Discuss about the Literature Review for Mobile Computing Devices.
Mobile computing devices have become central in teaching along with learning in higher learning institutions and play a leading role in promoting education. Students in higher education are embracing mobile computing devices that include cell phones, tablet computers, as well as smartphones. These computing devices are being adopted in large-scale, especially in the modern era where the Internet is the order of the day among the students. Many students and educations in higher education believe that these computing devices are vital because they help them to attain their academic success since they use these devices in their academic activities. Furthermore, these computing devices will enable the students to explore the different educational prospects that will allow them to access the content and easily intermingle with educators and their colleagues wherever they are. These mobile devices have been used in conjunction with social media, which permit communication and promote learning in higher education. Gikas and Grant (2013) undertook the research to assess the role of computing devices plus social because they are still novel. The assessment through research will play a leading role because it will provide the understanding of the effectiveness of these devices and social media in enhancing learning in higher institutions of learning (Gikas & Gant 2013, pp. 18).
The authors primarily used focus group interviews to collect the needed data, which was vital in allowing illustration of authenticity in the eyes of those being interviewed so that they share their narratives and listen to their voices. This was a qualitative method because the objective of the study was to offer learners’ exhaustively views of experiences with executing the devices. The inclusion method used by authors in the study, include: (a) the background of the study was both public in addition to private campuses, (b) educators that had successfully implemented devices for a minimum of 3 years, and (c) educators who had used the mobile devices for teaching with learning. Marshall and Rossman (2011) suggested that recording information during the interviews was important towards promoting the reliability and quality of research through quality recording. Based on these suggestions by these authors, the research carried out the focus group interviews through the Skype recorder (Marshall & Rossma 2011). Gikas and Grant (2013) used Krueger’s (2002) guidelines to undertake successful focus group interviews that offered an effective structure for the interviews. Furthermore, the authors ensured that semi-structured protocol was used to guarantee flexibility of the interview questions to accommodate the developing environment of the discussion during the interview. The interviews from the focus were transcribed while the extra non-verbal behaviours recognized were acknowledged and at the same time notes on student statements were written down. The authors of the study extracted the collected data by inductive analysis. The inductive analysis was based on Bogdan and Biken (2003) where the consistent assessment of the data collected was carried out in 3 rounds of inductive analysis- open, a prior plus research coding (Bogdan & Biklen 2003).
In terms of findings, Gikas and Grant (2013) established that there were two explicit themes that emerged following the interviews regarding the influences of the devices on scholar learning, as well as the role of social media. Thus, the two themes were: merits of mobile devices for learning, as well as frustrations from learning using the devices. The authors started with advantages from the interviews of the students in their focus groups (Gikas & Gant 2013, pp. 20). The students cited several advantages of the devices on their learning. The students asserted that the computing devices offered them easy and fast access to information due to the convenience of consistent connectivity. Also, the mobile computing devices allowed students to easily communicate with fellow students and instructors, which facilitated communication. The authors established that the computing devices offered a variety of methods to learn and interact with course material, as well as other students within and outside the institution. On the other hand, Gikas and Grant (2013) found from the study that the computing devices had some frustrations. The authors cited that one of the frustrations was anti-technology instructors who are not willing to adopt these technologies. The other challenge in the study regarding the devices was the device challenges, like small keyboards that make it hard to type faster. There was also the frustration of “device distraction” among older students.
In their discussion, Gikas and Grant (2013) explained that the majority of the present text on the devices concentrates on employing the mobile device to distribute information or access resources in higher education. This was supported by Greenhow (2011) and Sharples (2000) that mobile computing devices are used to fashion, as well as interact with the content, team up plus learn the course of their daily activities with the use of social media tools and Web 2.0 (Sharples 2000, pp. 178). The authors further claimed that the mobile computing devices were beneficial to students because as it was seen in the findings as it allows them to access content faster and interact with content and colleagues easily (Greenhow 2011, pp. 140). The students could access allowed the students to quickly access course documents and upload and post content anywhere. The authors also discussed that it was easy to communicate using the devices with each other through social media tools, such as Twitter and QuickPolls and allow them to get instant feedback regarding the course content and interaction with content specialists. Based on the findings of Ruta et al (2010), the authors found that the mobile computing devices allowed the students to situate their learning in the background of the surroundings. The challenges were also cited by students on mobile devices that include small keyboards, and faculty members’ inability to adopt these devices (Gikas & Grant 2013, pp. 24).
In conclusion, the future research should be designed in a way that it will allow the students to make a clear distinction between their identity and the mobile computing devices. The present study by Gikas and Grant (2013) was blurred on the lines of personal identity and devices. Because of the evolving field of information, there is the need for continuous research on the influence of the devices and social media on educator’s teaching and student’s learning.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K, 2003, “Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods”, New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Gikas, J & Grant, M.M., 2013, “ Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media”, Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.
Greenhow, C, 2011, “Youth, learning and social media”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45 (2), 139-146.
Krueger, R.A, 2002, “Designing and conducting focus group interviews”, Retrieved January 25, 2017.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G., 2011, “Designing qualitative research (5th Edition)”, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pang, L., 2009, “ A survey of Web 2.0 technologies for classroom learning”, The International Journal of Learning, 16 (9), 743-759.
Ruta, M., Scioscia, F., Colucci, S., Di Sciascio, E., Di Noia, T., & Pinto, A, 2010, “A knowledge-based framework for e-learning in heterogeneous pervasive environments. In T.T. Goh (Ed)”, Multiplatform e-learning systems and technologies: Mobile devices for ubiquitous ICT-based education (pp. 20-41). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.
Sharples, M, 2000, “The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning”, Computers in Education, 34 (3-4), 177-193.