The worldwide connectivity of telecommunications networks and the Internet, as well as the widespread uptake of portable electronic devices has opened up a whole new world of possibility for the field of learning and development.

Whether we like it or not, mobile technology will continue to make inroads into every aspect of our daily lives. Mobile phones, more so than any other type of portable device, are now ingrained into contemporary society. In Australia, according to the research company IDC, cellular penetration surpassed ‘natural saturation’ in 2004; in other words, every Australian who could be using a mobile phone is already using one. The country will reach 100 per cent penetration by the end of 2008.

M-learning has experienced explosive growth in Europe and Asia, largely due to the availability of broadband multimedia connectivity, with countries like the UK, Norway, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea leading major development efforts in this area. The US is quickly following suit, with higher education providers in particular attempting to take advantage of existing technology through applications like ‘iPod learning’, while actively exploring new possibilities in anticipation of Wi-MAX (wireless broadband).

However, while mobile technology does open up a world of exciting new possibilities for ‘anytime, anyplace’ learning, one may justifiably question the feasibility of learning on the move from a pedagogical perspective. For example, the curtness characteristic of ‘text speak’ (‘CU L8R’) threatens to discourage deep thinking and critical reflection. Relying on these modes as sole delivery mechanisms also causes us to run the risk of stifling the development of critical interpersonal communications and oral presentation skills.

Added to this, it is also debatable whether we have already achieved the technology required to facilitate true m-learning. Some people argue that the miniature screens on mobile phones and PDAs severely restrict the types of learner-computer interactions that are possible. Indeed, the full potential of learning ‘on the move’ may only be realised when user interfaces have developed to a stage where learning activities are able to integrate into our daily lives in a truly unobtrusive fashion. Learning should be able to coincide with other manual tasks, such as walking the dog, washing the car and doing the dishes. At this stage it is difficult to imagine how it will be feasible for us to walk down the street with PC displays mounted inside our spectacles, without causing a hazard to ourselves or those around us!

We may also need further advancements in an area known as pervasive computing. Pervasive computing refers to the development of context-aware devices that are sensitive to their environment, able to cooperate with one another and smart enough to know when to supply content or otherwise intervene to facilitate learning.

As is always the case with technology, it is simply a matter of time before the technical shortcomings of m-learning are overcome. Far more important is the need for practitioners to make the necessary paradigm shift in the way we think about learning. The advent of m-learning will blur the distinctions between learning, work and play, going far beyond the notion of simply moving training out of the face-to-face classroom and into the workplace. As m-learning develops further, the emphasis will be on providing short, five to ten minute, informal learning events that can be completed by the learner at various interspersed moments during the day, rather than having large blocks of time dedicated to deliberate learning efforts. The ‘learning object’ philosophy – now widely adopted and integrated into most popular LMSs – has begun to prepare us for this to some degree.

Moreover, with e-learning and now with m-learning, it almost seems as if we have come full circle in terms of instructional delivery methods. One cannot help but experience a sense of déjà vu when one realises that what is needed in e- and m-learning is to remove the emphasis from the content and the instructor, and concentrate on facilitating interaction and collaboration with and between our learners. Thanks to the wonders of modern information and communications technologies, we have already managed to overcome the confines of the physical classroom, but today still remain unknowing prisoners of the instructor-centred online classroom.

To move further ahead, we will need to demolish these virtual walls so as to create social learning spaces, in which learners and facilitators become associates in a community of practice, participating in networks of interaction that transcend the old-fashioned constructs of institutions and organisations. As we have seen with e-learning, when implementing m-learning we may find in many cases that a blended solution is required, incorporating different delivery modes, at least in the immediate future. However, even more so than with e-learning, the designer of an m-learning experience must cater for the seemingly infinite number of possible combinations of needs, backgrounds, situations, learning styles, preferences, and so on.

Eventually, the boundaries between e-learning and m-learning will disappear. For that matter, we will no longer need to make distinctions between e-learning, m-learning and learning altogether, as the ‘e’ and ‘m’ will be a given, just as there was never a need for labels like ‘f-learning’ and ‘c-learning’ to denote ‘face-to-face’ and ‘classroom-based’. At the heart of our endeavours is the goal of maximising the quality of learning. Our high-tech toys are simply enabling tools that, when combined with sound strategies, can assist in this endeavour. Learning involves a set of internal processes that are the same, irrespective of the external mechanisms that help support them. Adapted from an article by Mark JW Lee in Training and Development, the magazine of the Australian Institute for Training and Development.