Research Note 2010-07

Mobile Learning Approaches for U.S. Army Training 

Jennifer S. Tucker 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

ARI-Fort Benning Research Unit 

Scott E. Graham, Chief 

August 2010 

United States Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

BARBARA A. BLACK MICHELLE SAMS 

Research Program Manager Director 

Training and Leader Development 

Technical review by 

M. Glenn Cobb, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: This Research Note has been cleared for release to the Defense 

Technical Information Center (DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has 

been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC and will be available only through 

DTIC or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Note may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Research Note are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

August 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

Apr il 2010 to August 2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Mobile Learning Approaches for US Army Training

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

A792

6. AUTHOR(S)

Jennifer S. Tucker (U.S. Army Research Institute)

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

633007

5d. TASK NUMBER

360

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences 

ARI – Fort Benning Research Unit 

PO Box 52086 

Fort Benning, GA 31995-2086 

 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 

NUMBER

 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IJ

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

 ARI 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

ARI Research Note 2010-07

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Subject Matter POC: Dr. Jennifer S. Tucker

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The purpose of this research was to review the current literature on mobile learning and identify potential approaches 

of incorporating smartphone technologies in US Army training. Specifically, the research reports successful 

demonstrations of mobile learning outside of the Army and identifies potential challenges in using the technology in 

Army training. Thus, the report discusses the following areas: Definition and potential advantages of mobile learning; 

Demonstrations of using mobile technology in instructional environments; Potential approaches for US Army training: 

A 5- to 10-year outlook; Challenges in using mobile learning technologies in US Army training; and Conclusions and 

research questions. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

mobile learning, training, blended learning, new equipment training, lifelong learning, Army Learning Concept

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified Unlimited 36

Ellen Kinzer, Technical 

Publication Specialist

703.602.8049
ii
iii

Research Note 2010-07

Mobile Learning Approaches for US Army Training

Jennifer S. Tucker 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

ARI – Ft. Benning Research Unit 

Scott E. Graham, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

August 2010 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

633007A792 and Training 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
iv
v 

MOBILE LEARNING APPROACHES FOR US ARMY TRAINING 

CONTENTS 

Page 

DEFINITION AND POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF MOBILE LEARNING ................................. 1

DEMONSTRATIONS OF USING MOBILE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY IN 

INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS ......................................................................................... 3

POTENTIAL MOBILE LEARNING APPROACHES FOR US ARMY TRAINING: 

A 5- TO 10-YEAR OUTLOOK .................................................................................................... 5

 Blended Learning Approaches for a 5-Year Timeframe ....................................................... 5

 Training Approaches for a 10-Year Timeframe .................................................................... 8

CHALLENGES IN USING MOBILE LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES FOR US ARMY 

TRAINING .................................................................................................................................10

 Student Training Requirements ..........................................................................................10

 Design Requirements and Development ............................................................................10

 Instructor Training Requirements .......................................................................................12

 Sequencing / Scaffolding within Army Courses ..................................................................13

 Assessment .......................................................................................................................14

CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................................16

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................. A-1
vi
1

Mobile Learning Approaches for US Army Training 

The purpose of this research was to review the current literature on mobile learning and 

identify potential approaches of incorporating smartphone technologies in US Army training. 

Specifically, the research reports successful demonstrations of mobile learning outside of the 

Army and identifies potential challenges in using the technology in Army training. Thus, the 

report discusses the following areas: 

 Definition and potential advantages of mobile learning 

 Demonstrations of using mobile technology in instructional environments 

 Potential approaches for US Army training: A 5- to 10-year outlook 

 Challenges in using mobile learning technologies in US Army training 

 Conclusions and research questions 

Mobile learning technology includes many different types of wireless handheld devices, but the 

focus of this research will be on the use of smartphones for learning, although many of the prior 

lessons learned using wireless mobile devices come from work with personal digital assistants 

(PDAs). 

Definition and Potential Advantages of Mobile Learning 

Mobile learning is the “exploitation of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with 

wireless and mobile phone networks to facilitate, support, and enhance and extend the reach of 

teaching and learning” (Brown, 2010, p. 28). In contrast to distance learning or e-learning, 

mobile learning is shorter in duration, instantaneously usable, allows users to personalize 

content, enter data, and generate content (Brown). Mobile learning “focuses not on the learners 

and technologies but on the interactions between them, emphasizing that learning is a social 

process” (van „t Hooft, 2008, p. 13). Mobile learning provides digital content around which 

students engage and construct knowledge in a social manner (Brill & Park, 2008). 

Mobile learning technologies may afford learners with more control and the ability to 

access, aggregate, create, and share information in a variety of media formats across space 

and time (van „t Hooft, 2008). Although there are many different types of mobile and wireless 

devices, they have commonalities such as: 

 Connectability – connect to the Internet wirelessly via wireless fidelity (WiFi); 

 Portability/wearability – always at the fingertips of the user; 

 Instant accessibility – instantly turn on and off; 

 Flexibility – collect data by accommodating a wide variety of peripheral extensions; 

 Economic viability – have much of the computing capability and expandable storage 

capacity of laptops at a fraction of the cost; 

 Social interactivity - collaboration, active participation, co-creation of knowledge, and 

critical reflection; 

 Context sensitivity – ability to gather data unique to the current circumstance 

(location, time, etc.); affords access to authentic contexts; 

 Individuality – flexibility for each individual to follow a self-directed, personalized, 

custom learning path (Brill & Park, 2008; Chuang, 2009; Dieterle, 2004 as cited in 

Dieterle, n.d.; Looi et al., 2009; Peters, 2007; Rogers & Price, 2008). 
2

 Many of the capabilities of smartphones that Soldiers use every day for personal use 

could be used for learning if included as part of instructional activities (pedagogy) designed for 

this purpose. The integration of Web 2.0 tools on smartphones may promote student-centered 

learning pedagogies (e.g., Cochrane & Bateman, 2010) and provide learners with more fruitful 

and effective relationships with their instructors and peers.1

 That is, Web 2.0 tools facilitate 

learners‟ creative practices, participation, production, and the exchange of experiences and 

ideas that ultimately result in the social construction of knowledge (Greenhow, Robelia, & 

Hughes, 2009; Pachler & Daly, 2009; The Horizon Report, 2008, 2009 as cited in Menaker & 

Tucker, 2010). The Army Learning Concept (ALC) also stressed the benefits of using Web 2.0 

technologies such that “Soldiers are accustomed to connecting with peers across networks and 

have a habit of checking on buddies. The Army must leverage this capability to build dynamic 

vertical and horizontal social networks for formal and informal information sharing” (US 

Department of the Army, 2010, p. 16). 

Activities requiring students to create their own knowledge about a content area also can 

be facilitated with the use of “wikis.” Wikis are information pages about certain topics created 

from the input of many different people (e.g., Wikipedia). Knowledge can be co-created by 

students within a course as each person‟s contribution is edited and changed by the other 

people in the course; these activities may help students develop capabilities for knowledge 

representation, organization, sharing, and updating (Zhang, 2009 as cited in Menaker & Tucker, 

2010). Social networking sites also allow students to collaborate with each other, receive 

feedback on each other‟s work, share information and resources, etc. Restricted networks more 

appropriate for classroom use can be established so that the students are only collaborating 

with each other and not the entire world as normally found on the Internet. 

A review of the literature reveals very few examples of empirical research on mobile 

learning. Most reports are anecdotal in nature and based on case studies. Although there is a 

paucity of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of mobile technologies for learning, 

some survey and interview findings from instructors and students suggest benefits in terms of 

instructor workload and student outcomes. For example, giving more autonomy to learners in 

creating knowledge by finding the most appropriate resources for the task may reduce the 

pressures on instructors to constantly update traditional instructional materials to meet the 

unique needs of learners with diverse experiences. 

Other reported benefits in terms of student outcomes include better acquisition of 

knowledge and development of higher-order thinking skills (critical self-reflection, analysis, and 

synthesis), higher levels of motivation, more engagement with peers, better attendance, 

preparation for class, participation in class activities, and self-directed learning, and a more 

collaborative relationship with the instructor (Murray, n.d.; van „t Hooft, 2008). A review by 

Vahey and Crawford (2002) of case studies from 102 instructors who were awarded grants from 

the Palm Education Pioneer program to use the wireless handheld technologies in their 

classrooms indicated that using handhelds increased students‟ self-directedness and initiative in 

learning, cooperation, collaboration and autonomy, and homework completion. In turn, teachers 

reported creating class activities that allowed students to work independently at their own pace, 

thus becoming more motivated and creative, improving their teaching of specific content, and 

decreasing the amount of wasted classroom time. Private industries also have reported positive 

outcomes associated with the use of smartphones for training such as reduced completion time, 

higher exam scores, and increased satisfaction (Brown, 2010). 

 

1

 Web 1.0 tools focused on presenting information to users whereas Web 2.0 tools focused on providing social 

networking capabilities and instant self-publication. 
3

Moreover, findings from a rigorous meta-analytic study conducted by the Department of 

Education (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009) suggest that the additional time on 

task required by distance learning (dL) instructional environments leads to better performance 

by students who take all or part of their instruction online compared to students in face-to-face 

instructional environments. Some interesting findings from case studies using the iPod 

indicated that students felt that the work was harder when using the iPod and that they were not 

performing as well as students in the other classes who did not have the devices (Murray, n.d). 

Both instructors and students felt that there was pressure on the students to accomplish the 

work differently, learn new skills quickly, and to engage in critical thinking. The instructors 

indicated that the students completed the work in alternate ways and that the use of the mobile 

technologies increased the level of higher-order thinking required by the students. Support for 

these findings may come from ideas such that publishing work to a peer audience motivates 

students to produce higher quality products (as reviewed by Looi, et al., 2009) and that when 

students write blogs they have to organize their thoughts, determine what matters, and 

communicate effectively (Schrum & Solomon, n.d.). 

Demonstrations of Using Mobile Learning Technology in Instructional Environments 

There are many academic case studies from K-12 classes and university settings that 

report some possible benefits of mobile learning afforded by Web 2.0 capabilities, including 

podcasting, vodcasting, geolocation, prototyping of animations, and user content creation tools 

(e.g., Cochrane & Bateman, 2010; Kolb, 2006).2 A central theme from all of these case studies 

is that by using these tools students can easily work together to share and create knowledge. 

For example, students can work independently on projects and document their progress with 

blogs in which their peers can read and provide feedback (e.g., Twitter). Students can add 

digital pictures and short video clips taken with smartphones along with geotags (i.e., locations 

of events on Google Maps) to written narratives to enhance their work (e.g. Cochrane & 

Bateman). There are many Internet sites that facilitate the storing and editing of audio and 

video clips. 

 One example of using mobile technologies for learning is the documentation of student 

work throughout a design project (e.g., Cochrane & Bateman, 2010). Design instructors often 

comment that when students turn in final products they typically cannot articulate the changes 

which occurred in their thinking throughout the design process resulting in modifications to the 

products. In contrast, one student took pictures and short videos of his work throughout the 

design project and posted them on a blog. He then edited the clips and created a final video 

that showed all the key changes throughout the process. The student indicated that these tools 

allowed him to document his thought processes so that he could reflect better on the decisions 

he made throughout the project. Similarly, some instructors require students to create eportfolios of their work so that progress and change can be documented throughout the class 

project. Smartphone capabilities allow students to create journals with pictures, videos, and 

geotags and integrate these into a portfolio that can be shared with peers and the instructor. 

A few case studies reported the use of geolocation to provide individuals with 

contextualized learning (e.g., Meyer, 2009; So, Seow, & Looi, 2009; van „t Hooft, 2008). As 

 

2

 In this section, most case studies using Web 2.0 and other smartphone technologies are from K-12 classes and 

included a range of academic disciplines such as science, math, history, English, English literature, English as a 

Second Language, art, social studies, language, music, and special needs. Universities have typically used 

podcasting for lecture-based classes or used smartphone technologies to provide text-based information to students. 

Notable exceptions are from universities outside of the United States and include academic disciplines such as 

product design, architecture, music, art, and landscape design. 
4

individuals approached certain locations, they automatically received information in the form of 

pictures, videos, text, web-based information (Internet links), etc. regarding that location. 

Learners also used Google Maps to enhance their learning experiences by marking the 

locations on maps, including their own notes, pictures, hyperlinks, etc., and then sharing these 

with their peers (So et al., 2009). Their peers in turn provided feedback and added notes, asked 

questions, clarified answers, etc. Thus, learners socially constructed meaning by asking 

questions, making suggestions, and giving comments about the information (So et al., 2009). 

When peripheral devices are attached to wireless handheld devices (examples are from 

use with PDAs), other types of student activities were developed such as running experiments 

and collecting and reporting data (case studies were from a range of scientific areas including 

chemistry, biology, physics, etc.; for a review see Rogers & Price, 2008 and Vahey & Crawford, 

2002). Students often worked in groups to record and analyze the data and present the results. 

Immediate feedback in terms of measurement readings etc. allowed students to make different 

predictions and generate new hypotheses throughout the projects (e.g., Rogers & Price, 2008). 
5

Potential Mobile Learning Approaches for US Army Training: A 5- to 10-Year Outlook 

Blended Learning Approaches for a 5-Year Timeframe 

For Army institutional courses, mobile learning activities may be more easily 

implemented as blended learning approaches. Blended learning instructional approaches are 

defined as those which combine different training media (technologies, activities, types of 

events) to create an optimum training program for a specific audience (Bersin, 2004). For 

example, in the Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course (IBOLC), new lieutenants are required 

to develop platoon operations orders and brief the orders to their instructors and peers. 

Currently, the lieutenants work on their orders independently and receive summative feedback 

from the entire class and their instructors. If the students had smartphones, this activity could 

be restructured so that students could blog about their ideas and progress on their orders and 

receive formative feedback from their peers. Students also could use a smartphone application 

(app) to draw the graphics for their orders and share them with their peers and receive 

immediate feedback. Students also could send each other links to information on the Internet. 

Receiving feedback from instructors and peers many times throughout an activity promotes 

knowledge acquisition and learning in a much more profound way than receiving feedback at 

only one time on the final product. As laptop computers are not provided due to cost, 

smartphones may be a more cost effective way to provide lieutenants with a way to collaborate 

with their peers and co-construct knowledge. Research is needed to determine both the 

effectiveness and cost savings of using smartphone technologies as part of a blended learning 

program of instruction (POI) in US Army training courses. Research also is needed to 

determine whether a mobile device is the right tool for a particular learning objective. 

Further, the use of geolocation and geotagging on smartphones could enhance the 

effectiveness of the instruction in Army courses and promote learning. Building on the example 

above, much of the IBOLC training occurs in the field. Thus, new lieutenants are given missions 

that occur in the context of a local training area. If smartphones were provided as part of these 

activities, then as the lieutenants planned to execute the mission (e.g., while performing a 

leader‟s reconnaissance), they could automatically be provided with information regarding 

certain aspects of the mission from the instructors role-playing the company commander and 

battalion staff members. Including this type of interactivity with technology and the receipt of 

additional information in the training would have to be in line with the conduct of a real mission 

(i.e., follow doctrine); however, it is plausible that leaders receive updated intelligence about the 

target throughout the planning process. Moreover, as there are limited opportunities in the 

training context for the lieutenants to perform leadership roles during field exercises, all students 

in the class would greatly benefit from participating in activities that allow them to share some of 

their ideas about the mission and receive feedback from peers without affecting the assigned 

leader‟s performance. The use of blogs and Google Maps could allow the students to share 

information during mission planning that would not interfere with the assigned leader‟s tasks. 
6

There are many Army courses that also could potentially benefit from smartphones if 

peripherals were developed to help students learn the procedures of certain tasks more 

effectively and efficiently. For example, mechanics, engineers, information systems operators, 

explosive ordnance disposal specialists, etc. are required to take courses in which they learn 

how to use the tools of their Army military occupation specialties (MOSs). Peripherals could be 

developed that simulate the functions of these tools for advanced individual training (AIT) 

courses (courses designed to develop MOS-specific skills following basic training). The 

smartphones with these peripherals could download data for students to immediately analyze 

and receive feedback. Obviously students need to learn how to use the real tools appropriately 

but cost savings might be realized by using these applications to solve problems, troubleshoot, 

etc. in the context of a blended learning environment. As indicated above, research is needed 

to compare the use of smartphone technologies in this manner with the current POIs to 

determine both skill acquisition / retention and cost effectiveness. 

Additionally, interesting uses of wikis can be thought of for both junior and senior-level 

Army institutional courses. For example, if Soldiers were provided with smartphones for use 

throughout initial entry training courses, they could be required to create wikis of many different 

Army topics (Army values, customs and courtesies, etc.). All students in the course could add 

and edit the information, and then they could post questions and have discussions regarding the 

topics via blogs and restricted social networking sites. Instructors would need to comment on 

the blog discussions and answer certain questions in a face-to-face forum. For more seniorlevel courses, such as the Maneuver Captains Career Course, wikis also could be created for 

many different topics covered in the course. For example, during one part of the course, the 

students are tasked to perform the duties of different battalion staff positions. The students 

could be asked to develop wikis of these different positions, and as the students have different 

backgrounds and experiences, the information about these positions will vary from class to 

class. Students could further share their experiences in these roles via blogs and restricted 

social networking sites. 

Incorporating activities facilitated by smartphone technologies in POIs as hip-pocket 

training to fill down-time in courses also could be a fruitful blended learning approach for Army 

institutional courses. As the logistics of moving large numbers of leaders and Soldiers to and 

from and through field exercises creates downtime in institutional courses, learning activities 

developed to utilize smartphone technologies could provide Soldiers with additional training 

opportunities. For example, while Soldiers in initial entry training courses await their turn on the 

firing line to group, zero, and qualify with their assigned weapon, they could interact with an app 

specifically designed to enhance marksmanship skills. Additionally, as officers are transported 

to a field exercise, they could review their plan of the mission, give and receive feedback from 

peers, or review supplemental information regarding the upcoming exercise. After the field 

exercise, they could blog or chat with their peers regarding different points of the exercise and 

share lessons learned. Further, as after-action-reviews (AARs) are typically performed at the 

training site with typically limited access to note-taking materials, officers could more 

immediately record this feedback (instead of waiting to make notes in the garrison / company 

area), note how they would have changed their plan based on the outcomes of the exercise, 

and keep these notes for future reference. 

Smartphone applications. Another potential benefit of using smartphone technologies 

for Army training is the ability to run software programs in the form of apps on the devices. 

There are three categories of apps that could be especially relevant for Army training. First, 

knowledge apps are probably the most common and include familiar training content such as 

job aids [MEDEVAC 9-line (medical evacuation), marksmanship zeroing information, planning 
7

templates, course content (operations orders, exercises, information on weapons, first aid, etc.), 

and graphics (Army symbols, terrain information, etc.). 

 The second type reflects interactive apps that can either be developed as stand-alone 

training exercises or as supplemental activities for larger training exercises. For example, 

scenario-based leader training has been converted to a mobile device which allows leaders to 

view videos and respond to questions throughout the exercise. However, other types of apps, 

utilizing built-in smartphone technologies, could supplement field training exercises. For 

example, smartphones have built in accelerometers (ability to detect and respond to motion) 

and Global Positioning Systems (GPS, context aware-orientation, location, etc.). These 

capabilities could be used when conducting training in many different areas such as terrain 

analysis, convoy operations, urban operations, explosive ordnance disposal training, 

marksmanship training, etc. Research is needed to determine the potential benefits of using 

these applications either as simulated training exercises or as part of a blended learning 

approach for field exercises. 

The ability to include videos, graphics, audio, textual information, and simulation 

capabilities (semi-automated forces, etc.) in combination with context-aware information further 

extend the possibilities of how smartphones could be used in Army training. For example, 

research is being conducted with augmented reality apps; these are mobile games which take 

into consideration the user‟s position and surroundings. Individuals interact at the same time 

with the virtual world and the real world; user actions in the real world have an effect in the 

virtual world (Lavin, Torrente, Moreno-Ger, Vallejo-Pinto, & Fernández-Manjón, 2009). As the 

learner is participating in the simulation, the simulation is adapting and changing the scenario 

based on the context-relevant information provided by the technology. Thus, immersive 

simulation technology in which the individual is in a complete virtual world (either physically as 

in enclosed simulated environments or computer-based as in Second Life) may not always be 

necessary to obtain the benefits of simulation-based training. 

Phillips, Ross, Lickteig, and Livingston (2009) noted the benefits of an augmented reality 

approach for counterinsurgency (COIN) training such that training environments could be 

created that are physically and cognitively authentic beyond what is currently possible. 

Scenarios aimed at honing complex decision making skills incorporate the authentic situational 

cues and factors of the physical environment; however, the technology that is overlaid on the 

physical terrain allows the same training range to be effectively utilized again and again. 

Although by using augmented realty apps any physical environment could be potentially 

transformed into a learning situation, some training content would only best be simulated in 

certain contexts and under the supervision of an instructor. Research is needed to determine 

the effectiveness of different simulation contexts for different tasks, MOSs, echelons, etc. 

Although there are many possibilities for how these types of apps may be used for Army 

training, one app in particular may benefit leader training programs. Specifically, most leader 

training programs have the limitation of only being able to rotate a few individuals into 

leadership positions during training exercises. All of the other students in the class have to fill 

the other positions in the platoon, company, etc. Thus, the individuals become training aids for 

these missions as they fulfill the roles of squad leaders, platoon/company members, battalion 

staff members, etc. An augmented realty app could simulate all of these other positions and 

allow every student the opportunity to lead in a field setting. All students could then be afforded 

the opportunity to practice leadership skills the field. The app could potentially allow them to 

interact both in the virtual world with their augmented unit and in the real world with the physical 

setting, the instructor, and their peers. Another example of utilizing these capabilities would be 
8

to modify training materials previously developed to hone certain skills such as terrain analysis 

(e.g., Rossi, Khan, Nanda, Lickteig, Schaefer, 2009). These materials could be modified with 

the use of an augmented reality app that situates the training scenarios in real physical 

contexts. 

 The third type reflects sensory apps including face recognition, fingerprint authentication, 

motion sensors, physiological indicators (e.g., heart rate, glucose), etc. These types of apps 

may have the potential to enhance training scenarios. As similar tools are available in 

operational contexts, the standing operating procedures (SOPs) in collecting, storing, analyzing, 

and transmitting these data could be trained in the context of a larger scenario. For example, 

conditions in the current operating environment (COE) have required junior leaders to collect 

information from the local population, and it is likely that these leaders received little training on 

data collection and management. Use of these tools in a training environment could allow for 

more robust training scenarios requiring Army leaders to execute all of the SOPs for certain 

conditions. Furthermore, physiological apps could add a sense of realism and authenticity to 

training scenarios aimed at strengthening first aid skills. For example, these apps may provide 

a cost benefit when training combat medics and other medical personnel when learning first aid 

treatment. That is, the students could be afforded with multiple opportunities to practice 

techniques using first aid simulations on smartphones (e.g., interacting with avatars to diagnose 

medical conditions) before practicing the techniques using the real equipment. Research is 

needed to determine the potential benefits of developing simulation-based training on 

smartphones and to determine whether the additional practice opportunities promote the 

acquisition and transfer of task-based skills. 

Training Approaches for a 10-Year Timeframe 

Lifelong learning. To support a paradigm / culture shift in the way that the Army initially 

trains its leaders and Soldiers and maintains these skills throughout their lifetime, smartphones 

could be thought of as standard issue along with uniforms and protective gear. Drill Sergeants 

could start the lifelong learning process by making Soldiers accountable for the phones, loading 

the phones with training materials for use while in initial entry training courses, teaching Soldiers 

how to communicate with their peers, and using the Web 2.0 technology to enhance learning 

activities. Institutional instructors could continue the learning process with these technologies 

by adding new training content / apps on the smartphones when Soldiers enter AIT courses, 

professional military education (PME) classes, or specialty schools. Further, unit leaders and 

trainers could incorporate the use of smartphones into their collective training exercises; 

specially designed apps could be developed to enhance collective field training exercises. 

Finally, leaders and Soldiers could take responsibility for their own lifelong learning using 

smartphones by downloading new training material when they are promoted, enter a new unit, 

etc. Web 2.0 technologies could provide leaders and Soldiers with resources by keeping them 

connected with each other after they leave training courses and by allowing them to network 

with Army members to discuss issues they might have throughout their careers. Finally, these 

technologies offer Army leaders of both institutional and operational units critical information 

regarding leaders and Soldiers as they progress through their careers and from one training 

program to another. 

These ideas are supported by the Army learning model presented in a recent draft of the 

ALC (US Department of the Army, 2010). Specifically, the ALC‟s objective is 

a learning continuum that blurs the lines between the operating force and the generating 

force by meshing together self-development, institutional instruction and operational 
9

experience. This is a learner-centric continuum that begins when one joins the Army 

and does not end until retirement. (p. 1) 

The ALC emphasizes a goal to provide training materials to leaders and Soldiers “at the point of 

need” throughout their careers. “Providing mobile internet devices as part of a Soldier‟s kit will 

facilitate this emerging style of communication and collaboration” (US Department of the Army, 

2010, p. 16). 

The idea of lifelong learning is not new to researchers of academic and private industry 

contexts and has been defined as essential for training a workforce capable of adapting in a 

rapidly-changing world (cf., Sharples, 2000). Given that it is not possible to equip leaders and 

Soldiers with all the knowledge and skills needed to be adaptive and high performers from any 

one institutional course, a series of PME courses, or from unit or new equipment training (NET) 

alone, equipping leaders and Soldiers with smartphones may help them manage their own 

learning in a variety of contexts throughout their professional careers (cf., Sharples, 2000). The 

use of smartphones in this way may help foster capabilities between the Generating Force and 

the operational Army such that the development of long term projects may help leaders and 

Soldiers to better understand how knowledge and skills can be applied in a range of contexts 

(cf., Vahey & Crawford, 2002). That is, mobile learning may create more of a seamless learning 

experience between formal (course-based) and informal (self-development) learning activities 

(Looi et al., 2010). Further, the implicit accountability of having a single device to store, track, 

and complete assignments may result in a greater sense of responsibility for one‟s own learning 

especially when the limitations of having to attend brick and mortar classes during specific 

timeframes are removed (cf., Vahey & Crawford). 

New Equipment Training (NET). NET is defined as “training to prepare commanders, 

leaders, trainers, users, and maintenance personnel during development and fielding of new 

equipment” (Dyer & Tucker, 2009, A-12). Smartphones in a NET context would most likely best 

be used to provide either prerequisite training on knowledge and skills needed to successfully 

learn and use the new equipment (previously these materials were delivered to units on cds; US 

Army Research Institute, 2003) or post-training materials and exercises to sustain the skills 

developed in NET. Reports from prior observations of NET and results of Soldiers‟ performance 

suggest that Soldiers need instructor demonstrations of each procedure accomplished with the 

new equipment and many opportunities during NET for hands-on practice with the actual 

equipment (i.e., field exercises with the platoon/company) to gain the full benefits of NET (Dyer 

& Tucker). In summary, the use of smartphones pre-NET could provide Soldiers with the 

requisite knowledge to quickly acquire the skills for the new system. Use of smartphones postNET could reinforce/maintain these skills and could allow Soldiers to share lessons learned 

from using the equipment with other operators. It is important to note, however, that the use of 

smartphones for these purposes would only be feasible if the Army adopts the technology as 

one strategy for supporting lifelong learning as described by the new Army learning model (cf., 

US Department of the Army, 2010). 
10

Challenges in Using Mobile Learning Technologies for US Army Training 

Student Training Requirements 

Researchers reporting the results of case studies using smartphones and other wireless 

handheld devices for learning indicate that developing students‟ abilities to use the technology 

for learning requires special attention and time. “Although students may be adept at using 

digital technologies for entertainment, the literacy demands [increased collaboration and 

networking] that are placed on them when using these same technologies are very different” 

(van t‟ Hooft, 2008, p. 16). For example, although Soldiers may use Web 2.0 technologies, 

such as blogs, for personal use, they may need assistance in developing effective learning 

strategies to attain the potential benefits from using these same technologies in a learning 

context (e.g., Cochrane & Bateman, 2010; Rogers & Price, 2008). 

Design Requirements and Development 

Smartphones offer leaders and Soldiers the ability to receive training in modules or 

lesson chunks. Army leaders and Soldiers may not have time for 40-minutes worth of training 

but could squeeze in 10-15 minutes of training throughout the day either on or off duty (see 

Boehle, 2009 for examples of industry training with Blackberries). The ability to receive training 

in chunks and the capability to bookmark courseware so that learners can time their own chunks 

and come back to exactly where they left off highlights one advantage of using smartphones for 

training (Boehle, 2009). The ALC also indicates that “distributed learning content will be 

packaged in short modules that fit conveniently into a Soldier‟s schedule” (US Department of the 

Army, 2010, p. 15). 

To support the notion of anytime/anywhere training, training modules/lessons could be 

designed so that they can be downloaded onto the smartphone and accessible from the 

device‟s hard drive without having to connect to the Internet (Boehle, 2009). When Soldiers are 

on extended training exercises they may not have Internet access, however, they still need the 

ability to access the training materials from the device. This capability would only be 

appropriate for activities that would not require Internet resources to complete. Further design 

considerations are the following: 

 Design content for smaller screens (Boehle). 

 Choose the right interactions (drag/drop; complete sentences; pull-down; Boehle, 

2009). 

 Storage capability (although most smartphones come equipped with large storage 

capacity). 

 Creating generic learning materials for all mobile phones is not effective; materials 

need to be specific to the capabilities of the phones being used – carriers control 

proprietary features without permitting other carriers to exchange information with 

each other (cf., Brown, 2009). 

 May want to have a groupware system where one screen receives input from 

multiple devices to permit multi-user operation; facilitates group learning portfolios 

(Yang & Lin, 2010). 

 Mobile learning technologies may only be effective as learning tools if developers 

understand their strengths and weaknesses and incorporate them into appropriate 

pedagogical practices (Motiwalla, 2007).

 Need projected keyboard or perhaps keyboard on iPad for extended writing (cf., 

Vahey & Crawford, 2002). 
11

o New technology is being developed to allow devices to project a virtual 

keyboard and a large screen image for better use and visual display 

(Motiwalla, 2007). 

 Apps that facilitate group work so that individuals don‟t have to go through third party 

connections to send work quickly; decrease the number of steps for learners to 

collaborate (e.g., reduce the need for usernames). Apps also should allow for 

broadcast messages to the entire class or to an entire group of students. This is 

possible with e-mail but typically group e-mail settings have to be created – of course 

students also could use blogs, instant messages, and social networking sites. 

Regarding the development of smartphone technologies, Web 2.0 capabilities are 

already available. Instructors need training on how to develop a blended learning curriculum 

utilizing these capabilities. After becoming comfortable with using the technology in Army 

courses, leaders and Soldiers may develop their own learning strategies for using the 

smartphones. These in turn would become lessons learned for instructors that could be shared 

with future students. In the review of 102 case studies, Vahey and Crawford (2002) indicated 

that “students were very comfortable using handheld technology and that in many cases, 

students took the lead in developing ways to use handhelds for learning” (p. 28).

On the other hand, the development of software apps will have to be a joint venture with 

contractors who possess information technology (IT) knowledge or with dedicated Army 

personnel who have these skills. The many resources and free authoring tools available to 

develop the software would allow individuals without extensive IT experience to build training 

apps with the exception of the augmented reality mobile games. However, limited resources 

(i.e., time, manpower) within institutional and US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) units 

would not make it feasible to task course managers/instructors and training developers with the 

responsibility for developing knowledge, interactive, and sensory apps. 

Moreover, a new system that is flexible, timely, and effective must be created to test and 

release the apps. As new ideas for training apps will likely be continuously suggested by 

leaders and Soldiers, existing apps will quickly become obsolete. Thus, once apps are 

developed they should be made available to instructors and students as soon as possible. In 

the past, it took dL content created for Army institutional courses two years to be tested and 

approved, resulting in entire dL courseware that was obsolete at the end of the process. A new 

system has to be developed that gives unit leaders more control over the development and 

testing process. Pilot testing of the apps with instructors and current students and a spiral 

development approach that modifies the technology based on user input is a reasonable and 

sound approach that is flexible, timely, and effective. In summary, for apps used as part of a 

blended learning approach in existing classes or used as part of unit training, course 

developers/instructors and unit leaders should be the managers of these technologies. On the 

other hand, apps that are developed for lifelong learning would need a different development 

and management approach. The US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) would 

likely be the managers of these types of apps; however, design and development of the content 

would need to occur with the collaboration and input of institutional and FORSCOM unit leaders. 

Research is needed to determine an effective model for developing apps – especially more 

complex software such as augmented reality apps. 
12

Instructor Training Requirements 

Higher student motivation and engagement with the use of mobile technologies has 

been attributed to several factors including learner control, learning-in-context, continuity 

between contexts, replication of natural settings, and communication (for a review see 

McGowan, 2009). These factors may be attributable to instructional techniques that draw more 

from problem-based learning approaches in which the learning of individual concepts and 

procedures occurs within the context of a problem (for a review see Duffy & Raymer, 2010a, 

2010b) than from direct instruction approaches. As indicated in the ALC, 

engaging the learner in collaborative, problem solving exercises that are relevant to their 

work environment provides an opportunity to develop critical 21st Century Soldier 

Competencies such as initiative, critical thinking, teamwork, and accountability along 

with specific knowledge content. This problem-centered instructional approach 

encourages peer-to-peer learning and puts the instructor in the role of a facilitator who 

supports learning through guided questioning to elicit active student participation in the 

learning process. (US Department of the Army, 2010, p. 13) 

Moreover, in adopting these instructional approaches, the amount of face-to-face interaction in 

Army courses may be reduced but the quality may be potentially increased with a richer, socially 

supported learning experience (US Department of the Army, 2010). 

Although problem-based learning approaches are difficult to design and execute in Army 

training, in part due to the challenges of changing from direct instruction techniques and to the 

resources needed to create the training materials, the use of smartphones could facilitate the 

use of these techniques. For example, interactive apps could be developed for the problembased scenarios, and students could access information on the Internet to help them navigate 

through the problem. Students also could utilize all of the Web 2.0 capabilities to co-construct 

knowledge regarding the problem, thus possibly enhancing their individual performance on the 

learning tasks. 
13

It is important to note, however, that instructors will need support (time and resources) to 

create activities appropriate for mobile learning (activities that promote greater learner 

autonomy and independence) and to integrate these activities into a blended learning 

curriculum. Additional time is needed to both repurpose traditional instructional approaches and 

content so that it can best be used via technology and to repurpose technological tools that 

were not originally developed for education to best be used by students in a learning 

environment (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). “Pedagogical integration of m-learning into a course or 

curriculum requires a paradigm shift on behalf of the lecturers involved, and this takes 

significant time” (Cochrane & Bateman, p. 11). 

Taken together with the smartphone technologies, the development of mobile learning 

activities can be guided by the following pedagogies and functions: 

 Problem-based learning / deep learning: activities requiring students to navigate, 

sort, organize, analyze, and make graphical representations;

 Making things visible and discussable: activities requiring students to express ideas 

through photography, graphical representations, modeling, animation, and digital art;

 Sharing ideas/building community: blogs, wikis, and virtual worlds;

 Collaboration: use of Internet applications to plan and write together;

 Research: use bookmark tagging tools and citation engines to organize what is 

needed form the Web;

 Project management: provide web space for students to store work sources, 

feedback from peers, drafts, and products; and

 Reflection/iteration: shape and revise work and obtain critical feedback from others 

(Boss & Krauss, 2007). 

Finally, there is a rich history and an abundance of case examples of podcasting in 

which instructors have used podcasts to reformat their lectures so that students can view them 

anytime/anywhere or have used PDAs to post class information and content (e.g., for a review 

see Gkatzidou & Pearson, 2009 and Kim, Mims, & Holmes, 2006; McKinney, Dyck, & Luber, 

2009). However, to fully benefit from smartphone technologies, students should construct 

outputs and share them with their peers and instructors. This would better promote a Webbased participatory culture that supports a collaborative learning environment (e.g., Cochrane & 

Bateman, 2010; Menaker & Tucker, 2010). 

Sequencing / Scaffolding within Army Courses 

When redesigning curriculums to include smartphone technologies, instructors will need 

to consider the sequencing of mobile learning activities. The sequencing will depend on which 

pedagogies/instructional techniques are adopted by the instructor. If a problem-based learning 

approach is followed, then the instructor may begin the course by presenting a scenario-based 

problem to the students and requiring the students to formulate an initial plan to solve the 

problem. The instructor may further require the students to document the progress of their work 

using Web 2.0 tools and share their work with their peers. At the same time, the instructor may 

require all the students in the class to create a wiki of the content area. 

To provide support to the learners (i.e., scaffolding), the instructor may insert class 

discussions, lectures, or instructor-led demonstrations into the learning process. Scaffolding 

may be especially important for novice learners who may not successfully apply knowledge in 

relevant contexts, acquire new knowledge when exploring, and reflect on the environment and 

their activities (Frohberg, Göth, & Schwabe, 2009). It is important to note that if one adopts a 
14

problem-based learning approach, then scaffolding is typically provided after the learner has 

engaged in a problem, completed an analysis, and formulated a perspective (Duffy & Raymer, 

2010a, 2010b). Further, in a problem-based learning approach, the role of the instructor is to 

understand the students‟ perspectives and then ask questions to promote critical thinking such 

as, “What would happen if...How does that relate to...What evidence supports that decision,” 

etc. (Duffy & Raymer, 2010a, 2010b). One interesting Web 2.0 scaffolding tool is scaffold 

blogging. Students can use iBreadcrumbs to record and annotate search navigations to review 

with the instructor or peers (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Instructors also could practice dynamic 

scaffolding by adjusting their level of support and assistance as learners progress from novices 

to experts. At the beginning of a learning activity, a novice learner may need detailed 

instructional materials and numerous student-instructor interactions; however, as the learner 

acquires knowledge, receives feedback from peers, etc. these scaffolds could be reduced. 

If smartphones are used for lifelong learning, then research is especially needed to 

determine what accounts for learning and how apps are best sequenced for lifelong learning. 

Further, research is needed to determine how scaffolding would be provided for lifelong 

learning. Research would need to indicate from whom Army leaders and Soldiers would receive 

coaching during lifelong learning events (e.g., unit commanders, unit trainers).

Assessment 

If the Army makes a paradigm shift and uses mobile learning technologies not only in the 

context of institutional courses but also as lifelong learning tools, then assessment methods 

would have to change –away from summative assessments (one grade on a final product) and 

towards formative assessments. Formative assessments more effectively determine the 

process of change a learner undergoes and are better suited to take advantage of the 

functionality of smartphones (cf., Vahey & Crawford, 2002). Further, formative assessments 

often do not result in a grade and would thus require instructors, unit commanders, etc. to 

provide the type of feedback to leaders and Soldiers that would allow them to identify specific 

areas of strengths and weaknesses and make changes over time in performance. This type of 

feedback would be much more useful to leaders and Soldiers after specific courses as they 

could incorporate it into self-development learning plans. These ideas are supported by the ALC 

which states that “learner assessments are frequently perfunctory, open-book tests that lack 

rigor and fail to measure actual learning levels” (US Department of the Army, 2010, p. 3). 

“Portfolio [e-portfolio] assessment is an example of formative assessment that has 

gained wide acceptance as a desired practice – students create a portfolio of their work across 

many different learning activities which instructors can use to judge the students‟ strengths and 

progress” (Vahey & Crawford, 2002, p. 63). In fully utilizing Web 2.0 technologies for learning, 

students could share their work on the portfolios with their peers and receive feedback. 

Smartphone technologies afford instructors with the ability to create activities that allow 

“students to work alone until they are comfortable with their work, then share and explain their 

work to team members, then cycle back to revising their work autonomously (Vahey & 

Crawford, 2002, p. 65). When learners publish their work to their peers and self-explain to

themselves and others, “learners become aware of their own discrepancies in understanding, 

enabling them to revise their knowledge” (Rogers & Price, 2008, p. 213). Although prior 

research reports that instructors used wireless handheld devices for portfolio assessment, an 

app designed to help instructors collect, organize, and provide feedback on the portfolios would 

greatly enhance the benefits of this assessment tool (Vahey & Crawford). 
15

Another example of a formative assessment is when the instructor asks the entire class 

a question (Vahey & Crawford, 2002). Smartphone technology is enhancing the effectiveness 

of this assessment technique by affording students with the ability to answer the instructor 

electronically. Apps for class polling aggregate these responses and display them for 

instructors in graphics so they can get a better understanding of how much the class has 

learned (there are many reports of this technology being used in large lecture-based classes in 

universities). To better utilize this technology for student learning, the apps should provide the 

students with the results so that the student can compare his response to his peers and save it 

for future reference. For Army training, this type of assessment may be particularly useful 

during or post AARs (although this type of use is a more summative technique). That is, as 

platoon AARs are typically conducted in the field out in the open or in a large classroom (for a 

company AAR), unit leaders / trainers and institutional instructors often do not have the tools on 

hand to record unit member / student responses to critical questions. Further, as noted 

previously, unit members / students typically do not have the proper note-taking materials 

available to record critical performance feedback from the AAR. Smartphone technology would 

allow students to provide electronic comments to leaders / instructors so that a record of these 

responses is available for later reference. Army leaders and Soldiers also would have a record 

of the outcomes of these training events as reference throughout their careers (if smartphones 

are incorporated into the Army learning model to promote self-development strategies).

Another assessment example, diagnostic testing, could be both a formative and 

summative assessment technique. For example, interactive apps could be developed which 

require a learner to first view a person (either a video of a real person or an avatar) performing 

an incorrect technique and then indicate why the technique was performed incorrectly. This 

technique also could be used in another way such that learners could be presented with not 

only the performance of the incorrect technique or a scenario of a leader making a poor decision 

but also the near- and far-term performance outcomes. The learners first could be asked to 

reflect on these outcomes and then be presented with a novel scenario in which they would be 

asked to make decisions regarding the situation. The learners would then reflect on the 

outcomes of their decisions. 

A final formative assessment idea comes from social constructivist theory such that 

students‟ potential for learning could be assessed in addition to the products of previous 

learning (Miller, 1997). Specifically, dynamic assessments may more clearly provide feedback 

to a learner regarding areas where further work is needed. These types of assessments 

determine how much improvement a learner can make with the assistance of the instructor. For 

example, an instructor may provide prompts to the learner to spark further analysis of a 

problem. If the learner cannot analyze the problem further in response to these prompts then it 

is clearer to the instructor (and most likely to the learner) the areas in need of improvement. 

The use of smartphone technologies as blended learning approaches in institutional 

courses or as lifelong learning tools requires that a learning management system (LMS) be 

developed to support the data from the assessments described above. Although LMSs have 

been developed for private industry, these would likely need to be modified for the Army 

context. Research is needed to determine which student outcomes should be tracked and how 

this information is best used for individual and Army purposes. 
16

Conclusions and Research Questions 

 The strengths of smartphone technologies are that they (1) provide the right tools to 

students at the right time and (2) facilitate learning activities by allowing students to focus on 

solving the problem rather than on the logistics of completing the activity (Vahey & 

Crawford, 2002).

 Smartphone technologies may promote problem-based learning instructional strategies 

reflecting the guidance found in the ALC. 

o However, prior attempts to create problem-based learning POIs within the Army have 

proven to be extremely difficult to implement due to a resource intensive instructional 

design process and due to the challenges associated with requiring instructors to 

change their teaching styles. 

o Smartphone technologies may make designing and implementing problem-based 

learning and collaborative learning easier and more cost effective. 

 Although the present research identified some possible mobile learning approaches for 

Army training, there are many challenges and research questions that need to be 

addressed.3

o How can research be designed to determine the effectiveness of mobile learning 

activities, utilizing smartphone technologies, for Army training? 

 Who are the stakeholders / supporters of this research? 

 Can cost savings be realized by using smartphone technologies in US Army 

training – both as blended learning and lifelong learning material solutions? 

 Do the benefits of using smartphone technologies for Army training in terms 

of cost, learning outcomes, etc. surpass those of the current technology (e.g., 

laptop computers)? 

 Does the use of smartphone technologies in Army training violate the 

operational fidelity of the training experience if they represent technologies 

(and software) not available to the Soldiers in the operational environment? 

 How can augmented reality apps be incorporated into Army training? What 

types of tasks would be effectively trained using these apps? 

o How can training using smartphone technologies be implemented given the 

constraints of post network security? Will posts support WiFi in designated training 

areas? 

o How does one determine whether a mobile device is the right tool for a particular 

learning objective? 

 Which classes are better suited for social interactions via technology?

o What is the best model for developing apps – especially more complex software 

such as augmented reality apps? 

 What is a flexible, timely, and effective process for developing and testing 

apps? 

 How can apps be effectively shared and reused across the Army?

 How can apps be maintained, updated, and standardized across the Army?

o Do smartphone technologies overcome past hurdles of using technology in AARs 

(for a review see Dyer, Wampler, & Blankenbeckler, 2005)? For example, unless 

trainers continually observe a leader‟s activity at a computer screen, they may not 

know exactly what decisions the leader made while utilizing the technology, what 

messages he read, or how he applied information he received. Could smartphone 

apps be developed to enable the trainer to flag critical messages and fragmentary 

 

3

 Some of the research questions above were derived from Brown and Metcalf (2008) and Looi et al. (2010). 
17

orders, create meaningful graphs and figures, or display screens in real-time in order 

to facilitate the AAR? 

o Do smartphone technologies provide fundamental changes in the way student 

learning is assessed or are they just different media for the same methods?

o What types of programs need to be developed to train instructors on how to use the 

smartphone technologies for learning activities?

 Does the use of smartphone technologies in Army courses increase 

instructors‟ workloads as they monitor both individual and group 

performance? 

o Should smartphone technologies be used during NET to foster a collaborative 

learning environment? 

 How would instructors receive training to revise current NET POIs to 

incorporate mobile learning activities using smartphone technologies? 

o If smartphones are used for informal learning [self-development], then what are the 

indicators of learning and what accounts for learning? 

 How are apps sequenced for lifelong learning? What are the sequencing 

strategies for the use of apps in lifelong learning? 

 How is scaffolding provided for lifelong learning? 

 From whom do Army leaders and Soldiers receive coaching during lifelong 

learning events? Unit commanders? Unit trainers? 

o How do we integrate mobile learning into a LMS?

 How do we best track/measure information that is sent and received? What, 

how and how much mobile information do we track? Why track certain 

information? How do we track impact? 

o What are the limitations of using smartphone technologies in learning environments? 
18
19

References 

Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and 

 lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. 

Boehle, S. (2009, Oct/Nov). Mobile training: Don‟t leave home without your blackberry. 

Training, 46, 9-9.

Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2007, August). Power of the mashup. Learning & Leading with 

 Technology, 12-17.

Brill, J. M., & Park, Y. O. (2008). Facilitating engaged learning in the interaction age taking a 

 pedagogically-disciplined approach to innovation with emergent technologies. 

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 70-78.

Brown, J. (2010, February). Can you hear me now? Training and Development, 64, 28-30.

Brown, L. (2009, Fall). Using mobile learning to teach reading to ninth-grade students. Journal 

 of Computing Teachers. 

Brown, J., & Metcalf, D. (2008, Summer). Mobile learning update. Elliott Masie’s Learning 

 Consortium Perspectives. 

Chuang, K-W. (2009). Mobile technologies enhance the e-learning opportunity. American 

 Journal of Business Education, 2, 49-54. 

Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of 

 mobile Web 2.0. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 1-14.

Dieterle, E. (n.d.). Handheld devices for ubiquitous learning and analyzing. Available: 

http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/uploads/NECC2005/KEY_7287575/Dieterle_NECC2005

 Dieterle_RP.pdf [accessed 24 June 2010] 

Duffy, T., & Raymer, P. (2010a). A practical guide and a constructivist rationale for inquiry 

based learning. Educational Technology, 50, 3-15. 

Duffy, T., & Raymer, P. (2010b). Achieving adaptability through inquiry based learning (ARI 

Research Product 2010-02). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. ADA 523 892) 

Dyer, J. L., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Appendix P. Training report: Land Warrior new equipment 

 training assessment. In Land Warrior (LW)/Mounted Warrior (MW) Doctrine, 

 Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities 

 (DOTMLPF) Assessment Final Report. White Sands Missile Range, NM: TRADOC 

 Analysis Center. 

Dyer, J. L., Wampler, R. L., & Blankenbeckler, P. N. (2005). After action reviews with the 

 Ground Soldier System (ARI Report 1840). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. ADA 438 040) 
20

Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects – a critical analysis of 

 the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307-331.

Gkatzidou, S., & Pearson, E. (2009). The potential for adaptable accessible learning objects: A 

 case study in accessible vodcasting. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 

 25, 292-307.

Lavin, P., Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Vallejo-Pinto, J. A., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). 

 Mobile game development for multiple devices in education. iJET, 4, 19-26. 

Looi, C-K., Seow, P., Zhang, BH, So, H-J, Chen, W., & Wong, L-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile 

 technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of 

 Educational Technology, 41, 154-169. 

Looi, C-K, Wong, L-H., So, H-J, Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., Zhang, B., Norris, C., & Soloway, 

 E. (2009). Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers and Education, 

 53, 1120-1132.

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, 77-100.

Kolb, L. (2006, November). Learning & Leading with Technology, 16-20.

McGowan, V. (2009, Fall). Application of the 5E Instructional Model to a mobile learning 

 environment. The Journal for Computing Teachers. 

McKinney, D., Dyck, J., & Luber, E. S. iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts 

 replace professors? Computers and Education, 52, 617-623.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-

 based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. 

 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

 Policy Development: Policy and Program Studies Service. 

Menaker, E. S., & Tucker, J. S. (2010). Distributed Learning (dL) in Foreign Language 

 Education: Principles, Best Practices, and Approaches to Evaluation. (ARI Study 

 Report in preparation). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

 and Social Sciences. 

Meyer, B. (2009). Fort Ancient, Ohio: A curricular approach to developing mobile games for 

 tourists. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Conference on Games Based 

 Learning, Graz, Austria. 

Miller, P. H. (1997). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: W.H. Freeman and 

 Company. 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009, May). Too cool for school? No way! Learning & Leading with 

 Technology, 14-18.

Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 

49, 581-596.
21

Murray, C. (n.d.). Mobile learning in the classroom. Agora. 

Peters, K. (2007, June). m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. 

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8. 

Phillips, J. K., Ross, W. A., Lickteig, C. W., Livingston, J. D. (2009). Innovative methods to 

acquire and adapt Soldier skills (INMASS). (ARI Report No. 1909). Arlington, VA: U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. ADA 

510819) 

Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2008). The role of mobile devices in facilitating collaborative inquiry in 

 situ. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3, 209-229. 

Rossi, M. J., Khan, M. J, Nanda, S., Lickteig, C. W., Schaefer, P. S. (2009). Anytime, anywhere 

 terrain visualization training system: Combining training theory and technology to train 

 human-computer visualization. (ARI Report No. 1245). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army 

 Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. ADM 002200) 

Schrum, L., & Solomon, G. (n.d.). Web 2.0 and you: starting the conversation. International 

 Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Available:

http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/educatorresources/yourlearningjourney/web

 20/21f80026.pdf [accessed 23 June 2010]. 

Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. 

Computers & Education, 34, 177-193.

So, H-J, Seow, P., & Looi, C. K. Location matters: Leveraging knowledge building with mobile 

 devices and Web 2.0 technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 367-382.

U.S. Army Research Institute. (2003). Land Warrior prerequisite skills training, v 1.0 (CD-ROM). 

 Ft. Benning, GA: Infantry Forces Research Unit. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (2010, June). TRADOC Pamphlet 525-X-X: The United States 

 Army Learning Concept for 2015 (Version 0.7). Fort Monroe, VA: Author. 

Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers Program: Final evaluation report. 

(SRI International Report). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. 

van „t Hooft, M. (2008, March/April). Envisioning the future of education. Learning & Leading 

 with Technology, 12-16. 

Yang, J. C., & Lin, Y. L. (2010). Development and evaluation of an interactive mobile learning 

 environment with shared display groupware. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 195-

207.
22
A-1

Appendix A 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAR after-action-review 

AIT advanced individual training 

ALC Army Learning Concept 

app application 

COE current operating environment 

GPS Global Positioning System 

IBL inquiry-based learning 

IBOLC Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course 

LMS learning management system 

MEDEVAC medical evacuation 

MOS military occupation specialty 

NET new equipment training 

PDA personal digital assistant 

PME professional military education 

POI program of instruction 

SOP standing operating procedure 

WiFi wirelessly via wireless fidelity