as to inquire into how effective it might be in terms of promoting long-term, deep learning (Sharples, Sánchez, Milrad & Vavoula, 2009). The iPad (version 1.0) Until January 2010, mobile devices largely meant smartphones, cellphones, tablets, PDAs and laptops. Apple’s iPad is the latest technology to cause a buzz on the international technology scene because it is regarded as a new type of mobile platform that will, at least in theory, offer all the functionality and connectivity of a laptop, with the mobility of a smartphone. It is not proposed in this article to detail extensively the features and functions of the iPad (see Pratt, 2010), but instead, to evaluate its potential in relation to the five affordances for education of mobile technologies, as summarised above. Portability for learning The iPad’s size and weight potentially makes it ideal as a portable learning device, and will be a distinct benefit to those wanting to use a computer in a way that renders Melhuish & Falloon 2010 Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 2