1. Strategic Analysis – A typical Community College wondering how to take advantage of mLearning.
Gary Marrer | March 4rd 2010

2. Agenda Background A Community College Experience SWOT Analysis Summary
Next Steps

3. Background
Technology faculty for community college in metropolitan Phoenix Area. Part of Maricopa Community College District.
I have been looking at mobile learning for about three years. Drawn to it initially because our students are carrying around computers they are not using.
Awarded a sabbatical to research Mobile Learning in Fall 2008
I have been developing mLearning Tools, using mobile learning in my classes when I can, giving demonstrations to other teachers and writing a blog on the topic.
Survey: What is your experience with mobile learning? (1) Not using yet (2) Using as part of traditional classroom delivered class (3) Using with on-line delivered class (4) Have classes that are delivered entirely on mobile device

4. What has happened so far (Campus/District)
Conducted District wide classes on how one might use mLearning in the classroom.
District and Campus sponsored mobile leaning projects for faculty to gain experience.
Campus sessions have been conducted for faculty in interested in starting out with mLearning.
Some informal student surveys done to determine mobile device feature baseline.
We have started a dialog with faculty and administration to understand resistance and support.
Mobile assisted learning is being done in some classes.
I think we are fairly typical in relation to most public higher ed.

5. Findings Based on our mLearning experience so far:
Some faculty are hesitant but even the doubters think it is worth further investigation.
We are still working to understand the best ways to use mLearning.
Economic concerns on our students part will most determine direction of mLearning.
Students respond favorably to this technology which can help retention.
We are beginning so see mLearning as just another technology (post Bb, eLearning) being introduced into the learning process.
Based on the reasons above, in the short term, we will use mobile assisted learning on our Campus.

6. Mobile Assisted Learning
Mobile assisted learning described:
Learning with mobile devices is seen as another technology to be used in meeting learning objectives. It is not the primary means of delivering learning but another technology based tool. It can provide a pedagogical alternative not found with other technologies.
Bottom line: If improves the learning process, it should be used.

7. The Application of Mobile Learning
Mobile Learning can be practiced in any of this environments to varying degrees.

8. Obstacles
A high percentage of our students own cell phones but a smaller number have Smart phones.
iPhones and Android phones are the exception and not the rule (maybe 2 students in 60).
Internet access from the Cell phones for our students is rare.
We need to establish a baseline on mobile technology features (camera, video and SMS) our students bring to class.
Some faculty resistance.

9. Economic Pressures
Mobile technology is widely available in Phoenix. The problem we face is economic.
Students are very price sensitive to all forms of educational costs.
The cost of additional Internet based services are problematic.
The cost of the hardware is less of a problem but still can be a burden for many students.
Other alternative computer technology is widely available on campus.

10. Mobile Technology we can use today…
mLearning tools accessible by the majority of our students today
Digital pictures
Digital video
Digital audio
SMS (Text Messaging)
Much can be done with just these tools…

11. Simple SWOT Analysis Internal Forces External Forces Strengths
Institutional and student support for mLearning is strong
Most students possess cell phone technology
New pedagogical options seen
Weaknesses
Low numbers of students with Internet enabled mobile devices
Economic factors may control feasibility and viability
Mobile device limits – display, battery life, processing power as compared to alternatives
External Forces
Opportunities
Inexpensive Wi-FI enabled devices
Trends point to more Internet enabled devices
Learn anywhere/anytime
Threats
Costs
Hardware
Service
Business model of providers is consumer based and not strongly linked to education
Rate of change with this technology

12. A pragmatic assessment
Our students do not get technology tools as freshman nor do we require it.
iPhones and Android are not the norm
Cell phones are used for phone communication and SMS with some gaming.
Internet connectivity may be possible on their hand set but it is not enabled if it is (no data service).
We need to base our mobile learning around mobile technologies we know students will possess (camera, video and SMS)
This process will be a journey with much to learn.

13. Discussion
Is the assumption that mLearning is another technology based learning tool valid?
Is mLearning only attainable from a smart phone?
Is there a lowest common denominator when it comes to mobile services (camera, video, SMS, etc.)?
Is this an example of a technology looking for a educational requirement?
Is this another step in the journey towards more technology in the leaning process?
What can the larger community of high education do to develop this technology?

14. Resources
ECARS – The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2009 Shannon D. Smith, Gail Salaway, Judith Boreson Caruso
Pew Internet and American Life Project : The New Information Ecology by Lee Rainie /

15. Glendale Community College
THANK YOU
Gary Marrer
Glendale Community College
Glendale, Arizona

16. Continue the Conversation…
Still have a few burning questions? Plan to interact with our speaker in a text-based chat room. Simply click or enter the URL to open a new Connect room.
Enter the room: