Mobile Learning

A “Niche” for Adaptability

Evolution is at the heart of niche theory. Niche is predominately concerned with how a medium adapts when competing for scarce resources or audience (Dimmick, Chen, & Li, 2004; Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2000; Ramirez, Dimmick, Feaster, & Lin, 2008). Scarce resources for the media also include time and space. A newspaper only has so many pages, and a television program only so many minutes. These scarce resources mean that media compete for everything from audience attention to advertising dollars. Niche theory can also apply to journalism education, as schools face competition for scarce resources including student enrollment and internships.

Although the niche theory has been used more recently to examine the influence of the rapid growth of the Internet (Ha & Fang, 2012), research considering the audience’s time as a scarce resource began with the rise of television in the 1940s (Cai, 2005). As Cai (2005) pointed out, there seems to be little debate that television dramatically affected the use of radio. How the Internet affects traditional media—whether it complements or displaces it—is up for debate (Ha & Fang, 2012). Cai found that when people gave up using a computer, they did not increase the attention they gave to other media. In contrast, Ha and Fang (2012) found the more experience a person had with the Internet, the more they perceived it “as superior to traditional media” (p. 177). They argued that the Internet was clearly a form of competitive displacement and that television had the highest niche breadth and overlap with the Internet, which means it could keep its stronghold as a relative medium (Ha & Fang, 2012). As newspapers and television stations change the way they disseminate news, journalism education also shifts and changes with the industry, demonstrating how the evolution of media ecology means a greater reliance on teaching online media in journalism schools.

An Ever-Evolving View of Reality

Media ecology explains the evolutionary nature of media through advances in technology. McLuhan (1964) examined communication as evolving through a series of stages, beginning with the tribal era of face-to-face contact, through the early 1960s, which he called the electronic era. It was the epoch’s change because what people considered being communication and how they communicated continued to evolve. The public is drawn to new media, and the media change the way news is received.

Environment and interaction are two common concepts associated with media ecology. Scolari (2012) argued that the concepts evolution, interface, and hybridization are equally relevant to theorizing media ecology. He argued that evolution and hybridization apply because “the history of media is full of technological fossils, from papyrus to the telegraph” (p. 212). Vestiges of these extinct media, however, still exist in modern technology. For example, the typewriter has fallen out of use but the QWERTY keyboard remains. D’Arcy, Eastburn, and Bruce (2009) used media ecology to determine what types of media should be used to facilitate the best learning environment for college classrooms. Their study found “a rich ecology of media appears to work best” and enabled instructors to reach more students. Media ecology demands revisiting how college students learn about media platforms, including mobile devices, because each generation adopts new ways of communication.

M-Learning: A Slow Progression?

Mobile devices are one way to promote academic engagement in the classroom (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005). Mobile learning (m-learning) is often defined in terms of both hardware and technology that features learning exclusively through the extension of handheld devices independent of the physical geography of both student and teacher (Traxler, 2007). Traxler (2007), considered among the earliest m-learning scholars, identified specific hardware involved with such pedagogy as devices from wireless laptops and tablets to smartphones.

M-learning is also understood as distance learning, because participants are not limited by pedagogical activities or confined to the traditional classroom (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005). Furthermore, m-learning typically takes on a variety of approaches tailored specifically for students, subjects, and educators. Traxler (2010) noted that m-learning was gaining support from institutions on a project-by-project basis, much in the same manner that e-learning or distance learning evolved from concept to classroom implementation. Royle, Stager, and Traxler (2014) more recently argued that unlike distance learning, m-learning by its very nature is different. In a short amount of time it has become popular, to the point of becoming universal in scope because it is “pervasive and ubiquitous” as well as “robust, reliable, and cheap” (p. 31).

The challenges of integrating new technologies into the classroom are not exclusive to university education departments. Journalism and mass communication instructors face similar challenges when integrating new technologies and pedagogical approaches into traditional classrooms. These impediments to the evolution of pedagogical coursework, including the adaptation of mobile devices into curriculum, are driven by proven demands for particular skills in the workplace and institutional resources, such as equipment and trained faculty.

A survey of 463 journalism programs, conducted by Lowery, Daniels, and Becker (2005), found that many program administrators are motivated to change curricula only after they see the news industry seeking new hires with particular skills. They concluded that perceptions of the news industry have a direct impact on the decisions administrators make regarding curriculum. Furthermore, Lindbeck and Fodrey (2011) argued that one of the biggest obstacles to embracing new technologies in journalism pedagogy include instructors struggling to find ways to incorporate ingenuity into traditional educational approaches.

Despite empirical evidence that demonstrated how mobile devices inside the classroom help engage learners and promote collaboration between student and instructor, Lindbeck and Fodrey (2011) found many journalism professors eschew this approach to learning. This resistance to embracing new technologies is not a new phenomenon. Their review of studies examining journalism instructional practices found that mass communication programs have seen few pedagogical reforms since Joseph Pulitzer painted a picture of journalism education when he funded the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1904.

Slow adaptation to change is argued to be a result of institutional culture (Mensing, 2010). Mensing (2010) concluded that failure to consider how technology was making information sharing more interactive left many institutions waxing nostalgic for traditional forms of instruction, where journalists discovered new information, crafted stories, and communicated to the masses. Instead, she urged an instructional model that merged theory with practice as the best way to prepare future journalists. Such an approach has been reinforced over the last decade by academics who continue to advocate a process that prepares future journalists to adapt to a multitude of information platforms and think critically (Cushion, 2007; Macdonald, 2006; Stepp, 2000).

Part of this struggle to adapt new technologies into the classroom is rooted in philosophical disagreements over professorial desires for students to be grounded in mass communication theory versus future employers seeking new hires equipped to think critically and demonstrate command of journalism basics (Castañeda, Murphy, & Hether, 2005). Castañeda and colleagues (2005) found wide disagreement among educators in terms of how much technology should be adopted into coursework. At the same time, their study determined that students and faculty were in agreement that there was value in learning skills that translated across multiple platforms.

Specific to social media and mobile delivery, Wenger and Owens (2012) opined that “there is no doubt that instruction” in those two areas “will need to increase” as well as more academic research into best practices for social media and mobile devices (p. 20). They concluded that “(e)ducators would do well to get ahead of the industry needs by preparing students who are ready to step into leadership roles in the area of social media and mobile delivery” (p. 23). Bruhn and Henry (2013) went so far as to argue that curriculum “can be enhanced when faculty help students embrace challenges and create a culture of adventure when tackling the unknown” (p. 6). Other researchers, meanwhile, have stressed the role educators should play in empowering students to try new technologies (Clark, 2013).

With the above theoretical claims and prospects in mind, the following research questions are proposed:

Data Collection Through In-Depth Interviews

The in-depth interview instrument was composed of semi-structured open-ended questions that were designed to draw out wide-ranging responses from the participants and enabled the researchers to elicit additional data through the use of follow-up questions. Use of the structured questions elicited responses and reactions regarding the impacts of mobile innovations, the types of mobile devices used either for learning or by media professionals, and identified devices and software packages utilized by all subjects in the burgeoning environment that is digital wireless media and mobile communication.

For a meaningful theoretical assessment, a conversational discourse analysis of the in-depth interviews was used to provide a systematic account of the respondents’ perceptions and attitudes on the subject matter. Conversational discourse is a research design used to tap into the logic of open-ended unrestrained straight talk of one’s egalitarian perspectives (Khosravinik, 2010) and to foreground reasoned spontaneous interactions that emerge as participants react to the changing environment (Van Dijk, 1993; Walck & Kalyango, 2014). The analysis provides a better understanding of how new technology is influencing journalism and journalism education.

Mobile Devices and the Classroom

Journalism undergraduate- and graduate-level students noted the inclusion of multi-media components, including recording video, audio clips; “tweeting” information; and posting to Facebook in once-traditional courses. In many instances, writing for social media was as common as learning the classic inverted pyramid. One undergraduate from Auburn University remarked that she was required to live tweet events and classes. Another undergraduate, from Indiana State University, said a photojournalism instructor made taking and turning in an assignment on a smartphone optional versus more traditional submissions via email. Much like Traxler (2007) first observed, this addition of mobile devices in the classroom has dynamically changed the way students and instructors talk and think about learning.

A graduate student noted how this pedagogical change has influenced her approach to writing. “It really got me thinking in a more interactive way” (female graduate student, University of Maryland). An undergraduate student at the University of Missouri noted that the instructional approach his professors have taken in classes have gone beyond simply writing for Twitter. “We are encouraged to check out Twitter feeds to look for news stories and keep up with what’s happening around campus” (male, junior undergraduate, University of Missouri). Another graduate student from Auburn University emphasized the importance of smartphones. She said, “In undergrad I didn’t have a smartphone yet, and I didn’t get an internship because of this. They wanted someone who could be connected at all times.”

From the educators’ perspective, there is strong interest not only in incorporating mobile technology into the classroom but also in understanding its effects on society. For one professor at the University of Kansas, the question has turned into a quest to understand how users connect with social networking sites. A professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said, “I tell my students . . . the importance of my device is it keeps me connected to the things that are important to me on a personal level.”

Another journalism professor, at the University of Florida, revealed how academe demonstrates media ecology through educational programming, when he noted that across his school’s program, technologies are increasingly incorporated into what was once considered “traditional” journalism classes (see Figure 2). An instructor at the University of South Carolina said he relies on social media to improve his communication with his students both inside and outside the classroom. “Technology, specifically social media, provides me direct and constant communication with my students. Students will text, tweet, and Facebook me throughout the day with not only administrative tasks, but applicable concepts for discussions on class material” (male instructor, University of South Carolina).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Professor interaction with mobile technology.

This quest to understand the evolution of social media, especially on mobile platforms, is not mutually exclusive to academe. Professional journalism organizations, such as the Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ), noted that they have membership in newsrooms that are unfamiliar with platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Some of those SPJ members actively seek educational opportunities to explore ways they can incorporate social media into their news coverage.

Everything we do in the training field has a new “technology” component. . . . We do local training “boot camps” and also travel directly to newsrooms to train on topics such as multi-platform reporting and using social media effectively. (Male journalism trainer, SPJ)

Likewise, the evolutionary media ecology of using new platforms for parlaying information is not lost on working journalists. As one journalist observed, “New technology is not imperative for communication in general, but it is certainly paramount for those who wish to remain connected to what’s happening in real time” (male radio journalist, Morgantown, West Virginia). Meanwhile, one of the top executives at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting said incorporating new technology in the field was “understood as a central means to our mission goal of engaging the broadest possible public in the global issues that affect us all.”

In many ways, these observations regarding how technology has become a way of life hints toward the future—both for students and practitioners. A female professor at Trinity University said she relies on technology to prepare presentations and runs “an almost completely paperless classroom.” Among professional journalists, there were refrains on this discourse about how devices such as iPhones or iPads have become digital lifelines to the office. A female daily newspaper reporter in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted, “If I’m out on assignment, having an iPhone or iPad allows (me) to be out of the office . . . and still be able to track communications, like e-mail.”

A radio journalist further noted that there is a growing emphasis on digital reporting in his newsroom that he does not expect to go away. “Our website stories are nearly as important as what we read on the air” (male radio journalist, Morgantown, West Virginia). For another journalist, mobile devices represent freedom in reporting breaking news. “I think it’s more about having the capability of being able to do stuff on the fly . . . I can pull my iPhone out of pocket and send photos directly to photo desk in a few seconds” (male print reporter, The Associated Press).

For many educators, preparing students to use these technological devices remains an important goal. For one journalism professor, instruction means understanding how digitally literate students are and bridging the technology gap between those who have and have not been exposed to technology. “Some (instructors) are surprised that an 18-year-old is baffled by how to use an Apple at all” (female professor, Indiana State University). Journalism educators noted that media ecology in the professional newsroom is less of a focus compared with teaching students how to critically observe how audiences are using these news tools and adapting them as mass communication tools. For example, a journalism professor at Ohio University observed that what is developed and how people use it are often two different things. “You can’t fall into the trap that technology is going to take care of things . . . Technology (doesn’t) dictate the use, the users dictate the use” (male professor, Ohio University).

Mobile Devices in the Field: Paradigm Shift or Trend?

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing journalism educators and media practitioners alike is understanding which technologies to invest time, training, and resources in—and which to ignore. Answers to these questions get to the heart of media ecology for both academe and the newsroom. Sometimes, decisions are driven by the bottom line: If universities cannot afford to purchase the latest tablet for students, then professors rely on students who have the devices. Likewise, decisions to test new devices are based on partnerships. For example, at the University of Missouri, a journalism professor noted that an agreement with Samsung meant journalism students had an entire semester to play with the newest Galaxy. “We are doing tests this year and we are asking, ‘Is this a paradigm shift? Are we looking at something that will replace the equipment we use now?’” (male professor, University of Missouri).

These choices are also driven by resistance to break away from comfortable routines. “One of the really big problems we’ve had is that newsrooms, although dubbed as being so ‘liberal,’ have been very hesitant to change,” opined a journalism professor from the University of Florida. Meanwhile, a male instructor at the University of South Carolina noted some colleagues opt to “ignore new technology.”

For press organizations trying to bridge the gap between education and working journalists, sometimes, the decisions driven by media ecology to adapt one technology and abandon another comes down to practicality: time. For example, at The Stanley Foundation, time was a major determinant when they opted to ignore invites by journalists to join Google+ versus establishing a presence on Facebook and Twitter. The Stanley Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that teams up with practitioners such as Reuters to host educational summits and promote issues regarding national security. “Two to three years from now, there will be another ‘new’ thing to follow. It is hard to make the decision of what you are going to dedicate your time to” (male media specialist, The Stanley Foundation).