SMART-DEVICE POTENTIAL FOR STUDENT LEARNING

Ben Woodcock

, Matt Armstrong

, Anne Nortcliffe

and Andrew Middleton

Department of Computing, Faculty of ACES, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, U.K.

Department of Engineering and Maths, Faculty of ACES, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, U.K.

Quality Enhancement & Student Success, Student and Learning Services, Sheffield Hallam University,

Sheffield, S1 1WB, U.K.

Keywords: Mobile Learning (M-learning), Technology Support for Pervasive Learning, Technology Enhanced

Learning, Student Technology Generated Learning.

Abstract: Smartphones/devices have become the ubiquitous tool of choice for professionals to support their

productivity and are increasingly becoming more common on university campuses. Many of the advantages

of these devices have the potential to support student learning engagement and provide new opportunities

for learning. This paper reports on an academic study conducted over the last two years by two final year

students, supported by two academic learning technology researchers, examining the level of student

smartphone/device ownership on campus and the extent students are harnessed the use of these devices to

support their learning. The research shows that student smartphone/device ownership is increasing;

however, how students are using the devices to support their learning appears to narrowing as the year

progresses and consequently the students are missing out on the learning opportunities these devices can

provide. The paper finally presents an analysis of smartphone/device apps that have the potential to support

student learning.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Smartphones

For many professionals ready access to data

underpins their productivity. Third Generation (3G):

smartphone devices can provide mobile access to

these resources at anytime and from any place (Lin

and Brown, 2007). The general consumption of

smartphones is also growing exponentially as

awareness of their broad functionality and

usefulness is understood (Young et al., 2011). As a

consequence, the use of devices is blurring the

distinction between home life and work, providing

benefits for both the employee and the employer

(Durbin, 2011). Potentially these devices can save

time, lead to efficiency gains and increased

productivity for professionals, (Jewell, 2011).

In a study of medical professionals the perceived

usefulness of smart-devices, and their ease of use

were influential factors in the professionals’ decision

to adopt the technology to support their practice

(Chen et al., 2010). Smartphones are also radically

changing how health professionals conduct their

practice and support patients with health

information, communication and remote monitoring

(Boulos, 2011). 

1.2 M-Learning

Mobile devices are disruptive: they change the

nature of engagement, and this is true for education

and learner engagement as it is in other fields. The

devices have also altered; the who, when, where,

what and how of learner engagement as they can be

interwoven within other tasks, locations and

situations Traxler (2009). Previous research has

identified that mobile technology presents new

opportunities for expanding the learning within and

beyond the classroom (Sharples et al., 2009).

However, for

 the ubiquitous smartphone device to

become the learning tool of choice, it needs to

interoperate seamlessly, display of adequate

resolution, and network services need to be

accessible, reliable and secure (Yin et al., 2011).

Camargo et al. (2011) propose that the factors

that encourage mobile learning on smartphones are:

the learner’s ability to learn anywhere and to self-

410

Woodcock B., Armstrong M., Nortcliffe A. and Middleton A..

SMART-DEVICE POTENTIAL FOR STUDENT LEARNING.

DOI: 10.5220/0003956604100415

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 410-415

ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

direct their learning; the personalization of learning;

the capacity of the device to support human

curiosity; game-based learning. However, gaming

can be an inhibitor for some. Other inhibitors need

to be noted, including: the diversity of smartphone

devices, their costs, and technophobia. The latter

inhibitor has been shown to be resolvable when

more mature users are influenced by younger users

(Mori and Harada, 2010). Strategically therefore,

there are benefits in encouraging the more confident

users to take a leadership role in sharing their

approaches to smart-devices learning, even if this

feels counter intuitive.

2 METHODOLOGY

The research reported in this paper examines

students' interests in, rational for and habits formed

using smart-devices for learning. The research has

been conducted over the last two years for final year

undergraduate projects. The studies have been

carried out by two students (Authors 1 and 2), being

supervised by Author 3, and sponsored by Author 4.

This relationship adds authenticity and meaning to

the research as discussed by Diamond et al. (2010).

The aims of the research were to identify which

smartphones and applications are being used by

students, at their discretion, to support their learning,

and the benefits and limitations of using the

technology in this way.

An initial small-scale questionnaire by Author 1

was distributed using Facebook, to Author 1’s

friends at Sheffield Hallam University and other

Institutions. Statistically the average Facebook user

has 120 Facebook friends, Marlow (2009). This

initial survey was to establish if students are using

smartphones to support their learning (Author 1 et

al., 2012). This survey was followed with more in

depth online surveys distributed to approximately

5,300 students via Virtual Learning Environment

(VLE) email to all students in the Faculty of Arts,

Computing, Engineering and Science, at Sheffield

Hallam University. These more in-depth surveys

were conducted in January 2011 by Author 1 and by

Author 2 in December 2011. Both of these surveys

targeted all post and undergraduate students in the

faculty. The surveys were created using Google

Forms and deployed using a link embedded in a

email distributed through the institutional VLE. Both

surveys included open and closed questions and the

form was dynamic so that questions were presented

depending on how earlier questions had been

answered; the intention was to improve the

respondent’s experience of the survey and therefore

increase their willingness to complete the

questionnaire. It also helped to avoid collecting

erroneous data by respondents filling in questions

not relevant or applicable to the respondents in light

of their previous answers; something which can be

difficult to achieve when designing paper-based

questionnaires.

Adhering to good survey practice (Hague, 1993),

the initial section of the surveys gathered relevant

demographic and classification data on the

respondent’s gender, age, current level of study,

course of study and smartphone ownership. Author

2’s survey distinguished between ownership of

smartphones and other smart-devices. Depending on

their response to the smartphone/device questions,

the questionnaire continued by investigating

information with respect to the respondent's use of

the device for learning.

In addition the surveys conformed to the

University policy and ethical guidance for

conducting and storing survey results. The surveys

did not seek the respondent's name, and had their

permission to use the data statistical for research

purposes and reporting. The surveys received final

year project ethical approval by the Faculty.

3 RESULTS

The in depth surveys were deployed via VLE email

to approximately 5,300 students, the students were

simple asked if they would be kind enough to

complete the survey in order to assist a fellow

student's final year project research. Though the

response rate was 272 useable responses for the first

iteration of the survey by Author 1 and Author 2’s

iteration survey generated another 474 useable

responses, this response rate is comparable with the

response rate of numerous prize incentivised

University led learning, teaching and assessment

research survey that previously achieved 5%

response rate, (Holden et al, 2009). The majority of

Author 1 and Author 2 surveys were returned within

the 24 hours of deploying the surveys.

Demographically, 272 respondents to the first

survey were mostly again male (227, 83%) and were

predominantly in the 18-25 age group (231, 85%),

though 20 (7%) were in the 26-30 age range, 12

(4%) were 31-40, and 7 (3%) were older. 2 were

younger than 18. 242 (89%) were undergraduate

students, 22 (8%) were studying for a master's

degree, 3 were graduates and the remainder did not

state their level of study or occupation. 188 (69%) of

SMART-DEVICEPOTENTIALFORSTUDENTLEARNING

411

the respondents declared owning at least one

smartphone at the time of the survey. They

represented the full spectrum of disciplines within

the faculty including Computing, Art and Design,

Film and Media Production, and Mechanical

Engineering.

For the second survey, 474 responses, the

demographics were 287 (61%) male; 426 (90%)

aged 18-25, 28 (6%) aged 26-30, 13 (3%) aged 31-

40, with 7 (1%) older than that. 437 (92%) were

undergraduate students and 37 (8%) were

postgraduates. In December 2011 410 (87%)

declared owning a smartphone and 7 (15%) declared

owning a tablet (smartpad). Again the respondents

were from a broad range of courses in the faculty

including Aerospace Engineering, Games Software

Development, and Journalism.

Table 1: 2010-2011 Analysis of the frequency of examples

of how students are using smartphones for learning.

Category % Freq. Examples

1. Office productivity

and assignment

preparation

21% Word processing,

spreadsheets,

presentations, notes

2. Reading

information

8% PDF readers, newspapers

3. Searching for,

browsing information

and reference

21% Web browser, dictionary,

thesaurus

4. Audio, image and

video media capture

3% Camera, sketching,

graphing, voice recorders,

video camera

5. Managing learning 22% Blackboard, library, group

work, timetabling,

personal organisation

6. Social media

connectivity

3% facebook, twitter, students

union app

7. Communications 8% Email, txt

8. Data manipulation 12% Calculators, convertors,

formulas

9. Subject specific

tools

14% Periodic tables, languages,

databases, programming

tools, stock market

10. Other 9 Job sites, memory

training, puzzles, backup

and data storage

Table 1 shows the analysis of Author 1’s survey

which identified which smartphone apps were being

used to support learning, as initially reported by

(Author 1 et al., 2011). This illustrates how students

primarily use their smartphones as a substitute PC,

using the devices primarily for productivity,

managing their learning and to find information to

support their academic work.

The initial Facebook survey in December 2010

(ibid) indicated that 29 (60%) students would pay up

to £5 for apps to support their learning.

The analysis of Author 2’s survey suggests an

increasing trend student smartphone/device.

However, as Table 2 illustrates possibly that this set

of students’ perceptions of the uses of the devices

for learning appears to be narrowing, i.e. browsing

oppose to other activities. It is not clear if this is due

to respondents being different to previous survey or

their experience of the apps has resulted in a

narrower focus, i.e. browsing.

Table 2: 2011-2012 analysis of the frequency of examples

of how students are using smartphone/smartpads for

learning.

Category % Freq. Examples

1. Office productivity

and assignment

preparation

1% Word processing,

spreadsheets,

presentations, notes

2. Reading

information

0.6% PDF readers, newspapers

3. Searching for,

browsing information

and reference

26% Web browser, dictionary,

thesaurus

4. Audio, image and

video media capture

6% Camera, sketching,

graphing, voice recorders,

video camera

5. Managing learning 0.5% Blackboard, library,

group work, timetabling,

personal organisation

6. Social media

connectivity

0.2% facebook, twitter,

students union app

7. Communications 1% Email, txt

8. Data manipulation Calculators, convertors,

formulas

9. Subject specific

tools

Periodic tables,

languages, databases,

programming tools, stock

market

10. Other Job sites, memory

training, puzzles, backup

and data storage

In December 2011 226 (47%) students indicated

that they were prepared to pay between 59p and £5

for apps to support their learning, whilst 215 (45%)

students indicated that they typically preferred free

apps, even if the functionality is more limited. These

results are consistent with previous research, male

student are low price seeking consumers, (Bakewell

and Vincent-Wayne, 2004).

3.1 Discussion

The results suggest that student ownership of smart-

devices is possibly increasing, and the gender bias

observed in the earlier survey appears to be possibly

reducing. The initial survey data also indicated that

the students were using smartphones in a variety of

ways to support, though mainly concerned with

productivity, finding useful information and content

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

412

to support their learning. The data suggests that

though smart-device ownership has increased, the

way in which students are using them possibly

appears to be narrowing over the course of the year,

however is this question in experience or experience

resulted in narrower focus. Therefore there is need to

identify which is true, if the former is true a digital

literacy agenda needs to be developed to illustrate

the diverse ways the smart-devices can be used to

support learning.

4 POTENTIAL APPS FOR

LEARNING

Author 1 as part of his undergraduate research and

final year project (Author 1, 2011) identified,

researched and analysed Smartphone/pad

applications that could hypothetically be beneficial

for student learning, Table 3. These applications are

based upon the students' application needs for

learning, which have been identified from the

analysis of the 2010-2011 survey and qualitative

interviews.

The suitability of the applications for learning

has been determined by a method of classification as

used by Author 3 et al. (2011) to evaluate

smartphone audio recording devices in which the

applications were categorized according to:

Usability. Simple functionality set, uncluttered

interface, consistent use of design compatible with

iOS platform.

Functionality. Connectivity via Wi-Fi and mobile

internet, added integration (e.g. integrated recorder

in application or able to distribute via email),

consistent and reliable (i.e. does not crash and works

as expected)

Interoperability. PC/MAC OS platform, integration

with other applications.

Other classifications were also noted, including

the following:

Cost. Price of application

Suitability for Student Use. Target audience

description of suitability.

5 CONCLUSIONS

General computing appears to be moving away from

fixed machines, and even specialised portable

devices like the briefly popular Flip video camera

are being superseded by equivalent smart-device

functionality (Dreir, 2011).

Research conducted during the

last two academic

ic years possibly suggests that ownership of smart-

devices is increasing, however the results suggests

only a small percentage of students are using the

devices to support their learning. Furthermore the

2011-2012 results suggest that only a 1/4 of the

students are using the devices for browsing to

support their learning, however this type of

autonomous use is rather simple and relatively

unadventurous. The research results indicate no

accounts of students managing their feedback, e-

PDP or connecting with webinar software for

example. Therefore there is need to identify if

students are aware of more adventurous applications

to support their learning and whether there is a need

for universities to develop and promote the potential

of apps for learning with and amongst students to

promote wider digital literacy in this area.

Equally the learning applications, in order to

achieve student acceptance, need to fulfill Wagner’s

(2005) attributes for satisfactory mobile internet

experience, and application design requirements as

identified by Author 1 (2011):

Ubiquity – Applications should be compatible with

appropriate smart-devices and provide the option of

internet connectivity for downloadable content if

necessary.

Efficiency – Applications should install, load and

play any content within reasonable time periods,

depending on quality of internet connection

(Beckmann, 2010).

Reliability – Applications should provide the user

with predictable experiences regardless the type of

device it is being used on.

Accessibility – The user should be able to access all

relevant content the application has to offer when a

3G/WiFi internet connection is available.

Richness – Content should load quickly, animations

should be smooth and the streaming of internet

related media should flow and playback at a

sufficient rate (Wagner, 2005).

Flexibility – Designers should accommodate the va-

riety of devices (PC, MAC, smart-devices) and

operating systems when designing applications

(Beckmann, 2010).

Security – Applications should be designed with se-

curity measures in place to prevent data being

intercepted by unintended recipients.

Interactivity – User-interfaces, feedback, naviga-

tion and functionality determine the user experience

and should encourage the user to make effective use

of the application (Yu and Hu, 2010).

SMART-DEVICEPOTENTIALFORSTUDENTLEARNING

413

Table 3: Guide of Beneficial Applications, (Information regarding the Recorder Pro application has been taken directly

from Author 3 et al. (2011), an evaluation of audio recording apps for available for the iPhone and iPad.).

Application Usability Functionality Interoperability Cost (£) Platform Suitability for student use

iOS Bulk

Calendar

Easy to use, simple interface

relevant buttons and

graphics. Can create events

and set reminders with alarm

Works offline, and updates

integrated networked

calendars, e.g. gmail. .

Works with windows

and Mac operating

systems and can

synchronise calendars

from these platforms.

Free Compatible

with iPhone,

iPod touch,

and iPad.

Requires

iOS 3.1.2 or

later

Suitable for setting reminders

and scheduling events with

lecturers. Very useful to

synchronise with Gmail

calendars, etc..

Evernote

Easy to use once familiar,

intelligent simple interface,

and flowing navigation.

Create notes that can be

accompanied with photos,

voice recordings, map

locations, easy to store tags.

Numerous integrated

functions, photos and audio

recordings can be added to

notes that can be distributed

via email or cloud..

Evernote works on

nearly any smartphone

and desktop computer.

Cloud account provides

the user with ubiquitous

access to notes.

Free Compatible

with iOS,

Android,

BlackBerry,

Palm Pre,

Palm Pixi,

Windows

Mobile

This is an extremely beneficial

application for students, provides

an ever present offline to on-line

note taking facility and can be

accessed from nearly any device,

anywhere, anytime via the cloud.

Wikipedia

App

Easy to use and navigate

between articles, users can

bookmark recent searches.

Requires an active Internet

connection, reliable and

consistent. View search

history.

Is not required to work

with windows or Mac

pc's as Wikipedia is

available on the internet

via standard web

browsers.

Free Available on

iOS,

Android and

blackberry

Very suitable for students,

provides instant access to

millions of articles providing

there is an active internet

connection

Dropbox

App

Very easy to learn and

navigate, consists of 4 large

menu options, lists all files in

one list catalogued by A-Z,

however user can create

folders. Allows for viewing

of documents via dropbox

converted formats.

Requires active internet

connection in order to upload

and to retrieve documents

from the cloud. Smartdevices

can only add photos or videos

to dropbox via smartdevice,,

but can view existing

documents in dropbox viewer.

Works on several

different smart-devices

and works with

windows and MAC

desktop PC platforms.

Any file is viewable

without preparatory

software.

Free Available on

iOS,

BlackBerry,

and Android

smart-

devices.

Suitable for any students who

spend time on the move. Files

can be accessed anywhere and at

anytime via PC or smartdevice.

Camera

Plus

Extremely easy to use,

navigation is fast and

smooth. Photo editing

facilities and including auto

adjust picture quality, zoom,

and multiple photo viewing

in ‘lightbox’

Works off-line, however

photos can be distributed via;

email, MMS, Facebook

flicker, twitter, and email.

Attached information on size

of photo, resolution, time &

date, and google maps

location.

Photo file format JPEG,

completely

interoperable with any

device that can read

JPEG.

0.59 Compatible

with iPhone,

iPod touch,

and iPad.

Requires

iOS 3.1 or

later

Perfect for any student requiring

photographic evidence of

anything, the quality is good

enough to capture lecture board

notes. Allows students to take

highly detailed photos and share

immediately, the perfect

companion for Evernote.

iOS Bulk

Standard

Mail

Simple interface, fast

flowing movement between

accounts and emails. Easy to

add or remove multiple mail

accounts. Can open and view

documents. Also can

show/play media attachments

via compatible apps.

Requires active internet

connection to download and

send emails from email

accounts.

Integrates with any

POP3 email accounts,

Microsoft Exchange

Accounts, Yahoo,

Gmail, Hotmail, AOL,

mobile me.

Free Compatible

with iPhone,

iPod touch,

and iPad.

Requires

iOS 3.1 or

later

Mobile email, allows access to

any email, anywhere, anytime

when connected on-line via 3G

or wireless. Novice users may

need help with initial setting of

email, but should learn quickly

and be able to add accounts

easily in the future.

Recorder

Pro

Easy to use, record, auto

pause, stop, rewrite, play,

zoom to sections to play.

Good file management

features; search, name/

rename files and organise

into pre/user defined folders.

Audio format Aiff or CAF.

Append to recording new

recording. Re-write file and

bin file.

QuickTime, RealPlayer,

8 Plus, iPhone and some

Android Phones. Share

by email, fully

integrated to email set

up on the phone and

users contact details.

0.59 Compatible

with iPhone,

iPod touch,

and iPad.

Requires

iOS 3.1 or

later

Audio record project supervision

formal, informal and semi-

formal, email to the student.

Audio record and re-distribute

one to one. Audio Feedback on

assessment, quick and easy to

distribute.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

414

The literature review of the field reveals that the

application of smart-devices for learning in higher

education is relatively unexplored, whilst this study

suggests it to be in a continuous state of flux in

response to the emerging nature of the technologies.

This field requires much more research and thorough

investigation to identify;

• What characterises a smart-device applica-

tion for learning?

• What is the teaching and learning potential

of these smart-device applications?

• How can the potential of smart-device

applications be promoted to the learners?

Students would have an important role to play in

such a research study, but academics and

educational developers are equally needed to review

and assess the disruptive potential of smart learning

devices. This would lead to an informed Higher

Education sector view on smart-devices for learning

and provide the opportunity to reward academic

innovation in this area. In the long term such an

approach would support the digital literacy of

students and academics.

REFERENCES

Bakewell, C. and Vincent-Wayne, M. 2004, Male

Consumer decision-Making Styles, The International

Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer

Research, 14(2), 223-240.

Beckmann, E. A. 2010. Learners on the move: mobile

modalities in development studies. Distance

Education, 21 (2), 159-173.

Boulos , M. N. , Wheeler , S. , Tavares , C. , & Jones , R.,

2011. How smartphones are changing the face of

mobile and participatory healthcare: An overview, with

example from eCAALYX . Biomedical Engineering

Online , 10 , 24

Camargo, M.; Bary, R.; Boly, V.; Rees, M.; Smith, R.;

"Exploring the implications and impact of

smartphones on learning dynamics: The role of self-

directed learning," Concurrent Enterprising (ICE),

2011 17th International Conference on , vol., no.,

pp.1-7, 20-22 June 2011

Chen, J., Park, Y., and Putzer, G. J., 2010 ‘An

examination of the components that increase

acceptance of Smartphones among Healthcare

Professionals’, electronic Journal of Health

Informatics, 5(2), 2010, e16

Diamond, S., Middleton, A., and Mather, R. (2011) A

cross-faculty simulation model for authentic learning.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

48(1), pp.25 – 35.

Dreir, T. (2011) 'The Flip Camera Is Gone; Will a

Smartphone Do the Job?' OnlineVideo.net blog, April

15, 2011. Online at: http://www.onlinevideo.net/

2011/04/the-flip-camera-is-gone-will-a-smartphone-

do-the-job/#axzz1kfwMkbz3

Durbin, S. 2011, Tackling converged threats: building a

security-positive environment, Network Security,

Volume 2011, Issue 6, June 2011, Pages 5-8, available

at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S1353485811700617), last accessed Jan’12

Jewell, S., 2011, Productivity via Mobile Phones: Using

Smartphones in Smart Ways Journal of Electronic

Resources in Medical Libraries Vol. 8, Iss. 1, 2011

Hague, P., 1993, Questionnaire Design. London, Kogan

Page.

Holden, G., Glover, C., Nortcliffe, A. and Wilson, R. ,

Integrated Assessment: an institutional approach to

changing assessment practice, Assessment in Higher

Education Conference, 8

July 2009, Carlisle, UK,

Lin, P., & Brown, K. F., 2007, Smartphones Provide New

Capabilities for Mobile Professionals. CPA Journal,

77(5), 66-71.

Marlow, C., (2009) Maintained Relationships on

Facebook, Online at: http://www.facebook.com/

note.php?note_id=55257228858

Mori, K., & Harada, E. T., 2010 Is learning a family

matter?: Experimental study of the influence of social

environment on learning by older adults in the use of

mobile phones. Japanese Psychological Research, 52,

244–255.

Author 3, Author 4 and Author 1. (2011) Evaluating the

use of audio smartphone apps for higher education

learning. Audio Engineering Society 130th

Conference, May 2011, London, UK.

Shin, D. Shin, Y, Choo, H., Beom, K. 2011 Smartphones

as smart pedagogical tools: Implications for

smartphones as u-learning devices, Computers in

Human Behavior, Volume 27, Issue 6, November

2011, Pages 2207-2214

Traxler, J. 2009 Learning in a Mobile Age, International

Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12,

January-March 2009

Wagner, Ellen D (2005). Enabling Mobile Learning.

EDUCASE Review, 3 (40), 40-53.

Author 1, Author 4, and Author 3, 2012, Considering the

Smartphone Learner: an investigation into student

interest in the use of personal technology to enhance

their learning,

Author 1,. 2011 An investigation into the benefits and

limitations of mobile learning applications used for

computing studies in higher education, BSc Computer

Networks Undergraduate Final Year Dissertation,

Sheffield Hallam University,

Kang; Y. M., Cho, C.; Lee, S.; 2011 , Analysis of factors

affecting the adoption of smartphones, Technology

Management Conference (ITMC), 2011 IEEE

International , 919-925, 27-30 June 2011

Yu. J. and Hu, Z., 2010. Learning Anywhere Anytime

with Mobile Devices. Artificial Intelligence and

Education (ICAIE), 768-771.

SMART-DEVICEPOTENTIALFORSTUDENTLEARNING

415