The positive impact of technology integration on student performance is now an established fact supported by recent studies. However, Bielefeld (2012) argues that a simple classroom activity where students will be using their mobile devices is not enough to guarantee the increase of student achievement. Lowenthal (2010) supports this by claiming that while student engagement is higher when learners view mobile learning as contributory totheir own academic success, he emphasizes the fact that it is the teachers’ responsibility to demonstrate to the learners the importance of using mobile devices in classroom activities.

            Unfortunately, Murphrey, Miller, and Roberts (2009) found that in most cases teachers are highly knowledgeable about the value of mobile learning programs inside the classroom but are still reluctant to incorporate it into their classroom instructions. The reason for this, they explain further, is that technology-know-how itself is viewed by many teachers as requiring high levels of knowledge and skills and integrating it into classroom instructions would be time consuming. On the contrary, however, it was reported that the integration of mobile learning programs such as the Bring Your Own Device strategy and e-learning by classroom teachers is not disruptive as each activity takes about 2 minutes for the students to complete, with the results instantly available to the lecturer, and to the class at her or his discretion. Instead, Looi (2010) argues that the success of integrating mobile learning strategies in classroom instructions largely depend upon the support mechanism that school leaders and administrators must establish including delegation of tasks.

            However, aside from the necessity that school administrators delegate the task of overseeing the implementation of mobile learning in schools, Passey (2010) also presents the necessity for a range of different learning activities to support learners, teachers, and parents at different stages of implementation, starting with those that account for the skills and capabilities of all the stakeholders at early stages, moving through to later activities that rely upon wider and deeper operational and learning skills. In other words, in order for the implementation of mobile learning programs in schools to succeed, every stage of its development should be monitored closely taking into great consideration the needs of each of the school’s stakeholders.

            In addition, Kim et al. (2011) claim that the usage, adoption, incorporation, and implementation of any innovative strategy are largely determined by the beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes of teachers. Therefore, while classroom teachers or the school community in general has the tendency or inclination to utilize mobile devices at home for their own personal purposes and comprehend the value of its utilization differently, the personal conviction of the school’s key stakeholders might hinder the implementation of mobile learning instructions.No doubt, it greatly matters when school teachers and administrators, having the knowledge about the positive impact of implementing technology in schools on student performance, are determined to implement it.

            There is an abundance of previous studies what will support the effectiveness and success of mobile learning implementation in reinforcing student achievement. In particular, it was found that some of the advantages that a successful mobile learning implementation inside the classroom comprisesenhance learners’ satisfaction, encourage learners’ autonomy, empower system functions, and enrich interaction and communication activities (Liaw et al., 2010).Reluctance to implement technology adoption into classroom instructionsdespite the advantages thus identified would be a great technological lag. And as teachers at present where students are considered digital natives, integrating technology into classroom instructions is a timely duty.

References

Bielefeldt, T. (2012). Guidance for technology decisions from classroom observation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 205-223. 

Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T., Lee, B., &Gàrate, A. (2011). Socioeconomic strata, mobile technology, and education: a comparative analysis.  Education Tech Research Dev, 59, 465-486. 

Liaw, S-S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H-M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54, 446-454.

Looi, C-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B-H, So, H-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154-169.

Lowenthal, J. N. (2010). Using mobile learning: Determinants impacting behavioral intention. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24, 195-206.

Murphrey, T. P., Miller, K. A., & Roberts, T. G. (2009). Examining iPod use by Texas agricultural science and technology teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 98-109.

Passey, D. (2010). Mobile learning in school contexts: Can teachers alone make it happen? IEEE  Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 68-81. 

By: MELODY P. DEL ROSARIO, Ed.D. | Assistant Senior High School | Principal II | Morong National High School