According to Barrat (2009) the work in student affairs is value driven. In evaluating a site or application, determine the basic values that should be reflected, then determine if these are reflected in the site. He proposed the following list of basic values that could be used in evaluating m-learning application:
• Inclusion: All student categories must be included in material presented in the
application.
• Active: Content must contain active information such as current events, schedules, names, dates and times.
• Interactive: The application must provide mechanisms for student interaction.
• Convenience: The application must be designed for easy use.
• Developmental: The application must promote student development goals.
• Currency: All information must be current and not out-of-date.
2.2.2 Stakeholders In An M-Learning System
Web based development involves a variety of different kinds of people who have some direct or indirect influence on the system requirements. Thus, an important step in developing a Web-based learning system consists of identifying the stakeholders and their skills (Hadjerouit, 2005). Basically, six categories of stakeholders may influence the construction of Mobile based learning:
• Learners/Students: are the users of the mobile based learning system. Thus, they
must be able to operate a mobile device. Moreover, they need navigation skills, search engines and file transfer. Thus, to use mobile based learning system, they must possess some technical skills in order to browse course material.
• Content developers: are generally teachers and instructors. They are the providers
of course content, its topics and also subtopics according to some pedagogical criteria. They must be able to produce, change, update and modify the course content whenever it is necessary.
• Educational researchers: They possess substantial experiences in pedagogical
research. This experience is needed for instructional design. Pedagogical knowledge is related to learning theories and philosophies, such as behaviorism, cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. Teachers may take on the role of educational researchers if they possess sufficient knowledge in instructional and pedagogical design.
• Web developers: Are responsible for developing the system. They must be able to
analyze the systems requirements, produce a design solution, implement and test the system. They need an evolutionary process model and associated techniques and methods. Furthermore, they must be able to use Web programming languages and authoring packages and finally, they must possess some knowledge in human- computer interaction.
• Graphic designers: They are the constructors of the Web user interface, including
the look and feel of the Web pages. Web implementation requires a subtle combination of esthetical and cognitive issues and an optimal balance between visual sensation, graphic information, text and multimedia support.
• Web administrators: They are in charge of for the total Web based learning
system, its operations, database connection, security, access rights, logging and maintenance. Web administrators need both knowledge in Web technologies and hardware platform in which the Mobile based system resides.
2.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE
Since the inception of M-learning systems, a lot of works has been put in by researchers:
To find out the barriers to effective learning and development inherent in m- learning systems.
According to the 2002 Report of M-learning advisory Group, New Zealand Ministry of Education, the major barriers of effective implementation of M-learning systems are
A. Technological Infrastructure: The impact of technological infrastructure on
digital learning environments was often dependent on and impacted by issues such as speed, accessibility, cost and reliability (Gilbert et al, 2007; Ham & Wenmoth, 2007; Waiti, 2005; Bolstad, 2004; Parr & Fung, 2000). Rogers et al (2007) emphasized how important it was for instructional designers to recognize limitations facing different learning communities in settings where technology was still seen as pen and paper, but also in settings where understandings about and confidence in engaging with technology were still limited. Investing in infrastructure was one of the objectives of the tertiary Education Commission E- learning Collaborative Development Fund (e-CDF), which focused on building capability that would support tertiary organizations ability to deliver m-learning education programmes (Ham & Wenmoth; 2007).
In their evaluation of this initiative, Ham & Wenmoth (2007) found that there were varying levels of infrastructural as less of a barrier to learner access than smaller private training organizations. They noted that this was potentially an issue, creating a them-and-us scenario, where smaller institutions who did not have the resources to be able to offer the same level of m-learning capability as larger institutions which was further exacerbated by financial resourcing constraints.
B. Financial Resourcing Constraints were also evident at the school level. Waiti’s (2005) review of the Kaupapa Ara Whakawhiti Matauranga (KAWM) initiative,
which had upgrading of school ICT infrastructure led to improved processes and opportunities for students to interact with ICT. However, Waiti (2005) found that resourcing, particularly in the areas of expert technical assistance to support ongoing maintenance and development of their ICT infrastructure, would be an ongoing issue for the schools. Similarly, Bolstad and Gilbert (2006) identified infrastructure as a key principle in ensuring the effectiveness of technology programmes and initiatives in schools. They too recommended the need for expert knowledge particularly to support schools in making wise decisions around investing in equipment and software. Both reports talked about cost as being a huge factor in being able to provide or engage in m-learning activities.
C. Cost Effectiveness and Diminishing Return: An additional factor to consider, particularly given the pressure for schools to move towards greater integration of technology was whether the costs such infrastructure incurred resulted in increased students achievement. Parr & Fung’s (2000) literature review on computer assisted learning in relation to literacy and numeracy identified that little has been done to calculate the efficiency of technology and programmes against the gains (of increased student achievement). However, there was acknowledgement in the literature that the programmes reviewed were expensive and the return in terms of achievement was questionable. The Authors recommended further research to explore this issue.
