Inclusion in an age of mobility

Abstract

Learning with mobiles in UK universities is not new and is not novel. It is, in fact, at least 10 years old, well-documented and comparable to activity in universities elsewhere in Western Europe, America and Asia Pacific. Continued and dramatic changes in the ownership, access and expectations of mobiles amongst university students and equally across UK society have suddenly propelled learning with mobiles to centre-stage as a feasible proposition but, it is now argued, only if students can bring-your-own-device. This has already catalysed discussion about authority, agency and control within university settings but the equally significant and profound implications for the inclusion agenda have not been articulated. This paper begins that process. A theoretical framework for social inclusion in this context is considered, identified and discussed. The paper reviews the progress and problems of the substantial and unique programme of mobile learning across UK higher education since 2000 in relation to its stance on inclusion, where this is apparent. These are all well-documented in academic and official sources; the paper does however also draw on the author's involvement in many of the events and initiatives. The paper raises however significant questions about this programme's meaning and direction in a world where now there is more, better, cheaper, faster, newer but different digital technology in the hands of students, potential students and everyone else than there is routinely in the educational institutions themselves. This digital technology, mobile technology, now allows learners to create, own, transform, discuss, discard, share, store and broadcast ideas, opinions, images and information, and to create and transform identities and communities. The paper argues that this epistemological revolution may mean that universities and colleges are no longer credible and authoritative gatekeepers to knowledge and its technologies and so the meaning and relevance of inclusion are much less clear. The paper proposes a new stance on inclusion.

Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011 – 2015)

“…Devices are important, but the associated systems and networks are equally significant (Traxler, 2016).…”

“…Increasingly, advanced mobile technologies have become integrated into society, but despite the potential, have not yet been "fully and formally integrated into higher education" (Traxler, 2016, "Looking backward", para. 3).…”

“…This may indicate that as technology changes so quickly, it may be best not to invest in a specific device as mobile learning can take place across a multitude of devices. This result may also be indicative of the growing realisation of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) (Cochrane, Antonczak, Keegan, & Narayan, 2014;Traxler, 2016). If one looks at the specific device trends, it is clear that mobile phones (including smartphones) are the most frequently used devices in studies (73).…”

Leave Them to Their Own Devices: Healthcare Students' Experiences of Using a Range of Mobile Devices for Learning.

“…There is evidence that learning is affected by the tools used and that the design of education has in turn been influenced by available tools, especially those associated with social networking (Ravenscroft et al 2012). Traxler (2016) notes the impact of mobile technologies on society and culture and in personal interactions, where smartphones give access to everyday activities and interactions. Traxler also explains the potential to remove barriers to learning with access to using and creating learning materials.…”

Learning with mobiles: The Global South

“…In another paper (Traxler, 2008b) we have tried to make the case that the universal mobility and connectedness afforded by mobile technology, played out in different ways at different rates in different cultures and different countries, challenges the established or mainstream modernity of European culture and its global off-spring, and in its place we see something akin to a crude postmodernity characterised by the transience, fragmentation, subjectivity and untrustworthiness of knowledge, communities, affiliations and identities, maybe representing the liquid modernity of Bauman (2000). This is not a novel position and probably represents a specifically mobile but cautious position somewhere between the quotidian and prosaic analysis (eg Ling 2004) and the more speculative and sensational (eg Geser 2004, Fortunati, 2002.…”