Mobile Technologies and Learning: Expectations, Myths, and Reality

  • Lina PetrakievaEmail author
  • David McArthur
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history


M-learning is often approached as an innovative method to teach, but quite often without the proper planning of the actual learning process and proper understanding of the implications on the pedagogy of the learning process in such a setting. Because of the multiple stakeholders in the process – the institution, the learners, the educators, the policy-makers, etc. – it is very difficult to encourage educators to engage with something so different that will require a rethink of their teaching practices. In addition, with so many different technical elements and challenges, it is often simply just too daunting a prospect.

It is also unfortunate that m-learning is often only limited to simply mobile access. A good m-pedagogy will not just transfer the learning process to a mobile device but incorporate the very nature of mobile, flexible, user-guided, bite-sized learning.

The recent rise of learning and learner analytics has also highlighted the issue of how students engage with university systems and the ethical consideration of such data being collected and used.

Real m-learning needs to have a real purpose, and the stakeholders need to see the value in it for it to have a chance to be a success. Having all the correct m-pedagogy in place and if both educators and learners see the value of engagement, m-learning can bring real benefits – flexibility of access and freedom of engagement therefore allow a real meaningful tailoring of the learning process. Only very recently have real attempts been made to motivate progression toward adaptive learning. Incorporation of pedagogy and AI (artificial intelligence) methods seems to be pointing to a future of real, adaptive, and effective m-learning.


M-learning M-pedagogy Digital literacy Learning analytics Learner analytics 


  1. Aubusson, P., S. Schuck, and K. Burden. 2009. Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: Benefits, obstacles and issues. Alternatives Journal 17 (3): 233–247. Scholar
  2. Beetham, H. 2014. Students’ experiences and expectations of the digital environment | Jisc, 23-06-2014. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  3. Beetham, H. 2017. Discovery tool – what we learned and where we go next. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  4. Bennett, S., and K. Maton. 2010. Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (5): 321–331. Scholar
  5. Callum, K. Mac, and L. Jeffrey. 2013. The influence of students’ ICT skills and their adoption of mobile learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 29 (3): 303–314.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, D. 2014. ‘Keynote speech, iTech 2014’.
  7. David, M. et al. 2012. Widening participation in higher education. Scholar
  8. De Quincey, E. et al. 2016. Learner analytics; The need for user-centred design in learning analytics. 3(9): 6–9. Scholar
  9. Elias, T. 2011. Principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12: 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gartner. 2017. Gartner says worldwide sales of smartphones grew 9 percent in first quarter of 2017. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  11. JISC. 2014. Digital student project | Jisc, 2014. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  12. JISC. 2017a. Building digital capability. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  13. JISC. 2017b. JISC Learning_analytics_report.pdf, JISC Learning analytics services appendix terms and conditions. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  14. Keyes, J. 2013. Bring your own devices (BYOD) survival guide. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Littlejohn, A. 2007. Preparing for blended e-learning. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mac Callum, K., and L. Jeffrey. 2014. Comparing the role of ICT literacy and anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior 39: 8–19. Elsevier Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Margaryan, A., A. Littlejohn, and G. Vojt. 2011. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education 56 (2): 429–440. Elsevier Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370–396. Scholar
  19. Petrakieva, L. 2012. The shift to mobile devices. In User studies for digital library development, ed. M. Dobreva, A. O’Dwyer, and P. Feliciati, 159–165. London: Facet Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrakieva, L., and D. McArthur. 2017. Pre ICT induction – PICTI. Accessed 3 May 2018.
  21. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon 9 (5): 1–6.–DigitalNativesDigitalImmigrants–Part1.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Deursen, A.J., and J.A. van Dijk. 2013. The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society 16 (3): 507–526. Scholar
  23. West, M., and C. Ei. 2014. Reading in the mobile era: a study of mobile reading in developing countries. Accessed 3 May 2018.

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Development Centre / School of Health and Life SciencesGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Learning Development Centre / School of Computing, Engineering, and the Built EnvironmentGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kshama Pandey
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand UniversityBareillyIndia

Personalised recommendations