Passey & Zozimo MLEARN Research Report 1 WP4-final

MLEARN
Training teachers to use mobile (hand held) technologies within mainstream education
Project N. 539357-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-COMENIUS-CMP
Grant Agreement 2013 3306 /001-001
Research Report
Mobile learning and information and
communication technology teacher training in
MLEARN partner countries
Don Passey
Professor of Technology Enhanced Learning
Joana Zozimo
Research Associate
Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning
Department of Educational Research, Lancaster Universsity
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein.

Department of Educational Research, LancasterUniversity i

Special note
This version of the report, dated 19th
September 2014, is the final and definitive version. Errors in previous
versions of this report have been addressed in this version. The authors apologise for the inadvert errors in
previous versions. All previous versions should be deleted and replaced with this version.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank most sincerely the partners and contacts who provided invaluable evidence
for,and comments on an earlier draft version of, this final report: Fondazione Mondo Digitale (Italy); Action
Synergy S.A. (Greece); Bloemcampschool (The Netherlands); Hamstead Hall Community Learning Centre (UK
- England); and Kennisnet (The Netherlands). Thanks are extended also to The Titan Partnership Ltd. for their
continuing support for the research through their management of the project.
Department of Educational Research, LancasterUniversity ii

Contents
1. Executive summary 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Mobile learning and information and communication technology in teacher training 4
4. Italy in context 18
5. Greece in context 21
6. The Netherlands in context 27
7. The United Kingdom (England) in context 30
8. Implications for the design of MLEARN training 33
References 36
Department of Educational Research, LancasterUniversity iii

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
• This report has been produced by the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University
for the MLEARN project, to support the development of a training programme for in-service
teachers focusing on mobile learning through appropriate pedagogic uses of mobile or handheld
technologies. The MLEARN project, a European Union (EU)-funded project, will explore and
promote teacher development of mobile learning practices in four member states – The
Netherlands, the UK (England), Greece and Italy.
Handheld devices and learning support
• A range of mobile learning projects have already been run across Europe and outside Europe, and
lessons learned and limitations arising have been identified in these cases.
• A review of research literature indicates that mobile learning practices can be developed and
focused to support: behaviouralist; constructivist; situated; collaborative; informal and lifelong;
and learning and teaching support.
• Greater accessibility to information and the provision of information in context are recognised as
benefits associated with mobile learning. These contexts may be spatial/location, temporal, social,
or access/technical in nature. Mobility, face-to-face social interactions, uses of authentic teaching
and learning materials, constant alertness, the focus gained from mobile learning moments, and
learning and time convenience are important features associated with activities in these different
contexts.
• Developing practices concerned with the concept of interwoven learning interactions has been
highlighted as being possible when using handheld devices in learning activities and in series of
these activities. Informality and ownership are factors that influence uses of mobile technologies
and the ways that activities can interweave and be interwoven.
• Benefits that can arise from uses of handheld devices include alertness, choice of student
preferences, saving time, broadening assessment tasks, supporting special educational needs,
language learning support, all enhancing pedagogical value.
Teacher training and the development of handheld device pedagogies
• Even so, access to and numbers of courses that focus specifically on uses of handheld devices in
initial and in-service teacher training are limited, and information about these opportunities is not
necessarily widely accessible in all countries. Currently, the specific mention of handheld devices
in national curriculum and school guidance documents is minimal.
• Although the curriculum and its intentions in Italy support practices that lend themselves to uses
of handheld devices, the penetration of ICT in schools is generally low, and teachers may not be
trained in the use of these or other related ICT facilities.
• While uses of ICT are supported and encouraged in schools in Greece, the use of mobile
telephones is not allowed. Devices for uses in schools in Greece, therefore, need to conform to
handheld computer specifications, while facilities for the capture and editing of sounds or images
may need to be disabled.
• Many teachers in schools across the Netherlands use ICT to support teaching and learning. There
are agencies in place that support ICT developments and the promotion and dissemination of ICT
practices, including those with handheld devices.
• In England, ICT and computing are, or soon will be, specified in curriculum documents that are
statutory. Teachers are asked to adopt pedagogies to match the needs of their classes and pupils,
using appropriate ICT and handheld technologies.
Developing appropriate pedagogical practices through training
• Research reviews indicate that training should provide, in as fully a contextualised and integrated
way as possible, a focus on three interconnected elements: technological knowledge (what the
device can do and how to use it); content knowledge (what subjects and topics can be addressed
Department of Educational Research, LancasterUniversity 1

using the devices and their applications); and pedagogical knowledge (how this is done through
the development and deployment of appropriate teaching and learning activities).
• When using handheld devices there is a need to consider that the learning environment tends to be
expanded beyond the classroom, due to the portability features of the devices. Similarly, features
of these devices strongly support aspects of communication and their links to teaching and
learning. Already, some schools and agencies have explored the ways handheld devices can
support pupils with special communication needs.
• Teachers have used mobile devices in curriculum activities that involve and support practices
concerned with research, capturing and using imagery and video clips, presenting to teachers and
peers, discussing captured and presented work with teachers and peers, recording and sharing
ideas with peers, providing anonymous feedback, pupils creating their own notes and books in
multimodal formats, discussing strengths and weaknesses in presented work shared by pupils,
creating videos for presentation to wider audiences, presenting perfect models or techniques,
organising notes and work, and pupils recording video clips of lessons for later playback.
• Training events need to identify the many Apps that can meet specific subject and topic needs.
Teachers also need to be aware of both the benefits and limitations of handheld devices for
teaching and learning.
• Activities worth developing as case studies for teacher training events are:
o “Review and reflect”, where pupils capture audio, imagery and video during lessons, use
these in plenary sessions to reflect on what has been covered, consider the key elements
learned, how these fit into wider subject or topic pictures, and how ideas might be used or
taken further outside the classroom.
o “Think forward”, where pupils access future topic material via the Internet and capture
relevant thoughts or ideas to contribute to discussions or presentations in class or through
on-line discussions. Pupils can be encouraged to use the handheld devices at home to
research topics for themselves.
o “Listen to my explanations”, where pupils record audio when they are completing
homework assignments and these verbal explanations are listened to and marked by
teachers.
o “Snap and show”, where pupils capture imagery, which is downloaded to a server and
accessed through a computer or interactive whiteboard screen, for wider pupil discussion,
perhaps made accessible to parents so that they can see and discuss events that have
happened in school.
o “This is what I’ve done and how I’ve done it”, where pupils create presentations of how
they have used mobile technologies to tackle particular activities, which are recorded and
made accessible on appropriate web-sites for teachers and parents to see. Observing other
pupils’ stories and reports, pupils can include sound recordings of their own voice as well
as text and pictures to form multi-modal texts.
o “Tell me how I could improve this”, where pupils can share their work in multimedia
formats with peers, mentors, teachers or trusted adults in order to seek comments,
evaluative feedback, assessments of their work, and ideas to improve their work.

2. INTRODUCTION
This report has been produced for the MLEARN project, to support the development of a training
programme for in-service teachers, focusing on mobile learning through appropriate pedagogic uses of
mobile or handheld technologies. The MLEARN project, a European Union (EU)-funded project, will
explore and promote teacher development of mobile learning practices in four member states – the
Netherlands, the UK (England), Greece and Italy. The project will consider how teachers can develop
and use pedagogies to support activities with learners using handheld or mobile devices in and outside
classrooms. The Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University has been commissioned
to undertake this background research to support the project development.
This current review seeks to better understand how relevant teaching practices, methods and pedagogy
are used with handheld devices and how these can support or enhance learning. It is based on evidence
gathered from partners and contacts, from country and EU sources, and from a detailed review of a
specifically selected number of published papers, many published between 2008 and 2013. As a
whole, this report offers a short snapshot, to give background information for the MLEARN project,
pointing out future avenues for training development and research.
The reports seeks to contextualise teacher training development of mobile learning in terms of current
research and practice, considering both mobile learning and information and communication
technology (ICT), particularly with regard to deployment and practices of teacher training in each
partner country (Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom - England).
This research report presents outcomes and recommendations, based on the specification produced for
the first transnational meeting. The content considers and includes:
• A review of current initial teacher training programmes, whether these include training to use
ICT in the classroom, together with indications of its overall content, with evidence gathered
from:
o Initial and email discussions and responses with partners and contacts.
o Identification of key institutions with details gathered through a survey instrument.
• A review of current in-service training and continuing professional programmes (CPD) for
teachers with regard to ICT in the classroom and what the content is, with evidence gathered
from:
• Identification of best practice with regard to use of handheld technologies, from existing and
published research, supported by knowledge from the partners, with evidence gathered from:
o A selected literature review.
• Identification of key obstacles to using handheld technologies in the classroom, with evidence
gathered from:
o A selected literature review.
• A presentation of findings, both as an overview and in the context of each country.

3. MOBILE LEARNING AND INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY IN
TEACHER TRAINING
Teaching practices and mobile learning
In considering teaching practices and mobile learning, Naismith et al.(2004) draw on an activity-
centred perspective; they consider new practices against a number of existing educational or learning
theories. Their report reviews six broad theory-based categories of activities and identifies new mobile
learning practices in each one of them.
1. Behaviourist
In terms of the behaviourist paradigm, Naismith et al. (2004, p.2) states:
Learning is thought to be best facilitated through the reinforcement of an association
between a particular stimulus and a response. Applying this to educational technology,
computer-aided learning can be considered as the presentation of a problem (stimulus)
followed by the contribution on the part of the learner as the solution (response).
This perspective supports practices that promote learning as a change in learners’ observable
actions. In mobile learning contexts, examples from classroom response systems include
Classtalk (Dufresne et al., 1996 cited in Naismith et al., 2004) as well as content delivery via text
messages to mobile telephones (Thornton and Houser 2004, cited in Naismith et al., 2004).
2. Constructivist
In terms of the constructivist approach, Naismith et al. (2004, p.2) maintain that:
Learning is considered to be an active process in which learners construct new ideas or
concepts based on both their current and past knowledge.
Using this approach, “learners are encouraged to be active constructors of knowledge with mobile
devices now embedding them in a realistic context at the same time as offering access to
supporting tools” (Naismith et al., 2004, p.2). In the context of mobile learning, examples include
learning practices termed “participatory simulations” such as Virus Game (Collella, 2000 cited in
Naismith et al., 2004, p.3). More recently research on “interwoven learning interactions” has used
the notion of constructivism to connect social interactions and mobile learning practices (Ting,
2013, p. 2).
3. Situated
In terms of the situated learning approach, Naismith et al. (2004, p.3) report:
Situated learning posits that learning can be enhanced by ensuring that it takes place in an
authentic context. Mobile devices are especially well suited to uses of context-aware
applications simply because they are available in different contexts, and so can draw on those
contexts to enhance the learning activity. The museum and gallery sector has been at the
forefront of context-aware mobile computing by providing additional information about
exhibits and displays based on the visitor’s location within their buildings.
In mobile learning contexts, examples include mobile systems that situate learning in authentic
contexts, such as MOBiLearn (Londsale et al., 2003, 2004 cited in Naismith et al., 2004, p.3) and
multimedia tours offered at the Tate Modern (Proctor and Borton, 2003 cited in Naismith et al.,
2004, p.3).
4. Collaborative
Collaborative learning has been studied through research on computer-supported collaborative
work and learning and focuses on the “role of social interactions in the process of learning”

(Naismith et al., 2004, p.3). This perspective supports activities that promote learning through
social interaction. Although the concept of collaborative learning is based on the role of social
interactions in the process of learning, other theories have been developed around thinking process
in learning situations, such as “activity theory” (Engestrom, 1987 cited in Naismith et al., 2004,
p.3) and “conversational theory” (Pask, 1976 cited in Naismith et al., 2004, p.3). The latter is
particularly relevant to collaboration using mobile devices as it “describes learning in terms of a
conversation between different systems of knowledge” (p.3), which is particularly pertinent in the
context of classroom use. In mobile learning contexts, examples include mobile computer-
supported collaborative learning (MCSCL) by “providing another means of coordination without
attempting to replace any human-human interactions, opposed to online discussion boards where
face-to-face discussion is substituted” (Zurita and Nussbaum, 2004 cited in Naismith et al., 2004,
p.3).
5. Informal and Lifelong
This perspective considers the continuum dimension of learning. As Naismith et al.(2004, p.4)
stated:
Research on informal and lifelong learning recognises that learning happens all of the time
and is influenced both by our environment and the particular situations we are faced with.
Informal learning may be intentional; for example, through intensive, significant and
deliberate learning “projects” (Tough, 1971), or it may be accidental, by acquiring
information through conversations, [television] TV and newspapers, observing the world or
even experiencing an accident or embarrassing situation.
This perspective contains activities that support learning outside a dedicated learning environment
and formal curriculum. Such a broad view of learning takes its focus outside the classroom and,
for this reason, particular considerations need to be taken if such practices are to be developed and
used with pupils. In terms of mobile learning, one example in this context is the initiative where
breast cancer patients are able to connect with information about their own medical situation, to
contact other individuals with the same condition as well as keep informed about relevant issues
(Wood et al., 2003 cited in Naismith et al., 2004).
6. Learning and teaching support
This perspective considers “activities that assist in the coordination of learners and resources for
learning activities” (Naismith et al., 2004, p.4). According to their report (p.4):
Education as a process relies on a great deal of coordination of learners and resources.
Mobile devices can be used by teachers for support practices such as attendance reporting,
reviewing student marks, and managing their schedules more effectively.
In the mobile learning context, examples of practices include a mobile learning organiser
developed and tested at the University of Birmingham (Sharples et al., 2003 cited in Naismith et
al., 2004).
European projects that have used mobile learning to support instruction in and outside school
The proliferation of mobile devices in Europe presents an opportunity for those concerned with
education to explore their potential for mobile learning – learning facilitated by mobile technologies –
to enhance education. According to Dykes and Knight (2012, p.9):
European governments and organisations have funded a number of mobile learning
initiatives, yet very few of these projects have examined the educational use of mobile
telephones specifically, tending to focus instead on larger mobile devices like laptops,
netbooks, game consoles and tablet devices. This represents a missed opportunity for
educators and policymakers, as mobile telephones – especially smartphones – can be equally

powerful learning tools that are significantly less expensive than other devices like laptops
and tablets.
The UNESCO working paper series on mobile learning offers a useful contribution in this respect, as
they identify and describe the major mobile learning initiatives that use mobile telephones to support
teachers and improve teaching practices in Europe. The overwhelming majority of mobile learning
projects in Europe are targeted at students (Dykes and Knight, 2012). Table 1 provides an analysis of
such projects from the UNESCO working paper.
Table 1: European mobile learning projects and their outcomes (with details taken from Dykes
and Knight, 2012, pp.11-22)
Project Partners Aims Lessons Learnt Limitations
Mobile in
Salford
(UK)
Colleges
(Eccles,
Salford,
Pendleton and
Langdon),
Salford City
Learning
Centre
Use of mobile devices to
access closed social
networks
While some students were
enthusiastic about using
mobile devices, others were
less confident and
sometimes felt
overwhelmed by the tasks
involved
It should not be presumed
that all students and
teachers are comfortable
with mobile technologies
Production of
materials for use
on mobile
devices was
particularly time
consuming and
could have a
negative impact
on teaching
practice
Presemo
(Finland)
Helsinki
Institute for
Information
Technology
(HIIT), Aalto
University and
the University
of Helsinki
Mobile participation
platforms that teachers can
use during lectures to
support greater
interactivity,
communication and
collaboration among
students
The system allows the
teacher to choose the most
appropriate pedagogic
approach for a given set of
circumstances
Teachers can use Presemo
to ask questions and solicit
feedback from large groups
of students during lectures
.
Because the tool
is best suited to
large class sizes,
most of the
development
tests have taken
place in higher
education, with a
few tests carried
out in secondary
schools
WapEduc
(France)
Philippe
Steger
(founder),
Montpellier
Local
Education
Authority
The mobile platform
provides course materials,
quizzes and tutoring for
students preparing for their
baccalaureate
examinations
Students can build a
personal mobile portfolio
by uploading records of
their progress
Teachers can use the system
to access over 110 lessons
that align with the French
curriculum to help students
prepare for their
examinations
The WapEduc System also
supports SMS and email to
enable communication and
collaboration between
students and teachers
outside of class

University
of Leeds
Medical
School
School of
Medicine,
University of
Leeds
Students spend up to 80%
of their time in clinical
practice, so the project
aims to support students’
learning at their clinical
sites
Students can now use the
university-provided
smartphones to access
resources and assessment
modules and to
communicate with teachers
Use led to increased access
to medical information for
students, and increased
opportunities for students to
record observations and
engage in self-assessment
and reflection
Improved hygiene in
hospital wards has also
been noted as an additional
benefit of the project. While
notepads, loose-leaf folders
and textbooks can harbour
germs, the smartphones can
be easily disinfected using
antiseptic wipes
Distance
Learning for
Apprentices
Vocational
institutions in
Denmark,
Germany,
Portugal,
Spain and
Turkey
Used mobile technologies
to support students
engaged in distance
learning as part of an
apprenticeship training
programme
A module called ‘train-the-
teacher’ offered a
pedagogical framework and
technical advice for
teachers who were
incorporating mobile
technologies into their
instruction for the first time
Priory
School (UK)
Portsmouth
Secondary
School
Curriculum
Leader for
Geography,
David Rogers
His teaching methods to
teach geography include
asking students to match
music to locations or
photographs, or create a
soundtrack for a walk, to
explore how they feel
about certain places;
additionally he asks
students to use the camera,
audio recording and
texting functions on
mobile phones to capture
images and sounds
associated with a place,
and post messages about
their observations and
associations
Rogers spearheaded an
effort to revise the school’s
mobile telephone policy to
allow the use of mobile
devices during social time
and encourage students to
explore the possibilities for
learning through their
mobile telephones
Rogers co-developed the
policy with students to help
increase their sense of
ownership and
responsibility
Benefits of
mobile learning
are often
obscured by the
behavioural
issues associated
with mobile
telephone use in
schools

Apps for
Good (UK)
CDI Europe
14-25 year old young
people identify a problem
in their world and develop
a mobile application that
addresses the issue
The Apps for Good model
seems to be effective in
helping young people
develop technical skills as
well as an understanding of
the potential of mobile
technologies to affect
change
Blackberry
Academic
Program
Aston
University
(UK),
Universidad
de Oviedo
(Spain)
A key component of this
program is teaching
students to develop mobile
applications to address
real-world problems
BlackBerry designed a
‘Mobiles Made Simple’
workshop aimed at 11-to
14-year-olds, which has
been made available to
some schools in the UK.
The workshop explores the
history and science of
mobile telecommunications,
using the BlackBerry as an
example
REACH
Italy, Norway,
Spain and
Turkey
REACH is teacher-
focused, involving
Vocational Education and
Training teachers, trainers
and counsellors in
developing new
pedagogical approaches to
learning through the use of
mobile technologies
ENVI Game
Czech
Republic
Provides mobile learning
platforms to support
environmental education in
schools
ENVI Game learning
activities combine outdoor
observation, facilitated by
the smartphone, with
classroom- based computer
use
The game is intended to be
played in class and during
after-school programmes to
supplement teachers’
environmental education
curricula
According to Wu and Zang’s(2010) study, mobile technologies have not been “passively used” for
educational purposes. On the contrary, they state “they were utilised actively at all stages of students’
learning” (p.60). Therefore, they argue that “it was imperative to address the empirical and theoretical
realities of mobile technologies in schools” (Selwyn, 2003 cited in Wu and Zang, 2010, p.60). While
many of the mobile learning projects outlined in this review have multiple educational goals, the
projects’ primary objectives aim to enhance instruction and encourage new pedagogical practices.
The mobile learning projects identified above in Table 1 also vary in terms of their educational level
and target populations. Some projects are focused on students and teachers in primary and secondary
schools, while others target higher education and lifelong learning. Only the BlackBerry Academic
Program spans multiple education levels, targeting young people and their teachers in both secondary
schools and universities. The UNESCO working paper identifies specific target groups, as follows
(Dykes and Knight, 2012, p.29):

The majority of mobile learning projects are aimed at older learners –university students,
medical students, working professionals participating in career training, and other adults
engaged in lifelong learning. This may be due to the early higher penetration rate of mobile
telephones among adults as well as the greater maturity level of the learners in relation to
younger students at primary and secondary education levels.
Key factors influencing mobile learning development in Europe have been identified from these
research studies. These “drivers, enablers and barriers” are as follows (pp.30-31):
 Drivers:
 Government and EU support for lifelong learning.
 The need for improved communication at universities and school.
 EU and national objectives for increasing student achievement and lowering dropout rates.
 Enablers:
 Widespread mobile telephone ownership.
 Familiarity with mobile devices.
 Availability of public funding.
 National/regional leadership and guidance in implementing mobile learning projects.
 Barriers:
 High costs associated with purchasing mobiles telephones in schools. To overcome this,
institutions may try to reduce expenses associated with mobile learning by encouraging
students to bring their own devices to school: however there could be issues of equity with this
approach.
 Negative social attitudes about the use of mobile telephones in schools. This is difficult to
overcome as public perceptions about the disruptive nature of mobile telephones seem to be
widespread in Europe.
Non-European projects that have used mobile learning to support instruction in and outside
school
Table 2 presents an analysis of a non-European project, which will be discussed in a later section of
this report.
Table 2: Non-European mobile learning projects and their outcomes (with details taken from
Shohel and Power, 2010, p.2-8)
Project Partners Aims Lessons learnt Limitations
English in
Action
Bangladesh
(EIA)
Open
University
UK;
DFID UK
25 million Bangladeshi
school children were
equipped with the skills to
communicate in English to
levels that would enable
them to participate fully in
national economic and
social activities and global
opportunities
EIA empowered teachers
to change their classroom
practice; teacher practice
was enhanced by the use
of handheld devices
(iPods); teachers became
more aware of their own
practice in order to
improve it
Teachers still needed
ongoing peer support;
some reported
anxiety in dealing
with handheld
devices (iPods);
support systems were
needed
Teaching methods and their context
Naismith et al.(2004) conceptualised teaching context, focusing on the tension that may arise between
a “learner’s wish for anonymity and privacy” on the one hand, and the “gathering and utilising of
contextual information” on the other. Others have argued that students learn best when given the
opportunity to learn skills and theories in the context where the skills and theories are used. To
respond to that learning need, mobile technologies allow greater accessibility to information networks

and offer students context-aware information at the most appropriate teachable moments (Shohel and
Power, 2010; Wu and Zhang, 2010).
According to Koshman (2011), context is paramount in understanding mobile user behaviour, due to
the diversity of user information environments. It is argued that “context not only represents the mode
of use for information retrieval but also impacts the formulation of the user’s information need and
motivation” (p.211). In his recent study, four definitions of mobile context were analysed:
spatial/location; temporal; social; and access (Koshman, 2011, p.212-213).
Spatial/location context - "spatial/location context denotes an indoor or outdoor geographic
place where the user may reside or where their query may originate from” (p.212).
Interestingly, Cui and Roto’s (2009, cited in Koshman 2011, p.212) findings “show that
“home” was cited as a frequent Internet access point while browsing, and that users changed to
several locations during a session due to the technology’s portability”.
This study sheds light on location coordinate information to understand the user’s information
activity associated with their geographical context.
Temporal context - "temporal elements give rise to the notion of using the mobile Web in
between planned activities” (p.212). Church and Smyth (2008, cited in Koshman, 2011)
analysed 405 diary entries from a diary study of 20 participants to examine mobile information
needs. Their findings suggested that “the majority of user diary entries occurred while users
were in transit or “on-the go” and suspect that the diversity of user information needs are
prevalent while away from home. They concluded that both location and time context have a
significant influence on both the mobile user’s information need and the expected answer”
(p.212).
Social context - social context may be characterised by “social interaction and discussion in a
defined vicinity”(p.212). Church and Smyth’s (2008, cited in Koshman, 2011) findings
identified the social interaction/conversations in a mobile context in 25% of the diary entries
as one “which elicits information needs from conversations with acquaintances” (p.212). As
Koshman (2011, p.212) states:
The social factor is particularly interesting since this encapsulates both formal and
informal reporting of user activities stemming from a conversation, and indicates that
the mobile Web may be used to enhance, start or expand verbal discourse.
Access/technical contexts - access context refers to technical usage of the Wireless Local
Area Network (WLAN) or cellular network for access to the mobile Web. According to
Koshman (2011,p.213):
Technical context further takes advantage of ‘push and pull’ features of mobile
technologies to impact the method through which the user finds and uses information. Pull
technology refers to user incited activities and push technology is facilitated by an event-
triggered activity.
Koshman (2011, p. 213) went on to illustrate how handheld devices can play an innovative
role with regards to access context:
For example, a user walks down a street past a bookstore and the user is alerted to a non-
fiction book sale on their handheld device. This works with a combination of context- and
location-aware technologies since it is not information that the user deliberately sought.
In order to explore the variance in mobile context definitions, a mobile action-based framework was
proposed. The author embarked on developing a mobile social visualisation for text entity retrieval

that offered a micro-context for visualised information retrieval display. An iSchool agenda
application “embedded the mobile facility in several courses where technology and information
behaviour were integrated for learning purposes so that more could be found out about new search
behaviour” (Koshman, 2011, p. 212). The main findings were the notion that contextual factors can
strongly influence information behaviour and use of interactions with mobile devices. As Koshman
(2011, p.214) states:
Development challenges were found to be associated with the rapid deployment of new mobile
device models. Since technology is considered the driving force behind how people use
information, then detailed information usability testing should be substituted with broad
contextual studies which allow researchers to extract general behavioural characteristics even
though specific device models may change.
Ultimately, Wilson (2010, cited in Koshman, 2011, p.214) points out that:
The key consideration with regard to mobile context is to discover how the mobile devices
themselves drive information behaviour in the new mobile setting and incorporate these
findings from an iSchool information retrieval perspective.
Mobility
This term is interpreted here as draw by Naismith et al. (2004, p.4) “the ability to link to activities in
the outside world, which provides students with the capability to ‘escape’ the classroom and engage in
activities that do not correspond with either the teacher’s agenda or the curriculum”. Despite the
challenge in addressing mobility in formal classroom settings, some research has attempted to do this.
Some have conceptualised it as ‘any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies
are handheld or palmtop devices’(Traxler, 2005 cited in Shohel and Power, 2010, p.2), which is
available ‘anywhere, anytime’(Geddes, 2004 cited in Shohel and Power, 2010, p.2), whereas Shohel
and Power (2010, p.2) defined the previous notion as a “type of mobile learning mobility”. Other
studies more specifically related to handheld devices have pointed to the connection between age and
mobile learning mobility. As Economides and Nikolaou (2008, p.2) suggested, “age or stage in life
seemed to influence the manner in which the mobile device users balanced the expenses and
convenience associated with mobility”. In addition, Ting recently suggested an “interwoven learning
interactions” (2013, p. 1) notion, which sheds light on a novel perspective in using handheld devices
inside and outside the classroom. This notion highlights the combination of face-to-face social
interaction with mobile learning moments.
Learning and time convenience
Within the context of mobile learning teaching methods, there is research suggesting the influence of
time convenience on learning. As Shohel and Power (2010, p.2) say:
Mobile technology can be used to increase access to authentic teaching and learning
materials which could be used at a time convenient to teachers, such as when they are
preparing lesson plans or while travelling to schools (Shohel and Banks, 2010; Shohel and
Shrestha, 2010). Materials like this have a great impact on teachers’ own learning and their
classroom practice (Power, Deane and Hedges, 2009).
For Ting (2013, p.1) “learning is constructed on the realm of both physical and social experiences”,
whereas Naismith et al.(2004, p.4) focus on the time convenience dimension of learning, arguing that
“effective tools are needed at a time convenient for the recording, organisation and retrieval of mobile
learning experiences”. Furthermore, an aspect of constant alertness has been pointed out as a real
challenge within mobile learning teaching methods, which can cause various stress disorders
(Economides and Nikolaou, 2008). Some others have pointed to the impact that mobile tools can have
in a school environment due to time convenience use. As such, Wu and Zhang (2010, p.65)
highlighted that:

Understanding students’ learning conditions, experiences, and variety of attitudes has had a
broad impact on schools’ decisions to use mobile technologies (Penuel, Tatar & Roschelle,
2004).
From a teaching method perspective, new opportunities for professional learning have been developed
due to ease of access at different times or places offered by mobile handheld device use (Shohel and
Power, 2010).
Interwoven learning interactions
The mobile learning literature presents various perspectives on aspects of learning. Some have focused
more on the learners’ needs (Seppala and Alamaki, 2003 cited in Ting, 2013), others on the mobile
technologies used by learners (Price and Rogers, 2004 cited in Ting, 2013) and some others on the
analysis of the mobile devices used (Roschelle, 2003 cited in Ting, 2013). Ting’s (2013) study
proposes a notion for helping instructors design an innovative mobile learning practice in their subject
domain. The proposed design notion – “interwoven learning interactions - means that the mobile
technologies unobtrusively record specific types of social interactions among learners as digital
information, and the digital information is synthesised with the rules and principles of subject content
to represent the instructional information” (p.1). When social interaction among peers enables their
stimulation and exploration of subject content as well as display of students’ thoughts and reasoning,
learning is then constructed through the realms of both physical and social experiences linked with
abstract learning content (Ting, 2013, p. 1). As Ting (2013, p.1) states:
It is also claimed that the core characteristic of mobile learning is that it enables learners to
enter an information network at the precise moment when necessary, and experience the
authentic joy of learning (Seppälä&Alamäki, 2003).
The notion of interwoven learning interaction echoes the need for re-conceptualising the interaction
between learning and the design of mobile technology. Ting (2013, p.2) says that:
During the explorative learning process, by means of computer and mobile technologies,
students can synchronise their social interactions around their physical world with
the instructional illustration of the subject content, thus resulting in interwoven social and
instructional interactions. Students formulate the system on the basis of their social and
instructional interactions. Interwoven interactions are said to be engaging to learners because
they are the participants of subject presentation instead of being mere by-standers.
Ting’s (2013) research proposes a notion of interwoven interactions to provide an original view of
how the mobile technology can be utilised to create a new learning process. As Ting (2013, p.2) states:
The notion is developed on the basis of constructivism, and further developed from the social-
cognitive aspect. The creation of interwoven interactions are then elaborated by design
principles and realized in a sample practice. The sample practice is evaluated by surveys that
probe students’ attitude toward the proposed learning activity. The study provides preliminary
findings that shed light on the use of mobile technology in learning.
Main findings suggest that (Ting, 2013, pp.11-12):
 Mobile technologies can distribute “heterogeneous information to individuals, thus fostering
their active interactions”.
 “Delivery of heterogeneous information to individuals in a face-to-face group activity could
not be achieved without mobile technologies. Hence, mobile technologies facilitate the
creation of interwoven interactions in this study through both unobtrusive recording and
delivery of heterogeneous information”.

 “It is not the technology alone that gives rise to interwoven interactions. There should be a
good match among the mobile technologies adopted, social behaviours enacted, roles assigned
to each student, tasks pursued, and the rules or theories of subject content behind them”.
 “A learner’s social interaction could be pedagogically utilised to support each student’s
individual social aspect of learning. This aspect of pedagogical design should shed new light
on how to create new possibilities for learners to explore collaboratively a subject domain, as
well as to develop new theories in order to facilitate our understanding of how learning takes
place under these circumstances”.
The previous findings reveal that mobile technologies “indeed add a new dimension to learning
activities, because of both the personal and portable nature of the devices themselves, as well as the
kinds of learning interactions they can support. More specifically, mobile learning enables learners to
interact and capture experiences in both physical and social realms, and makes learning more
experiential and multifaceted”(Ting, 2013, p. 12).
Informality
Naismith et al.(2004) remind us of the student’s perspective as being important, as they “may abandon
their use of certain technologies if they perceive their social networks to be under attack” (p.4).
Alongside this, the UNESCO working paper sheds light on some barriers that could resonate with
some forms of “informality abuse”, such as mobile learning obscurity arising due to behavioural issues
associated with mobile telephone use in schools and negative social attitudes about use of mobile
telephones in schools (Dykes and Knight, 2012, p. 31). It is relevant to note that both these barriers
apply to a very contained environment, as is the school use setting. Other different accounts of
informality were suggested in Wu and Zhang’s (2010) research. The students who participated in the
research experiments informally “helped one another in learning groups, because the handheld
computers allowed the students to transfer data by using beaming functionality” (p.64). Students have
also reported that using handheld computers “made learning more interactive and collaborative”( p.
65).
Ownership
Another student perspective to consider is their desire “to own and control personal technology, but
this presents a challenge when they bring it into the classroom” (Naismith et al., 2004, p.4). Again,
this topic deserves further exploration, considering the mobile learning barriers identified by Dykes
and Knight (2012) – negative social attitude towards mobile learning and high cost of devices being
overcome by encouraging students to bring their own devices to the classroom, which carries
additional issues of possible equity (in)balance. More specifically, in terms of language learning
setting, it has been suggested that this is one of the disciplines particularly likely to benefit from
widespread ownership of mobile devices such as telephones and media players (Kukulska-Hulme and
Traxler, 2005).
Benefits and challenges of using handheld devices in education
Mobile technologies with increased capabilities of networking, social interactions, and context
awareness can have an obvious impact on learning (Naismith et al., 2004). “More and more schools
have used handheld computers as integral and regularly-used educational technology devices”
(Roschelle, 2003 cited in Wu and Zhang, 2010, p.58). As Wu and Zhang (2010, p.58) remind us:
They are small, easy to move, inexpensive, and enable information to be shared quickly through
wireless connections. These handheld devices, which can include mobile devices, personal
digital assistants (PDA), and handheld personal computers (handheld PCs) have been
introduced into many classrooms in recent years.
The low cost, availability of software, and convenience of handheld computers have encouraged
educators to develop and use handheld devices for teaching, learning, and assessment. Therefore, the
“study of mobile devices in a learning environment, such as a handheld PC, palmtop PC, and PDA,
referred to as mobile learning, is an emerging research area” (Wu and Zhang, 2010, p.58). Although

various names (e.g. PDAs, Pocket PCs, palmtops, smartphones, etc.) exist to describe various types of
handheld devices, Economides and Nikolaou (2008) investigated the width of handheld devices that
would be appropriate for mobile learning. In their research, the term handheld device referred to a
device that “can be easily carried by a student and has the following multimedia functionalities: i)
information and knowledge access, process and storage; ii) communication (synchronous and
asynchronous); iii) entertainment and amusement (e.g.games, music, video, radio, television, etc.); and
iv) organisation and management (e.g. scheduling, planning, calendar, address book, calculator, etc.)”
(2008, p.2). The two previous studies (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008; Wu and Zhang, 2010) have
identified a series of benefits of using handheld devices in education, including:
Alertness - using handheld devices, users “can confront a situation as it happens instead of
postponing it until they reach their office, home, school, etc” (Economides and Nikolaou,
2008, p.2). This study (p.2) states:
This real-time situation confrontation let them solve problems as they happen.
However, it also puts a stress on them, since they ought to be continually alert.
Students’ preferences - many pilot programmes in education investigate the educational
value of handheld devices with the “students preferring the use of handheld PCs over other
alternatives, such as raising their hands” (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008, p.2).
Saving time - handheld devices “appear to be very suitable for accessing information (reading
e-mail, checking stock quotes and news headlines), especially when the user is seeking to fill a
time slot that would otherwise be lost, for example, during a short bus ride or while waiting in
a line” (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008, p.2).
Advantages over PCs - handheld devices have advantages when compared to the laptop PC.
“Laptop PCs require a lap or surface to operate properly, they are relatively bulky and
obtrusive, they take much longer to boot and consequently must be left on so that they will be
ready to use, and they typically have short battery life” (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008, p.2).
Assessment value - The benefits of the handheld use regarding the assessment value, methods
and approach were stated by Wu and Zhang (2010, p.59) as follows:
Handheld PCs could broaden the range of assessment tasks and could be better aligned
with inquiry-oriented instruction. These devices can create new ways for students to
express themselves and expand the range of assessment methods in lieu of a new
communication medium (Roschelle, Penuel, Yarnall, Shechtman & Tatar, 2005).
Special educational needs - handheld computers can be used to support special educational
needs students to conduct spelling exercises, and have had an impact on students’ performance
(Hooft et al., 2004 cited in Wu and Zhang, 2010).
Language learning support - handheld PCs have been used by foreign language teachers in
their learning/training (Dykes and Knight, 2012; Shohel and Power, 2010; Wu and Zhang,
2010)
Pedagogical value - “inexpensive and portable handheld devices require less difficult
pedagogical adjustments and can facilitate formative assessment solutions” (Penuel et al.,
2004 cited in Wu and Zhang, 2010, p.60).
Despite all these advantages, there are challenges and disadvantages which arise exclusively from their
size:

Usability – in trying to reduce the dimensions of the handheld devices, the manufacturers
have decreased their usability, for example, with a small screen size, so that writing
extensively is less possible (Passey, 2013).
Availability – in reducing the size of the handheld devices, their battery lifetime is reduced as
well (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008).
Performance – in reducing the size of the handheld devices, their performance is affected.
However, they are still cheaper than laptop PCs (Wu and Zhang, 2010).
Having examined the characteristics of the handheld devices and their requirements in order to support
mobile learning, Economides and Nikolaou (2008) defined three evaluation areas, each one containing
criteria for evaluating various handheld devices. This offers a relevant contribution to knowledge in
this field in the sense that this highlights some of the characteristics that handheld devices should have
in order to support or enhance learning. These criteria are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Evaluation elements for handheld devices aiming to support/enhance learning
Evaluation elements
for handheld devices
1) Usability 2) Technical 3) Functional
Criteria
User interface Performance Communications
Presentation and media Sensory system
Information and
knowledge
Navigation Compatibility
Organisation and
management
Security
Entertainment and
amusement
Availability and
reliability
Source: (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008, p. 18)
It is possible to perform an evaluation of various handheld devices to determine the extent to which
they satisfy these evaluation criteria. These can be applied in a variety of contexts and locations. A
brief description of the three evaluation elements follows, according to Economides and Nikolaou
(2008, p.3):
1) Usability: “it is related to the easiness of understanding, learning, remembering and using the
device and its tools. It should be easy to carry the device, to use its interface, to read and write
text, to communicate with others, to record and play audio and video, to organise emails,
messages, songs and photos, to navigate and oriented in its content”.
2) Technical: “is related to the device’s performance, connectivity, compatibility, security and
reliability. The device should have high processing power, large available memory, and ability
to run various software formats. It should have long battery autonomy and easy battery
recharging. It should support various communication protocols and networks without serious
restrictions on distance and bandwidth. It should also secure content and communications
against theft or malicious changes”.
3) Functional: “it is related to the quantity and quality of the available features, functions and
tools of the device. It should support tools for synchronous and asynchronous communication,
as well as for information access, processing, storage, organisation and playing”.
The authors’ conclusions suggested technical specifications for handheld devices that aim to enhance
and support learning (2008, p. 18). Their research recommended use of the evaluation framework, in

Table 3 above, in order to make sure that handheld devices to be used for mobile learning for the next
generations are adequate for their primary vocation – to enhance and support learning.
The mobile learning literature points to some relevant research on how mobile learning can enhance
the process of learning languages. Two studies deserve detailed consideration on this subject. Firstly,
Shohel and Power’s (2010) study explored an English learning programme - English in Action (EIA) -
in Bangladesh; and secondly, Wu and Zhang (2010) examined the potentialities of handheld
technology on students’ academic attainments.
Learning language processes enhanced through mobile learning
The English in Action (EIA) programme aims at improving the teaching of English, significantly,
across all age sectors, by introducing mobile technology. The study introduced mobile technology in
English language classrooms in Bangladesh, as a means of integrating information and communication
technology (ICT) into different aspects of school-based support systems (Shohel and Power, 2010).
There are four major strands to the EIA programme in Bangladesh (p.2):
 Primary education: engages students and teachers through innovative classroom resources.
 Secondary education: empowers teachers to change their classroom practice. These
interventions are school-based, delivered through supported open and distance learning which
is enhanced by mobile technologies.
 Adult learning: enables lifelong learning via interactive and digital media.
 Research, monitoring and evaluation: evaluates ongoing projects and researches the impacts of
the intervention.
A mixed-methods research strategy was adopted to evaluate the impact of mobile technology for
enhancing teaching and learning in the English-language classrooms in Bangladesh. The methods used
included “a questionnaire, classroom observation, semi-structured interviews with six school
administrators and teachers, as well as a series of group interviews with students” (Shohel and Power,
2010, p.4). The pedagogic dimension of the programme was identified through various levels of
engagement, and learning expected. These levels were articulated through a variety of strands –
“communicate, connect, create, and community” - which offered a wide range of ICT resources for the
secondary teachers involved, “from the simplest to the technically more demanding” (p. 3).
The analysis of the relevant themes was considered from pedagogically-related dimensions, as follows
(Shohel and Power, 2010, pp.6-9):
 New opportunities for professional development
Teachers explored the “flexibility afforded to them by having tools and materials (both print and
audio-visual) that they could access at different times or places, to create new opportunities for
professional learning”.
 Watching and listening
Teachers particularly emphasised the value of “watching and listening” for “developing their own
pedagogic knowledge”.
 Ongoing peer support
“Whilst the professional development materials available through the iPod were perceived as
making an important contribution to the teachers’ development, teachers also recognised that these
materials alone were not enough to enable or support that development”. This could be seen as a
limitation of the current study.
 Emphasis on practice and teacher perceptions of their practice
“Teachers talked very positively about the need for, and benefit of, a strong practical focus to their
professional development activities, which required them not just to discuss but to apply new ideas
or techniques in the setting of their own classroom practice”.

 Dealing with anxiety
The analysis of this theme resumes that”when talking about their own knowledge or practice,
around one-third of the teachers (3) referred to weaknesses, poor performance or mistakes.
Although this was generally in the context of improvement, it raises a question as to where such a
perception arises. Such comments were often in the context of when they were observed whilst
carrying out classroom practice”.
 Support systems
Despite the anxieties reported by some teachers, other teachers commented on their experience of
training and support as ‘warm’ and ‘friendly. It seemed to contradict the previous theme, which
might “represent the experience of an internal anxiety surfacing in an external environment that is
perceived to be supportive”.
 Determination and engagement: making changes in their practice
There was a real sense of “teachers’ determination, of repeated effort and practice to master the
language, the pronunciation or the classroom practices that they were being taught”.
Shohel and Power’s (2010, p.13) conclusions stressed that:
• Mobile technology has the potential to change the very nature and processes of pedagogy
(McCombs et al., 2006 cited in Shohel and Power, 2010).
• Mobile technology enhances teaching and learning activities (Lacina, 2008 cited in Shohel
and Power, 2010) and can offer teachers an understanding of new technological applications
and professional knowledge.
• Mobile technology enables teachers to reflect on their own learning processes, both
individually and collectively (Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil, 2007 cited in Shohel and Power,
2010).
Potentialities of handheld technology on students’ academic attainments
In examining the potentialities of handheld technology on students’ academic attainments, Wu and
Zhang (2010) concluded that “handheld devices could be an addition to learning technologies in
elementary classrooms” (p.65). As Wu and Zhang (p.59) stated:
Most research focused on handheld technology development and implementation issues;
however, measuring and analysing handheld computers for testing purposes has yet to be
evaluated (Segall, Doolen & Porter, 2005 ). There was a minimal amount of evidence that
handheld computers could be effectively used in students’ assessment in the classroom and
utilisation of handheld computers actually improved students’ academic achievements.
This study conducted two experiments with handheld computers (Wu and Zhang, 2010, pp.64-65):
(a) A comparison of the process of learning English spelling with fourth-grade students using
handheld computers and fourth-grade students who did not use handheld computers.
(b) A comparison between the test results of fifth-grade students dividing fractions using
handheld computers and fifth-grade students dividing fractions using paper and pencil.
This study discovered a positive potential on attainment when utilising handheld computers in
elementary schools. The findings in this study supported “confidence for both English language arts
and mathematics teachers to utilise handheld computers in their classrooms”. This study also showed
that “handheld computers have the potential to promote the students’ motivation to learn and enhance
their peer collaborations”. These outcomes connect also with the informality concept presented in
Naismith et al. (2004), where the “informal nature of devices can lead to a positive reward” (p.19).

4. ITALY IN CONTEXT
The educational system
According to EACEA (2014), the education
system in Italy is organised according to
principles of centrality as well as supporting the
autonomy of schools. The state exercises
legislative rights, which are concerned with
general issues of education, such as minimum
standards to be guaranteed throughout the
country, and regulations that regions should
comply with. Schools are autonomous with
regard to didactic matters, organisation, and
research and development activities.
Compulsory education lasts for 10 years (from 6 to 16 years of age). It covers 5 years of primary
school, 3 years of lower secondary school and the first two years of upper secondary school.
Compulsory education can be completed also by attending three- and four-year courses offered
through a regional vocational education and training system. The upper secondary level of education
can last for 5 years and provision is offered in terms of both general and vocational pathways.
There are 15,417 primary schools in Italy. Primary schooling lasts for five years and, in general, it is
available to pupils aged from 6 to 11 years. There are 7,270 lower secondary schools. Lower
secondary education lasts for 3 years and is generally attended by pupils aged from 11 to 14 years. In
the future, pupils aged 10 years and upwards might attend lower secondary schools. There are 5,397
upper secondary schools. General upper secondary education lasts for five years and is offered by six
types of liceo specialising in the following areas: arts (Liceo artistico); classical studies (Liceo
classico); sciences (Liceo scientifico); languages (Liceo linguistico); music and dance (Liceo musicale
e coreutico); and human sciences (Liceo delle scienze umane). Studies at liceo are generally available
to students aged from 14 to 19 years of age and are organised, for didactic purposes, into two two-year
periods with a final fifth year.
The curriculum
According to EACEA (2014), at primary and lower secondary level the curriculum is defined through
National Guidelines for the Curriculum of 20121
. This document replaces the National Guidelines for
the Personalised Study Plans in Primary Schools of 2004 and the Guidelines for the Curriculum of
2007.According to the new guidelines, the general aim of the school is the harmonic and
comprehensive development of the individual, in accordance with the principles of the Italian
Constitution and the European cultural tradition, to be achieved through promotion of knowledge,
respect of individual diversities and active involvement of students and their families. In particular, the
primary level of education is tasked with ensuring pupils acquire knowledge and skills fundamental
for the development of basic cultural competences. At the lower secondary level of education the
specific purpose is also to ensure pupils acquire knowledge and skills fundamental for the
development of basic cultural competences, but, at this level, the goal is to be reached by using
subjects and disciplines as a means to know, interpret and represent the reality and the world.
At the upper secondary level (liceo), there has been a recent reform of the whole second cycle of
education, so the curricula for the liceo have been revised. New curricula are now defined in the
National Guidelines for the Curriculum 2012.The National Guidelines establish the specific learning
objectives for each liceo, and for each subject, knowledge and skills that each student is expected to
acquire as the basis for building her/his competences. The National Guidelines also include what the
1
http://www.indicazioninazionali.it/documenti_Indicazioni_nazionali/indicazioni_nazionali_infanzia_primo_cicl
o.pdf

student’s educative, cultural and professional profile should present, what a student should know and
should be able to do after having completed a study programme at a liceo.
Digital technologies and schools
According to EACEA (2014), in general, primary schools have ICT laboratories for supporting
teaching activities, and several classes may also be equipped with interactive whiteboards (IWBs). At
lower secondary school, ICT is a cross-curricular subject. Generally, secondary schools are provided
with a gymnasium, and a library, as well as ICT, science and multimedia laboratories. More and more
classes are equipped with interactive whiteboards (IWBs). At upper secondary level (liceo), schools
are usually equipped with a gymnasium, library, scientific and computer laboratories, and laboratories
appropriate to the various educational offerings and to the specificities of the single school. In the last
decade, special attention has been dedicated to drop-out prevention, study methods, catch-up activities
as well as to increasing the use of ICT. However, at this time, it is clear that not all primary schools
have ICT laboratories installed, not all facilities in primary and secondary level schools are used, and
few teachers have received sufficient training to enable appropriate uses of the facilities.
General teaching methods and training
According to EACEA (2014), while not intending to prejudice any teaching freedom, the National
Guidelines for the curriculum do indicate some basic methodological approaches, such as: the
exploitation of pupils’ experiences and knowledge; the promotion of exploration and discovery
activities; the encouragement of cooperative learning; the development of the awareness of one’s own
learning method; and carrying out in-laboratory learning.
All teacher training courses consider the acquisition of competences in ICT, according to the
acquisition of digital competences as highlighted in the Recommendation of the EU Parliament and
Council of 18 December 2006. In particular, these competences refer to the capacity of using
multimedia languages for representing and communicating knowledge, for using digital contents and,
in general, simulated environments and virtual laboratories.
In Italy there is no national curriculum for teacher training. Indeed, in this respect with regard to ICT,
OECD studies emphasise that Italian schools generally have a low ICT penetration and that only
motivated teachers experiment with new technologies in classrooms.
Handheld technologies are not used widely in Italy for educational purposes. Meetings, seminars and
courses about using new technologies in teaching and learning can be organised by either public or
private bodies, which can involve the MIUR (Ministry of Education and Research) for dissemination
of practices to schools. But participation is voluntary, and not mandatory.
In Italy research into uses of handheld technologies in secondary school classrooms occurs only at a
local level, and few significant results have been identified or recognised at this time. No specific
state-of-the-art research in this field has been identified. Currently there are no key institutions or
individuals that have undertaken research in exploring teacher training involving handheld
technologies in secondary school contexts.
.
Teacher training
In Italy those individuals who want to become primary teachers have to attend the Scienze della
Formazione Primaria (Science for Primary Teacher Training), a university course run over 5 years
that prepares for the teaching of all subjects for primary schools. To teach at secondary school,
graduates in individual subjects (mathematics, literature, etc.) have to attend the Educational Active
Training (TFA), a one-year course offered by universities to become qualified for teaching. The
teacher training programmes are promoted by universities as well as by the MIUR (Ministry for
Education and Research), which is responsible also for their dissemination.

There is currently no country list of initial teacher training programmes that involves uses of handheld
technologies in teaching or learning. Similarly, there are no key institutions or individuals that
undertake initial teacher training with uses of handheld technologies in secondary school classrooms
in Italy. The TFA curriculum has a very limited number of hours dedicated to laboratories for
interactive learning technologies. TFA is a blended course, with online activities, but there are no
significant experiences integrated about uses of handheld technology in secondary education.
In Italy there are no dedicated in-service teacher training programmes. Teachers can participate in
training courses, individually or involving their school, but the training programmes are not mandatory
and, generally, only motivated teachers participate. Courses are organised by public or private bodies
(universities, foundations, associations) and can be financed by a teacher’s institution (school or the
regional school offices - USR) or by teachers themselves (as is usual). In a year, every teacher has 5
days provided for attending a training programme.
There is no country list of in-service teacher training programmes that involve uses of handheld
technologies in teaching or learning. Similarly, there are no key institutions or individuals that
undertake in-service teacher training with uses of handheld technologies in secondary school
classrooms in Italy.
Current key obstacles to using handheld technologies in the classroom
As OECD studies highlight, Italian schools have low ICT penetration and only motivated teachers
experiment with new technologies in classrooms (Avvisati, Hennessy, Kozma, and Vincent-Lancrin,
2013). But, in the last few years, the MIUR has promoted three national projects: LIM (IWB)
Programme, the Cl@ss 2.0, and the School 2.0 projects - with the following objectives: to introduce
ICT as part of the daily tools of classroom activities; to experiment with new models of school
organisation and of teaching; and to support the development of new products (resources and devices).
However, the projects have limitations: there has been a very slow pace to deployment of equipment
(5 to 16% of classrooms are now equipped with IWBs); there have been too few schools concerned
withCl@ss 2.0 (only 416 in total) and with School 2.0; there has not been sufficient professional
development; and there have not been sufficient digital resources accessible. The Plano LIM (IWB
Plan) is progressing at such a slow rate that it would take 15 years to reach the current UK level
(according to Avvisati, Hennessy, Kozma, and Vincent-Lancrin, 2013). For this reason, the current
key obstacles to using handheld technologies in the classroom are cultural and technological - many
schools do not have Internet in the classrooms and a hardcopy book is generally preferred to an e-
book.
Current key drivers to support uses of handheld technologies in the classroom
Both development and research activities can be managed by schools themselves. The curriculum
promotes active involvement of students and families, discovery activities, and cooperative learning.
ICT development has been instigated and encouraged in schools across Italy, although uses of ICT are
clearly very variable at this stage.

5. GREECE IN CONTEXT
The Greek education system is governed by
national laws and legislative acts (decrees, and
ministerial decisions), while the general
responsibility for education lies with the
Ministry of Education and Religious
Affairs. The Greek education system was until
recently predominantly centralised; however,
within the framework of the country’s
adaptation to international standards, actions
have been undertaken to shift towards
decentralisation.
Primary education requires compulsory attendance of a primary school and lasts for 6 years.
Secondary education requires 3 years’ attendance in lower secondary education. This constitutes the
last period of compulsory education and is a prerequisite for enrolling for and attending general or
vocational upper secondary schools. In parallel with day schools, evening lower secondary education
schools also operate, with attendance starting at the age of 14 years. The second tier of secondary
education lasts also for 3 years, and constitutes non-compulsory upper secondary education, either as
general secondary education or vocational secondary education. Vocational Lyceums offer two cycles
of studies, constituting the formal educational system: the secondary cycle; and the (optional) post-
secondary cycle of studies, the so-called “apprenticeship class”. In both the General and Vocational
Lyceums, students enrol at the age of 15 years. Parallel to the day schools, the Evening General
Lyceums and Evening Vocational Lyceums also operate, with the minimum age for enrolment in
Evening Vocational Lyceums being 16 years.
The administration of primary and secondary education is conducted at central, regional and local
levels respectively by: the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs; Regional Education
Directorates; Directorates of Education (Prefectures); and School Units.
In the primary sector, for pupils aged from 6 to 12 years, there are: 4,439 Primary Schools of General
Education; 19 Experimental Primary Schools; 185 Special Primary Schools; 174 Minority Primary
Schools; 13 Cross-cultural Primary Schools; 172 Private Primary Schools; and 1 Primary School of
European Education. In the secondary sector, for students aged from 12 to 16 years, there are: 1,602
All-Day Lower Secondary Schools of General Education; 75 Evening Lower Secondary Schools; 15
Experimental Lower Secondary Schools; 2Minority Lower Secondary Schools; 8 Cross-cultural
Lower Secondary Schools; 7 Ecclesiastical Lower Secondary Schools; 42 Music-oriented Lower
Secondary Schools with Upper Secondary Music Classes; 3 Art-oriented Lower Secondary Schools
with Upper Secondary Art Classes; 8 Special Lower Secondary Schools; 85 Private Lower Secondary
Schools; 1 Lower Secondary School of European Education; 5 Special Lower Secondary Schools of
Vocational Orientation; 995 General All-day Upper Secondary Schools; 51 General Upper Secondary
Evening Schools; 15 Experimental Upper Secondary Schools; 2 Minority Upper Secondary Schools; 4
Cross-cultural Upper Secondary Schools; 10 Ecclesiastical Upper Secondary Schools; 5 Special Upper
Secondary Schools; 78 Private Upper Secondary Schools; 1 Upper Secondary Schools of European
Education; 326 All-day Vocational Upper Secondary Schools; 62 Vocational Upper Secondary
Evening Schools; 2 Special Vocational Upper Secondary Schools; and 3 Private Upper Secondary
Vocational Schools.
The curriculum
At primary level, educational curricula and timetables have in the past been drawn up by the
Pedagogic Institute. In2011, the Pedagogic Institute was replaced by the Institute of Educational
Policy (IEP), which is responsible for providing opinion and recommendations on issues related to

primary education programmes, school textbooks and other teaching instruments. Their
recommendations are implemented in all primary education schools country-wide. Current primary
education curricula fall under the integrated philosophy of the Interdisciplinary Single Curriculum
Framework for Compulsory Education (DEPPS). The interdisciplinary approach defines the structure
of autonomous subject teaching on the basis of a balanced horizontal and vertical distribution of
teaching material and promotes cognitive subject interconnection as well as basic concepts such as
global analysis. In addition, the innovative ‘Flexible Zone of Interdisciplinary and Creative Activities’
is also a part of the DEPPS. Curricula are compulsory for all teachers with regard to teaching material
content and distribution in all six primary school grades. ICT has been added for one hour for grades
A and B (between 6 and 8 years of age), and for two hours for the remainder of the grades.
At lower secondary level, the curricula are drawn up by the Pedagogical Institute and are proposed to
the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports. The Pedagogical Institute makes
proposals about the textbooks for use by pupils and teachers, based on the approved curricula. The
curricula serve as complete guides for teaching and include: explicitly stated purposes for each
subject, in the context of the general and grade-specific aims of education; and indicative guidelines
on methods and teaching media, in each subject. Curricula are drawn up, tested experimentally, and
evaluated and reviewed, in line with developments in scientific knowledge about education. In
addition to the curriculum, innovative actions have been introduced in secondary education, such as
Health Education, Youth Entrepreneurship, Environmental Education, the Flexible Zone of Innovative
Actions, Cultural programmes, and School Vocational Orientation programmes.
At upper secondary level, the curricula and timetables have been created by the Pedagogical Institute.
The Pedagogical Institute was replaced in 2011 by the Institute of Educational Policy, which among
other things, offers consultation and makes suggestions about issues concerning secondary education
study programmes, school books and other teaching needs. The curricula serve as a complete guide for
teaching and include: explicitly stated aims for each subject, in the context of the general and grade-
specific aims of education; a syllabus organised in units; and indicative guidelines on the method and
teaching media, in each subject.
At primary level, special emphasis is placed on the wider inclusion of ICT in the educational process.
To this end, the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs provides software for classroom use.
There are two websites operated by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, displaying ranges
of teaching and educational material. It should be noted that these websites offer interactive
communication and teaching support channels, given that teachers and schools can post relevant
educational material on them. In parallel, primary school facilities are extended with computer
laboratories.
At lower secondary level, a significant effort is invested in laboratory teaching for subjects in the
natural sciences as well as supporting the teaching and the application of information and new
technologies. The upgrading of teaching processes is carried out through equipment programmes
concerned with the creation of portable laboratories and the supply of IWBs. Lower secondary
schools are provided with: a portable laboratory including fifteen laptops along with necessary
software; a storage locker with wheels for the safekeeping and charging of the computers; a Wi-Fi
Access Point along with necessary software, as well as the necessary respective services of delivery,
installation, on-site training and maintenance of the equipment; and interactive systems for all grades
and classes, with each one including an IWB, a laptop connected to the IWB and a digital projector, a
digital projector stand, wiring and electrical material, in addition to the system training of users.
Additionally, there is an educational Web portal2
that gathers and disseminates online educational
supporting material in digital form available to the entire community of educators. The portal offers
specific teaching materials to interested parties, overall certified educational software that has been
2
www.e-yliko.gr

produced over the last ten years by the Ministry of Education, together with supporting material for all
lessons and levels of secondary education (lower and upper).
At upper secondary level, each school unit is equipped with a laboratory for information technology
and computer applications, the basic mission of which is to teach computer science and computer
applications as defined by the study programmes and according to wider educational goals. The
information technology laboratory offers complementary activities to the educational process, offering
contemporary and interactive ways of learning and training through the teaching of subject topics with
the use of certified educational software and the Internet, the support of project-based learning in the
framework of the school’s activities or European cooperation actions, and the broadening of purely
taught activities (enhanced teaching, additional teaching support, etc.). The school laboratory for
information technology and computer applications is equipped with: computer equipment (hardware
and software); peripheral devices; networking equipment (hubs, switches, modems, routers);
projectors etc.; passive equipment (network and electrical installations); software in the form of CDs,
DVDs, discs, software manuals, software licenses, as well as other complementary material (guides
and manuals); books and publications, as well as document files relevant to laboratories for physical
sciences and information technology lessons; and instructional material (stationery, projection screen
material) and furniture (bookshelves, lockers, and a whiteboard). Additionally, the educational Web
portal gathers in one place educational support material in digital form that is available to the entire
community of educators.
However, there is no specific reference to handheld mobile devices and their use in the classroom. But
there are on-going reforms and policy developments regarding ICT. It is recognised that there is a
need for a new strategy regarding primary and secondary education, where the digital dimension will
be integrated to modernise current educational processes and administration of education, and that this
has become an urgent issue. The following actions are said to be already being implemented or
scheduled: the creation and use of an educational platform and digital content; interactive media and
classroom equipment; high-speed connections to the Internet for all schools; support of digital actions
and infrastructure; and training in the use of digital media.
At primary level, teachers must implement the curricula, taking into consideration any special
conditions prevailing in their classes, in order to achieve the stated educational objectives. Primary
Education School Advisors strongly encourage the implementation of new, more effective teaching
methods. They advocate the implementation of innovations introduced in education, undertake
initiatives regarding teacher training and encourage the use of modern education technology tools. At
lower secondary level, all methods of modern pedagogy are applied, depending on the subject to be
taught and the various teaching aids used.
At upper secondary level, the application of modern teaching methods depends on the subject, and the
use of traditional as well as modern teaching materials constitute a major aim for educational
practice. In the framework of the principles that serve the ‘New School’, starting from the school year
2012-2013, the second grade (B) of the ‘General Upper Secondary School’ and the second grade (B)
of the ‘Evening General Upper Secondary School’ are introduced to research projects as a distinct
section of the study programme. All research projects involve the use of technology and the Internet,
and they are uploaded onto the Web after their completion, so that the education community may have
access to them. At vocational upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary level, there is use of a
school laboratory for information technology and computer applications as well as access to the
educational Web portal.
Teacher training
Greece does not have an official national curriculum or guidelines regarding the use of handheld
technologies for teaching and learning. It has an official curriculum regarding the teaching of ICT to

pupils in elementary (primary) schools3
. However, this curriculum does not include the use of
handheld technologies and it is concentrated almost exclusively on PCs. There are official guidelines
for teachers who will teach this course, entitled “Use of ICT”4
, but again handheld technologies are
not mentioned. There is an official platform called “Digital School”5
which proposes methods to use
and offers material using ICT in the classroom, and another official platform which offers suggestions
and material for teaching various subjects with the use of the ICT6
; however, no mention is made of
handheld technologies.
Teachers are able to attend frequent conferences where best practices are presented (in the general
field of ICT in education). Each year there is a Pan-Hellenic conference focusing on the issue of the
introduction and uses of ICT in education, attended by a large number of delegates. The last
conference was organised in May 20137
. There are other conferences organised on the topic of the
uses of ICT in education. Additionally there are some specific portals that promote the use of ICT in
education such as the website of the Greek Association for the Use of ICT in Education8
and the
website of TPE-Education9
, and there are some exhibitions (such as the e-learning exhibition10
). All
these initiatives are not exclusively dedicated to the issue of the use of handheld technologies but are
concerned more with the broader context of the uses of ICT in education. Few best practices
concerning the use of handheld technologies are presented, with most of the entries related to uses of
the computer.
Research into uses of ICT in education has been undertaken by the University of Piraeus (through the
Department of Technology Education and Digital Systems). There has been a postgraduate thesis11
on
the subject of uses of handheld technologies in education in general but not specifically in secondary
education, written by Marinos Charchalos. Research has also been undertaken by the Ionian
University (ICT Department). The Ministry of Education has established a specific organisation for
research into the use of ICT in education, called ITIE Diofantos12
. Other research includes that
described in specific presentations13
. Researchers on the subject have published on the website of the
Greek Scientific Union14
. However, most of the research concerned with the potential of the uses of
handheld technologies in education is not about their actual use as the actual use of these technologies
in Greek schools has been minimal.
No research has been undertaken exclusively on the issue of teacher training of handheld technologies.
There has been research in the field of teacher training in the use of ICT, but no specific mention has
been made to handheld technologies.
Initial teacher training programmes in Greece are announced through all university pedagogical
departments as well as on the major Web portals that relate to teachers and educational issues. Teacher
training programmes are not standardised, because they depend on the availability of EU funding. The
use of ICT in education is a very popular issue that frequently makes up a part of initial teacher
training programmes. Handheld technologies are sometimes mentioned in these programmes, but they
3
https://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fdipe.fth.sch.gr%2Fdidaskalia_programma_spoudon_neon_didaktikon_adikeimenon__eaep.doc&e
i=q-KtUvvGHYOEtAbCuoCYAw&usg=AFQjCNFa0kPp06hWmgusD-qwd2GGAY9bCw
4
http://www.oepek.gr/pdfs/tpe_eaep_800sch.pdf
5
http://dschool.edu.gr/
6
http://www.e-yliko.gr
7
http://www.ask4research.info/etpe2013/
8
http://www.e-diktyo.eu/
9
http://www.tpe-education.com
10
http://www.elearningexpo.gr
11
http://digilib.lib.unipi.gr/dspace/bitstream/unipi/1752/1/Charchalos.pdf
12
http://www.cti.gr
13
http://www.slideshare.net/nickaman/mobile-learning-8537061, http://www.slideshare.net/fotaras7/mlearning-
5347198, http://www.ekped.gr/praktika10/posters/031.pdf, and http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~grad0989/thesis.pdf
14
http://www.etpe.eu

are never the main object of learning. The main institution that is responsible for initial teacher
training in Greece is ASPETE15
, which organises classes on the use of ICT in education, where
handheld technologies are mentioned. There is a specific laboratory for pedagogical applications in
ASPETE, and it also organises seminars for initial teacher training on the uses of ICT. Initial teacher
training is additionally provided by all Greek universities with a pedagogical department.
In terms of in-service teacher training, teachers usually get information from inside their schools,
responding to calls for interest sent out by the Ministry of Education for the attention of all teachers.
This information is sent out also by main organisations, supervised by the Ministry of Education,
which are responsible for the in-service training of the teachers, such as the Pedagogical Institute16
or
the Institute of Educational Policy17
. Training initiatives are also announced on important educational
sites18
or on other local media and educational websites. The main in-service teacher training
programme is the “Training of teachers for the valorisation and implementation of ICT in education”.
This is a large-scale training programme organised by the Ministry of Education for teachers, funded
and supported by the framework of the European Social Fund19
. These training events take place
according to a framework from the University Teacher Training Centres. The design of educational
activities with mobile technologies is a small part of the curriculum. In total and to date, some 28,100
teachers of primary and secondary schools have been trained through this programme as well as 760
trainers. Other training seminars and training sessions are organised at a regional level, frequently in
cooperation with universities. There is no specific and standard list available, because the training
depends on the availability of European funds for their organisation.
The main institution that provides training on the use of ICT in education (with a small part dedicated
to mobile technologies) is the Ministry of Education, through the above-mentioned programme, in co-
operation with the universities. In-service seminars are also organised by educational departments of
universities. Other seminars are organised by EU-funded projects (on the general issue of uses of ICT
in education).
There is a Ministerial Decision that prohibits the possession of mobile telephones (or any other device
that allows the capture and editing of sounds or images) by students inside school premises, and this
Decision requires teachers to have their mobile telephone turned off while on school premises. There
was a national debate regarding this Decision, which has been considered as a very important obstacle
to the introduction of handheld technologies in the classroom20
. Also, teachers, on the basis of some
research21
have been found not to have the necessary skills in using (generally) ICT in education, and
they do not have fundamental knowledge of pedagogical theories on how to validate ICT in education.
Additionally, the necessary ICT infrastructure in schools is frequently missing. There is sufficient
guidance from the Ministry of Education on uses of ICT, but not on uses of handheld technologies in
the classroom. The guidance and the subsequent training that is available are almost always limited to
uses of computers.
15
www.aspete.gr
16
http://www.pi-schools.gr/
17
http://www.iep.edu.gr
18
www.alfavita.gr
19
http://b-epipedo2.cti.gr
20
http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.article&id=103003
21
https://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAC&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fwww.etpe.eu%2Fnew%2Fcustom%2Fpdf%2Fetpe280.pdf&ei=lP-
tUuCGAsjVsgbW4YCABg&usg=AFQjCNFegs-YYginY1-oFpUwMNgJKfcYvQ

The teaching of ICT is included in the school curriculum. Wider inclusion of ICT in education is
encouraged. Teaching materials are shared by teachers through websites, including teaching materials
using ICT. The adoption and use of different pedagogies to suit individual and group needs are
encouraged. Research into uses of ICT in education has been undertaken in some schools in Greece.

6. THE NETHERLANDS IN CONTEXT
The education system in the Netherlands is
decentralised. Up to their fourth birthday,
children can attend a day nursery or crèche.
Every child must attend school full-time from
the age of five years; however, nearly all
children start going to school at the age of four
years. Primary education lasts eight years, after
which, around the age of 12 years, pupils opt for
one of three types of secondary education: pre-
vocational secondary education (VMBO, which
takes 4 years); senior general secondary
education (HAVO, 5 years); or pre-university education (VWO, 6 years). Most secondary schools are
combined schools, offering several types of secondary education so that pupils can transfer easily from
one type to another. Young people aged 18 years or over can take adult education courses or higher
distance learning courses.
There are 6,800 primary schools in the Netherlands. This number includes non-denominational
public-authority schools, privately-run, denominational schools, mainstream schools that also cater for
pupils with special educational needs, and special schools for children with learning disabilities or
behavioural problems. Years 1 to 4 (4- to 8-year-olds) are known as the ‘juniors’ and years 5 to 8 (9-
to 12-year-olds) as the ‘seniors’. Alternatively, the school may be divided into junior, middle and
senior sections (years 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 8 respectively).
There are 700 secondary schools in the Netherlands. There are four kinds of secondary education:
practical training; pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO); senior general secondary education
(HAVO); and pre-university education (VWO).
The curriculum
At primary level, the Primary Education Act 1998 and the Expertise Centres Act require schools to
teach various subjects. An indication is given in each subject of what pupils must learn, defined in the
form of attainment targets and benchmarks. Attainment targets indicate what schools must offer pupils
in terms of teaching matter, focusing not only on cognitive and emotional development, but also on
creativity and social, cultural and physical skills. The benchmarks define what pupils must have
acquired by the end of mainstream primary or special education. Schools are free, within the
framework set by the government, to decide how much time is spent on the various subjects and areas
of the curriculum, and when this happens. The only restriction relates to the minimum number of
teaching periods per year, which is laid down by law.
At secondary level, there are no detailed regulations with regard to the curriculum (content, teaching
methods or materials). Some schools organise their teaching according to a particular educational
theory. These include Montessori, Dalton and Jena Plan schools, which may be public-authority or
private. The subject matter covered and the teaching methods used must be described in the school
plan. The leaving examination regulations (syllabuses) provide guidance as to the content of the
various curricula.
At primary level, nearly 90% of primary school teachers use computers as teaching aids. The
popularity of IWBs has grown quickly, and many primary schools in the Netherlands now have at
least one that is used every day. There is an average of one computer for every four to five pupils.
Software makes up about 15% of teaching materials in primary schools. More than half of all teachers
use subject-specific drill-and-practice software or other curriculum-related software. It is found that

educational software: makes learning more fun; enhances the children’s learning environment; and
offers more opportunities for customised teaching and independent learning.
At secondary level, more than half of schools have set down their views on the use of ICT in an ICT
policy plan, which they are also implementing. On average, teachers use computers as teaching aids
for about four hours a week, primarily for word processing or finding information on the Internet. The
number of secondary school teachers using computers rose by 3% between 2009 and 2010. At this
rate, it is estimated it will take another 10 to 15 years before all teachers have adopted ICT teaching
aids. There is an average of one computer for every six pupils, many schools have a digital library and
computer work areas for groups, and many secondary schools have IWBs.
In May 2013, a technology pact (Techniekpact 2020) was concluded, based on a partnership between
businesses, unions and educational institutions. Collaboration is felt to be the key to popular and
practical technical education that will dovetail with labour market requirements. The technology pact
brings together the business community, employers, workers, education (both private and government-
funded), pupils and students, and regional and central government authorities – all of whom have a
part to play. The aim of the technology pact is to make education more relevant to the world of
technology and work through better cooperation between the government, education and the business
community, and thus to reduce the shortage of qualified technical personnel.
Teaching approaches in the Netherlands are concerned with supporting a stated quality-centred
agenda, focusing on language, numeracy and investment in teachers. Promoting innovation in
education is a stated intention. It is felt that innovative learning models and teaching materials can
safeguard the quality of education, so the government supports schools engaged in innovative
activities, notably by making it easier for them to share knowledge and increasing the statutory scope
for innovation. Digitalisation in education is a part of the agenda; key digital data in education
includes up-to-date information about test results and individual learning gaps, information about a
school’s overall performance, and financial statement data. Much of this data is made available to the
public through the Open Education Data portal of the Education Executive Agency (DUO).ICT
agreements and knowledge centres are concerned with the agreements and standards needed for
collaboration in the field of ICT, which are listed in the ROSA reference database available in wiki
form. Schools and other educational institutions can turn to several knowledge centres for ICT advice
and guidance, such as Kennisnet and SURF, Sambo ICT, School Info and SION (but only Dutch
versions are available for access).
There is no national curriculum or guidelines in the Netherlands that indicates uses of handheld
technologies for teaching and learning. Teachers get information about uses of ICT and handheld
devices from the Internet22
and ICT-coordinators share literature about good practice. Key institutions
or groups that have undertaken research in the Netherlands into uses of handheld technologies in
secondary school classrooms include Kennisnet and others with specific websites23
. Kennisnet and
AB-ZHW have undertaken research exploring teacher training involving handheld technologies in
secondary school contexts24
.
In the past 7 years, Kennisnet has conducted a wide range of research in the area of benefits of ICT in
primary and secondary education. These are undertaken through scientific research practice (evidence-
based) regarding resources on teacher development of mobile learning practices. The research results
have been reported to their target groups in Dutch. All reports can be found on their database of
research25
. Two studies on benefits of mobile devices are available in English26
. Kennisnet’s online
22
www.kennisnet.nl
23
www.kennisnet.nl; www.innofun.nl; www.abzhw.nl;www.p21.org; www.atc21.org;
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
24
www.kennisnet.nl and www.abzhw.nl
25
http://www.kennisnet.nl/onderzoek/alle-onderzoeken/

magazine (4W) provides teachers with discussions about general principles concerned with
professional practice and benefits of ICT. The magazine is only available in Dutch27
, although one
edition (October 2013) on “Know what works and why” was published in English as well as in Dutch.
Kennisnet produce an annual ‘Four in Balance Monitor’ where the latest state of affairs and benefits in
the field of ICT and education are reported. These monitors are translated into English28
.
A newly established National Transition Board for Education Research29
(NRO) is part of the Dutch
Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Their website includes details of review studies30
.
Teachers get information about initial teacher training programmes via e-mail sent to schools. There is
no known country list of initial teacher training programmes that involve uses of handheld
technologies in teaching or learning. Key institutions that undertake initial teacher training with uses
of handheld technologies in secondary school classrooms are Kennisnet and AB-ZHW31
. Information
is sent to schools via email about in-service teacher training programmes. There is no known country
list of in-service teacher training programmes that involve uses of handheld technologies in teaching
or learning. There are no known key institutions or individuals that undertake in-service teacher
training with uses of handheld technologies in secondary school classrooms.
The current key obstacles to using handheld technologies in the classroom are considered to be budget,
lack of availability of educational programmes that can be used, and lack of research about
improvements that handhelds bring to learning.
Schools have authority to develop practices according to their identified needs. Many schools have
ICT facilities and these are used by many teachers. Benefits of using ICT for teaching and learning are
recognised, and promoting innovation is a stated intention of education. There are a known number of
centres that support teachers in using ICT. Research into uses of ICT in teaching and learning is
already undertaken in schools. There are recognised mechanisms for sharing teaching materials and
practices.
26
http://www.kennisnet.nl/onderzoek/alle-onderzoeken/mobile-learning-a-case-study-with-fifth-graders/;
Sandberg, Maris and Hoogendoorn, no date
27
http://4w.kennisnet.nl/
28
http://www.kennisnet.nl/onderzoek/alle-onderzoeken/Four-in-balance-monitor-2012/, for the most recent
publication
29
http://www.nro.nl/
30
http://www.nwo.nl/onderzoek-en-
resultaten/programmas/programmaraad+voor+het+onderwijsonderzoek+%28proo%29/verschenen+review+studi
es
31
www.kennisnet.nl and www.abzhw.nl

7. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ENGLAND)IN CONTEXT
Central government has overall
responsibility for the education system in
England, but responsibility for the education
service is decentralised, lying with local
authorities, voluntary providers (including
churches), and the governing bodies of
education institutions. Overall responsibility
for the education service in England lies with
two departments of the UK government: the
Department for Education (DfE) and the
Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (BIS). DfE responsibilities include:
planning and monitoring the education service in schools and early years’ settings; ensuring the
provision of integrated services for children; and bringing together policy relating to children and
young people. BIS is responsible for: science and innovation; skills; further, adult and higher
education; and enterprise.
There are 16,784 state-funded primary schools in England. These provide for pupils in Key Stage 1
(years 1-2) aged 5–7 years, and in Key Stage 2 (years 3-6) aged 7–11 years. There are 3,281 state-
funded secondary schools, providing for pupils in Key Stage 3 (years 7-9) aged 11–14 years, and in
Key Stage 4 (years 10–11) aged 14–16 years.
The curriculum
At primary level, the National Curriculum was first introduced in 1989.The Department for Education
(DfE) has overall responsibility for the school curriculum. At Key Stages 1 and 2 (for pupils aged 5 to
11 years), the statutory subjects that all pupils must study are: English, mathematics and science (the
‘core’ subjects), while art and design, design and technology, geography, history, information and
communication technology (ICT), music, and physical education are the ‘foundation’ subjects. For
each compulsory subject, with the exception of ICT, and for each Key Stage, statutory programmes of
study set out what pupils should be taught, and attainment targets set out the expected standards of
pupils’ performance. It is for schools to choose how they organise their school curriculum to include
the programmes of study. When planning this, schools need to consider four stated general teaching
requirements: use of language; use of ICT; health and safety; and inclusion.
At secondary level, the curriculum which pupils experience is made up of three curriculum elements.
The National Curriculum – comprising statutory ‘core’ and ‘foundation’ subjects, set down by the
Secretary of State in ‘programmes of study’ (what pupils should be taught) and ‘attainment targets’
(expected standards of pupil performance). The National Curriculum is currently under extensive
review and a new National Curriculum will be introduced in September 2014. The Basic Curriculum –
statutory curricular requirements in addition to the National Curriculum at Key Stages 3 and 4 are
religious education and sex education. Except for religious education, schools determine the specific
nature of provision within the ‘basic curriculum’. The Local Curriculum – schools have discretion to
develop curriculum provision in addition to the above, in order to reflect their particular needs and
circumstances. Schools provide programmes of personal, social, health and economic education and
may provide, at Key Stage 4(for pupils aged 14–16 years), vocational-related education. For each
compulsory subject, with the exception of ICT, and for each Key Stage, statutory programmes of study
set out what pupils should be taught, and attainment targets set out the expected standards of pupils’
performance.

The curriculum requirement for ICT is that pupils should be given opportunities to apply and develop
their ICT capability through the use of ICT tools to support their learning in all subjects. At primary
level (Key Stages 1 and 2), it is statutory to teach the use of ICT in English, mathematics and science.
Teachers use their own judgment to decide where it is appropriate to teach ICT across these subjects.
At secondary level (other Key Stages), there are statutory requirements to use ICT in all statutory
subjects, except physical education (PE). On 11 June 2012, following a public consultation, the
Secretary of State confirmed that the programmes of study and associated attainment targets for ICT
would be dis-applied from September 2012. This was in response to criticisms of the inadequacy of
the current ICT curriculum. However, ICT remains a compulsory National Curriculum subject at all 4
Key Stages in 2013 to 2014.
Schools are free to develop their own ICT and computer science curriculum. This is an interim
arrangement until September 2014, when the new National Curriculum will be introduced. From
September 2014, ICT will be replaced by computing, with new statutory programmes of study. All
primary and secondary schools have a range of ICT tools available for use by teachers and pupils.
These may include computers, digital cameras and handheld devices. Interactive teaching with IWBs
is widespread, as is access to virtual learning environments and other digital resources. Until it closed
in 2011, Becta was the Government’s lead agency for ICT in education. Some of its former functions
have now been transferred to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills.
At primary level, the teacher is responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient opportunities for
differentiated work for pupils of all abilities. Differentiation is defined as providing learning with
experiences that are matched to the needs, capabilities and previous learning of individual pupils. In
primary education, teaching normally takes place in mixed-ability groups or classes established to
cover single year groups, where possible. Primary schools may group pupils by ability in a particular
subject – most commonly in English and/or mathematics. Teaching does not necessarily have to be
organised and delivered within subject boundaries; schools may, if they so wish, combine one subject
with another and/or teach some aspects in an integrated way, using project work, for example, as a
way to teach across the curriculum.
At secondary level, teaching methods and learning materials are decided by the teacher, perhaps in
consultation with the head teacher and the head of department. Each teacher is responsible for
planning lessons and drawing up schemes of work to ensure that the curriculum meets statutory
requirements. Rather than funding centralised programmes, the government devolves funding to
schools to allow them to focus on their own priorities for improvement.
Teacher training
Currently there are no government guidelines regarding the use of handheld technology. There are
forums and websites where practitioners share practice32
, but there are no set best practices. While
there have been a range of smaller research studies undertaken, and some independent projects33
, there
has been no comprehensive government research into uses of handheld technologies in secondary
school classrooms. There are no known key institutions or groups that have undertaken research
exploring teacher training involving handheld technologies in secondary school contexts.
In terms of initial teacher training, teachers get information mainly through online sources34
. There is
no known country list of initial teacher training programmes that involves uses of handheld
technologies in teaching or learning. Most institutions or groups that undertake initial teacher training
use some handheld technologies, but on a small scale - there are some training programmes using
32
www.handheldlearning.co.uk
33
www2.futurelab.org.uk
34
www.ucas.com or via the Department of Education or other related websites

iPads for particular activities, for example, but this is not widespread. It is not clear where this
information would be held centrally.
In terms of information about in-service teacher training programmes, there is no known country list
of in-service teacher training programmes that involve uses of handheld technologies in teaching or
learning. Any in-service training is generally shared in a school through the school’s continuing
professional development ( CPD) coordinator, which might arise from a specific subject national body
(such as the Economics, Business Studies and Enterprise Association - EBEA, the National
Association for Advisors in Computer Education -NAACE, etc.) or from sharing of practice across
teachers. It is the responsibility of individual schools to identify their CPD requirements. Sometimes
the practises shared across local networks may be the most informative in terms of in-service training
in the use of handheld technology. Key institutions or groups that undertake in-service teacher training
with uses of handheld technologies in secondary school classrooms include Titan Partnership Initial
Teacher Training courses, Regional Training Centre Training courses, and activities run by selected
staff using handhelds in schools.
The current key obstacles to using handheld technologies in the classroom are felt to be infrastructure
(lack of WiFi connectivity), and cost.
Schools are able to choose to undertake practices to support teaching and learning according to their
recognised needs. The curriculum integrates ICT and computing across subject areas, and ICT is stated
as a general teaching requirement that should be considered when planning activities generally.
Research about uses of ICT in teaching and learning has already been undertaken in many schools.

8. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE MLEARN TRAINING
Training focus
Mishra and Koehler (2006), from a review of teacher training needs related to digital technologies,
indicate that training should provide, in as fully a contextualised and integrated way as possible, a
focus on three interconnected elements: technological knowledge (what the device can do and how to
use it); content knowledge (what subject and topic can be addressed using the device and
applications); and pedagogical knowledge (how this is done through teaching and learning activities).
Teaching practices
In terms of teaching practices, four points to consider are:
• Mobile devices are “finding their way into classrooms in children’s pockets” (Naismith et al.,
2004, p. 36); educational practice needs to integrate these technologies in productive ways. From
published papers reviewed, it can be concluded that teachers in general, and head teachers and
senior managers in particular, have found handheld devices to be extremely efficient.
• When using handheld devices, the learning environment tends to be expanded beyond the
classroom, due to the features of portability of mobile technologies.
• Some innovative researchers and educators have experimented with different ways of using
mobile devices to support learning across Europe, as shown in Table 1 (see pp. 6-8). It is
interesting to note that these initiatives identified very few limitations in terms of best practices
achieved, so it may be worth reflecting whether mobile learning research is still facing a concern
with a “boom momentum” of novelties rather than a focus on the practical challenges of the
appliances.
• Mobile technologies can be utilised to create a new learning process, focusing on the notion of
interwoven learning interactions. The key issue here is that the social cognitive notion is not
concerned with the technology alone in giving rise to interwoven interactions. The suggestion in
that there should be a good match between the mobile technologies adopted, social behaviours
enacted, roles assigned to each student, tasks pursued, and the rules or theories of subject content.
Therefore one can conclude that mobile technologies add a new dimension to learning activities,
because of both the personal and portable nature of the devices themselves as well as the kinds of
learning interactions they can support (Ting, 2013).
Teaching methods
In terms of teaching methods, three points to consider, particularly regarding challenges that teachers,
educators and other actors face due to rapid growth and developments, are:
• Effective implementation of mobile learning initiatives has to be aligned with new challenges.
• It is known that current trends in mobile learning are towards handheld devices that are even more
embedded and networked than those available today. The capabilities of the current handheld
devices will transform everyday activities by providing the ability to capture details about the
time, location and people around us. Such handheld devices can have a great impact on learning
and subsequently on teaching methods applied. In this respect, teachers, apart from consulting
Internet-based resources on the move, will be able to manage the administration of their own
teaching workload through consultations with their diaries alongside those of their institutional-
based environments. In addition, there is a role for considering new assessment practices with
these new teaching methods. Handheld PCs could broaden the range of assessment tasks and could
be better aligned with inquiry-oriented instruction. These devices create new ways for students to
express themselves and expand the range of assessment methods, as well as opportunities for
distributed collaboration and mobile team working being significantly enhanced (Naismith et al.,
2004).
• The mobile learning literature offers a framework to evaluate handheld devices’ characteristics. A
pivotal study (Economides and Nikolaou, 2008) allows teachers, educators, policymakers,
researchers and others to plan future mobile learning interventions by taking advantage of the best
practices/lessons learnt in terms of handheld devices in order to support or enhance learning.

Pedagogy
In terms of pedagogy, three points to consider are:
• A learner’s social interaction could be pedagogically utilised to support each student’s individual
social aspect of learning. This aspect of pedagogical design sheds new light on how to create new
possibilities for learners to explore collaboratively a subject domain, as well as to develop new
theories in order to facilitate our understanding of how learning takes place under these
circumstances. With regards to learning aspects, the current literature suggests that handheld
devices have the potential to promote the students’ motivation to learn and enhance their peer
collaborations (Wu and Zhang, 2010).
• Current research states that inexpensive and portable handheld devices require less difficult
pedagogical adjustments and could facilitate formative assessment solutions (Wu and Zhang,
2010).
• Mobile technology has the potential to change the very nature and processes of pedagogy. While
mobile technology can effectively support a wide range of activities for learners, it provides for
each one to have a personal interaction with the technology in an authentic and appropriate context
of use (Naismith et al., 2004).
Learning activities
In terms of learning activities, points to consider are (Passey, 2013, pp. 1-2):
• Features and affordances of mobile devices (and particularly iPads) are described in ways
indicating they are “strongly focused on aspects of communication”.
• There are a wide range of applications (Apps) that can be used on mobile devices (including the
iPad), “but levels of use and forms of use to support learning are likely to depend both on the
range of Apps available to support specific subject and topic needs, and teacher knowledge of how
to use these, operationally and pedagogically”.
• Training needs “to identify many Apps that can meet specific subject and topic needs”.
• Teachers have “applied features and Apps to support a range of pedagogies, including those
involving and using elements of communication and discussion. Mobile devices have been
integrated into activities to support and develop co-operative working, independent learning,
motor skills, and engagement”.
• Teachers have indicated how “mobile devices have supported curriculum needs through
appropriate applications in activities involving research, capturing and using imagery and video
clips, presentations to teachers and peers, discussions of captured and presented work with
teachers and peers, recording and sharing ideas with peers, providing anonymous feedback, pupils
creating their own notes and books in multimodal formats, discussion of strengths and weaknesses
in presented work shared by pupils, creating videos for presentation to wider audiences,
presentation of perfect models or techniques, organising notes and work, and pupils recording
video clips of lessons for later playback”.
• It should be recognised that “some individuals have benefited greatly from uses of mobile devices,
while others have not benefited to the same extents”.
• The “features and Apps on mobile devices that focus on elements and aspects of communication
offer particular support for pupils through enhanced communication. Pupils with special needs, in
communication and motor areas, as well as pupils in hospital schools and remote locations, have
been supported effectively by appropriate uses of mobile devices”.
• Reports indicate that “some specific learners in hospital schools have been supported effectively
with uses of iPads. Aspects of communication, uses of multi-modalities, and ease of access and
handling are highlighted particularly in this respect”.
Learning outcomes and impacts
Research shows that selected activities can benefit from the affordances of mobile technologies and
can support higher cognitive and metacognitive levels of learning (Passey, 2010, p. 69):
• “Review and reflect”, where “pupils capture audio, imagery and video during lessons, used in
plenary sessions to reflect on what has been covered, the key elements learned, how these fit into
wider pictures, and how ideas might be taken further outside the classroom”.

• “Think forward”, where “pupils access future topics via the Internet and capture relevant thoughts
or ideas to contribute to these in class or through on-line discussions”.
• “Listen to my explanations”, where “pupils record audio to complete homework assignments and
these verbal explanations are marked by teachers”.
• “Snap and show”, where “pupils capture imagery that is downloaded, for wider pupil discussion,
made accessible to parents so that they can see and discuss events that have happened in school”.
• “This is what I’ve done and how I’ve done it”, where “pupils create presentations of how they
have used mobile technologies to tackle particular activities, these are recorded and made
accessible on appropriate web-sites for teachers and parents to see”.
• “Tell me how I could improve this”, where “pupils share their work in multimedia formats with
peers, mentors, teachers or trusted adults in order to seek evaluative feedback, assessments of their
work, and ideas for improvement on which they can act”.
• It can be argued that “it is these forms of activity that need to be developed and exploited more, if
mobile technologies are to feature strongly, in providing support for learning in ways that other
technologies cannot provide (since mobile technologies allow ideas or examples to be captured at
a point in time when and in a place where these are generated or observed, they allow
conversation and discussion at times when and in places where points of interest arise, and they
allow sharing of captured or saved work items in places in context”.
Reading and writing
For reading and writing the size of screen needs to be considered carefully. Pilkington (2013)
highlights the following with regard to reading and writing with specific mobile devices (iPads):
• In one class in one school, “the only child who did not show target progression during the year
was absent from school for several weeks. The other children all improved in line with their target
and teachers felt that this was a good result at a time where children are at risk of slipping behind”
(p.8).
• The pilot observation showed “some children are more fluent and produce better structured
writing with fewer sentences that are joined more effectively in their iBooks when compared with
their pre-iPad handwritten text. Other children (and sometimes the same children) also lapse in
punctuation or spelling in their iBooks” (p.8).
• Observing the children’s iBook stories and reports, “children were including sound recordings of
their own voice as well as text and pictures to form multi-modal texts. Children were therefore
developing multi-modal literacy skills using the iPad; multi-modal literacy is the blending of
sound, pictures and text in an integrated way to communicate meaning which is an essential
workplace skill for the next generation” (p.8).
• The pilot showed that “children use their iPads at home to research topics for themselves and their
work also evidences development of multi-modal literacy skills; mastering a sense of audience and
writing creatively. Moreover, based on initial observation and feedback from parents, children are
being exposed to a wide range of applications with wider potential for learning than literacy alone
e.g. to develop digital artwork or to compete in online mathematical problem-solving games”
(p.8).
• Perhaps importantly, “parents report that children are learning independently the skills of how to
learn and taking a mature responsibility for their own learning. The future impact of this is as yet
unknown” (p.9).

References
Avvisati, F., Hennessy, S., Kozma, R.B. and Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). OECD Review of the Italian
Strategy for Digital Schools. Accessible at: http://www.key4biz.it/files/000218/00021896.pdf
Department for Education (2013). Primary National Curriculum until 2014. Accessible at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary
Department for Education (2013). Statistical First Release 21: Schools, Pupils, and their
Characteristics. Accessible at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207670/Main_t
ext-_SFR21_2013.pdf
Dykes, G. and Knight, R.H. (2012). Mobile learning for teachers in Europe. Exploring the potential of
mobile technologies to support teachers and improve practice (teacher focus) (p. 38). Paris,
France: UNESCO. Accessible at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002161/216167E.pdf
EACEA (2014). Eurydice. Accessible at:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/eurypedia_en.php
Economides, A.A. and Nikolaou, N. (2008). Evaluation of handheld devices for mobile learning.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 24 (1), 3-13.
Koshman, S. (2011). iSchool agenda: mobile context research and teaching. In Proceedings of the
iConference 11, ACM Press, pp. 211–216. Accessible at:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1940761.1940790
Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and
Trainers. London: Routledge.
Ministeriodell’Istruzione, dell’Università e dellaRicerca (no date). Ufficio di Statistica. Accessible at:
http://statistica.miur.it/normal.aspx?link=pubblicazioni
Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports (no date). The Hellenic Ministry of
Education Official Educational Portal. Accessible at: http://www.e-yliko.gr/default_en.aspx
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2012). Key Figures 2007-2011: Education, Culture and
Science in Netherlands. Accessible at: http://www.government.nl/files/documents-and-
publications/reports/2012/07/24/key-figures-2007-2011/key-figures-internet-2012.pdf
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework
for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.
Naismith, L., Sharples, M., Vavoula, G. and Londsale, P. (2004). Literature Review on Mobile
Technologies and Learning (Report No. 11). Bristol: Futurelab. Accessible at:
http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/01/43/PDF/Naismith_2004.pdf
Passey, D. (2010). Mobile learning in school contexts: Can teachers alone make it happen? IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies: Special issue on mobile and ubiquitous technologies
for learning, 3(1), 68-81.
Passey, D. (2013). Titan Partnership – iPads Study: Final Report. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Pilkington, R.M. (2013). The write pad? Perceptions of the impact of the iPad on writing skills.
Birmingham: BeLF.
Sandberg, J., Maris, M. and Hoogendoorn, P. (no date). The added value of a gaming context and
intelligent adaptation to a mobile learning application. The Netherlands: Kennisnet.
Shohel, M.M. and Power, T. (2010). Introducing mobile technology for enhancing teaching and
learning in Bangladesh: teacher perspectives. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and
Distance Learning, 25 (3), 201–215.
Techniekpact 2020 (no date). Accessible at: http://www.techniekpact.nl/download/?id=1051
Ting, Y.-L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive
design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60 (1), 1–13.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The moving finger writes
and having writ . . . . The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8
(2). Accessible at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875
Wu, J. and Zhang, Y. (2010). Examining potentialities of handheld technology in students’ academic
attainments. Educational Media International, 47 (1), 57–67.

19th
September 2014
Any correspondence about this report should be addressed to the first author:
Don Passey
Professor of Technology Enhanced Learning
Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning
Department of Educational Research
Lancaster University
Lancaster, LA1 4YL
Tel: 01524 592314
Email: d.passey@lancaster.ac.uk

Passey & Zozimo MLEARN Research Report 1 WP4-final

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Passey & Zozimo MLEARN Research Report 1 WP4-final (20)

Passey & Zozimo MLEARN Research Report 1 WP4-final