P-16 Partnerships for Learning with Mobile Technologies: Design, Implement and Evaluate

  • Belinda GimbertEmail author
  • Lauren Acree
  • Kui Xie
  • Anika Ball Anthony
Living reference work entry


Advancements in mobile technologies hold promise for supporting teaching and learning in educational settings. Across the globe, primary and secondary schools join with higher education institutions to design and implement mobile learning experiences for P-12 students and seek external funding to support such initiatives. This chapter describes a framework for advancing and sustaining m-learning initiatives in a P-16 partnership using a collaborative evaluation approach. Three key premises fortify the Partnership, Evaluation, Design, and Implementation (PEDI) framework: (1) Partnership is the central driving force; (2) Stakeholders and external experts determine processes of collaborative evaluation; and (3) The relationship between the partnership, design, implementation, and evaluation needs to be both reciprocal and iterative. When evaluation moves beyond “a snapshot” of the initiative’s impact, stakeholders’ collective expertise and unique contributions are recognized. A partnership of higher education representatives, including faculty, researchers, instructional designers, and software developers, and school-based educators and personnel such as teachers, administrators, staff, and instructional technology coordinators should adopt collaboratively evaluation practices in order to promote the most effective use of m-learning solutions in P-12 schools.


P-16 partnerships Mobile learning design Mobile learning implementation Evaluation of mobile learning 


  1. Andrews, T., L.E. Dyson, and J. Wishart. 2015. Advancing ethics frameworks and scenario-based learning to support educational research into mobile learning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 38 (3): 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, A.B.. 2012. Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 44 (4): 331–352.Google Scholar
  3. Anthony, A., and B. Gimbert. 2015. Higher education partnerships for learning with mobile technologies in P-12 environments. In Handbook of mobile teaching and learning, ed. Yu (Amiee) Zhang, 517–533. Berlin/Heidlberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthony, A.B.., and S. Patravanich. 2014. The technology principal: To be or not to be? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 17 (2): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aubusso, P., S. Schuck, and K. Burden. 2009. Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: Benefits, obstacles and issues. Research in Learning Technology 17 (3): 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baran, E. 2014. A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society 17 (4): 17–32.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, C.C., and A. Martin. 2013. Using Mobile technology to support literacy coaching practices. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 30 (2): 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beauchamp, G., K. Burden, and E. Abbinett. 2015. Teachers learning to use the iPad in Scotland and Wales: A new model of professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching 41 (2): 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bebell, D., and L. O’Dwyer. 2010. Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9 (1). Retrieved from
  10. Berthonnet, I., and T. Delclite. 2015. Pareto-optimality or Pareto-efficiency: Same concept, different names? An analysis over a century of economic literature. In A research annual, Research in the history of economic thought and methodology, ed. Luca Fiorito, vol. 32, 129–145. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campilan, D. 2000. Participatory evaluation of participatory research. In Paper presented at the forum of international cooperation projects: Centering on development of human resources in the field of agriculture, at the international Cooperation Center for Agricultural Educaiton of Nagoya University, Nagoya, December 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Charania, A., and N.E. Davis. 2016. A smart partnership integrating educational technology for underserved children in India. Educational Technology & Society 19 (3): 99–109.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, M., F.-K. Chiang, Y.-N. Jiang, and S.-Q. Yu. 2017. A context-adaptive teacher training model in a ubiquitous learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments 25 (1): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clow, D. 2013. An overview of learning analytics. Teaching in Higher Education 18 (6): 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb, P., J. Confrey, A. di Sessa, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble. 2003. Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32 (1): 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, D.K. 1987. Educational technology, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9 (2): 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuban, L. 1986. Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cuban, L., H. Kirkpatrick, and C. Peck. 2001. High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demouy, V., K. Qian, A. Kukulska-Hulme, and A. Eardley. 2015. Exploring trends, motivations and behaviours in the use of mobile devices for language learning in a higher education distance learning setting. In Eurocall 2015. 26–29 August 2015, Padua.Google Scholar
  20. Dexter, S. 2008. Leadership for IT in schools. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, ed. J. Voogt and G. Knezek, 543–554. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisele-Dyrli, K. 2011. Mobile goes mainstream. District Administration 47 (2): 46–55. Mobile devices at a glance. District Administration 45 (11).Google Scholar
  22. Ertmer, P.A. 1999. Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47 (4): 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ertmer, P., and A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich. 2010. Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. JRTE 42 (3): 255–284.Google Scholar
  24. Falloon, G. 2015. The Science for life partnerships: Does size really matter, and how can ICT help? Waikato Journal of Education Te Hautaka Matauranga o Waikato: Special 20th Anniversary Collection 2015: 207–220. (originally published Volume 16, Issue 1, 2011).Google Scholar
  25. Fitts, T. 2015. Teacher implementation of Mobile learning initiative at a sixth grade school: A phenomenological study. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects 1092.
  26. Five-Start Technology Solutions. 2014. Pivot with 5D+. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership. Retrieved from Scholar
  27. Fraga, L.M. 2012. Mobile learning in higher education. Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Universityof TexasatSanAntonioinPartialful fi llmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofdoctor of philosophy in interdisciplinary learning and teaching.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, A., S. Adams Becker, M. Cummins, A. Davis, and C. Hall Giesinger. 2017. NCM/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from Scholar
  29. Groff, J., and C. Mouza. 2008. A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal 16 (1): 21–46.Google Scholar
  30. Hennig, N. 2016. Mobile learning trends: Accessibility, ecosystems, content creation. Library Technology Reports 52 (3): 1–38.Google Scholar
  31. Holcomb, L.B. 2009. Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review. TechTrends 53 (6): 49–55. Scholar
  32. Howard, R., and L. Schneider. 1984. Worker participation in technological change: Interests, influence, and scope. In Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy, ed. F. Fischer and C. Sirianni, 519–543. Phildelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Huang, T.C., C.C. Chen, and Y.W. Chou. 2016. Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education 96: 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ifenthaler, D., and V. Schweinbenz. 2013. The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in human behavior 29 (3): 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inan, F.A., and D.L. Lowther. 2010. Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers and Education 55 (3): 937–944. Scholar
  36. Intel Corporation. 2013. Evaluating your technology integration initative. Pointers for success. Intel Education Research. Retrieved from
  37. International Telecommunication Union. 2017. The World in 2017: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved from
  38. Johnson, L., S. Adams Becker, M. Cummins, V. Estrada, A. Freeman, and H. Ludgate. 2013. NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from Scholar
  39. Kafai, Y.B., and C. Dede. 2014. Learning in virtual worlds. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, ed. R.K. Sawyer, 2nd ed., 522–542. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kamarainen, A.M., S. Metcalf, T. Grotzer, A. Browne, D. Mazzuca, M.S. Tutwiler, and C. Dede. 2013. EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education 68: 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kirkpatrick, H., and L. Cuban. 1998. Computers make kids smarter – Right? Technos 7 (2): 26–31.Google Scholar
  42. Kukulska-Hulme, A., and J. Traxler. 2007. Designing for Mobile and wireless learning. In Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering E-learning, ed. H. Beetham and R. Sharpe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Kukulska-Hulme, A., M. Sharples, M. Milrad, I. Arnedillo-S’anchez, and G. Vavoula. 2009. Innovation in Mobile learning: A European perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 1 (1): 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kusunoki, D.S., and A. Sarcevic. 2013. A participatory framework for evaluation design. In IConference 2013 proceedings, 860–864. Scholar
  45. Leahy, M., N. Davis, C. Lewin, A. Charania, H. Nordin, D. Orlic, D. Butler, and O. Lopez-Fernadez. 2016. Smart partnerships to increase equity in education. Educational Technology & Society 19 (3): 84–98.Google Scholar
  46. Manzo, K.K. 2010. Mobile learning seen to lack rigorous research. Technology Counts 2010: Powering up: Mobile learning seeks the spotlight in K-12 education. 29 (26). Retrieved from
  47. Morrison, G.R., S.M. Ross, and J.E. Kemp. 2007. Designing effective instruction. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 2009. Teacher Recruitment: Strategies for Widening the Teaching Pool in a Shrinking Economy. A Report for the U.S. Washington, DC: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  49. Ng, W., and H. Nicholas. 2013. A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (5): 695–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nordin, M., M.A. Embi, and M.M. Yunus. 2010. Mobile learning framework for lifelong learning. In Procedia – Social and behavioral sciences, vol. 7, 130–138. International conference on learner diversity. Scholar
  51. Peng, H., Y.J. Su, and C.C. Tsai. 2009. Ubiquitious knowledge construction: Mobile leanring redefined and a conceotual framework. Innovaitons in Education and Teaching International 46: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Power, R., D.S. Cristol, and B.G. Gimbert. 2014. Exploring tools to promote teacher efficacy with mLearning. In Mobile as a mainstream – Towards future challenges in mobile learning: 13th World conference on mobile and contextual learning (mLearn 2014), vol. 479, 61–68. Retrieved from Scholar
  53. Preece, J., Y. Rogers, and H. Sharp. 2007. Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Printy, S.M., Marks, H.M., & Bowers, A.J. 2009. Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership 19: 504–532.Google Scholar
  55. Quinn, C. 2000. mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in-your-pocket learning. LineZine. Retrieved from
  56. Robledo, S.J. 2013. Mobile devices for learning: What you need to know. Retrieved from
  57. Sharples, M. 2000. The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning in computers and education 34: 177–193. Online, Available at Accessed 28 Feb 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sharples, M., I. Arnedillo-Sánchez, M. Milrad, and G. Vavoula. 2009. Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products, ed. N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, and L. Montandon. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Shuler, C. 2009. Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  60. Smolin, L., and K.A. Lawless. 2011. Evaluation across contexts: Evaluating the impact of technology integration professional development partnerships. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 27 (3): 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spikol, D., A. Kurti, and M. Milrad. 2008. Collaboration in context as a framework for designing innovative Mobile learning activities. In Innovative Mobile learning: Techniques and technologies, ed. H. Ryu and D. Parsons. Hershey: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Sun, D., and C.K. Looi. 2017. Focusing a mobile science learning process: Difference in activity participation. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 12: 3. Scholar
  63. Sun, J., M. Heath, E. Byrom, J. Phlegar, and K.V. Dimock. 2000. Planning into practice: Resources for planning, implementing, and integrating instructional technology. Greensboro: Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR*TEC).Google Scholar
  64. Sun, Z., C.-H. Lin, J. You, H.-J. Shen, S. Qi, and L. Luo. 2017. Improving the English-speaking skills of young learners through mobile social networking. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30 (3–4): 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van’t Hooft, M., and P. Vahey. 2007. Handheld computers in education: An industry perspective. Educational Technology 43 (7): 40–43.Google Scholar
  66. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vroom, V.H., and A.G. Jago. 1998. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Vroom, V.H., and P.W. Yetton. 1973. Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winslow, J., J. Dickerson, C. Weaver, and J. Fair. 2016. Iterative and event-based frameworks for university and school district technology professional development partnerships. TechTrends 60: 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu, W.-H., Y.-C.J. Wu, C.-Y. Chen, H.-Y. Kao, C.-H. Lin, and S.-H. Huang. 2012. Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education 59 (2): 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yasemin, G.l. 2007. Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers and Education 49 (4): 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Youth Policy Institute. 2016. Year 5 annual report for mobilizing national educator talent. New York: Youth Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  73. Zhang, Y. 2015. Characteristics of mobile teaching and learning. In Handbook of mobile teaching and learning, ed. Yu (Amiee) Zhang, 11–28. Berlin/Heidlberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Belinda Gimbert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren Acree
    • 1
  • Kui Xie
    • 2
  • Anika Ball Anthony
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies, Educational AdministrationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Studies, Learning TechnologiesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Belinda Gimbert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations